Iran Super Thread- Merged

[brihard]

DIME. All of it.

No need to repeat 1930s techniques of accommodations and appeasement. We already know that to the tyrants of the day, everything short of force that doesn't compel them to stop their bad behaviour is a sign of weakness. Solve the problems (Iran, Houthi, whoever) while they're small. Easier in 1936 than in 1939.

That’s a non-answer. What specific forceful/coercive measures do you feel ought be tried that haven’t already? And why would that ‘win’ the strategic problem in your mind versus just burning things on the entire region down further through Iranian reprisal?

 

[Furniture]

Yup. The ugly reality is the U.S. is probably in a predicament without a likely strategic win. It will probably be an eventual exit with concessions.

I don't think people suggesting this have thought it through..

If America allows Iran to control the SoH, international shipping dies. Some group will claim the SoM, BAM, SoG, etc... and the rest of the world will just have to comply.

Iran can't "win" unless we as a collective give-up on international shipping, and "we" as a collective can't do that and survive as modern societies.

I feel as though too many people are hung-up on Trump and not enough are considering the real world implications of an American withdrawal.

 

[brihard]

I don't think people suggesting this have thought it through..

If America allows Iran to control the SoH, international shipping dies. Some group will claim the SoM, BAM, SoG, etc... and the rest of the world will just have to comply.

Iran can't "win" unless we as a collective give-up on international shipping, and "we" as a collective can't do that and survive as modern societies.

I feel as though too many people are hung-up on Trump and not enough are considering the real world implications of an American withdrawal.

Why does international shipping die? Think it through logically. Countries controlling key waterways are in no way served in the long run by keeping them choked off. A new equilibrium would probably mean some relatively modest ‘transit fee’; a buck a barrel or what have you. Shippers then just price that rent in. Costs go up a bit, demand reduces a bit accordingly… from a strict economic standpoint, it’s perfectly manageable, even if it’s economically inefficient rent seeking.

Now, do I recognize that as lawful or legitimate? Absolutely not. Legally, UNOS and conventional international law firmly recognize the transit passage rules for such straits. From a practical standpoint, I’d rather not the extra couple cents per liter at the pump that would mean. I fully agree with you on the principle of the matter. But I personally don’t have anything I can do about it. We’ve seen in the past few years that international law increasingly means only what those with leverage and power decide it means.

Can big states do anything about a new order of maritime extortion? Well, the biggest state in the world in terms of raw power seems flummoxed in trying to impose its way militarily. Ironically, we had an order of free transit in the Strait of Hormuz, and the U.S. chose to launch a war that has very predictably upended that.

Iran of course is a rogue state already substantially severed from a lot of global systems. They started with less to lose. Am I worried about other maritime straits being similarly extorted? Well, Bab el Mandeb, for sure. It’s already in play largely thanks to this same regional conflict. Malacca? Gibraltar? Dover? Danish? I don’t offhand see many other countries who would benefit in the balance.

This will balance out. New weapons have upended things; new defenses and countermeasures will catch up. I’m just calling it as I see it now.

 

[Furniture]

Why does international shipping die? Think it through logically. Countries controlling key waterways are in no way served in the long run by keeping them choked off. A new equilibrium would probably mean some relatively modest ‘transit fee’; a buck a barrel or what have you. Shippers then just price that rent in. Costs go up a bit, demand reduces a bit accordingly… from a strict economic standpoint, it’s perfectly manageable, even if it’s economically inefficient rent seeking.

The problem is, no nation/society will tolerate the "transit fee" impose by the crazies. Make no mistake, the crazies will be the ones imposing the "fees". Singapore isn't about to impose a fee on the SoM, but some crazy religious sect in Indonesia might... Particularly if they realize that the world won't punish the Houthi or Iran for doing the same.

Now, do I recognize that as lawful or legitimate? Absolutely not. Legally, UNOS and conventional international law firmly recognize the transit passage rules for such straits. From a practical standpoint, I’d rather not the extra couple cents per liter at the pump that would mean. I fully agree with you on the principle of the matter. But I personally don’t have anything I can do about it. We’ve seen in the past few years that international law increasingly means only what those with leverage and power decide it means.

The problem is, it won't be "cents on the litre" it will be a choke-hold, that increases as our ability to absorb it increases.

Why would Iran stop at what you're comfortable with, when they can charge what it can force you to absorb? Then add-in that the people doing this hate you and what you believe, and will use their new found fortune to fund the people who will kill you in your bed.

Can big states do anything about a new order of maritime extortion? Well, the biggest state in the world in terms of raw power seems flummoxed in trying to impose its way militarily. Ironically, we had an order of free transit in the Strait of Hormuz, and the U.S. chose to launch a war that has very predictably upended that.

Yes they can. What they can't do is fix it while we tie our hands behind our back playing to rules we wrote 80 years ago... And eventually, we will re-discover our acceptance of "collateral damage", or we will collapse.

ran of course is a rogue state already substantially severed from a lot of global systems. They started with less to lose. Am I worried about other maritime straits being similarly extorted? Well, Bab el Mandeb, for sure. It’s already in play largely thanks to this same regional conflict. Malacca? Gibraltar? Dover? Danish? I don’t offhand see many other countries who would benefit in the balance.

They don't benefit, until the world backs down... Then out of nowhere, every strait has an "environmental" fee to pay. Some will be enforced by weapons, others by trade deals... Regardless, the worlds oceans become less free and imperial control of water becomes more important.

This will balance out. New weapons have upended things; new defenses and countermeasures will catch up. I’m just calling it as I see it now.

It will balance out, but I suspect the people wishing for a Trump defeat haven't really considered the costs. They see a Trump war, and wish for a loss, never considering what we all loose if he does.

Edit: Not to be too dramatic, but freedom of navigation is the underpinning of our entire world. It isn't something we can just walk away from unless we plan to restructure our society.

 

[Altair]

The problem is, no nation/society will tolerate the "transit fee" impose by the crazies. Make no mistake, the crazies will be the ones imposing the "fees". Singapore isn't about to impose a fee on the SoM, but some crazy religious sect in Indonesia might... Particularly if they realize that the world won't punish the Houthi or Iran for doing the same.

It's not going to be nations or societies making these choices.

It will be companies and private enterprise who have far less in terms of values outside profit margins.

And if its more affordable to pay the toll the toll they will pay.

The problem is, it won't be "cents on the litre" it will be a choke-hold, that increases as our ability to absorb it increases.

Why would Iran stop at what you're comfortable with, when they can charge what it can force you to absorb? Then add-in that the people doing this hate you and what you believe, and will use their new found fortune to fund the people who will kill you in your bed.

Who knows. Maybe the Iranians.

Yes they can. What they can't do is fix it while we tie our hands behind our back playing to rules we wrote 80 years ago... And eventually, we will re-discover our acceptance of "collateral damage", or we will collapse.

Except no democracy will support boots on the ground or the massive convoy efforts. Especially with bigger fish in China and Russia to fry.

The only nations that deemed it in their interest to upset the apple cart was the USA and Israel and now they cannot figure a way out of the mess they created.

They don't benefit, until the world backs down... Then out of nowhere, every strait has an "environmental" fee to pay. Some will be enforced by weapons, others by trade deals... Regardless, the worlds oceans become less free and imperial control of water becomes more important.

Funny, the second order effects of hairbrained military campaigns.

It will balance out, but I suspect the people wishing for a Trump defeat haven't really considered the costs. They see a Trump war, and wish for a loss, never considering what we all loose if he does.

Nobody wanted Iran to win but at the same time, its pretty clear that through sheer incompetence from the USA government they have handed Iran just that.

I think we would have all wanted a quick and decisive American victory to American defeat, but that's not the world we live in.

Highsight being 20/20 no war and a toll free and safe SoH was probably the best course of action, one followed by every president save one, who has now fumbled his way to impending defeat.

 

[Furniture]

t's not going to be nations or societies making these choices.

It will be companies and private enterprise who have far less in terms of values outside profit margins.

And if its more affordable to pay the toll the toll they will pay.

Who pays the companies?

Societies will pay, until they won't...

Who knows. Maybe the Iranians.

International sponsors of terrorism... Exactly the people you want to pay a lot of money to.

Except no democracy will support boots on the ground or the massive convoy efforts. Especially with bigger fish in China and Russia to fry.

The only nations that deemed it in their interest to upset the apple cart was the USA and Israel and now they cannot figure a way out of the mess they created.

You guys keep getting hung-up on a ground invasion/hold. I don't think that is/will be the play. I suspect that eventually people will get real comfortable will killing a lot of people via infrastructure. Just like we did when we killed millions of white people in WWII...

We pretend that democracies won't tolerate war crimes, but in reality, when it's a choice between our kids dying, and theirs... Their kids(insert whatever privilege group you desire) die every time.

Funny, the second order effects of hairbrained military campaigns.

Funny the third order effects... Who would have predicted that the death of a reformist monarch in the Austro-Hungarian empire would lead to a century of war in the middle east?

You may be content in your position in the world, but your position in the world is entirely predicated on international trade working like it has for the last couple of centuries.

Nobody wanted Iran to win but at the same time, its pretty clear that through sheer incompetence from the USA government they have handed Iran just that.

No, Iran has been handed a reprieve at best. If the world allows Iran to "win", just to spite Trump, the world has signed it's own death sentence.

I think we would have all wanted a quick and decisive American victory to American defeat, but that's not the world we live in.

Highsight being 20/20 no war and a toll free and safe SoH was probably the best course of action, one followed by every president save one, who has now fumbled his way to impending defeat.

There is no world where a "toll" on international water-way is acceptable. If America/the world allows it, we will be at war all over the globe for the next several decades.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Anyone advocating a ground invasion and the subsequent necessary occupation to resolve this strategic dilemma is, most charitably, an abject imbecile who should lose their Command and Conquer privileges.

A ground invasion would indeed be decisive, but not in the way the U.S. administration would want, or U.S. voters would reward. We would see high res drone video of a lot of Americans getting killed, and the shattering of any remaining illusion that the U.S. military (particularly its logistical train) is immune from the changes in firepower the Ukraine war has brought to the forefront.

The west and the other Arab states can fly a lot more drones and missiles than Iran. The IRGC might find themselves the in the sights of FPV drones. Also the term "Rational actors", they certainly have a rationale, but it's very different than ours.

 

[Altair]

Who pays the companies?

Societies will pay, until they won't...

Other companies.

Then the consumer.

And consumers care way more about affordability than where their oil came from.

International sponsors of terrorism... Exactly the people you want to pay a lot of money to.

Not typically, but who went and started a war that may have that as a possibility?

Reminder, the SoH was open and free of tolls February 27th.

You guys keep getting hung-up on a ground invasion/hold. I don't think that is/will be the play. I suspect that eventually people will get real comfortable will killing a lot of people via infrastructure. Just like we did when we killed millions of white people in WWII...

Uh....huh. The nation that killed tens of thousands of its own people will somehow be swayed by the west deciding to kill tens of thousands of their people? Millions?

Yeah, okay.

And again, the stakes are not that high. If the choices are let iran charge a dollar per barrel or commit mass killing war crimes most will pick the dollar.

We pretend that democracies won't tolerate war crimes, but in reality, when it's a choice between our kids dying, and theirs... Their kids(insert whatever privilege group you desire) die every time.

Again, stakes really aren't that high. Nobody kids will be dying because gas is a few dollars more expensive (but cheaper than right now) because iran is charging a toll.

Funny the third order effects... Who would have predicted that the death of a reformist monarch in the Austro-Hungarian empire would lead to a century of war in the middle east?

Fair.

You may be content in your position in the world, but your position in the world is entirely predicated on international trade working like it has for the last couple of centuries.

And who upset that apple cart again? Right...Trump.

No, Iran has been handed a reprieve at best. If the world allows Iran to "win", just to spite Trump, the world has signed it's own death sentence.

It won't be a situation of the world letting iran win to spite Trump. It will be the USA letting iran win because the USA failed.

the world is not at war with Iran. The world did not lose in Vietnam. The world did not lose in Iraq. These are American wars, America owns the result of them.

Unless you think the world had to join the USA in Vietnam or the Iraq war.

As for the death sentence, I dont think Iran charging a toll makes them a superpower all of a sudden. They will be stronger militarily and more flush with cash, but they have decades of sanctions and the like to catch up on.

There is no world where a "toll" on international water-way is acceptable. If America/the world allows it, we will be at war all over the globe for the next several decades.

It's not acceptable but unless the USA (leave the world out of it, its not our war) finds a way to keep it open, Iran will defacto own it. And that's on America. Losing wars have consequences.

It's why most don't start them on a whim, without the will to win it, or the means to carry it out.

America decided it could do all three and now everyone is worse off for it.

 

[brihard]

I just want to preface with this: what I’m saying here is me ‘calling it as I see it’. I don’t want this to play out like I’m describing it might in any of my comments. I want Iran to be rid of its tyrannical theocracy. I want Iran to have no prospect of developing nukes. I want Iran (and everyone else) to abide by international law. I want critical infrastructure like refineries and gas plants and power plants and bridges and desalination plants to not be attacked. I want a rapid, peaceful negotiated resolution to all this. I would have wanted this to not happen at all. But some ships (forgive me) have sailed. So I’m giving my best assessment of what’s next based on the demonstrated abilities, intentions, and means of the parties, and my best reckoning of where their interests lie.

The problem is, no nation/society will tolerate the "transit fee" impose by the crazies. Make no mistake, the crazies will be the ones imposing the "fees". Singapore isn't about to impose a fee on the SoM, but some crazy religious sect in Indonesia might... Particularly if they realize that the world won't punish the Houthi or Iran for doing the same.

Presupposing this is how it plays out: No nation/society would accept them as a principle. Most nations/societies are frankly powerless to do anything about it. Individual nations (China?) may negotiate, with or without coercion, side deals. Individual shippers though absolutely would tolerate them as long as they’re predictable, reliably work to allow navigation to happen at all, and are priced at a level that can be passed on to customers- and don’t bring legal jeopardy (like sanctions or insurance revocation) in compliance. Companies just want to do business and earn money, and can and will work with bad rules that are nonetheless consistently applied.

The problem is, it won't be "cents on the litre" it will be a choke-hold, that increases as our ability to absorb it increases.

Why would Iran stop at what you're comfortable with, when they can charge what it can force you to absorb?

Yeah, could be. Speaking objectively that’s just a pricing decision by the extorter. Fundamentally it’s not that different from the protection rackets organized crime have successfully run for pretty much ever. Iran would probably try to maximize how much it could make while keeping it within what shippers can succesfully pass on.

Then add-in that the people doing this hate you and what you believe, and will use their new found fortune to fund the people who will kill you in your bed.

I think they’d be using most of their newfound fortune to rebuild their economy and military capabilities, more with an eye to defending their own sovereignty. But unfortunately yes, some of any windfall they gain will be used maliciously. Trying to curb Iran’s ambitions is how this all started to begin with. The choices made to that end got us to where we are now.

Yes they can. What they can't do is fix it while we tie our hands behind our back playing to rules we wrote 80 years ago... And eventually, we will re-discover our acceptance of "collateral damage", or we will collapse.

I don’t think the current relevant leadership - Trump, Hegseth, etc - really give two shits about collateral damage in Iran. If they knocked the country back to the Stone Age and killed a couple million of them, a segment of their political base would drunkenly cheer. But moral reticence isn’t the issue. The issue is that if Iran sees their own civil critical infrastructure being hit, anything they can reach will be considered fair game. Significant portions of the Gulf could be made uninhabitable to knocking out desalination plants. Iran could starting systematically knocing out every oil refinery, gas liquefaction facility, loading terminal, desalination plant, power plant, and data center their weapons can reach. If the U.S. wants to go Ruhr Valley on Iran, Iran still has considerable ability to retaliate in kind. What would wholesale destruction of Gulf energy infrastructure do to the world economy… or Republicans’ chances in the midterms?

And of course there’s the cost in armaments and in the lives of troops, both of which stand to be consumed in large numbers depending on how this conflict evolves and escalates. At some point the U.S. will have to put more aircraft back over Iran as their standoff stocks dwindle. This is more political than strategic, but how would the U.S. administration politically handle a few downed U.S. aircrew captured hundreds of miles into Iran, and paraded as prisoners on TV/online after being moved effectively out of reach?

They don't benefit, until the world backs down... Then out of nowhere, every strait has an "environmental" fee to pay. Some will be enforced by weapons, others by trade deals... Regardless, the world’s oceans become less free and imperial control of water becomes more important.

Yup, this is the apple cart that has been upset. I hate it, but the risk you describe is a real one. International law works as long as everyone who matters agrees it does. There’s definitely a risk of normalizing rent seeking behaviour that changes norms relating to transitive of straits. This wasn’t on the table until this latest conflict. Though again I’m not worried about most states doing this, because states with normal diplomatic and economic relations with the world probably have too much to lose to make it worth it. Iran’s in a different position there.

It will balance out, but I suspect the people wishing for a Trump defeat haven't really considered the costs. They see a Trump war, and wish for a loss, never considering what we all loose if he does.

Anyone on ‘our side’ wishing for a loss is stupid. We should all want the U.S. to achieve the objectives of reopening the Strait of Hormuz. I think a lot of us just don’t see their current strategy, or threatened military escalation, successfully doing so. America seems to have gotten itself in a predicament where none of the paths out bring them to a position that’s advantageous compared to where they were in January.

Edit: Not to be too dramatic, but freedom of navigation is the underpinning of our entire world. It isn't something we can just walk away from unless we plan to restructure our society.

I agree. We’re in a pickle brought about by evolutions in weaponry and by utterly imbecilic military adventurism by the Americans.

Again, I don’t want any of this. I’m not making a confident prediction that tolls on Hormuz will happen…I was just addressing the realistic possibility of it, and trying to be objective about the cards Iran holds.