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?
Iran Super Thread- Merged
- Thread starter JasonH
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 10,312
- Points
- 1,140
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.
- Reaction score
- 10,312
- Points
- 1,140
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- Reaction score
- 2,928
- Points
- 1,140
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.
Who knows. Maybe the Iranians.
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.
Funny, the second order effects of hairbrained military campaigns.
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.
- Reaction score
- 10,312
- Points
- 1,140
Who pays the companies?
Societies will pay, until they won't...
International sponsors of terrorism... Exactly the people you want to pay a lot of money to.
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 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.
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.
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.
- Reaction score
- 18,587
- Points
- 1,160
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.
- Reaction score
- 2,928
- Points
- 1,140
Other companies.
Then the consumer.
And consumers care way more about affordability than where their oil came from.
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.
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.
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.
Fair.
And who upset that apple cart again? Right...Trump.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
- Reaction score
- 12,131
- Points
- 1,040
Almost everything possible hasn't been tried already. Iran is not really being seriously isolated and pressed in all aspects. Too many people are taking counsel of their imminent fears, which are not imaginary but are not necessarily (and probably not) the worst eventual outcome. There's always an immediate cost to restraining a rogue nation. There's also always a future cost.
What is it people imagine is eventually going to happen? Iran's government is not going to become a more congenial member of the community of nations if permitted to continue fostering conflict elsewhere and obtaining nuclear weapons and flexing in other ways. They've stated that Israel should not exist. Why are these tyrants not to be taken at their word, when so many past tyrants should have been?
Don't take economic action to encourage Japan to leave China alone. Japan might escalate!
Don't block Mussolini from invading Abyssinia. Might have to lose some ships in the Med!
Etc.
- Reaction score
- 12,131
- Points
- 1,040
Sure, it was the USA and Israel that provoked Iran into doing everything it has been doing for decades.
Surely no-one was stupid enough to believe that Israel was going to continue to be the major bearer of the costs of Iran's misbehaviour indefinitely. If the "international community" declines to solve the problems posed by Iran, it loses the leverage to choose solutions which best serve its collective interests and Israel is likely to choose its own solutions to its problems in ways that best serve its interests. Iranian missiles fired off at other countries and terrorists and funding sent to raise hell in other countries are missiles and terrorists and funding not directed against Israel.
You’ve twice now dodged me asking for specificity, and you’ve shifted to awkward histrionics. It does not appear like you have an articulable, specific approach in mind that is likely to actually be effective in achieving the strategic goals.
Iran can only be as isolated as China and Russia decide they want it to be. America is running up against the limits of its own hard power, and has spent a year and a half discarding its soft power. The Iran problem must be solved in light of the world as it actually is, not as one might actually want it to be. Realistically, that means the Iranian people themselves. A win on this cannot be carried and launched from an aircraft hard point. If it could, it would have already by now. Unfortunately the American administration struggled to imagine raw military power being inadequate, and seems convinced they can pull it off if they just apply more.
- Reaction score
- 12,131
- Points
- 1,040
Blockade and complete interruption of trade is pretty specific.
"Give me specifics" is a rhetorical game. It should be clear that I advocate dealing with the kinds of problems posed by Iran and its clients and associates with the entire suite of measures. Every measure is a "specific". So there's your list.
I doubt that limit exists. The pressure points are corporations and individuals, not governments. Suppose every corporation trading with Iran is liable to penalties, and every corporation with operations in a country which co-operates with Iran is liable to penalties.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 5,573
- Points
- 1,040
I hate to say it that way, but just about every country in the Middle east is a sponsor of international terrorism, including Saudi Arabia, most of the UAE, Israel, and yes, I dare say even Turkiye.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 5,573
- Points
- 1,040
Penalties imposed by whom, where and how? I very much doubt there are that many American companies operating in Iran. Russian and Chinese ones, sure, but how do you penalize them if China or Russia won't do it? What if India, which probably has many corporations operating in Iran also refuses to play ball?
How did that work out for the US with Meng Whanzou? You think any "middle" power country in the world wants to do the US's bidding anymore after seeing what happened to Canadian citizens and how powerless Canada was to resolve the problem?
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 2,928
- Points
- 1,140
Israel was always free to do whatever stupidity it felt it needed to do.
It was usually off the table for American presidents to join them. Until now.
And now the president is trapped in a room with a country full of fanatic mad men and the only way to stop them is to literally march on Tehran and the USA is not willing to do that.
So Trump is stuck here, in an unpopular war, with rock bottom approval ratings, facing a mid terms wipe out that will likely have the war powers act imposed on him, causing him to veto it, which will make him only more unpopular and come the end of this, I don't think any American president will want to deal with Iran in any capacity because of how bad Trump botched it.
Israel may have won by keeping Iran down and distracted in the short term, long term, Iran will enter Americans minds alongside Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam as places Americans simply won't touch again.
FormerEnlisted
Member
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 180
Well said. It is possible that the situation will evolve in the future to change this reality, but even listing hypothetical scenarios which rise to that bar is nearly impossible. It is criminal insanity to even contemplate right now.
- Reaction score
- 2,928
- Points
- 1,140
A real shame America thought that they didn't need soft power and treated allies like enemies.
Because any international response to iran would require a lot of soft power.
FormerEnlisted
Member
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 180
How though? The entire globe is aware of the problem. Posting comparisons between centuries only serves to distract from proposed solutions.
The most recent opportunity for regime change was squandered when Israel began murdering diplomats and politicians. Nothing anyone does elsewhere matters as long as Israel refuses to cooperate with strategic processes.
In my opinion the best possible solution is cultural redefinition. Our efforts were bearing real fruit until everything kicked off prematurely and welded social support back onto the regime. Continual aggression only promotes domestic solidarity. People will never willing adopt the worldview of the cultures attacking them. This approach took decades of gentle influence on the Iranian diaspora and then the potential personalities were all fed headfirst into Basij barricades. The current strategic catastrophe will continue to resonate domestically within Iran for generations. They are being innoculated against cooperative politics. Its an unbelievable failure.
Last edited:
