It was deeply stupid for us to start an unnecessary war with Iran, but it's not clear that we can leave any time. Iran is suggesting they will charge fees to traverse the strait, (and attack shirkers) and it's also not clear that Iran has the remaining navy to successfully clear the mines.

It was incredibly stupid to start this war, but we're now fairly well stuck.

Oh, no, it is way too late for that. The strait is closed if we stay, it's closed if we leave, it's just closed forever for everyone that doesn't wanna be attacked or pays the toll to Iran.

This war has shown everyone that it is just too easy to keep a major navigation route closed with drones and mines.

Just think of all the trouble that just 2 dudes are causing in the world. If Putin would simply leave Ukraine and if Trump would just quietly withdraw from the aggression towards Iran things would really calm down. We'd probably get back to lower gas prices as well as lower interest rates. (but of course, neither of them have the temperament to be able to admit that they were wrong)

If iran is fighting with the US, why are they attacking a ship registered in Singapore which was going between Pakistan and the UAE?

I can't decipher what you refer to with 'your'.

> Crying about the effects of your own actions

Interesting, you think it was the US Navy who shot at the container ship?

Actually, it's day 228 of the "4-Day Special Combat Operation to De-Islamify Iran"™.

To be sure.

(I find much better comments here though.)

they did make use of AI to improve the GNC for one of their attacks on the saudis but I guess technically that's the houthis (if that distinction matters). from my understanding the sophistication of the attacks isn't the issue, its the geography and magazine depth of the iranians.

There are at least three political conspiracy/flamewar stories on the front page right now. The sources are getting more and more sketchy too. It's getting really tiring.

Wasn't the US firing on fishing vessels in the Gulf of Mexico, then double tapping, THEN sharing the videos and bragging earlier this year?

Edit: Someone replied with the party line, but there's little proof these were ever "cartel boats". The whole event seems to be violent jangling keys for the base via blatant war crimes.

https://www.cfr.org/articles/unclaimed-boat-strikes-in-ecuad...

The OP doesn't even say who shot at this container ship, and it's hardly contextually clear. The US itself sank two oil tankers in this conflict[0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_United_States_naval_block... ("Ships sunk by the United States")

And we murdered hundreds of school children in a double strike (pretty sure your Geneva Convention has something in there about that) AND started this entire mess AND assassinated state officials (again, let's recheck the Geneva Convention) AND could end it instantly if we wanted.

International law is a veneer that only works when the balance of power is tilted strongly towards those who support it.

That was the case for the majority of the post-WW2 order, but is no longer. We're witnessing the birth of a new world order. Likely the new order will have an international law of a sort because it's good for trade, but it won't necessarily be the same as it was.

Underneath it all, only power decides.

didn't we like, blow up one of their schools and kill like a bunch of their kids?

The United States and Israel started this war themselves (during ongoing negotiations, for the third time!), bombed and killed school children (double-tapped). If you mention international rules, try to not be a hypocrite and look at US/Israel first. The US should pack up and leave. Hell, they should leave the entire region and start focusing on domestic problems. China is building, while the US is in decline (40T in debt with nothing to show for) and tries to play imperialism.

Everything here is in the overarching context that the US started the war. If they hadn't, all that's happening wouldn't have, ergo they're responsible for all that's happening. Don't bully someone and not expect them to retaliate in some way, if it's even to kick the bully's dog or something if they can't get back at the bully directly.

Blockades are a legitimate tool in warfare. Their status under international law is a bit unclear, as the precedent is mostly about wars with a clear separation between belligerents and neutral parties, which is not that common anymore.

In any case, neutral ships are expected to comply with the blockade. Typically by staying out of the region or by approaching visibly and subjecting themselves to inspection. If they don't stop voluntarily and resist capture, they can be attacked.

War crimes are bad, that goes without saying. And this is probably a bit too much even for Iran. But the only card they have left to play is to keep Hormuz closed to inflicy pain in arab countries and the US, and they are going to play it as hard as they can.

What I mean is that this situation was very predictable and very avoidable by just not going all in in an air campaign with an open ended objective.

Are you really suggesting that International law only applies to Iranians and "lesser" nations? Are you a racist?

The US is attacking civilian ships and infrastructure on the daily as well. What do you propose?

Aren't heads of state civilians too?

> Seeing a lot of whataboutism in the replies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism . Whataboutism is the classic strategy that Soviet propagandists used to distract and avoid accountability.

This kind of a 2nd order whataobutism: "What about when the Soviets engaged in whataboutism? Do we want to be like them?"

> It doesn't answer or invalidate the point at hand.

If the point is that they're committing war crimes, you're not wrong.

If the point is to hyperfocus on one thing and ignore the wider picture and context, you're also not wrong.

The US is a major party in this conflict, and it's totally fair game to point out their sins. Pointing out Iranian war crimes doesn't preclude talking about other issues in this war.

The US is accused of committing war crimes in the past for much smaller reasons than the Iranians have. If a country attacked the Pentagon, White House, and Congress, and killed the president, much of his cabinet, and many members of Congress, and is continuing to face such attacks, I assure you they will commit war crimes, and their citizens will be fully in support.

International law is a joke. The selective application of international law is a travesty.

And?

Do you think people really assume that anyone of them USA, Iran, Iraq are 'normal' or 'nice' about all of this?

Nonetheless to address what you mentioned regarding the geneva convention: I never got it. There is no good or bad war. It doesn't matter in a war if some solders are raping or killing others or if these solders are getting killed or what type of weapons they use etc. A war is a war and it costs life because of a handful of people in a leadership position.

There is not a single solder who fights just for fun. They might be uneducated and got indoctrinated to fight for the vatercountry. They might need money whatever.

Everyone looses in a war.

And no it was not okay that USA takes the leader of another country just because (see venezuela) just because it went 'well' and 'fast' doesn't make it okay.

Was there any real conflict between countries which got solved properly through diplomacy only ever?

I'm sure Iran are merely interdicting and destroying enemies of the Iranian state. This is extremely normal and should not be condemned.[0] Upholding freedom of navigation is for weak states.

/s if it weren't obvious. Yes Iran is horrible, yes this is whataboutery, but they should be held to the same standard.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_strikes_on_alleg...

"Whataboutism" is a fake newspeak word that was invented by hawkish foreign policy think tanks to rebutt their own hypocrisy. Despite attempts to retcon it back to the cold war, it mostly didn't exist as a term until the 2010s. And yes, this is posted by a green account. Go kvetch about it.

Eh, once your country is being bombed indiscriminately, including civilian infrastructure... At that point the Geneva conventions already failed.

You may call this whataboutism, but to be frank, it is not really. Iran is not targeting merchant ships in a vacuum, it is a direct response to actions done against it by the US-Israel axis.