Shrike
3hr ago
I suspect blowing up power plants is a war crime.
Power plants are duel use, so my understanding is that attacking them is legitimate if it is connected to a proportionate military effect. Certainly it's been done in the past, by multiple parties.
For the record, I continue to stand by my stated preference that the Trump administration not carry out a wholesale energy disruption campaign.
Shrike
3hr ago
The Houthis agreed to stop attacking the US Navy
The statement from Oman was that "In the future, neither side will target the other, including American vessels, in the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandab Strait, ensuring freedom of navigation and the smooth flow of international commercial shipping" so I don't think this is correct. The US government indicated the same.
which were the only "US vessels" that even attempted to cross the Bab el Mandeb during Trump's term.
This is incorrect also; it was publicized that Maersk sent a US-flagged vessel through this January.
since the very start of operations
This is an article from April 10, 2025, referencing a blockade that started in 2023 and a bombing campaign that started March 15, 2025.
which ultimately left the blockade in place
Yes, the blockade is currently so in place that traffic noticeably increased and Maersk resumed transiting the Bab al-Mandab.
What I would say isn't a good idea is repeatedly letting the whole world see the hard limits of American power as some mid tier power grabs control of key international waterways and squeezes while the President impotently screams and issues a half dozen contradictory statements ranging from "It doesn't matter, high oil prices are good" to "We'll bomb all their power plants" to "We'll send in the Marines". This whole affair seems like a combination of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Suez Crisis, neither of which were "good ideas" with positive consequences for the countries involved.
Sure, the jury is going to be out on this war until it is concluded (and perhaps for some time after that.)
Well currently it seems like neutral countries are choosing to pay the Ayatollah Toll rather than try to take the Strait by force so I'd say that's not a great sign for the wisdom of this operation
Man, Trump snatching Maduro has really set insane expectations for the duration of military operations. I'm going to have a stroke if I get on here to read about the Chinese invasion of Taiwan in 2030 or whenever and people are declaring it a failure when it's not over after 3 hours.
Anyway, if you read up a bit on US doctrine, you'll see that against a large regional threat like Iran, the doctrine will be to systematically dismantle larger threats before moving to smaller ones, a process that is both imperfect and time-consuming. Possibly US operations will fail in this area, but I think it is too soon to judge - the US is unlikely to move ships into the Strait until it has sanitized the area thoroughly, which is such an exhaustive process that I would not be surprised if the US reached a political solution to the problem before achieving a military one.
Shrike
4hr ago
If Iran had showed more restraint whilst the US was either in the process of financing an invasion of them or directly invading their neighboring country of Iraq? That Sunni neighbor that had just failed in their invasion of them? Or whilst America and Israel were destroying Syria and Libya?
Did Iran's more aggressive actions demonstrably help them in any way?
The double standard here nullifies this position completely.
There's no double standard here. Nuclear weapons are nice to have and dangerous to get.
Outside of the hostage crisis, I can't take your position seriously. No sober look at the Iran situation, especially considering past events, can justify it being a rational decision to depend on the mercy of America and Israel.
Then why are you bothering to talk to me?
Look, there are plenty of reasonably stable and well-off regional actors (like Egypt) that have been able to walk back hostility towards Israel. And the result has been that the US gave them piles of foreign aid and weapons systems. I don't see why Iran could not have done the same (except that they did not want to and given the belief systems of the people in power, attempting to do so was likely not a politically tenable option).
I feel like we are again approaching my original point of circular argumentation, where the aggression and unreasonableness of Iran is referred to without any consideration for why they took the actions they took.
No, I have noted in the past where I thought their actions were more or less reasonable. You have at pretty much every turn failed to defend their actions in the sense of tying their specific actions to reasonable objectives and then demonstrating how their actions have succeeded at furthering those objectives. I've done that for you – for instance, noting that retaliating to the US killing of Soleimani was pretty normal - but I still have yet to see any argument from you that, e.g., mining the Strait (although I've noted the incentives for doing so) or funding Hezbollah has on balance succeeded in achieving Iran's reasonable goals.
It's very important for states to tie their means to reasonable ends and rational interests. A state can't just say "we want to achieve X and we are going to do so by doing Y" and then have no interest in whether or not Y is an effective means of achieving X. This is the sort of behavior that got us in trouble in Iraq. I am suggesting that Iran did not correctly calibrate their means to their desired results. You have not made a case for why their actions have been so calibrated. If Iran says "we want to fund Hezbollah to deter the United States and keep them from bombing us" then obviously they did not succeed in their goal, and it is worth asking if they were deploying the correct means to achieve their desired ends.
This I agree with. An either or would have been preferable. But considering the conditions, I'm not sure if it would have been plausibly feasible.
I have not seen any demonstrated reason why "not funding Hezbollah" would imperil the survival of Iran, where Hezbollah behaves as they have in the past.
But letting Israel dictate US policy is?
I did not say this. You're discussing this with me, not with some avatar of US policy as you imagine it.
The JCPOA had no binding resolutions for Iran to immediately disclose all instances of previously undeclared nuclear activity.
This might be the case, but my understanding is that Iran agreed, by signing the JCPOA, to disclose past instances of previously undeclared nuclear activity, and the evidence suggests they did not.
Considering the history of recent death and destruction with its neighbors, I can't agree, as highlighted before. Assad, Hussein, Gaddafi.
Were any of these US client states at the time they were attacked, or...?
So what are the concrete reasons for why the US needs to bomb Iran? Maybe instead of saying 'because they fund Hezbollah' a more honest response would be 'we pushed them into a corner and are now dealing with the consequences of doing that whilst unconditionally supporting Israel'
I'm not sure the US 'needs' to do anything in the narrow sense that it could probably use both oceans as a moat, stop exporting oil, tell everyone "good luck" and more or less be fine "on our own." But I've spent several responses already explaining to you why the US has a certain interest in using coercive force against a hostile regional power that has a demonstrated track record of cutting off international trade and conducting anti-US actions in the region and is seeking to gain nuclear weapons. (The US has at least a weak interest and preventing all proliferation everywhere, to be honest.)
The question for the United States is not "do we have an interest in ensuring Iran does not gain nuclear weapons/cutting off funding to Hezbollah/punishing Iran for funding anti-US militias in Iraq" it is "are we properly calibrating the means with the ends" and "is the cost worth it"? If there was a button in the White House that Trump could press that would just prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, cut off all funding to Hezbollah, and ensure that nobody ever attacked US shipping ever again, it would be a no brainer to push. But we don't have such a button, so the question now becomes "how do we achieve these ends" and "are the costs and risks incurred by action commensurate with the benefits gained." The criticism of Trump pulling out of the JCPOA is that it was counterproductive to US interest; the criticism of the bombing campaign is that the costs and risks are not worth it (with perhaps a helping of the concern about the interest). These criticisms may be correct. But your own support for the JCPOA adequately demonstrates US interests.
Anyway, if the US unconditionally supported Israel, why did we make a separate peace with the Houthis, one wonders.
That doesn't seem factually correct to me. Most polling I see says that most Americans don't like either the war in Iraq, Afghanistan or the GWOT in general despite initial popularity.
Me: Yeah, in the United States there is a lot of support for securing the sea lanes
You: That doesn't seem right, most Americans don't like this other thing that had little if anything to do with securing sea lanes
Okay, I believe you. That has no bearing on my point at all.
It seems you are conflating wars in the middle east with upholding international trade.
I believe you are the one who is ignoring the distinctions that I make and lumping all "wars in the middle east" together.
Invading Iraq did not help trade, nor did the invasion into Afghanistan or toppling Assad or Gaddafi.
You know, there were several US military operations in the region that were very directly connected to trade. They are pretty obscure compared to the things you mention above, so I can understand not knowing about them, but I've referenced them in our discussion.
And US protecting Israel's action to bomb civilians in Gaza has only hurt international trade via retaliation from Houthis. And international trade is in a pretty terrible state because of bombing Iran and the fallout.
Yes, the US could have "helped international trade" by paying off the Barbary Pirates too. (Well...if we hadn't been broke, anyway.) In fact, that was the default response at the time.
I agree that it was an escalation, but what was the alternative?
I don't know enough about the inside baseball of Iranian politics in the 1950s to be able to answer this question, but it's a very interesting one!
Ah yes, this brings back fond memories...
What a great game!
More options
Context Copy link