This isn't even one of those "I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you" situations. It's much simpler than that. You're dismissing a comparison because you don't understand what is actually being compared. The comparison isn't between countries, it's between geographically strategic maritime chokepoints and the consequences of one state attempting to leverage control over an international waterway. Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran has repeatedly used the Strait of Hormuz as a strategic bargaining chip, threatening to close it, seizing tankers, harassing commercial shipping and using access to one of the world's most important trade routes as political leverage. That isn't a hypothetical, it's decades of documented behaviour. As for Iran itself, the tragedy is that the Iranian people have endured over four decades of rule by a theocratic regime that has prioritised exporting its revolutionary ideology and funding proxy groups across the region over the prosperity of its own citizens. They deserved, and still deserve, far better than the leadership imposed on them after 1979. Meanwhile, myopic reflex might simply be anti-American (anti-republican / trump) and appears to have become a substitute for historical context. If this is the case - then once you view every event through that single lens, everything that happened beforehand conveniently disappears and further discussion is pointless.
Create an account or sign in to comment