A post of a low value has been removed:

13. Low-Value Posts - Posts that add no written contribution are not allowed.

    This includes emoji-only replies, very short comments, memes, GIFs, screenshots, or embedded social media posts without explanation or opinion.

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

A trucBut is it suicidal? And aren't you ignoring something? What about the effect this war has had on people all over the world? Particularly in developing nations where a shortage of fertilizer and high priced fossil fuels can result in starvation?

You’re looking at this way too short-term. Are you actually comfortable with Iran having the leverage to pressure or even monetise traffic through the Strait of Hormuz once it’s effectively untouchable?

They’ve been hinting at controlling that route for decades. So what’s the endgame here? Because doing nothing isn’t neutral - it leads to a nuclear-capable Iran and likely a wider regional arms race.

And it’s not just oil or fertiliser - that strait is a critical artery for global trade. If it’s disrupted, everyone feels it.

This situation should’ve been dealt with years ago. Now we’re just dealing with the consequences.

That’s a very simplified and dumbed-down bit of commentary - too many separately running threads. Here’s a copy and paste from another thread I just commented in about the same issue.

Quote: Me from another thread:

[This will be TLDR for some - because one-liners are easier - but this isn’t a simple conflict. Every move is messy, nuanced, unclean. You can’t form a serious opinion on something this strategic from a soundbite - that’s what the media peddles. Surely we’re better than that]

I actually agree with part of what you’re saying - the US blockade isn’t “clean”. And yes, technically it is an act of war. But you can’t just stop there and pretend Iran was honouring some neat little “truce”, because that’s just not what was happening.

A truce means free passage. Proper free passage. Ships moving through an international strait without being quietly pushed into Iran-vetted / controlled corridors near Qeshm and Larak, right up against their coastline, under IRGC oversight. You don’t announce “free shipping” to the world and then in practice funnel traffic into routes you control, where approval, “coordination” and potential inspections still apply - and where there have even been reports of payments being made to secure passage.

That’s not a truce - that’s saying one thing publicly and doing another behind the scenes. It’s not free shipping, it’s not a truce - it’s leverage. Iran were clearly being duplicitous here, and some people have just lapped that up because it fits their political allegiances in the US.

To back that up: there are multiple reports over the last few weeks that ships were being routed through narrow corridors near islands like Qeshm and Larak, where they can be monitored and, if needed, boarded.

There’s also been reporting of vessels needing IRGC approval to pass, and at least one reported case of a ship paying around $2 million to get through. Whether that’s happening to every single vessel or not almost doesn’t matter - the principle is the problem. You cannot have a major international shipping lane turned into a permission-based or pay-to-pass system.

And this isn’t some minor waterway. The Strait of Hormuz carries roughly 20% of the world’s (better quality) oil supply - around 20 million barrels a day - and about 20% of global LNG. But it doesn’t stop there. A huge chunk of global petrochemicals move through it as well (plastics, industrial feedstocks), along with refined fuels like diesel and jet fuel, and critical bulk commodities linked to Gulf exports.

And here’s where people massively underestimate it - fertiliser. The Gulf is a major exporter of ammonia and urea (key fertiliser inputs), and those flows rely heavily on Hormuz. As we are seeing disrupt that, even for a few weeks, and you don’t just get higher prices - you get supply shocks into agriculture. That means farmers cutting usage, lower crop yields, and then food prices rising months down the line. It’s not immediate, but it’s brutal when it lands - its long term - and and power Iran simply cannot be permitted to have 'long term'.

Its the same with energy-intensive products like aluminium - the Gulf produces a significant share globally because of cheap energy. Restrict the strait, you hit those exports too. Then you’ve got LNG - critical for electricity generation in parts of Asia and Europe. Squeeze that, and you’re not just talking about prices - you’re talking about power security.

There’s only limited capacity to bypass Hormuz - nowhere near enough to compensate if flows are disrupted.

So if that flow gets squeezed, even partially, the knock-on effect is immediate - fuel prices, shipping costs, fertiliser, food, manufacturing, everything. It feeds into inflation globally. People talk about it like it’s abstract - it isn’t. It hits your heating bill, your groceries, your cost of living and it will for the long term if Iran gets a strangle hold.

So when people say “why is the US reacting?” - that’s why. Because if you allow one state to start controlling, pricing, or selectively restricting passage through Hormuz, you’re basically accepting that a huge chunk of global trade can be held to ransom whenever it suits them (Iran).

And let’s be honest - this didn’t just appear overnight. Iran has been threatening to close or control the strait for decades. That’s not even disputed. Ship seizures, confrontations, sanctions, proxy pressure - this has been building for years. So calling this a sudden overreaction by the US ignores a lot of history.

Now on the “international law” point - yes, that matters. And I actually agree that talk like “no quarter” and dismissing rules of engagement is reckless. That stuff doesn’t help anyone and it’s not defensible.

But at the same time, you don’t get to invoke international law only when the US responds, and ignore it when Iran is effectively turning an international strait into a controlled corridor. Transit passage through Hormuz is supposed to be continuous and unobstructed. No tolls, no selective access, no political gatekeeping. That’s the whole point of it being an international strait.

Zooming out a bit - this isn’t really about US politics which seems to blinker the opinions of many on this issue. Republican, Democrat, UK, EU, Gulf states, Asia - none of them can just sit back and accept this becoming normal. Because if it does, the next step isn’t stability - it’s escalation. Other regional powers start hedging, pushing for nuclear capability, preparing for worst-case scenarios. That’s how you end up with more proliferation, not less.

Criticise the US if you want. Fair enough - the methods are crude - but negotiations have repeadely failed and Iran cannot enrich U235 - they lied, they exceeed the agreed 3.67% U235 enriuchment - they reached 60% with > 400 kgs 60% Enruched U235 with no civilian need on the planet for that level of enrichment - weapons was the ONLY reason for this.

So - when accusing the US of breaking this truce, be consistent and call out Iran as well. Because this idea that there was a genuine “truce” with free shipping, and the US just randomly broke it… it doesn’t stack up to anyone capable of observing the true geo-political game at hand.

The “truce” was never a truce because shipping was never actually free. It was a headline. And behind it, the exact same game of poker was still being played - and it still is.

The US can’t show its full hand here - it simply can’t. China is watching everything. Capabilities, response times, thresholds. So what you’re seeing is a deliberately limited, slightly clumsy looking conflict - but that’s by design. It’s controlled, it’s restrained… for now.

But that only holds up to a point. If Iran keeps pushing - controlling routes, interfering with passage, testing limits - then eventually that restraint runs out. And when it does, the options become a lot more direct. Taking control of Qeshm, securing the strait by force, removing the capability entirely. And when that happens, the same people who’ve ignored everything leading up to it will suddenly be the loudest critics - blaming Trump, blaming Republicans, same old script.

But make no mistake - this should have been dealt with decades ago. The West has been kicking this can down the road for years. And “too late” isn’t some abstract idea - it’s a very real scenario.

Too late looks like Iran sitting on near weapons-grade uranium, crossing the threshold into full nuclear capability, while at the same time exerting control over the Strait of Hormuz. That’s not just regional influence - that’s leverage over a massive portion of global trade and energy.

And once that line is crossed, it doesn’t stop. Saudi, UAE, Turkey, others - they don’t just sit there. They push for their own nuclear capability. Treaties start to mean less. Proliferation spreads across one of the most unstable regions on the planet.

Then you’ve got the proxy layer. The Houthis already disrupting shipping routes. Now imagine that with access to more advanced weapons, even radiological material - dirty bombs, threats extending into the Gulf of Aden.

That’s not hypothetical escalation - that’s the direction if this keeps going unchecked.

And worst case? This doesn’t turn into a clean “World War III” scenario. It becomes a drawn-out, fragmented conflict across the Middle East. Infrastructure gets hit - ports, power, desalination. And people massively underestimate that last one - large parts of the region rely on desalination just to survive. You take that out, and whole areas become unliveable.

Then comes the fallout - mass displacement, evacuation, migration on a scale the world hasn’t seen. At the same time, global supply chains start to break. Fertiliser disrupted, food production drops months later, energy squeezed, prices surge everywhere. It doesn’t stay regional - it hits globally - mass famine.

And the irony? It’s not “winning”. It’s collapse. You don’t end up with control - you end up with a destabilised region and a world dealing with the consequences.

And all of it comes back to this moment - this decision point. Because if the US and the wider international community can’t turn around and say “no - you don’t get to control one of the most critical shipping lanes on earth”… then everything that follows is on that failure.

The alternative? Pretend this is all overreaction because Trump and Hegseth are not 'nice people' - and hope Iran’s 60% U235 enrichment was just a bargaining chip, hope they never intended to tighten control over Hormuz, hope their backing of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis means nothing.

Hope optimism is not a reality... if you’re wrong, even once… you don’t get a reset.

A truce means whatever was agreed to by the negotiators. Commentators noted that the Americans accepted Iranian control of the Strait. No mention was made of a blockade.

And your argument about Iran had threated to blockade the strait in the past seems like a desperate attempt to distract from the fact that it hadn't happened until this war was declared. You seem to be engaged in an elaborate pretense by ignoring the reason why the Iranians are actually blocking the strait now, instead of merely threatening as before. Trump created this situation and no number of red herrings are going to fly (red flying fish?) in the face of that.

And short of regime change in Iran, how to make sure that Iran in the future won't try this again? Oh, wait a minute, Trump has declared that regime change has already taken place. But let's just take the unlikely position that Trump has gotten it wrong. That regime change hasn't taken place. Short of an actual invasion, how is a regime change going to be achieved? What surety could be offered that at some future point, the Iranian regime wouldn't do it again?

As for the concern about a regional nuclear arms race:

Trump told Congress Saudi nuclear pact won’t include safeguards against bomb, document shows

US President Donald Trump has told Congress he is pursuing a civil nuclear pact with Saudi Arabia that does not include non-proliferation safeguards the US has long said would ensure the kingdom does not develop nuclear weapons, according to a copy of the document sent to Congress and reviewed by Reuters.

Trump, a Republican, and former president Joe Biden, a Democrat, have worked with Saudi Arabia on paths to building the first civil nuclear power plants for the kingdom.

The development comes amid fears of a new global nuclear arms race following the expiration earlier this month of the last strategic arms limitation treaty between Russia and the United States, and China’s moves to expand its own nuclear arsenal.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/trump-told-congress-saudi-nuclear-pact-wont-include-safeguards-against-bomb-document-shows/

Given the nature of Trump's business partner, MbS, If I were the Iranians, I would consider it more important than ever to possess a nuclear deterrent.

7 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Really? But all the reports I've seen said that it was Trump seeking negotiations, not the Iranians.

That is because you are reading and believing deranged anti Trump propaganda. This is how a vast swathe of the world went down the craziest rabbitholes on all the anti Trump hoaxes - dont make me list them all AGAIN

The USA has loads of oil and gas. Its the Chinese, the Europeans and the Iranians that need the straits open asap.

4 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

That is because you are reading and believing deranged anti Trump propaganda. This is how a vast swathe of the world went down the craziest rabbitholes on all the anti Trump hoaxes - dont make me list them all AGAIN

The USA has loads of oil and gas. Its the Chinese, the Europeans and the Iranians that need the straits open asap.

Sure. Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal has it in for Trump. It is to laugh.

So, you agree with Trump? That since the USA has loads of oil and gas, the loss of Persian Gulf oil and gas is good for America?

40 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

A truce means whatever was agreed to by the negotiators. Commentators noted that the Americans accepted Iranian control of the Strait. No mention was made of a blockade.

The international shipping lanes were not opened - that was part of the truce - Iran lied.

40 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

And your argument about Iran had threated to blockade the strait in the past seems like a desperate attempt to distract from the fact that it hadn't happened until this war was declared. You seem to be engaged in an elaborate pretense by ignoring the reason why the Iranians are actually blocking the strait now, instead of merely threatening as before. Trump created this situation and no number of red herrings are going to fly (red flying fish?) in the face of that.

Iran has repeatedly demonstrated both intent and capability to disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz - from direct tanker attacks and mining operations in the 1980s, to targeted seizures and sabotage operations as recently as 2023.

From AI:

🔴 1980s – Tanker War (expanded key incidents)

• 13 May 1984 - Iran attacks Kuwaiti tanker Umm Casbah, marking escalation of the Tanker War

• 1984 (multiple) - Iranian forces strike Kuwaiti and Saudi-linked tankers to pressure Iraq’s backers

• 1 Nov 1986 - Iranian attack damages tanker Gaz Fountain in Gulf shipping lanes

• 24 Jul 1987 - Reflagged Kuwaiti tanker Bridgeton hits Iranian mine near Hormuz

• 1987 (Aug–Dec) - Multiple tankers damaged by Iranian mines during convoy operations

• 16 Oct 1987 - U.S.-flagged tanker Sea Isle City hit by missile (attributed to Iranian-aligned forces)

• 14 Apr 1988 - USS Samuel B. Roberts strikes Iranian mine and is heavily damaged

• 1988 (Apr–Jul) - Additional mine strikes damage commercial vessels during final phase of war

🔴 2000s – Direct confrontation signals

• 7 Jan 2008 - IRGC fast boats harass U.S. Navy vessels in Strait of Hormuz

🔴 2019 – Tanker sabotage & seizure wave

• 12 May 2019 - Tankers Al Marzoqah, Amjad, A. Michel, Andrea Victory damaged off Fujairah

• 13 Jun 2019 - Tankers Kokuka Courageous and Front Altair attacked in Gulf of Oman

• 10 Jul 2019 - IRGC attempts to seize British Heritage tanker (blocked by Royal Navy)

• 19 Jul 2019 - Iran seizes UK-flagged tanker Stena Impero in Strait of Hormuz

🔴 2021 – Seizures & drone strike

• 4 Jan 2021 - Iran seizes South Korean tanker Hankuk Chemi

• 3 Aug 2021 - Tanker Mercer Street struck by drone (2 crew killed)

🔴 2022 – Retaliatory seizures

• 27 May 2022 - Iran seizes Greek tanker Delta Poseidon

• 27 May 2022 - Iran seizes Greek tanker Prudent Warrior

🔴 2023 – Continued seizures

• 27 Apr 2023 - Iran seizes tanker Advantage Sweet

• 3 May 2023 - Iran seizes tanker Niovi

🔴 2025 – Pre-escalation signalling

• 2025 (intelligence reports) - Iran prepares naval mines in Strait of Hormuz

• The 1984–1988 period includes 200+ attacks on tankers across both sides

• Only a fraction are consistently named in open, reliable sources

• Iran’s role:

• heavy in mining + selective tanker attacks

• often targeting Gulf-state-aligned shipping

40 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

And short of regime change in Iran, how to make sure that Iran in the future won't try this again? Oh, wait a minute, Trump has declared that regime change has already taken place. But let's just take the unlikely position that Trump has gotten it wrong. That regime change hasn't taken place. Short of an actual invasion, how is a regime change going to be achieved? What surety could be offered that at some future point, the Iranian regime wouldn't do it again?

What do you suggest ? do nothing ? Allow Iran to have nuclear weapons ?

40 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

As for the concern about a regional nuclear arms race:

Trump told Congress Saudi nuclear pact won’t include safeguards against bomb, document shows

US President Donald Trump has told Congress he is pursuing a civil nuclear pact with Saudi Arabia that does not include non-proliferation safeguards the US has long said would ensure the kingdom does not develop nuclear weapons, according to a copy of the document sent to Congress and reviewed by Reuters.

Trump, a Republican, and former president Joe Biden, a Democrat, have worked with Saudi Arabia on paths to building the first civil nuclear power plants for the kingdom.

The development comes amid fears of a new global nuclear arms race following the expiration earlier this month of the last strategic arms limitation treaty between Russia and the United States, and China’s moves to expand its own nuclear arsenal.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/trump-told-congress-saudi-nuclear-pact-wont-include-safeguards-against-bomb-document-shows/

Given the nature of Trump's business partner, MbS, If I were the Iranians, I would consider it more important than ever to possess a nuclear deterrent.

All of this anti-Donald Trump rhetoric risks missing the substance of the issue. It starts to sound more like a reflex position that, intentionally or not, aligns with the stance of the Iranian state - it means, in effect, aligning with the positions taken by the Supreme Leader and clerical establishment, the Guardian Council that controls political direction, and the IRGC, which projects power across the region.

That doesn’t mean you support them - but when the focus is solely on opposing Trump, without acknowledging those actors and their actions, the argument becomes one-sided. You can criticise Trump’s approach while still recognising that the behaviour of Iran’s leadership and institutions presents a genuine strategic concern and that needs to be dealt with.

So - how to deal with Iran ?

30 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

The international shipping lanes were not opened - that was part of the truce - Iran lied.

Iran has repeatedly demonstrated both intent and capability to disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz - from direct tanker attacks and mining operations in the 1980s, to targeted seizures and sabotage operations as recently as 2023.

From AI:

🔴 1980s – Tanker War (expanded key incidents)

• 13 May 1984 - Iran attacks Kuwaiti tanker Umm Casbah, marking escalation of the Tanker War

• 1984 (multiple) - Iranian forces strike Kuwaiti and Saudi-linked tankers to pressure Iraq’s backers

• 1 Nov 1986 - Iranian attack damages tanker Gaz Fountain in Gulf shipping lanes

• 24 Jul 1987 - Reflagged Kuwaiti tanker Bridgeton hits Iranian mine near Hormuz

• 1987 (Aug–Dec) - Multiple tankers damaged by Iranian mines during convoy operations

• 16 Oct 1987 - U.S.-flagged tanker Sea Isle City hit by missile (attributed to Iranian-aligned forces)

• 14 Apr 1988 - USS Samuel B. Roberts strikes Iranian mine and is heavily damaged

• 1988 (Apr–Jul) - Additional mine strikes damage commercial vessels during final phase of war

🔴 2000s – Direct confrontation signals

• 7 Jan 2008 - IRGC fast boats harass U.S. Navy vessels in Strait of Hormuz

🔴 2019 – Tanker sabotage & seizure wave

• 12 May 2019 - Tankers Al Marzoqah, Amjad, A. Michel, Andrea Victory damaged off Fujairah

• 13 Jun 2019 - Tankers Kokuka Courageous and Front Altair attacked in Gulf of Oman

• 10 Jul 2019 - IRGC attempts to seize British Heritage tanker (blocked by Royal Navy)

• 19 Jul 2019 - Iran seizes UK-flagged tanker Stena Impero in Strait of Hormuz

🔴 2021 – Seizures & drone strike

• 4 Jan 2021 - Iran seizes South Korean tanker Hankuk Chemi

• 3 Aug 2021 - Tanker Mercer Street struck by drone (2 crew killed)

🔴 2022 – Retaliatory seizures

• 27 May 2022 - Iran seizes Greek tanker Delta Poseidon

• 27 May 2022 - Iran seizes Greek tanker Prudent Warrior

🔴 2023 – Continued seizures

• 27 Apr 2023 - Iran seizes tanker Advantage Sweet

• 3 May 2023 - Iran seizes tanker Niovi

🔴 2025 – Pre-escalation signalling

• 2025 (intelligence reports) - Iran prepares naval mines in Strait of Hormuz

• The 1984–1988 period includes 200+ attacks on tankers across both sides

• Only a fraction are consistently named in open, reliable sources

• Iran’s role:

• heavy in mining + selective tanker attacks

• often targeting Gulf-state-aligned shipping

What do you suggest ? do nothing ? Allow Iran to have nuclear weapons ?

All of this anti-Donald Trump rhetoric risks missing the substance of the issue. It starts to sound more like a reflex position that, intentionally or not, aligns with the stance of the Iranian state - it means, in effect, aligning with the positions taken by the Supreme Leader and clerical establishment, the Guardian Council that controls political direction, and the IRGC, which projects power across the region.

That doesn’t mean you support them - but when the focus is solely on opposing Trump, without acknowledging those actors and their actions, the argument becomes one-sided. You can criticise Trump’s approach while still recognising that the behaviour of Iran’s leadership and institutions presents a genuine strategic concern and that needs to be dealt with.

So - how to deal with Iran ?

Iran didn't lie. It offered a 10 point plan, which Trump called a workable basis. One of the points was that Iran had authority over the strait. In the beginning Trump didn't object. It was only when various parties sharply criticized that point that he reacted.

Well, i was wrong that there were noincidents in the Gulfpreviously. But given that 130 ships transit the strait every day. the total number of seizuires doesn't amount to much. And it's useful to note that from 1980 to 1988 the incidents in the Gulf were due to the Iran-Iraq war. (you remember that war? The one where Saddam Hussein invaded Iran aided by the USA. The one where he used poison gas which was manufactured from precursors obtained from the USA thanks to the Reagan administration. And the Reagan administration knew what those precursors were being used for. It's estimated that 600,000 Iranians died in that war)

And in the past, Iran used various pretenses to seize tankers. Not a proclamation of authority over the gulf. Nothing like what we see today.

Underlying the fear of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons is the belief that those running Iran are actively suicidal. After all, even if it managed to create a few nuclear weapons, it wouldn't be able to wipe out its enemies. But Israel alone would be able to pretty much exterminate the threat. And keep in mind that it was Trump who trashed the original plan. A plan that managed to corral the cooperation of Russia and China. Quite an achievement it was.

As for the reflex position. It seems clear that Trump discounted how Iran would fight back despite being warned. The question is whether or not this venture is worth the misery it is in the process of bringing to the world, especially the developing world. And the much worse misery it will bring in the future. It also is clear how massively ignorant he is. He explicitly said that the current shortage of gas and oil will be good for American because of its large reserves.

Actually, the way to deal with Iran and the rest of the middle east is first of all to recognize that fossil fuels cost a lot more than their apparent price. Apart from climatological and environmental considerations, how much of the US defense budget is necessary because of the world's dependence on fossil fuels? Instead of accelerating a move away from these fuels, the Trump administration is attempting to stifle it. In the long run, they'll fail, of course. The economic arguments are too compelling. But for now, its bizarre obstruction is a huge boon to all sorts of dubious players, including Iran.

Thank you - solid discussion points - which I'd like to address paragraph by paragraph:

+1 from me for the standard of response (whether we agree or not) - and I'm sure this will be placed into the TLDR bracket by many - but the issue is multifaceted and complex.

4 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Iran didn't lie. It offered a 10 point plan, which Trump called a workable basis. One of the points was that Iran had authority over the strait. In the beginning Trump didn't object. It was only when various parties sharply criticized that point that he reacted.

That version is far too generous to Iran and far too simplistic about what Donald Trump actually said. Yes, Iran put forward a 10-point framework, but it wasn’t some neutral or straightforward peace offer. It included major demands like asserting authority over the Strait of Hormuz and even provisions that would allow the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to inspect or monitor shipping. That was not a minor detail - that was asking the world to accept a hostile force policing one of the most critical trade routes on the planet. On top of that, there were contentious financial elements around sanctions relief or access to frozen funds, which critics saw as handing over money before anything meaningful had been verified.

When Trump called it a “workable basis” he wasn’t signing off on those specifics - he was keeping the door open to negotiations, which I'd guess is standard practice. Not rejecting something outright doesn’t mean you accept every clause in it.

The idea that he only pushed back because of criticism ignores the obvious: those points - Hormuz control, IRGC inspections, and upfront financial concessions - were always going to clash with US red lines. What you highlighted wasn't a sudden flip, it’s just how negotiations actually work and how they've always worked with Iran.

Opening of the 'straights' if not a lie - then was at best intellectually dishonest.

4 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Well, i was wrong that there were noincidents in the Gulfpreviously. But given that 130 ships transit the strait every day. the total number of seizuires doesn't amount to much. And it's useful to note that from 1980 to 1988 the incidents in the Gulf were due to the Iran-Iraq war. (you remember that war? The one where Saddam Hussein invaded Iran aided by the USA. The one where he used poison gas which was manufactured from precursors obtained from the USA thanks to the Reagan administration. And the Reagan administration knew what those precursors were being used for. It's estimated that 600,000 Iranians died in that war)

And in the past, Iran used various pretenses to seize tankers. Not a proclamation of authority over the gulf. Nothing like what we see today.

I get the point - its valid and agreeable - the number of incidents is small relative to the traffic, and historically they were often tied to specific contexts like the Iran–Iraq War rather than an outright claim of control. That distinction matters.

But that’s exactly why the current argument raises eyebrows. If the issue shifts from occasional, case-by-case seizures to a broader claim of authority over a key shipping lane like the Strait of Hormuz, then the precedent becomes the real concern. Would it be acceptable if Singapore or Malaysia made the same claim over the Strait of Malacca and started asserting inspection rights over passing vessels? Most countries would say no - because global trade depends on those routes remaining open and not controlled by a single state.

4 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Underlying the fear of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons is the belief that those running Iran are actively suicidal. After all, even if it managed to create a few nuclear weapons, it wouldn't be able to wipe out its enemies. But Israel alone would be able to pretty much exterminate the threat. And keep in mind that it was Trump who trashed the original plan. A plan that managed to corral the cooperation of Russia and China. Quite an achievement it was.

I agree to a point - but that framing doesn’t really hold up when you look at it properly. The fear around Iran getting nuclear weapons obviously isn’t based on the idea that its leadership is suicidal or chasing some “paradise” fantasy. That whole “40 virgins” line gets thrown around a bit too much, but it’s never been a serious argument. Anyone looking at this seriously has to assume the opposite - that the leadership is intelligent, rational, and calculating. And that’s exactly why it’s concerning. The strange part is that some people are willing to grant that level of rationality to Tehran, but not to Donald Trump or his administration - which is where a lot of the bias creeps in.

I completely agree with your assertion that Iran couldn’t currently wipe out its enemies; but it has sworn to numerous times. I agree that Israel has overwhelming retaliatory capability. That makes a direct nuclear strike highly unlikely. But that doesn’t make the situation safe. Nuclear weapons don’t need to be used to change the balance - they shift behaviour. A nuclear-armed Iran could act more aggressively in the region, support proxies with less fear of retaliation, and increase the chances of miscalculation in a crisis. We’ve seen versions of this “nuclear shield” effect before: North Korea has been able to push boundaries with missile tests and brinkmanship under the cover of its arsenal; Pakistan has operated in the shadow of nuclear deterrence while tensions with India persist; and Russia factors its nuclear capability into high-risk strategic decisions. And when a regime feels cornered, heavily sanctioned, or with little to lose, the risks rise further - not because it becomes irrational, but because the incentives shift. Add nuclear capability into that environment and it becomes more dangerous, not less.

On Donald Trump and the deal, it’s fair to say the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was a significant diplomatic achievement, particularly in securing cooperation from Russia and China. I won't dispute that. But it doesn’t settle the issue at its core. IMO a major question to ask is whether it genuinely solved the problem or simply delayed it - kicked the can down the road so to speak - especially given the sunset clauses and the fact that key areas like missile development and regional activity weren’t fully addressed. So the idea that concern is based on Iran being “suicidal” misses the point entirely and I don't think anyone takes that part seriously. The risk comes from how nuclear capability changes incentives, raises the stakes, and makes even rational actors more dangerous.

4 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

As for the reflex position. It seems clear that Trump discounted how Iran would fight back despite being warned. The question is whether or not this venture is worth the misery it is in the process of bringing to the world, especially the developing world. And the much worse misery it will bring in the future. It also is clear how massively ignorant he is. He explicitly said that the current shortage of gas and oil will be good for American because of its large reserves.

On whether Donald Trump “discounted” Iran’s response - I think any US administration expects some level of retaliation from Iran, whether through proxies or disruption around the Strait of Hormuz. The real issue is whether the response was judged manageable. That’s a strategic judgement, not automatically ignorance.

Where I think your point does carry weight is on the global impact. Disruption in the Gulf hits oil prices fast, and developing economies feel that pain first and hardest. That’s a real concern and often underplayed in US-centric arguments - but would the issue be worse in 10 years with a nuclear Iran ?

On the oil comment, there’s a mix of truth but also some oversimplification I think. The US is a major producer, so higher prices can benefit parts of its energy sector - that part isn’t wrong. But it ignores a key technical reality: not all crude oil is interchangeable. Much of US shale production is light, sweet crude, while a significant portion of American refineries - particularly on the Gulf Coast - were built to run most efficiently on heavier, sour crude traditionally imported from places like the Middle East, Venezuela, and Mexico. It’s not that US refineries can’t process light crude, but they’re not optimised for it, so switching entirely isn’t efficient or straightforward. That’s why the US often ends up exporting its lighter oil while still importing heavier grades - the systems are mismatched without a significant amount if 'rejigging infrastructure'.

There's another facet not being discussed so commonly - or I haven't heard the argument fully yet:

The Petrodollar and the idea that US markets profit from insider knowledge - but it’s a weak argument unless you’re being very cynical.

Oil being priced in dollars supports the US financial system. And markets move on geopolitical events, so some people make money. But that’s not the same as coordinated insider profiteering, and there’s little solid evidence to support that claim (Trumps Crypto sham doesn't give us much faith their though) - So this argument exists as a cynical backdrop rather than strong, evidence-based explanation for 'conflict' - but I'm not suggesting both might not coexist.

As I keep trying to imply - there is so much nuance and bias can easily swing us off course in a strong direction while ignoring issues that to me at least are far more significant.

4 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Actually, the way to deal with Iran and the rest of the middle east is first of all to recognize that fossil fuels cost a lot more than their apparent price. Apart from climatological and environmental considerations, how much of the US defense budget is necessary because of the world's dependence on fossil fuels? Instead of accelerating a move away from these fuels, the Trump administration is attempting to stifle it. In the long run, they'll fail, of course. The economic arguments are too compelling. But for now, its bizarre obstruction is a huge boon to all sorts of dubious players, including Iran.

That argument sounds neat... “would we even care if there were no oil?” - but it doesn’t hold up when broken down.

Of course - fossil fuels carry wider costs - environmental, economic, and some security-related, so does nuclear. But tying a large share of the US defence budget purely to “protecting oil” isn’t well supported - especially when modern energy systems (like batteries) also depend on globally contested resources. The US military has broad global commitments in Europe, Asia, and beyond that exist regardless of oil flows. And while the US still imports certain crude types for refining reasons, it’s also one of the world’s largest producers, which reduces its overall dependence on Middle Eastern supply.

The idea that slowing the energy transition somehow benefits Iran is also too simplistic. Iran’s leverage comes from oil prices, not just oil use. Higher prices - often driven by instability or constrained supply - boost its revenues, while increased global supply (including from the US) tends to push prices down and limit that income. So it’s not as simple as “more fossil fuels = more power for Iran”.

More fundamentally, this overstates the role of oil altogether. Iran was a major regional power long before fossil fuels entered the picture, and that historical and strategic identity still shapes its behaviour today. And finally, the idea that the transition is being “stifled” doesn’t fully hold either - even under Donald Trump, renewable energy in the US continued to expand, largely driven by market forces and falling costs.

So the cleaner takeaway is: oil matters, but it’s not the root cause, not the sole driver of policy, and not a simple explanation for Iran’s role or global tensions.

And all of this is before we even touch upon the deeper reality - this isn’t a modern problem, it’s the continuation of thousands of years of regional power struggle. From the old Achaemenid Empire and Sassanian Empire, through the Arab conquests, the Ottoman Empire vs Safavid Empire rivalry, right up to modern tensions between Shia Iran and largely Sunni Arab states - this is layer upon layer of conflict, identity, and control.

Iran hasn’t just been part of that story - it has consistently positioned itself at the centre of it. Since 1979, the Islamic Republic has backed Shia-aligned groups like Hezbollah, supported Hamas, and armed the Houthi Movement - projecting influence far beyond its borders and shaping conflicts across Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen.

So - after babbling on about the geopolitics above - is it just noise - has that underlying drive for influence and dominance ever actually gone away, or is it still at the core of Iran’s current theocratic system…the engine behind its behaviour today? And that’s a serious question - because if it is, then this isn’t something that gets “resolved”… it just gets managed, badly - very badly with when civilisation as we know it can be impacted (going back to mass Middle East Exodus with destruction of desalination plants and fertiliser reduction - forget oil - a major local conflict is a global issue one which might not be avoided with a nuclear capable Iran - MAD is not a viable option).

22 hours ago, KhunBENQ said:

Two cruise-ships (without passengers) managed to escape.

At least one was fired at without damage/casualty.

Perfect holiday destination! Are the tix discounted?