The most surprising thing is that the whole world somehow has built dependency on Hormuz which has been known for decades that it is controlled by Iran, an adversarial actor to the west.
Nobody ever thinks of, you know, building redundancy for Hormuz?
(Really neat website, I think it was shared on HN a few months ago?)
There is a lot of other proposed routes but it’s actually pretty hard to create them in that region, lots of actors with their own interests and not the best history of collaboration. And Iran would definitely be against it given it reduces their influence
Most ordinary Iranians, sure; certainly not the Islamic regime. It was their decision to train, fund and supply weapons to terrorist groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, PIJ and the Houthis since the early 80s.
In the past 60 years the Iranian regime has only closed the straight in retaliation to a second massive suckerpunch against it.
I'd say they are acting in a far more restrained and reasonable manner than the belligerents in the 'west'. And most rational people are in agreement with me on this.
Imagine what the US would have done in response to a massive surprise bombing attack that killed the president, most of the senior cabinet and military, struck bases across the country, sunk most of it's navy, and blew out a few elementary schools and apartment blocks and civilian infrastructure targets for good measure.
The last time something that was a tiny fraction of that happened, it started two wars and killed half a million people (most of them from a country that had nothing to do with the attack).
Iran's response was downright restrained.
Here's a radical idea. Don't start wars with countries if you don't like the consequences.
> In the past 60 years the Iranian regime has only closed the straight in retaliation to a second massive suckerpunch against it.
Well yes, because its a desperation move that hurts them just as much as it hurts everyone else. Its worth it to them as a last resort but at any earlier point it would have been a strategicly stupid thing to do.
> The last time something that was a tiny fraction of that happened, it started two wars and killed half a million people (most of them from a country that had nothing to do with the attack).
Arguably this whole thing happened because Israel thinks Iran is at fault for the oct 7 attacks and now views them as an unacceptable threat (note: even if you dont agree, it really doesn't matter so long as the people who are at war think this). Which was kind of like your hypothetical, so it should resonate with what you are saying.
> Iran's response was downright restrained.
Largely because they lack the ability to do much else that would be a strategic benefit to their situation.
> Here's a radical idea. Don't start wars with countries if you don't like the consequences.
Indeed, but that bites both ways. Violence begets violence and war begets war. The present situation was forged in the decisions of the past including many of Iran's.
US/Israel may have opened the current front, but the Iranian regime has been waging proxy warfare since the early 80s. They also attempted to assassinate our president. It's misleading to paint US/Israel as the aggressors for occasionally responding to years of indirect or unsuccessful attacks.
To look at it another way: if US/Israel hadn't responded directly, but instead paid Erdogan a large bribe to strike a list of coordinates in Iran, while also supplying the missiles and the training, would that get around your concern? Probably not.
Ever thought why? For you they are terrorists, and for them they are resistance groups to prevent what Israel did in the last 2 years..occupy their lands an murder their people.
Israel has never occupied Yemen. They are like a thousand miles away but the slogan on the Houthi banner contains “death to Israel” and “curse the Jews”.
They’re not even pretending not to be antisemitic.
I don't see why someone should have say what happens on others land. If I want to allow someone in my land or kick someone out of my land it should be, within some restrictions completely my own decision. Do you have legal ownership deeds over all the land in your entire country? I just think it's very strange.
Everybody who has a different moral opinion than yours holds that opinion for the sole reason that they believe it will make them look better to their peers.
Well, homosexuality is criminalized in Kuwait for example, do we see Meta banning accounts because of it? Suddenly the company doesn’t follow the country’s regulations. Meta aligns with israel narrative (notorious against anything that goes against that), and it seems that person account wasn’t aligned with that, so they got banned, that’s the real reason, it’s never about following other countries’ laws or whatever, just a legal justification so the company isn’t directly blamed for it, selective censorship.
More importantly, Adyen doesn't have a messiah-like founder. Patrick is like the second coming of Jesus.
reply