|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States43987 Posts
On March 24 2026 07:58 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2026 07:13 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2026 07:08 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On March 24 2026 06:46 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2026 06:38 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On March 24 2026 02:37 Gorsameth wrote:On March 24 2026 02:23 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On March 24 2026 01:11 Yurie wrote:On March 20 2026 17:03 Yurie wrote:On March 20 2026 09:30 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
[quote]
I'm not sure this is so much resolution, as 'neither actually involved sides see much viability of reaching resolution' so everyone else is trying to find ways around the problem so the world economy can keep chugging along (since they sure as hell can't actually resolve it).
And Iran is just reasonable enough to come to agreements with some third parties (probably because 'everyone else' involves some of their allies).
I'm not sure if this will do anything to actually end the fighting, Iran won't just let all the ships through, because this is their primary leverage towards no longer getting bombed. And even the rest of the world combined can't pressure the US/Israel into meeting Iranian demands.
While the US/Israel can just lose interest/stop bombing Iran, I don't think Iran will trust that it's not just a short reload then they are back in a few months/years again. I don't envision a world where Israel doesn't actually just come back after a short reload, dragging the US back in.
So either ground troops actually go in, or somehow the US pressures other countries into some kind of reparations/rebuild package for Iran (the US is sure as hell not going to pay Iran reparations). Or there needs to be at least a change in attitude on the side of the US, eg telling Israel, 'Next time you bomb them you are on your own'. In which case the fight sort of fizzles out, and Iran eventually believes it's not just a short break to restock munitions.
None of these options look particularly likely.
Either that or Trump gets either China or his russian friends to agree to help Iran rebuild in lieu of actual reparations. They might accept it because it basically guarantees their influence in the region for the forseeable future, and Trump might accept it because compared to not having to deal with either a disastrous ground campaign in Iran or a humiliating meeting of actual Iranian terms probably outweighs actual US geopolitical interest every time.
Even there I don't think Russia is even in an economic state to help, and China might just not be that interested in cleaning up a US mess.
Well Iran - US relations are dead unless there is a regime change in Iran. Which currently seems unlikely as the US public doesn't want boots on the ground and there is an election soon. Though the US is putting enough marines into the area to be able to do it if they want to. I basically see it as Iran will let Chinese, Indian etc ships through. Ships that are not from those nations will instead move to other trade regions, causing a local monopoly on ship capacity. They can then start charging ships passing through similar to Seuz or Panama canals and things stabilize. It seems to be acceptable to the US as well since they prioritize global trade over crippling Iran (as Iranian oil exports are up since the start of the war). The US is also seriously discussing stopping sanctions on Iranian oil to keep prices down, same as they did for Russian oil. (If I am from a European country bordering Russia I would be furious at that removal of sanctions.) So seems they are trying to leverage their control of the strait into switching from the US dollar to the Yuan for oil trade. That is actually more dangerous to the US than a few nukes in Iran. (Also seems to be old news, I just missed it a few days ago.) The other topic I replied to. The UK is now allowing US to use their bases. I still think they would have allowed this if they had time to consider it and got some small concession for it. Only 20% of the oil supply goes through the strait. I don't think forcing an actual switch to Yuan based dollar is feasible. Honestly, I think it's more about extending China's ability to weather the oil shock. While China was somehow better prepared for the oil shock than the US, despite the US + Israel causing the situation to begin with, they will eventually run out of oil (not soon, but eventually). Once Iran's richest ally is no longer able to wear the shock, Iran pretty much has to open up the strait at that stage. So their leverage does have a use by date, they are just trying to extend it a bit. I think your vastly overestimating the influence China has over Iran or Iran's dependance on China. China does not get to decide when Iran needs to surrender and it takes very little resources to keep the strait closed, the threat itself does almost all the work. It's not about China deciding when Iran gets to surrender, it's about once it's directly against China's direct material interest to continue running political interference for Iran, they are likely to... stop doing that. While many individuals around the world are maybe hoping Iran wins (or at least hoping US/Israel loses), on the global stage of nation states very few countries are actually on Iran's side. At best, many of the US's traditional allies are just unenthusiastic on getting involved. Russia and China are two of a very few countries that are. They run political interference, provide intel, and China is responsible for buying most of Iran's oil, as well as selling them vital parts to keep what industrial economy they have going to keep building drones. It's very hard for Iran to actually go completely alone, what allies it has are invaluable to it. I'm not imagining China just telling Iran enough is enough, and to open the strait. It's more likely going to be a 'sorry we can't help anymore, we need to worry about our own situation' If you follow much of how the Chinese government does things, it's that it's very serious about noone fucking with the Chinese economy, not even itself. While it stands on principle on the Iran issue, if it had to choose between principle or its own economic growth, it's going to choose its own economy every time. While Iran will still have Russia, who do not suffer from the oil shock the same way, it's hard to hold out when your only ally is also pretty broke. Russia is only broke if Iran capitulates. Russia is rolling in cash if Iran keeps going. And Russia is the world’s one way attack biggest drone manufacturer. They are rolling in cash on hand, but the state of their industry throughout the country isn't great (it's not especially bad now, it's just not been good for a long time). Even on drones, China (well, chinese companies) are the biggest supplier of drone parts to both Russia and Ukraine, by far. I would be surprised if they weren't also the biggest supplier of drone parts to Iran. Cash on hand is nice, but you still need someone to make the stuff you want to buy. It’s not an evenly bad economy, it’s a dual economy that averages worse than before. But some segments of the economy are absolutely thriving (offset by others collapsing). Russia has gone from relying on Iran for drones to launching dozens to launching hundreds to launching thousands. The Soviet economy in 1945 wasn’t in great shape (tens of millions dead, tens of millions in uniform) but T 34 production was at absurd levels. Giving drones to Iran pays for itself. The point is Russia is broke in basically the same areas as Iran is. Eg, it's not providing much other than intel that Iran doesn't also have. Currently, Russia basically has military equipment, oil and money. While some of this military equipment (eg anti air defense systems) isn't what Iran can make and is useful, a lot of it is just stuff that would get instantly destroyed if actual bombs/missiles were to drop again. Oil, drones and money are also what Iran has. Even on the political inteference front, other than the weird influence Russia sometimes has over the US right now, Russia is itself a global pariah. Whereas China appears to be too big and too connected to be that now. The point is Russia can only provide so much assistance to Iran, not because it is unwilling, but because it is unable. Since what it has/makes a lot of, overlaps significantly with what Iran has/makes.
I don’t know what to say other than that I strongly disagree. Their economies couldn’t be more different. Their populaces couldn’t be more different. Their adversaries couldn’t be more different. Russia can make large drone factories staffed by patriotic workers paid with a strong currency located safe from attack. Iran has to engage in distributed resilient production using a hostile population paid with a collapsing currency while under a US bombing campaign.
|
United States43987 Posts
It occurs to me that there’s a fundamental mismatch in the objectives of the Israel/US coalition. As far as we know they didn’t have an equivalent of the Casablanca conference where allied war goals were converged and established. The allies want very different things out of this war.
The senior party in the alliance wants Iran destroyed. It wants no nukes, no missiles, no proxy wars, no IRGC control. Full regime change. It lacks the military forces to do that so they’d quite like the junior party to actually do the invasion. They have no expeditionary army and lack the logistics and population to possibly invade Iran, only the US could do it.
The junior party mostly just wants things to go back to how they were. Ceasefire, strait open, Iran survives. There was no real ideological conviction, Rubio made it clear on day 1 that Israel decided on unilateral action and the assessment was that if the US would be dragged in anyway then they might as well take part in day 1 bombing.
Not only does Israel not agree with US war goals at this point, US war goals are in direct opposition to Israeli war goals. The US wants deescalation and normalization, Israel wants intensification until an eventual rubicon moment in which the US is forced to invade on Israel’s behalf.
And if Israel doesn’t agree to whatever ceasefire the US proposes then the war continues and the strait remains closed until eventually the US has to launch a ground invasion. The worse an ally Israel is the more likely they are to get what they want. Israel doesn’t want Iran to succeed in getting a nuke but they’d really like it if Iran was successful in the next few months of this war. The more bogged down the Americans get the more likely they are to try to fight their way out. And if ever the fighting slows Israel can just bomb a few things and trigger an Iranian response.
I’m becoming increasingly convinced of the possibility of a forced regime change scenario. It’s not like Trump can rein Israel in and it’s not like Israel has anything to lose from keeping things escalating. It’s the same basic scenario as it was on day 0, if Israel attacks and Iran counterattacks then American interests are threatened. That gives Israel the ability to create an Iranian threat more or less at will, to be solved by the US army. And if Israel weren’t willing to twist America’s arm on this and get them drawn in deeper then we wouldn’t be in this position in the first place. We know they’re willing.
|
I'm sure the IDF in general would be delighted at regime change in Iran, but Netanyahu/Likud only needs to bomb them just enough to clinch the Israeli election happening in October.
|
Northern Ireland26785 Posts
On March 24 2026 09:49 KwarK wrote:
It occurs to me that there’s a fundamental mismatch in the objectives of the Israel/US coalition. As far as we know they didn’t have an equivalent of the Casablanca conference where allied war goals were converged and established. The allies want very different things out of this war.
The senior party in the alliance wants Iran destroyed. It wants no nukes, no missiles, no proxy wars, no IRGC control. Full regime change. It lacks the military forces to do that so they’d quite like the junior party to actually do the invasion. They have no expeditionary army and lack the logistics and population to possibly invade Iran, only the US could do it.
The junior party mostly just wants things to go back to how they were. Ceasefire, strait open, Iran survives. There was no real ideological conviction, Rubio made it clear on day 1 that Israel decided on unilateral action and the assessment was that if the US would be dragged in anyway then they might as well take part in day 1 bombing.
Not only does Israel not agree with US war goals at this point, US war goals are in direct opposition to Israeli war goals. The US wants deescalation and normalization, Israel wants intensification until an eventual rubicon moment in which the US is forced to invade on Israel’s behalf.
And if Israel doesn’t agree to whatever ceasefire the US proposes then the war continues and the strait remains closed until eventually the US has to launch a ground invasion. The worse an ally Israel is the more likely they are to get what they want. Israel doesn’t want Iran to succeed in getting a nuke but they’d really like it if Iran was successful in the next few months of this war. The more bogged down the Americans get the more likely they are to try to fight their way out. And if ever the fighting slows Israel can just bomb a few things and trigger an Iranian response.
I’m becoming increasingly convinced of the possibility of a forced regime change scenario. It’s not like Trump can rein Israel in and it’s not like Israel has anything to lose from keeping things escalating. It’s the same basic scenario as it was on day 0, if Israel attacks and Iran counterattacks then American interests are threatened. That gives Israel the ability to create an Iranian threat more or less at will, to be solved by the US army. And if Israel weren’t willing to twist America’s arm on this and get them drawn in deeper then we wouldn’t be in this position in the first place. We know they’re willing.
I fear you may be correct with this analysis.
|
On March 24 2026 09:49 KwarK wrote:+ Show Spoiler +It occurs to me that there’s a fundamental mismatch in the objectives of the Israel/US coalition. As far as we know they didn’t have an equivalent of the Casablanca conference where allied war goals were converged and established. The allies want very different things out of this war.
The senior party in the alliance wants Iran destroyed. It wants no nukes, no missiles, no proxy wars, no IRGC control. Full regime change. It lacks the military forces to do that so they’d quite like the junior party to actually do the invasion. They have no expeditionary army and lack the logistics and population to possibly invade Iran, only the US could do it.
The junior party mostly just wants things to go back to how they were. Ceasefire, strait open, Iran survives. There was no real ideological conviction, Rubio made it clear on day 1 that Israel decided on unilateral action and the assessment was that if the US would be dragged in anyway then they might as well take part in day 1 bombing.
Not only does Israel not agree with US war goals at this point, US war goals are in direct opposition to Israeli war goals. The US wants deescalation and normalization, Israel wants intensification until an eventual rubicon moment in which the US is forced to invade on Israel’s behalf.
And if Israel doesn’t agree to whatever ceasefire the US proposes then the war continues and the strait remains closed until eventually the US has to launch a ground invasion. The worse an ally Israel is the more likely they are to get what they want. Israel doesn’t want Iran to succeed in getting a nuke but they’d really like it if Iran was successful in the next few months of this war. The more bogged down the Americans get the more likely they are to try to fight their way out. And if ever the fighting slows Israel can just bomb a few things and trigger an Iranian response. I’m becoming increasingly convinced of the possibility of a forced regime change scenario. + Show Spoiler + It’s not like Trump can rein Israel in and it’s not like Israel has anything to lose from keeping things escalating. It’s the same basic scenario as it was on day 0, if Israel attacks and Iran counterattacks then American interests are threatened. That gives Israel the ability to create an Iranian threat more or less at will, to be solved by the US army. And if Israel weren’t willing to twist America’s arm on this and get them drawn in deeper then we wouldn’t be in this position in the first place. We know they’re willing.
Seems like a salient post. Though I think it might be a bit too neat with what the "US wants" given your rather thorough demonstration of its general incoherence as articulated by Trump and his administration  .
When you say this part, is that like De-Ba'athification but with the IRGC, or what do you mean when you say "forced regime change" is increasingly possible/likely?
|
United States43987 Posts
I’m not Nostradamus and even the best educated guess is still probably unlikely to be right, just most likely out of a dozen outcomes. It’s a limited and speculative hypothesis derived from 3 core assumptions.
1. the US doesn’t have the ability to make a unilateral peace without their ally
2. the longer this goes the more necessary troops on the ground becomes
3. their ally would prefer that outcome
I’m more likely wrong than not but I can absolutely see a pathway to a ground invasion of Iran.
|
On March 24 2026 10:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2026 10:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 24 2026 09:49 KwarK wrote:+ Show Spoiler +It occurs to me that there’s a fundamental mismatch in the objectives of the Israel/US coalition. As far as we know they didn’t have an equivalent of the Casablanca conference where allied war goals were converged and established. The allies want very different things out of this war.
The senior party in the alliance wants Iran destroyed. It wants no nukes, no missiles, no proxy wars, no IRGC control. Full regime change. It lacks the military forces to do that so they’d quite like the junior party to actually do the invasion. They have no expeditionary army and lack the logistics and population to possibly invade Iran, only the US could do it.
The junior party mostly just wants things to go back to how they were. Ceasefire, strait open, Iran survives. There was no real ideological conviction, Rubio made it clear on day 1 that Israel decided on unilateral action and the assessment was that if the US would be dragged in anyway then they might as well take part in day 1 bombing.
Not only does Israel not agree with US war goals at this point, US war goals are in direct opposition to Israeli war goals. The US wants deescalation and normalization, Israel wants intensification until an eventual rubicon moment in which the US is forced to invade on Israel’s behalf.
And if Israel doesn’t agree to whatever ceasefire the US proposes then the war continues and the strait remains closed until eventually the US has to launch a ground invasion. The worse an ally Israel is the more likely they are to get what they want. Israel doesn’t want Iran to succeed in getting a nuke but they’d really like it if Iran was successful in the next few months of this war. The more bogged down the Americans get the more likely they are to try to fight their way out. And if ever the fighting slows Israel can just bomb a few things and trigger an Iranian response. I’m becoming increasingly convinced of the possibility of a forced regime change scenario. + Show Spoiler + It’s not like Trump can rein Israel in and it’s not like Israel has anything to lose from keeping things escalating. It’s the same basic scenario as it was on day 0, if Israel attacks and Iran counterattacks then American interests are threatened. That gives Israel the ability to create an Iranian threat more or less at will, to be solved by the US army. And if Israel weren’t willing to twist America’s arm on this and get them drawn in deeper then we wouldn’t be in this position in the first place. We know they’re willing. Seems like a salient post. Though I think it might be a bit too neat with what the "US wants" given your rather thorough demonstration of its general incoherence as articulated by Trump and his administration . When you say this part, is that like De-Ba'athification but with the IRGC, or what do you mean when you say "forced regime change" is increasingly possible/likely? I’m not Nostradamus and even the best educated guess is still probably unlikely to be right, just most likely out of a dozen outcomes. It’s a limited and speculative hypothesis derived from 3 core assumptions. 1. the US doesn’t have the ability to make a unilateral peace without their ally 2. the longer this goes the more necessary troops on the ground becomes 3. their ally would prefer that outcome I’m more likely wrong than not but I can absolutely see a pathway to a ground invasion of Iran.
Fair enough. I was just clarifying because I don't think "regime change" is very clear in this context. A "pathway to a ground invasion of Iran" is much more clear in this context.
It sounds insane (politically and otherwise) to imagine the US shipping troops to fight in Iran, I also hope you're wrong, but as far as a ground invasion of Iran goes, can't really disagree with what you're saying.
|
On March 24 2026 10:57 KwarK wrote:
I’m not Nostradamus and even the best educated guess is still probably unlikely to be right, just most likely out of a dozen outcomes. It’s a limited and speculative hypothesis derived from 3 core assumptions.
1. the US doesn’t have the ability to make a unilateral peace without their ally
2. the longer this goes the more necessary troops on the ground becomes
3. their ally would prefer that outcome
I’m more likely wrong than not but I can absolutely see a pathway to a ground invasion of Iran.
Not as a counter point, more as additional but also Iran can keep this going as long as they want as well. There is absolutely no reason to surrender. It is not like they care about their people, or have (or need) their support, the elites will remain rich and powerful no matter how poor the country is. Their resolve will be much stronger than Trumps with mid terms on the way. If it seems unfavorable how it ends, they can just launch a missile at a ship or any surrounding country and the US is right back in it. Strangely they seem to be in a better negotiating position.
One other option with Netanyahu's position is that in some ways a weekend Iran and its proxies are safer politically for him in the sense that he can make them the enemy and say he knows how to beat them back, and by saying what he is saying if they stop people will think/know it was the Americans that forced him to stop. Whereas a completely defeated Iran is great short term, but now he needs a new they for this people to fear. And if a new insurgency starts people could blame it for him rather than see him as the protector.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1288 Posts
On March 24 2026 11:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2026 10:57 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2026 10:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 24 2026 09:49 KwarK wrote:+ Show Spoiler +It occurs to me that there’s a fundamental mismatch in the objectives of the Israel/US coalition. As far as we know they didn’t have an equivalent of the Casablanca conference where allied war goals were converged and established. The allies want very different things out of this war.
The senior party in the alliance wants Iran destroyed. It wants no nukes, no missiles, no proxy wars, no IRGC control. Full regime change. It lacks the military forces to do that so they’d quite like the junior party to actually do the invasion. They have no expeditionary army and lack the logistics and population to possibly invade Iran, only the US could do it.
The junior party mostly just wants things to go back to how they were. Ceasefire, strait open, Iran survives. There was no real ideological conviction, Rubio made it clear on day 1 that Israel decided on unilateral action and the assessment was that if the US would be dragged in anyway then they might as well take part in day 1 bombing.
Not only does Israel not agree with US war goals at this point, US war goals are in direct opposition to Israeli war goals. The US wants deescalation and normalization, Israel wants intensification until an eventual rubicon moment in which the US is forced to invade on Israel’s behalf.
And if Israel doesn’t agree to whatever ceasefire the US proposes then the war continues and the strait remains closed until eventually the US has to launch a ground invasion. The worse an ally Israel is the more likely they are to get what they want. Israel doesn’t want Iran to succeed in getting a nuke but they’d really like it if Iran was successful in the next few months of this war. The more bogged down the Americans get the more likely they are to try to fight their way out. And if ever the fighting slows Israel can just bomb a few things and trigger an Iranian response. I’m becoming increasingly convinced of the possibility of a forced regime change scenario. + Show Spoiler + It’s not like Trump can rein Israel in and it’s not like Israel has anything to lose from keeping things escalating. It’s the same basic scenario as it was on day 0, if Israel attacks and Iran counterattacks then American interests are threatened. That gives Israel the ability to create an Iranian threat more or less at will, to be solved by the US army. And if Israel weren’t willing to twist America’s arm on this and get them drawn in deeper then we wouldn’t be in this position in the first place. We know they’re willing. Seems like a salient post. Though I think it might be a bit too neat with what the "US wants" given your rather thorough demonstration of its general incoherence as articulated by Trump and his administration . When you say this part, is that like De-Ba'athification but with the IRGC, or what do you mean when you say "forced regime change" is increasingly possible/likely? I’m not Nostradamus and even the best educated guess is still probably unlikely to be right, just most likely out of a dozen outcomes. It’s a limited and speculative hypothesis derived from 3 core assumptions. 1. the US doesn’t have the ability to make a unilateral peace without their ally 2. the longer this goes the more necessary troops on the ground becomes 3. their ally would prefer that outcome I’m more likely wrong than not but I can absolutely see a pathway to a ground invasion of Iran. Fair enough. I was just clarifying because I don't think "regime change" is very clear in this context. A "pathway to a ground invasion of Iran" is much more clear in this context. It sounds insane (politically and otherwise) to imagine the US shipping troops to fight in Iran, I also hope you're wrong, but as far as a ground invasion of Iran goes, can't really disagree with what you're saying.
It sounds insane probably because the alternative should be so easy. All the US has to do is tell Israel if you want to keep fighting Iran, you are on your own. Closing the strait of Hormuz doesn't work as incentive against Israel, because they don't give a shit about the world economy. Iran also seemed capable so far of going tit-for-tat with Israel.
The US just needs to walk away, Iran might keep Hormuz closed a little longer to be sure you'll remember/understand, but eventually there really isn't a reason for them to keep it closed anymore.
Yes, the US has lobbying to work against, and the CIA types in various positions to work against, and some fanatical evangelicals to work against.
But in principle, the solution sounds so simple, and the alternative so obviously costly. Sometimes such a shame when the real world gets in the way of such clean(ish) solutions.
|
United States43987 Posts
There is no “walk away” option for the US. Abandoning the Persian Gulf entirely would be an absolute surrender. There are a dozen reasons for Iran to keep the strait closed for a long time.
Iran has, so far this war, taken orders of magnitude more damage than the US. The US has lost a handful of planes and crew and a lot of interceptors. Iran has lost its navy, air force, hardened bunkers, warehouses, stockpiles, bases etc., in addition to the new Supreme Leader having had his father, wife, and teenage son killed.
As I keep repeating, the US and Israel peak immediately, they do the most damage on day 1 where they destroy all the highest value targets. On day 2 they destroy the second highest value targets because they can't destroy the highest value targets a second time. On day 3 the third. The longer the war goes the less damage bombing can do. They already killed his wife, they can't do it again.
Iran's retaliation grows steadily over time but doesn't even start to kick in until day 150 or so. There is significant latency between crude oil leaving the Gulf and the diesel in a gas station. Consumers haven't actually seen any impact in supply yet. The prices increases are speculative, suppliers don't want to sell today if they think that the price will be higher tomorrow and they won't have oil tomorrow to sell. And even once the supply does drop the strategic reserves have enough to cover months of the missing output from the Gulf. As the strategic reserves run low the prices will increase. As prices increase additional more expensive sources of oil will be brought online which will be priced accordingly. The longer it goes the higher the price gets.
That is Iran's retaliation. It hasn't started yet and it won't have any deterrence impact if they sign an early ceasefire. Even if Israel and the US stop bombing entirely they still need to interdict it, or charge such high transit fees that prices are higher. They need people to remember that 2026 was the year where there was a global recession caused by high oil prices so that the next time someone wants to bomb Iran they think twice. If Iran opens the strait early then they have no deterrent. They'd be saying "feel free to bomb the shit out of us for a week, we'll announce a disruption but as long as you stocked up the reserve ahead of time you can weather it". They'll get bombed by Israel once a year.
The idea that the US and Israel can beat the shit out of Iran, kill the leader's wife, kill his son, and then call a timeout before he hits back is absurd to me. It would undermine every single part of their publicly stated strategy of using the strait as a last resort deterrent bargaining chip. They constructed this strategy over decades, they know this. It would be national suicide.
The idea that Iran, one of the largest oil exporters in the world, has nothing to gain from spiking oil prices is nuts. The regime and country have been absolutely savaged. I've been hating on American strategy a lot here because the American strategy is nonsensical but that doesn't mean that the USAF can't demolish buildings. They were in terrible shape before and much worse shape now than they were then. If the regime is to survive they need hard foreign currency. They need their oil on the market and as few of their competitors as possible as a matter of national survival. The rebuilding project will not be cheap and there are a lot of regime loyalists who will need to be paid.
Additionally it simply wouldn't make sense not to continue the position that they control the strait. Free navigation of the seas is a postwar American invention enforced by the US Navy. Lots of countries would like to declare that actually they own this bit of water or that bit of water and that everyone has to pay them transit fees or whatever but they haven't been able to because the US Navy will disprove that notion. These waterways aren't just open by default, they're national territory by default, open is an artificial state of affairs that has been constructed and maintained by the US Navy. If the US declares that they're no longer interested in keeping the strait open then it won't suddenly revert to free neutrality under a ceasefire. It'll be owned by the strongest.
This is existential for Iran. Either they establish a convincing deterrent by confronting the US Navy over the strait and winning (which includes the US Navy forfeiting) or they die. There's no deal to be made here where the strait is reopened any time soon, it'll stay closed until such a time as a country with sufficient force projection to open it opens it.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1288 Posts
On March 24 2026 12:14 KwarK wrote:
There is no “walk away” option for the US. Abandoning the Persian Gulf entirely would be an absolute surrender.
That sounds more like an ego thing? What exactly are they gaining out of being there right now? Even their allies there are pissed at them for starting this thing without proper preparation.
They could just declare job done or something, and quietly (or loudly, whatever satisfies their ego best) go away.
|
Because if the US leave, then what is actually stopping Iran extorting the shit out of all traffic through the strait? Because they’re absolutely going to do this if the US shows that they don’t have the will to force the strait open. And if they do that, then leaving doesn’t bring back the status quo because it’s still actively fucking up so much of the global economy between fuel and fertilisers alone.
Trump shitting on the floor and then proclaim victory for his domestic audience when “allies” accept a return to some sort of status quo doesn’t work here because Iran has no will to go back to the status quo. Because there can be no status quo when Israeli and US hostilities exist in the manner they currently do.
I agree with Kwark’s posts above for this reason. I can’t see how open flow of trade through the strait resolves unless the US puts boots on the ground. And Iran isn’t wrong to make such a bet because a lone US ground invasion is going to be catastrophic to the US, domestically and internationally.
|
There is another factor.
While the US is in the war it's their war. No one else is butting in.
But China politely told Israel to fix this shit yesterday. Because they do even their threats politely.
If the US were to leave the conflict and Israel continues to escalate which closes the straight other actors can get involved. China has a lot of ways to make Israel regret their decision if the the US or the rest of the world also think they deserve it.
|
On March 23 2026 19:03 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2026 18:25 baal wrote:On March 22 2026 23:32 WombaT wrote:On March 22 2026 20:18 baal wrote:On March 22 2026 19:41 Simberto wrote:
Where do you walk from Germany or Poland and are safe? Literally the only place i can come up with is Switzerland. Everything else in Europe is full of Nazis at some point of the war. To get to safety, you need a ship, either to England or the US or some place like that. Those are not free. And funnily enough, the places you might get to to be safe actually denied you entrance. France, Switzerland, Belgium, Denmark... The claim is that many people didn't know they were going to kill the jews when the Nazi party won not deep into the war you dunce. Stop talking about Germany please. You have no clue about anything, and you apparently cannot understand complex situations. And you dont seem to understand simple arguments Look at that data. The November 1932 election was the last free election, so 1933 doesn't count. Yes, the Nazis were the biggest party. But they were also unable to form a coalition with any other party, so they couldn't create a government. We don't have FPTP in Germany, and didn't back then. In a parliamentary system, having 30% of the vote doesn't matter if you cannot convince another 20% to work with you. Again, the claim is that a party who openly wants the mas killing of a race wouldn't get to power or be the most popular party in your own fucking country, unless you think one third of you German ancestors were mass murdering maniacs.------------------------------- Reading comprehension sucks in here so heres again for like the nth time, the claims were: - Nazis didn't openly call for the mass murder of jews before the war, they were concealing their intentions since expulsion is more palatable for the public. - Many jews and germans also didn't know that was their goal until it was too late. Even if that were the case, it’s still a good use case for some kind of hate speech laws or similar mechanisms no? Forgive me if I’m misremembering or misintepreting but wasn’t this tangent jumping off that discussion? No, you don't kill an idea through censorship, on the contrary you make them powerful as a taboo, "sun light" disinfects, it kills bad ideas through talking about them and proving why and how they are bad ideas. If you want to make this argument, you should substantiate your points. For example, I'd like to hear your take on how "proving that something is a bad idea" "kills the bad idea".
Sure, lets get into it.
It's hard to get data or precise evidence since these topics are by nature ambiguous and very difficult to test however Nazism is a good example.
Only a few countries in Europe have hate-speech laws forbidding Nazism but we don't see Nazism sprouting in other countries and another holocausts, because everyone reads about it in school, watches it in TV, movies etc, pretty much world-wide we agree that Nazism is bad (real Nazism not hyperbole). Sure the idea will never completely die, there's some dark tribal impulses in all of us that can get carried away.
If censorship worked we would see Nazism grow at areas where it's not censored yet we don't.
I could argue that communism has lacked "sun light" and thats why it's festering, but lets focus first on the other example.
|
On March 23 2026 19:03 KT_Elwood wrote:
Meh, no, I like computah.
I don't like computers as a service being controlled by a foreign country.
EU regulators kill innovation so you don't have a competitive tech sector, perhaps you should advocate to loose regulations to have your own computer services.
Trump made TikTok be sold, because it was scary non US controlled social media.
China also bans US social media so it seems fair
Make OpenAI and Microsoft sell their EU business into EU ownership - or tax/tariff it.
You will only keep left behind and getting more and more economically stagnant.
|
On March 23 2026 19:09 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2026 18:45 baal wrote:On March 23 2026 17:01 Fleetfeet wrote:
I look forward to it being explained to you again by a variety of people.
Perhaps, if you want to be the ambassador of "good faith", you should approach the most charitable interpretation of the arguments presented to you instead of moving from "The stated intent of the Nazi party was never to exterminate the jews" to "The stated intent of the Nazi party prior to 1933 was never explicitly to murder all the jews" without any kind of "Hey sorry guys the thing I said was wrong, what I actually meant was X"
I had to be more specific because people like Kwark were clinging to details instead of arguing the point. The point being that Nazis were vague and deceitful in their actual intent to mass murder, because mass murder is never a fucking popular campaign, obviously as the war developed their intentions become more and more clear. I don't give a fuck if 200k or 1M fled, or if Hitler made a speech on saturday nov 26 1943 at 3:22pm where he used a word that could be interpreted as kill, It's irrelevant to the point.If you believe everybody knew from the begging that means that Germans are ontologically evil where 1/3 of them thirsted for the blood of every jew in the continent, it's a ridiculous misreading of history that actually prevents to understanding any lessons of the holocaust. Wasn't the point about the use of antisemitic symbols and behaviours in online communications today?
Yeah but we got totally sidetracking because people were nitpicking instead of arguing the point, funnily enough they don't realize what the implications of "everybody knew" are
|
On March 23 2026 20:53 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2026 16:17 baal wrote:On March 22 2026 22:57 KwarK wrote:On March 22 2026 19:11 baal wrote:
You are using AI wrong, in your attempt to beat me the argument has flown over your head at least 3 times now, argue the point instead of going: "ackshually Hitler wasn't elected, the Nazi party, which he lead, was elected and named him prime minster, your argument is invalid you don't know history" Getting baal to read a goddamn history book challenge, difficulty impossible. Neither Hitler, nor the party he led, came to power through free elections. He came to power through appointment by Hindenburg. Literally anyone who has read any book about the rise to power of the Nazis knows this. Getting KwarK to argue the point challenge, difficulty impossible. The point: -The Nazi party was the biggest and most popular party in Germany at the time, if they were openly advocating for the mass murder of every jew they wouldn't be, unless you believe that 1/3 of German citizens were monsters and actually wanted to kill every jew. I’ve actually read Mein Kampf, it’s preeeetty unambiguous.
I haven't read it but I know he fantasizes about gassing jews and mentions spilling blood, so yeah It's way less ambiguous than his speeches, but it's a very reasonable assumption that most people didn't read his book at the time.
I mean there's a reason why Hitler toned down his speeches.
|
On March 23 2026 21:13 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2026 18:45 baal wrote:
If you believe everybody knew from the begging that means that Germans are ontologically evil where 1/3 of them thirsted for the blood of every jew in the continent, it's a ridiculous misreading of history that actually prevents to understanding any lessons of the holocaust. meh, a big contributing factor: the Allies grossly mishandled Germany at the end of WW1. It is sad and fascinating that the echoes of these bad moves still exist today. As I stated earlier, Nathan Fielder demonstrates this effectively because if you live in Germany you can't buy a Summit Ice Winter Jacket to endure those cold northern winters. Clearly, Germany still struggles to effectively process historical events that happened 80+ years ago. This is fucking hilarious Show nested quote +Summit Ice believes that brand loyalty and Holocaust education should begin as early as possible. That’s why we’ve designed a baby onesie that is both cute and stylish. These little suckers are 100% cotton and feature snap closures for easy diaper changes. How can Germany censor this stupidity?
It's interesting how different cultures deal with guilt, Geramy struggles with it, but the US is still talking about reparations from stuff happening hundreds of years ago while Japan forgot about what they did in Manchuria in like 15 minutes.
|
On March 23 2026 21:15 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2026 18:25 baal wrote:On March 22 2026 23:32 WombaT wrote:On March 22 2026 20:18 baal wrote:On March 22 2026 19:41 Simberto wrote:
Where do you walk from Germany or Poland and are safe? Literally the only place i can come up with is Switzerland. Everything else in Europe is full of Nazis at some point of the war. To get to safety, you need a ship, either to England or the US or some place like that. Those are not free. And funnily enough, the places you might get to to be safe actually denied you entrance. France, Switzerland, Belgium, Denmark... The claim is that many people didn't know they were going to kill the jews when the Nazi party won not deep into the war you dunce. Stop talking about Germany please. You have no clue about anything, and you apparently cannot understand complex situations. And you dont seem to understand simple arguments Look at that data. The November 1932 election was the last free election, so 1933 doesn't count. Yes, the Nazis were the biggest party. But they were also unable to form a coalition with any other party, so they couldn't create a government. We don't have FPTP in Germany, and didn't back then. In a parliamentary system, having 30% of the vote doesn't matter if you cannot convince another 20% to work with you. Again, the claim is that a party who openly wants the mas killing of a race wouldn't get to power or be the most popular party in your own fucking country, unless you think one third of you German ancestors were mass murdering maniacs.------------------------------- Reading comprehension sucks in here so heres again for like the nth time, the claims were: - Nazis didn't openly call for the mass murder of jews before the war, they were concealing their intentions since expulsion is more palatable for the public. - Many jews and germans also didn't know that was their goal until it was too late. Even if that were the case, it’s still a good use case for some kind of hate speech laws or similar mechanisms no? Forgive me if I’m misremembering or misintepreting but wasn’t this tangent jumping off that discussion? No, you don't kill an idea through censorship, on the contrary you make them powerful as a taboo, "sun light" disinfects, it kills bad ideas through talking about them and proving why and how they are bad ideas. Okay so by this logic the original Nazi Party should've never become the most popular and largest party in 1930s Germany because (edit: aside from the brief suspension following the Beer Hall Putsch) nobody had attempted to censor Nazi symbolism or speech up to that point, right?
Then now that there's censorship in Europe that means there are no hate crimes right?
Freedom of speech doesn't mean that people won't follow bad ideas, we are humans, flawed and fallible, it's just that talking about these ideas is the best way to sort the bad ones from the good ones, not from a central authority.
|
On March 23 2026 22:13 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2026 18:25 baal wrote:On March 22 2026 23:32 WombaT wrote:On March 22 2026 20:18 baal wrote:On March 22 2026 19:41 Simberto wrote:
Where do you walk from Germany or Poland and are safe? Literally the only place i can come up with is Switzerland. Everything else in Europe is full of Nazis at some point of the war. To get to safety, you need a ship, either to England or the US or some place like that. Those are not free. And funnily enough, the places you might get to to be safe actually denied you entrance. France, Switzerland, Belgium, Denmark... The claim is that many people didn't know they were going to kill the jews when the Nazi party won not deep into the war you dunce. Stop talking about Germany please. You have no clue about anything, and you apparently cannot understand complex situations. And you dont seem to understand simple arguments Look at that data. The November 1932 election was the last free election, so 1933 doesn't count. Yes, the Nazis were the biggest party. But they were also unable to form a coalition with any other party, so they couldn't create a government. We don't have FPTP in Germany, and didn't back then. In a parliamentary system, having 30% of the vote doesn't matter if you cannot convince another 20% to work with you. Again, the claim is that a party who openly wants the mas killing of a race wouldn't get to power or be the most popular party in your own fucking country, unless you think one third of you German ancestors were mass murdering maniacs.------------------------------- Reading comprehension sucks in here so heres again for like the nth time, the claims were: - Nazis didn't openly call for the mass murder of jews before the war, they were concealing their intentions since expulsion is more palatable for the public. - Many jews and germans also didn't know that was their goal until it was too late. Even if that were the case, it’s still a good use case for some kind of hate speech laws or similar mechanisms no? Forgive me if I’m misremembering or misintepreting but wasn’t this tangent jumping off that discussion? No, you don't kill an idea through censorship, on the contrary you make them powerful as a taboo, "sun light" disinfects, it kills bad ideas through talking about them and proving why and how they are bad ideas. Have you been hibernating for the last 10-15 years? Sure it can work in many instances, in others we’ve collectively seen that absolutely not be the case
I'm not sure what you are referencing to?, the deplataforming of the alt-right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
