re: National Review: We are worse off than before

quote:

---

It is clear that American officials underestimated how cheaply and easily Iran could lock up the strait, even after its major offensive capabilities were disabled.

---

It is clear the bozo author has no effing clue what a stupid statement that is, given Iran's past movement toward a nuke. They always could shutdown the strait, whenever they wanted, for whatever reason they wanted. The closer to a nuke they got, the more likely they'd close the strait and exact massive tolls. That was ALWAYS THE PLAN!

Closing the Strait now is an act of war, but not against the US. We lose relatively little from the closed strait. Rather it is an act targeting the ME, Europe, India, and the Far East. Those forces, had they any spine, would band together, tell Iran it must open the strait, or face losing the southern half of its country in a ground action.

In fact, a great move by China would be to take on that task "in behalf of the world."

quote:

---

And yet, they only closed it when the US/Israel started a war preemptively.

Something literally all of the world knew would happen, except the US, apparently.

---

Damn, they closed the strait where India, Japan, and South Korea get most of their oil and lng? That’s unfortunate.

Totally unrelated, did you know the U.S. is now the largest oil producer in the world, and the largest exporter of lng? What a crazy coincidence.

We can't unilaterally make up the gap for many reasons.

We import billions in petro each year for a reason. We are not even self sufficient petro-wise

This also ignores the economic impact. You destroy even just the European economy and this drags down our economy, too. Do it to China, Japan, SK, India, etc and you trend to global Depression.

quote:

---

National Review: We are worse off than before

---

There are many great new sources of information on the current state of affairs out there that didn’t exist ten years ago. Why would anyone with a brain pan rely on National Review for anything? Their position is and always has been Any War at Any Time in Any Location for Any Duration.

If Iran and Russia bow out tomorrow, NR will be screaming that we need boots on the ground in Luxembourg yesterday

quote:

---

How many times have they closed the strait in the past 50 years? That's the discussion. Not vaguely tangential potential outcomes or completely unrelated things like terrorism.

---

You’re trying to define the entire discussion by one metric..whether Iran has formally “closed” the Strait of Hormuz.

That’s not what my original post was about, it was about pattern of behavior over decades…including terrorism.

And that’s not how maritime risk or coercion is measured in the real world.

So I’ll ask you directly:

If there was “no real risk,” as you claimed “for obvious reasons, why have there been decades of naval escorts, ship seizures, mining threats, and repeated harassment of commercial vessels in and around the Strait?

Why did Iran detain U.S. Navy sailors at gunpoint in 2016?

Why do global powers maintain a constant military presence there?

The answer is simple: because the risk has been persistent, not hypothetical. You know, for “muh 47 years”, by the way, that’s not how you use “muh”.

A chokepoint doesn’t have to be officially “closed” to be weaponized. If a country can repeatedly disrupt shipping, threaten transit, and create instability over decades, that is coercive leverage / terrorism in practice.

So no, the discussion isn’t limited to “how many times it was fully closed.”

The discussion is whether Iran has consistently used the Strait as leverage.

And the documented history shows that they have.

If your position is still that there was “no real risk,” then you’re arguing against decades of observable military posture and maritime incidents…not me.

quote:

---

So what in the posted article is inaccurate?

---

Not sure how anyone can argue about the accuracy of this statement.

“It is clear that American officials underestimated how cheaply and easily Iran could lock up the strait, even after its major offensive capabilities were disabled.”

quote:

---

The crying over everything Trump is old.

---

It’s the same old tropes from the same old posters. We’ve just added the “Christ is King” figs to the mix of the other run-of-the-mill figs.

Interesting political climate we are in where everyone just denies news they don’t like.

quote:

---

My statement about “any other nation” wasn’t limited to a single event or a formal closure..it was about sustained behavior over time and how it’s been handled.

---

Without regime change with the US inserting a puppet replacement regime, what is going to be different in the future regarding this "sustained behavior over time"?

quote:

---

And at this point you’ve shifted the discussion again

---

No. I'm engaging in your shift now.

quote:

---

from whether there’s been a long-term pattern of coercion to “what should be done about it” or regime change.

---

I'm showing your (shifted) argument fails without real regime change.

Just to put it down like a sick animal, to hopefully get back on topic.

quote:

---

You originally said there was “no real risk” until this war. That’s what I responded to and the historical record of ship seizures, harassment, and constant naval presence contradicts that.

Acknowledging that pattern doesn’t automatically mean “invade Iran” or impose regime change.

---

I'm not acknowledging anything. I'm killing your shitty diversion attempt.

I'm giving you the presupposition (which is not an acknowledgment) and showing your (shifted) argument is still terrible.