[Hearsay, I don't actually know more than what has been reported in the news ...]

So the few payouts for normal claims would be dwarfed by the war insurance premium currently being charged. They could even offer a discount to loyal clients and still have insane margins.

Yeah, I don't see how the US is coming out ahead in this conflict. Israel might have won some against their adversaries, setting them back a while or two.

Corrupted but there's more I guess.

Maybe Trump should bomb them some more?

The fact that many states are now using it for funding purposes to get around the banking system further adds proof to bitcoin's potential origin.

Also, it doesn't help that Satoshi Nakamoto means basically central intelligence in Japanese...

I'm not saying Bitcoin was created by the government, but if it was there are signs...

There are protests against the war/against the US/against Israel in major capitals, the Lego videos go viral, news regularly mention EU heads of state talking to Iranian ministers. After weeks of the strait being shut, no EU country has joined US and Israel. Every EU opposition party is including the end of the war in their manifesto. Does any of that look like no support?

For most of the world, Iran is the victim of two dangerous countries. I bet you a tenner that when the US and Israel give up and the end of the war is officially announced, there'll be dancing in your streets.

Poe's Law in action, I guess. In general, sarcasm isn't a good way to have a good discussion. Better to just say what you mean, rather than the opposite of what you mean, with the assumption that everyone will know you didn't actually mean it.

"never get blocked again" just like when it was claimed by the U.S. it wouldn't be blocked in the first place, or that it would only be a few days...sure sure. I'm sure the IRGC is about to call the European and U.S. leaders and tell them how bigly they are and how scared of more bombing they are.

I guess it might work if shipping company is non-Western (such as Chinese or Russian) - but I’m not sure what the advantage of bitcoin is in that case, as opposed to simply paying in yuan or rubles

Shock of the unsavvy

And cryptocurrency should be even better for deniability. In reality it would be a really good idea for certain governments that rely heavily on Middle Eastern oil (e.g. Philippines) to pay fees in the short term. More than a month ago the Philippines was already claiming to have "safe and preferential access", if that involves money they'll pay it. (https://www.rappler.com/business/philippine-flagged-ships-sa...)

The US already has a navy and already can and will protect US shipping interests (which may include allies or other entities). What will the rest of the world do?

> It would be nice if they hadn't stuck their dick in this particular bee hive. It's not that we collectively expect the US to secure shipping, but that we would be happy if the US didn't take actions seemingly calculated to make life worse for everyone else on the planet.

You don't expect the US to secure shipping but the rest of the world does. Don't mistake your fantasies (let's blockade the US? Are you American? Do you hate yourself that much?) for what the rest of the world thinks.

> I am just waiting for the EU\UK\AU to get its shit together and clean up Trumps mess, so we can move to the point where the global order works without the US.

Not going to happen. More likely the UK and Australia will join the US. The European Union just is not capable politically to solve or address these sorts of problems. Does Germany even have a navy? What will France do, park their one aircraft carrier outside of some random country and yell very loudly? There's no will or ability to do these things.

And for what it's worth, I admire the EU in a lot of respects and love visiting various countries in Europe. Everyone is incredibly nice and happy to talk to Americans.

But while I'm being harsh here, it's the truth. Europe has no will or ability to do things that need to be done militarily. You cannot diplomatically solve every problem. Iran will be happy to meet you, sell you a story, then go build a nuclear weapon and seize the Strait and laugh at the stupid Europeans behind their backs. This is how they operate.

> The US didn't provide these services just for the fun of it, it's largely just a soft power move, to engender the willing support of other nations. We can and will have successful global trade without the USA. And we can and hopefully will just let the empire rot and seethe from behind its own closed borders.

It's a soft power and hard power move. You won't have successful trade without the USA - please stop these immature fantasies. They're not healthy for you.

> Iran's economy wasn't exactly in the best position before this.

Yes, and you can think the Ayatollah and IRGC for that. Instead of spending money on their people they spend them on missiles for no reason. But the oil trade is a lifeline for their economy. The blockade is working pretty well and now Iran is flailing around trying hare-brained schemes like trying to get ships to pay Bitcoin to get permission to pass through the Strait that the US has blockaded.

> I wouldn't underestimate them. At least not again.

We haven't underestimated them.

> The US losing decades of work on shoring up willing support and soft power is a massive defeat. And it comes off the back of several other similar losses. It used to be the case that a lot of the planet put "America first" but that's becoming an untenable position. Trump has successfully turned worldwide public opinion against the US. It's electoral suicide in a lot of countries to give in to his nonsense. Every ounce of good will towards the US bought since WW2 has been spent.

If it was so cheaply lost it wasn't worth much in the first place.

> Not like a lot of this has been going on. Looks like France is supplying 2/3rds of Ukraines intelligence. Actually the reverse is true here. If the US wants to retain some shred of its predominant position, it needs to get stuck in. Otherwise honestly we will just manage without you.

Ok if you'll manage without us I say we just stop altogether and lift sanctions on Russia. We can withdraw from NATO and move American forces from Europe. If that's what you want, of course. (It's not)

Oh and how conveniently you forget the US and UK were the ones actually delivering missiles and intelligence and more to Ukraine at the early stages of the war. The US even today is bombing Iran and taking out drone manufacturing capabilities so they can't supply Russia who turns around and bombs Ukrainians.

> There's been US weapons in basically every war zone going back decades.

You're so ready to defend Iran/Russia that you're twisting in circles saying the US didn't bomb Iran enough, and the US is also bad because we left some light trucks in Iraq, and coming to the moral defense of Iran building drones to sell to Russia to kill Ukrainians because US bad. You know European countries, China, and Russia and more sell weapons too, right?

> Only slight correction is that the US sees Israels interests as its own vital interests, or can be reliably fooled into doing so at everyone else's expense.

Maybe the US and Israel are just right and you're wrong. I certainly think so too.

Why did Saudi Arabia attack Yemen? For fun? No, they were reacting to Iran-backed terrorist groups. Why did Iraq attack Iran, for fun? No, even back then they were reacting to Iran exporting their terrorism to Iraq.

Their strategy has been to try to look innocent by avoiding direct attacks from Iran and have diplomats that pretend Iran is a nice actor on the international stage, while using their country as a stable foundation for exporting terrorism. This isn't exclusively a strategy for achieving state power, it is a religious imperative to achieve a radical vision of global Islam.

The US has worked with the Middle East for many years to settle on some kind of peace after thousands of years of conflict (which was also the case for Europe). There can never be peace as long as Iran manufactures conflict regularly.

When the US does things, there is usually a strong and valuable logic behind it, even if it is not expressed publicly. For Iran, the reasons tend to be religious. Their goals and behaviors are not the same as you would expect from a rational state actor.

No they don't, that is ridiculous. In what way could US citizens take collateral damage in this war? They aren't in harms way at all. You could argue they use Israeli and Arab civilians as human shields since they are the ones taking the attacks, but not American ones. And even for the Arabs that has US bases there are no girl schools inside those US bases like Iran puts in theirs. (the girl school was inside the walls of an irgc base, probably an old repurposed house)

"However, the strait is governed by international law under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This grants international vessels and aircraft the right of transit passage, meaning coastal states cannot suspend this movement, provided ships transit continuously and expeditiously for the sole purpose of normal travel."

Which makes the blockade and asking for tolls illegal under the international law, though pretty sure most countries do not care about international law at all.

Let's see first if this ends as an endless war - although you could make the argument that there has been a "war" between those two nations for about 47 years, which yes seems like an endless war :/

> The least worst option.

Personally I disagree with that conclusion.

The US began to patrol the strait with Destroyers and immediately stopped when the scared Saudis immediately realized that Iran was about to attack Saudi oil rigs.

--------

Iran has too many targets and the only thing that can stop them is the equivalent to an Israeli Iron Dome across the entirety of the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE, maybe more.

Unless your interceptor system is unobtainium laser system with unobtainium cooling system, backed-up by unobtainium power source, you are going to run out of interceptor missiles (or even Phalanx bullets) way sooner than 'million missile attempts'.

Quite possibly 100-200 Shaheds + half a dozen proper anti-ship missiles will cause you to turn tail.

Same for the major airports, they keep working, people keep flying to the asia, albeit in less numbers.

However, it can be simultaneously true that most countries in Western Europe and many in the Middle East have under-invested in their military readiness for so long, they've lost the ability to secure their own strategic interests. You're right to be annoyed other countries provoked a regional bully for their own misguided reasons. While Trump is our problem, relying on a bully like Iran not being a bully against the EU's global interests is Europe's problem.

Unfortunately, we live in a world of super powers including Russia, China and, yes, even the U.S. who at best have their own strategic interests which may not always align with yours and at worst will take from you whatever you can't defend. If you can't secure your own economic interests militarily, there will eventually be steep costs. Even if your own country carefully tiptoes around bullies for fear of provoking them, you can still be trampled under the feet of other countries fighting for stupid reasons which have nothing to do with you.

Note: I say this as an American who likes our European allies and who thinks Trump has been an idiot on almost everything. Even back when Trump was just a bad reality TV host, I could see the U.S. should stop trying to be "World Police." It was never going to be sustainable over decades and it was distorting the behavior of other countries, both enemies and allies. Since the end of the cold war the U.S. has subtly harmed our allies by enabling some of them to under-invest in their own military readiness.

We agree with them. Their regime needs to go.

In the US, we will be rid of the current administration in less than 3 years and MAGA will end with it. If the Iranian people had the same choice American citizens do, they would have voted their regime out and current events would be very different.

Here we are.

That's a little unfair, it would be more accurate to say that the US has war gamed the region for decades and had a good grasp of the pitfalls and requirements, and then to add that the current US administration ignored all that prior work and insight and simply blundered in on a whim.

Imagination land.

>No more American meddling would result in much saner and safer world. Wherever they stick their fingers, the instability and wars ensue.

We need the USA to defend us against the results of the USA defending us.

The chaos and stupidity narrative only mask and sustain the far grimmer reality of this operation.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c79jqx1xdy9o

Piracy has to be the canonical example of criminals under international law...

Whereas if it's not traceable then all that others know is that your ship got through the strait and there's at least some plausible deniability of why it got through

Though to be fair, there is currently an actual oil blockade run by the USA. And the previous embargo imposed sanctions on international entities dealing with Cuba, so it was not exactly 100% open even though technically you could sail there.

Our Glorious Leader :: Their Wicked Despot

Our Great Religion :: Their Primitive Superstition

Our Noble Populace :: Their Backward Savages

Our Heroic Adventurers :: Their Brutish Invaders

Our Legal Embargo :: Their Illegal Blockade

You are not responding to the debunking of your "Value doesn't have anything to do with utility" claim.

The only relevant thing I can see here is that yes, the volume is too low to provide any sense of untracability for the scenario discussed. It might for paying your VPN subscription.

there are so many options from coil guns, to lasers, to jammers, to non-nuclear EMP's, ... that don't involve the caricature of a million dollar missile intercepting it.

You're living in the past. There's a reason that European countries are rushing to increase their technology independence from the US.

The countries whose "values and incentives" align with the current US administration are countries like Russia, China, and a number of countries in the Middle East. Orban's Hungary was another but that's behind us now.

Using conventional weapons only, what prior year's US Navy could beat the 2026 US Navy in combat?

> The stupidity is astounding.

They "released the files" and handed out binders of Epstein documents to influencers. There was a ton of posting as though something monumental had happened. They were entirely comprised pre-existing publicly released information.

That's how much the admin respects the intelligence of its base and that's how much its loudest supporters think things through.

"freedom of navigation" seems to be from UNCLUS no? So why should a country (Iran) that didn't ratify UNCLUS care about the terms it binds it's signatories to?

> In 1959, Iran altered the legal status of the strait by expanding its territorial sea to 12 nmi (22 km) and declaring it would recognize only transit by innocent passage through the newly expanded area. In 1972, Oman also expanded its territorial sea to 12 nmi (22 km) by decree. Thus, by 1972, the Strait of Hormuz was completely "closed" by the combined territorial waters of Iran and Oman.

World war 2 was the war of 3 different evil ideologies, you had the fascists vs the communists vs the imperialist England and France. The war ended with both the Imperialists and the Fascists defeated so European imperialism ended there, England and France had to give up their colonies.

If not for USA likely Europe would still have colonies and just be as imperialist as they used to be, same with Japan. USA might not be as good as these defeated imperialists, but it was still USA that ended the age of European imperialism that was so much worse than anything USA has done since ww2.

(I'm a European)

You don't pay money to terrorists to make them not bomb your stuff, you eliminate the terrorists, otherwise you get more terrorists.

The truth will come out eventually. When the US finally realizes how cringe their awful leader is. Like when you finally realize how your friends thought about your partner after the breakup.

Hilariously the USS George HW Bush had to go the long way around Africa rather than risk transiting the Bab El Mandeb after the Houthis defeated the US Navy last year.

These are power plays to signal that world dominance is not decaying but in case of Iran it has backfired and pushes China’s narrative as a pillar of stability.

If it was just USA and Israel and Nato even then you'd see a ton of ships go through and the world wouldn't be very affected, since almost all ships that go through the strait are not Nato aligned.

It's fair to say the British navy is a shadow of the former British navy that more or less conquered the world. It's also obvious the current one with an aircraft carrier would beat the former one with wooden ships and cannons.

The same applies to the US navy even when the difference is the quality and quantity of integrated circuits and not the difference between a telescope and radar.

Tell that to Iran's former parliamentary deputy speaker who said 'When we began our nuclear activity, our goal was indeed to build a bomb. There is no need to beat around the bush.'[1]

[1] https://www.dailymail.com/sciencetech/article-15732615/iran-...

What does Iran still have to lose? Well, a lot. All their oil is exported through the strait that is now blockaded by the US. The regime while having survived so far and executing thousands of people is still vulnerable over the long term. Leaders can still be hit and potentially the penetrations that led to the success of the initial strikes is still there. Iran's energy sector which is what the regime needs to maintain control (pay salaries etc.) has still not been hit. Other strategic targets that are dual use have also still not been hit.

Iran is never going to capitulate, until it capitulates. Their rhetoric is going to remain that the US has no more levers and can't change anything, because admitting otherwise invites those levers to be engaged. There is some truth to certain individuals likely willing to pay a large price but it's far from clear how deep and wide that extends and what is the tipping point. It is possible that Iran can withstand an oil blockade and even a resumption of air strikes for a very long time but it's also possible they can't. I can't tell and I doubt many people can. There are analysts and various experts with all sorts of opinions.

EDIT: Some of you may remember the Iraqi rhetoric before the US invasion. Then when the US attacked Iraq it crumbled like a paper tiger. The US lost 139 people or so (the coalition lost a bit more) to take Iraq and the Iraqi army largely surrendered or ran away. Assad's huge army with tanks and fighter jets, supported by Russia, collapsed from a bunch of ragtag ex-ISIS guys on Toyotas. The Iranian regime is a lot weaker than what you'd think by listening to them talk because any projection of weakness is the end of them. Ofcourse the US Iraqi invasion ended up very badly after this tactical success and that's the actual problem. Defeating Iran on the battlefield - not so much.

You don't think autocrats have a strong incentive to not die?

The JCPOA obviated the need for a nuke. It was a reasonable assumption that the US would honor its side of the agreement under the doctrine of continuity. Even in hindsight, you cannot have productive diplomacy without good faith

I think Israel and probably the US interpreted this tactic as Iran stalling until they Iran had the technology to build a nuclear ICBM.

> Do you not think horrible behaviors should be highlighted/called out/brought up? Or just that US leadership Epstein connections should be?

If non-sequiturs are your best argument, then yes, you you have nothing to contribute by participating in good-faith speculation. Iranian child marriages do not reframe the "Tail that Wags the Dog" scenario in Washington. It's textbook whataboutism that you failed to elevate into meaningful commentary, making you look suspiciously disengaged.

But when talking about international law in this instance, America started the aggression, which was a breach of International Law itself, so why should Iran abide by it?

1. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Reagan_s...

That's because the US has kept the surface combatants far back from the Persian Gulf for the duration of the war.

As far as we know, they have attempted to run the strait twice and had to turn back because they were under sustained attack.

I assume these ships can defend themselves for some period of time, but eventually the munitions run out, and they become sitting ducks. There is a reason the US Navy fled the Persian Gulf on Feb 26 and has not returned since.

Stop laughing for a minute because I do have a point.

As a software engineer, I typically build something and engineer it so I can iterate quickly and improve it. I know that the first version won't work.

Isn't this a perfect opportunity for Iran to iterate on sinking cargo ships? I'm struggling to believe that a regime that is (allegedly) weeks away from a nuclear bomb wouldn't be able to keep launching missiles at ships until they notice the right type of hole.

And, think of the apprenticeship opportunities.

And large merchant ships, especially crude oil tankers, and quite tough to sink. When they take a hit it usually just causes some damage.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48199184 "The same UN that Pedophile Trump denounced as a "feckless institution"" - tremon

> DH1. Ad Hominem.

> An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. [..] It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though

Though this use appears to also being used as name calling in addition to just being used as an ad hominem.

>DH0. Name-calling.

>This is the lowest form of disagreement

Though again PG was specifically referring to situations where people within a discussion use this sort of discourse aimed at other people in the discussion whom they disagree with.

From the article on ad homimen "Saying that an author lacks" again, I never went after the other posters here (until later in this reply in order to productively highlight points brought up by others). PGs article is about responding to posts and how speak civilly (the posters here being 'the author' he is referring to). I see quite a few posts replying to me speaking to me specifically contrary to the entire point of the PG article. For example "Only if you don't care to read past bullet point 1. If you had cared enough to read" of your own post.

But to your point, the original comment by spiderfarmer that I responded to initially must really trigger your 'ad hominem attack' concerns:

" the moronic US, their feeble leader as well as their utterly corrupt and incompetent politicians. A toxic mix of staggering arrogance, moral bankruptcy, a lack of strategic thinking, non-existing historical awareness and a desperate need to divert attention because of the Epstein files.

Try debating a MAGA supporter. The stupidity is astounding."

No, there is no reality where the world will let Iran take tolls here, no matter what happens that part wont happen. The world depends too much on straits being open and toll free, if you let that slide once it will be done by others and that will break down the entire world order.

How does one not see a problem with terrorists(i.e. the Islamic regime in Iran) getting nuclear weapons?

The "enemy of my enemy" concept suggests that even if the people hate their government, their immediate pain is being caused by the United States and Israel, so I'm less confident about that.

> Iran does not think they are dealing with a madman.

Iran does think they are dealing with a mad man, or at least a government practicing a policy (as the US administration's apologists have termed it) "intentional volatility".

A far more interesting issue here is the oil supplies available in the Pacific. Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia, Australia, and others are all ramping up production capacity. Non-OPEC oil production is increasing generally in response. This is likely to undermine the Middle East's ability recovery from current constraints as non-OPEC players gain clout in the markets.

Right now people are talking about China and California have limited supplies. But those are enormous, powerful entities that are deploying multi-pronged strategies to secure energy resources. Look at what they're doing and bet there. You also see developing countries retooling to support less oil-intensive economies, like increasing work-from-home options. Solar and wind are currently feeling weak without their subsidies but are exhibiting staying power as people look to move off more petroleum-dependent energy resources.

As for the tactical issue, the concept people seem to be trying to get at is "cost-per-kill". That needs to come down. Yes, we can kill drones with supersonic interceptors. But spending $6M to shoot down a $6K drone has terrible long-term economics.

No one knows but the Iranian leadership. The Iranian leadership has been famously bad at modeling the intentions and motivations of other nations leaderships. A bolt of the blue decapitation strike, followed by the US having plan if Iran closes the straits which is the obvious response by Iran, does at face value appear to be the work of a madman. Now in the US we might conclude that Trump and Hegseth are just wildly incompetent and unprepared, but it seems likely to me that Iranian leadership see irrationality instead of incompetence.

Rest of the world is quite pissed with USA. But that's just emotion. Unless it gets realised into something concrete it matters little.

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/tens-of-thousands-of-pedop...

https://apnews.com/article/israel-gaza-war-palestinians-pris...

The extreme narrowness of the strait right next to so much enemy-controlled shoreline is a unique problem. All of the destroyers and frigates from all the world's navies combined couldn't sustain protecting the massive number of merchant vessels wishing to transit the Strait of Hormuz on a daily basis.

Ships need a robust, sustained ceasefire.

That's not something that's ever been in contention, it's very much the reason that was put forward to justify the ongoing and (relative to A-bomb) cheaper conventional weapons HE-I bombing missions.

Hence my pointing toward that bombing program as the real root of inspection re: ethics.

The nuclear program (put into motion by the Allied MAUD committee) was intended for the German theatre and after consuming vast resources was left hanging when Germany surrendered prior to the Trinity device test .. the argument to test the two weapon designs was (at that time) very much a zero friction zero consideration kind of thing that dovetailed into the existing targeting lists.

Worth bearing in mind that either or both weapon devices may very easily have failed in the field.

My interest in that event lies with it being a prime example of something that just flowed into happening at the time and was later retconned into being some kind of deeply considered a priori known to be significant and pivotal event.

Houthis closed their straight some years ago and US wasn’t able to do anything about that neither. And Houthis are nowhere near as capable as Iran.

US gambled on decapitation strike and failed.

You also have a lot more tries with cheap drones since the target is lower value, so you have hundreds of data points on how each iteration performs vs hitting a naval ship which is an extremely rare event, so it's hard to see whether your iteration on a rocket actually succeeded.

Is Trump really trying to appear to the Iranians as being irrational here as a negotiation strategy? Is he saying "don't mess with me I'm crazy"? I would counter that he is aggressive and rational. He is saying I am willing to use force and he uses force. His use of force feels fairly rational within the stated goals of forcing Iran to give up their nuclear weapon program (as a minimum short term objective) with maximalists goals of either replacing the regime or removing their offensive capabilities.

If this is irrational, what does a rational use of force look like? Do we agree that without the use of force Iran wouldn't give up their nuclear weapons program? What is true is that the use of force has consequences and of course it would be better to accomplish your objectives without the use of force. Why can't we all get along sort of thing. But Trump (and not just him, many people around him) believe there is no path that doesn't involve the use of force. They tried a bit before and they seem to be trying now before using even more force. I happen to agree there was no path that doesn't involve the use of force and likely more force is going to be needed. The Iranian "we can't agree because we don't trust the US" is an obvious lie aimed at those who oppose US policy (both in the US and out of the US".

All that said, there is still a question of whether the US is willing to use enough force over a long enough duration to accomplish its goals. If the end result is force use, price paid, and a nuclear Iran with long range ballistic missiles, then it's a pretty bad outcome. This is the outcome many are pushing for.

EDIT: In terms of the Iranian lies. If they are saying we can't agree to "suspend our nuclear program for 10 years" because the US and Israel will promise not to attack us and then they will - they are absolutely right. The US and Israel will attack them. That's not a "trust" or rationality issue. We know the Iranians won't keep this agreement because they haven't kept any agreement. We know they won't allow the IAEA random inspections of any site and even if they did they're capable of hiding their activities. The problem is they are not sincere. If they were sincere they would offer and keep the conditions that ensure that they will not be attacked. If they actually suspend their nuclear program (doubtful) and instead build 100k conventional ballistic missiles that's a threat to Israel that is equal to the nuclear threat. And so ofcourse they would be attacked. For them not be attacked they need to actually give up on the religious/ideological ideas and they can't. You might say this is a very opinionated take but it's backed by evidence and with what Iran says on these topics.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIDNonMDSo8

Also, are you just patently unaware? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israel

Also you didn't state why Israel is allowed to have nuclear weapons.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-kept-his...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/world/middleeast/trump-ir...

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/trump-...

Many including Trump have long said the deal was a terrible deal. You can disagree with that (and you'd be wrong) but I'm not sure how we get from that to your statements.

Enough evidence? What sort of evidence are you looking for? Can you provide evidence for your claims?

EDIT: Also can you prove that we are looking to get the "same deal" we used to have?

The JCPOA was set to expire on 18 October 2025 after which Iran would not have any limits on pursuing their nuclear program. Are you suggesting the US is seeking a deal now that Iran would pause their nuclear program until 2025? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal#Expiration

EDIT2: The JCPOA:

- Kept the Iranian regime in power with massive capital influx resulting in horrendous human rights abuse and 10's of thousands of deaths.

- Was being violate by the Iranians. Iran had nuclear sites at Turquzabad, Varamin, and Marivan, which they hid from the IAEA (something that was discovered after Israel stole documents about the Iranian nuclear program). Iran hasn't declared those sites and generally refused access to them for years after the fact. When the sites were eventually inspected years later (in 2020) there was evidence of undeclared nuclear material. https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/06/1164291#:~:text=Iran%20...

- Was time bound and didn't address many other issues.

- Trump said he would withdraw from the agreement. That was his election promise. Trump also said on multiple occasions (and in fact it had been US policy forever) that Iran would never be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

Any rational person adding would agree that the US attack on Iran is in line with its long standing policy. They would also agree that Iran had no other reason for the amount of highly enriched Uranium they amassed other than the manufacturing of nuclear weapons. So I'm not seeing the irrationality here. Ofcourse if your position is that Iran should have nuclear weapons, should oppress their people, and should use proxies to attack others then from your perspective this is an unwelcome development. It's still rational though.

By the US not being reliant on imports I was saying that even with just local crude oil production the US can satisfy internal demand for petroleum products.

My wider point is that of course everyone knows that that's not how the economy really works and I was replying to nradov oversimplifying by pointing out that if it was that simple US petrol prices wouldn't have gone up as much as they did. Because even though it's only a few countries with specific refineries that are actually reliant on the straight being open to get their specific required flavour of crude it's everyone in the refined markets that are actually effected by the supply of that crude because it effects the supply those refined products.

The UN(which is itself a party that has perpetuated the conflict through mismanagement of the UNRWA) has essentially zero credibility in regard to anything involving Israel[0].

> You say there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism, then said nothing to explain how you applied the term with such confidence to the Iranian government in your original post.

The Iranian government is engaged in both direct and indirect terrorism throughout the region by virtually all commonly used definitions including the ones you listed. They have directly attacked virtually all countries in the region. They are driven by dangerous ideologies of Martyrdom and Jihad.

> The same UN Commission found that Israel deliberately targeted civilians, deliberately destroyed healthcare and education infrastructure, imposed starvation conditions, and directly targeted children. That is premeditated. It is politically motivated. It is violence against noncombatants. By the U.S. government's definition, it fits.

A highly biased UN commission claiming something doesn't actually make it true.[1] Israel does not have a policy of deliberately targeting civilians, although in a war there is often collateral damage. This is why properly analyzing intent is so important.

> These are not fringe backbenchers. These are cabinet ministers in the current Israeli government. This is declared policy, not a vague expression.

Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich are highly unpopular in Israel and have been largely excluded from making war related decisions, Israel has a parliamentary system of government which makes it easier for extremists to get elected than in a system of government like the United States, their statements should certainly not be taken as official Israeli government policy.

> You still have not answered why Israel is allowed to have nuclear weapons.

Legally they are not a party to the NPT[2]. From a practical standpoint they are a small country facing existential threats to their existence so it's not surprising they would want to have nuclear weapons as a deterrence.

[0] https://unwatch.org/pillay-commission/

[1] https://unwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/UN-Watch-Rebu...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferatio...

How is their support, or lack thereof, irrelevant to our discussion that is literally about whether they support the war? Here is a reminder of the topic, from the post you replied to:

> Assisting the US with regard to Iran is phenomenally unpopular. The increase in energy prices isn't outweighing people's desire not to have their country assist.

That poster and I are just explaining how things work. Seems like you might agree with us here? Indeed, since most other countries do not support the war, their ability to act is irrelevant.