Iran will impose fees on subsea internet cables in Strait of Hormuz - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48183031 - May 2026 (135 comments)
EDit : https://radar.cloudflare.com/traffic
I know cloudflare is not everything, but it's a good bellwether.
But Tasnim and Fars, both Iranian state-linked media channels, laid out more detailed proposals on how Iran could charge license fees to US tech giants for the use and maintenance of undersea cables carrying regional Internet traffic, according to The Guardian. For example, the Tasnim plan described charging tech companies—specifically naming Meta, Google, Amazon, and Microsoft—license fees for cable usage while also claiming that Iran alone has the right to repair and maintain the subsea cables.
Evidence folks in the U.S. leadership are "paying antyhing to Iran"?
Thanks Trump and Bibi! The whole world suffers for these two men.
It was Jimmy Carter that established that the Strait of Hormuz would stay open, through the strength of the US military threat.
And now? The US is a paper tiger, making ridiculous threats via barely used social media platforms and then revoking them with just as little formality. The US has already done its worst, except for nukes, and the threats of nuking Iran are clear fakes.
The US used to be a guarantor of safety on the seas. That appears to have been completely destroyed by the weak leadership in the US.
> The US has never looked, or been, weaker than it is right now.
Nothing has fundamentally changed with respect to American power. If this was true, that America has never been weaker than it is right now, why wouldn't China just go ahead and invade Taiwan? This is the perfect opportunity! Or is it that the US is so strong that even at its weakest point it can deter China from taking military action over Taiwan? Doesn't pass the smell test.
> It was Jimmy Carter that established that the Strait of Hormuz would stay open, through the strength of the US military threat.
And that worked for a long time.
And things change. The world isn't static.
And if the Strait is closed then it, as it is today, is also closed for the Iranians with the ultimate effect of making a cheeseburger cost a few dollars more and people coal-rolling their F-250s around having to spend more to do so. It screws over the rest of the world, but they also allowed this Iranian regime to fester and threaten until it was intolerable.
It's too late now, but the rest of the world which so clearly depends on the Strait of Hormuz should have taken diplomatic and economic action earlier and/or more forcefully to prevent a group of religious cultists and fanatics from seizing control of Iran and then constantly threatening the US. At some point enough is enough and so the failure to act or stand up to these bullies leads to more pain down the road. It's a trap that Europe especially continues to fall in to because culturally they don't understand that bad people exist and you have to use force to stop them. They're learning that about Ukraine now too.
> And now? The US is a paper tiger, making ridiculous threats via barely used social media platforms and then revoking them with just as little formality.
The United States casually walked in and bombed the hell out of Iran's military and killed its leaders. Idk. If I was Iranian I sure wouldn't be looking at the US as a paper tiger when it can go park an aircraft carrier nearby and then bomb all my stuff and there's basically nothing I can do about it except to bomb defenseless oil tankers.
> The US used to be a guarantor of safety on the seas. That appears to have been completely destroyed by the weak leadership in the US.
It's a package deal. In order to be the guarantor of the seas you have to take actions like the on in Iran. All Iran had to do was double, triple, or quadruple its missile stockpile and then try to enact tolls on the Strait of Hormuz and the cost to stop it would be too great. US action today is exactly the role it is playing in guaranteeing safety on the seas. By the way, why is the US the one that has to do this? And if you don't like us doing it, maybe we should stop. I know that's what the far-left and MAGA want - they want isolationism.
Not the first forever war initiated as a Blitzkrieg. Not the last either.
Over the last few years congress passed pieces of legislation (infrastructure bills, healthcare changes, BBB) and used future SPR oil sales as an "offsetting receipt". Basically they say the’ll sell off millions of barrels of SPR holdings, count the future revenue as negative spending on paper, and use that money to pay for entirely unrelated legislative projects to make bills look deficit-neutral.
Yet another source for deficit spending (to the tune of $20bn) that doesn’t even show up in the headline numbers. Borrowing from future generations yet again.
(Sorry this is the kind of thing that grinds my gears - setting up some organization that is intended to be revenue neutral and self sufficient, then plundering it when politically useful. Same thing is happening to the Presidio park in SF right now)
1) Oman and Iran both have territorial waters that extend into the center of the strait. See #3
2) What is "non-US backed oil?
3) Every country has the right to control their territorial waters.
4) Governments have worked hard to erode people's privacy rights such that crypto is not as untraceable as people still think.
5) ?
5) ?
6) Let it happen.It's even stupider than the OP said. Aside from the strait, when you destroy Iran's oil facilities, you raise the price of oil for the foreseeable future. When Iran retaliates by destroying the oil facilities of local allies, it raises the price of oil for the foreseeable future. The only beneficiaries are oilmen in the US, Russia and South America, and the US is also supposed to be attacking Russia and South America.
Or blocks repair ships after normal accidental damage?
Why should oil be US-backed :D :D
Man, this forum sometimes.
The one point I'll disagree with is that sanctions do prevent you paying Iran even with crypto. I mean, you can fund your own wallet and give money to Iran but you've technically committed a crime and a pretty serious one. It's also one that's fairly easy to document and prove that you did it.
Oh, also the impact of cutting the world fertilizer supply hasn't hit yet. That'll come later in the year when the harvests are down, primarily in the Global South. This will also impact food prices in the West so look forward to that.
Your last comment suggests weakening of the petrodollar. I don't know if you meant it this way but let me dispel that myth: the USD doesn't have strength and power because oil sales are denominated in dollars. You have it backwards. Oil trades are denominated in dollars because of the demand for dollars and the root of that is the US military.
Not quite. The "petrodollar" deal has helped to bootstrap and anchor the USD strength at a somewhat critical moment of history after the gold peg was "temporarily" suspended, which was effectively a default of the US government (second in the 20th century!).
Sure, today trade of oil in USD no longer plays a significant role in supporting its dominance, but it still plays a role. Together with other factors (such as increased weaponization of the USD-led financial system) rise of alternative settlement systems corrodes the network effects on which USD relies. Each blow in isolation may be insignificant, but their accumulation could become critical owning to the extreme non-linearity of the network effects.
Other countries aren't subject to any US laws. The threat of US sanctions are a just a threat, not any sort of law enforcement.
The nature of trade is a complex web of many interdepdencies and this applies to war too. Like for awhile, the US was letting Iran-flagged ships headed to China and Chinese-flagged ships to pass through the Strait. Why? Because of the repercussions of an energy blockade on China to the US and its allies. China produces like 30-40% of the world's "stuff". China dominates rare earth production and an export ban on that would cripple the US military long-term.
Part of the reason the US is going it alone in Iran is because of all the torched good will from the tariffs. You broke it, you bought it. This event is a seachange in the international order that will take years to play out. What's ironic is that the US designed this international order post-WW2 for their own benefit and they're probably going to destroy it in a single presidential term.
The threat of arrest is a just a threat, not any sort of law enforcement.
The threat of handcuffs is a just a threat, not any sort of law enforcement.
The threat of tasering is a just a threat, not any sort of law enforcement.
The threat of criminal charges is a just a threat, not any sort of law enforcement.
The threat of drone strikes is a just a threat, not any sort of law enforcement.
The threat of literally having your President helicoptered out of your capital by US special forces is a just a threat, not any sort of law enforcement.
This is fun!
Buy at $60, start a war with Iran, sell at the new price, profit.
I guess the reason they didn’t do this is they thought Iran would fold quickly and oil would become even cheaper than $60
There was no strategy, no thinking, no planning, nothing.
The US military has wargamed the Strait of Hormuz to hell, and all that was ignored, or dismissed, or not even considered to be relevant.
The full force of the US military is in the hands of a man who operates on whims based on what his reality TV instincts tell him will look good, and we are seeing the weakness of electing a reality TV star known for his capricious decision making and cruelty.
Yeah, political posturing is dumb, but don't force yourself to accept a dumb premise put forward by someone who doesn't even believe in it themselves.
It's information war to scare US companies away from the middle east.
This is the only fight they've been preparing for. They knew they were going to be facing an overwhelmingly superior navy and air force. That's why everything is dug in, buried and hidden. It's also why the propagandistic idea that they're a "terrorist state" is stupid, because a terrorist state would be prepared to do terrorist damage. The only terrorist arming and funding was from the US and Israel to people in Iran. I don't even see any heightened security at any level in the US - we're not even expecting anything.
Don't believe that the US can eradicate all ability for Iran to do something as trivial as cutting an undersea cable anytime soon. They would still have the ability cut the cables as a last gasp after they were totally defeated at every level.
Indeed, power is about convincing others fear your force. Using force is, in a sense, admitting a lack of power.
Tehran has more potential leverage inasmuch as they've credibly demonstrated they can block the Strait. Whether they have more actual leverage than before is uncertain–trade flows are routing around them. And their own shores remain blockaded. (Just because the U.S. has less leverage than it did before doesn't mean Iran necessarily has more.)
"Shut down" is not particularly accurate. America and Europe can route around. The only ones fucked are the Gulf carriers.
It took an idiot to try and actually use the full force of the USAF against Iran and reveal that the force was manageable- not great, but not going to topple the regime. And once that force was used and Iran's leaders realized it could be survived, that threat became much weaker, forcing a decision onto that previously mentioned idiot, he could either escalate to use greater force (some form of ground troops) or admit that he made a mistake and lost a war. And I suspect that the same will be true for Iran: the threat of cutting those cables is far more potent than the actual effects of cutting the cables.
The Internet is, it turns out, pretty good at routing around damage. The Russians have done some cable cutting in the Baltic Sea and it is annoying but it is not a winning move.
What's to stop them? The enormous pile of ordnance floating in the gulf of oman that can be easily dropped on Tehran, for one...
Probably not. The other comment is right: cutting cables means having its own cables cut. (Tehran is also probably weighing whether it wants to continue mobilising almost all of its neighbors against itself. Trashing e.g. Kuwait for shits and giggles isn't strategically productive.)
Interesting point. It might be a good time for some good old-fashioned false-flag action.
It's always "a good time for some good old-fashioned false-flag action" if you can pull it off. Given Riyadh and Abu Dhabi are already bombing Iran, and are now unaligned, there wouldn't be much for the U.S. to gain from something like this. (And if Israel were to pull off a false-flag operation against the U.S. now isn't better or worse than tomorrow or yesterday.)
> Nothing has fundamentally changed with respect to American power
Yes, actually - Iran is charging tolls and was not doing that before. This is in the face of an American naval blockade right in their neighborhood. That is an affront to power, at least for the moment.
The China point is really immaterial to the instant issue of the Strait, but even there China is very obviously growing more aggressive (cf the recent trip of the Taiwanese president where he had to sneak out of his nation).
> The United States casually walked in and bombed the hell out of Iran's military and killed its leaders.
Yes, but now the Strait transit is being dictated by the new rulers. We can keep killing them but the issue is that we are no longer in control of a situation that we used to be in control of. That's why the paper tiger comparison is apt—for all our bombs, this isn't in our hands.
> there's basically nothing I can do about it except to bomb defenseless oil tankers.
Iran has bombed over a dozen US installations, probably the greatest damage to US military installations in recent memory, if ever. This includes destroying equipment that's worth > $700 M. The oil tankers are kind of a distraction when they can clearly damage all of our allies' infrastructure despite being decapitated by the first strikes.
> In order to be the guarantor of the seas you have to take actions like the on in Iran.
The whole point of this is we cannot guarantee passage in the Strait. I don't think that will over go back to how it was.
> By the way, why is the US the one that has to do this?
We don't and because of this current issue, nobody will be able to do it until our next world war establishes a new, single hegemon. It was convenient while it lasted because it allowed stability for our post-war economy.
I send a bill to every car that passes by my street. It's weird, none of them ever pay it. Iran can charge whatever it wants, but as long as America holds the blockade it doesn't matter. There's a misunderstanding that Iran "controls" the Strait of Hormuz. It doesn't. Control doesn't mean you simply stop others from exercising action, because if that's the case the US is also stopping any ships that Iran allows and is therefore in control.
> The China point is really immaterial to the instant issue of the Strait, but even there China is very obviously growing more aggressive (cf the recent trip of the Taiwanese president where he had to sneak out of his nation).
Well you can't really separate China out from the initial comment I responded to. How is American power the weakest it has ever been but then it's also not changed at all with respect to China? These kinds of statements just don't make sense. It's the kind of thing that feels good to say but is wrong.
> Yes, but now the Strait transit is being dictated by the new rulers.
But it's not because the US controls it too.
> Iran has bombed over a dozen US installations, probably the greatest damage to US military installations in recent memory, if ever.
Yea, now imagine Iran quadruples its drone and missile stockpile and then closes the Strait and then proceeds with accelerating development of nuclear weapons. I'm not sure why folks seem to lack the capacity to project future actions
You're the first one to mention China.
I think this is a bot account, or someone who is letting an LLM write to HN on their behalf.
Also weird: Barely any cars on the street now!
https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/strait-of-hormuz-ports...
Wonder if that's related.
What you're not to accept/acknowledge is this type of reasoning:
The US used to be power level 9000 [for several decades, in the past going back to the 1940s or before]
Now the us is power level 7000
China is currently power level 5000
The statement "The US is weaker than it ever has been [ed. in the lifetime of any current decision maker and relevant to current geopolitical decisions]" is true.
The fact that it's still stronger than China is also true.
It's absurd to pretend you don't understand this.
> Yea, now imagine Iran quadruples its drone and missile stockpile and then closes the Strait and then proceeds with accelerating development of nuclear weapons. I'm not sure why folks seem to lack the capacity to project future actions
What evidence is there that Iran would have shut down the strait at all? The only time they've done so in the last 40+ years is in response to a direct, unnecessary attack.
What evidence is there that Iran would behave differently than any other nation with nuclear weapons - that is use them as a deterrent to prevent pointless meddling by other countries prone to an unnecessary attack?
It seems like what you call a "lack [of] capacity to project future actions" might just be people wanting to avoid wild speculation.
The US has destroyed it's perceived amount of force, ergo it has lost a ton of power. And by not being able to keep the Strait open, it's a de facto demonstration that Trump is a far weaker president than Carter was.
> And things change. The world isn't static.
Yeah, what changed? The US got weak and incompetent leadership. What changed? The US lost power.
Enough coping, we all see what's going on, you can't Jedi mind trick your way out of people realizing the prices they are paying at the pump.
Will China attack Taiwan? You say it's not going to happen because it hasn't happened yet?! It's an obvious fallacy to say that something can't happen because it hasn't happened yet, which is the sum total of your argumentation. The chances of China attacking Taiwan right now have gone through the roof because of the weakness of the US, mostly because of perceived weakness, but also because of the US squandering massive amounts of precision munitions on a strategy with zero gains. When are we going to be able to rebuild all those Patriot missiles? Who knows, the supply chains are long and super slow.
What's really protecting Taiwan right now is Ukraine. By Ukraine taking out Russia's navy through cheap naval drones (thanks UK for your assist there!), Ukraine has provided Taiwan a very thorough path to defense. Both by sea and by air.
Trump also gave up Taiwan in his recent meeting with Xi. Nobody thinks that the US will go to bat for Taiwan anymore, it's all on its own. But thankfully other, less corrupt places like Ukraine have shown the way for Taiwan to defend itself.
In all honesty my friend, from the other side of the pond the US has never looked so weak and ridicule. Every day there's new proof the current rambling leadership has no idea what to do.
> The United States casually walked in and bombed the hell out of Iran's military and killed its leaders. Idk.
Bombed "a" leader, a new one is already up. You can't bomb ideas.
I don't think the Trump administration handled this particularly well, but you're too focused on the short term. Just because a lot of people are ridiculing Trump (and for good reason, I think he belongs in jail over January 6th, and he does lots of dumb things) doesn't mean that the US has changed much. If anything it's getting stronger relative to the rest of the world - both the United States and China seem to be leaving everyone else in the dust.
> Bombed "a" leader, a new one is already up. You can't bomb ideas.
Well, no, this is incorrect. We didn't just bomb a leader, we bombed many leaders in the Iranian government and also in the IRGC. Separately but of course related, Israel has been killing Iranian proxy force leaders in Lebanon and Gaza and elsewhere.
Not all power is measured in military might, that seems to be the mistake the Trump administration has made time and time again.
You're reading the news and hearing about all the bad things about America because that's what everyone cares about talking about and what everyone knows the most about. Most people outside of China can't speak Mandarin, and don't read Chinese news - not that they report bad things that are going on, and so we have to rely on smaller samples of western media outlets.
If you have a perception that the US is knocked down several pegs (whatever that means) it's because you're consuming news that focuses squarely on criticism of the United States.
Oh, come on. NATO and Gulf allies are starting to deny US use of their bases, and Trump's been credibly threatening to leave NATO. We've also nixed a bunch of our soft power programs like USAID.
Your view of the situation doesn't match reality.
Separately, we still have like 11 aircraft carriers and our entire military still in tact. Nothing has changed with respect to our power. If you think otherwise, you are simply wrong. There's no other way to put it.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-05-19/nato-is-s...
Sorry for the paywall, I don't have a subscription but saw the headline on Bloomberg TV. There are other sources but I wanted to be consistent and link where I saw the news.
Even if they decide to do so, why would we expect them to be more successful than the US military - which outspends the entire rest of NATO - at it?
> Separately, we still have like 11 aircraft carriers…
Yeah, and we're straining to keep them handling the load.
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2026/05/11/epic-fur...
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/16/us/politics/uss-ford-fire...
> Separately, we still have like 11 aircraft carriers and our entire military still in tact. Nothing has changed with respect to our power. If you think otherwise, you are simply wrong. There's no other way to put it.
Naval power has shifted massively over the past four years due to massive technology change, and the US has done nothing to adapt or learn from its former ally, Ukraine.
You are simply wrong and outdate in your thinking, and not understanding the current reality. Which is why you accuse others of the same thing, it's classic projection.
That's your perception. It's not the perception of those who matter.
> Enough coping, we all see what's going on, you can't Jedi mind trick your way out of people realizing the prices they are paying at the pump.
I'm glad folks are paying higher prices. We need less c02 in the atmosphere, more transit, and fewer giant trucks screaming around. We need less dependence on oil, too, and we're never going to get there if we keep having cheap and easy access to oil. Part of the reason we're in these wars and conflicts is to secure those oil supplies. These things are linked together. Americans need to start putting 2 and 2 together.
> Will China attack Taiwan? You say it's not going to happen because it hasn't happened yet?!
That's not what I said.
> What's really protecting Taiwan right now is Ukraine. By Ukraine taking out Russia's navy through cheap naval drones (thanks UK for your assist there!), Ukraine has provided Taiwan a very thorough path to defense. Both by sea and by air.
America has provided Taiwan a very thorough path to defense. Not Ukraine.
> Trump also gave up Taiwan in his recent meeting with Xi.
This is factually incorrect. These are the things I'm talking about - people read some headline and then all of a sudden we've gone from this summit and a few random comments to Trump "gave up Taiwan".
More ships always helps - they wouldn't be doing it without the US, it would be with the US.
So the 11 aircraft carriers are not enough, one might say?
If we park all 11 aircraft carriers outside of Iran, how will we have them deployed to support interests elsewhere?
If you want to phrase what that person wrote in this way, then you're going to have to provide deeper analysis than a Dragon Ball Z style power comparison.
> What evidence is there that Iran would have shut down the strait at all? The only time they've done so in the last 40+ years is in response to a direct, unnecessary attack.
While neither of us have intelligence on Iran, you can reason about their activities and speculate on future actions. In the case of the Strait, Iran was stockpiling missiles and drone capabilities and if they continued to do so at the rate they were there is a tipping point where even the mighty US military would struggle to deal with this. Someone else commented about the US Military not learning anything from the Ukraine war, but I'd submit it was the opposite.
We saw how devastating cheap missiles and drones were, and realized if we didn't do something now then Iran could continue stockpiling, declare the Strait closed pending payment, and then work on a nuclear weapon as well leaving the United States (since we're the only one that can do anything) with very limited and unpalatable options.
Now it's fair, certainly, to speculate that Iran had no intention of closing the Strait or whatever, but their actions seem to indicate the opposite.
You can also ask why is it that Iran is the only country stockpiling these weapons systems, working on a nuclear weapon, chanting death to America, and whatnot? Maybe if they stopped doing those things we wouldn't be in this situation. But why would they stop when the IRGC and religious fanatical leadership want to actually do those things?
I think it's unfair to characterize this as wild speculation when anyone can read for themselves from reliable sources about Iran's activities. There seems to be this impression that the Iranian government is like this peaceful government and oh if only the US would just stop bothering them, but that simply does not stand up to reality.
This is some crazy post hoc rationalisation.
They met with Iran, they even had the outline of a deal. Trump was on the cusp of showing that he was a better deal maker than his predecessors (or at least trying to) Israel intervened via Israel aligned lobbyists and suggested they could easily headcap Iran and not need to have a deal at all. They tried and screwed up the strait.
This wasnt some carefully planned "oh no the USA is really scared of cheap missiles we better for the good of the entire world stop Iran now". This was seat of the pants mercenary action on behalf of Israel, and its cost them.
>Now it's fair, certainly, to speculate that Iran had no intention of closing the Strait or whatever, but their actions seem to indicate the opposite.
Until Iran successfully develops a nuclear deterrent, it has literally 1 way of fighting back against the USA. Hurting the oil price. They did this in response to US provocation. Its insane to try and flip cause and effect here. Its like US haspara.
>You can also ask why is it that Iran is the only country stockpiling these weapons systems, working on a nuclear weapon, chanting death to America, and whatnot?
>stockpiling these weapons systems
Heaps of reasons, including self defense. "Only country" is a stretch.
>working on a nuclear weapon
Only way to protect themselves against a larger power, as is the case with other small nuclear armed nations.
>chanting death to America
They are clearly intelligent and have good taste.
>Maybe if they stopped doing those things we wouldn't be in this situation.
Unlikely. Its threatening Israels domination of the region that offends the USA>
>But why would they stop when the IRGC and religious fanatical leadership want to actually do those things?
The USA and its religious fanatical leadership wouldnt recognise any change anyway.
>There seems to be this impression that the Iranian government is like this peaceful government and oh if only the US would just stop bothering them, but that simply does not stand up to reality.
The legitimate issues with the Iranian government that most people have, will not be resolved by bombing their civilian populace into the ground. There are more paths here than bomb them/dont.
"That person" was literally you. I replied to you and quoted you. Are you sure DBz is beneath you?
> Now it's fair, certainly, to speculate that Iran had no intention of closing the Strait or whatever, but their actions seem to indicate the opposite.
It indicates only that they wanted to have a stockpile of weapons... the most common reason for which is to defend the country from attacks. It seems perfectly reasonable that they would want a bunch of weapons in striking range of both attacks from the sea, and of hostile military installations (which were located specifically within range to strike Iran). In fact, given that the 2025 project explicitly targeted Iran it seems very likely that it was a bolstering of defenses (absent other evidence).
> You can also ask why is it that Iran is the only country stockpiling these weapons systems, working on a nuclear weapon, chanting death to America, and whatnot?
They aren't the only country doing any of these things. (semantics aside... maybe they are the only country stockpiling those brands of missles and drones.... but certainly not the only country stockpiling missles and drones, etc).
> I think it's unfair to characterize this as wild speculation when anyone can read for themselves from reliable sources about Iran's activities.
The wild speculation is intent. Each of the actions that you bring up have many possible motives. The idea of Iran attacking directly and initially is a change in M.O. for Iran, and such a claim requires evidence that points directly to it beyond "this one of many possible motives".
> There seems to be this impression that the Iranian government is like this peaceful government and oh if only the US would just stop bothering them, but that simply does not stand up to reality
I don't think may people are saying that at all. They are saying this war was unnecessary for any of the reasons that have thus far been stated because there is no evidence pointing to those reasons being true. The consequential evidence does not add up to a single conclusion, and the direct evidence has not been presented.
You seem to have had an awful lot of the "Iran is irrationally evil and stupid" kool-aid. I don't beleive Iran is a "good guy", but I don't believe in war justifications without good evidence either, particularly not ones that rely on cartoon-level villainy.
It shows that you're wrong about the diplomatic situation. 8 weeks isn't that long of a timeframe. It takes weeks just to move some assets in place. You don't have a good understanding of how long it takes to do these kinds of things.
> Naval power has shifted massively over the past four years due to massive technology change, and the US has done nothing to adapt or learn from its
Factually incorrect. First you can't make a claim that the US has done nothing to adapt or learn from the ongoing war in Ukraine. The reason you can't make that claim, aside from the fact that well, any single change in tactics would prove you wrong, is because the US still to this day is deploying weapons and testing weapons and capabilities in Ukraine on the battlefield.
> former ally, Ukraine.
Also factually incorrect because Ukraine was never a US ally. Secondarily we are still supporting Ukraine and without our help in the early days of the war they would have very likely fallen under a renewed Iron Curtain. America and England were rushing missiles while the rest of Europe was sending helmets and debating whether Russia was even going to invade.
> You are simply wrong and outdate in your thinking
Incorrect. You're parroting catch-phrases and what others tell you and not thinking through things for yourself here.
I think you're living with an alternative set of facts/interpretations from the mainstream, to which you are entitled.
We aren't supporting Ukraine anymore, that is essentially only Europe (via purchasing arms made in the US as well as elsewhere).
I really encourage you to try to think about what evidence undergirds your ideas and how you'd disprove your beliefs, which seem very resistant to current events.
Second, if you pay attention you can read about things like this for yourself:
> https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5876595-ukraine-discharge...
" “We must also send a strong message that Russian support for Iran’s targeting of U.S. military assets will not be tolerated,” he added.
Sponsored by Rep. Gregory Meeks (N.Y.), the senior Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the legislation would affirm U.S. support for Ukraine, slap new economic sanctions on Russia and help to fund Ukrainian reconstruction whenever the war ends.
It also provides Kyiv with additional weapons and military funding. And it declares U.S. support for NATO at a time when the Western treaty alliance has come under fire from President Trump, who has attacked the group and threatened to pull the U.S. from its roster. "
Of course this is one minor example.
You're focusing too much on what Donald Trump says. You need to give him a back seat and stop worrying about whatever dumb thing he tweets.
To respond to the closure of a key naval route that supplies 20% of world oil supply? After months of closure already, with zero response?
This entire thing was started with zero warning, as far as your "diplomatic timelines" go.
Asserting weird and strange judgement calls with extreme confidence, and belittling others' judgement at the same time, is a very weak argumentation style. Perhaps you could provide some evidence that a "watch out we'll talk about this in 8 weeks" is a strong sort of statement of any sort?