We (the usa) can choose to leave at any time. Crying about the effects of your own actions while choosing not to fix it is madness. Don't push your madness on the rest of us
Just think of all the trouble that just 2 dudes are causing in the world. If Putin would simply leave Ukraine and if Trump would just quietly withdraw from the aggression towards Iran things would really calm down. We'd probably get back to lower gas prices as well as lower interest rates. (but of course, neither of them have the temperament to be able to admit that they were wrong)
I suspect it may be too late for Trump at least - he has managed to demonstrate to Iran that they have more power than they thought they did, and it may be quite difficult to return to the pre-war state of affairs.
It seems many countries around the straits are now thinking "Hmm, we can charge ships to pass through...".
I don't think that would have happened without Trump.
Yeah, it's definitely not going to be back to where it was before he started his Iran debacle. He broke it. But now gaming it out it seems like him just deciding to withdraw would be the best outcome that we could probably get. Otherwise just sticking around in the area and issuing threats just causes Iran to react and that effectively keeps the SoH closed (heck, the US even closes it sometimes).
A lot of it isn't about these people in particular. It's about what's happening in their countries. Like it or not Trump is more of a symptom of what's going on in the US than the cause. I know that sounds weird but the inflation that's been eating away at a middle class lifestyle for decades is most of what's getting people so riled up, and the unwillingness to reckon with that by "normal" politicians is what got Trump elected.
Perhaps they are closet climate activists, because raising the price of gas significantly and persistently is realistically the only way we’re ever going to stop burning it.
That's another funny consequence of this conflict: Trump is proud of himself, because he thinks lower exports hurt China, while US oil companies are making record profits. In reality: China's oil reserves are so huge they can last really long time, while their speed up their transformation to renewable energy.
There's a third dude missing in that list to complete the new axis of evil: Netanyahu, without which Trump, as stupid as he may be, would probably never have attacked Iran.
Putin will end the war in Ukraine if Europe's mediocre political class and NATO stop expanding eastward. That Putin gives back what he conquered through war, keep dreaming.
It was deeply stupid for us to start an unnecessary war with Iran, but it's not clear that we can leave any time. Iran is suggesting they will charge fees to traverse the strait, (and attack shirkers) and it's also not clear that Iran has the remaining navy to successfully clear the mines.
It was incredibly stupid to start this war, but we're now fairly well stuck.
I recently read a book from 2015 on the stuxnet hack and a big part of the story is how every president knew how bad a military strike would go. Surreal to read now and the book gave me so much clarity on the current war.
Highly recommend if you like tech AND want some WW II forward context on Iran.
Edit: Countdown to Zero Day is the name of the book.
> Iran is suggesting they will charge fees to traverse the strait,
That's perfectly fine. Let freedom of navigation end. The United States uses its natural resources to wreak havoc on the world, why shouldn't countries gifted with Geography not push their advantage? Particularly when there is no world order and US bombs anyone it wishes whenever it wants? Why should Iran play nice when all it got in return is US aggression? Why should any State adhere to international law when the law is only applied when it's beneficial to the world powers?
When you do things like assassinate a head of state at home along with this daughter and grandchild, double-tap strike a school because AI told you so, and sink a navy show ship at sea without waiting to rescue survivors, you can’t then cry about international law and norms of sea navigation.
Because, given the context of the discussion and the flow of back and forth (for/against Iran’s move on the strait), then the parent is most likely using Oman’s role as a roundabout “look how Iran isn’t respecting international law” rather than a legitimate concern for Oman.
But if you want an answer to the same question but posed with legitimate curiosity, the answer is Oman is OK with this arrangement :)
The strait of Hormuz has multiple pathways going through Iranian and Omani waters. Iran is "free" to charge a toll, assuming they are okay throwing out centuries of international law relating to freedom of the seas.
Considering vessels can just transit through Omani waters, what good would charging a fee do? Everyone would just sail on the western and southern side of the strait and traverse freely.
So for the Iranian fees to ever be collected, either Oman would need to charge similar fees (so there is no way around a fee), or Iran would have to attack vessels in Omani territory.
For the record, Oman signed the No Fees/No Tolls pledge with the rest of the EU literally two days ago.
Ultimately, when international law devolves into “might is right”, expect your adversaries to apply the concept as well. Iran has always been the de facto operator of the strait (by fact of being the strongest regional power bordering the strait), and this will remain going forward. Nitpicking how and why Iran is doing this is not going to change the reality on the ground. It is better to spend energy on preventing wars of aggression of this nature from reoccurring :)
So long story short, is it legal for Iran to restrict access to the strait via Omani waters? Nope. Is there a realistic way to prevent it from doing this by force? Also no. Did Iran wake up and decide to arbitrarily take over control of the strait? Absolutely not. Would Iran be willing to revert to pre-war state if their demands are met? Perhaps. Welcome to realpolitik :)
Oh and as far as restricting access via Iranian waters, Iran is mostly adhering to IL because it hasn’t ratified UNCLOS.
> For the record, Oman signed the No Fees/No Tolls pledge with the rest of the EU literally two days ago.
Thanks for the link, but is this pledge binding in any way, or is it just a symbolic gesture? Because my impression so far has been that Oman is willing to play ball.
For reference the number #1 affected country is the US. It just consumes so much more oil per capita then anyone else and unlike some other countries can't close it's oil import/exports due to logistical reasons.
> The United States uses its natural resources to wreak havoc on the world, why shouldn't countries gifted with Geography not push their advantage? Particularly when there is no world order
You can push an advantage, but the whole "no world order" issue will result in severe repercussions if you start to mess with the wrong people. This is not unique to America.
> US bombs anyone it wishes whenever it wants?
Oh please.
> Why should Iran play nice when all it got in return is US aggression?
Iran playing nice? Are you serious? You know that it's possible to criticize America while not backing a government that has killed at least 40K of its own citizens _this year_. Acting like Iran and its government are somehow passive in global conflicts is insane.
I mean, between bombing fishermen, Iran during negotiations (twice), kidnapping president, threatening Greenland, supporting far right worldwide, supporting Putin, supporting genocide in Gaza a lot more then any other country, supporting far right where possible ...
The fact is, Iran was not attacking Hormuz. Iran was abiding international agreeemets which USA broken. Iran is not nice country, but they had policy of strategic restraint and did not even responded to first negotiation bombing.
The biggest threat to global stability right now is USA. Because the country is violent, crazy and still have a lot of power.
I seriously doubt anything but political calculus about midterms and the sinking polling numbers for Republicans along with kickbacks from private military contracts towards certain connected members of the inner-circle went into the decision matrix for starting this war. It was never about whether or not it made sense - Fukuyama's The End of History has long been totally irrelevant, a little cherry on top of the neoliberal promise of global peace.
That book specifically named Donald Trump as the type of figure who could channel thumotic desire into upsetting the neoliberal order back in the early 90s. The title of that book obviously was to generate attention and sales, not a literal statement.
Fighting with a friend of the US is fighting the US. Aside from the disruption, it'll lead to complaints, and Iran can always say "blame your watchdog for biting first".
Oh, no, it is way too late for that. The strait is closed if we stay, it's closed if we leave, it's just closed forever for everyone that doesn't wanna be attacked or pays the toll to Iran.
This war has shown everyone that it is just too easy to keep a major navigation route closed with drones and mines.
Not sure about this ship, but US Navy shot plenty of civilian ships, those associated with Iran. At this point US isn't even trying to pretend their actions are lawful, by going to UN and trying to pass some resolution against Iran, they are just "we do not like Iran, so we'll strike their ships". But when Iran does the same MAGAs suddenly remember that international law exists.
But speaking about this ship the GP post implied that US it's American's fault. I mean, it may be, we don't know who shot it.
> But when Iran does the same MAGAs suddenly remember that international law exists.
I looked again and the article doesn't quote any MAGAs. I doubt US will go and complain to UN about it? It will probably just shrug, let Singapore defends its ships and sailors.
Iran is committing daily war crimes by firing missiles at civilian ships. The Geneva Convention prohibits the targeting of merchant vessels and civilian crews. The ships are not even entering Iranian territory - they're in UAE/Omani waters and are avoiding Iranian waters the entire time.
Edit: Seeing a lot of whataboutism in the replies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism . Whataboutism is the classic strategy that Soviet propagandists used to distract and avoid accountability. It doesn't answer or invalidate the point at hand.
It's simple. When we do it, it's an accident no one could have forseen let alone stop. When they do it, it's on purpose, against international law, and must be punished.
Most head of states of countries that are not military dictatorship are civilian, i.e. they are not military, but if they rule over the military (such as the American president who is commander in chief of the military) does that count as being treated as a civilian for the purposes of wartime policy?
A similar role was played by Khamenei who was commander in chief of the Iranian armed forces.
Netanyahu is also a civilian and nevertheless the ICC issued an arrest warrant for his responsibilities for the behaviour of the IDF in the war in Gaza.
The formal definition used by the ICC is "civilian superior".
If you have the power to start a war, and you did start and aggressive war against other state, I'd say it's quite a stretch to be called a civilian. You're the one that deserves being taken down the most, as aggression is the highest crime, from which all other crimes follow.
"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
I'm sure Iran are merely interdicting and destroying enemies of the Iranian state. This is extremely normal and should not be condemned.[0] Upholding freedom of navigation is for weak states.
/s if it weren't obvious. Yes Iran is horrible, yes this is whataboutery, but they should be held to the same standard.
All we can say is that allegedly a projectile hit a ship according to the article.
Article title is typical manipulation. "Something happened" as "something else also is happening". :) Very common technique. News website skimmers will conflate the two. Nobody who read the title will go back after 1-3 months to ask what was learned since about what happened, and that will be it.
News websites commonly use this for pumping up xenophobia against immigrants, too, where I live.
UKMTO uses deliberately neutral language, but OSINT analysts have reverse-engineered who has actually did the strike based on the phrasing. They use the same phrasing every time, and it's simple to match the wording with verified incidents.
"struck by an unknown/unidentified projectile" -> involved in an Iranian missile/drone attack
"an incident involving a tanker and military forces" or "subject to interaction as part of ongoing military activity" -> US military strike or blockade action
The United States and Israel started this war themselves (during ongoing negotiations, for the third time!), bombed and killed school children (double-tapped). If you mention international rules, try to not be a hypocrite and look at US/Israel first.
The US should pack up and leave. Hell, they should leave the entire region and start focusing on domestic problems. China is building, while the US is in decline (40T in debt with nothing to show for) and tries to play imperialism.
It sets the terms of engagement. You cant expect the defender in a war to follow a code of ethics thay the aggressor has wiped their ass with. Its just hypocritical
"but whatabout" is cute but how does it relate to a Singapore container ship with 20 crew members being shot at? It's like you're expecting an attack on that ship to undo or counter-balance the attack on the school? I don't get it.
Any ship choosing to pass through the Strait of Hormuz must understand that it passes through a war zone and sinking is a possible outcome.
That was their choice.
At the beginning of the war, USA has boasted about sinking a large number of Iranian ships, including unarmed ships with a much bigger crew (e.g. 104 crew members were killed when the unarmed frigate Dena was torpedoed without warning near Sri Lanka while returning from India; USA not only did not attempt to rescue the survivors, but later it even attempted to prevent the repatriation of the dead bodies).
There is no doubt that Iran has sunk far less ships than USA in this war and with many times less human casualties.
After USA earlier this year, both in the Iran war and in the naval blockade of Cuba, has amply demonstrated that they do not care about any international laws or treaties, no American has the right to criticize Iran or any other country for illegal actions, because they do exactly what USA has taught them to do.
When you do something bad and someone imitates you, you cannot condemn that action and claim that it is whataboutism when someone else reminds you that you did and continue to do the same. Whataboutism would have been only if a third unrelated party had done something similarly bad and it would have been presented as an excuse, while you, the critic, were innocent and not the original law breaker.
With its Iran war, USA has not attacked only Iran, but it has attacked the majority of the countries of the World, where this has forced price increases in a large number of products, stealing money from the pockets of billions of citizens, which was a very predictable and obvious consequence of the US actions.
And we murdered hundreds of school children in a double strike (pretty sure your Geneva Convention has something in there about that) AND started this entire mess AND assassinated state officials (again, let's recheck the Geneva Convention) AND could end it instantly if we wanted.
Wasn't the US firing on fishing vessels in the Gulf of Mexico, then double tapping, THEN sharing the videos and bragging earlier this year?
Edit: Someone replied with the party line, but there's little proof these were ever "cartel boats". The whole event seems to be violent jangling keys for the base via blatant war crimes.
International law is a veneer that only works when the balance of power is tilted strongly towards those who support it.
That was the case for the majority of the post-WW2 order, but is no longer. We're witnessing the birth of a new world order. Likely the new order will have an international law of a sort because it's good for trade, but it won't necessarily be the same as it was.
International law is primarily a set of treaties between sovereigns. The point of being sovereign is that you can unilaterally leave a treaty. There are consequences to doing that for those that are weaker, of course.
War crimes are bad, that goes without saying. And this is probably a bit too much even for Iran. But the only card they have left to play is to keep Hormuz closed to inflicy pain in arab countries and the US, and they are going to play it as hard as they can.
What I mean is that this situation was very predictable and very avoidable by just not going all in in an air campaign with an open ended objective.
Do you think people really assume that anyone of them USA, Iran, Iraq are 'normal' or 'nice' about all of this?
Nonetheless to address what you mentioned regarding the geneva convention: I never got it. There is no good or bad war. It doesn't matter in a war if some solders are raping or killing others or if these solders are getting killed or what type of weapons they use etc. A war is a war and it costs life because of a handful of people in a leadership position.
There is not a single solder who fights just for fun. They might be uneducated and got indoctrinated to fight for the vatercountry. They might need money whatever.
Everyone looses in a war.
And no it was not okay that USA takes the leader of another country just because (see venezuela) just because it went 'well' and 'fast' doesn't make it okay.
Was there any real conflict between countries which got solved properly through diplomacy only ever?
"Whataboutism" is a fake newspeak word that was invented by hawkish foreign policy think tanks to rebutt their own hypocrisy. Despite attempts to retcon it back to the cold war, it mostly didn't exist as a term until the 2010s. And yes, this is posted by a green account. Go kvetch about it.
Blockades are a legitimate tool in warfare. Their status under international law is a bit unclear, as the precedent is mostly about wars with a clear separation between belligerents and neutral parties, which is not that common anymore.
In any case, neutral ships are expected to comply with the blockade. Typically by staying out of the region or by approaching visibly and subjecting themselves to inspection. If they don't stop voluntarily and resist capture, they can be attacked.
Eh, once your country is being bombed indiscriminately, including civilian infrastructure... At that point the Geneva conventions already failed.
You may call this whataboutism, but to be frank, it is not really. Iran is not targeting merchant ships in a vacuum, it is a direct response to actions done against it by the US-Israel axis.
> Seeing a lot of whataboutism in the replies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism . Whataboutism is the classic strategy that Soviet propagandists used to distract and avoid accountability.
This kind of a 2nd order whataobutism: "What about when the Soviets engaged in whataboutism? Do we want to be like them?"
> It doesn't answer or invalidate the point at hand.
If the point is that they're committing war crimes, you're not wrong.
If the point is to hyperfocus on one thing and ignore the wider picture and context, you're also not wrong.
The US is a major party in this conflict, and it's totally fair game to point out their sins. Pointing out Iranian war crimes doesn't preclude talking about other issues in this war.
The US is accused of committing war crimes in the past for much smaller reasons than the Iranians have. If a country attacked the Pentagon, White House, and Congress, and killed the president, much of his cabinet, and many members of Congress, and is continuing to face such attacks, I assure you they will commit war crimes, and their citizens will be fully in support.
Everything here is in the overarching context that the US started the war. If they hadn't, all that's happening wouldn't have, ergo they're responsible for all that's happening. Don't bully someone and not expect them to retaliate in some way, if it's even to kick the bully's dog or something if they can't get back at the bully directly.
There are at least three political conspiracy/flamewar stories on the front page right now. The sources are getting more and more sketchy too. It's getting really tiring.
they did make use of AI to improve the GNC for one of their attacks on the saudis but I guess technically that's the houthis (if that distinction matters). from my understanding the sophistication of the attacks isn't the issue, its the geography and magazine depth of the iranians.
nilamo | 3 hours ago
UncleOxidant | 3 hours ago
swiftcoder | 3 hours ago
gertrunde | 3 hours ago
It seems many countries around the straits are now thinking "Hmm, we can charge ships to pass through...".
I don't think that would have happened without Trump.
UncleOxidant | 2 hours ago
hermitcrab | 2 hours ago
msandford | 3 hours ago
jl6 | 3 hours ago
Detrytus | 2 hours ago
bambax | 3 hours ago
jliendo | 2 hours ago
everdrive | 3 hours ago
It was incredibly stupid to start this war, but we're now fairly well stuck.
bradly | 3 hours ago
Highly recommend if you like tech AND want some WW II forward context on Iran.
Edit: Countdown to Zero Day is the name of the book.
water-data-dude | 3 hours ago
malwrar | 2 hours ago
embedding-shape | 2 hours ago
bradly | 2 hours ago
Georgelemental | 3 hours ago
computerex | 3 hours ago
That's perfectly fine. Let freedom of navigation end. The United States uses its natural resources to wreak havoc on the world, why shouldn't countries gifted with Geography not push their advantage? Particularly when there is no world order and US bombs anyone it wishes whenever it wants? Why should Iran play nice when all it got in return is US aggression? Why should any State adhere to international law when the law is only applied when it's beneficial to the world powers?
IncreasePosts | 3 hours ago
Cyph0n | 2 hours ago
everdrive | 2 hours ago
Cyph0n | 2 hours ago
But if you want an answer to the same question but posed with legitimate curiosity, the answer is Oman is OK with this arrangement :)
IncreasePosts | 2 hours ago
The strait of Hormuz has multiple pathways going through Iranian and Omani waters. Iran is "free" to charge a toll, assuming they are okay throwing out centuries of international law relating to freedom of the seas.
Considering vessels can just transit through Omani waters, what good would charging a fee do? Everyone would just sail on the western and southern side of the strait and traverse freely.
So for the Iranian fees to ever be collected, either Oman would need to charge similar fees (so there is no way around a fee), or Iran would have to attack vessels in Omani territory.
For the record, Oman signed the No Fees/No Tolls pledge with the rest of the EU literally two days ago.
https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/pledge-maintaining-integrity...
skeledrew | an hour ago
Did they sign an agreement to adhere to this "law"? And if they did, what were the cited consequences of breaking it?
Cyph0n | an hour ago
Ultimately, when international law devolves into “might is right”, expect your adversaries to apply the concept as well. Iran has always been the de facto operator of the strait (by fact of being the strongest regional power bordering the strait), and this will remain going forward. Nitpicking how and why Iran is doing this is not going to change the reality on the ground. It is better to spend energy on preventing wars of aggression of this nature from reoccurring :)
So long story short, is it legal for Iran to restrict access to the strait via Omani waters? Nope. Is there a realistic way to prevent it from doing this by force? Also no. Did Iran wake up and decide to arbitrarily take over control of the strait? Absolutely not. Would Iran be willing to revert to pre-war state if their demands are met? Perhaps. Welcome to realpolitik :)
Oh and as far as restricting access via Iranian waters, Iran is mostly adhering to IL because it hasn’t ratified UNCLOS.
> For the record, Oman signed the No Fees/No Tolls pledge with the rest of the EU literally two days ago.
Thanks for the link, but is this pledge binding in any way, or is it just a symbolic gesture? Because my impression so far has been that Oman is willing to play ball.
deadbunny | 2 hours ago
seki285 | 2 hours ago
everdrive | 2 hours ago
hermitcrab | 2 hours ago
ReflectedImage | 2 hours ago
everdrive | 2 hours ago
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/who-hurts-most-iran-...
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/16/business/energy-environme...
https://www.eenews.net/articles/iran-conflict-cuts-deep-in-p...
jghn | 2 hours ago
Shiggy_ | 2 hours ago
You can push an advantage, but the whole "no world order" issue will result in severe repercussions if you start to mess with the wrong people. This is not unique to America.
> US bombs anyone it wishes whenever it wants?
Oh please.
> Why should Iran play nice when all it got in return is US aggression?
Iran playing nice? Are you serious? You know that it's possible to criticize America while not backing a government that has killed at least 40K of its own citizens _this year_. Acting like Iran and its government are somehow passive in global conflicts is insane.
watwut | 2 hours ago
I mean, between bombing fishermen, Iran during negotiations (twice), kidnapping president, threatening Greenland, supporting far right worldwide, supporting Putin, supporting genocide in Gaza a lot more then any other country, supporting far right where possible ...
The fact is, Iran was not attacking Hormuz. Iran was abiding international agreeemets which USA broken. Iran is not nice country, but they had policy of strategic restraint and did not even responded to first negotiation bombing.
The biggest threat to global stability right now is USA. Because the country is violent, crazy and still have a lot of power.
Cyph0n | 3 hours ago
ricksunny | 2 hours ago
paimapi | 2 hours ago
spartacusnacho | 2 hours ago
nitwit005 | an hour ago
762236 | 3 hours ago
IncreasePosts | 3 hours ago
watwut | 2 hours ago
skeledrew | an hour ago
PowerElectronix | 2 hours ago
This war has shown everyone that it is just too easy to keep a major navigation route closed with drones and mines.
rdtsc | 2 hours ago
Interesting, you think it was the US Navy who shot at the container ship?
Detrytus | 2 hours ago
rdtsc | 2 hours ago
> But when Iran does the same MAGAs suddenly remember that international law exists.
I looked again and the article doesn't quote any MAGAs. I doubt US will go and complain to UN about it? It will probably just shrug, let Singapore defends its ships and sailors.
skeledrew | an hour ago
tristanj | 3 hours ago
Edit: Seeing a lot of whataboutism in the replies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism . Whataboutism is the classic strategy that Soviet propagandists used to distract and avoid accountability. It doesn't answer or invalidate the point at hand.
cultofmetatron | 3 hours ago
762236 | 3 hours ago
kelseyfrog | 3 hours ago
ithkuil | 3 hours ago
megous | 2 hours ago
kelseyfrog | an hour ago
omnicognate | 3 hours ago
lelanthran | 2 hours ago
Those crew members did that? The ship owners? No wonder the Iranians are attacking them /s
skeledrew | an hour ago
nopurpose | 3 hours ago
ithkuil | 2 hours ago
Most head of states of countries that are not military dictatorship are civilian, i.e. they are not military, but if they rule over the military (such as the American president who is commander in chief of the military) does that count as being treated as a civilian for the purposes of wartime policy?
A similar role was played by Khamenei who was commander in chief of the Iranian armed forces.
Netanyahu is also a civilian and nevertheless the ICC issued an arrest warrant for his responsibilities for the behaviour of the IDF in the war in Gaza.
The formal definition used by the ICC is "civilian superior".
megous | 2 hours ago
"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judnazi.asp
ithkuil | 2 hours ago
There can be an innocent civilian and a civilian held responsible for ear crimes, when such civilian acts as civilian superior of the military
Words are complicated and interesting because of that.
Guid_NewGuid | 3 hours ago
/s if it weren't obvious. Yes Iran is horrible, yes this is whataboutery, but they should be held to the same standard.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_strikes_on_alleg...
computerex | 3 hours ago
peri-cl | 3 hours ago
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_United_States_naval_block... ("Ships sunk by the United States")
bilbo0s | 3 hours ago
megous | 2 hours ago
Article title is typical manipulation. "Something happened" as "something else also is happening". :) Very common technique. News website skimmers will conflate the two. Nobody who read the title will go back after 1-3 months to ask what was learned since about what happened, and that will be it.
News websites commonly use this for pumping up xenophobia against immigrants, too, where I live.
tristanj | 2 hours ago
UKMTO uses deliberately neutral language, but OSINT analysts have reverse-engineered who has actually did the strike based on the phrasing. They use the same phrasing every time, and it's simple to match the wording with verified incidents.
"struck by an unknown/unidentified projectile" -> involved in an Iranian missile/drone attack
"an incident involving a tanker and military forces" or "subject to interaction as part of ongoing military activity" -> US military strike or blockade action
crikeykangaroo | 3 hours ago
stock_toaster | 2 hours ago
bilbo0s | 2 hours ago
You find, in fairly short order, that you come up against the raw realities of power.
And all 3 of these Perps have power they can exert that no one is really wanting to test right now.
Not optimal, just kind of how it is at the moment.
samrus | 2 hours ago
rdtsc | 2 hours ago
adrian_b | 2 hours ago
That was their choice.
At the beginning of the war, USA has boasted about sinking a large number of Iranian ships, including unarmed ships with a much bigger crew (e.g. 104 crew members were killed when the unarmed frigate Dena was torpedoed without warning near Sri Lanka while returning from India; USA not only did not attempt to rescue the survivors, but later it even attempted to prevent the repatriation of the dead bodies).
There is no doubt that Iran has sunk far less ships than USA in this war and with many times less human casualties.
After USA earlier this year, both in the Iran war and in the naval blockade of Cuba, has amply demonstrated that they do not care about any international laws or treaties, no American has the right to criticize Iran or any other country for illegal actions, because they do exactly what USA has taught them to do.
When you do something bad and someone imitates you, you cannot condemn that action and claim that it is whataboutism when someone else reminds you that you did and continue to do the same. Whataboutism would have been only if a third unrelated party had done something similarly bad and it would have been presented as an excuse, while you, the critic, were innocent and not the original law breaker.
With its Iran war, USA has not attacked only Iran, but it has attacked the majority of the countries of the World, where this has forced price increases in a large number of products, stealing money from the pockets of billions of citizens, which was a very predictable and obvious consequence of the US actions.
sippingabonedry | 2 hours ago
Bot / propaganda account.
Do not engage.
skeledrew | an hour ago
thegreenswede | 3 hours ago
MSFT_Edging | 3 hours ago
Edit: Someone replied with the party line, but there's little proof these were ever "cartel boats". The whole event seems to be violent jangling keys for the base via blatant war crimes.
https://www.cfr.org/articles/unclaimed-boat-strikes-in-ecuad...
kstenerud | 2 hours ago
That was the case for the majority of the post-WW2 order, but is no longer. We're witnessing the birth of a new world order. Likely the new order will have an international law of a sort because it's good for trade, but it won't necessarily be the same as it was.
Underneath it all, only power decides.
762236 | 2 hours ago
PowerElectronix | 2 hours ago
What I mean is that this situation was very predictable and very avoidable by just not going all in in an air campaign with an open ended objective.
origini | 2 hours ago
Do you think people really assume that anyone of them USA, Iran, Iraq are 'normal' or 'nice' about all of this?
Nonetheless to address what you mentioned regarding the geneva convention: I never got it. There is no good or bad war. It doesn't matter in a war if some solders are raping or killing others or if these solders are getting killed or what type of weapons they use etc. A war is a war and it costs life because of a handful of people in a leadership position.
There is not a single solder who fights just for fun. They might be uneducated and got indoctrinated to fight for the vatercountry. They might need money whatever.
Everyone looses in a war.
And no it was not okay that USA takes the leader of another country just because (see venezuela) just because it went 'well' and 'fast' doesn't make it okay.
Was there any real conflict between countries which got solved properly through diplomacy only ever?
skullone | 2 hours ago
sgvwthry | 2 hours ago
jltsiren | 2 hours ago
In any case, neutral ships are expected to comply with the blockade. Typically by staying out of the region or by approaching visibly and subjecting themselves to inspection. If they don't stop voluntarily and resist capture, they can be attacked.
surgical_fire | 2 hours ago
You may call this whataboutism, but to be frank, it is not really. Iran is not targeting merchant ships in a vacuum, it is a direct response to actions done against it by the US-Israel axis.
BeetleB | 2 hours ago
This kind of a 2nd order whataobutism: "What about when the Soviets engaged in whataboutism? Do we want to be like them?"
> It doesn't answer or invalidate the point at hand.
If the point is that they're committing war crimes, you're not wrong.
If the point is to hyperfocus on one thing and ignore the wider picture and context, you're also not wrong.
The US is a major party in this conflict, and it's totally fair game to point out their sins. Pointing out Iranian war crimes doesn't preclude talking about other issues in this war.
The US is accused of committing war crimes in the past for much smaller reasons than the Iranians have. If a country attacked the Pentagon, White House, and Congress, and killed the president, much of his cabinet, and many members of Congress, and is continuing to face such attacks, I assure you they will commit war crimes, and their citizens will be fully in support.
skeledrew | an hour ago
Pigo | 3 hours ago
sippingabonedry | 2 hours ago
coolfox | an hour ago
wnevets | 3 hours ago
sgvwthry | 2 hours ago
truetraveller | 2 hours ago
lgxz | 2 hours ago