“ ABC News’s Jonathan Karl asked Trump if he approved of Iran’s plan to charge vessels a fee for passing through the strait — a key channel through which roughly 20 percent of the world’s oil is transported. “We’re thinking of doing it as a joint venture,” the president told Karl, who shared Trump’s response on social platform X. “It’s a way of securing it — also securing it from lots of other people. It’s a beautiful thing.””
I bet Trump will justify it as compensation for US “security” guarantees to Gulf States.
Iran has fomented discord in a number of countries, most notably Syria and Lebanon. I think they are “rational” in the sense that they are pursuing their goals of eliminating US influence over the Middle East - but many other states in the MidEast would see that goal as “irrational” in itself.
When Lithuania was fighting for independence from USSR civilians gathered around key government buildings to protect them. in a sense they were human shields as none of them were armed. but they did it voluntarily. this happens when you threaten total annihilation of your homeland.
Threatening total annihilation was possibly the dumbest move Trump could have made.
“ Soldiers when in desperate straits lose the sense of fear. If there is no place of refuge, they will stand firm. If they are in the heart of a hostile country, they will show a stubborn front. If there is no help for it, they will fight hard."
how do you know that iranians are forced to do this now by their government and not doing this in support of their country? do you think there are gunmen taking them to the bridges?
It was a government call. I grew up in USSR and know very well how those government "calls to volunteer" work in totalitarian regimes. Especially in a wartime country where even in peacetime they would kill people even just for being incorrectly dressed.
Anyway, as i said in the other comment, it is actually not that important how all those people got there. The key thing here is that it was a deliberate government act of human shield creation.
what a coincidence i too grew up in USSR and my parents and friends were part of above mentioned human shield. And i can tell first hand that there was no coercion. just call to action.
Look at recordings from other totalitarian regimes - enthusiastic people doing government bidding. The key is deliberate act of human shield creation, not the specific way to do it.
But hermetic protection is REALLY important when your entire economy is based off of oil and water desalination plants. Iran still retains the ability to damage that infrastructure. The Gulf countries have some hard decisions to make, but I wouldn’t be surprised if several of them sprint closer to Iran. Already we are hearing of a joint Omani-Irani agreement on Hormuz administration…
But it's not new that there's no hermetic protection.
There is no real possible alignment between the regime in Tehran and the Sunni Emirates or Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. There is no way they are sprinting closer to Iran.
Oman is more complicated but they are also not going to align with Iran.
It's hard to evaluate but I don't see huge shifts from the gulf states. The US is still their best bet (not to mention that they are heavily invested in that). They have major investments that aren't oil, i.e. unlike Iran they can live very comfortably even if the energy sector is shut down. They prefer to make money from oil and gas but they also prefer a weaker Iran.
It's looking like more of the same and counting down to the next round.
> it's not new that there's no hermetic protection.
I think what new is the realization of Iran’s willingness to escalate.
> There is no real possible alignment between the regime in Tehran and the Sunni Emirates or Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. There is no way they are sprinting closer to Iran.
Can you please expand on that? I don’t understand why they couldn’t be aligned.
Basically they believe the rulers of the gulf countries should be overthrown and that those countries should be run by Islamic rules. So basically MBZ who rules the UAE (as an example) wants to keep ruling the country and strike some balance between economic prosperity and maintaining his rule while Iran would want to see him removed and his government replaced by a theocratic regime. Naturally the UAE also wants not to be bombarded by Iran but the personal survival of the UAE rulers is a bit more important to them than that goal.
> Freedom of navigation is a core global principal and Iran has no legitimate right to stop other countries from trade.
The US is stopping other countries from trading with Cuba and Iran. The US doesn’t have the “right” to do that, but it doesn’t need the “right”. It
only needs power.
Iran has power over the Hormuz and is exerting it for what it deems is in its interest.
> Gulf States themselves will go to war over it
Maybe? But I doubt it - $1 per barrel amounts to like 1-2% of the price of oil. They may not like it but it’s not going to affect their bottom line nearly as much as closing the strait for 1 week will. A war with Iran would mean utter destruction of all oil infrastructure in the region, so probably better to pay 2% to avoid that.
If you want to argue from a power prospective then the US and Israel can just do whatever they want too and any moralistic argument seems easy to shelve. It cuts both ways.
The Gulf States aren’t going to pay a tax to Iran. It’s a matter of principle - can’t live as a hostage and this is the weakest that the Iranian regime has been in quite some time. Better to keep the straight closed and make it painful for everyone else too.
“Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”
—Thucydides
You can't honestly attribute that quotation to Thucydides. The idea appears in his work, but he specifically attributes it to other unnamed parties. It receives this immediate response:
As we think, at any rate, it is expedient — we speak as we are obliged, since you enjoin us to let right alone and talk only of interest — that you should not destroy what is our common protection, the privilege of being allowed in danger to invoke what is fair and right, and even to profit by arguments not strictly valid if they can be got to pass current. And you are as much interested in this as any, as your fall would be a signal for the heaviest vengeance and an example for the world to meditate upon.
The quote is part of the Melian Dialogue, which is regarded as a dramatization of the events leading up to the siege and conquest of Melos by the Athenians. I think it’s appropriate to attribute the quote to Thucydides.
The arguments the Melians use against Athenians reasons for conquest end up going unheeded though - Athens conquers Melos and enslaves its inhabitants.
Ok we control it too. We can turn off the flow at will. We have 3 aircraft carriers plus a bunch of bases. No ship passes through the straight unless we say so. We should charge actually. Maybe a toll of, say, $2,000,000 until we recoup our costs for stopping Iran.
The US could do that for a while, a few months maybe. They'd get bored and overextended. The logistics are terrible. There's no way that would even be financially positive, even if you ignored how much good will from other countries it would destroy (if there's any left).
> Maybe a toll of, say, $2,000,000 until we recoup our costs for stopping Iran.
The US will never recoup their losses from this unwinnable folly of a war. Nothing positive came out of it unless you wanted the current Iran regime strengthened.
We could just raise the prices until it was financially viable. Just like Iran, we don't need to spend a bunch of money, we can just copy what they do.
> The US will never recoup their losses from this unwinnable folly of a war. Nothing positive came out of it unless you wanted the current Iran regime strengthened.
Incorrect. Well, sort of. Yet again the US has to do the dirty work to keep the world safe and stop chaos from spreading and that does come at a cost we are unlikely to recuperate. But the Iranian regime has been very weakened, leaders killed, lots of military equipment destroyed. Their only card is attacking the ships in the Straight but that's not the same thing as exercising control. It screws everyone, but the US least of all which is why we are there, doing the dirty work. You'd think the international community would want to prevent Iran from continuing to build up their missile capability until they can actually control the Straight which is what they aimed to do and we're preventing, but most can't think past the latest tweet.
> We could just raise the prices until it was financially viable.
By your own logic, just about anyone can do this. It doesn't really make any sense in practice. What makes the Strait any more ours than Russia's or China's or Belgium's? By this logic of the world, every country in the world should be paying every other country "don't get bombed today" extortion every single day.
> Just like Iran, we don't need to spend a bunch of money, we can just copy what they do.
We can't copy what they do. War is logistics. Iran can send some asshole to drag a $2000 drone down to the shore on a kid's wagon and that's an effective weapon. We have to either send a several-million-dollar missile from ages away or throw a billions-of-dollars aircraft carriers in the strait that can then become a target or invade with enough forces to control the shore (which also becomes targets). All of that would be temporary and unpopular and expensive and need constant resupply and be vulnerable as hell.
Did you notice how many of our planes got shot down in this war, how many expensive bases and military installations got destroyed? These things are ~necessary, but they're as much targets as they are assets these days.
> Yet again the US has to do the dirty work to keep the world safe and stop chaos from spreading and that does come at a cost we are unlikely to recuperate.
We stopped no chaos here, we created chaos. Who is happy that this war happened? Who is thanking us? Russia is happy, their ally got strengthened and some of the heat got taken off of the Ukraine war. China is happy, the US got a lot weaker. Anybody else of note?
> But the Iranian regime has been very weakened, leaders killed, lots of military equipment destroyed.
Some people in the regime were killed. A lot of military equipment on both sides was destroyed. The regime itself was strengthened. The people of Iran now have more of an enemy than their own government. The regime has a hugely improved source of funds. The sanctions are gone or heavily weakened so their can sell their oil to the world instead of selling it to China at a relative loss, they have far more of an excuse to exploit the Strait than they did before.
In what actual way are they worse off? We destroyed some of their stuff, then gave them a way to build it back a hundred times better.
Why did the US accept a ceasefire? Because we ~can't open the Strait on our own and we really can't win this war. We can't open the Strait because we did not meaningfully weaken Iran's ability to create effective weapons.
The US had to have a strategy in this war that made any sense, which it did not. Experts have explained why this approach to attacking Iran would never work for my entire lifetime, and then it didn't work in exactly the way that it was obvious it wouldn't work.
> By your own logic, just about anyone can do this. It doesn't really make any sense in practice. What makes the Strait any more ours than Russia's or China's or Belgium's? By this logic of the world, every country in the world should be paying every other country "don't get bombed today" extortion every single day.
Well that's the Iranian logic, not my logic or American logic. They believe they own the Straight. Fine then we'll just take it over instead if they believe someone gets to own it, well, we have the bigger guns so we'll own it.
> We can't copy what they do. War is logistics. Iran can send some asshole to drag a $2000 drone down to the shore on a kid's wagon and that's an effective weapon. We have to either send a several-million-dollar missile from ages away or throw a billions-of-dollars aircraft carriers in the strait that can then become a target or invade with enough forces to control the shore (which also becomes targets). All of that would be temporary and unpopular and expensive and need constant resupply and be vulnerable as hell.
No we can just build cheap drones and missiles and we're working on doing so.
> Did you notice how many of our planes got shot down in this war, how many expensive bases and military installations got destroyed? These things are ~necessary, but they're as much targets as they are assets these days.
Any asset is a target. We've lost basically nothing while completely obliterating most of Iran's military capabilities and killing a lot of their awful leaders. There was no expectation that the US wouldn't lose equipment, and you're just keeping score on the US side because the media is telling you the dollar figures. Go count up the cost for Iran and their equipment. Why isn't anyone publishing those figures?
> We stopped no chaos here, we created chaos. Who is happy that this war happened? Who is thanking us? Russia is happy, their ally got strengthened and some of the heat got taken off of the Ukraine war. China is happy, the US got a lot weaker. Anybody else of note?
It's SO crazy to me to read stuff like this. Truly living different experiences right? I mean, I've got you telling me Iran is stronger and then simultaneously I know for a fact they're not stronger because we've gone in and blown up a lot of their military infrastructure and killed their leaders. Kind of fun to just take a pause here and look at how different the viewpoints are.
> A lot of military equipment on both sides was destroyed.
See above - totally different worlds! I wonder if anyone has a count. That would be cool to see. Then people would propagandize the count too. THat's why you gotta just do what you gotta do and ignore people who say things like this because you know you're right.
> Why did the US accept a ceasefire? Because we ~can't open the Strait on our own and we really can't win this war. We can't open the Strait because we did not meaningfully weaken Iran's ability to create effective weapons.
Doesn't make sense at all. First we can blow up any physical structure in Iran. So where will they make these weapons? Well we'll find wherever they try to make the weapons and boom! Gone in an instant. The US forced Iran into a ceasefire - remember the US demanded it, not Iran, under threat of massive bombardment, and then Iran capitulated. At least for a short while, rumors are they already broke it because their soldiers in Lebanon (Hezbollah - wait why is Iran funding groups in Lebanon?) continue to strike at Israel so they continue to get bombed.
> The sanctions are gone or heavily weakened so their can sell their oil to the world instead of selling it to China at a relative loss, they have far more of an excuse to exploit the Strait than they did before.
This is fun ok so tell me specifically which sanctions were lifted and who lifted them and when. Please provide a source. I'm excited to see what you have to say here. This really illustrates the different worlds we all live in. Ok cool - please let me know when you find out.
> Then why was Trump demanding that Iran “open the fuckin’ Strait”?
It’s a figure of speech. The Straight is open. There are no ships besides the US Navy and those which it allows to transit the Straight.
But ships are worried about potential attacks from Iranian missiles since we haven’t cleared all of the launchers and missile depots out yet - Trump wants them to stop launching missiles so folks don’t fear being indiscriminately shot at or blown up for exercising their right to trade.
You are trying to play a semantic game around “closed” or “open” here because you think Iran has the upper hand and it makes you feel good. US said stop bombing ships or we will really come and obliterate your country, and they said yes great satan we will stop launching missiles at ships.
Iran didn’t force the US to the table. Besides MAGA folks spending a boatload of cash on gas for their trucks the economic impact is minimal. We just had $5-$6/gallon gas in 2022 and got along just fine.
its not particularly might makes right, but bargaining knowing that war is costly. iran could attack every ship that goes through the strait, but that would cost iran both in actual missiles/drones, and an opportunity cost of getting its own ships through, missing a potential toll, and missing potential benefits from being neighbor to rich states. Not to mention that the shots mean that other countries will want to respond
even with might, most conflicts end in a negotiated settlement, and that approximates what each side of a conflict thinks would be the result of fighting the war, plus or minus some bargaining range. its still expensive for the mighty to fight the war, and better for everyone to accept the result of war without fighting
see: the youtube channel "lines on maps" aka "william spaniel" to hear it from an expert in the field of crisis bargaining
Have you been living under a rock for the last quarter century?
It doesn’t take planes, ships, or missile launchers to defeat the US military. The average American gun owner is better equipped than the insurgents that have defeated our armed forces.
Define defeat here. I think everyone in this thread confuses actual defeat with indifference and political risk. If the US military could be defeated so easily America would cease to exist, no? It just loses interest and moves on. Nobody attacks the US because they would lose.
Defeat is failure to achieve strategic goals. (The fact that you’re even asking that question is a strong signal that you have no idea what you’re talking about, and that you think rhetorical questions are a substitute for critical thinking)
Anyone who thinks America would cease to exist due to foreign military action is a fool. Canada and Mexico do not have the logistical capabilities and no one else has trans-Pacific/Atlantic force projection.
That's why the US won in Vietnam. Guerrilla warfare was no match for the planes and ships of the US military which swiftly defeated the Vietnamese and installed a friendly capitalist government.
Air power alone does not win any conflict. This is well known and proven over and over. Iran is not giving up its nuclear material for the asking, and there is no way for the US to secure without committing ground forces. Iran would love th US to commit ground forces, because it has a massive defensive advantage due to its terrain and decades of preparation for asymmetric conflict.
The US military is a paper tiger. All of the planes, ships and missiles are of limited utility when they're so afraid of 1 pilot getting captured.
That's not to say the rescue mission was wrong, the psychological advantage of Iran capturing the pilot would have been immense. But, it demonstrates just how weird the US military is.
Most militaries would have had no choice but to let the pilot get captured and then negotiate a prisoner swap at a later date. The US had the option to mount a rescue mission, and merely having that option available is a strategic disadvantage. Now Iran knows that the US is very unwilling to suffer captures. Now Iran is incentivised to maximize captures in the case of a ground invasion.
The US could probably win with a ground invasion, if they committed all their forces. But they're definitely not willing to suffer the consequences, so the effect is that they cannot win[0]. The US Army is a supremely powerful force that nevertheless cannot be used offensively anymore because the US is unwilling to suffer the consequences of doing so, kind of like a nuclear weapon.
[0] it reminds of Feynman's anecdote about a stage hypnotist. When the hypnotist invites you on stage and tells you that your eyelids are heavy and you cannot open them, you are aware that you could open your eyes if you wanted to. But in front of the watching crowd, you of course "choose" to obey the hypnotist and keep your eyes closed. So were you really able to open your eyes? The US military "chooses" not to open its eyes.
Except there was fight and the US lost multiple aircraft in that rescue and required the use of the most elite personnel US has. Let’s just say I don’t take Trump for his word.
That’s where you’re wrong, kiddo. They don’t need to win a set piece battle like it’s a chessboard. They’ve already woken everyone up from Pax Americana. I’m not sure what’s going to happen when the GCC realizes that pumping billions into the United States economy comes with no security guarantees or real benefit at all. We’re operating from a highly leveraged position. It’s going to take a while, but with a few more years of hindsight, the depth of what a monumental strategic blunder this is will seem hard to believe. We’re not sending our best to Washington.
Those “few drones” have completely kept the US military, ships and all, far away since they can damage and sink large expensive vessels with tiny cheap drones.
How did the planes and ships and missles fare in Iraq or Afghanistan? Oh yeah, decades and trillions spent and nothing changed. Iran is much larger and well armed everywhere, with support by China and Russia and others….
Sure, but they can still hit critical infrastructure. Iran still has missiles that can hit Israel, they just launched some more tonight.
War is about achieving political gains, even if it means material losses.
Compare the proposal that the US rejected in February to the 10 point plan that Trump now says is a "a very significant step" which he now " believes it is a workable basis on which to negotiate."
The proposal in February mentions limiting nuclear enrichment.
"The Iranian proposal does not meet core US demands. US officials told the Wall Street Journal that Iran’s proposal would force Iran to reduce enrichment to as low as 1.5 percent, pause enrichment for a number of years, and process its enriched uranium through an Iran-based regional consortium.[11] Four unspecified Iranian officials told the New York Times on February 26 that Iran would also offer to dilute its 400 kg of 60 percent-enriched uranium in phases and allow IAEA inspectors to oversee all steps.”
The new 10 point agreement (see top comment on this story) explicitly mentions
"Acceptance of Iran's nuclear enrichment rights"
and
"Payment of damages to Iran for loss in the war" as conditions (along with lifting sanctions).
The new plan is CLEARLY a step backwards from the perspective of the USA and the fact that the US is entertaining it while Iran literally is still launching missiles to Israel means that this is clearly a step backwards for the US.
> It is well known that there are some small peptides that are absorbed following oral administration. ...BPC-157 itself is said to be among this class
Do you know of any studies that suggest BPC-157 absorption from gut?
Among others. If you read the paper, it's actually apparent that there's little difference between i.p. and oral administration in terms of efficacy -- both were roughly equally effective in improving MCL ligament healing.
Admittedly the paper's in rats -- as are 99% of the others -- as there's no incentive for anybody to run human trials.
You should note that your study is not controlled.
There are two groups, those with oral administration those with sub-q administration. There is not group without administration.
This means you can't say that oral vs injected is "equally effective" because you can't assert that BPC 157 is effective at all. You can't tease out the effect size because you don't know if any or all of the MCL ligament healing was done via normal pathways
You just read the abstract and didn't read the full paper.
There were control groups.
> Methods:
> [administration] as follows: (i) BPC 157 10 mg or 10 ng/kg or saline 5.0 ml/kg (controls), intraperitoneally, or (ii) BPC 157 in neutral cream (1.0 mg dissolved in distilled water/g commercial neutral cream) or commercial neutral cream (controls), as a thin layer, locally, at the site of injury, administered once daily with the first application 30 min after surgery and the final application 24 h before sacrifice; (iii) BPC 157 0.16 mg/ml or nothing (controls) in the drinking water (12 ml/day/rat) until sacrifice.
There was a big difference vs. the control groups.
> This means you can't say that oral vs injected is "equally effective" because you can't assert that BPC 157 is effective at all
Is that true? It seems that you can say that they were equally effective without quantifying an effect. It could be the case that both are equal in that neither has an effect, which this would validate. Then you can just point to other studies to claim effectiveness of injected.
“Blue dye stuff” meaning methylene blue? Ironically that is one of the most extensively studied compounds in medicine, with hundreds of clinical trials over 100 years…
I bet Trump will justify it as compensation for US “security” guarantees to Gulf States.
https://thehill.com/policy/international/5821343-trump-us-ir...
reply