ViperMan

A trinket to help them recover from the nearly $300B dollar loss they've suffered over the last 6 weeks of fighting? Not an attempt to buy them off. Encouragement to adhere to the dollar system? Who knows. Now, I'm not fully on board with handing them cash at this juncture, but it's a far cry from allowing them to hold us ransom while they thumb their nose at the previous "deal." Anyway. I get the gimmick being employed: point at something that looks the same (money going to Iran). Call it the same. Declare hypocrisy. Proceed to mock. Shallow, but fun I guess?

The irony of you ignoring the signals all around you to pin this on...me? Is not lost. I can only imagine the tune you'd be singing if the stock market was crashing, if shipping was still halted, and if oil were approaching $200. But you can't point to any of those things, so you make up some thing in your head that "I" speak for the world? LOL, no. I'm just looking at the signals the world is sending. Every one this morning is positive (for us). Merely pointing out that you're (still) ignoring them. Leaving that aside, you claim to know things that are unknowable. Iran has had an internet blackout for the entire conflict, yet you state that they're more aligned with the regime than ever? M'kay. But whatever. You're impermeable to facts and unable to even observe, it seems. Your mind is made up, and that's fine. I just don't understand the point of coming on here and attempting to argue a position without bringing any facts, novel interpretations, or even re-interpretations of things that other posters may say, but which you disagree with because <reasons>. You've got none of that. You're not arguing, you're just trolling.

Collectively, the world thinks we're winning.

DOW up. SP 500 up. Oil plunging. Straight open. Iran says it's open. The war is arguing its own merits. All that info is public and on every major outlet. No clearance required.

Please quote me where I stated that prices wouldn't be affected. I'll wait. In any case, what this really does is put the US squarely in the driver's seat as to who is the main supplier of oil in the world. That is a great position to be in. I'm not sure, but this is a good question and an avenue to explore. Maybe there's something there to be had? I bet China's ambitions WRT Taiwan have been cut down to size. They would struggle mightily if they attempted to conduct large scale military operations while the US has a stranglehold on the global oil supply. A few well-placed cruise missiles into pipelines connecting Russia and China and they're in the hurt locker. Risk is the nature of military operations. I'm not aware they're being ranged by anything Iranian, however. I'm also confident that the Navy knows what it's doing here. Again, do you think we're going about this like we did in Desert Storm or Iraq? I don't think that's our strategy. I never said anything about hearts and minds or democracy. Like I've stated numerous other times, I think it's best we allow time to work on the culture and see what happens organically. Iraq and Afghanistan have shown we don't know what we're doing with regard to nation-building. Best we stick to destroying governments. I will note though, that you continue to sidestep or otherwise avoid the relevant facts I've pointed out, namely that Iran is far more dependent on the straight than we are. Do you not want to address the implications of that? Too much to wrestle with? Doesn't fit into the mental model you've constructed? Anyway, everything you addressed above is either misattributed to something you 'think' I would say, or perhaps something you think someone like me would say. In other words, it was all projection. So here is what I think: It doesn't matter what happens in the short term to Iran's government. In the end it will be changed for better or worse. I don't care which way it goes. I only care that their military capability has been diminished and their ability to project power going forward declines. Both of those things have happened and will continue to happen. The fact that Iran no longer has the initiative to sell oil to illicit customers puts the ball squarely back in their court as to the next move. I'll note that almost immediately after we closed the straight, suggestions of 'talks' between the two parties began again. Thus, even though you constructed your own strawman to beat up, I at least give you an 'e' for effort for posting without reference to something Trump said. That, alone, is a move in the right direction.

To the extent things have gone quiet, it's largely due to you libs going on and on about personality issues. Yeah, we get it, he says stuff that's in poor taste. All of us wish, and have stated, our desire for a president with classier chops, but this is where we're at. You all pin that on us. I'm fine with it because I understand the choice that had to be made: elect a jerk, or elect complete ineptitude. The one part about Trump's manner I do appreciate: it drives you guys nuts. I will admit that's a bonus I'll miss when he's gone. The ranting and raving about it on this forum, however, is just tiresome when we should be exchanging ideas about strategic happenings instead. Apparently they did get the memo. And I distinctly remember predicting, right here on this message board, barely three days ago, that there was a lot more at play to "opening" or "closing" the straight than met the eye - you responded with this mess. Now, here we are, and lo and behold, what's happened? We closed the straight. It's almost like I can see a larger play at work. You'd call it 4D chess. I just understand that we're the ones with all the strategic leverage. I promise you I can't predict the future, it was just the obvious play. So yes, while Iran has played their very last card by closing the straight, we played a card I saw in the deck that trumps it: we closed it harder. Others here didn't really get it. They can close it, but we can up the ante and beat them at their own game. Or did you actually think we were just going to let them control that waterway on their own terms? Like seriously? Did you think Iranian and Chinese oil tankers would be doing business as usual all the while the lights went out on our allies and we flounder in the channel? Get real dude. We're a superpower. That's not chest-beating. It's looking objectively at who's who in this conflict. Of course we want it open. But it's going to be open on our terms, not theirs. So give it time. I'll spell out the next part for you again: Iran depends on the straight for 90% of their exports, 85% of their government revenue, and additionally import HALF of the gasoline they use to generate power. They need it open far, far more than we do, as they hemorrhage $3 billion dollars a week and risk massive long-term (self inflicted) damage to their oil infrastructure. As I said before, we can play the waiting game while they waterboard themselves. That's the strategic leverage. Can you see it? Or are you queuing up yet another anti-Trump tirade? This is effectively the sequel to my last post, with the added benefit of hindsight including events which I suggested would take place, actually having taken place. You didn't respond thoughtfully when it was prognostication. You didn't address how Iran is far more dependent on the straight that we are. Maybe now you will since it's actually happening?

And I didn't say anything about opening it up. See, everyone is only thinking about one side of this. Iran can close it down and cause the world pain. Us? We'll be fine. We're energy independent. If Iran keeps it closed much longer, they risk alienating themselves further and strangling their partners. So from their perspective, it's not a scalpel which can cause localized pain to the United States. It's a tool of indiscriminate destruction which they can use, but only by causing mass collateral damage to everyone else they hope to win to their side or currently do illicit business with. Or do you think we're going to allow Iran to only "tax" imports to the West? Hmmm. Time is on our side, not Irans. We can easily sit back and let Iran run whatever scheme they want to where it concerns the 40 mile choke point. In turn, we can easily run ours from further afield. Iran can close it. Cool. They can likewise only open it under terms which suit us. That's the bigger picture. I mean even the simplest google search reveals that Iran depends on the straight for more than 90% of their oil exports and import 400,000 barrels (per day) of gasoline - fully half of what they use. So yeah, they're strangling themselves while we can sit back and watch their economy turn to dust.

This conflict is about more than just Iran being able to shut things down. If you think for one second that we can't choke off oil in the straight you're high.

It has to do with the perpetual emphasis (by the left) on things that don't matter in juxtaposition with things that do. You all look at the price of oil - which is not even close to historic highs - and cry the sky is falling. Meanwhile, we destroyed a 1/3rd of our wealth because of "feels" and it's no big deal to you all. Just pointing at the hypocrisy is all. On the notion of Iran being in a stronger position. We'll just have to agree to disagree. And I'll have to laugh. We just made them our bitch in dramatic fashion. They have no long-term ability to project power. And they will be unable (for years) to be a serious maker / supplier of weapons in the middle east or anywhere else. They cannot be the petro supplier-of-last-resort to China. As much as you think Iran controls the straight of Hormuz, we control it more. And as much as China depends on oil flowing through the straight of Malacca, well, let's just say we're in control of that one too. We're 100% in the driver's seat. That you can't see that speaks to how blinkered your worldview is.

And the sky is blue. My point is that you, and others, are doom posting. The price of oil goes up during warfare. This is not a surprise. You can post truisms from where you sit, but they're not making an argument. Yeah there are negative effects from this war. There are also massive positive ones. You have to weigh the margins. "Biden" (his confederacy of dunces) dropped $2T of unnecessary spending on an economy that didn't need it. COVID was largely over by the time that bill hit. But yay, we still pay for it. Total inflation for that boondoggle has been like 30-40%, so in other words, you have about 2/3 of the wealth you had before COVID, thanks in large part due to horrific government policies. Don't get me started on Bitcoin. I hope they do charge tolls for everything in Bitcoin. Joke will be on them. It's going to zero someday. Iran in a stronger geopolitical position? Ha. Did you tell them that?

LOL at the libs on this site lamenting the increase in gas prices as if it means literally anything. What's your position? That we can't go to war because the price of a commodity might increase? Mmmmkaaay. And furthermore that somehow the degree of success in the conflict will be measured by the price of said commodity not rising above an arbitrary threshold that is determined by numerous other factors? LOL. Bottom line: we're crushing it in the foreign policy department. Venezuela? Done. Russia? Completely hemmed in. Cuba? Teetering. Iran? Nearly completely decimated - from the air alone. Numerous other terrorist proxies? On their back feet, at best. Is the world fixed? Nope. But it has been made a lot better than it was - by a TV show host - let that sink in and consider what it says about the rest of our political class. You all are upset about words. You need to look at the state of the world.

If true, and I was a strike eagle pilot (eww), no way I'd let that missile sponge in my back seat (sts)! 😂

As he well should be. Flight discipline is the bedrock of everything we do.

In a word, no. That EO, and the whole series it's part of, don't restrict the DOD. They restrict the intelligence community. Nothing stops the military from targeting a head of state - or literally anyone else - if they are declared a legal target / combatant. Not sure where this whole "the military can't kill certain people" idea has come from. Probably news organizations like CNN, NBC, ABC, et al who just clip one-liners from EOs and use them to promote narratives which support their own motives.

Respect. I have no issue with people asking questions as Americans or whatever. Nor do I have a problem with contrarian opinions so long as they're defended in good faith. If I had my way, Ron Paul would be the President and a lot of other things about the way we conduct ourselves in the world would be different. So as a philosophical matter I agree that in the best of all possible worlds, Congress would not have abdicated its war-making responsibility, and we'd have a functioning government. At some point in my career, though, I looked at the way things actually worked, and began to come to terms with the imperfect way things work. That doesn't make it right, but it does make it above my pay grade. What I would put to you or anyone else out there is the question you seemed to be asking was an important one, but one we as officers don't get to deal with. It's the distinction between jus in bello vs jus ad bellum. We have every right and responsibility to question jus in bello. Questioning jus ad bellum is outside our lane as military officers. We benefit from being and having critical thinkers in the military. I pointed out what I thought was an inconsistency in the approach to the argument and what my thoughts are. Cheers.