this mess is going to get bigger before it goes away...
It really seems like no one knows exactly who is in charge over there.
939
No_Iron_80875 days ago
+367
Vahidi is absolutely in charge. Ghalibaf and Araghchi are trying to consolidate as much power as they can, but they’ve hit a wall.
I think they believed they could corral the IRGC with a lucrative ceasefire deal but Vahidi is a war-hawk. If you look at his statements over the past few weeks, he’s pretty much said that any ceasefire deal is a betrayal, that the IRGC didn’t want the war to end etc. etc. He has also backed up his rhetoric by preventing parliaments nominated candidates from taking their positions, he’s in direct conflict with Pezeshkian and openly attacking him.
The U.S. was swindled by Ghalibaf and Araghchi during these negotiations because they had built up an illusion of influence. The reality is they have absolutely no control over the IRGC, and the army is nowhere near as heavily equipped to fight a civil war on the governments behalf.
Even with the Islamabad delegation, Vahidi was firm about the IRGC’s red-line and when talk of a deal that crossed that line began to surface, all of the pro-IRGC media outlets went berserk. Araghchi’s tweet the other day was a power play, just like Zarif’s article, and it has backfired catastrophically. It’s pushed the IRGC to defy and rebel against the government itself.
The only military authority in Iran right now is Vahidi. Whatever he says goes. And what he is saying is: Hormuz is closed, no nuclear deal without sanction relief, and Iran will not give up its nuclear programme. It was his office that also put out the ten point plan than asked for every U.S. base in the ME to be dissolved.
Long story short, he wants war and nobody can stop him.
367
[deleted]5 days ago
+134
[deleted]
134
tchomptchomp5 days ago
+106
All three, likely. These people were left alive solely to sign a deal. If they can't do that, the value of further degrading the Iranian regime far exceeds anything they can individually bring to the table.
106
Slow-Seaweed-52325 days ago
+31
My take is USA will want to take vahidi out. Israel probably doesn’t want to take him out bc he’ll continue war which is in their interest and lead to further instability for Iran
31
DiscipleOfYeshua5 days ago
+16
Israel's prime goal is to have an Iran that has no interest or no ability to deliver nuclear weapons to its population. Through continued war, the latter can be taken a few steps back; through a change of Iranian regime, the former, which would coat less and achieve more.
War is the last option for Israel, and would be gladly stopped if goals are reached, one way or another.
16
WittyBag17725 days ago
+9
israel’s prime goal is to make iran a failed state, like they are close to achieving in lebanon (or seemingly already there depending what your threshold is)
the idea war is the last option for israel, when they were the initiators of this war, is really confusing me? multiple intelligence shows iran was not actively pursuing nuclear weapons including america’s own.
9
Seanspeed5 days ago
+14
>multiple intelligence shows iran was not actively pursuing nuclear weapons including america’s own.
How do y'all buy such naive nonsense? lol
You dont enrich uranium to 60% for any reason other than to build a nuclear weapon. Iran perhaps weren't actively developing a weapon specifically, but they are certainly developing the conditions for themselves to be able to do so in the future. Uranium enrichment is by far the hardest(and most resource intensive) part of the process.
Iran were absolutely on this path. Whether they'd actually make a nuclear weapon can be debated, but Israel were certainly not going to tolerate a situation where Iran would be quickly capable of it. And I dont really blame them for that, given how extremist Iran's leaders are when it comes to eradicating Israel.
> like they are close to achieving in lebanon (or seemingly already there depending what your threshold is)
I dont think you understand what's going on in Lebanon. That is absolutely not Israel's aim there.
14
fakcapitalism5 days ago
+6
Pretending like israel attacked Iran for any reason other than undergoing 3 years of direct war with various iranian funded and controlled proxy groups whose goal is to eradicate israel is certainly an interesting choice.
6
I-Have-An-Alibi4 days ago
+1
Well we gotta use the $200,000 Ninja Missiles for *something*
1
HouseOfCosbyz5 days ago
+4
Vahidi is as good as dead.
4
awr904 days ago
+1
The US left those three alive to make a deal. If one or all don’t play ball they will just eliminate them and try somebody else.
1
JamesBaylizz5 days ago
+40
This is the correct take. Finally someone with 2 brain cells to rub together said something coherent.
40
Lorenzo19455 days ago
+1
Yes, finally some intel on the mess going on inside Iran. I do pity the common citizens. Some will simply need to kill off all these radicals before any peace can be made.
1
nithrean5 days ago
+38
that actually makes sense. I hope it is not true, but it does seem to fit the situation.
38
1Pac2Pac3Pac55 days ago
+46
Finally, somebody who's actually answering the questions instead of railing on Trump every 2 seconds
46
Veepster5 days ago
+44
It’s tough because Trump was such a bone head for shit to get this far. Probably the dumbest modern president.
44
dondox5 days ago
+32
Probably?
32
amadmongoose5 days ago
+11
He's speed running the position of worst president ever
11
Fardreaming_Writer595 days ago
+4
I thought James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and Richard Nixon were bad, but Trump makes them look like Presidential giants in comparison.
4
Next_Instruction_5285 days ago
+14
There was no point in delaying this any further it's obvious that the irgc never plans to stop pursuing nuclear proliferation and never did.
F*** trump honestly I have been very openly against him on this account since before he won the election but Iran with nukes should be a non starter for every civilized country.
14
SnooHedgehogs87655 days ago
+6
Agreed.
The regime is a serius threat. And we're stuck with an idiot for president and a world wide commentariate more interested in backing the IRGC to prove trumps a dumbass than having a conversation about the longer term implications of having religeous nut bags where they are.
6
Veepster5 days ago
+4
There was plenty of reasons to delay this further:
1.) There remains no evidence they were "weeks away" from having a nuclear weapon. Also no evidence that the "war is over", and everything else Trump rambles on about.
2.) As part of the JCPOA, Iran allowed extensive international inspections (IAEA). The US withdrew from this deal in 2018. And slowly inspections became more restricted and inconsistent. This war, everything Trump is doing, is part of what he does. Some decent/good things are in place, instead of trying to make things better he makes things worse. He knew Obama played a huge role in the JCPOA, couldn't have that, and decided to withdraw and put pressure on Iran and... here we are. The art of the deal. I'm not saying the JCPOA is great or perfect but what Trump is doing from 2018 to now is worse as evidenced by everything going on.
3.) Ali Khamenei, at least publicly, was against nuclear weapon development. He was 86 and the supreme leader of Iran. Why not try and create a new deal with this guy, instead of making him to a martyr and letting the radicalists in the IRGC get a larger foothood? Escalation just strengthens IRGCs influence.
My thoughts? Trump wanted another Venezeula moment. He thought take this guy out, show some fire power, put some pressure, and they'll get a regime change. It defintely feels he was taken aback by the Straight Closure, and everything else going on. On top of this, he had to commit and threaten multiple war crimes along theway. There is no good guy here.
4.) This is all adding to American debt. We are not in Europe. We are not in Asia. We are not in Africa. Why ICBMs can reach us, we should continue to invest in our defense program. This is a large benefit of being on the other side of the world. If we're going to attack Iran - it should be in partnership with our allies in the East. They have just as much as stake if not more given their close proximity.
5.) This is all having massive global effects in a very sensitive time in our economy imo. Trump has backed away from other sources of energy like solar and electric, and pushed more reliance to fossil fuels so a war like this is only going to hit our wallets harder. In reality the USA energy grid/supplies should be more diverse. The Iran War is increasing inflation, slowing global growth, driving up prices, in a time where Americans are losing their jobs every month as companies push & spend billions on AI.
Now we have Americans looking for jobs with surging gas prices.
There was definitely ways to delay this and/or even prevent this. Trump wasn't interested.
4
rayEW5 days ago
+8
All your argumentation is invalid when you throw in some ridiculous statements such as "Ali Khamenei was against developing a nuclear weapon", as if the billions and billions of USD wasn't funneled into the nuclear programme to enrich uranium above 10%, underground. He could prevent that decades ago, if he was against it.
8
awr904 days ago
+1
Why did Iran have uranium enriched to over 60%? Simple question.
1
ItWiIlStretch5 days ago
+9
Let me rail a bit more because Trump fucked that up too. You cant* expect to negotiate successfully when you are killing the leaders and splintering the country.
*edited
9
Valuable-Term95595 days ago
+9
You mean you CAN’T expect to negotiate successfully, not you can.
9
ItWiIlStretch5 days ago
+2
Yes! Thanks, I have edited it
2
Viscount_Disco_Sloth5 days ago
+16
Makes sense. As long as the IRGC commander is willing to risk dying to a missile strike (and he's probably pretty well hidden at this point) they can keep the straight closed indefinitely and strangle the world economy until they get exactly what they want. It only takes a handful of missiles or drones to keep most tankers away and to threaten the oil industry across the gulf.
In the worst case scenario, I think they could theoretically hold out and continue to threaten the straight until the US is forced into a ground invasion.
16
[deleted]5 days ago
+10
[deleted]
10
AK_Panda5 days ago
+24
The only type of invasion that could successfully open the strait without leaving troops in incredibly vulnerable positions is an invasion of mainland Iran.
The missiles and drones have range too long to keep the strait open otherwise.
24
emotional_program05 days ago
+10
And this is exactly why Trump/Israel were utterly moronic to attack Iran. It was CLEARLY not well thought out. The Iranians have probably planned for such possibilities for years. They will make the US and world bleed as much as possible to get what they want.
10
AK_Panda5 days ago
+2
IMHO there's a good chance that the IRGC never actually planned for this particular scenario as I doubt they expected the US to be this shocking incompetent. The decentralised structure they have was probably built in anticipation of full fledged US invasion with the intent to make the occupation phase so painful that the US would have to pull out.
The US f****** up so badly that they don't even have the forces in the region needed to do that or safeguard shipping is probably the best case scenario for them.
If a peace treaty is signed, then the IRGC is going to be in complete control of Iran. Which means an even more aggressive foreign policy and they will certain push for nukes.
If the peace treaty isn't signed, then the US will have to prepare for an actual invasion at some point, which will take months to do. By which point the massive economic consequences for the world's economy will already be in full effect.
Hands down the worst geopolitical blunder I've seen the US make.
2
nithrean5 days ago
+31
I don't think they are in as strong of position as that. China needs the oil. They were the largest consumer of Iranian oil before. It will change everything if they have to buy from other places like the US. Iran is also very quickly running out of water. If things don't change and they don't start working on the problem, there won't be a country left to be in charge of. They were talking about abandoning Tehran not long ago.
31
Viscount_Disco_Sloth5 days ago
+4
It doesn't take that large of a force to close off the straight. Look at what happened to shipping in the red sea after the houthis started attacking ships in 2023. Even if the Iranian government wants to stop fighting, a small group of hardline IRGC could keep things going. Then the question becomes: who will stop them? A US land invasion to control the straight area, or a rival Iranian group?
I think they will eventually back down but they will significantly damage the global economy in the meantime.
4
nithrean5 days ago
+9
Oh yes. There is going to be a ton of damage to go around.
9
JamesBaylizz5 days ago
+11
What you have to understand is the US is profiting MASSIVELY on this. Through taxes of boosted gas prices AND all the new oil they are selling.
The US is MAKING money hand over fist.
11
SomewhereHot45275 days ago
+21
Naaah.
Whatever additional benefits the Oil and gas industry is seeing, there are way more losses in business crippled by the high energy prices.
Thanks to the very capitalist market, the US is not really saying an increase in tax receipts from increased oil and gas sales.
21
nithrean5 days ago
+12
China was also the largest consumer of Iranian oil and they are being badly hurt by it. The closed straight puts many nations in difficult places.
12
Radalek5 days ago
+5
China is not hurt at all. Yet. They have a massive stockpile and on top of that, Iran has tens of millions of barrels in a 'floating storage'. A lot of tankers that went out some time ago, mostly iddling in southeast Asia that are slowly selling the oil. They can keep selling for 3-4 more weeks before that runs out and until then both Iran and China won't feel that much pressure on that front.
5
milkplantation5 days ago
+2
~~China isn't really hurting at all.~~ China is hurting but not as much as most countries. They could be the largest benefactor in the long run. They have direct oil pipelines from Russia and huge strategic reserves and a large domestic manufacturing base.
For Pacific Island nations (like Fiji, Tonga, and New Caledonia) that are entirely dependent on diesel for both maritime transport and electricity. China can step in as a fuel savior for basing rights and port access. This could permanently shift the balance of power in the Pacific, moving these strategically vital islands into China’s sphere of influence which would help them with their ambitions on Taiwan.
Also consider that increased economic pain related to oil will accelerate the transition to renewables and as the world attempts to achieve energy independence, they'll turn to China who is far and away the world’s dominant supplier of solar panels, batteries, and wind turbine components.
China and Russia can't be too bothered by it.
2
iFraqq5 days ago
+2
The fuel through these oil pipelines isn't nearly enough and extending those pipelines has been a problem between China and Russia for years now. Reserves also don't last forever due to the amount of oil etc. they use. Having to access your reserves is hurting in itself. It all depends on how fast this crisis will be resolved but claiming China isn't hurting is not true.
2
NoVax-Djocovid5 days ago
+2
You know, I wonder if the generals that war gamed this out in the past ever considered essentially controlling Venezuela as part of the package. Because like you said, they’re making money hand over fist AND control more oil than ever before after removing Maduro.
Maybe it changed the equation. Who knows, I’m not a war general.
2
JamesBaylizz5 days ago
+2
All of these moved are preplanned and very intentional.
While toppling Iran and its terrorist proxies is great, let be clear they are not doing it out of the kindness of their hearts.
Someone somewhere, is making an absolute truckload or money.
2
Acceptable_Set97025 days ago
+2
What do you mean by "The US"? Thats a little vague......Oil Companies? Trump? Who exactly is making so much more than say, a year ago?
2
EmpZurg_5 days ago
+1
Sharp rises in gas are only a boon to oil that was sucked up, refined, and en route before the price hikes. Otherwise, you are spending that increase during the process. Its a world commodity.
with the massive expenditures of the ongoing conflicts, massive spending and tax cuts elsewhere, the cutting of social services, and a deficit that continues to balloon.... where is this hand over fist money?
The real profit is this barely legal prediction market insider bullshit.
1
calamondingarden5 days ago
+2
They can't because their own ports are blocked.. not long before they run out of money..
2
Next_Instruction_5285 days ago
+2
>In the worst case scenario, I think they could theoretically hold out and continue to threaten the straight until the US is forced into a ground invasion.
That's far from the worst case scenario for them
Iran without gas or oil infrastructure or desalination or internet or factories or bridges or railways or ports ect ect ect is what would happen long before a ground invasion.
2
Valuable-Term95595 days ago
+1
But how long can Iran survive a blockade that deprives them of every cent of income to run the country? And to pay the IRGC?
1
MaximumWoodpecker8695 days ago
+5
Pezeshkian really just there cause not even mentioned, huh. The main names I see of people in charge of Iran right now are Ghalibaf, Radan, and Vahidi.
At this point it kinda safe to say Iran under IRGC control or effectively martial law.
5
AlericandAmadeus5 days ago
+2
And Trump/Bibi are more than willing to Vahidi what he wants because they’re f****** morons motivated by destructively blind self-interest/perceived slights and are also narcissists - aka incapable of introspection/admitting fault, which means they suck balls at strategic decision making cuz they don’t f****** learn.
Those two created the entire situation that’s now resulted in the craziest of the already crazy leaders in Iran now being the one to call the shots, and oh yeah creating a global energy crisis on the side, nbd.
F****** imbeciles.
2
MildCorneaDamage5 days ago
+2
Real talk, are you going to run an update once a week somewhere because this is actually a useful set of info on the situation?
2
Mac629615 days ago
+3
Well said. Appreciate your insight here
3
your_grandmas_FUPA5 days ago
+1
[ Removed by Listnook ]
1
MrF_lawblog5 days ago
+1
Sounds like it was a rash plan to take out the entire senior leadership of a country you wanted to negotiate with.
1
Shirolicious5 days ago
+1
Well, then I guess the US has some more targets to eliminate before maybe they are willing to talk.
1
Built4dominance5 days ago
+1
I think Vahidi will be dead within a month.
1
bucki_fan5 days ago
+1
Assuming you're correct, and given the lunacy that is the US regime (vis a vis Kegbreath), this appears to be two trains on a collision course with both wanting the crash to happen.
One is much bigger than the other but the smaller one is filled with far more dangerous cargo. This does not end well for the entire planet.
1
jert35 days ago
+1
I think OP was referring to America. It's certainly laughable to suggest that the dementia-riddled actor playing a president on TV is the one setting policy and making decisions.
1
BoppityBop25 days ago
+45
No one realized how much damage has been done that is coming down the pipeline that can't be reversed. People thing Europe aeronautical fuel issue can be walked back, well it can't for the foreseeable future. And even if the straits are opened the time required between open and new shipments arriving is quite long. The financial markets are disconnected from what is going on, in the ground
45
no_kids-and-3_money5 days ago
+30
That’s the perfect word to describe all of this: disconnected.
30
UseBackground23704 days ago
+1
Like the 90 million Iranians who haven't had internet access for the past months and a few days, 1,200 hours of internet shutdown, total disconnect.
1
JVM_5 days ago
+16
Oil tankers travel at the speed of a bicycle. So, the gap of "missing" oil tankers is already travelling (slowly) across the oceans. It's hit Oceana and Japan already and is starting to hit Europe and will hit America eventually.
16
riko77can5 days ago
+33
Feels the same on the other side between Bibi and Donald. Who *is* in charge over there?
33
nithrean5 days ago
+17
that is a genuinely good question. There are blurred lines all over the place on this one.
17
YakResident_30695 days ago
+6
Who's in charge soldier?
Ain't you?
Apocalypse Now.
6
faffc2605 days ago
+50
that's what happens when you effectively decapitate the ruling members of the regime your fighting, in this instance several times over 2 wars...
50
ignatious__reilly5 days ago
+8
What concerns me is whether the IRGC has become more decentralized. I wouldn’t be surprised if authority is now more dispersed, with different factions or commanders operating more independently, and some potentially more extreme than others.
8
faffc2605 days ago
+9
it's built to be decentralized, afaik they work in semi autonomous cells and I'm sure communications are being disrupted, so many are probably acting at least semi independently part of the times. from what I've read the people likely running iran right now are 3 current and former irgc commanders (one is now the guy we are negotiating with, but least likely to hold actual power), the other is the current head of the IRGC and I forget the third's position, but all are veterans of the iran-iraq war and are reported to all be much more hardline than the previous leadership. and I'm sure there are many behind them prepared to take up the mantle after last years wars.
9
UseBackground23704 days ago
+2
The problem is, the islamic republic isn't about one person. It's an entire system and ideology built to withstand just this. They knew the biggest threat was the army, so they built a bigger army literally just to protect the revolution (IRGC). The entire government system is just a closed loop. They have brainwashed people to the point that they're willing to bring their 11 year old children to the battlefield to be martyred because that's their goal. They're promised 72 virgins as soon as they are martyred on the "other side". I wish I was making this up.
2
Consistent_Pitch7825 days ago
+8
Well, the moderates who would negotiate with America were killed early in the war, to be replaced by extremists. So any hope of a rational outcome is long gone.
It hasn’t sunk in yet how bad this is going to get. Why would Iran ever give up control here?
8
Soccermad235 days ago
+8
Honestly the only way out of it I see is either US goes full invasion (which won’t be pretty) or US continues the blockade on Iran and hopes they can weather the recession better than Iran can.
8
SouthernAddress50515 days ago
+2
Much of the US glorifies World War II but don't understand that the world has changed since then. We will never be united behind this dumb war that we started and we have shed the manufacturing base that gave us the advantage in WWII. In fact I'd argue we're on the other side, with Iran able to produce c**** drones while we are stuck with bloated million dollar missiles. This will be closer to another Vietnam.
2
Valuable-Term95595 days ago
+1
Bingo.
1
Valuable-Term95595 days ago
+2
Zero revenue coming in will cripple Iranian society.
2
nithrean5 days ago
+2
They might be forced to by a number of different things. Lots of parties are being hurt by this around the world.
2
moonLanding1235 days ago
+5
Everyone blames the US though especially is Asia.
5
Remus88Romulus5 days ago
+3
We are heading for a financial crisis like that big one in 2008... It feels like it's game over.
3
Southern_Loquat_44505 days ago
+6
Exactly - and it seems our military general staff are ready to say yes to whatever he wants, sadly.
6
Local-Friendship81665 days ago
+5
Because any of them with any sense have all been fired.
5
Reqvhio5 days ago
+1
the fact that u cant bet on a nuclear strike by us on iran on kalshi is all the proof i need
1
noonie15 days ago
+1
This like when Starlord and Thor were talking.
1
133DK5 days ago
+1
Not exactly clear who’s in charge in Iran either ^^^/jk
1
Substantial_Milk81705 days ago
+412
I mean yeah? It’s literally their only major piece of leverage on the global stage. Did anyone actually expect them to just politely hand over the keys?
412
sgtabn1735 days ago
+174
Yeah, at this point boots on the ground seems pretty unavoidable if we want the strait to go back to the way it was before. What a completely unnecessary and avoidable shit show.
174
johnlocke3575 days ago
+171
There is no way for the situation to return to the way it was. Trump took an extremely fragile system and broke it beyond repair.
171
Schmarsten13065 days ago
+46
I'm willing to put money on:
>Boots on the ground
>US takes control of a crippled straight of hormuz
>US starts taking tolls on ships, arguing that the whole military operation cost them a lot of money and they need reparations from nations who weren't willing to help
>This money does not go t the military
Oh and regularly something blows up because this is afghanistan 2.0 and terrorists dont vanish overnight
46
shutyourgob5 days ago
+4
I don't think it goes past step 1. Iran has a huge army, and the US doesn't have the best track record in this kind of terrain
4
procgen5 days ago
+11
All they realistically need to do is maintain the blockade and choke the Iranian economy. Can’t see them putting boots on the ground.
11
Imsurethatsbullshit5 days ago
+11
No. Even when the economy is shit a regime can stay in control. Have people collectively forgotten about North Korea?
11
Totoques225 days ago
+5
Iran is two months away from economic collapse right now
5
Imsurethatsbullshit5 days ago
+7
It will collapse any second now... Just like Russias economy... And then what?
You think they capitulate because the populace is starving? They are shooting protestors in the streets.. The iranian leadership will not suffer like ordinary citizens and will continue until the US gives up, loses interest or elects a new government.
On top of that the idiot in charge told me the war has been won 5 times already.
7
jellyhessman5 days ago
+2
They'll be buoyed by China.
2
procgen5 days ago
+5
North Korea has China propping them up, and they're right next door. Iran's not on the best terms with their neighbors, and they're almost entirely reliant on exports through Hormuz.
5
Brinabavd5 days ago
+2
The conventional war in Afghanistan took maybe 3 months between 9/11 and the end of all open resistance and the shift to counterinsurgency.
The US military is *really* good at fighting state actors. The problem is always what happens afterwards.
2
Magistricide4 days ago
+1
There's 0 chance US actually putting enough boots on the ground to invade a nation with 70 million people and stop all of them from being able to fly a single 10k drone into the straight.
1
Pseudanonymius5 days ago
+10
Boots on the ground don't magically solve problems. In this case they would solve absolutely nothing
10
Thurak05 days ago
+2
But it worked so well in Afghanistan! Why would it not work now in Iran again!
/s, just to be sure.
2
foghillgal5 days ago
+41
Except if this happens, a lot of the oil production in the middle east will get destroyed and this would need to get through congress cause the budget for this would be immense and not sure the US even has enough fighters to do this properly. It would just make the shitshow even bigger.
41
Brief_Hospital_17665 days ago
+37
There is absolutely zero chance Trump puts boots on the ground. He shat himself over the downed pilot as he feared that person being shown as a hostage on TV.
The most likely outcome is the US walks away with Trump declaring the greatest victory in US history, to be followed with a ticker tape parade in New York City. He doesn't understand the global oil markets and doesn't care how it affects US, and indeed other global citizens.
After walking away he will blame NATO for not doing their part in world policing and pull all US troops out of Europe.
37
Scriefers5 days ago
+2
Remind me! 2 months
2
retard_seasoning5 days ago
+2
I am looking at the personnel buildup and the bets that are happening in the prediction markets. Boots on the ground is going to happen. I hope I am wrong.
2
meechmeechmeecho5 days ago
+10
Boots on the ground would be a massive blunder. It doesn’t stop anything. They’re better off just keeping the blockade on the ports and waiting for collapse.
10
retard_seasoning5 days ago
+6
It will be a blunder but it is going to happen. Just wait another month or so. Americans dying and killing in the name of Epstein.
6
Busy-Smile9895 days ago
+3
Liked by 38 bears
3
I2eflex5 days ago
+8
Real case of American-brain on display right here.
8
csixtay5 days ago
+1
Seriously lol. The idea of just f****** leaving never crossed their mind.
1
Svv33tPotat05 days ago
+7
Or we could pull out entirely and sever all ties with Israel. But apparently that is somehow less reasonable than a doomed ground invasion.
7
Potential_Archer24275 days ago
+1
Boots on the ground won't happen, but I can see them turn iran into gaza by air campaign
1
Jeanfromthe545 days ago
+1
It's only 2 millions undervalued Yuan per ship, it's not even 1% of the total cost of transportation, I doubt any forces in the world is going to war and die in the mountains of Iran for this.
1
JustinBriggs1235 days ago
+1
The way it was before. The Strait was open, but then we decided to start bombing Iran yet again despite being in the middle of peace talks with an open Strait. It was Trump who threw away the treaties we had with Iran already in the trash. We are fixing a shit show that he created just so he claim his room temp genius.
1
jellyhessman5 days ago
+1
Boots on the ground would makes things unbelievablely worse and probably collapse the US economy.
1
johnnygrant5 days ago
+3
They will have to if they want to survive.
Even a democrat president will go to war over it. With a world coalition behind them.
They are lucky Trump has zero stateman aura (and caused the issue) to rally the world behind him on this. They can't keep the world economy on chokehold forever.
3
Jeanfromthe545 days ago
+2
They did for 50 years under sanctions and being an international pariah. But now I doubt they would go back to the status quo.
2
HelloYesItsMeYourMom5 days ago
+7
But it’s also a suicide option economically. As long as they control the Straits, the US will blockade them
Outside the Strait. They need ships moving through or they will face economic catastrophe. This will affect the world economy but the US is in a much better position than most to ride it out. With Europe pushing Trump away (and vice versa) he can give a lot less shit about Europes feeling on the matter
7
A_terrible_musician5 days ago
+1
Insert Bowser "well yeah, kinda!" Gif here
1
Wischiwaschbaer5 days ago
+1
I assume Trump and most of his administration did. They really are that dumb.
1
pepe_acct5 days ago
+103
I mean why would America cede control then? Can they outlast a US blockade?
103
gayphilantropist5 days ago
+178
No. The blockade is 100% more fatal to Iran. Anyone claiming otherwise has drank the cool aid
178
XimbalaHu35 days ago
+46
If the blockade persists I'll be alive to see a co-sponsored U.N. reaolution between China and Japan for an end of the conflict.
Talking only in terms of economic damage, those will be the most affected countries by far. Plus if the blockade goes on for long enough, Iran can export their oil to Russia via the caspian, and Russia to allied countries from their inftastructure whenever iran needs a cash injection.
46
Beardmanta5 days ago
+49
The Caspian trade route is designed for containers, grain, and small cargo not oil tankers. And at best has a capacity for 10–15 million tons of cargo annually.
"Long enough" would probably be over a decade before the Caspian route could be developed enough to get even close to the capacity of the straight of Hormuz, where Iran was shipping 1.5 million barrels per day prior to the blockade.
Could be a good life support for Iran but in the scale of tens of thousands of barrels daily not millions.
49
GabeIsGone5 days ago
+16
Yeah, the Caspian Is simply too shallow for oil tankers. They’d have to build pipelines. The northern part of the Caspian averages less than 20 ft in depth.
16
Longjumping_Poet78975 days ago
+3
this is an assumption that the US wouldn't just instantly bomb the heck out of any way that iran makes money.
3
NoVax-Djocovid5 days ago
+5
And that’s assuming that DJT doesn’t bomb it once in awhile to reset progress.
5
Due_Attention_48865 days ago
+3
There are no tankers in the Caspian nor are there pipelines to the Caspian.
3
Beautiful_Finger45665 days ago
+2
fyi it's "Kool-Aid"
2
gayphilantropist5 days ago
+1
Ah, noted
1
itsatumbleweed5 days ago
+9
It's actually insane that he didn't start there. Makes no sense. Honestly, truly, I think he wanted big boom videos.
9
Scriefers5 days ago
+13
In Iran’s case, top regime leaders had to be taken out, their conventional military/airforce/navy had to be annihilated, and a lot of missile sites/bunkers had to be destroyed first. You don’t start a blockade on an enemy that can still effectively fight back.
13
MtnDewDiligence5 days ago
+4
They didn’t do it earlier because it’s not a good strategic option, otherwise they would have.
4
Negative-Concert-8195 days ago
+108
Why would they ever? it’s their trump card
108
SnackleMouth5 days ago
+25
Hey-o
25
Leather_Warning7025 days ago
+5
They're going to have to redefine that to mean doing something you didn't think through at all and just blows up in your face
5
UnTides5 days ago
+20
Hegseth: "Bring out the gimp"
20
WavyGravy045 days ago
+23
Trump said Vance can’t go
23
UnTides5 days ago
+3
Hes balled gagged in a closet in Air Force 2
3
WavyGravy045 days ago
+2
The couches are safe!
2
Beef__Strokinoff5 days ago
+30
"The victor is not victorious until the vanquished considers themselves so."
Somebody should've sat Trump down for basic Roman history.
30
thomascgalvin5 days ago
+8
Trump would have treated the chapter on Caligula as a todo list
8
Pitiful_Hedgehog63435 days ago
+41
They have no right to "own" international waters.
41
thomascgalvin5 days ago
+32
Do you have a good plan to stop them? B/C if you do, there are some people in Washington that would _love_ to talk to you
32
Scriefers5 days ago
+30
The plan is economic starvation. The blockade is a siege.
30
NaNaNa_PooPoo5 days ago
+18
Exactly. But it's totally cool if we blockade Cuba and Israel blockades Gaza.
18
GasolinePizza5 days ago
+17
Since when is Cuba blockaded?
17
sansisness_1015 days ago
+17
Cuba is embargoed, not blockaded, this isn't 1963 bro.
17
ccipher5 days ago
+3
These are not international waters just look at a map it's literally 35km across
3
shortyman9205 days ago
+7
Well I dk what’s going to happen but I know he’s the next guy that’s getting killed off
7
Vegetable_Tension9855 days ago
+5
no one will ever do anything, until they are by force or death that .is
5
hannabarberaisawhore5 days ago
+11
Isn’t Iran in a water crisis too? I thought Tehran was like a couple days away from being completely out of water before the US started all this c***.
11
Turtleknuckle5 days ago
+2
Then the world will move on without you.
2
DMVSPIRITS5 days ago
+7
Believe it or not calls
7
boogi3woogie5 days ago
+8
So… regime change it is!
8
Broad-Internal42605 days ago
+8
How long have ya’ll been saying that now?
8
wildflower123456785 days ago
+2
time to build a canal on the Dubai side of the Strait similar to how the Manchester Ship Canal was built to bypass Liverpool’s port charges and reach Manchester directly
2
IranianLawyer4 days ago
+1
Sure no problem. That’ll probably only take like 20+ years to build.
1
wildflower123456784 days ago
So? If its never started it'll never be built.
0
Common-Concentrate-24 days ago
+1
at $7 million/mile I see a pipeline being more realistic, but Im no expert. It would have to be strongly defended against from aerial attack
1
wildflower123456784 days ago
+1
Yes good point.
1
RuffTuff5 days ago
+2
Not if the US renames it to Strait of America /s
2
Th3J3rkStor3Call3d5 days ago
+2
Well yeah, why would one give up their major bargaining chip?
2
Own_Worldliness_92975 days ago
+5
But it was never yours to take control in the first place lol.
5
Ultra_Metal5 days ago
+2
This is an empty threat. The Islamic Republic will collapse soon due to bankruptcy. Trump's blockade is going to cause a massive financial crisis for the regime because it has lost most of its income. It will not be able to pay the mass murderers, torturers, rapists and child abusers it employs to oppress the people of Iran. Once those thugs and criminals defect, the Iranian people will resume their revolution and remove the regime from power.
2
marx2k5 days ago
+23
"we'll be greeted as liberators!"
23
Wischiwaschbaer4 days ago
+3
Oh that's one of the biggest copes I've ever seen.
3
notmyclementine5 days ago
+4
How hard would it be to do a Panama Canal deal south of Dubai? Legitimately wondering
4
discipleofchrist695 days ago
+12
very hard
12
Wischiwaschbaer4 days ago
+2
Considering the mountain range, not exactly great...
2
Long-Draft-71285 days ago
+6
You do know missles fly right? Even if you spent a hundred trillion dollers digging a new path the missles would still hit the ships. Their drones fly 1600 miles and their missles can hit europe.
6
Hot-Delay56085 days ago
+4
Terrorists will never stop being Terrorist. Surprise surprise
4
Budgeko5 days ago
+2
Hmmm.. zero cargo ships going out and zero coming in by way of our Navy’s blockade. Forget about the crucial revenue loss to Iran.. how about critical supplies. They are backed into a corner and need to adopt a sense of humility 🇺🇸🇺🇸
2
bickusdickus69allday5 days ago
+2
Republican playbook:
Create this level of shit and pass it on to the next administration
2
tecdaz5 days ago
+1
Dictator sock puppets say all sorts of junk
1
UppermiddleclassCLS5 days ago
+1
Just keep killing them till someone reasonable makes a deal
1
Business_Brick_11945 days ago
+1
Thought that guy was Peter Zehian in thumbnail
1
goalsforscholes5 days ago
+1
Vietnam part 2
1
Economy-Rise11084 days ago
+1
It's really nothing to do with nukes, after all nobody did anything to prevent NK developing them...or even enriching uranium.
1
mickeydean4 days ago
+1
I thought they had no air force or navy left. Is it with drones and mines alone that they are holding the straits and gays of Hormuz hostage?
178 Comments