It was Jimmy Carter that established that the Strait of Hormuz would stay open, through the strength of the US military threat.
And now? The US is a paper tiger, making ridiculous threats via barely used social media platforms and then revoking them with just as little formality. The US has already done its worst, except for nukes, and the threats of nuking Iran are clear fakes.
The US used to be a guarantor of safety on the seas. That appears to have been completely destroyed by the weak leadership in the US.
> The US has never looked, or been, weaker than it is right now.
Nothing has fundamentally changed with respect to American power. If this was true, that America has never been weaker than it is right now, why wouldn't China just go ahead and invade Taiwan? This is the perfect opportunity! Or is it that the US is so strong that even at its weakest point it can deter China from taking military action over Taiwan? Doesn't pass the smell test.
> It was Jimmy Carter that established that the Strait of Hormuz would stay open, through the strength of the US military threat.
And that worked for a long time.
And things change. The world isn't static.
And if the Strait is closed then it, as it is today, is also closed for the Iranians with the ultimate effect of making a cheeseburger cost a few dollars more and people coal-rolling their F-250s around having to spend more to do so. It screws over the rest of the world, but they also allowed this Iranian regime to fester and threaten until it was intolerable.
It's too late now, but the rest of the world which so clearly depends on the Strait of Hormuz should have taken diplomatic and economic action earlier and/or more forcefully to prevent a group of religious cultists and fanatics from seizing control of Iran and then constantly threatening the US. At some point enough is enough and so the failure to act or stand up to these bullies leads to more pain down the road. It's a trap that Europe especially continues to fall in to because culturally they don't understand that bad people exist and you have to use force to stop them. They're learning that about Ukraine now too.
> And now? The US is a paper tiger, making ridiculous threats via barely used social media platforms and then revoking them with just as little formality.
The United States casually walked in and bombed the hell out of Iran's military and killed its leaders. Idk. If I was Iranian I sure wouldn't be looking at the US as a paper tiger when it can go park an aircraft carrier nearby and then bomb all my stuff and there's basically nothing I can do about it except to bomb defenseless oil tankers.
> The US used to be a guarantor of safety on the seas. That appears to have been completely destroyed by the weak leadership in the US.
It's a package deal. In order to be the guarantor of the seas you have to take actions like the on in Iran. All Iran had to do was double, triple, or quadruple its missile stockpile and then try to enact tolls on the Strait of Hormuz and the cost to stop it would be too great. US action today is exactly the role it is playing in guaranteeing safety on the seas. By the way, why is the US the one that has to do this? And if you don't like us doing it, maybe we should stop. I know that's what the far-left and MAGA want - they want isolationism.
> Nothing has fundamentally changed with respect to American power
Yes, actually - Iran is charging tolls and was not doing that before. This is in the face of an American naval blockade right in their neighborhood. That is an affront to power, at least for the moment.
The China point is really immaterial to the instant issue of the Strait, but even there China is very obviously growing more aggressive (cf the recent trip of the Taiwanese president where he had to sneak out of his nation).
> The United States casually walked in and bombed the hell out of Iran's military and killed its leaders.
Yes, but now the Strait transit is being dictated by the new rulers. We can keep killing them but the issue is that we are no longer in control of a situation that we used to be in control of. That's why the paper tiger comparison is apt—for all our bombs, this isn't in our hands.
> there's basically nothing I can do about it except to bomb defenseless oil tankers.
Iran has bombed over a dozen US installations, probably the greatest damage to US military installations in recent memory, if ever. This includes destroying equipment that's worth > $700 M. The oil tankers are kind of a distraction when they can clearly damage all of our allies' infrastructure despite being decapitated by the first strikes.
> In order to be the guarantor of the seas you have to take actions like the on in Iran.
The whole point of this is we cannot guarantee passage in the Strait. I don't think that will over go back to how it was.
> By the way, why is the US the one that has to do this?
We don't and because of this current issue, nobody will be able to do it until our next world war establishes a new, single hegemon. It was convenient while it lasted because it allowed stability for our post-war economy.
I send a bill to every car that passes by my street. It's weird, none of them ever pay it. Iran can charge whatever it wants, but as long as America holds the blockade it doesn't matter. There's a misunderstanding that Iran "controls" the Strait of Hormuz. It doesn't. Control doesn't mean you simply stop others from exercising action, because if that's the case the US is also stopping any ships that Iran allows and is therefore in control.
> The China point is really immaterial to the instant issue of the Strait, but even there China is very obviously growing more aggressive (cf the recent trip of the Taiwanese president where he had to sneak out of his nation).
Well you can't really separate China out from the initial comment I responded to. How is American power the weakest it has ever been but then it's also not changed at all with respect to China? These kinds of statements just don't make sense. It's the kind of thing that feels good to say but is wrong.
> Yes, but now the Strait transit is being dictated by the new rulers.
But it's not because the US controls it too.
> Iran has bombed over a dozen US installations, probably the greatest damage to US military installations in recent memory, if ever.
Yea, now imagine Iran quadruples its drone and missile stockpile and then closes the Strait and then proceeds with accelerating development of nuclear weapons. I'm not sure why folks seem to lack the capacity to project future actions
Also weird: Barely any cars on the street now!
https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/strait-of-hormuz-ports...
Wonder if that's related.
The US has destroyed it's perceived amount of force, ergo it has lost a ton of power. And by not being able to keep the Strait open, it's a de facto demonstration that Trump is a far weaker president than Carter was.
> And things change. The world isn't static.
Yeah, what changed? The US got weak and incompetent leadership. What changed? The US lost power.
Enough coping, we all see what's going on, you can't Jedi mind trick your way out of people realizing the prices they are paying at the pump.
Will China attack Taiwan? You say it's not going to happen because it hasn't happened yet?! It's an obvious fallacy to say that something can't happen because it hasn't happened yet, which is the sum total of your argumentation. The chances of China attacking Taiwan right now have gone through the roof because of the weakness of the US, mostly because of perceived weakness, but also because of the US squandering massive amounts of precision munitions on a strategy with zero gains. When are we going to be able to rebuild all those Patriot missiles? Who knows, the supply chains are long and super slow.
What's really protecting Taiwan right now is Ukraine. By Ukraine taking out Russia's navy through cheap naval drones (thanks UK for your assist there!), Ukraine has provided Taiwan a very thorough path to defense. Both by sea and by air.
Trump also gave up Taiwan in his recent meeting with Xi. Nobody thinks that the US will go to bat for Taiwan anymore, it's all on its own. But thankfully other, less corrupt places like Ukraine have shown the way for Taiwan to defend itself.
That's your perception. It's not the perception of those who matter.
> Enough coping, we all see what's going on, you can't Jedi mind trick your way out of people realizing the prices they are paying at the pump.
I'm glad folks are paying higher prices. We need less c02 in the atmosphere, more transit, and fewer giant trucks screaming around. We need less dependence on oil, too, and we're never going to get there if we keep having cheap and easy access to oil. Part of the reason we're in these wars and conflicts is to secure those oil supplies. These things are linked together. Americans need to start putting 2 and 2 together.
> Will China attack Taiwan? You say it's not going to happen because it hasn't happened yet?!
That's not what I said.
> What's really protecting Taiwan right now is Ukraine. By Ukraine taking out Russia's navy through cheap naval drones (thanks UK for your assist there!), Ukraine has provided Taiwan a very thorough path to defense. Both by sea and by air.
America has provided Taiwan a very thorough path to defense. Not Ukraine.
> Trump also gave up Taiwan in his recent meeting with Xi.
This is factually incorrect. These are the things I'm talking about - people read some headline and then all of a sudden we've gone from this summit and a few random comments to Trump "gave up Taiwan".
Not all power is measured in military might, that seems to be the mistake the Trump administration has made time and time again.
You're reading the news and hearing about all the bad things about America because that's what everyone cares about talking about and what everyone knows the most about. Most people outside of China can't speak Mandarin, and don't read Chinese news - not that they report bad things that are going on, and so we have to rely on smaller samples of western media outlets.
If you have a perception that the US is knocked down several pegs (whatever that means) it's because you're consuming news that focuses squarely on criticism of the United States.
Oh, come on. NATO and Gulf allies are starting to deny US use of their bases, and Trump's been credibly threatening to leave NATO. We've also nixed a bunch of our soft power programs like USAID.
Your view of the situation doesn't match reality.
Separately, we still have like 11 aircraft carriers and our entire military still in tact. Nothing has changed with respect to our power. If you think otherwise, you are simply wrong. There's no other way to put it.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-05-19/nato-is-s...
Sorry for the paywall, I don't have a subscription but saw the headline on Bloomberg TV. There are other sources but I wanted to be consistent and link where I saw the news.
Even if they decide to do so, why would we expect them to be more successful than the US military - which outspends the entire rest of NATO - at it?
> Separately, we still have like 11 aircraft carriers…
Yeah, and we're straining to keep them handling the load.
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2026/05/11/epic-fur...
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/16/us/politics/uss-ford-fire...
More ships always helps - they wouldn't be doing it without the US, it would be with the US.
So the 11 aircraft carriers are not enough, one might say?
If we park all 11 aircraft carriers outside of Iran, how will we have them deployed to support interests elsewhere?
> Separately, we still have like 11 aircraft carriers and our entire military still in tact. Nothing has changed with respect to our power. If you think otherwise, you are simply wrong. There's no other way to put it.
Naval power has shifted massively over the past four years due to massive technology change, and the US has done nothing to adapt or learn from its former ally, Ukraine.
You are simply wrong and outdate in your thinking, and not understanding the current reality. Which is why you accuse others of the same thing, it's classic projection.
It shows that you're wrong about the diplomatic situation. 8 weeks isn't that long of a timeframe. It takes weeks just to move some assets in place. You don't have a good understanding of how long it takes to do these kinds of things.
> Naval power has shifted massively over the past four years due to massive technology change, and the US has done nothing to adapt or learn from its
Factually incorrect. First you can't make a claim that the US has done nothing to adapt or learn from the ongoing war in Ukraine. The reason you can't make that claim, aside from the fact that well, any single change in tactics would prove you wrong, is because the US still to this day is deploying weapons and testing weapons and capabilities in Ukraine on the battlefield.
> former ally, Ukraine.
Also factually incorrect because Ukraine was never a US ally. Secondarily we are still supporting Ukraine and without our help in the early days of the war they would have very likely fallen under a renewed Iron Curtain. America and England were rushing missiles while the rest of Europe was sending helmets and debating whether Russia was even going to invade.
> You are simply wrong and outdate in your thinking
Incorrect. You're parroting catch-phrases and what others tell you and not thinking through things for yourself here.
To respond to the closure of a key naval route that supplies 20% of world oil supply? After months of closure already, with zero response?
This entire thing was started with zero warning, as far as your "diplomatic timelines" go.
Asserting weird and strange judgement calls with extreme confidence, and belittling others' judgement at the same time, is a very weak argumentation style. Perhaps you could provide some evidence that a "watch out we'll talk about this in 8 weeks" is a strong sort of statement of any sort?
As if everyone else isn't doing that? Don't be intellectually dishonest if you want to accuse me of that. Speaking of, you're also doing what you're accusing me of "months of closure with zero response" how is there zero response? No negotiations have taken place? The US didn't bomb and destroy targets in Iran? The US hasn't blockaded Iran so that it can't control the Strait?
Second, 20% of the world's oil supply just means the world should have taken much more care to not let these religious fanatics and murderers gain control of Iran to threaten their oil supply. America is just fine.
As you noted, only today has it been reported that NATO is considering maybe doing something in the Strait. In a few months. "Don't be intellectually dishonest", indeed.
Not the first forever war initiated as a Blitzkrieg. Not the last either.
Over the last few years congress passed pieces of legislation (infrastructure bills, healthcare changes, BBB) and used future SPR oil sales as an "offsetting receipt". Basically they say the’ll sell off millions of barrels of SPR holdings, count the future revenue as negative spending on paper, and use that money to pay for entirely unrelated legislative projects to make bills look deficit-neutral.
Yet another source for deficit spending (to the tune of $20bn) that doesn’t even show up in the headline numbers. Borrowing from future generations yet again.
(Sorry this is the kind of thing that grinds my gears - setting up some organization that is intended to be revenue neutral and self sufficient, then plundering it when politically useful. Same thing is happening to the Presidio park in SF right now)
Buy at $60, start a war with Iran, sell at the new price, profit.
I guess the reason they didn’t do this is they thought Iran would fold quickly and oil would become even cheaper than $60
1) Oman and Iran both have territorial waters that extend into the center of the strait. See #3
2) What is "non-US backed oil?
3) Every country has the right to control their territorial waters.
4) Governments have worked hard to erode people's privacy rights such that crypto is not as untraceable as people still think.
5) ?
5) ?
6) Let it happen.It's even stupider than the OP said. Aside from the strait, when you destroy Iran's oil facilities, you raise the price of oil for the foreseeable future. When Iran retaliates by destroying the oil facilities of local allies, it raises the price of oil for the foreseeable future. The only beneficiaries are oilmen in the US, Russia and South America, and the US is also supposed to be attacking Russia and South America.
The one point I'll disagree with is that sanctions do prevent you paying Iran even with crypto. I mean, you can fund your own wallet and give money to Iran but you've technically committed a crime and a pretty serious one. It's also one that's fairly easy to document and prove that you did it.
Oh, also the impact of cutting the world fertilizer supply hasn't hit yet. That'll come later in the year when the harvests are down, primarily in the Global South. This will also impact food prices in the West so look forward to that.
Your last comment suggests weakening of the petrodollar. I don't know if you meant it this way but let me dispel that myth: the USD doesn't have strength and power because oil sales are denominated in dollars. You have it backwards. Oil trades are denominated in dollars because of the demand for dollars and the root of that is the US military.
Not quite. The "petrodollar" deal has helped to bootstrap and anchor the USD strength at a somewhat critical moment of history after the gold peg was "temporarily" suspended, which was effectively a default of the US government (second in the 20th century!).
Sure, today trade of oil in USD no longer plays a significant role in supporting its dominance, but it still plays a role. Together with other factors (such as increased weaponization of the USD-led financial system) rise of alternative settlement systems corrodes the network effects on which USD relies. Each blow in isolation may be insignificant, but their accumulation could become critical owning to the extreme non-linearity of the network effects.
The nature of trade is a complex web of many interdepdencies and this applies to war too. Like for awhile, the US was letting Iran-flagged ships headed to China and Chinese-flagged ships to pass through the Strait. Why? Because of the repercussions of an energy blockade on China to the US and its allies. China produces like 30-40% of the world's "stuff". China dominates rare earth production and an export ban on that would cripple the US military long-term.
Part of the reason the US is going it alone in Iran is because of all the torched good will from the tariffs. You broke it, you bought it. This event is a seachange in the international order that will take years to play out. What's ironic is that the US designed this international order post-WW2 for their own benefit and they're probably going to destroy it in a single presidential term.
Other countries aren't subject to any US laws. The threat of US sanctions are a just a threat, not any sort of law enforcement.
The threat of arrest is a just a threat, not any sort of law enforcement.
The threat of handcuffs is a just a threat, not any sort of law enforcement.
The threat of tasering is a just a threat, not any sort of law enforcement.
The threat of criminal charges is a just a threat, not any sort of law enforcement.
The threat of drone strikes is a just a threat, not any sort of law enforcement.
The threat of literally having your President helicoptered out of your capital by US special forces is a just a threat, not any sort of law enforcement.
This is fun!
Tehran has more potential leverage inasmuch as they've credibly demonstrated they can block the Strait. Whether they have more actual leverage than before is uncertain–trade flows are routing around them. And their own shores remain blockaded. (Just because the U.S. has less leverage than it did before doesn't mean Iran necessarily has more.)
"Shut down" is not particularly accurate. America and Europe can route around. The only ones fucked are the Gulf carriers.
It took an idiot to try and actually use the full force of the USAF against Iran and reveal that the force was manageable- not great, but not going to topple the regime. And once that force was used and Iran's leaders realized it could be survived, that threat became much weaker, forcing a decision onto that previously mentioned idiot, he could either escalate to use greater force (some form of ground troops) or admit that he made a mistake and lost a war. And I suspect that the same will be true for Iran: the threat of cutting those cables is far more potent than the actual effects of cutting the cables.
The Internet is, it turns out, pretty good at routing around damage. The Russians have done some cable cutting in the Baltic Sea and it is annoying but it is not a winning move.
What's to stop them? The enormous pile of ordnance floating in the gulf of oman that can be easily dropped on Tehran, for one...
Probably not. The other comment is right: cutting cables means having its own cables cut. (Tehran is also probably weighing whether it wants to continue mobilising almost all of its neighbors against itself. Trashing e.g. Kuwait for shits and giggles isn't strategically productive.)
Interesting point. It might be a good time for some good old-fashioned false-flag action.
Or blocks repair ships after normal accidental damage?
It's information war to scare US companies away from the middle east.
This is the only fight they've been preparing for. They knew they were going to be facing an overwhelmingly superior navy and air force. That's why everything is dug in, buried and hidden. It's also why the propagandistic idea that they're a "terrorist state" is stupid, because a terrorist state would be prepared to do terrorist damage. The only terrorist arming and funding was from the US and Israel to people in Iran. I don't even see any heightened security at any level in the US - we're not even expecting anything.
Don't believe that the US can eradicate all ability for Iran to do something as trivial as cutting an undersea cable anytime soon. They would still have the ability cut the cables as a last gasp after they were totally defeated at every level.
Evidence folks in the U.S. leadership are "paying antyhing to Iran"?
Thanks Trump and Bibi! The whole world suffers for these two men.