-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Monitoring the situation in Iran
- Thread starter EviLore
- Start date
- Status
Toons
Member
Navy and air force, nobody said anything about their army. It's also divided into IRGC and army, which are not one and the same. But plz keep us updated of what the Tiktokers say.
lachesis
Member
It sounds like those Chinese vessels were allowed to pass because they are going to UAE, not Iran.
I thought the blockade is Iran port specific one, not the general traffic. What's the issue then?
That's what I thought too.
I thought the blockade is Iran port specific one, not the general traffic. What's the issue then?
That's what I thought too.
delirium trigger
Member
If they weren't letting Chinese ships through the same people would be complaining.
0neAnd0nly
Member
You too bro. One thing is for certain, and that's the world is a stressful place currently. Stay positive man, I'll PM you soon.
God bless!
P:axMagellanic
Member
Underestimating an opponent is how this mess has escalated. Like, wtf even is this anymore?
Chinese navy has 4200+ VLS cells that we know about and growing every month. (They're hiding them in cargo ships)
The second largest sub fleet. And a ship manufacturing industry that dwarfs the USA's by over 200 times. They actually know how to build and replace lost vessels whilst America is struggling with increasingly aging hulls. And at a time when western launch cells and interceptor stocks have been hammered in use.
Chinese navy has 4200+ VLS cells that we know about and growing every month. (They're hiding them in cargo ships)
The second largest sub fleet. And a ship manufacturing industry that dwarfs the USA's by over 200 times. They actually know how to build and replace lost vessels whilst America is struggling with increasingly aging hulls. And at a time when western launch cells and interceptor stocks have been hammered in use.
Idleyes
Gold Member
Trump said that. Why are you pissed at me for something Trump said? You ought to direct that energy to the person who said it not me.
Lke Tina Turner said: what's China got to do with it?
China will sit this out because of money. U.S. remained China's largest single trading partner.
Sorry yes, well, Trump also said the nukes are gone. So I'd say let's listen to Rubio and Hegseth.
Idleyes
Gold Member
They're not much better. Marco Rubio pushed the 'imminent threat' angle to justify this, yet our own intelligence to this day hasn't backed that up. Reminds me of Iraq, we've learned nothing. Pete Hegseth said Iran's military and missile capabilities were 'functionally destroyed'… but they clearly weren't. If we had overwhelming control like he also claimed, we wouldn't need to seek negotiations or call for ceasefires.
I think the administration killed any real chance of an uprising in their favor the moment we combine a school full of kids getting bombed with threats to wipe out the entire population. But this was never about regime change, at least according to the people who believe everything Trump says today… even though he literally called for regime change before. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The only insignificant upside to the US Joining the Blockade party I can see is Iran's oil production getting constrained. If their output is capped or disrupted, that can push prices up, which benefits U.S. energy producers. At that point, Iran has to decide whether to accept concessions to get its oil flowing again or keep playing chicken and take the economic hit.
That's not going to work if China says fuck the USA, we're getting our shit. Which is exactly what's going to happen and TACO.
Highway Star
Member
I say punish the bad players instead of locking the thread.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Some good news on the Lebanon/Israel front for a change.
There was an imminent threat. They said it themselves in the talks that they are close to making 11 nuclear bombs.They're not much better. Marco Rubio pushed the 'imminent threat' angle to justify this, yet our own intelligence to this day hasn't backed that up. Reminds me of Iraq, we've learned nothing. Pete Hegseth said Iran's military and missile capabilities were 'functionally destroyed'… but they clearly weren't. If we had overwhelming control like he also claimed, we wouldn't need to seek negotiations or call for ceasefires.
I think the administration killed any real chance of an uprising in their favor the moment we combine a school full of kids getting bombed with threats to wipe out the entire population. But this was never about regime change, at least according to the people who believe everything Trump says today… even though he literally called for regime change before. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The only insignificant upside to the US Joining the Blockade party I can see is Iran's oil production getting constrained. If their output is capped or disrupted, that can push prices up, which benefits U.S. energy producers. At that point, Iran has to decide whether to accept concessions to get its oil flowing again or keep playing chicken and take the economic hit.
That's not going to work if China says fuck the USA, we're getting our shit. Which is exactly what's going to happen and TACO.
The uprising can still happen, people got over the school thing, except people here who bring it up as if it's a deal breaker. Mistakes happen.
Idleyes
Gold Member
U.S. intelligence and international inspectors have said there's no active nuclear weapons program and no imminent threat. Iran's been a long-term risk, not a near-term one. And we've been hearing the same 'they're close to a bomb' line for decades now, just look at Benjamin Netanyahu making that exact claim since the 90s. If they were developing nukes deep in the mountains somewhere since the 90's.... they'd have nukes.
Anyway, according to Trump, we already destroyed their nuclear program…
Honestly, I think we'd be better off just being real about it. A big part of why the U.S. is so aggressive toward Iran is its conflict with Israel. That doesn't mean I believe every other justification is fake, it's just that some of them have no evidence. Kna mean? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
First, Israel is an ally to the US so if it wants to go to bat it can.U.S. intelligence and international inspectors have said there's no active nuclear weapons program and no imminent threat. Iran's been a long-term risk, not a near-term one. And we've been hearing the same 'they're close to a bomb' line for decades now, just look at Benjamin Netanyahu making that exact claim since the 90s. If they were developing nukes deep in the mountains somewhere since the 90's.... they'd have nukes.
Anyway, according to Trump, we already destroyed their nuclear program…
Honestly, I think we'd be better off just being real about it. A big part of why the U.S. is so aggressive toward Iran is its conflict with Israel. That doesn't mean I believe every other justification is fake, it's just that some of them have no evidence. Kna mean? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Iran's efforts have been throttled through the years, which is why they went and build their shit in the mountains. That happened only in the last decade.
There's no reason to enrich uranium to the levels they are going for if it wasn't for nukes. I'm kinda tired of people simping for Iran in this thread. The regime needs to be wiped out, end of story.
Last edited:
Idleyes
Gold Member
Acknowledging reality isn't defending Iran. Iran can be a problem and the 'imminent threat' claim can still be overstated at the same time.
Being allies with Israel doesn't magically turn every justification into fact. That's not how intelligence works bruh.
And yeah, they're enriching uranium, I haven't denied that. The point is enrichment ≠ weaponization. U.S. intelligence and inspectors have said there's no active weapons program and no imminent threat. That's the distinction you keep skipping to claim I'm simping and that isn't pimping. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
FullMetalx117
Member
The U.S. shouldn't need to finesse their reasons for going into war. Its the most powerful county with the most powerful military and can choose to defends it allies if it wants. And the U.S. is in this war to help its ally. The better question to ask, is why does the U.S. feel the need to finesse? Is it afraid of what their public will think of its no BS answer?
I think the US just thought the regime will surrender. The values are different and the Westeners don't get that when you're in a death cult you only surrender to death, and welcome it. It's the only religion with shahids.
Idleyes
Gold Member
80 million people, with plenty who don't even support the Ayatollah and you reduced them all to a 'death cult.' Some of y'all really do need the world dumbed down into Saturday morning villains to make sense of it.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I think some of the Iranian oil makes its way through it too when making its way to Asian countries (?) but other than that, I'm not sure.
Idleyes
Gold Member
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
Lets try to not get this thread closed again 
Sybrix
Member
Lets try to not get this thread closed again
Oh ok, Trump is my king.
Can we carry on?
Hari Seldon
Member
Nothing. It is just another extremely important shipping lane that can be used to choke off China if necessary.
Idleyes
Gold Member
No one's arguing you should wait to get attacked. The problem is you're erasing the line between 'imminent' and 'maybe someday.' If 'potential threat' is enough, then every country on earth has a green light to attack whoever they want, Every country is a 'known threat' to someone.
Hmm, I wonder what happens if we just scrap international law and replace it with a 'known threat' standard?
Meicyn
Member
It's the majority of it. There are alternative routes for vessels to take to China, but it's akin to going from the Atlantic to the Pacific via the Drake Passage instead of the Panama Canal as an extreme example. You're adding a lot more transit time, and time is money. China knows of this vulnerability which is why they've been adapting in their own way. The strait is still the most efficient means, but that will continue changing. Russia is on its way to becoming China's permanent gas station, for example:
The Future of the Power of Siberia 2 Pipeline - Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University SIPA | CGEP
As Russian President Vladimir Putin prepares to visit China, the proposed Power of Siberia 2 natural gas pipeline is likely high on his agenda.
www.energypolicy.columbia.edu
There's also Myanmar being used as a port, but you get the gist.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Pakistan gunning for that Nobel Peace Prize.
calico
Member
What constrains those countries is the consequences of taking action, not whether they have an imaginary green light or not.
What I'm asking is, what is the virtue of waiting for a threat to progress to imminent once you have determined it is a threat you are not willing to accept?
And if you aren't arguing you should wait to get attacked, at which point are you suggesting it would be acceptable to take action? Isn't it 'maybe someday' right up until the point the threat in question is actively being carried out?
ChuckeRearmed
Member
If a person is pointing a gun at you but has't shot you yet, then he is not the imminent threat
When he did not kill you after the first bullet, only then he becomes an imminent threat.
Last edited:
Idleyes
Gold Member
The whole point of the 'imminent threat' standard is to require evidence-based justification and prevent 'I feel threatened' justifications. Do you agree with that or not? I'm not sure what you think I'm arguing, I thought I was pretty clear.
Idleyes
Gold Member
If a person is pointing a gun at you but has't shot you yet, then he is not the imminent threat
You don't have to wait to be shot. Brandishing a firearm is already a clear, immediate threat. Anyway I believe both the US and Israel have other justifications, but most of them rely on adjusting the standard from 'imminent threat' to 'ongoing hostility.' Which I think is a better angle to approach the international community with than some land of make believe shit.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
The word imminent has lost all meaning in context as it's always been some form of imminent since the early 90's.
None of this would be happening if they'd stuck to JCPOA but that would be taking the simplest and most obvious path forward I guess
calico
Member
Justifications to whom?
I'm asking if I know I'm going to be threatened by something, and the threat is one I consider unacceptable, why is it better to wait for that threat to progress to imminent before addressing it? When the threat in question is nuclear weapons in the hands of people desperate to kill me, imposing that restriction upon myself seems like courting disaster.
I'm still not clear at which point you would even consider the threat in question here sufficiently 'imminent' to justify action.
StueyDuck
Member
The problem with talking about justifications and international law and ethics and so on is that you have those who live in the system and then the bad guys who just simply don't have to live in the system at all or play by any of the rules...
The West is looking for justifications; meanwhile, the IRGC shouts Admiral Ackbar and kills indiscriminately, launches cluster munitions randomly at a country hoping it will land anywhere or on anyone because it literally can; they don't live in the global order that we all live in, so there is not really a consequence for doing so. (They've literally done this, and most of the world has cried over a strait of water)
It's one of those things that there will never be a correct answer when one side never has to answer to anything. They could have literally gotten their Nuke and bombed a country, I think we all know it would be Israel first, and the global order would have to meet and discuss whether an attack is justified now...
Last edited:
NATO continues to be shitNATO is refusing to join or aid in the blockade.
Bojji
Gold Member
NATO have nothing to do with this.
Oil prices potentially heading down due to demand destruction, at least outside USA:
www.nbcnews.com
We are in much better shape than in the 70s fortunately:
"Thanks to changes in the economy since the 1970s, the potential impact on U.S. consumers may not be as great compared with other regions, he said. More energy efficient vehicles and work from home means the U.S. economy uses about half as much energy per dollar of gross domestic product as it did in 1980, he said. Plus, the U.S. is now a net oil producer.
"There is a real buffer," he wrote.
On its latest earnings call Tuesday, J.P. Morgan executives said they had not yet seen U.S. consumers making significant changes in consumption as a result of higher oil prices.
"It's not nothing, but it's not overwhelming," chief financial officer Jeremy Barnum said."
Oil prices may be starting to come down for a worrisome reason
The largest oil shock in history caused prices to surge. Now they're so high that they may be causing "demand destruction." That would mean slower economic growth.
www.nbcnews.com
We are in much better shape than in the 70s fortunately:
"Thanks to changes in the economy since the 1970s, the potential impact on U.S. consumers may not be as great compared with other regions, he said. More energy efficient vehicles and work from home means the U.S. economy uses about half as much energy per dollar of gross domestic product as it did in 1980, he said. Plus, the U.S. is now a net oil producer.
"There is a real buffer," he wrote.
On its latest earnings call Tuesday, J.P. Morgan executives said they had not yet seen U.S. consumers making significant changes in consumption as a result of higher oil prices.
"It's not nothing, but it's not overwhelming," chief financial officer Jeremy Barnum said."
Last edited:
you mean Neo era
ChuckeRearmed
Member
Current prices are purely speculative and basically due to greedy oil companies who use it increase their revenue.Oil prices potentially heading down due to demand destruction, at least outside USA:
Oil prices may be starting to come down for a worrisome reason
The largest oil shock in history caused prices to surge. Now they're so high that they may be causing "demand destruction." That would mean slower economic growth.
We are in much better shape than in the 70s fortunately:
"Thanks to changes in the economy since the 1970s, the potential impact on U.S. consumers may not be as great compared with other regions, he said. More energy efficient vehicles and work from home means the U.S. economy uses about half as much energy per dollar of gross domestic product as it did in 1980, he said. Plus, the U.S. is now a net oil producer.
"There is a real buffer," he wrote.
On its latest earnings call Tuesday, J.P. Morgan executives said they had not yet seen U.S. consumers making significant changes in consumption as a result of higher oil prices.
"It's not nothing, but it's not overwhelming," chief financial officer Jeremy Barnum said."
It is like BlueSky (Era) people coming back to X (here). I wonder how bad the discourse there but I don't want to open Etcetera at all
Last edited:
Idleyes
Gold Member
In all fairness I I forgot to address this. How's that 'consequence' theory working out in Iran right now? All those bombs the U.S. and Israel have been dropping haven't exactly stopped them from launching missiles into Israel, threatening neighboring countries, or leveraging the Strait as pressure. At best, it's slowed things down. Is that what you mean by 'constrained'?
Bojji
Gold Member
Yeah really.
This operation was done by alliance of USA and Israel, they didn't ask anyone else for help.
Last time I checked Israel is not in NATO and Iran is not in Europe. If you want something done about it on international scale you got to talk with UN (not NATO).
Senua
Member
So if we're not die-hard MAGA, we're Era? Come on
I take it you dont have children.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked