Support NeoGAF

[rkofan87]

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).

so what is this then?

NATO is refusing to join or aid in the blockade.

 

[Bojji]

so what is this then?

You mean the planned French+UK operation?

I don't see it being connected to NATO in any way.

 

[Idleyes]

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.

You're keep skipping over the core issue. The 'imminent threat' standard isn't about tying your hands, it's about drawing a line that stops anything from being labeled a justification for war. 'Justified to whom?' To everyone else on the planet who now has to live with the precedent you set. If 'I believe they'll threaten me someday' is enough, then every country can make that exact same claim about anyone. At that point, there is no standard.

The reason imminence matters is because it forces you to show evidence of an actual, actionable threat, not just a projection of what might happen, or as I like to put it..

Spoiler

 

[StueyDuck]

You mean the planned French+UK operation?

I don't see it being connected to NATO in any way.

I see it as a great excuse for European leaders to take taxpayer money and go have a big ol party... or "summit" they are calling this one.

gotta give them a week, they all need to contact their smack dealers and hookers for the party.

 

[rkofan87]

You mean the planned French+UK operation?

I don't see it being connected to NATO in any way.

last question and then I'll drop this why does it say nato in the title?

 

[Gp1]

Current prices are purely speculative and basically due to greedy oil companies who use it increase their revenue.

 

[Dithadder]

Again what does the strait of malacca have to do with this?

I think ships exitjng hormuz can hug the iranian coastline and avoid US navy, so malacca maybe is more secure

 

[adamsapple]

so what is this then?

Them replying to Trump's tweet saying 'other countries' will also join the blockade.

"The Blockade will begin shortly. Other Countries will be ⁠involved with this Blockade," Trump said in a post on Truth Social on Sunday.

 

[rkofan87]

Them replying to Trump's tweet saying 'other countries' will also join the blockade.

"The Blockade will begin shortly. Other Countries will be ⁠involved with this Blockade," Trump said in a post on Truth Social on Sunday.

okay thank you for the clarification this subject is now dropped.

 

[Bojji]

last question and then I'll drop this why does it say nato in the title?

It contains responses from countries that are part of NATO. But it's not coordinated official NATO response.

Country X doing thing Y doesn't mean that it's doing it as NATO mission. Same way that US attack on Iran wasn't done under NATO umbrella.

 

[rkofan87]

It contains responses from countries that are part of NATO. But it's not coordinated official NATO response.

Country X doing thing Y doesn't mean that it's doing it as NATO mission. Same way that US attack on Iran wasn't done under NATO umbrella.

thanks Adam just worded it badly

 

[StueyDuck]

You're keep skipping over the core issue. The 'imminent threat' standard isn't about tying your hands, it's about drawing a line that stops anything from being labeled a justification for war. 'Justified to whom?' To everyone else on the planet who now has to live with the precedent you set. If 'I believe they'll threaten me someday' is enough, then every country can make that exact same claim about anyone. At that point, there is no standard.

The reason imminence matters is because it forces you to show evidence of an actual, actionable threat, not just a projection of what might happen, or as I like to put it..

Spoiler

But is that not rules for me but not for thee...

You cannot operate in a rules-based world where all the bad guys don't adhere to or are held accountable to said rules.

Rules need to be malleable so you can deal with the bad guys because again, they aren't a part of the system, they aren't held accountable in any way. Shit, the West will just give you buckets of money instead when you are the bad guy.

 

[Bojji]

I see it as a great excuse for European leaders to take taxpayer money and go have a big ol party... or "summit" they are calling this one.

gotta give them a week, they all need to contact their smack dealers and hookers for the party.

 

[Tams]

I don't see how that works. Lebanon saying it won't be 'occupied' by Hezbollah is like the U.S. saying it won't be 'occupied' by the Democratic Party. This world is making less sense by the day.

Yes it does.

The Lebanese armed forces and police have refused to do much about Hezbollah until now because they were outnumbered and outgunned by them.

However, Israel's attacks on Hezbollah, especially their leadership, have majorly weakened Hezbollah.

The Lebanese government have clearly decided that Hezbollah are weak enough and losing enough support to risk reprisal attacks and that doing so outweighs damage done by the Israelis.

 

[Idleyes]

Yes it does.

The Lebanese armed forces and police have refused to do much about Hezbollah until now because they were outnumbered and outgunned by them.

However, Israel's attacks on Hezbollah, especially their leadership, have majorly weakened Hezbollah.

The Lebanese government have clearly decided that Hezbollah are weak enough and losing enough support to risk reprisal attacks and that doing so outweighs damage done by the Israelis.

I'm not arguing against that. My point is that Hezbollah isn't just some external group, it's a major political party in Lebanon with representation in parliament. Did you not read what I actually said? So when they say they'll no longer be 'occupied' by them, I'm assuming that's either a misstatement or unclear reporting, unless they're actually referring to dismantling Hezbollah's role as a political party within Lebanon.

 

[adamsapple]

I really need to visit Amsterdam once before I get old.

 

[AJUMP23]

It contains responses from countries that are part of NATO. But it's not coordinated official NATO response.

Country X doing thing Y doesn't mean that it's doing it as NATO mission. Same way that US attack on Iran wasn't done under NATO umbrella.

But it would be good for NATO countries to allow US use of airspace when moving equipment. Spain and Italy denying that isn't the best.

I don't think it would be a good NATO action to join the conflict or the blockade.

I wonder if a NATO country was operating in Central America if the US would grant them use of their airspace. Probably not.

 

[Idleyes]

But is that not rules for me but not for thee...

You cannot operate in a rules-based world where all the bad guys don't adhere to or are held accountable to said rules.

Rules need to be malleable so you can deal with the bad guys because again, they aren't a part of the system, they aren't held accountable in any way. Shit, the West will just give you buckets of money instead when you are the bad guy.

If you remove the requirement for evidence and imminence, you don't get more security, you get a world where every conflict can be justified as 'they were going to be a threat eventually.' At that point, you haven't solved the bad actor problem, you've just made the system itself one of them. And you're missing something important: the rules already allow force. They just require you to prove the threat is real and immediate, and then you're justified. Bad actors don't get that same legitimacy.

 

[Clear]

I'm kinda curious as to what people actually want to see happen ? What should the US response be at this point ?

I say "see" because there is no "do" to consider on the part of people talking about it, this isn't Vietnam, there is no draft to avoid, not even a major ground campaign, so its not exactly conscientious objection or some other sort of peacenik-ery!

Before answering, I'd also like people to consider that any pro-IRGC pronouncements on social media coming out are for everybody but the Iranian people, who still have no internet access. Its all propaganda for foreign consumption!

 

[adamsapple]

I'm kinda curious as to what people actually want to see happen ? What should the US response be at this point ?

Get on the negotiating table and actually negotiate. Clearly iran isn't going to just willy nilly agree to do 0% uranium enrichment, bring it down to an acceptable level where they can generate power but can't use it for weaponry.

 

[Haint]

But it would be good for NATO countries to allow US use of airspace when moving equipment. Spain and Italy denying that isn't the best.

I don't think it would be a good NATO action to join the conflict or the blockade.

I wonder if a NATO country was operating in Central America if the US would grant them use of their airspace. Probably not.

If a NATO country were operating in central America in some kind of Iran equivalent scenario, they would be bombing cartel compounds, drug routes, and cocaine farms. In what kind of delusional Candyland reality do you think the US would ever have a problem with that? Taking it one step further, if said Cartels took over the panama canal and blockaded US oil imports sending our prices into the stratosphere, we would very obviously join the Nato country and launch hell on earth against the cartel.

Get on the negotiating table and actually negotiate. Clearly iran isn't going to just willy nilly agree to do 0% uranium enrichment, bring it down to an acceptable level where they can generate power but can't use it for weaponry.

The US negotiations have already offered them energy grade uranium fuel and to help pay for Nuclear power infrastructure, they turned it down cause this very obviously isn't about energy.

 

[AJUMP23]

If a NATO country were operating in central America in some kind of Iran equivalent scenario, they would be bombing cartel compounds, drug routes, and cocaine farms. In what kind of delusional Candyland reality do you think the US would ever have a problem with that?

It isn't the issue with the operation but the use of airspace. I don't know that the NATO countries have an issue with regime change and nuclear control in Iran.

 

[Idleyes]

If a NATO country were operating in central America in some kind of Iran equivalent scenario, they would be bombing cartel compounds, drug routes, and cocaine farms. In what kind of delusional Candyland reality do you think the US would ever have a problem with that?

There's 200 years of U.S. policy saying the exact opposite. The whole point of the Monroe Doctrine was to yell "stay the flying fuck out of our hemisphere!"

 

[Bojji]

But it would be good for NATO countries to allow US use of airspace when moving equipment. Spain and Italy denying that isn't the best.

I don't think it would be a good NATO action to join the conflict or the blockade.

I wonder if a NATO country was operating in Central America if the US would grant them use of their airspace. Probably not.

I think that air space deny was stupid.

I get why they did this (to not be considered helping USA in war that is according to them illegitimate) but why do this to only make USA - Europe relations even worse?

No one in Europe likes Iranian regime (only Russia if you consider them part of Europe), hell even many middle eastern countries don't like them. But this doesn't mean countries want to be dragged into the war with them.

 

[Idleyes]

I think that air space deny was stupid.

I get why they did this (to not be considered helping USA in war that is according to them illegitimate) but why do this to only make USA - Europe relations even worse?

No one in Europe likes Iranian regime (only Russia if you consider them part of Europe), hell even many middle eastern countries don't like them. But this doesn't mean countries want to be dragged into the war with them.

Or maybe they saw what happened to U.S. assets in the region and thought… yeah, we're good on that.

 

[adamsapple]

The US negotiations have already offered them energy grade uranium fuel and to help pay for Nuclear power infrastructure, they turned it down cause this very obviously isn't about energy.

The latest negotiations broke down because the US wanted them to stop enriching Uranium for 20 years and Iran wasn't willing to go higher than 5.

 

[LegendOfKage]

Get on the negotiating table and actually negotiate. Clearly iran isn't going to just willy nilly agree to do 0% uranium enrichment, bring it down to an acceptable level where they can generate power but can't use it for weaponry.

The argument that I've seen is that the US would be perfectly happy for Iran to have nuclear material for power plants, but they don't want them to do any enrichment. They can buy uranium from other countries and use that for power plants instead. I've seen it suggested that when Iran is allowed to do their own enrichment, that is when they could be working on using it for weapons.

 

[Haint]

Get on the negotiating table and actually negotiate. Clearly iran isn't going to just willy nilly agree to do 0% uranium enrichment, bring it down to an acceptable level where they can generate power but can't use it for weaponry.

The latest negotiations broke down because the US wanted them to stop enriching Uranium for 20 years and Iran wasn't willing to go higher than 5.

That was the US's offer before the war even started, them turning that down is why the war started in the first place. You can find videos of Rubio directly quoting that. Why would they need to enrich uranium if the US is giving it to them and would obviously continue to do so to keep them from flirting with nuclear weapon development? Do you guys even read some of the nonsensical shit you post? This clearly isn't about nuclear energy.

 

[Roni]

Everybody should be reminded that Iran is only a nuclear "imminent threat" because the US pulled out of the JCPOA on May 8th, 2018. If not for that, they would be adhering to the deal as they had been until then.

Look up who supported pulling out of the deal, as if I mentioned them here I might be accused of mudslinging or worse.

 

[adamsapple]

That was the US's offer before the war even started, them turning that down is why the war started in the first place. You can find videos of Rubio directly quoting that. Why would they need to enrich uranium if the US is giving it to them and would obviously continue to do so to keep them from flirting with nuclear weapon development?

The director of national intelligence testified both in 2025 and 2026 that Iran was not building nuclear weapons.

The US is in this war because Israel attacked Iran and the US joined in because they knew Iranian retaliation would reach US bases. This is from Rubio, too.

Everybody should be reminded that Iran is only a nuclear "imminent threat" because the US pulled out of the JCPOA on May 8th, 2018. If not for that, they would be adhering to the deal as they had been until then.

Pretty much. They were adhering to the terms of the deal until it was pulled.

Was Iran in compliance?

The deal restricted certain Iranian nuclear activities for periods between 10 to 25 years, and allowed for more intrusive, permanent monitoring. It also forbid Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons in the future. (You can read more details here.)

We previously found that Iran had largely complied with the deal, and many experts praised the pact for keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of Tehran.

Over the 28 months the deal has been in effect, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the foremost authority on the matter, said it found Iran committed no violations — aside from some minor infractions that were rectified.

Trump pulls US out of Iran deal: Here's what to know

President Donald Trump announced the United States would exit a nuclear pact with Iran and re-impose sanctions on Tehran

www.politifact.com

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

 

[Tams]

I'm not arguing against that. My point is that Hezbollah isn't just some external group, it's a major political party in Lebanon with representation in parliament. Did you not read what I actually said? So when they say they'll no longer be 'occupied' by them, I'm assuming that's either a misstatement or unclear reporting, unless they're actually referring to dismantling Hezbollah's role as a political party within Lebanon.

It's clearly the militant wing of Hezbollah that's being referred to.

 

[ADiTAR]

Everybody should be reminded that Iran is only a nuclear "imminent threat" because the US pulled out of the JCPOA on May 8th, 2018. If not for that, they would be adhering to the deal as they had been until then.

Look up who supported pulling out of the deal, as if I mentioned them here I might be accused of mudslinging or worse.

Thanks for reminding us that you're naive af.

They only gave access to their declared sites.

You can mention the Jews, it's ok.

 

[Senua]

Thanks for reminding us that you're naive af.

They only gave access to their declared sites.

You can mention the Jews, it's ok.

Israelian Government =/= The Jews

 

[Roni]

Thanks for reminding us that you're naive af.

They only gave access to their declared sites.

You can mention the Jews, it's ok.

Nice comeback, really shows you're not desperate to deflect.

 

[adamsapple]

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

Wouldn't they then just be taking the word of the regime who's word they refused to take on the previous deal?

 

[adamsapple]

Wouldn't they then just be taking the word of the regime who's word they refused to take on the previous deal?

The negotiations have to be met somewhere in the middle if they want to end this whole blockade issue and not have it affect basically the whole world's economy.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

The negotiations have to be met somewhere in the middle if they want to end this whole blockade issue and not have it affect basically the whole world's economy.

Yes, it makes sense. It's just I have read concerns that the previous deal was unreliable as they had 'undeclared' sites they did not give access to, I wonder what would be different this time around.

 

[ADiTAR]

Nice comeback, really shows you're not desperate to deflect.

You deny that secretly they had other nuclear sites? making the deal redundant?

Is the regime good in your eyes? you're ok with them keeping control of Iran?

 

[Vestal]

You deny that secretly they had other nuclear sites? making the deal redundant?

Is the regime good in your eyes? you're ok with them keeping control of Iran?

But you are assuming we would stop watching them because of the JCPOA. I would argue the absolute opposite.

We had an opportunity back then to get UN inspectors into Iran. Just imagine how much easier it would have been to infiltrate the regime and truly figure out what they had or didn't have. The CIA/MI6 would have had a field day just building assets and intelligence.

No one thinks the regime is good. But this war isn't getting rid of that regime either.

 

[poppabk]

If a NATO country were operating in central America in some kind of Iran equivalent scenario, they would be bombing cartel compounds, drug routes, and cocaine farms. In what kind of delusional Candyland reality do you think the US would ever have a problem with that? Taking it one step further, if said Cartels took over the panama canal and blockaded US oil imports sending our prices into the stratosphere, we would very obviously join the Nato country and launch hell on earth against the cartel.

When Argentina invaded the Falkland islands, the US were very non-commital at first and took a month to declare support for the UK. They did provide intelligence, missiles, fuel and airbase support eventually but no active US military intervention.

 

[Gp1]

When Argentina invaded the Falkland islands, the US were very non-commital at first and took a month to declare support for the UK. They did provide intelligence, missiles, fuel and airbase support eventually but no active US military intervention.

Bro....

Even France helped both sides in 82.

How France helped both sides in the Falklands War

France gave the UK a lot of help during the Falklands War, but a technical team in Argentina helped the country fire Exocet missiles at British warships.

www.bbc.com

 

[Roni]

You deny that secretly they had other nuclear sites? making the deal redundant?

Israel fed the IAEA three locations which contained particles and traces. Where did the actual materials those traces came from go if they weren't at those sites?

More secret sites?

Iran has intelligence so good they're inside the Mossad and got wind the info had leaked and moved the material away BEFORE any western states put satellites over those locations to monitor stuff coming in and out?

Please...

This is Iraq all over again. I also don't put Israeli intelligence beyond contaminating those sites on purpose.

Is the regime good in your eyes? you're ok with them keeping control of Iran?

See? Deflections.

 

[Dirk Benedict]

I see people still can't help themselves. SMFH.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I see people still can't help themselves. SMFH.

There's gonna be threadbans or the whole thread locked soon. Meanwhile.....we follow the plan.

 

[calico]

 

[ADiTAR]

Israel fed the IAEA three locations which contained particles and traces. Where did the actual materials those traces came from go if they weren't at those sites?

More secret sites?

Iran has intelligence so good they're inside the Mossad and got wind the info had leaked and moved the material away BEFORE any western states put satellites over those locations to monitor stuff coming in and out?

Please...

This is Iraq all over again. I also don't put Israeli intelligence beyond contaminating those sites on purpose.


See? Deflections.

I'm deflecting??? why can't you answer the question?

Well, considering the IAEA is not a secretive agency, when Israel revealed locations and told the IAEA to check them out Iran could've moved the materials from there, no? Of course, Israel is the bad guy in your eyes, so it doesn't matter. Go suck some IRGCock.

 

[ADiTAR]

But you are assuming we would stop watching them because of the JCPOA. I would argue the absolute opposite.

We had an opportunity back then to get UN inspectors into Iran. Just imagine how much easier it would have been to infiltrate the regime and truly figure out what they had or didn't have. The CIA/MI6 would have had a field day just building assets and intelligence.

No one thinks the regime is good. But this war isn't getting rid of that regime either.

The war can get rid of the regime. Just needs some resolve to do it.

Do you think CIA/MI6 needed the JCPOA or the fucking UN to infiltrate the regime? whaaat?

 

[EviLore]

France and the UK have a plan to secure the strait without America…after the war ends, once all hostilities have ceased, with Iranian approval. Stunning and brave.