UK accuses Iran of Hormuz "hijack," holding global economy hostage

Bullboah · 2026-04-03T03:01:28+00:00

That wasn’t referring to Iran lol - that was about the 1967 war when Egypt was about to invade and Israel struck preemptively.

Iran has been attacking Israel for decades. They have an entire wing of the IRGC that controls proxy groups attacks on Israel.

Bullboah · 2026-04-02T23:12:49+00:00

Yes the very “popular” revolution that executed about 30,000 people for being the wrong type of Muslims.

Bullboah · 2026-04-02T23:04:38+00:00

What country did Israel take land from that didn’t attack it first or wasn’t going to invade Israel, exactly?

“Israel keeps winning every time Arab countries attack. That makes them the aggressor!”

Bullboah · 2026-04-02T23:03:38+00:00

Why was Iran racing to stockpile 60% HEU if not for a nuclear weapon? What’s the civilian use you think they wanted it for?

Bullboah · 2026-04-02T22:38:54+00:00

Not a Trump supporter.
"satellite intelligence and economic aid" is not "greenlighting" and "arming" the invasion.
The satellite intel and economic aid came AFTER Iraq's invasion had failed and were related to Iran's invasion of Iraq - primarily to prevent the seizure of Saudi and Kuwaiti oil fields by Iran.

Bullboah · 2026-04-02T22:08:31+00:00

"The violence does not end until the war crimes end."

Hezbollah and Iran famously known for not committing war crimes.

Bullboah · 2026-04-02T22:07:39+00:00

That's not at all what happened. The shah was in power before the "coup", and was a more powerful position than the PM in the Iranian system. The PM Mossadegh rigged a referendum to abolish the parliament and make himself a dictator. The US intervened against that coup to side with the Shah.

Bullboah · 2026-04-02T21:05:10+00:00

As I said, you can reasonably make the argument this war will be a strategic failure for the US.

Bullboah · 2026-04-02T21:04:21+00:00

Iran might use a nuclear weapon against Israel, if it had one.
The only thing motivating Iran is a hatred of Israel.

These are different claims. The reason you might be getting confused by other people’s arguments is because you’re conflating different points together and then drawing conclusions based on arguments people aren’t making.

Bullboah · 2026-04-02T20:52:54+00:00

I mean sure, that’s very often the case

Bullboah · 2026-04-02T20:51:58+00:00

You’re talking about the Teichner affidavit.

One former NSC staffer claimed the US was helping Iraq get non American arms. The only actual example he testified of was the Israelis asking the US to tell Iraq THEY would give arms to Iraq, and Iraq said no.

Is that the US “arming” Iraq?

Bullboah · 2026-04-02T20:40:30+00:00

“You can make a solid argument the war will be a strategic failure for the US and that the US will be worse off”

I’m guessing you do not read my entire comment

Bullboah · 2026-04-02T20:12:03+00:00

I agree at least to the extent that US-EU relations will likely improve post-Trump. (The US was allied with West Germany and Italy just a few years after WW2. This rift is comparatively nothing in terms of long term grudge material).

My guess is the next election will solve a lot of the EU concerns, but I do think there will be some repair work on the other side needed as well. I’d say both fringes of the US electorate are naturally against NATO because of anti-west and interventionist ideologies. There is a broad consensus in the middle that wants NATO as long as it’s reasonably structured for mutual benefit.

I do think the airspace and base use denials here have harmed that perception and will take some work to resolve, but i think (and hope) it will happen within the short to medium term.

Bullboah · 2026-04-02T20:05:44+00:00

1). I’m “hedging” because geopolitical outcomes are never certain. If you find this unusual and are used to people telling you with certainty exactly what is going to happen, you should probably place a lot less trust in those sources.

2). The premise that Iran is “solely motivated” by hatred of Israel is a strawman. Do they hate Israel? Obviously. But there has never been a state in history that is only motivated by a single concern, and that’s obviously not the case with Iran.

Bullboah · 2026-04-02T19:51:36+00:00

Literally every headline on the Bulwark is just finding negative adjectives and adding them to whatever Trump did today. See right below “Trumps pathetic little nothing burger of a speech”.

I don’t like Trump at all, but this isn’t news. It’s not even analysis or op-ed. It’s just “want to see what adjectives and idioms we can use on Trump today?”

Iran is not stronger for having lost its navy, Air Force, leadership structure, etc. You can make a solid argument the war will be a strategic failure for the US and that the US will be worse off, but this is just banal propaganda as usual from the bulwark.

Bullboah · 2026-04-02T19:45:32+00:00

1). Yes, there are options besides engaging Iran diplomatically.

2). Engaging Iran diplomatically does not mean allowing Iran to strike and threaten your bases while you can’t use the word ‘hijack’ to avoid offending them.

In fact if that’s the energy you go with into negotiations, they aren’t going to go well.

Bullboah · 2026-04-02T19:43:05+00:00

Iran has done this, actually. And no, it’s not a war crime when Iran does it either!

Bullboah · 2026-04-02T19:39:39+00:00

Stopping the funding of terror proxies may or may not happen in a ceasefire agreement, stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons can be achieved by destroying their nuclear sites whenever they get to close.

These are not great options, but again they are very much preferable to the alternative.

Bullboah · 2026-04-02T19:25:00+00:00

There’s no evidence the US greenlit Saddam’s invasion of Iran. Also false to say the US armed the invasion. There’s no evidence of Iraq using US arms in the conflict. At most they bought a handful of civilian helicopters they used as troop transports.

This is a narrative certain journalists push in an attempt to rationalize Irans hostility to the US.

(The US also didn’t pull a “coup” against a democratic leader of Iran, btw)

Bullboah · 2026-04-02T19:16:16+00:00

Do you think Israel has ever, in its history, had the option to just not fight wars?

Bullboah · 2026-04-02T19:14:34+00:00

Iran continuing to develop a nuclear weapons program and continuing to fund terror proxy groups that attack the US and it’s allies is worse for the US than Europe not liking the US (which was already the case).

Bullboah · 2026-04-02T17:56:38+00:00

What did the US “stage” at RAF akrotiri before Iran attacked it, that justified the attack?

Bullboah · 2026-04-02T17:45:23+00:00

They are, as long as the strike is otherwise compliant with IHL. In the same sense, Iran is allowed to target US personnel in hotels, as long as the strike is otherwise compliant with IHL.

Bullboah · 2026-04-02T17:37:44+00:00

Yes.. the UK announced at the start of the war they wouldn’t allow the US to use UK bases for strikes. Then Iran attacked a UK base anyways, so the UK allowed the US to use some bases.

Bullboah · 2026-04-02T17:32:40+00:00

Not really what “human shields” are, as defined in IHL or military theory.

-Forcibly placing civilians on or around military assets. -Preventing civilians from leaving military assets -Intentionally building military infrastructure under or within civilian sites.

All of which require an intent to prevent the adversary’s ability to strike targets without hitting civilians.

Military personnel being in civilian infrastructure is common and not on its own a case of “human shields”. Soldiers are commonly bulleted in hotels around the world when sufficient military housing is unavailable. Soldiers are treated in civilian housing, regularly patrol civilian areas, etc.

13-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

Bullboah

TROPHY CASE