"What do you mean by seizing the whole earth; because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, while you who does it with a great fleet are styled emperor."
You mean the de facto dictatorship that was installed by an MI6 and CIA-instigated coup in 1953 and widely unpopular because, among other things, it used secret police to brutally suppress political dissent?
And replaced with the deeply unpopular Islamic republic? The current regime is extremely unpopular in Iran. The regime has around a 12% approval rating. Over 60% of Iranians want regime change. Ever more (69%) believe that the Islamic Republic should change its foreign policy, and stop calling for the destruction of Israel.
Iran investing 2-3% of its GDP (tens of billions per year) into funding a proxy-war against a country 2,000km away, that you had friendly relations with for decades, and has no desire for conflict with you, is an utterly insane foreign policy.
To demonstrate the insanity of this: this is the equivalent of the United States spending $750 billion every year a war with Costa Rica.
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. It seems you're in favor of deeply unpopular regimes that brutalize their own people as long as those regimes adhere to your vision for the region.
In other words, it seems you'd support a Western-backed Iranian dictatorship that violently represses political dissent as long as it recognizes Israel and kowtows to American/Western demands.
Perhaps you should consider that neither of these extremes is beneficial to the Iranian people you claim to care about.
You've invented an argument I didn't make and then attacked it. That's a classic strawman.
I never mentioned a Western-backed dictatorship, the Shah, or any conditions about Israel recognition. You invented that.
My argument is simple: 60%+ of Iranians want regime change. 69% want the government to stop funding foreign proxy wars. The regime has a 12% approval rating. Iranians want something else. I cited polling data showing what Iranians want themselves. You can read the links I provided. The policies of the current regime are deeply unpopular.
I believe that spending 2-3% of GDP (tens of billions of dollars per year) fighting an adversary 2,000km away that you had friendly relations with for decades & has no desire for conflict with you is an utterly insane foreign policy. This money is much better spent invested into the Iranian people. Building infrastructure, investing in the Iranian people, and building the Iranian economy.
I did not advocate for a Western-backed dictatorship. The false choice you're presenting (Islamic republic vs Western puppet state) isn't the one Iranians are making. Iranians are not asking for a Western-backed dictatorship. Iranians are saying "stop spending our money blowing up the Middle East and end this pointless forever war with Israel". Iranians want a different foreign policy.
You also accused me of not caring about Iranians, while also defending a regime that 88% of Iranians disapprove of. That's a strange way to show you care about Iranians.
When I first learned that Iran-Israel used to have friendly relations for decades, I was shocked. Genuinely surprised. Here's the relevant part of the wiki [0]:
After the establishment of the State of Israel in May 1948, Israel and Iran maintained close ties. Iran was the second Muslim-majority country to recognize Israel as a sovereign state after Turkey. Israel viewed Iran as a natural ally as a non-Arab power on the edge of the Arab world, in accordance with David Ben Gurion's concept of an alliance of the periphery. Israel had a permanent delegation in Tehran which served as a de facto embassy, before Ambassadors were exchanged in the late 1970s.
After the Six-Day War, Iran supplied Israel with a significant portion of its oil needs and Iranian oil was shipped to European markets via the joint Israeli-Iranian Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline. Trade between the countries was brisk, with Israeli construction firms and engineers active in Iran. El Al, the Israeli national airline, operated direct flights between Tel Aviv and Tehran. Iranian-Israeli military links and projects were kept secret, but they are believed to have been wide-ranging, for example the joint military project Project Flower (1977–79), an Iranian-Israeli attempt to develop a new missile.
You know that the Iran of then is almost completely unrelated to the Iran of now culturally, politically and even religiously due to... err... “foreign intervention”, right?
Obviously. The point I'm addressing is that Iran does not have to maintain hostile relations towards Israel. The two countries had friendly relations for decades prior. Iranians themselves also want to end hostilities with Israel. Polling of Iranians citizens show 69% of people believe the "Islamic Republic should stop calling for the destruction of Israel" [0].
The tens of billions of dollars Iran invests into fighting Israel are (in my opinion) much better spent investing into developing the Iranian people and economy. Spending billions of dollars funding proxy wars, fighting a pointless forever war against Israel, pursuing nuclear weapons, and firing drones and missiles at your neighbors is a foolish foreign policy. Iran is asking for trouble.
If Iran had a different foreign policy, this current conflict would never have happened. Iran's situation was entirely avoidable.
It still shocks me that there are people out there who think of this as watching sports: when my team does it, it's ok. When they do it, it's clear-cut wrong.
Yes what they want to do is to tax other countries for using what is currently international waters and tax free, because they are militarily able to do so. That creates the problem that if Iran is allowed to do this, other countries will do this too (Indonesia will tax the Malacca strait).
If that happens, a lot of countries will give very serious thought to attacking each other, not just in the middle east, and may decide they don't have a choice.
nit: The strait of Hormuz is not considered international waters. It's split between Iranian and Omani territorial waters. The strait itself is classified as a "transit passage" under Articles 37–44 of UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which guarantees ships the right of continuous and expeditious transit.
Iran has not ratified UNCLOS, and Oman has ratified it but then negated the implied right of transit passage in domestic law - they only recognise innocent passage.
So the Strait has no clear legal status.
In theory since Iran didn't ratify UNCLOS they can only claim 3nm of territorial water, but they claim 12nm anyhow.
The USA insists on the right of transit passage, but itself isn't even a signatory to UNCLOS so that's hypocritical and has no basis.
It's a mess that nobody wants to touch, so it's pretty much up for grabs by the most militant player.
> The USA insists on the right of transit passage, but itself isn't even a signatory to UNCLOS so that's hypocritical and has no basis.
The USA and Israel clearly don't care or abide by international law anyway. US is already pirating unarmed ships on international waters, blowing up schools and hospitals as it pleases.
None of the western countries held them accountable until IRAN started putting pressure on them via the strait.
Now suddenly everyone is up in arms about the intricate details of "UNCLOS", while a second genocide is about to happen via Israel in Lebanon.
Very interesting, I wasn't aware of the full legal mess occurring at the strait.
I found this detailed article [0], written by a law student, which discusses the Hormuz strait situation in the context of the past century of maritime law.
I don't understand this legal position: the UN security council, which is both the judge, the appelate court, the supreme court and the enforcement mechanism of maritime law, has publicly declared they won't do anything about it.
In any other legal situation, if the supreme court says it's OK, there's nothing to be done. There's a word for that: legal. As in whatever happens is legal, even if everyone kills each other.
That's what the world voted. That's the situation "international diplomacy" has chosen.
There's not much relevant to be said about maritime law until the US wins (because Iran won't respect it, regardless of what it says)
>the UN security council, which is both the judge, the appelate court, the supreme court and the enforcement mechanism of maritime law, has publicly declared they won't do anything about it. In any other legal situation, if the supreme court says it's OK, there's nothing to be done. There's a word for that: legal. As in whatever happens is legal, even if everyone kills each other.
You are rhetorically clever but analytically wrong on almost every premise.
Your claim rests on UNSC inaction = judicial approval = legal sanction. This is false on multiple levels.
A supreme court saying something is legal relies on an affirmative ruling. A body simply declining to act, especially for political reasons such as a Russian or Chinese veto, is not a ruling of any kind.
The UNSC is also not a court. It is a political body of 15 member states that authorize enforcement actions related to international peace and security. It does not make legal rulings. The actual judicial body in the UN system is the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ has made no ruling on the strait of Hormuz situation.
You also conflate UNSC inaction with legality. That's an interesting philosophical position, but by that exact logic:
* The apartheid of South Africa was "legal" because the UNSC was blocked from acting decisively on the issue for decades.
* The US/Israel strikes on Iran were "legal" because the UNSC never vetoed it.
* The Israeli genocide of Palestine is "legal" because it was protected by UNSC veto.
Obviously, quite flawed logic.
Overall, three errors:
1) you conflated legal inaction as affirmative legal action.
2) you conflated a political body with a legal one.
Can I just point you to the first line of Wikipedia's definition of law? Law is what's enforced, not the rules by themselves.
Oh and it's pretty revealing which situations you think are worthy of law violation and which ones aren't (e.g. as per usual Boucha and anything relating to Russia's, or Iran, or offensive Palestinian actions aren't mentioned. It "almost seems" the argument you're making is that law only serves to make your favorite political viewpoint come true, and not for anything else. Funny in a way, since it exposes your hypocrisy: that was exactly the point I was making. Well, with "you" being a person who actually decides, as opposed to you)
> Can I just point you to the first line of Wikipedia's definition of law? Law is what's enforced, not the rules by themselves.
Sure, and this is the first line of Wikipedia's definition of law [0].
Law is a set of rules that are created and enforced by governmental or societal institutions to regulate behavior, with its precise definition a matter of longstanding debate.
Ouch, that obviously doesn't agree with your definition. What a flagrant error. Did you even look at the Wikipedia article before writing your comment?
> Law is what's enforced, not the rules by themselves.
Within my circle of friends (generally those who are in Europe), I have been trying explain this distinction whenever it’s brought up that “US violates international law”. Be it Greenland, Iran, Israel…whatever…if your international law’s enforcement arm (The US) will not enforce on itself, then whatever the US does or decides to do is legal.
... and do you think that's a reasonable position to take?
If these treaties are not in force, a lot of countries cannot trade freely internationally. These days all countries are dependent on free international trade, but for obvious reasons it goes double for desert countries like the ones behind the strait of Hormuz, even without considering oil.
Geography allows a number of countries like Iran, but also Spain, Indonesia, South Africa, Argentina, Turkey, UK, Denmark and Yemen to tax entire continents, including each other simply by threat of sinking ships. Endless wars have been fought over this.
Why?
First, anything that depends on international supply chains (like computers, iphones, cars, coffee, chocolate, tea, ... or the food for the survival of gulf nations' populations) is gone, in a matter of months.
Second, the "Pax Americana" is over, the post-WW2 security architecture is over (which is code for WW3 will start as soon as the first country considers itself ready). This will, by the way, not fix the first problem, not even if your country wins.
The sad truth is that either the US wins this war, or half of the world will once again find their place of employment is a cold, wet dugout with people shooting at them. Including, of course, Iranians.
The main component of it is the US enforcing the law of the seas (as in actually enforcing it, not the way the UK serviced itself before WW2).
So no, quite the opposite. Thankfully.
I have worked for the EU, and the EU has wanted an EU military since before I was born. Hell, my father was in diapers the first time it was called for (Charles De Gaulle demanded it before he returned to France from Berlin. And I assure you, at the time Charles De Gaulle's voice was louder than if God himself would have come down to earth, shouting. He couldn't make it happen). Europe is not suddenly waking up to reality.
You know how much the US pays for it's military? About the same as EU states pay for unemployment in bad years (as in 30% more than the average now). What I mean is the question is not "Does the EU want a military?". That's obvious.
The question is the price, and not really in money, but in the economic effort required to do it (in other words, most of the abstraction that is money won't apply. You cannot borrow an army, for example. Whatever you spend on an army you will be increasing the budget with at least inflation every year, and so on). And even then, keep in mind the US does not really pay for soldiers. In the US it's effectively the case that some social benefits, mostly free in Europe, are only available in the US if you join the army first. This is why every country tries to get foreign nations to pay for their military, like the UK did before and Iran is trying to do now.
And there are only a few big expenses in EU government budgets. So ...
The question becomes "There's 3 components to social security in European countries. Medical insurance, unemployment and pensions. The only way to get an army is to trade in one of the 3. So which one do we trade in for an army?"
But yeah, the EU countries could cancel unemployment and instead do something like "if you lose your job, serve 5 years in the military for almost no pay, THEN you can get unemployment". That is the level of effort required.
I don't think we have to go through the effort of scheduling a vote, do we?
They have sovereignty and they only ever mentioned doing this to pay for reparations after being attacked by two countries that have been allowed to routinely attack/exploit the Middle East and, in the case of one, carry out genocide.
As an aside, the war is largely seen as being waged for the sake of Israel, against US/world interests.
> Indonesia will tax the Malacca strait... a lot of countries... attacking each other
Pure fearmongering, in no way different from "think of the children and of the terrorists".
Iran does not have full sovereignty over the strait of Hormuz. Ownership of the the strait is split between Iranian and Omani territorial waters. Iran has sovereignty over the waters on its side, but Iran does not have sovereignty over the Omani side.
Iran maintains a blockade on the strait by placing mines in Omani waters, and firing missiles at civilian ships that attempt to pass in Omani waters. It has no legal basis to do either of those.
The US and Israel had no legal basis to launch an attack on Iran.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You can't be for the rule of law only when it's convenient for you and expect the rest of the world to be for the rule of law when it's not convenient for them.
By "control" Iran doesn't mean they will operate or maintain these cables. They mean "pay up, or we'll destroy these cables when we feel like it".
Modern day piracy.
"What do you mean by seizing the whole earth; because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, while you who does it with a great fleet are styled emperor."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirates_and_Emperors
The real pirates are USA and Israel. They started this
[flagged]
> Iran's leadership changed post-1979...
You mean the de facto dictatorship that was installed by an MI6 and CIA-instigated coup in 1953 and widely unpopular because, among other things, it used secret police to brutally suppress political dissent?
And replaced with the deeply unpopular Islamic republic? The current regime is extremely unpopular in Iran. The regime has around a 12% approval rating. Over 60% of Iranians want regime change. Ever more (69%) believe that the Islamic Republic should change its foreign policy, and stop calling for the destruction of Israel.
Iran investing 2-3% of its GDP (tens of billions per year) into funding a proxy-war against a country 2,000km away, that you had friendly relations with for decades, and has no desire for conflict with you, is an utterly insane foreign policy.
To demonstrate the insanity of this: this is the equivalent of the United States spending $750 billion every year a war with Costa Rica.
https://theconversation.com/iran-protests-2026-our-surveys-s...
https://gamaan.org/2025/11/05/12-day-war-survey-english/
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. It seems you're in favor of deeply unpopular regimes that brutalize their own people as long as those regimes adhere to your vision for the region.
In other words, it seems you'd support a Western-backed Iranian dictatorship that violently represses political dissent as long as it recognizes Israel and kowtows to American/Western demands.
Perhaps you should consider that neither of these extremes is beneficial to the Iranian people you claim to care about.
You've invented an argument I didn't make and then attacked it. That's a classic strawman.
I never mentioned a Western-backed dictatorship, the Shah, or any conditions about Israel recognition. You invented that.
My argument is simple: 60%+ of Iranians want regime change. 69% want the government to stop funding foreign proxy wars. The regime has a 12% approval rating. Iranians want something else. I cited polling data showing what Iranians want themselves. You can read the links I provided. The policies of the current regime are deeply unpopular.
I believe that spending 2-3% of GDP (tens of billions of dollars per year) fighting an adversary 2,000km away that you had friendly relations with for decades & has no desire for conflict with you is an utterly insane foreign policy. This money is much better spent invested into the Iranian people. Building infrastructure, investing in the Iranian people, and building the Iranian economy.
I did not advocate for a Western-backed dictatorship. The false choice you're presenting (Islamic republic vs Western puppet state) isn't the one Iranians are making. Iranians are not asking for a Western-backed dictatorship. Iranians are saying "stop spending our money blowing up the Middle East and end this pointless forever war with Israel". Iranians want a different foreign policy.
You also accused me of not caring about Iranians, while also defending a regime that 88% of Iranians disapprove of. That's a strange way to show you care about Iranians.
Hezbollah is the consequence of Israel Invading Lebannon.
Sure, but Lebanon attacked Israel first (in 1948). Lebanon was the aggressor.
Assigning blame to only one side is meaningless when both sides go tit-for-tat for decades. Both Israel and Lebanon are complicit in this mess.
Same way as the UK attacked Germany first during WWII, no?
There were many reasons for the Arab League, which Lebanon was part of, to attack a country taking over Palestine.
For the record, Lebanon also attacked Israel first during the war in 2026.
Sources other than project flower?
When I first learned that Iran-Israel used to have friendly relations for decades, I was shocked. Genuinely surprised. Here's the relevant part of the wiki [0]:
After the establishment of the State of Israel in May 1948, Israel and Iran maintained close ties. Iran was the second Muslim-majority country to recognize Israel as a sovereign state after Turkey. Israel viewed Iran as a natural ally as a non-Arab power on the edge of the Arab world, in accordance with David Ben Gurion's concept of an alliance of the periphery. Israel had a permanent delegation in Tehran which served as a de facto embassy, before Ambassadors were exchanged in the late 1970s.
After the Six-Day War, Iran supplied Israel with a significant portion of its oil needs and Iranian oil was shipped to European markets via the joint Israeli-Iranian Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline. Trade between the countries was brisk, with Israeli construction firms and engineers active in Iran. El Al, the Israeli national airline, operated direct flights between Tel Aviv and Tehran. Iranian-Israeli military links and projects were kept secret, but they are believed to have been wide-ranging, for example the joint military project Project Flower (1977–79), an Iranian-Israeli attempt to develop a new missile.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_relations
You know that the Iran of then is almost completely unrelated to the Iran of now culturally, politically and even religiously due to... err... “foreign intervention”, right?
Obviously. The point I'm addressing is that Iran does not have to maintain hostile relations towards Israel. The two countries had friendly relations for decades prior. Iranians themselves also want to end hostilities with Israel. Polling of Iranians citizens show 69% of people believe the "Islamic Republic should stop calling for the destruction of Israel" [0].
The tens of billions of dollars Iran invests into fighting Israel are (in my opinion) much better spent investing into developing the Iranian people and economy. Spending billions of dollars funding proxy wars, fighting a pointless forever war against Israel, pursuing nuclear weapons, and firing drones and missiles at your neighbors is a foolish foreign policy. Iran is asking for trouble.
If Iran had a different foreign policy, this current conflict would never have happened. Iran's situation was entirely avoidable.
[0] https://gamaan.org/2025/11/05/12-day-war-survey-english/
Get your history right: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/pVJ1Ci3MXs4
[flagged]
>> Modern day piracy.
"Israel seizes Gaza aid ships in international waters" - https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-begins-inte...
It still shocks me that there are people out there who think of this as watching sports: when my team does it, it's ok. When they do it, it's clear-cut wrong.
so, whats americas hamhanded war called?
Seems like an excellent way to have your country routed around, and to have connections to your country cut by adversaries.
Are there better sources to this than WioNews?
https://www.iranintl.com/en/202605091805
That website makes my eyes hurt.
Yes what they want to do is to tax other countries for using what is currently international waters and tax free, because they are militarily able to do so. That creates the problem that if Iran is allowed to do this, other countries will do this too (Indonesia will tax the Malacca strait).
If that happens, a lot of countries will give very serious thought to attacking each other, not just in the middle east, and may decide they don't have a choice.
nit: The strait of Hormuz is not considered international waters. It's split between Iranian and Omani territorial waters. The strait itself is classified as a "transit passage" under Articles 37–44 of UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which guarantees ships the right of continuous and expeditious transit.
Iran has not ratified UNCLOS, and Oman has ratified it but then negated the implied right of transit passage in domestic law - they only recognise innocent passage.
So the Strait has no clear legal status.
In theory since Iran didn't ratify UNCLOS they can only claim 3nm of territorial water, but they claim 12nm anyhow.
The USA insists on the right of transit passage, but itself isn't even a signatory to UNCLOS so that's hypocritical and has no basis.
It's a mess that nobody wants to touch, so it's pretty much up for grabs by the most militant player.
> The USA insists on the right of transit passage, but itself isn't even a signatory to UNCLOS so that's hypocritical and has no basis.
The USA and Israel clearly don't care or abide by international law anyway. US is already pirating unarmed ships on international waters, blowing up schools and hospitals as it pleases.
None of the western countries held them accountable until IRAN started putting pressure on them via the strait.
Now suddenly everyone is up in arms about the intricate details of "UNCLOS", while a second genocide is about to happen via Israel in Lebanon.
Very interesting, I wasn't aware of the full legal mess occurring at the strait.
I found this detailed article [0], written by a law student, which discusses the Hormuz strait situation in the context of the past century of maritime law.
[0] https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-strait-of-hormuz-an...
I don't understand this legal position: the UN security council, which is both the judge, the appelate court, the supreme court and the enforcement mechanism of maritime law, has publicly declared they won't do anything about it.
In any other legal situation, if the supreme court says it's OK, there's nothing to be done. There's a word for that: legal. As in whatever happens is legal, even if everyone kills each other.
That's what the world voted. That's the situation "international diplomacy" has chosen.
There's not much relevant to be said about maritime law until the US wins (because Iran won't respect it, regardless of what it says)
>the UN security council, which is both the judge, the appelate court, the supreme court and the enforcement mechanism of maritime law, has publicly declared they won't do anything about it. In any other legal situation, if the supreme court says it's OK, there's nothing to be done. There's a word for that: legal. As in whatever happens is legal, even if everyone kills each other.
You are rhetorically clever but analytically wrong on almost every premise.
Your claim rests on UNSC inaction = judicial approval = legal sanction. This is false on multiple levels.
A supreme court saying something is legal relies on an affirmative ruling. A body simply declining to act, especially for political reasons such as a Russian or Chinese veto, is not a ruling of any kind.
The UNSC is also not a court. It is a political body of 15 member states that authorize enforcement actions related to international peace and security. It does not make legal rulings. The actual judicial body in the UN system is the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ has made no ruling on the strait of Hormuz situation.
You also conflate UNSC inaction with legality. That's an interesting philosophical position, but by that exact logic:
* The apartheid of South Africa was "legal" because the UNSC was blocked from acting decisively on the issue for decades.
* The US/Israel strikes on Iran were "legal" because the UNSC never vetoed it.
* The Israeli genocide of Palestine is "legal" because it was protected by UNSC veto.
Obviously, quite flawed logic.
Overall, three errors:
1) you conflated legal inaction as affirmative legal action.
2) you conflated a political body with a legal one.
3) you conflated UNSC inaction with legality.
Can I just point you to the first line of Wikipedia's definition of law? Law is what's enforced, not the rules by themselves.
Oh and it's pretty revealing which situations you think are worthy of law violation and which ones aren't (e.g. as per usual Boucha and anything relating to Russia's, or Iran, or offensive Palestinian actions aren't mentioned. It "almost seems" the argument you're making is that law only serves to make your favorite political viewpoint come true, and not for anything else. Funny in a way, since it exposes your hypocrisy: that was exactly the point I was making. Well, with "you" being a person who actually decides, as opposed to you)
> Can I just point you to the first line of Wikipedia's definition of law? Law is what's enforced, not the rules by themselves.
Sure, and this is the first line of Wikipedia's definition of law [0].
Law is a set of rules that are created and enforced by governmental or societal institutions to regulate behavior, with its precise definition a matter of longstanding debate.
Ouch, that obviously doesn't agree with your definition. What a flagrant error. Did you even look at the Wikipedia article before writing your comment?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law
> Law is what's enforced, not the rules by themselves.
Within my circle of friends (generally those who are in Europe), I have been trying explain this distinction whenever it’s brought up that “US violates international law”. Be it Greenland, Iran, Israel…whatever…if your international law’s enforcement arm (The US) will not enforce on itself, then whatever the US does or decides to do is legal.
Who cares about legality in these matter ? You are not going to see a UN white ship splitting the Detroit between Iran and Oman.
It's whoever has the will and the mean.
The more I see of that war, the more I think a war was/is necessary because we can't let these lunatics have nuclear weapon. Whatever the cost.
... and do you think that's a reasonable position to take?
If these treaties are not in force, a lot of countries cannot trade freely internationally. These days all countries are dependent on free international trade, but for obvious reasons it goes double for desert countries like the ones behind the strait of Hormuz, even without considering oil.
Geography allows a number of countries like Iran, but also Spain, Indonesia, South Africa, Argentina, Turkey, UK, Denmark and Yemen to tax entire continents, including each other simply by threat of sinking ships. Endless wars have been fought over this.
Why?
First, anything that depends on international supply chains (like computers, iphones, cars, coffee, chocolate, tea, ... or the food for the survival of gulf nations' populations) is gone, in a matter of months.
Second, the "Pax Americana" is over, the post-WW2 security architecture is over (which is code for WW3 will start as soon as the first country considers itself ready). This will, by the way, not fix the first problem, not even if your country wins.
The sad truth is that either the US wins this war, or half of the world will once again find their place of employment is a cold, wet dugout with people shooting at them. Including, of course, Iranians.
> Second, the "Pax Americana" is over, the post-WW2 security architecture is over
I’m sorry but it ended when the US started to threaten Denmark with invasion. That genie isn’t going back into the bottle.
The main component of it is the US enforcing the law of the seas (as in actually enforcing it, not the way the UK serviced itself before WW2).
So no, quite the opposite. Thankfully.
I have worked for the EU, and the EU has wanted an EU military since before I was born. Hell, my father was in diapers the first time it was called for (Charles De Gaulle demanded it before he returned to France from Berlin. And I assure you, at the time Charles De Gaulle's voice was louder than if God himself would have come down to earth, shouting. He couldn't make it happen). Europe is not suddenly waking up to reality.
You know how much the US pays for it's military? About the same as EU states pay for unemployment in bad years (as in 30% more than the average now). What I mean is the question is not "Does the EU want a military?". That's obvious.
The question is the price, and not really in money, but in the economic effort required to do it (in other words, most of the abstraction that is money won't apply. You cannot borrow an army, for example. Whatever you spend on an army you will be increasing the budget with at least inflation every year, and so on). And even then, keep in mind the US does not really pay for soldiers. In the US it's effectively the case that some social benefits, mostly free in Europe, are only available in the US if you join the army first. This is why every country tries to get foreign nations to pay for their military, like the UK did before and Iran is trying to do now.
And there are only a few big expenses in EU government budgets. So ...
The question becomes "There's 3 components to social security in European countries. Medical insurance, unemployment and pensions. The only way to get an army is to trade in one of the 3. So which one do we trade in for an army?"
But yeah, the EU countries could cancel unemployment and instead do something like "if you lose your job, serve 5 years in the military for almost no pay, THEN you can get unemployment". That is the level of effort required.
I don't think we have to go through the effort of scheduling a vote, do we?
Shipping lane is on Oman side of Strait of Hormuz
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Hormuz#/media/File:S...
> international waters
It's not international waters.
> if Iran is allowed to do this
They have sovereignty and they only ever mentioned doing this to pay for reparations after being attacked by two countries that have been allowed to routinely attack/exploit the Middle East and, in the case of one, carry out genocide.
As an aside, the war is largely seen as being waged for the sake of Israel, against US/world interests.
> Indonesia will tax the Malacca strait... a lot of countries... attacking each other
Pure fearmongering, in no way different from "think of the children and of the terrorists".
Iran does not have full sovereignty over the strait of Hormuz. Ownership of the the strait is split between Iranian and Omani territorial waters. Iran has sovereignty over the waters on its side, but Iran does not have sovereignty over the Omani side.
Iran maintains a blockade on the strait by placing mines in Omani waters, and firing missiles at civilian ships that attempt to pass in Omani waters. It has no legal basis to do either of those.
> It has no legal basis to do either of those.
The US and Israel had no legal basis to launch an attack on Iran.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You can't be for the rule of law only when it's convenient for you and expect the rest of the world to be for the rule of law when it's not convenient for them.
We might add that the actual maritime corridor goes through Omani and UAE waters. It comes close, but does not actually go through Iranian waters.