No. of Recommendations: 4
Right - that's why none of them would have ever signed off on this ill-advised adventure in the first place. The prior threat against Iran (if you hold the strait hostage it would start a war) was sufficient to keep Iran in check, but once we launched an attack on them anyway and killed all their leaders they had little to lose by going up the escalatory ladder.
So in other words they'd rather pretend the Iranians weren't developing a nuclear weapon, would rather look the other way at their ballistic missile programs, and just pray the Mullahs wouldn't wake up one day and hold their oil supply hostage.
<Tony Stark>
Not a great plan.
</Tony Stark>
They do have other parts of their economy, you know. Lots of economies in the world don't export oil. Iran had their oil exports driven down to only 0.4 mbpd back at the height of Trump's "maximum pressure" on sanctions back in the day, driving the oil sector below 3% of their economy - and they got by without being reduced to only fishing.
Well right now they're not importing or exporting much of anything. That's the problem with their talk about locking the strait up. That was always their Nuclear Option. Problem is, once you deploy your nuke you have nothing left (just like the mullahs right now). We flipped the script on them by saying "If the world can't have stuff through the straits, then neither can you".
You have no idea how relieved I am to hear you say this. Seriously.
Hey, I'm here to help! :)
