Right. Instead, we should spend 10s of billions of dollars on completely defensive operations in the Red Sea, never doing anything about the people shooting the missiles or the people handing them the missiles to shoot at us with. Just...sit there on the calm waters of the Red Sea and pray nobody makes a mistake.

What's the alternative? If you can't "do anything" about the people shooting the missiles at you (because shooting back won't stop them), and if it costs you more than the cost of the defensive operations (in terms of money, military resources, and geopolitical position) to shoot back...then shooting back isn't the right choice, either.

Again, it's the same logical fallacy:

1. We have to do something to change the status quo.
2. Making war on Iran will change the status quo.
3. Therefore, we have to invade Iran.

That doesn't make sense. Because if making war on Iran won't materially improve things from the status quo, but will consume vast amounts of military resources and leave you in perhaps a worse situation, then #3 does not follow.

And when, pray tell, did this start? Yesterday? No. They've been doing their Long March through the Americas and everywhere else they can ruthlessly exploit for 20 years+ now. We've been allowing them to.

And invading Iran doesn't impede them. That's still the point I'm trying to make. You can't counter what they're doing by dropping bombs in Iran or abducting Venezuelan Presidents. Because what China is doing is based on economic and geopolitical maneuvering, not based on which people happen to be ruling in a given country at a given time. You just burn off massive amounts of resources, and the geopolitical factors that make Iran an ally of China and an adversary of the West are still going to be there.