6/1/2026 at 3:26:05 PM
I'm glad Iran is teaching the US and Israel a lesson. Their aggression and attacks have gone unchecked for far too long.by Synaesthesia
6/1/2026 at 3:30:50 PM
I'm having a hard time not cheering for "the little guy" here before realizing that everyone actively involved here is actually bad.by barbazoo
6/1/2026 at 5:20:00 PM
You can have two thoughts at the same time.It's good that Iran is teaching USA and Israel a lesson, while Iran (also) being bad guys.
by lawn
6/1/2026 at 11:10:19 PM
The point is that all the civilians dying for nothing.by kelvinjps10
6/1/2026 at 9:41:26 PM
Unfortunately they'll learn nothing. The rest of the world however... have to endure the consequencesby hasperdi
6/1/2026 at 11:01:40 PM
They will learn. If the Strait remains closed for two months it's a recession. The mid-terms will be a bloodbath.by Sabinus
6/2/2026 at 12:03:34 AM
> If the Strait remains closed for two months it's a recessionWho is forecasting this?
by JumpCrisscross
6/2/2026 at 12:35:26 AM
https://www.woodmac.com/press-releases/strait-of-hormuz-clos...If Wood Mackenzie is not your cup of tea, lots of other resources with a search of “recession strait of Hormuz” keywords. The only reason we’re not in a global recession yet was because China paused oil imports, due to their >1B barrel strategic reserves.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Chinas-Oil-Buying-Paus...
https://www.kpler.com/blog/why-the-real-oil-shock-may-only-b...
by toomuchtodo
6/2/2026 at 12:38:40 AM
That forecasts a global recession if "the Strait remains largely closed through the end of 2026."Even under that scenario, which would emerge after the Strait had been closed for over ten months, the forecaster only sees "US GDP growth" falling "below 1%," i.e. not a recession. (I'm ignoring the fact that the Strait has already been closed for more than 2 months.)
by JumpCrisscross
6/2/2026 at 2:55:19 AM
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Persian-Gulf-Oil-...> Oil and gas traffic via the Strait of Hormuz may never go back to pre-war levels if Iran cements its hold over the chokepoint. The warnings come from several unrelated sources as the war continues to drag on, with some recovery in traffic but nowhere near pre-February 28 levels. Meanwhile, Big Oil is warning that the looming supply shortage is about to hit global markets in weeks.
> “No matter what happens, the Iranians will control the Strait of Hormuz for the foreseeable future,” Amos Hochstein, senior national security and energy advisor to President Biden, told CNBC last week. “It doesn’t even matter what the deal says. Everybody in the region believes that.”
> While the negotiations drag on, expectations that Iran will remain in de facto charge of the Strait of Hormuz appear to be strengthening. “Any end to the conflict that leaves Iran exercising operational control and influence over the Strait will result in appreciably lower flows through the waterway in our view,” RBC Capital Markets’ Helima Croft said in a recent note, as quoted by CNBC.
by toomuchtodo
6/2/2026 at 2:57:40 AM
None of this suggests recession for America. We're an energy and defence exporter. That broadly offsets the effects of higher energy prices.Whether or not America winds up in a recession is going to be entirely a function of AI. That is what the economy is levered on.
by JumpCrisscross
6/2/2026 at 3:02:31 AM
I agree the US goes full recession as soon as the confidence falls out from under the AI bubble and all of this investment leading to GDP growth ends, but I also don’t believe the US economy (even assuming reduced GDP to energy correlation over the last two decades) can sustain growth and will lead to contraction with oil prices at or above the $150-$200/barrel price band if persistent. The below prediction predicates a near term (July) recession call at less than $100/barrel.https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/articles/high-oil-prices-c...
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-recession-warning-job-mar...
https://www.aei.org/articles/the-shrinking-economic-weight-o...
by toomuchtodo
6/1/2026 at 3:58:18 PM
Let's see ...One side is responsible for the "pax Americana" (but everyone here was born into the time period and so doesn't realize how exceptionally peaceful it is)
One side is responsible for at least 20.000 but more likely 60.000 Iranian deaths, just this year (and everybody seems to be worried about the other side's "warcrimes")
Not having big issues to figure out between these 2 who is the good guy ...
by spwa4
6/1/2026 at 5:39:10 PM
> One side is responsible for at least 20.000 but more likely 60.000 Iranian deaths, just this year (and everybody seems to be worried about the other side's "warcrimes")I can see people attributing this to the US as well after reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta....
by barbazoo
6/1/2026 at 10:07:43 PM
I'm fine with Pax Americana, even if you call it American imperialism, but this whole involvement with Israel and its problems is not in our interest. It's abundantly clear that we have traitors in our government working for another country. Sure Iran has a terrible regime, not supposed to be our problem though.by jim33442
6/1/2026 at 4:01:49 PM
> One side is responsible for the "pax Americana" (but everyone here was born into the time period and so doesn't realize how exceptionally peaceful it is)The Pax Americana is great, but given America was one of the countries to start this war, I don't know how much credit they can get for something they just ended.
by mcphage
6/2/2026 at 1:00:33 AM
My understanding is that “Pax Americana” isn’t the absence of all war, it’s the absence of major war. So they haven’t just ended it.by ericd
6/1/2026 at 4:22:16 PM
> given America was one of the countries to start this warAre you sure? I am actually somewhat ambivalent on this. Iran wasn't exactly peaceful before February and attacked shipping regularly before then too. Oh and they attacked their own people, foreign nationals, Iranians abroad, and committed terror attacks abroad. They were involved in the Brussels Metro and airport bombing, not 2km from where I'm sitting right now.
> The Pax Americana is great, but given America was one of the countries to start this war, I don't know how much credit they can get for something they just ended
As I said, I'm sitting in Brussels, and everyone here is far more worried about the Ukraine war. Plus nobody's dying, nobody's making life impossible here. I find declaring the Pax Americana dead somewhat premature.
Maybe I'll be proven wrong, I guess. But people here are far more worried about Ukraine than Iran. I think they're wrong ... or at least, that's only a short term threat. The Iran war ... will end the strategic significance of the middle east if it lasts any longer. It will end oil. This is not 1972. Iran may destroy the middle east and itself, they will not destroy the EU, or even significantly hurt it. If their threats materialize, the EU is not America. We will simply say "No. Go F- yourself. Kthxbye", and that will only really suck for the middle east, not for us.
by spwa4
6/1/2026 at 5:19:27 PM
> Iran wasn't exactly peaceful before February and attacked shipping regularly before then too. Oh and they attacked their own people, foreign nationals, Iranians abroad, and committed terror attacks abroad.None of the nations involved in this fight have been peaceful. That's why I'm talking about just this specific war.
> I find declaring the Pax Americana dead somewhat premature.
If America wins, then yeah, probably it'll limp on. If America loses, and Iran gets to dictate terms in the Strait of Hormuz, then I'm not sure how long it will last before other nations follow suit.
by mcphage
6/1/2026 at 8:39:36 PM
> None of the nations involved in this fight have been peaceful. That's why I'm talking about just this specific war.Only if you take the 5 year old's definition of peaceful (ie. "not attacking")
Any reasonable moral position will of course mean that doing nothing, even if that means not attacking, is not necessarily a peaceful position. Nor is an attack necessarily not peaceful. For example, how Europe treated Ukraine before and during the war with Russia can easily be argued is not peaceful, it's helping the war criminal and it obviously did not lead to peace. The most generous interpretation you can make is that Europe was funding war. Only an idiot would call that a peaceful attitude. And for another example, what you wrote.
> ... then I'm not sure how long it will last before other nations follow suit.
Strange how you say the US is not peaceful, immediately followed by an argument why US's attack not only leads to peace, but the "non-attacking" nation must be defeated for peace. Which I'm sure we'll agree requires more violence. In fact your argument that Iran "defending itself" leads directly to a bigger war is accurate, I think.
Iran is basically fighting for a resumption of most parts, especially the bad parts, of colonialism (one definition of colonialism would be "taxing foreign nations" after all. I like that definition because a US audience will immediately realize why that leads to war)
That's the moral difficulty here: If the US wins, the west will be at peace with Iran. If Iran wins, war may very well be inevitable. In fact, war with a great many countries may be inevitable (Indonesia has already announced they want to tax the Malacca strait, and China has responded exactly the way you'd expect)
But yes at this point you have the ridiculous soundbite: "war is peace". The irony of that slogan, of course, is that it comes from 1984, as an example of "doublethink" which was George Orwell criticizing communism and totalitarianism. But the slogan is always used to defend totalitarian states, usually ones on the warpath.
by spwa4
6/1/2026 at 9:07:36 PM
> Only if you take the 5 year old's definition of peaceful (ie. "not attacking")I'm not sure what definition of "peaceful" you're going with here, if it includes any of the US, Iran, or Israel, prior to the start of this war. I guess I'm not as sophisticated as you.
> Strange how you say the US is not peaceful, immediately followed by an argument why US's attack not only leads to peace, but the "non-attacking" nation must be defeated for peace. Which I'm sure we'll agree requires more violence. In fact your argument that Iran "defending itself" leads directly to a bigger war is accurate, I think.
I'm not sure why you think that's strange. There was a status quo: Iran lets ships through the Strait of Hormuz. It works well enough. Then the US attacked, and that status quo is gone. If the US ends this war without re-establishing the status quo, then the world will be worse for everyone, and other nations bordering critical shipping lanes will be encouraged to follow suit.
So it's better for everybody if the US wins. But the US doesn't have much leverage to do so, and so the situation is: the US started a war that it didn't need to start, but can't easily win. The foreign policies that built the Pax Americana have been abandoned.
by mcphage
6/1/2026 at 9:08:31 PM
Ah yes, the exceptional peace of, let me check...1.5M dead Koreans
3M dead Vietnamese
500,000-1,000,000 dead or displaced Iraqis
Coups in Honduras, Chile, Haiti, Guatemala, Venezuela, Syria, Libya...
Pax Americana my ass. Tell that to the global south
by queenkjuul
6/1/2026 at 11:06:49 PM
The world wasn't exactly a kind place before Pax Americana. If you check the stats, the American era does pretty well for peace and prosperity, and it's not realistic to expect the Americans would oversee a conflict-free utopia.by Sabinus
6/2/2026 at 1:26:01 AM
> oversee a conflict-free utopiaOversee is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
by ebbi
6/1/2026 at 10:12:27 PM
Communists' or Islamists' fault for all of those except Iraqby jim33442
6/1/2026 at 11:16:32 PM
aka, Them.by arvid-lind
6/2/2026 at 1:04:26 AM
people are missing the 3rd actor in this trifecta/shit sandwich - Israel. Its the intentional bad faith actor who'll do whatever it takes to sink any peace talks - including genocide/invading Lebanon etc etc etc.by tyrrvk
6/2/2026 at 1:43:59 AM
Lesson learnt? I don't think so. The ones responsible are the most insulated from the consequences of their actions, which is why they're doing all of this in the first place. It's the rest of us who're paying the price.by soraminazuki
6/2/2026 at 1:57:37 AM
I don’t think Israeli government really cares.by duxup
6/2/2026 at 12:02:30 AM
> glad Iran is teaching the US and Israel a lessonNobody is learning anything. Hardliners in three capitals are performing for their own choirs.
In the meantime, it’s a bonanza for American energy and defence interests.
by JumpCrisscross
6/1/2026 at 6:54:58 PM
I believe that there are powerful elements in the USA that are happy with the Strait being closed. This is rewarding oil producers and processors in red states while hurting blue California proportionally more.Also, it appears that Trump enjoys any actions that hurt allies more than they hurt him. He's waiting for someone who cares more about the Strait to devote their resources to sorting this out.
All noise to the contrary is lip-service and market manipulation.
by mring33621
6/2/2026 at 12:25:33 AM
The Iranian government executes gay people.by opengrass
6/2/2026 at 12:31:47 AM
What type of silly response is that?And I could say the U.S. takes over countries like cuba and turns off their power. We’re definitely the good guys LOL.
Look, I live in the U.S. but i’m not stupid about what we do. We are a terror around the world. Nobody in this fight is the good guy.
by lurking_swe
6/2/2026 at 1:28:19 AM
America bombs anyone and everyone if they're in the Middle East/Afghanistan/etc.I'm glad America doesn't discriminate.
by ebbi
6/2/2026 at 12:41:46 AM
The American government would if it could.by krapp
6/2/2026 at 1:49:07 AM
The Iranian government would execute much more than they already do if they could, but they can't due to unrest risk.by Jensson
6/2/2026 at 2:54:45 AM
[dead]by aaron695
6/1/2026 at 3:39:52 PM
[dead]by wetpaws
6/1/2026 at 3:27:39 PM
[flagged]by bak3y
6/1/2026 at 3:36:47 PM
Are you being sarcastic? Iran is ruled by a an authoritarian theocratic regime that took over through violence and has been ruling over their citizens through violence. Iran is also the biggest backer of terrorists in the Middle East, and has supported Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, and many others. It’s Iran’s ruling power that has been unchecked for too long.by SilverElfin
6/1/2026 at 3:40:04 PM
Are they mutually exclusive?by unshavedyak
6/1/2026 at 3:51:37 PM
"He's out of line, but he's right": while Iran are an extremely bad actor, before Trump the situation was stable. And the start of conventional hostilities was clearly from the US+Israel side.(open question as to how much the October 2023 attack is the fault of Iran, specifically?)
by pjc50
6/1/2026 at 4:28:43 PM
There were negotiations before it all started and people seem to have missed or forgotten the claim that Iran mentioned having material to create 11 nukes during this. When this first came out all the news reported there was no evidence Iran had that, but now their refined uranium isn't really in question.Also during this one of their missiles hit a target 4000 kilometers away, much further than they were claiming they had. That's far enough to hit Europe if it had gone in the other direction.
To me it's looking like the stability was an illusion.
by Izkata
6/1/2026 at 6:34:00 PM
It was also reported that all US intelligence agencies denied that Iran was making a nuke.It was also reported that during negotiations before this war, Iran had offered 100% of all nuclear material to be surrendered to the USA, to prevent a war.
Also, Marco Rubio said directly that Israel was going to strike anyway, and that we had to respond. He later “clarified” that it was. 100% Trumps call.
So - if the stability was an illusion, it’s because Trump and Israel are unstable, right?
by analognoise
6/1/2026 at 7:04:17 PM
I'm not sure 'Illusion' is the right word, and it should probably read "Trump and Israel and Iran" are unstable.But, yes
by mring33621
6/1/2026 at 9:52:50 PM
Israel was successfully defanging Iran's terror programs. That's in fact the entire reason this war exists. It was Israel's plan. This is all their retaliation for Oct 7th.So why the hell are we there? We didn't build a coalition. We didn't really justify our involvement. Trump and Trump supporters insisted on isolationism, pulling back from being the world police, ignoring even heinous invasions like Ukraine to save a few pennies, but suddenly Iran has insulted us through its existence for far too long?
Bullshit.
Keep in mind, Iran was likely to evolve in some way in the next few decades as a result of their impending water crisis. Waiting for a better opportunity would have been the smart choice.
by mrguyorama
6/1/2026 at 3:55:02 PM
[flagged]by b345
6/1/2026 at 4:26:51 PM
"Most people", meaning "most people in your social circles" presumably - because that's certainly not the case where I am, and I'd like to see some polling data before considering that it's the case globally. I seriously doubt it.by Ancapistani