When War Crimes Rhetoric Becomes Battlefield Reality(www.justsecurity.org)

29 pointsby dogscatstrees4 hours ago5 comments

drivebyhooting2 hours ago
What’s the plan for opening transit through the strait? Let Iran hold it hostage and ransom tankers through? That seems absolutely unacceptable.
How about each country sets up a blockade and demands their toll for safe passage?
The only sensible strategy is to make IRGC capitulate.
- ekjhgkejhgk2 hours ago
  How about listening to their demands? This was triggered by the US and Israel, it's on them to fix this mess.
  - dlubarovan hour ago
    Extorting an international waterway is effectively just piracy (we just don't typically use the word for state actors). We could try to end this piracy through negotiations, but letting states use piracy as a bargaining chip doesn't set a good precedent.
    anonymous_user9an hour ago
    > letting states use piracy as a bargaining chip doesn't set a good precedent.
    If piracy is bad, what precedent due the US and Israel's conduct set?
    Instead of tolling the strait, Iran should arrest leaders of their neighboring states, and try them for their crimes under Iranian law.
  - drivebyhooting2 hours ago
    Pay them reparations and allow a toll system that will destroy the petrodollar? That’s preposterous. Why should USA accept that?
    defrost2 hours ago
    The US ignored all their own intelligence of decades, struck a country during negotiations, and the head of state and head of war are openly calling for war crimes while channeling all the worst aspects of former Air Force General Curtis LeMay without any of LeMay's experience.
    drivebyhooting2 hours ago
    Yes it was a terrible decision. But now what? Do you have a suggestion for ending the conflict?
    michaeljx4 minutes ago
    Accept that you lost. Apologize for the mistake. Pay a few billions for repatriations, lift sanctions and open dialogue. But engaging into a multi-year trillion war is more likely, than accepting defeat upfront
    defrostan hour ago
    Get an experienced Trump whisperer in to back the silly old bugger out without feeling as though he lost.
    It's a mental health issue, and if you can't reel him in with gilded trinkets you'll need some cooler heads to remove him from issueing executive orders and immediately pass control to congress.
    The time for fixing the flaws in the US system was 20+ years past .. but if you can get that effort in now, it'll be appreciated.
    jjgreen2 hours ago
    Too late: https://archive.is/UpE2M
    shermozle2 hours ago
    You broke it, you bought it!
    Ylpertnodi2 hours ago
    Because the usa caused it.
- simonh2 hours ago
  And the way to make the broader million strong Iranian military fanatical religious death cult capitulate is....
  - drivebyhooting2 hours ago
    The civilian price will be terrible. But this could be one way: Destroy all power plants and desalination plants. Rations will be given out by “peace keepers” on the condition that IRGC members surrender and are taken prisoner. Missiles and drones can be exchanged for rations as well.
    orwinan hour ago
    Hitting desalination plant will mostly (and almost only) hurt the population outside of IRGC power circle, exactly the population the USA incited to rebel for a few years, with pakistani help. Basically South Alborz. Iran did have a water crisis, but it was agricultural water that made them have to import more food, not an issue of drinking water. The only way to truly start a global Iranian famine (what a terrible weapon tbh, i can't help but to think less of people who think about using it, it's impossible for me to stay neutral,it is an inhumane stance, and i would be ashamed of having it) is to block Iran northern trading routes to Russia/Kazakhstan/Azerbaijan, which, to be clear, is impossible.
    0dayzan hour ago
    Ah yes the true and tried strategy of civilian bombing, worked so well for: the nazis bombing campaign against the UK.
    Same goes with Russia against Ukraine.
    CrzyLngPwd2 hours ago
    Iran depends on desalination for around 3% of its drinking water, and has said that any such attacks on its infrastructure will see the same to any country that has support the USA/Israel military actions.
    USA allies in the region will be largely uninhabitable, since they depend on power and desalination for their existence.
    Still, maybe that is what Trump, the crazy bastard, wants.
enjeyw2 hours ago
What I find tricky to reason about here is that whether destroying infrastructure comes down to "whether the military advantage outweighs the impact to civilians", and as far as I can tell, there's no robust way to assess this.
Indeed, this seems to be what supporters of Trump are leaning on, as you can make the argument that _any_ bridge, or _any_ powerplant could hypothetically be used by the military, and that this conflict is sufficiently important for the livelihood of people in America/"The West" that doing anything that even slightly helps tips the odds is justifiable.
- graemep2 hours ago
  Interesting requirement. Where does that leave a lot of other wars? Russia has been attacking Ukrainian infrastructure for a while. Ukraine has been attacking Russian oil production and ports, especially recently. I seem to recall a lot of infrastructure destroyed in the US invasion of Iraq. There have been a lot of wars since WW2 and I find it had to believe that those than involved bombing were all restricted to military targets.
  A lot of war is about economics and logistics.
  Edit: to add, what about Iran's threats to destroy water supplies?
- globalnode2 hours ago
  exactly, they can argue forever that their point of view was justified.
- OgsyedIE2 hours ago
  [dead]
readthenotes12 hours ago
I keep wondering what Iran planned to do with its 440kg of U-235 enriched to 60% when most nuclear reactors need only 5% and some needing only up to 20%.
https://armscontrolcenter.org/irans-stockpile-of-highly-enri...
https://armscontrolcenter.org/uranium-enrichment-for-peace-o...
- amanaplanacanalan hour ago
  If they were smart, build a defensive nuclear arsenal. It certainly seems to have worked for North Korea.
  - karmakurtisaanian hour ago
    A functional nuclear weapon would definitely have prevented the current war. Hard to blame them for trying.
globalnode2 hours ago
dont worry as soon as trump is gone americas sycophant allies will be clamouring to get back to some sort of pre-trump status quo, but i doubt we're ever going back to 100% pre-trump prices.
whoops, was responding to someone but accidentally top levelled this comment, which id rather leave here even though it lacks context -- something about levies on ship transit, which isnt really that much different to global tariffs is it?
CrzyLngPwd2 hours ago
It's not the first time the USA has committed war crimes in its 222 to 230+ years of war, and it won't be the last either.