undefined | Better HN

0 pointsoverfeed2mo ago0 comments

Iran's terms are all ships transiting the strait have to coordinate with its military. One would assume they are monitoring ship movements, and know which ones are complying and which ones are not.

The US doesn't need to "side with Iran" on anything: ship captains, owners and insurers are free to gamble their ships and payloads against Iran's resolve and strike capabilities, my assumption is they like to predictability make money, and not losing customer's billion-dollar payloads is part of that.

Having your ship blown up won't guarantee the US will consider the ceasefire violated, history is littered with post-armistice engagements and deaths.

0 comments

1 comments · 1 top-level

kilgoresalmon2mo ago

All very reasonable.. But plenty of odd stuff happened in maritime during covid and plenty of odd stuff related to ghost fleet.. My point is not that Exon is going to save a million my point is that it is an interesting way that I think the cease fire would come to an end if it became a stable one on other fronts. I.e. the US doesn't have to choose based on anything but what is expedient to it wanting an end to the cease fire, a boat may be from the right country with the wrong organizational finances for the mounting costs so far, and so on..

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse