By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, addressing G7 leaders, indicated that the U.S. may not achieve freedom of transit through the Strait of Hormuz, even as a war objective, due to Iran’s potential to establish a tolling system. This suggests Iran would emerge significantly empowered, capable of asserting sovereignty over the crucial waterway. Rubio stated that the world, with U.S. participation, must plan to confront this illegal and unacceptable situation, highlighting that other nations have a substantial stake in ensuring international waterways are not controlled by any single state. The U.S. appears to have conceded that Iran will be strengthened post-war, shifting the burden of addressing tolling to European and Asian allies.
Read the original article here
It appears there’s a growing sentiment that Iran might now effectively control a vital waterway, a development described as a “huge bummer.” This perspective suggests that the recent conflict, rather than achieving its intended goals, has inadvertently strengthened Iran’s position considerably. We’ve certainly moved far from the initial aspirations of regime change and unconditional surrender.
Instead, the situation seems to have evolved to a point where Iran is emerging from the conflict significantly more powerful. This outcome leads some to believe that the responsibility for rectifying the situation now falls to Europe and possibly some Asian nations, rather than the United States. It’s a stark contrast to where things were supposed to be heading.
This situation certainly makes one reflect on the nation’s reliance on foreign oil and how advantageous it would be to have more diverse energy sources. We’re spending vast sums of money, engaging in conflict, and potentially damaging the global economy, all while seemingly bolstering Iran’s influence. This is particularly perplexing given past pronouncements of victory.
The effectiveness and strategic thinking behind these actions are being questioned, with surprise that such an outcome wasn’t foreseen. The notion that the price of gas might rise after initiating a war is met with incredulity, especially when contrasted with the idea that the administration dismissed advisors who might have warned of such consequences. An unnecessary war, with such a negative outcome, can indeed be characterized as a significant “bummer.”
There’s a touch of dark humor in the idea that a rapid transition to renewable energy might occur, not for its usual environmental benefits, but as a spiteful reaction to this massive strategic miscalculation. The commentary suggests a lack of competence in foreign policy decision-making, implying that even in choosing allies or adversaries, there’s a significant deficit in sound judgment.
The concept of cars running on electricity is brought up, questioning why such alternatives aren’t being fully embraced, especially when current policies seem to be hindering their development. This entire episode is being labeled as one of the most significant blunders of all time, with the phrase “huge bummer” sarcastically highlighted as the peak of diplomatic language.
A fundamental question arises: perhaps the most sensible course of action would have been to avoid initiating the conflict altogether, thereby preventing the current predicament. The expectation is that Iran will seek reparations, and global trust in the US-led economy may be irrevocably damaged, suggesting Iran has already achieved a de facto victory.
The cost of this endeavor is also a major point of contention. Billions spent, strikes on Iranian infrastructure that failed to achieve regime change or halt uranium enrichment, and allies in the Gulf experiencing significant damage, all seemingly leading to the Gulf becoming an Iranian sphere of influence. This is hardly the “big win” that was anticipated.
The lack of foresight among those in power is a recurring theme. It’s suggested that any remotely competent individual would have predicted these outcomes, but the selection process for positions of authority seemingly hasn’t prioritized competence. The casual use of the word “bummer” by a potential Secretary of State is noted with irony.
The broader implication is a widespread feeling of incompetence within the administration, a sense that they are making critical errors with little understanding of the consequences. The idea that the US doesn’t feel obligated to clean up its own messes is also expressed, adding to the frustration.
There’s a critical perspective that suggests this entire situation is a result of poor decision-making, and the negative repercussions will be felt for a long time. The commentary also touches on broader criticisms, including accusations of historical revisionism and general incompetence.
The effectiveness of military power is questioned if it leads to such outcomes, with the Navy and Air Force appearing costly and ultimately ineffective in this context. The situation is starkly summarized as a massive military failure, or FUBAR, and some express disbelief that individuals implicated in such perceived failures have higher political aspirations.
There’s even a cynical suggestion that certain figures might be engaging in recreational activities that impair their judgment, leading to such strategic blunders. The possibility of the European Union negotiating their own passage through the strait is raised, indicating a potential shift in global power dynamics.
The notion of Iran imposing tariffs or effectively controlling the strait is met with disbelief and mockery. The idea of Iran “owning the strait” is linked to specific political figures, suggesting a profound loss of influence and control for the US. It’s questioned why past administrations prioritized negotiation over war if Iran’s ability to control the strait was already a significant factor.
The current administration is described as historically incompetent to a degree that feels surreal. The rapid escalation of Iran’s control over the strait after what is described as an unprovoked attack is seen as a direct consequence of the actions taken. The commentary also cynically links these events to other controversial issues, implying a pattern of strategic missteps.
The phrase “slick negotiating and winning” is used sarcastically to describe the outcome. The overall assessment is that this situation represents another loss for certain political factions, with a sense of exasperation at the perceived cycle of poor decision-making. The irony of the current situation, described as a “total bummer,” is palpable.
Some speculate that any control Iran gains over the strait might even be humorously rebranded to align with specific political figures, hinting at a desire for personal gain even amidst strategic failure. The core of the issue remains the perceived US-led creation of a problem that others are now expected to solve, leading to a resigned and frustrated conclusion: “Oh well!”