By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Despite the United States Navy’s declared blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, several Iran-linked tankers, including sanctioned vessels and a Chinese-linked tanker, were observed transiting the vital waterway shortly after the blockade’s commencement. This development has cast doubt on the effectiveness of President Trump’s strategy, which aims to increase pressure on Iran following the collapse of U.S.-Iran talks. While U.S. Central Command maintains that no ships bypassed the blockade and that merchant vessels complied with directions to turn around, independently verified shipping data contradicts these claims. The Strait’s disruption, coupled with rising oil prices and warnings from the IMF about global economic slowdown, highlights the precarious nature of the current geopolitical situation.
Read the original article here
The notion of Donald Trump facing humiliation, particularly in the context of a U.S. Navy blockade being defied by ships, is a recurring theme that sparks considerable commentary. It’s often suggested that such a scenario, if it were to unfold as a significant embarrassment, would be met with a characteristic defensive reaction from Trump. The argument is that individuals with narcissistic tendencies, like those attributed to Trump, don’t typically experience shame in the way others might. Instead, when confronted with what could be perceived as a setback or public failure, their response is often to lash out aggressively. This dynamic is seen as a potential explanation for any increased online activity or public statements, as they attempt to regain a sense of control and deflect from any perceived weakness.
The very concept of Trump being humiliated is met with skepticism by many, who contend he possesses a profound lack of shame. This perspective suggests that whatever transpires, he will find a way to either dismiss it, reframe it as a victory, or blame external factors. Headlines that declare Trump “humiliated” are often viewed as overly dramatic, designed to sensationalize events rather than accurately reflect their impact. There’s a sentiment that the actual substance of such events may be far less significant than the headlines suggest, though the rapid escalation of any situation, depending on how it’s presented, is acknowledged as a reality of modern discourse.
However, the idea of a “humiliated Trump” is also considered a particularly compelling or even amusing prospect for some. The observation is made that he appears to be facing situations that could be construed as humiliating on a weekly basis, leading to a characterization of him as being in a state of disarray. This viewpoint suggests that for those who are critical of him, these moments of perceived public misstep are notable and even satisfying.
Despite the prevailing sentiments, a point is raised that contradicts the core premise of ships defying a U.S. blockade, at least in one specific instance. This counterpoint asserts that there is no concrete evidence to support the claim that ships have successfully breached a U.S. naval blockade. To bolster this assertion, a link is provided to an article detailing how two Iran-linked vessels that had initially proceeded through the Strait of Hormuz after a U.S. blockade was imposed subsequently reversed their course. This report, citing ship-tracking data, indicated that the vessels, a tanker and a bulk carrier, altered their direction and appeared to be heading back.
Further details emerge regarding the specifics of the U.S. Navy’s actions in the Strait of Hormuz. It’s noted that while the initial announcement from Trump declared a blockade of “any and all Ships trying to enter, or leave, the Strait of Hormuz,” the operational scope was significantly narrowed by the time U.S. Central Command commented. The official stance became that the blockade was focused on ships either going to or coming from Iranian ports. This clarification suggests that the blockade was not an absolute cessation of all maritime traffic.
The nuanced reality of the blockade is further explored, indicating that while several ships were confirmed to have passed through the Strait since its commencement, none of them had departed from or arrived at actual Iranian ports. However, it is acknowledged that some of these passing vessels were indeed in violation of U.S. sanctions, potentially giving the Navy a basis to enforce those sanctions. This suggests the situation is less about a direct defiance of a total blockade and more about the selective enforcement of various maritime restrictions and sanctions.
The effectiveness and perception of such a blockade are questioned, with some commenters implying that other nations simply do not perceive the U.S. blockade as a credible threat. The idea is posited that countries involved are aware that Trump is unlikely to authorize aggressive actions, such as sinking civilian vessels, which would carry severe international repercussions. This suggests a calculated approach where countries might be willing to sail through, knowing that the U.S. military lacks the mandate or political will to escalate to such extreme measures, thereby avoiding further entanglement.
The U.S. military’s awareness of publicly available ship transponder data is also brought up, with surprise expressed that this information, easily trackable by the public, might be overlooked or misinterpreted. The implication is that if such data is readily accessible, it should inform the official narrative, and failure to acknowledge it accurately could be seen as a sign of the U.S. “losing” or not understanding the situation. The notion that Iran might be “winning” in this context is also floated.
The reliability and sensationalism of news outlets reporting on these events are directly addressed. There’s a critique of headlines that use words like “humiliated,” suggesting they are often clickbait and do not accurately represent the events. This leads to a call for a ban on certain publications deemed to be consistently producing such content. The sentiment is that such sensationalism detracts from a more rational discussion of the actual events and their implications.
The personality of Donald Trump and his perceived inability to feel shame is a central theme. Many comments reiterate that he lacks the capacity for humiliation and would likely react with anger and deflection rather than genuine embarrassment. His actions are often characterized as those of a “paper tiger,” someone who projects an image of strength but lacks substance when tested. The idea that he might attempt to reframe any outcome as a planned success, with his supporters readily accepting this narrative, is also presented.
The possibility of unintended consequences and the limits of Trump’s influence are also considered. His approach is described as one rooted in using wealth and power to achieve his goals, an approach that is deemed ineffective when dealing with entire nations. This leads to the conclusion that he doesn’t grasp why his attempts to “bully” countries into submission fail. The U.S. Navy’s mission to permit free trade is also invoked, suggesting that executive actions cannot fundamentally alter this established role.
Ultimately, the discussion circles back to the perception of Trump’s leadership and the effectiveness of his foreign policy initiatives. The scenario of ships defying a U.S. blockade, regardless of the precise details, is viewed by many as another instance of his administration struggling with execution and optics, leading to a public image of weakness or incompetence. The sentiment that “everything Trump touches dies” is expressed, painting a picture of consistent failure across his endeavors.