This was similar to the Barbary Coast War in Jefferson's presidency. European countries caved in and kept paying ransom for hostages and passage fees, but the US told them to honor their treaties or face war, with war and a US victory being the result. The U.S. had far less trade than the European countries, but enjoyed the benefit that the victory brought.
It has to do with the Iran puzzle: it is a matter of who shuts down, if it comes to that. ...
On the other hand, it may indeed be that certain states and companies will benefit from it. So, the main question is: is the advantage of reigning Iran of sufficient value, or is there another benefit, like: who pays for it with what? and/or is it providing leverage?
If PTS: peace through strength is the idea, then it follows: FAFO => consequences to ensure the outcome of the long game.
It reminds me of the 50 cruise missiles lopped into Syria. To also make a point to Xi.
This was similar to the Barbary Coast War in Jefferson's presidency. European countries caved in and kept paying ransom for hostages and passage fees, but the US told them to honor their treaties or face war, with war and a US victory being the result. The U.S. had far less trade than the European countries, but enjoyed the benefit that the victory brought.
Best joker impression
It's not about money, it's about sending a message.
Houthi is using Chinese weapons.
Looks like some countries need to pony up the dough.
Maybe charge each 10% of their savings for the effort?
This is bullshit. Are Chinese ships being attacked even? Maybe they give the houtis the shit to attack our shipping to slow us down.
SWEET! 🤨 The Military Industrial Complex will make out nicely too.
It has to do with the Iran puzzle: it is a matter of who shuts down, if it comes to that. ...
On the other hand, it may indeed be that certain states and companies will benefit from it. So, the main question is: is the advantage of reigning Iran of sufficient value, or is there another benefit, like: who pays for it with what? and/or is it providing leverage?
If PTS: peace through strength is the idea, then it follows: FAFO => consequences to ensure the outcome of the long game.
It reminds me of the 50 cruise missiles lopped into Syria. To also make a point to Xi.