36th-Parallel.com

A sobering warning about a preventable and reversible trend before it is too late: theguardian.com/world/commenti…

@kolasi78083 The strait is not closed to shipping that is not aligned with or supporting the US and Israeli war of aggression. It is a nuance that you fail to understand.

@36th_Parallel Iran is the bully that closed the strait. So by refusing to help open it, you are literally appeasing the bully. You do see that, right?

Short term pain for long term gain: By refusing to join Trump in his effort to re-open the Straits Of Hormuz, the international community does several things. It reaffirms the illegality of the preventative war on Iran and the principle of not appeasing a bully; it confirms that

facing them. They cannot prolong the conflict without foreign assistance, but the Iranians can hold on and outlast the aggressors if others stay out of the fight. International principles are at stake and in this case on Iran's side even if its behaviour is poor in many regards.

the international system is now solidly multipolar/polycentric; it shows that post-pandemic supply chain resilience has begun to take shape; it promotes a quicker rate than later resolution of the conflict because the US and Israel have domestic as well as external constraints

Here is a somewhat lengthy reflection on the US/Israel-Iran conflict framed as a counter-force versus counter-value contest, along with some additional observations: kiwipolitico.com/2026/03/counte…

Lionel Messi and his Inter Miami teammates serving as background props while Trump rambles about war while bombs are falling on Iran was not a good look. The team's PR department should have read the global room better and postponed the meet-and-greet. It was a major cringe.

Is it a sign of weakness or are they biding their time to come to the aid of the Iranians when deemed necessary or appropriate, choosing the means and methods they deem most suited to the tasks assigned them? In other words, current silence may not mean indefinite acquiescence.

Are Iran's allies/partners laying low or engaging in covert support? The PRC and Russia are Iranian military partners and North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, the Sadrists in Iraq, Hezbollah (which operates far from Lebanon) are Iranian allies but conspicuous by their silence so far.

@EricABlair1948 Specify what sort of terrorism. Because if you think everything is Islamicist and that Iran is the main source of Islamic teŕrorism, then prejudice rather than objective analysis is at play. No point, then, to continue this discussion. Goodbye.

@36th_Parallel I think anything that downplays the significance of a major funder of terrorism around the world is of substance. YMMV

Another small observation: For many Shiite Muslims, the killing of their spiritual leader and Iran's head of state, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is akin to killing King Charles of the UK or the Pope (both heads of state and leaders of religious sects). That means that it will not be

@EricABlair1948 Suit yourself. Now try to engage with substance of the post rather than be a pedantic troll. Otherwise good riddance because you have contributed zero to advancing the discussion.

@36th_Parallel I think continues is the appropriate word.

@EricABlair1948 We are refer to future actions based on Iran's track record. We could have chosen "opted" instead of "resorts" because the terms are equally neutral. And when it comes to terrorism, state terrorism and state-sponsored terrorism, Iran is not alone. E.g., 9-11 did not involve Iran.

@36th_Parallel Resorts? Like the terrorist attacks they have committed for many years?

of responding. The longer Iran can resist the current onslaught, the more it will be able to plan a global counter-offensive marshalled along these lines. For national security leaders world-wide, this is a realistic possibility upon which contingency planning must occur.

forgotten, much less forgiven. Since Shiites live in many Sunni majority states as well as in Asia and the West, this will have far-reaching implications when it comes to ripple security effects of the US/Israeli attacks on Iran. especially if Iran resorts to unconventional means

@CanIbemorewoke The US/Israel stated openly that their war objective is regime change and full elimination of Iranian nuke weapons and offensive missile capabilities. Trump is already walking that back but Bibi is not. If the scenario drawn here plays out, it will be a major strategic blunder.

@36th_Parallel The US have been sufficiently vague about the objectives they could pretty much declare victory at any point in time

Some observations. Given that the US likes its wars short and is loath to put boots on the ground, Iran's best strategy is to prolong the conflict, widen it into a regional multi-front affair and engage countervalue (civilian) as well as counterforce targets region-wide. Since

chances for a negotiated cessation of hostilities short of accepting full regime change. That would constitute a strategic defeat for the US and Israel given their stated objectives for starting the war. In sum: how the war ends depends on who blinks first if things drag out.

well as the US and Israel themselves. This is doable so long as its armed forces dig in, hide out and engage in unconventional as well as conventional counter-attacking against mostly air-power focused superior forces and their allies. The longer they last, the better their