When War Crimes Rhetoric Becomes Battlefield Reality

What I find tricky to reason about here is that whether destroying infrastructure comes down to "whether the military advantage outweighs the impact to civilians", and as far as I can tell, there's no robust way to assess this.

Indeed, this seems to be what supporters of Trump are leaning on, as you can make the argument that _any_ bridge, or _any_ powerplant could hypothetically be used by the military, and that this conflict is sufficiently important for the livelihood of people in America/"The West" that doing anything that even slightly helps tips the odds is justifiable.

It's not the first time the USA has committed war crimes in its 222 to 230+ years of war, and it won't be the last either.

I keep wondering what Iran planned to do with its 440kg of U-235 enriched to 60% when most nuclear reactors need only 5% and some needing only up to 20%.

https://armscontrolcenter.org/irans-stockpile-of-highly-enri...

https://armscontrolcenter.org/uranium-enrichment-for-peace-o...

dont worry as soon as trump is gone americas sycophant allies will be clamouring to get back to some sort of pre-trump status quo, but i doubt we're ever going back to 100% pre-trump prices.

whoops, was responding to someone but accidentally top levelled this comment, which id rather leave here even though it lacks context -- something about levies on ship transit, which isnt really that much different to global tariffs is it?

What’s the plan for opening transit through the strait? Let Iran hold it hostage and ransom tankers through? That seems absolutely unacceptable.

How about each country sets up a blockade and demands their toll for safe passage?

The only sensible strategy is to make IRGC capitulate.