...of our region.

Why the hell did they close the Strait of Hormuz? Do the IRGC care about our economic survival? I don't care about theirs.

@Courtesy

The straight was open on Feb27th

@Courtesy

It's ironic how you avoid the culprits that started this war, now screaming that your economic survival is at stake... They underestimated IRAN.

A review may help you get the gist.

The simmering tensions between the United States, Israel, and Iran had been building for years, fueled by a campaign of "maximum pressure" orchestrated by Washington and Tel Aviv. The goal was clear, to systematically dismantle Iran's economy and nuclear capabilities through suffocating sanctions and covert operations.

Behind the scenes, Israeli intelligence was aggressively ramping up its "Mabam" campaign, a covert war of cyberattacks and covert strikes targeting Iran's nuclear infrastructure and domestic systems. This intelligence was then shared with the U.S. Navy, allowing them to intercept Iranian shipping vessels with surgical precision.

Iran viewed these actions as an existential threat, and the leadership in Tehran made the calculated decision to activate their long-standing "chokepoint strategy." In early April, the elite IRGC naval forces deployed a web of naval mines and anti-ship missiles along the critical Strait of Hormuz. By closing this 21-mile passage, Iran effectively held the global energy market hostage, their logic being that if they could not export their oil, then no one else in the region would be permitted to do so either.

The question now lingers: Did U.S. and Israeli intelligence fully anticipate this aggressive response from Iran before launching their campaign of maximum pressure? Or were they caught off guard by Iran's willingness to escalate the conflict to such a dangerous degree? The stage was set for a potential wider conflagration that could have catastrophic consequences for the entire region and the world.

@Halliwell

I was extremely careful not to assign culpability or innocence to any party.

@Halliwell

correct

@Courtesy

Not careful enough if you referenced a possible stance for the IRGC

@Halliwell

I have stated a fact in the lead post and I followed it up with a legitimate question.

In the narrow context of the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea a nation cannot restrict the free movement of trading vessels no matter the circumstances.

This is a dangerous precedent.

@Courtesy

I noticed you indeed didn't get into who started what

But now it is is mentioned this situation is a prime lesson to those with power. Careful how it is used, and; deliberate lots because what one thinks they are using they could instead be giving away.

@Brerzerk

Absolutely.