Iran War?

[Jacob]

The UK, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Japan have apparently made a declaration that they're willing to contribute to ensuring free passage in the Hormuz.

My impression is that this is not a "so we're sending military reinforcements to the region" and more of a "we're willing to contribute to reinforcing some sort of agreement if it can be reached."

Do any of our posters from those countries have more context on the declaration from their national perspectives?

[Sheilbh]

The one you stated in your post responded to.

Put in another way, would you say that all Americans are religious fanatics because their secretary of war gave the speech he did this morning?

No, you wouldn't think twice about doing that and yet you don't hesitate to make the same blanket statements about all Iranians.

I think this is more about your reading than what I said. Although I maybe could have been clearer.

I didn't say all Iranians, or indeed any - or even that they're religious fanatics. I think you're bringing a set of assumptions (that seem a little uncharitable after literal decades chatting ) about what might be said.

But to clarify when I'm saying Iran I mean the state, the country (same with US or Israel or UK or France) and not sweeping statements about their people. I think the Iranian state is religious and revolutionary. I think both of those are profoundly important for its worldview and the ideological/moral/intellectual resources it can pull open. It's nothing about fanaticism but trying to take that state at their own word and take that alternative worldview seriously. So the contours of Shia Islam - and the revolution matter (and mutually reinforce with the key importance of mourning periods in the revolution).

On a purely individual level I also think the fact that day one killed the new leaders father, wife, son matters.

[PJL]

The UK, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Japan have apparently made a declaration that they're willing to contribute to ensuring free passage in the Hormuz.

My impression is that this is not a "so we're sending military reinforcements to the region" and more of a "we're willing to contribute to reinforcing some sort of agreement if it can be reached."

Do any of our posters from those countries have more context on the declaration from their national perspectives?

It feels like a 'we'll be sending umbrellas out once it stops raining' kind of message to me.

[Jacob]

On a purely individual level I also think the fact that day one killed the new leaders father, wife, son matters.

Yeah, it's weird how little that figures into the analysis we're seeing.

The only discussion on that point I've seen comes across as "the US killed a bunch of bad guys in the hope that their organization would crumble. That didn't work out, it seems they have an endless supply of bad guys."

The media is full of revenge stories where "the good guy" is motivated and incredibly tenacious because "the bad guys" killed (or simply threatened) the "good guy's" family. It seems pretty likely to me that having his family killed (including apparently his 14-month old niece) would impact Mojtaba Khamenei's approach to the current conflict.

[Sheilbh]

The UK, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Japan have apparently made a declaration that they're willing to contribute to ensuring free passage in the Hormuz.

My impression is that this is not a "so we're sending military reinforcements to the region" and more of a "we're willing to contribute to reinforcing some sort of agreement if it can be reached."

Do any of our posters from those countries have more context on the declaration from their national perspectives?

Macron said this a fortnight ago, after the fighting has settled. I think the UK has talked about sending minesweeper drone and Japan is world leader in minesweeping (and both buy a lot of LNG).

[Sheilbh]

Oh sure I don't think it matters much at all (if anything allowing the regime to get some fresh blood and maybe hardlining) at a practical or operational level.

But I think at the level of symbol and meaning - especially for a Shia theocracy given how central martyrdom and resistance are to Shia Islam - I think it's difficult to overstate.

I agree with you but also think it's being overcomplicated a bit. If Iran managed to kill senior leaders of the current Israeli or US governments it would be seen as an escalation. Even more so if they got Nethanyahu or Trump.

Totally agree.

[Duque de Bragança]

The UK, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Japan have apparently made a declaration that they're willing to contribute to ensuring free passage in the Hormuz.

My impression is that this is not a "so we're sending military reinforcements to the region" and more of a "we're willing to contribute to reinforcing some sort of agreement if it can be reached."

Do any of our posters from those countries have more context on the declaration from their national perspectives?

Your impression is shared by most of the press over here. This is line with previous statements.

There is also a mention about calling for a moratorium or truce on attacks against energy facilities.

[Zanza]

Qatar reported that about a fifth of its LNG capacity has been destroyed and it takes three to five years to repair. The customers are in Belgium, Italy, Korea and China. They will declare force majeure. Costs them 20 billion USD per year.

[crazy canuck]

The one you stated in your post responded to.

Put in another way, would you say that all Americans are religious fanatics because their secretary of war gave the speech he did this morning?

No, you wouldn't think twice about doing that and yet you don't hesitate to make the same blanket statements about all Iranians.

I think this is more about your reading than what I said. Although I maybe could have been clearer.

I didn't say all Iranians, or indeed any - or even that they're religious fanatics. I think you're bringing a set of assumptions (that seem a little uncharitable after literal decades chatting ) about what might be said.

This is what you said "But I think at the level of symbol and meaning - especially for a Shia theocracy given how central martyrdom and resistance are to Shia Islam - I think it's difficult to overstate."

If you think an argument that "the level of symbol and meaning" based on an assertion that there a "central martyrdom and resistance" in Shia Islam, is not based on a stereotype of those who are Shia, then you and I are   just going to have to agree to disagree.

It would be like saying that all Christians have a central theme of loving their neighbours.  Its a ridiculous statement, but you can get away with it here because few people have any experience with Shia religionists, and so are likely to take that kind of statement at face value.