reuters.com
www.reuters.com
    • cavitationfetishist2@quokk.auEnglish
      2·
      1 hour ago

      Oh the Americans and Jewish™ Nazis never signed up for the ICC. Out of bounds. Not under their jurisdiction.

      Checkmate, liberals humanitarians.

    • homura1650@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      4 hours ago

      War crimes are not allowed under international law as part of a tit-for-tat.

      There is some nuance here, where some war crimes could make what would normally be a warcrime by the other side not a war crime. For instance, it is a war crime to attack medics, and it is a warcrime for combatants to pose as medics. However, if a country commits the warcrime of having combatants pose as medics, it is no longer a warcrime to attack that countries medics.

  • mctoasterson@reddthat.comEnglish
    31·
    4 hours ago

    From a purely strategic perspective wouldn’t the US be better off saying “no more attacks on shipping or we destroy Karg island entirely”?

    Karg:

    1. is a legit military target.
    2. doesn’t contain any civilian housing etc.
    3. would cripple all IRGC income if destroyed.
    4. would reverse any pragmatic incentive China has to side with Iran at all. If the realistic possibility of getting oil from Iran itself drops to zero, Chinas incentive flips to simply getting and keeping the straight open to all shipping.
    • homura1650@lemmy.worldEnglish
      81·
      4 hours ago

      A) That is even more escalatory, and will lead Iran attacking more oil infrastructure in the region.

      B) We can only destroy Karg Island once

      C) The US had demonstrated an ability to block Iranian exports by navel power, which can be turned on and off as needed.

      D) If destructive dominance were enough to win the war, the US would have one it long ago. Just like they would have won in Afghanistan

      Iran views this war as existential, and the Strait as their most significant national defense asset. They are not going to give it up over concerns about oil revenue.