Iran will impose fees on subsea internet cables in Strait of Hormuz
Iran’s move to impose fees on subsea internet cables in the Strait of Hormuz is seen as a new way for Tehran to exploit its control over a critical global chokepoint, especially after recent U.S. and Israeli military actions and reciprocal blockades in the region. Commenters debate whether this reflects predictable fallout from U.S. policy missteps, the erosion of U.S.-led “international order,” and the incentives it creates for Iran to pursue nuclear weapons and for other states to try similar rent-seeking tactics. Many also question how enforceable such fees are, and whether cable operators and powerful states might respond collectively—through economic, military, or cyber means—to prevent this from becoming a precedent.
Strategic leverage of the Strait of Hormuz
- Commenters note US and Iran alike have long understood the strait’s strategic value; war‑games for decades predicted harassment, mining, and shipping disruption.
- Some argue current events simply confirm why earlier US administrations avoided a direct war with Iran.
Motives and responsibility for the current crisis
- Several posts blame the US (and especially the current administration) for initiating a predictable escalation, then being surprised by Iran’s response.
- Others stress that Iran is the actor actually blocking or taxing passage and should be held responsible for its own actions, regardless of prior provocations.
- Competing explanations for US behavior: deference to Israel, oil‑industry interests, a desire to contain China by disrupting its energy supply, or more mundane incompetence. Epstein‑related conspiracy theories are mentioned but largely dismissed.
International order, law, and sovereignty
- Debate over whether the US “enforces international order” or mainly creates instability (e.g., coups, sanctions, broken agreements).
- Dispute about how much of the strait is Iranian territorial water, whether Iran can legally claim 12 nm, and whether it has any right to threaten or charge for cables and shipping there.
- Some frame US policy as “if we can’t have it, no one can” regarding oil and shipping.
Economic and energy impacts
- Significant focus on global oil flows: closure or fees in Hormuz remove ~20% of world oil trade, raising prices globally regardless of US net‑exporter status.
- Some argue high prices benefit US oil firms and investors; others point out wider consumer and geopolitical costs.
- Disagreement on whether hurting Gulf exports ultimately weakens China or accelerates its renewable transition.
Subsea cables, fees, and security
- Many see Iran’s proposed cable fees as rent‑seeking or “mafia‑style” protection money and worry about a precedent for unilateral fees by other coastal states.
- Others argue operators and the broader telecom sector might coordinate to resist, seek NATO or state protection, or retaliate (including cyber operations).
- There is debate over Iran’s practical ability to damage cables (trawlers, drones, submersibles) versus the difficulty and escalation risk of defending them.
Nuclear proliferation and long‑term outcomes
- Several commenters conclude the war makes it rational, even “suicidal not to,” for Iran to pursue nuclear weapons, citing contrasting treatment of nuclear vs non‑nuclear states.
- Others note Iran’s nuclear program has already contributed to its isolation and economic collapse, arguing it could have chosen a very different path.