Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Iran will impose fees on subsea internet cables in Strait of Hormuz

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 146 posts

Re: Iran will impose fees on subsea internet cables in Strait of Hormuz

#81

Post by bluGill »

spankalee wrote: post #35
bluGill wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China can't transition that fast. China has a lot of oil in storage but if the current situation continues or gets worse they are hurt. The US is a net exporter of oil so is okay though some areas use middle east oil and are hurt too. This will take a long time to play out. Discount every short term prediction as both Iran and the US are forced to play a long game.

How does being a net exporter even help? There's a global market and prices rise globally. US companies and consumers will pay more no matter if we're importing or exporting.

It means the us gains a lot from high prices. Different people see different effects of course, if you are not invested in oil it hurts.

Re: Iran will impose fees on subsea internet cables in Strait of Hormuz

#82

Post by kashunstva »

mikestew wrote: post #2

"Esfandiary, of Bloomberg Economics, said Iran “theoretically knew” it had leverage over the strait but was uncertain how significant the impact would be if it acted on those threats. Now, she added, Tehran “has discovered the impact.” The thing that mystifies me is that U. S. war planners "theoretically knew" this, too; at least, I would assume. The whole war strikes me as the current administration finding out the…

It is, after all, well-documented that the current U.S. president ignores, or frankly is unable to pay attention to intelligence briefings. So it is almost irrelevant whether any analysis of risks and benefits took place. The U.S. president admits that his decision-making process is a seat-of-the-pants “feeling” about things.

Re: Iran will impose fees on subsea internet cables in Strait of Hormuz

#83

Post by Ajedi32 »

krunck wrote: post #67
everdrive wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What makes Iran believe unilateral fees on subsea internet cables would be paid? Presumably because they will attempt to destroy them if the fees are not paid.

They're just trolling the US. But if the US attacks and Iran again and Iran feels that the cables are vital to US military interests, they might destroy them. They have a right to: The cables cross the territory of the sovereign Iranian state.

> The cables cross the territory of the sovereign Iranian state

The strait is not and has never been Iran's sovereign territory. Or should the UAE and Oman start trying to charge fees to ships trying to cross the strait too?

Re: Iran will impose fees on subsea internet cables in Strait of Hormuz

#84

Post by toast0 »

Pay08 wrote: post #30
toast0 wrote: post #25

FYI the article is viewable on CNN lite: https://lite.cnn.com/2026/05/17/middleeast/iran-hormuz-under...

What's the difference between the two?

Lite has no images and no paywall, and generally loads very quickly. But some articles don't show up properly.

Re: Iran will impose fees on subsea internet cables in Strait of Hormuz

#85

Post by nazgulsenpai »

zardo wrote: post #79
nazgulsenpai wrote: post #60

This is just so incredibly embarrassing. We're now negotiating to end a war with a country we have claimed to have defeated like 500 times now, over terms that will not even just return the region to the pre-war status quo, but (most likely) giving them more power than they had when the first bombs were dropped. Not to mention shattering the illusion that the US can somehow protect the gulf states, along with most of…

> Why would Iran not want to build nukes now? It would be suicidal not to. I feel like we have enough examples to be clear on this now, would you rather your country be treated by the major powers like Libya, Ukraine, Iraq... Or like North Korea.

That's a great point. This is also going to be disastrous for the case against nuclear proliferation, not just in Iran or the middle east -- especially when the co-aggressor has an undeclared nuclear stockpile.

Re: Iran will impose fees on subsea internet cables in Strait of Hormuz

#86

Post by Eggpants »

mikestew wrote: post #2

"Esfandiary, of Bloomberg Economics, said Iran “theoretically knew” it had leverage over the strait but was uncertain how significant the impact would be if it acted on those threats. Now, she added, Tehran “has discovered the impact.” The thing that mystifies me is that U. S. war planners "theoretically knew" this, too; at least, I would assume. The whole war strikes me as the current administration finding out the…

I suspect they knew if oil can’t move out of the gulf, then US oil will gladly step in. Republicans have always had to be Oil company supported. Just look at the number of oil tankers leaving the Gulf of Mexico: https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-86.3/cent...

Re: Iran will impose fees on subsea internet cables in Strait of Hormuz

#87

Post by Ajedi32 »

Supermancho wrote: post #62
Ajedi32 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iran is the one blocking the strait, not the US.

The chain of events did not start there. 20 years ago it was not blocked, although it well could have been. ie A car hits a pedestrian. Claiming the pedestrian did damage to the car's fender misses the context of the conflict.

The chain of events probably started something like 2000 years ago depending on how you count it. The fact remains that threatening the ships of peaceful commercial traffic by uninvolved nations is entirely Iran's doing.

Re: Iran will impose fees on subsea internet cables in Strait of Hormuz

#88

Post by dylan604 »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #80
dylan604 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iran is blocking transit of ships bearing the flag of countries it opposes. The US is blocking all other ships of countries Iran supports.

This might be outdated, but last I heard the US was only blocking ships going to/from Iran and ships which paid Iran's protection money, right? Not all traffic through the strait? And for Iran it seems "countries it opposes" is basically everyone...

Iran was quite happy to let Chinese and Russian flagged ships to pass. Now, the US is blocking those as well as anything heading toward Iran. The US recently had a short lived Operation Dumb Name to have the US Navy escort ships out of the straight. It lasted less than 48 hours.

Re: Iran will impose fees on subsea internet cables in Strait of Hormuz

#89

Post by [deleted] »

zardo wrote: post #79
nazgulsenpai wrote: post #60

This is just so incredibly embarrassing. We're now negotiating to end a war with a country we have claimed to have defeated like 500 times now, over terms that will not even just return the region to the pre-war status quo, but (most likely) giving them more power than they had when the first bombs were dropped. Not to mention shattering the illusion that the US can somehow protect the gulf states, along with most of…

> Why would Iran not want to build nukes now? It would be suicidal not to. I feel like we have enough examples to be clear on this now, would you rather your country be treated by the major powers like Libya, Ukraine, Iraq... Or like North Korea.

[deleted]

Re: Iran will impose fees on subsea internet cables in Strait of Hormuz

#90

Post by Ajedi32 »

dylan604 wrote: post #88
Ajedi32 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This might be outdated, but last I heard the US was only blocking ships going to/from Iran and ships which paid Iran's protection money, right? Not all traffic through the strait? And for Iran it seems "countries it opposes" is basically everyone...

Iran was quite happy to let Chinese and Russian flagged ships to pass. Now, the US is blocking those as well as anything heading toward Iran. The US recently had a short lived Operation Dumb Name to have the US Navy escort ships out of the straight. It lasted less than 48 hours.

I stand corrected then. Blocking "anything heading toward Iran" is perfectly reasonable given they're at war, and blocking Russian ships makes sense given the separate ongoing conflict in Ukraine, but I don't really see the point in the US blocking Chinese ships going to countries that aren't Iran, unless there's credible evidence China is giving direct aid to Iran. Is there? Otherwise, allowing them through seems like a pretty easy way to fix the oil shortage without much downside, at least until Iran starts blocking them again.
Post reply on HN