I can only see a part of the article but the IGRC have on a few occasions claimed the Strait of Hormuz was restricted or closed. They have also threatened on several occasions that they would close it during the Iran-Iraq war in the 80's, in response to 2012 sanctions and other times of hostility. The Strait has been a strategic choke-point since the start of global shipping. It will always be a point of contention regardless of who controls it or whom they are fighting. There are several other choke points with similar properties. To do anything about it requires a large military presence including many troops on the ground, on the water and in the air. These troops must remain present to maintain control.
I predict we will see similar issues with the Strait of Malacca once China decides to ride this train.
Here comes the NYT analyzing and contextualizing the situation, with express purpose of excusing Trump's impetuous war of choice. Trump couldn't help it, geopolitics prevented anyone from doing anything.
NYT pretty good at analysis and context for Republican presidents, but not against them, eh?
https://archive.is/vopDr
I can only see a part of the article but the IGRC have on a few occasions claimed the Strait of Hormuz was restricted or closed. They have also threatened on several occasions that they would close it during the Iran-Iraq war in the 80's, in response to 2012 sanctions and other times of hostility. The Strait has been a strategic choke-point since the start of global shipping. It will always be a point of contention regardless of who controls it or whom they are fighting. There are several other choke points with similar properties. To do anything about it requires a large military presence including many troops on the ground, on the water and in the air. These troops must remain present to maintain control.
I predict we will see similar issues with the Strait of Malacca once China decides to ride this train.
Here comes the NYT analyzing and contextualizing the situation, with express purpose of excusing Trump's impetuous war of choice. Trump couldn't help it, geopolitics prevented anyone from doing anything.
NYT pretty good at analysis and context for Republican presidents, but not against them, eh?