On a more serious note, the Cape Canaveral area / Kennedy Space Center has a large amount of empty land to build space infrastructure. The island has been dedicated to space facilities since the 1960s. Both SpaceX and Blue Origin have facilities there.

Iran is also a pariah state after firing drones and missiles at pretty much all of its neighbors.

This article is written two months into the war. We are still in the early stages.

Recall the situation in Europe two months into WWII. It is November 1939, a month after the fall of Poland. A naval and economic blockade is going on. There is no fighting outside of minor naval skirmishes. The conflict is stalled. Harsh words are exchanged. Nothing important is happening. WWII entered a lull where basically nothing happened for 8 months, until the invasion of the Benelux in May 1940.

We are currently in a similar lull.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney_War

Somewhere in the country, a person with a smuggled Starlink terminal has it running and connected to a server. That connection is then shared (via VPN) with dozens of other customers.

People buy a VPN configuration that routs their traffic through this Starlink connection. They pay $5-10 per GB for access.

Sure, and this is the first line of Wikipedia's definition of law [0].

Law is a set of rules that are created and enforced by governmental or societal institutions to regulate behavior, with its precise definition a matter of longstanding debate.

Ouch, that obviously doesn't agree with your definition. What a flagrant error. Did you even look at the Wikipedia article before writing your comment?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law

Plex/Jellyfin also offer highly configurable mobile / TV companion apps. I can start watching a show on my phone, then continue where I left off on my living room TV.

The tens of billions of dollars Iran invests into fighting Israel are (in my opinion) much better spent investing into developing the Iranian people and economy. Spending billions of dollars funding proxy wars, fighting a pointless forever war against Israel, pursuing nuclear weapons, and firing drones and missiles at your neighbors is a foolish foreign policy. Iran is asking for trouble.

If Iran had a different foreign policy, this current conflict would never have happened. Iran's situation was entirely avoidable.

[0] https://gamaan.org/2025/11/05/12-day-war-survey-english/

I never mentioned a Western-backed dictatorship, the Shah, or any conditions about Israel recognition. You invented that.

My argument is simple: 60%+ of Iranians want regime change. 69% want the government to stop funding foreign proxy wars. The regime has a 12% approval rating. Iranians want something else. I cited polling data showing what Iranians want themselves. You can read the links I provided. The policies of the current regime are deeply unpopular.

I believe that spending 2-3% of GDP (tens of billions of dollars per year) fighting an adversary 2,000km away that you had friendly relations with for decades & has no desire for conflict with you is an utterly insane foreign policy. This money is much better spent invested into the Iranian people. Building infrastructure, investing in the Iranian people, and building the Iranian economy.

I did not advocate for a Western-backed dictatorship. The false choice you're presenting (Islamic republic vs Western puppet state) isn't the one Iranians are making. Iranians are not asking for a Western-backed dictatorship. Iranians are saying "stop spending our money blowing up the Middle East and end this pointless forever war with Israel". Iranians want a different foreign policy.

You also accused me of not caring about Iranians, while also defending a regime that 88% of Iranians disapprove of. That's a strange way to show you care about Iranians.

Iran investing 2-3% of its GDP (tens of billions per year) into funding a proxy-war against a country 2,000km away, that you had friendly relations with for decades, and has no desire for conflict with you, is an utterly insane foreign policy.

To demonstrate the insanity of this: this is the equivalent of the United States spending $750 billion every year a war with Costa Rica.

https://theconversation.com/iran-protests-2026-our-surveys-s...

https://gamaan.org/2025/11/05/12-day-war-survey-english/

After the establishment of the State of Israel in May 1948, Israel and Iran maintained close ties. Iran was the second Muslim-majority country to recognize Israel as a sovereign state after Turkey. Israel viewed Iran as a natural ally as a non-Arab power on the edge of the Arab world, in accordance with David Ben Gurion's concept of an alliance of the periphery. Israel had a permanent delegation in Tehran which served as a de facto embassy, before Ambassadors were exchanged in the late 1970s.

After the Six-Day War, Iran supplied Israel with a significant portion of its oil needs and Iranian oil was shipped to European markets via the joint Israeli-Iranian Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline. Trade between the countries was brisk, with Israeli construction firms and engineers active in Iran. El Al, the Israeli national airline, operated direct flights between Tel Aviv and Tehran. Iranian-Israeli military links and projects were kept secret, but they are believed to have been wide-ranging, for example the joint military project Project Flower (1977–79), an Iranian-Israeli attempt to develop a new missile.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_relations

Assigning blame to only one side is meaningless when both sides go tit-for-tat for decades. Both Israel and Lebanon are complicit in this mess.

You are rhetorically clever but analytically wrong on almost every premise.

Your claim rests on UNSC inaction = judicial approval = legal sanction. This is false on multiple levels.

A supreme court saying something is legal relies on an affirmative ruling. A body simply declining to act, especially for political reasons such as a Russian or Chinese veto, is not a ruling of any kind.

The UNSC is also not a court. It is a political body of 15 member states that authorize enforcement actions related to international peace and security. It does not make legal rulings. The actual judicial body in the UN system is the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ has made no ruling on the strait of Hormuz situation.

You also conflate UNSC inaction with legality. That's an interesting philosophical position, but by that exact logic:

* The apartheid of South Africa was "legal" because the UNSC was blocked from acting decisively on the issue for decades.

* The US/Israel strikes on Iran were "legal" because the UNSC never vetoed it.

* The Israeli genocide of Palestine is "legal" because it was protected by UNSC veto.

Obviously, quite flawed logic.

Overall, three errors:

1) you conflated legal inaction as affirmative legal action.

2) you conflated a political body with a legal one.

3) you conflated UNSC inaction with legality.

Iran maintains a blockade on the strait by placing mines in Omani waters, and firing missiles at civilian ships that attempt to pass in Omani waters. It has no legal basis to do either of those.

I found this detailed article [0], written by a law student, which discusses the Hormuz strait situation in the context of the past century of maritime law.

[0] https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-strait-of-hormuz-an...

Modern day piracy.

If you didn't invent lies, then your comments would be received differently.