If Wood Mackenzie is not your cup of tea, lots of other resources with a search of “recession strait of Hormuz” keywords. The only reason we’re not in a global recession yet was because China paused oil imports, due to their >1B barrel strategic reserves.
That forecasts a global recession if "the Strait remains largely closed through the end of 2026."
Even under that scenario, which would emerge after the Strait had been closed for over ten months, the forecaster only sees "US GDP growth" falling "below 1%," i.e. not a recession. (I'm ignoring the fact that the Strait has already been closed for more than 2 months.)
> Oil and gas traffic via the Strait of Hormuz may never go back to pre-war levels if Iran cements its hold over the chokepoint. The warnings come from several unrelated sources as the war continues to drag on, with some recovery in traffic but nowhere near pre-February 28 levels. Meanwhile, Big Oil is warning that the looming supply shortage is about to hit global markets in weeks.
> “No matter what happens, the Iranians will control the Strait of Hormuz for the foreseeable future,” Amos Hochstein, senior national security and energy advisor to President Biden, told CNBC last week. “It doesn’t even matter what the deal says. Everybody in the region believes that.”
> While the negotiations drag on, expectations that Iran will remain in de facto charge of the Strait of Hormuz appear to be strengthening. “Any end to the conflict that leaves Iran exercising operational control and influence over the Strait will result in appreciably lower flows through the waterway in our view,” RBC Capital Markets’ Helima Croft said in a recent note, as quoted by CNBC.
I agree the US goes full recession as soon as the confidence falls out from under the AI bubble and all of this investment leading to GDP growth ends, but I also don’t believe the US economy (even assuming reduced GDP to energy correlation over the last two decades) can sustain growth and will lead to contraction with oil prices at or above the $150-$200/barrel price band if persistent. The below prediction predicts a near term (July) recession call at less than $100/barrel.
One side is responsible for the "pax Americana" (but everyone here was born into the time period and so doesn't realize how exceptionally peaceful it is)
One side is responsible for at least 20.000 but more likely 60.000 Iranian deaths, just this year (and everybody seems to be worried about the other side's "warcrimes")
Not having big issues to figure out between these 2 who is the good guy ...
> One side is responsible for at least 20.000 but more likely 60.000 Iranian deaths, just this year (and everybody seems to be worried about the other side's "warcrimes")
I'm fine with Pax Americana, even if you call it American imperialism, but this whole involvement with Israel and its problems is not in our interest. It's abundantly clear that we have traitors in our government working for another country. Sure Iran has a terrible regime, not supposed to be our problem though.
> One side is responsible for the "pax Americana" (but everyone here was born into the time period and so doesn't realize how exceptionally peaceful it is)
The Pax Americana is great, but given America was one of the countries to start this war, I don't know how much credit they can get for something they just ended.
> given America was one of the countries to start this war
Are you sure? I am actually somewhat ambivalent on this. Iran wasn't exactly peaceful before February and attacked shipping regularly before then too. Oh and they attacked their own people, foreign nationals, Iranians abroad, and committed terror attacks abroad. They were involved in the Brussels Metro and airport bombing, not 2km from where I'm sitting right now.
> The Pax Americana is great, but given America was one of the countries to start this war, I don't know how much credit they can get for something they just ended
As I said, I'm sitting in Brussels, and everyone here is far more worried about the Ukraine war. Plus nobody's dying, nobody's making life impossible here. I find declaring the Pax Americana dead somewhat premature.
Maybe I'll be proven wrong, I guess. But people here are far more worried about Ukraine than Iran. I think they're wrong ... or at least, that's only a short term threat. The Iran war ... will end the strategic significance of the middle east if it lasts any longer. It will end oil. This is not 1972. Iran may destroy the middle east and itself, they will not destroy the EU, or even significantly hurt it. If their threats materialize, the EU is not America. We will simply say "No. Go F- yourself. Kthxbye", and that will only really suck for the middle east, not for us.
> Iran wasn't exactly peaceful before February and attacked shipping regularly before then too. Oh and they attacked their own people, foreign nationals, Iranians abroad, and committed terror attacks abroad.
None of the nations involved in this fight have been peaceful. That's why I'm talking about just this specific war.
> I find declaring the Pax Americana dead somewhat premature.
If America wins, then yeah, probably it'll limp on. If America loses, and Iran gets to dictate terms in the Strait of Hormuz, then I'm not sure how long it will last before other nations follow suit.
> None of the nations involved in this fight have been peaceful. That's why I'm talking about just this specific war.
Only if you take the 5 year old's definition of peaceful (ie. "not attacking")
Any reasonable moral position will of course mean that doing nothing, even if that means not attacking, is not necessarily a peaceful position. Nor is an attack necessarily not peaceful. For example, how Europe treated Ukraine before and during the war with Russia can easily be argued is not peaceful, it's helping the war criminal and it obviously did not lead to peace. The most generous interpretation you can make is that Europe was funding war. Only an idiot would call that a peaceful attitude. And for another example, what you wrote.
> ... then I'm not sure how long it will last before other nations follow suit.
Strange how you say the US is not peaceful, immediately followed by an argument why US's attack not only leads to peace, but the "non-attacking" nation must be defeated for peace. Which I'm sure we'll agree requires more violence. In fact your argument that Iran "defending itself" leads directly to a bigger war is accurate, I think.
Iran is basically fighting for a resumption of most parts, especially the bad parts, of colonialism (one definition of colonialism would be "taxing foreign nations" after all. I like that definition because a US audience will immediately realize why that leads to war)
That's the moral difficulty here: If the US wins, the west will be at peace with Iran. If Iran wins, war may very well be inevitable. In fact, war with a great many countries may be inevitable (Indonesia has already announced they want to tax the Malacca strait, and China has responded exactly the way you'd expect)
But yes at this point you have the ridiculous soundbite: "war is peace". The irony of that slogan, of course, is that it comes from 1984, as an example of "doublethink" which was George Orwell criticizing communism and totalitarianism. But the slogan is always used to defend totalitarian states, usually ones on the warpath.
> Only if you take the 5 year old's definition of peaceful (ie. "not attacking")
I'm not sure what definition of "peaceful" you're going with here, if it includes any of the US, Iran, or Israel, prior to the start of this war. I guess I'm not as sophisticated as you.
> Strange how you say the US is not peaceful, immediately followed by an argument why US's attack not only leads to peace, but the "non-attacking" nation must be defeated for peace. Which I'm sure we'll agree requires more violence. In fact your argument that Iran "defending itself" leads directly to a bigger war is accurate, I think.
I'm not sure why you think that's strange. There was a status quo: Iran lets ships through the Strait of Hormuz. It works well enough. Then the US attacked, and that status quo is gone. If the US ends this war without re-establishing the status quo, then the world will be worse for everyone, and other nations bordering critical shipping lanes will be encouraged to follow suit.
So it's better for everybody if the US wins. But the US doesn't have much leverage to do so, and so the situation is: the US started a war that it didn't need to start, but can't easily win. The foreign policies that built the Pax Americana have been abandoned.
The world wasn't exactly a kind place before Pax Americana. If you check the stats, the American era does pretty well for peace and prosperity, and it's not realistic to expect the Americans would oversee a conflict-free utopia.
people are missing the 3rd actor in this trifecta/shit sandwich - Israel. Its the intentional bad faith actor who'll do whatever it takes to sink any peace talks - including genocide/invading Lebanon etc etc etc.
Lesson learnt? I don't think so. The ones responsible are the most insulated from the consequences of their actions, which is why they're doing all of this in the first place. It's the rest of us who're paying the price.
I believe that there are powerful elements in the USA that are happy with the Strait being closed. This is rewarding oil producers and processors in red states while hurting blue California proportionally more.
Also, it appears that Trump enjoys any actions that hurt allies more than they hurt him. He's waiting for someone who cares more about the Strait to devote their resources to sorting this out.
All noise to the contrary is lip-service and market manipulation.
Are you being sarcastic? Iran is ruled by a an authoritarian theocratic regime that took over through violence and has been ruling over their citizens through violence. Iran is also the biggest backer of terrorists in the Middle East, and has supported Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, and many others. It’s Iran’s ruling power that has been unchecked for too long.
"He's out of line, but he's right": while Iran are an extremely bad actor, before Trump the situation was stable. And the start of conventional hostilities was clearly from the US+Israel side.
(open question as to how much the October 2023 attack is the fault of Iran, specifically?)
There were negotiations before it all started and people seem to have missed or forgotten the claim that Iran mentioned having material to create 11 nukes during this. When this first came out all the news reported there was no evidence Iran had that, but now their refined uranium isn't really in question.
Also during this one of their missiles hit a target 4000 kilometers away, much further than they were claiming they had. That's far enough to hit Europe if it had gone in the other direction.
To me it's looking like the stability was an illusion.
It was also reported that all US intelligence agencies denied that Iran was making a nuke.
It was also reported that during negotiations before this war, Iran had offered 100% of all nuclear material to be surrendered to the USA, to prevent a war.
Also, Marco Rubio said directly that Israel was going to strike anyway, and that we had to respond. He later “clarified” that it was. 100% Trumps call.
So - if the stability was an illusion, it’s because Trump and Israel are unstable, right?
Israel was successfully defanging Iran's terror programs. That's in fact the entire reason this war exists. It was Israel's plan. This is all their retaliation for Oct 7th.
So why the hell are we there? We didn't build a coalition. We didn't really justify our involvement. Trump and Trump supporters insisted on isolationism, pulling back from being the world police, ignoring even heinous invasions like Ukraine to save a few pennies, but suddenly Iran has insulted us through its existence for far too long?
Bullshit.
Keep in mind, Iran was likely to evolve in some way in the next few decades as a result of their impending water crisis. Waiting for a better opportunity would have been the smart choice.
"Most people", meaning "most people in your social circles" presumably - because that's certainly not the case where I am, and I'd like to see some polling data before considering that it's the case globally. I seriously doubt it.
I'm probably wrong but it seems glaringly obvious to me that the two supposed allies are not at all acting in a coordinated way. One hand doesn't know what the other one is doing or one hand is just ignoring it.
I don't think we got a full picture of Israel's leverage over US politicians and business people. How many people like Epstein are out there acting as "access agents" to Mossad? How many US gov employees and politicians like Shapiro of Pennsylvannia have served in the IDF? How can Shapiro with IDF experience ever be considered for VP of the US?
Why are American politicians so comfortable supporting an ethno-state even though the US is not supposed to support apartheid regimes? Why is the US administration now so willing to throw US allies (Japan, South Korea, NATO members) under the bus with a 1970s style energy crisis to save 1 country of 9 million from a war they single unilaterally started?
Finally, to answer the OP's question:
* Israel is facing an existential threat; the US ending the war means de facto end to their state;
* US - not allies as that requires mutual consent to wage war; see above text for actual real power relationship between Israel and the US
> the US ending the war means de facto end to their state
Every state ends, regardless. I'm not convinced Israel will cease to exist in the next 5 years without US support. There are plenty of countries Israel can, will, and still do partner with to various degrees. Notably much of Europe.
> I'm not convinced Israel will cease to exist in the next 5 years without US support
I genuinely couldn't believe people actually believed this until a friend of a friend voiced the opinion in person. Like, no. Israel doesn't poof if America stops supporting it. Destroying Israel would require American military action.
> Destroying Israel would require American military action.
Or an Iranian nuke. Iran has a big clock ticking down to year 2040 where they say Israel will be destroyed by, if the current Iranian regime isn't destroyed by then they will do everything they can to destroy Israel. That is why they can't agree to not enrich uranium for 25 years, because that would prevent them from destroying Israel.
Anyway, if USA peace out and leaves Israel hanging Israel will just continue to bomb Iran now and never let Iran recover, since USA has weakened Iran enough for Israel to handle the rest now, so it wont happen. However if that happens you will see much more death in Iran and much more disruptions to global economy.
Quite contrary, I'm pretty sure that USA is well aware of what Israel is doing and both are acting in coordinated way. Both do not want any settlement in a region, they need more chaos and global supply interruptions. If it wasn't the case, USA could've stop weapons supply to Israel long ago.
I'm only giving a neutral perspective. The moment the world stops relying on oil, Iran will lose its biggest leverage in this situation. Other sources of energy are going to be pushed even more.
There is more that goes through Hormuz than just oil- like fertilizer for example. Just been able to charge a fee for crossing the Hormuz is a strategic goal for Iran. This is an outcome of the war. Previously Iran did not know how weak US is - but now they figured out.
It would be interesting to see if this war will be a net negative for Israel. If Iran emerges with more financial resources out of the war you can bet they will fund Hamas and Hezbollah more than before the war.
From a distance, a railroad here would be great. Pay Ukraine to keep the drones away from it. I've been to the region, I understand that a sandy desert is a tough place to keep a rail line open though.
I’m not sure he ever stopped golfing. But yes, getting back to some other distraction, an expensive one, no doubt - I’m sure that would ease his mind considerably.
Cuba is up next but that can't get started until he has a "win" on Iran. They aren't giving him the chance to pretend he's a genius like all his lackeys do for him.
What I don't understand is why the markets and people still believe Trump's repeated lies about the deal. I also don't understand why he started a ceasefire in the first place.
Iran did this to Obama as well, said one thing in private then announced a totally different thing in public. It makes them kinda hard to talk to. So they might tell American negotiators in private they agree to everything, then they go and say in public Americans agreed to do everything Iran wants, what would you do when that keeps happening?
You're not really supposed to steal oil these days and troops on the ground would be easy targets for Iranian drones. I think the military solution would to be have Ukraine help out as they have offered with land and air and marine drones controlled remotely via starlink or similar.
I'm glad Iran is teaching the US and Israel a lesson. Their aggression and attacks have gone unchecked for far too long.
I'm having a hard time not cheering for "the little guy" here before realizing that everyone actively involved here is actually bad.
You can have two thoughts at the same time.
It's good that Iran is teaching USA and Israel a lesson, while Iran (also) being bad guys.
The point is that all the civilians dying for nothing.
Unfortunately they'll learn nothing. The rest of the world however... have to endure the consequences
They will learn. If the Strait remains closed for two months it's a recession. The mid-terms will be a bloodbath.
> If the Strait remains closed for two months it's a recession
Who is forecasting this?
https://www.woodmac.com/press-releases/strait-of-hormuz-clos...
If Wood Mackenzie is not your cup of tea, lots of other resources with a search of “recession strait of Hormuz” keywords. The only reason we’re not in a global recession yet was because China paused oil imports, due to their >1B barrel strategic reserves.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Chinas-Oil-Buying-Paus...
https://www.kpler.com/blog/why-the-real-oil-shock-may-only-b...
That forecasts a global recession if "the Strait remains largely closed through the end of 2026."
Even under that scenario, which would emerge after the Strait had been closed for over ten months, the forecaster only sees "US GDP growth" falling "below 1%," i.e. not a recession. (I'm ignoring the fact that the Strait has already been closed for more than 2 months.)
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Persian-Gulf-Oil-...
> Oil and gas traffic via the Strait of Hormuz may never go back to pre-war levels if Iran cements its hold over the chokepoint. The warnings come from several unrelated sources as the war continues to drag on, with some recovery in traffic but nowhere near pre-February 28 levels. Meanwhile, Big Oil is warning that the looming supply shortage is about to hit global markets in weeks.
> “No matter what happens, the Iranians will control the Strait of Hormuz for the foreseeable future,” Amos Hochstein, senior national security and energy advisor to President Biden, told CNBC last week. “It doesn’t even matter what the deal says. Everybody in the region believes that.”
> While the negotiations drag on, expectations that Iran will remain in de facto charge of the Strait of Hormuz appear to be strengthening. “Any end to the conflict that leaves Iran exercising operational control and influence over the Strait will result in appreciably lower flows through the waterway in our view,” RBC Capital Markets’ Helima Croft said in a recent note, as quoted by CNBC.
None of this suggests recession for America. We're an energy and defence exporter. That broadly offsets the effects of higher energy prices.
Whether or not America winds up in a recession is going to be entirely a function of AI. That is what the economy is levered on.
I agree the US goes full recession as soon as the confidence falls out from under the AI bubble and all of this investment leading to GDP growth ends, but I also don’t believe the US economy (even assuming reduced GDP to energy correlation over the last two decades) can sustain growth and will lead to contraction with oil prices at or above the $150-$200/barrel price band if persistent. The below prediction predicts a near term (July) recession call at less than $100/barrel.
https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/articles/high-oil-prices-c...
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-recession-warning-job-mar...
https://www.aei.org/articles/the-shrinking-economic-weight-o...
Let's see ...
One side is responsible for the "pax Americana" (but everyone here was born into the time period and so doesn't realize how exceptionally peaceful it is)
One side is responsible for at least 20.000 but more likely 60.000 Iranian deaths, just this year (and everybody seems to be worried about the other side's "warcrimes")
Not having big issues to figure out between these 2 who is the good guy ...
> One side is responsible for at least 20.000 but more likely 60.000 Iranian deaths, just this year (and everybody seems to be worried about the other side's "warcrimes")
I can see people attributing this to the US as well after reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta....
I'm fine with Pax Americana, even if you call it American imperialism, but this whole involvement with Israel and its problems is not in our interest. It's abundantly clear that we have traitors in our government working for another country. Sure Iran has a terrible regime, not supposed to be our problem though.
> One side is responsible for the "pax Americana" (but everyone here was born into the time period and so doesn't realize how exceptionally peaceful it is)
The Pax Americana is great, but given America was one of the countries to start this war, I don't know how much credit they can get for something they just ended.
My understanding is that “Pax Americana” isn’t the absence of all war, it’s the absence of major war. So they haven’t just ended it.
> given America was one of the countries to start this war
Are you sure? I am actually somewhat ambivalent on this. Iran wasn't exactly peaceful before February and attacked shipping regularly before then too. Oh and they attacked their own people, foreign nationals, Iranians abroad, and committed terror attacks abroad. They were involved in the Brussels Metro and airport bombing, not 2km from where I'm sitting right now.
> The Pax Americana is great, but given America was one of the countries to start this war, I don't know how much credit they can get for something they just ended
As I said, I'm sitting in Brussels, and everyone here is far more worried about the Ukraine war. Plus nobody's dying, nobody's making life impossible here. I find declaring the Pax Americana dead somewhat premature.
Maybe I'll be proven wrong, I guess. But people here are far more worried about Ukraine than Iran. I think they're wrong ... or at least, that's only a short term threat. The Iran war ... will end the strategic significance of the middle east if it lasts any longer. It will end oil. This is not 1972. Iran may destroy the middle east and itself, they will not destroy the EU, or even significantly hurt it. If their threats materialize, the EU is not America. We will simply say "No. Go F- yourself. Kthxbye", and that will only really suck for the middle east, not for us.
> Iran wasn't exactly peaceful before February and attacked shipping regularly before then too. Oh and they attacked their own people, foreign nationals, Iranians abroad, and committed terror attacks abroad.
None of the nations involved in this fight have been peaceful. That's why I'm talking about just this specific war.
> I find declaring the Pax Americana dead somewhat premature.
If America wins, then yeah, probably it'll limp on. If America loses, and Iran gets to dictate terms in the Strait of Hormuz, then I'm not sure how long it will last before other nations follow suit.
> None of the nations involved in this fight have been peaceful. That's why I'm talking about just this specific war.
Only if you take the 5 year old's definition of peaceful (ie. "not attacking")
Any reasonable moral position will of course mean that doing nothing, even if that means not attacking, is not necessarily a peaceful position. Nor is an attack necessarily not peaceful. For example, how Europe treated Ukraine before and during the war with Russia can easily be argued is not peaceful, it's helping the war criminal and it obviously did not lead to peace. The most generous interpretation you can make is that Europe was funding war. Only an idiot would call that a peaceful attitude. And for another example, what you wrote.
> ... then I'm not sure how long it will last before other nations follow suit.
Strange how you say the US is not peaceful, immediately followed by an argument why US's attack not only leads to peace, but the "non-attacking" nation must be defeated for peace. Which I'm sure we'll agree requires more violence. In fact your argument that Iran "defending itself" leads directly to a bigger war is accurate, I think.
Iran is basically fighting for a resumption of most parts, especially the bad parts, of colonialism (one definition of colonialism would be "taxing foreign nations" after all. I like that definition because a US audience will immediately realize why that leads to war)
That's the moral difficulty here: If the US wins, the west will be at peace with Iran. If Iran wins, war may very well be inevitable. In fact, war with a great many countries may be inevitable (Indonesia has already announced they want to tax the Malacca strait, and China has responded exactly the way you'd expect)
But yes at this point you have the ridiculous soundbite: "war is peace". The irony of that slogan, of course, is that it comes from 1984, as an example of "doublethink" which was George Orwell criticizing communism and totalitarianism. But the slogan is always used to defend totalitarian states, usually ones on the warpath.
> Only if you take the 5 year old's definition of peaceful (ie. "not attacking")
I'm not sure what definition of "peaceful" you're going with here, if it includes any of the US, Iran, or Israel, prior to the start of this war. I guess I'm not as sophisticated as you.
> Strange how you say the US is not peaceful, immediately followed by an argument why US's attack not only leads to peace, but the "non-attacking" nation must be defeated for peace. Which I'm sure we'll agree requires more violence. In fact your argument that Iran "defending itself" leads directly to a bigger war is accurate, I think.
I'm not sure why you think that's strange. There was a status quo: Iran lets ships through the Strait of Hormuz. It works well enough. Then the US attacked, and that status quo is gone. If the US ends this war without re-establishing the status quo, then the world will be worse for everyone, and other nations bordering critical shipping lanes will be encouraged to follow suit.
So it's better for everybody if the US wins. But the US doesn't have much leverage to do so, and so the situation is: the US started a war that it didn't need to start, but can't easily win. The foreign policies that built the Pax Americana have been abandoned.
Ah yes, the exceptional peace of, let me check...
1.5M dead Koreans
3M dead Vietnamese
500,000-1,000,000 dead or displaced Iraqis
Coups in Honduras, Chile, Haiti, Guatemala, Venezuela, Syria, Libya...
Pax Americana my ass. Tell that to the global south
The world wasn't exactly a kind place before Pax Americana. If you check the stats, the American era does pretty well for peace and prosperity, and it's not realistic to expect the Americans would oversee a conflict-free utopia.
> oversee a conflict-free utopia
Oversee is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
Communists' or Islamists' fault for all of those except Iraq
aka, Them.
people are missing the 3rd actor in this trifecta/shit sandwich - Israel. Its the intentional bad faith actor who'll do whatever it takes to sink any peace talks - including genocide/invading Lebanon etc etc etc.
Lesson learnt? I don't think so. The ones responsible are the most insulated from the consequences of their actions, which is why they're doing all of this in the first place. It's the rest of us who're paying the price.
I don’t think Israeli government really cares.
> glad Iran is teaching the US and Israel a lesson
Nobody is learning anything. Hardliners in three capitals are performing for their own choirs.
In the meantime, it’s a bonanza for American energy and defence interests.
I believe that there are powerful elements in the USA that are happy with the Strait being closed. This is rewarding oil producers and processors in red states while hurting blue California proportionally more.
Also, it appears that Trump enjoys any actions that hurt allies more than they hurt him. He's waiting for someone who cares more about the Strait to devote their resources to sorting this out.
All noise to the contrary is lip-service and market manipulation.
The Iranian government executes gay people.
What type of silly response is that?
And I could say the U.S. takes over countries like cuba and turns off their power. We’re definitely the good guys LOL.
Look, I live in the U.S. but i’m not stupid about what we do. We are a terror around the world. Nobody in this fight is the good guy.
America bombs anyone and everyone if they're in the Middle East/Afghanistan/etc.
I'm glad America doesn't discriminate.
The American government would if it could.
The Iranian government would execute much more than they already do if they could, but they can't due to unrest risk.
Are you being sarcastic? Iran is ruled by a an authoritarian theocratic regime that took over through violence and has been ruling over their citizens through violence. Iran is also the biggest backer of terrorists in the Middle East, and has supported Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, and many others. It’s Iran’s ruling power that has been unchecked for too long.
Are they mutually exclusive?
"He's out of line, but he's right": while Iran are an extremely bad actor, before Trump the situation was stable. And the start of conventional hostilities was clearly from the US+Israel side.
(open question as to how much the October 2023 attack is the fault of Iran, specifically?)
There were negotiations before it all started and people seem to have missed or forgotten the claim that Iran mentioned having material to create 11 nukes during this. When this first came out all the news reported there was no evidence Iran had that, but now their refined uranium isn't really in question.
Also during this one of their missiles hit a target 4000 kilometers away, much further than they were claiming they had. That's far enough to hit Europe if it had gone in the other direction.
To me it's looking like the stability was an illusion.
It was also reported that all US intelligence agencies denied that Iran was making a nuke.
It was also reported that during negotiations before this war, Iran had offered 100% of all nuclear material to be surrendered to the USA, to prevent a war.
Also, Marco Rubio said directly that Israel was going to strike anyway, and that we had to respond. He later “clarified” that it was. 100% Trumps call.
So - if the stability was an illusion, it’s because Trump and Israel are unstable, right?
I'm not sure 'Illusion' is the right word, and it should probably read "Trump and Israel and Iran" are unstable.
But, yes
Israel was successfully defanging Iran's terror programs. That's in fact the entire reason this war exists. It was Israel's plan. This is all their retaliation for Oct 7th.
So why the hell are we there? We didn't build a coalition. We didn't really justify our involvement. Trump and Trump supporters insisted on isolationism, pulling back from being the world police, ignoring even heinous invasions like Ukraine to save a few pennies, but suddenly Iran has insulted us through its existence for far too long?
Bullshit.
Keep in mind, Iran was likely to evolve in some way in the next few decades as a result of their impending water crisis. Waiting for a better opportunity would have been the smart choice.
[flagged]
"Most people", meaning "most people in your social circles" presumably - because that's certainly not the case where I am, and I'd like to see some polling data before considering that it's the case globally. I seriously doubt it.
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
I'm probably wrong but it seems glaringly obvious to me that the two supposed allies are not at all acting in a coordinated way. One hand doesn't know what the other one is doing or one hand is just ignoring it.
This would be standard negotiations if the parties involved were competent.
In theory this gives the US the opportunity to offer Iran concessions in Lebanon at zero cost.
What allies would those be?
The US and Israel. Nothing about their approach here seems coordinated, they're both just doing whatever.
I don't think we got a full picture of Israel's leverage over US politicians and business people. How many people like Epstein are out there acting as "access agents" to Mossad? How many US gov employees and politicians like Shapiro of Pennsylvannia have served in the IDF? How can Shapiro with IDF experience ever be considered for VP of the US?
Why are American politicians so comfortable supporting an ethno-state even though the US is not supposed to support apartheid regimes? Why is the US administration now so willing to throw US allies (Japan, South Korea, NATO members) under the bus with a 1970s style energy crisis to save 1 country of 9 million from a war they single unilaterally started?
Finally, to answer the OP's question: * Israel is facing an existential threat; the US ending the war means de facto end to their state; * US - not allies as that requires mutual consent to wage war; see above text for actual real power relationship between Israel and the US
> the US ending the war means de facto end to their state
Every state ends, regardless. I'm not convinced Israel will cease to exist in the next 5 years without US support. There are plenty of countries Israel can, will, and still do partner with to various degrees. Notably much of Europe.
> I'm not convinced Israel will cease to exist in the next 5 years without US support
I genuinely couldn't believe people actually believed this until a friend of a friend voiced the opinion in person. Like, no. Israel doesn't poof if America stops supporting it. Destroying Israel would require American military action.
> Destroying Israel would require American military action.
Or an Iranian nuke. Iran has a big clock ticking down to year 2040 where they say Israel will be destroyed by, if the current Iranian regime isn't destroyed by then they will do everything they can to destroy Israel. That is why they can't agree to not enrich uranium for 25 years, because that would prevent them from destroying Israel.
Anyway, if USA peace out and leaves Israel hanging Israel will just continue to bomb Iran now and never let Iran recover, since USA has weakened Iran enough for Israel to handle the rest now, so it wont happen. However if that happens you will see much more death in Iran and much more disruptions to global economy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Square_Countdown_Clo...
These are all Russian conspiracy theories. You should get help.
Guess partner is the useful idiot in alliance?
Quite contrary, I'm pretty sure that USA is well aware of what Israel is doing and both are acting in coordinated way. Both do not want any settlement in a region, they need more chaos and global supply interruptions. If it wasn't the case, USA could've stop weapons supply to Israel long ago.
A CAPE ratio of 40x and record-high margin debt; what could go wrong?
There has been a lot of posturing from both sides, this is probably going to continue for a couple of months more before they reach equilibrium.
I don't think we should consider gross incompetence on the part of the US to be posturing.
I'm only giving a neutral perspective. The moment the world stops relying on oil, Iran will lose its biggest leverage in this situation. Other sources of energy are going to be pushed even more.
There is more that goes through Hormuz than just oil- like fertilizer for example. Just been able to charge a fee for crossing the Hormuz is a strategic goal for Iran. This is an outcome of the war. Previously Iran did not know how weak US is - but now they figured out.
It would be interesting to see if this war will be a net negative for Israel. If Iran emerges with more financial resources out of the war you can bet they will fund Hamas and Hezbollah more than before the war.
Fertilizer exports are a problem but trucks are keeping it moving at a somewhat higher cost.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/fertiliser-stuck-i...
I was wondering what the solution to this was.
From a distance, a railroad here would be great. Pay Ukraine to keep the drones away from it. I've been to the region, I understand that a sandy desert is a tough place to keep a rail line open though.
Millions of tons of chemicals, fertilizer, and metals used to pass through the strait, not just oil.
The craziest thing to me is that the conventional wisdom is that this will be over by July.
We will be lucky if any ships get through the straight by December.
> the conventional wisdom is that this will be over by July
Whose "conventional" wisdom?
Crude oil prices appear to encode an optimistic outcome.
So "the market" is conventional "wisdom"?
It's the "wisdom" (rough consensus) of those willing to put their money where their mouth is. So, yes.
By what objective standards does a price 41% higher than prewar encode an optimistic outcome?
https://xkcd.com/904/
A 10% reduction in supply of a commodity with fairly inelastic demand usually results in a lot more than a 40% increase in price.
Some ships are getting through already.
https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/ships-are-sailing-dark...
Meanwhile Iran keeps trying to run the blockade they established and failing.
https://bsky.app/profile/tankertrackers.com/post/3mn66mhl4kc...
I suspect Iran's goal is to drag this out until US midterm elections.
Probably as that gets closer their leverage will increase both due to that and stocks running down.
Can't wait for Trump to offer them $300B of our money for this to go away so he can get back to golfing with our money.
Maybe we can throw in some US treasury printing plates too
I’m not sure he ever stopped golfing. But yes, getting back to some other distraction, an expensive one, no doubt - I’m sure that would ease his mind considerably.
Cuba is up next but that can't get started until he has a "win" on Iran. They aren't giving him the chance to pretend he's a genius like all his lackeys do for him.
As far as I understood he already offered the reparations. Including real estate projects & investment fund, obviously.
Didn't make the problem go away.
Here we go ...
What I don't understand is why the markets and people still believe Trump's repeated lies about the deal. I also don't understand why he started a ceasefire in the first place.
Iran did this to Obama as well, said one thing in private then announced a totally different thing in public. It makes them kinda hard to talk to. So they might tell American negotiators in private they agree to everything, then they go and say in public Americans agreed to do everything Iran wants, what would you do when that keeps happening?
Markets are looking revenue figures and forward guidance.
Huh. The market literally jumps up and down strongly on news about Iran. I don't know what you're trying to cover up.
[flagged]
You're not really supposed to steal oil these days and troops on the ground would be easy targets for Iranian drones. I think the military solution would to be have Ukraine help out as they have offered with land and air and marine drones controlled remotely via starlink or similar.
Trump was a bit negative about that "last person we need help from is Zelensky" - but the tech is quite good - vid of them trouncing NATO in drone exercises https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl-jU8XUdhQ also control system and a kind of amazon for drones https://youtu.be/W6pryqt1dwY