> The 1979 'shock' is not relevant in 2021 as the global energy situation is completely different so there's no point to make with respect to current strategy.

> The 1979 'shock' is not relevant in 2021 as the global energy situation is completely different so there's no point to make with respect to current strategy. > In short your 'first' concern about Iran's 'Oil' pricing etc. doesn't have any bearing on the situation. Iran owns 10% of the worlds oil reserves and 17% of the worlds gas reserves. In 2012 before the embargo, Iran was the second largest oil exporter in OPEC. Natural gas production was skyrocketing, growing vertically to 700 million cubic meter/day by 2012. The US currently produces 766,200 cubic meters/day. If you don't think Iran had the power to effect oil and gas prices before the embargo then I don't know what to tell you. It's just supply and demand. So far you're just making assertions without any analysis or evidence. > This is absolutely 'antagonizing' - they are directs acts of war by Iran - which both your 'It's Israel' premise, and your 'Houthi is an Old Thing' premise have ignored. Again, I don't know what to tell you. I'm not really interested in this "antagonizing" (or not) dichotomy. States act in their own interests. All of these states have resource and security conflicts with each other that aren't new and that aren't going to go away. Also, I said that the Houthi rebellion is a relatively new thing, not old. The conflict predates them. The US and UK orchestrated a coup d'etat in 1953 prior to everything you mention. The Iranian Revolution was in 1979 prior to everything you mention. > There are 'lawyers and lobbyists' of every kind, pushing for policy changes in every direction. That's normal. > You have not provided any evidence that the leadership class, as a whole, is acting to maintain Iranian sanctions, because it's completely contrary to the interest of capitalism. I didn't claim anything about "as a whole." If you re-read what I wrote more carefully, you will see that. Whoever's policy was implemented is the dominant section of the overclass. They won, it's how we know they had (or still have) the most power. That's basically a tautology. Moreover, I refuted the premise for this part of your argument rests on twice now, so I hope that works for you. I'm not trying to be patronizing, but please read what I've written more carefully before you respond and chill your tone.