7 ms·

How Iran is making a mint from the current war

57 points by Jimmc414 7mo ago

Jimmc414 7mo ago
https://archive.is/IRnul https://archive.is/IRnul
Synaesthesia 7mo ago
The big loser in this war is Europe and other roil importing nations. The US is a major oil and has producer. It's benefiting from this war of aggression and not even taking any damage. Oil companies and arms manufacturers are having a bonanza. After the violence wracked 20th century I was hopeful the 21st century would be a bit more enlightened ...
- bestouff 7mo ago
  US oil producers will win yes, because the prices are going up and they can provide. But the US consumers will feel it badly.
- nine_zeros 7mo ago
  [dead]
- cm2187 7mo ago
  The US consumer will still pay more at the petrol station. Doesn't matter to them that some big oil companies are making a killing somewhere else in the US. US consumers vote.
  - oefrha 7mo ago
    Hey, everyone benefits from the rise in GDP per capita due to oil companies and MIC making a killing. /s
    - kackerlacker 7mo ago
      [dead]
- vrganj 7mo ago
  Longer term Europe is positioned to come out of this looking pretty good. Renewables already surpass fossil fuel in the energy mix [0], this will only accelerate the shift to energy independence. It's countries that actively resisted diversifying their energy mix like the US that will feel the long term pain. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jan/22/wind-and-solar-overtook-fossil-fuels-in-power-generation-for-eu-in-2025-report https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jan/22/wind-and...
  - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
    I like your optimism. But I don't see the plan. The short-term impact is going to be nasty–regardless of trend, Europe depends on imported oil and gas. The same Europe that is currently financing an expensive military buildup. The answer is to strike a deal with China. Unfortunately, that requires compromising on some values. > countries that actively resisted diversifying their energy mix Rhetoric aside, America continues to add renewable capacity [1]. [1] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=67367 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=67367
    - vrganj 7mo ago
      I have long been advocating striking a deal with China. The US has been trying to sell out Europe to Russians in a misguided quest to win them over against the Chinese. The only reasonable reaction is a Metternichian rebalancing of powers.
      - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
        > only reasonable reaction is a Metternichian rebalancing of powers It's rational, but it comes at costs. (And with costs.) China would have to put a stop to Putin's revanchism. Otherwise, Europe is just financing its burial and subjugation. And the EU would have to sign off on China's human-right records, and, in all likelihood, Taiwan policy. That, in turn, sets up a clash with the rest of Asia.
        7mo ago
- pzo 7mo ago
  > The big loser in this war is Europe and other roil importing nations. > The US is a major oil and has producer. US citizens are loosers as well since cost of oil increased for them as well. This will also have inflation impact on other products from them as well on top of previous tariffs.
  - comrade1234 7mo ago
    It's "losers"
- cogman10 7mo ago
  > The US is a major oil and has producer. It's benefiting from this war of aggression and not even taking any damage. Oil companies are benefiting, everything else in the US suffers. Money isn't going to trickle out of these oil companies to spur economic activity. Nations that benefit from the war do so because of nationalized oil production. Any nation without that is going to ultimately suffer because that added oil revenue doesn't make it's way back to the public. All nations are going to look at increased food costs and potentially even shortages next year due to increased fertilizer and transport costs.
  - measurablefunc 7mo ago
    It's not that simple. Production costs have gone up for everyone, inflation is going to get worse so the simple logic of "higher prices, higher profits" doesn't really work in this case.
    - cogman10 7mo ago
      There will be a short term long term thing with this. I agree with you that ultimately everyone loses long term. Short term the higher prices will result in higher profits which will enrich whoever owns the oil. We aren't at the end of the inflation, though, that's going to hit. This is only the beginning. Next year will be when things really go south. At this point it's not a question of if, but rather how bad.
      - measurablefunc 7mo ago
        I agree.
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
  > Europe and other roil importing nations Europe and Asia have been royally screwed by this war. Ironically, the winners are Russia, in absolute terms, and China, relative to its neighbors.
  - vrganj 7mo ago
    Almost as if the US president was primarily pursuing Russian interests...
    - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
      > as if the US president was primarily pursuing Russian interests Comforting to imagine someone is in charge. But given the President's inability to even pursue his own interests coherently, I'm going with Putin got lucky on this dice roll.
      - vrganj 7mo ago
        I don't think Putin is in charge, but he sure is happy his patsy made it big.
  - gib444 7mo ago
    > Ironically, the winners are Russia Where's the irony if that was the plan?
- chinathrow 7mo ago
  Time to get off if oil, like yesterday.
- mmooss 7mo ago
  > violence wracked 20th century After WWII, I believe it was one of the most peaceful times in human history. For one thing, the post-war order - the UN, EU, international law, etc. - effectively stopped international war (with a few exceptions). > 21st century Even more peaceful, though the prohibition against international war has been violated with the intent of returning to the pre-WWII world.
- twodave 7mo ago
  "Enlightenment" is for civilizations with enough might to enforce it.
- graemep 7mo ago
  The big loser is Asia. Heavily dependent on oil going through Hormuz. > After the violence wracked 20th century I was hopeful the 21st century would be a bit more enlightened People hope for that every century.
  - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
    > People hope for that every century And statistically speaking, we may have achieved it. At least since 1950, possibly since the Industrial Revolution, speculatively for millenia, war has become less lethal [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Natur...
    - graemep 7mo ago
      It is an interesting point, but I am not entirely convinced. In absolute numbers the last 100 years have been peak genocide. Of course given the much bigger global population it might well be better per capita. Even if you exclude the contested ones in this list its still a lot: https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=47580348&goto=threads%3Fid%3Dgraemep%2347580348 https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=47580348&goto=threads%... It also illustrates the capacity we have for mass murder. The long peace/new peace looks like a bit of historical luck, and increasingly so. The new peace came at time when, post cold war, the world was relatively stable under western dominance, and the west was less inclined to violence as a result of prosperity, the the lessons of the holocaust and WW2, etc. The rise of China (and other Asian powers over time) will make the world look very different. There were plenty smaller wars even during the "peace" period.
- dlev_pika 7mo ago
  > After the violence wracked 20th century I was hopeful the 21st century would be a bit more enlightened The Trump presidency feels like the dying tremors of imperialist, oligarchic, patriarchal IXX century leadership that resists to disappear. Like the other two septuagenarian boomer leaders blowing up shit across of the world - Putin and Bibi
- orwin 7mo ago
  Crude oil isn't as commoditized as LNG. Europe refineries (at least France, but probably most of Western Europe) are made to refine oil from Africa and the north sea, and wouldn't know what to do with ME oil anyway. Algeria or Libya can't suddenly sell their crude to asia or the US, because the refineries able to transform it are in europe. This will hit european countries that depends on LNG, but the impact on crude oil price in both the Texas index and the north sea index will be felt way less than in Asia. If you are talking about the refined product: it will hurt everyone the same, except the executives from big oil, and again, not that sure, because increased transportation/transformation costs decrease productivity, and we can enter a credit crunch that will harm debt-fueled economies pretty hard..
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
  - Ostrogoth 7mo ago
    The problem is European countries have been on a path towards reducing local refineries, and replaced with imports from Gulf States. ~50% of jet fuel, and up to ~25% of diesel was sourced from the Gulf States, which is now blockaded by the war or offline. Agree with you that refined products shortage will have the most economic impacts. Gulf States were also the global swing supplier of refined products, with ~20% of waterborne cargos. With Asian refineries (China/Japan/South Korea) also dependent on heavy/medium crude feedstock stuck in the Gulf, fuel production is getting hammered right now from both sides. Countries with local refining capacity will temporarily weather the storm a bit better, but with how interconnected global trade is, short fuel supply will impact everyone, even if its indirectly through higher costs of shipping/transportation/manufacturing/fertilizer, etc.
- thatcat 7mo ago
  Pretty sure the big losers are US missile intercept systems manufactures since they've basically been outed as useless so I'm not sure who would want to buy them now. And Israel, of course, who is getting struck as a result of their over reliance on these systems. US bases are being wrecked, all the radar systems are gone, several carriers damaged - not sure that is no damage.
  - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
    > losers are US missile intercept systems manufactures since they've basically been outed as useless What? How? Why do you think their order books are swelling?
    - thatcat 7mo ago
      Lockheed martin PAC3 manufacturer is down 11% this month.
      - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
        > Lockheed martin PAC3 manufacturer is down 11% this month Seriously? Lockheed Martin makes lots of stuff. They're blaming labor shortages for their woes. But demand for Patriots is growing. Your conclusion that they've been embarassed is countered by the dominant analysis in like every source, from Chinese and Indian (English and local language) to German, American, Israeli and Taiwanese. Patriot works. It's been shooting down Russia's "hypersonic" missiles. It's been intercepting everything Iran throws at it. Its problem is it's expensive, and Iran's munitions cheap; we need something that isn't built to take down stealth fighter jets and advanced missiles.
        thatcat 7mo ago
        I mean even a cursory analysis will show that it's physically impossible for it to work against multiple vehicles/decoys. They also make the "stealth" f35, their contracts for this stuff is from Jan - probably will still make money from US/Saudi, but good luck selling to Germany or Japan.
- enaaem 7mo ago
  If the new status quo is that Iran will control the strait then te rest of the world will just pay toll to Iran.
krunck 7mo ago
The Economist doesn't know the difference between journalism and opinion. Ignore them.
- Jimmc414 7mo ago
  This piece includes original reporting sourced from maritime intelligence firms, financial forensics by Kharon, and an anonymous source with knowledge of Iran's oil accounting. What specifically do you think they got wrong? Happy to look at a better source if you have one.
  - Supermancho 7mo ago
    What they got wrong is the title. The premise is bad, to start. Iran could have leveraged these defensive tactics to make "a mint" from oil exports at any time. The war, for the state that it is in, is not where they are making the money. They have lost money as a consequence of the war and made money from tightening export controls to the point there are physical barriers. The forensic accounting is incidental and well understood from other nations (eg Russia, NK, etc). The concluding paragraph that might tie these rather boring descriptions of economic machination together, is barely coherent. Read it carefully. > The extreme redundancy introduces such complexity that the money is getting harder to trace even for Iran’s central bank—and easier for the country’s oil barons to skim. But it keeps the oil machine going. Short of all-out strikes on Iran’s energy infrastructure—to which Iran would respond by bombing that of other Gulf states—it will not be throttled. Both sentences are baseless indictments, at best. First aimed at oil producers who are "skimming", which they are not. The second run-on is gaslighting Iran as a state, as hell-bent on bombing unnamed neighbors in "the gulf" which seems purposefully chosen as ambiguous. Is stating facts about the minutia of circumventing sanctions, then demonizing the actors, considered journalism? I don't think so.
    - Jimmc414 7mo ago
      > What they got wrong is the title. The premise is bad, to start. Admittedly, the title is somewhat misleading. It doesn't take into account the massive costs Iran is absorbing in destroyed infrastructure, steel production offline, millions displaced, economy in freefall. > Iran could have leveraged these defensive tactics to make "a mint" from oil exports at any time. The war, for the state that it is in, is not where they are making the money. They have lost money as a consequence of the war and made money from tightening export controls to the point there are physical barriers. The forensic accounting is incidental and well understood from other nations (eg Russia, NK, etc). This is incorrect. The Strait of Hormuz blockade is a wartime measure. Iran couldn't have blockaded Hormuz in peacetime without triggering the kind of military response it's now already absorbing. The war is what made the blockade possible as a strategy. Iran had nothing left to lose by escalating. The pre war discount was $18–24/barrel. It's now $7–12. That improvement is directly war driven. > Both sentences are baseless indictments, at best. First aimed at oil producers who are "skimming", which they are not. The Economist isn't making a moral indictment as much as it's describing a consequence of routing payments through thousands of shell accounts across multiple jurisdictions. > The second run-on is gaslighting Iran as a state, as hell-bent on bombing unnamed neighbors in "the gulf" which seems purposefully chosen as ambiguous. Iran has explicitly threatened retaliatory strikes on Gulf energy infrastructure. This isn't speculation or gaslighting, it's stated Iranian deterrence. The article is describing the strategic calculus that makes all out infrastructure strikes unlikely. > is stating facts then demonizing actors journalism? You are recharacterizing conclusions drawn from reported facts as demonization, which lets you dismiss any reporting that reaches an unflattering conclusion about any actor. Which specific factual claim in the article do you think is wrong?
crimshawz 7mo ago
[dead]
cm2187 7mo ago
It's a bit absurd to describe all the procedures Iran takes to disguise those ships. It's not like it is hard for the US military to track massive tankers in a small sea (or to intercept them if they wish to). Those tankers are tolerated by the US because they don't want to antagonise China more than they need right now (not the least to keep them out of this conflict), and don't want to add more pressure on the oil market. Not because somehow those ships evaded US vigilance thanks to Iran's cunning skills. But this is a damocles sword hanging over Iran. The US could seize those tankers if they want to apply more pressure.
- cheriot 7mo ago
  Agree it's a thin disguise. It works because the same sword hangs over Trump's head as well. He needs the price of oil to not spike too high so any oil supply is welcome.
  - cm2187 7mo ago
    And for all the heated rethoric, both sides have shown a certain restraint so far, which is encouraging. It doesn't feel like a deal is out of the question.
    - jjgreen 7mo ago
      No point in making a deal with the US, they always welch.
      - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
        > No point in making a deal with the US Hot take on the internet. Different picture when bombs are raining down on your infrastructure.
- jmward01 7mo ago
  And by doing so escalate more and potentially lead Iran to hit critical infra across the gulf nations and potentially disrupt red sea shipping too. There is too much exposed, expensive and delicate infrastructure to adequately protect. Iran could likely cause far more damage than it already has, and to infrastructure that could lead to years, or even decades, of problems all at a time when oil is starting to wind down. The gulf nations know this. This could transition oil earlier than expected. Hit their oil infra, and their water infra and the region may not recover until oil is no longer in demand. Nations are likely taking notice of how cavalier the US is being with other nations security and prosperity right now. Spain is getting down right hostile and we have a lot of military assets there and along history of joint bases with them. This is potentially a major turning point for supporting the US in any endeavor. Basically, yeah, I am sure we know where those ships are but hopefully we are being as rational as possible somewhere in the government and are holding back in hopes of -something- being salvaged here.
cogman10 7mo ago
This war has been one of the best things to happen to the IRGC. Oil prices went up, sanctions got lifted, citizens are now united with the goals of the government, dissidents are silenced, the world hates that the US and Israel did this and blames them directly. Really, there's almost no goal of the IRGC that Trump didn't just speed run by starting a war. And this was all for what? The US has yet to articulate an actual reason they did any of this other than "Israel was going to do it, so we went along with them". All the politicians in support of this war flounder and have to rely on "Well, they hate us" as justification for why we are killing school girls and attacking Iran's power grids and desalination plants. I'm not a fan of the IRGC, but this really was the absolute worst way to address them.
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
  > war has been one of the best things to happen to the IRGC This is hyperbole. If Iran could veto the war at the start, they would have. They're coming out of it, right now, relatively better off than the U.S. was when we started inasmuch as we have achieved zero strategic priorities and they've survived while adding a revenue source. But they've also lost massive amounts of military and industrial investment, to say nothing of decades of leadership.
  - cogman10 7mo ago
    > If Iran could veto the war at the start, they would have. Sure, because nobody likes the unknown prospect of dying or knowing exactly how far this war will ultimately go. However, this has all made the IRGC a lot stronger and has given them a lot more power. > But they've also lost massive amounts of military and industrial investment Investment made for exactly the purpose it's being used. They are also massively depleting the US and Israel's munitions. The math is really bad. The missiles and drones are pretty cheap and quick for Iran to manufacture and they've spent decades setting that up because of this very scenario. Meanwhile, the US hasn't had to exercise it's supplies and we already see they are running low as more and more explosives appear to be making their way through the Iron Dome. But also, the massive amount of damage that's been to US bases throughout the region. > to say nothing of decades of leadership. Iran's leadership doesn't work like a lot of other nations. The big mistake Trump made was assuming taking out the supreme leader was all it'd take for them to crumble. The government is a lot more complex and not fully invested in one powerful man. And it's this way exactly because of the threat of attack by the US. This is why after both the US and Israel got to the point where they couldn't figure out who was running Iran, Iran was still continuing attacks on US bases and Israel. Much like the US government and military, there's not a single politician or general you could take out that would cause a collapse in command. Unlike the US government, they have a very large government body that can pick and choose new leaders pretty quickly. It took them, what, 2 weeks to pick the next supreme leader? I'm sure Iran didn't want this war, but I'm also sure the IRGC has reaped massive amounts of benefits because of it. These are all very predictable results and the reason no president has been dumb enough to directly attack Iran. It's been reported that generals were advising against this attack. But even people without US intelligence could have predicted these outcomes.
aaron695 7mo ago
[dead]
enaaem 7mo ago
Trump cancelled the Iran deal. Now the US has nothing and Iran has found an infinite money glitch.
Eddy_Viscosity2 7mo ago
Will this income come anywhere near the cost of replacing all the infrastructure that was destroyed?

57 points by Jimmc414 7mo ago

https://archive.is/IRnul https://archive.is/IRnul

The big loser in this war is Europe and other roil importing nations. The US is a major oil and has producer. It's benefiting from this war of aggression and not even taking any damage. Oil companies and arms manufacturers are having a bonanza. After the violence wracked 20th century I was hopeful the 21st century would be a bit more enlightened ...

bestouff 7mo ago
US oil producers will win yes, because the prices are going up and they can provide. But the US consumers will feel it badly.
nine_zeros 7mo ago
[dead]
cm2187 7mo ago
The US consumer will still pay more at the petrol station. Doesn't matter to them that some big oil companies are making a killing somewhere else in the US. US consumers vote.
- oefrha 7mo ago
  Hey, everyone benefits from the rise in GDP per capita due to oil companies and MIC making a killing. /s
  - kackerlacker 7mo ago
    [dead]
vrganj 7mo ago
Longer term Europe is positioned to come out of this looking pretty good. Renewables already surpass fossil fuel in the energy mix [0], this will only accelerate the shift to energy independence. It's countries that actively resisted diversifying their energy mix like the US that will feel the long term pain. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jan/22/wind-and-solar-overtook-fossil-fuels-in-power-generation-for-eu-in-2025-report https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jan/22/wind-and...
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
  I like your optimism. But I don't see the plan. The short-term impact is going to be nasty–regardless of trend, Europe depends on imported oil and gas. The same Europe that is currently financing an expensive military buildup. The answer is to strike a deal with China. Unfortunately, that requires compromising on some values. > countries that actively resisted diversifying their energy mix Rhetoric aside, America continues to add renewable capacity [1]. [1] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=67367 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=67367
  - vrganj 7mo ago
    I have long been advocating striking a deal with China. The US has been trying to sell out Europe to Russians in a misguided quest to win them over against the Chinese. The only reasonable reaction is a Metternichian rebalancing of powers.
    - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
      > only reasonable reaction is a Metternichian rebalancing of powers It's rational, but it comes at costs. (And with costs.) China would have to put a stop to Putin's revanchism. Otherwise, Europe is just financing its burial and subjugation. And the EU would have to sign off on China's human-right records, and, in all likelihood, Taiwan policy. That, in turn, sets up a clash with the rest of Asia.
      - 7mo ago
pzo 7mo ago
> The big loser in this war is Europe and other roil importing nations. > The US is a major oil and has producer. US citizens are loosers as well since cost of oil increased for them as well. This will also have inflation impact on other products from them as well on top of previous tariffs.
- comrade1234 7mo ago
  It's "losers"
cogman10 7mo ago
> The US is a major oil and has producer. It's benefiting from this war of aggression and not even taking any damage. Oil companies are benefiting, everything else in the US suffers. Money isn't going to trickle out of these oil companies to spur economic activity. Nations that benefit from the war do so because of nationalized oil production. Any nation without that is going to ultimately suffer because that added oil revenue doesn't make it's way back to the public. All nations are going to look at increased food costs and potentially even shortages next year due to increased fertilizer and transport costs.
- measurablefunc 7mo ago
  It's not that simple. Production costs have gone up for everyone, inflation is going to get worse so the simple logic of "higher prices, higher profits" doesn't really work in this case.
  - cogman10 7mo ago
    There will be a short term long term thing with this. I agree with you that ultimately everyone loses long term. Short term the higher prices will result in higher profits which will enrich whoever owns the oil. We aren't at the end of the inflation, though, that's going to hit. This is only the beginning. Next year will be when things really go south. At this point it's not a question of if, but rather how bad.
    - measurablefunc 7mo ago
      I agree.
JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
> Europe and other roil importing nations Europe and Asia have been royally screwed by this war. Ironically, the winners are Russia, in absolute terms, and China, relative to its neighbors.
- vrganj 7mo ago
  Almost as if the US president was primarily pursuing Russian interests...
  - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
    > as if the US president was primarily pursuing Russian interests Comforting to imagine someone is in charge. But given the President's inability to even pursue his own interests coherently, I'm going with Putin got lucky on this dice roll.
    - vrganj 7mo ago
      I don't think Putin is in charge, but he sure is happy his patsy made it big.
- gib444 7mo ago
  > Ironically, the winners are Russia Where's the irony if that was the plan?
chinathrow 7mo ago
Time to get off if oil, like yesterday.
mmooss 7mo ago
> violence wracked 20th century After WWII, I believe it was one of the most peaceful times in human history. For one thing, the post-war order - the UN, EU, international law, etc. - effectively stopped international war (with a few exceptions). > 21st century Even more peaceful, though the prohibition against international war has been violated with the intent of returning to the pre-WWII world.
twodave 7mo ago
"Enlightenment" is for civilizations with enough might to enforce it.
graemep 7mo ago
The big loser is Asia. Heavily dependent on oil going through Hormuz. > After the violence wracked 20th century I was hopeful the 21st century would be a bit more enlightened People hope for that every century.
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
  > People hope for that every century And statistically speaking, we may have achieved it. At least since 1950, possibly since the Industrial Revolution, speculatively for millenia, war has become less lethal [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Natur...
  - graemep 7mo ago
    It is an interesting point, but I am not entirely convinced. In absolute numbers the last 100 years have been peak genocide. Of course given the much bigger global population it might well be better per capita. Even if you exclude the contested ones in this list its still a lot: https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=47580348&goto=threads%3Fid%3Dgraemep%2347580348 https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=47580348&goto=threads%... It also illustrates the capacity we have for mass murder. The long peace/new peace looks like a bit of historical luck, and increasingly so. The new peace came at time when, post cold war, the world was relatively stable under western dominance, and the west was less inclined to violence as a result of prosperity, the the lessons of the holocaust and WW2, etc. The rise of China (and other Asian powers over time) will make the world look very different. There were plenty smaller wars even during the "peace" period.
dlev_pika 7mo ago
> After the violence wracked 20th century I was hopeful the 21st century would be a bit more enlightened The Trump presidency feels like the dying tremors of imperialist, oligarchic, patriarchal IXX century leadership that resists to disappear. Like the other two septuagenarian boomer leaders blowing up shit across of the world - Putin and Bibi
orwin 7mo ago
Crude oil isn't as commoditized as LNG. Europe refineries (at least France, but probably most of Western Europe) are made to refine oil from Africa and the north sea, and wouldn't know what to do with ME oil anyway. Algeria or Libya can't suddenly sell their crude to asia or the US, because the refineries able to transform it are in europe. This will hit european countries that depends on LNG, but the impact on crude oil price in both the Texas index and the north sea index will be felt way less than in Asia. If you are talking about the refined product: it will hurt everyone the same, except the executives from big oil, and again, not that sure, because increased transportation/transformation costs decrease productivity, and we can enter a credit crunch that will harm debt-fueled economies pretty hard..
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
- Ostrogoth 7mo ago
  The problem is European countries have been on a path towards reducing local refineries, and replaced with imports from Gulf States. ~50% of jet fuel, and up to ~25% of diesel was sourced from the Gulf States, which is now blockaded by the war or offline. Agree with you that refined products shortage will have the most economic impacts. Gulf States were also the global swing supplier of refined products, with ~20% of waterborne cargos. With Asian refineries (China/Japan/South Korea) also dependent on heavy/medium crude feedstock stuck in the Gulf, fuel production is getting hammered right now from both sides. Countries with local refining capacity will temporarily weather the storm a bit better, but with how interconnected global trade is, short fuel supply will impact everyone, even if its indirectly through higher costs of shipping/transportation/manufacturing/fertilizer, etc.
thatcat 7mo ago
Pretty sure the big losers are US missile intercept systems manufactures since they've basically been outed as useless so I'm not sure who would want to buy them now. And Israel, of course, who is getting struck as a result of their over reliance on these systems. US bases are being wrecked, all the radar systems are gone, several carriers damaged - not sure that is no damage.
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
  > losers are US missile intercept systems manufactures since they've basically been outed as useless What? How? Why do you think their order books are swelling?
  - thatcat 7mo ago
    Lockheed martin PAC3 manufacturer is down 11% this month.
    - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
      > Lockheed martin PAC3 manufacturer is down 11% this month Seriously? Lockheed Martin makes lots of stuff. They're blaming labor shortages for their woes. But demand for Patriots is growing. Your conclusion that they've been embarassed is countered by the dominant analysis in like every source, from Chinese and Indian (English and local language) to German, American, Israeli and Taiwanese. Patriot works. It's been shooting down Russia's "hypersonic" missiles. It's been intercepting everything Iran throws at it. Its problem is it's expensive, and Iran's munitions cheap; we need something that isn't built to take down stealth fighter jets and advanced missiles.
      - thatcat 7mo ago
        I mean even a cursory analysis will show that it's physically impossible for it to work against multiple vehicles/decoys. They also make the "stealth" f35, their contracts for this stuff is from Jan - probably will still make money from US/Saudi, but good luck selling to Germany or Japan.
enaaem 7mo ago
If the new status quo is that Iran will control the strait then te rest of the world will just pay toll to Iran.

krunck 7mo ago

The Economist doesn't know the difference between journalism and opinion. Ignore them.

Jimmc414 7mo ago
This piece includes original reporting sourced from maritime intelligence firms, financial forensics by Kharon, and an anonymous source with knowledge of Iran's oil accounting. What specifically do you think they got wrong? Happy to look at a better source if you have one.
- Supermancho 7mo ago
  What they got wrong is the title. The premise is bad, to start. Iran could have leveraged these defensive tactics to make "a mint" from oil exports at any time. The war, for the state that it is in, is not where they are making the money. They have lost money as a consequence of the war and made money from tightening export controls to the point there are physical barriers. The forensic accounting is incidental and well understood from other nations (eg Russia, NK, etc). The concluding paragraph that might tie these rather boring descriptions of economic machination together, is barely coherent. Read it carefully. > The extreme redundancy introduces such complexity that the money is getting harder to trace even for Iran’s central bank—and easier for the country’s oil barons to skim. But it keeps the oil machine going. Short of all-out strikes on Iran’s energy infrastructure—to which Iran would respond by bombing that of other Gulf states—it will not be throttled. Both sentences are baseless indictments, at best. First aimed at oil producers who are "skimming", which they are not. The second run-on is gaslighting Iran as a state, as hell-bent on bombing unnamed neighbors in "the gulf" which seems purposefully chosen as ambiguous. Is stating facts about the minutia of circumventing sanctions, then demonizing the actors, considered journalism? I don't think so.
  - Jimmc414 7mo ago
    > What they got wrong is the title. The premise is bad, to start. Admittedly, the title is somewhat misleading. It doesn't take into account the massive costs Iran is absorbing in destroyed infrastructure, steel production offline, millions displaced, economy in freefall. > Iran could have leveraged these defensive tactics to make "a mint" from oil exports at any time. The war, for the state that it is in, is not where they are making the money. They have lost money as a consequence of the war and made money from tightening export controls to the point there are physical barriers. The forensic accounting is incidental and well understood from other nations (eg Russia, NK, etc). This is incorrect. The Strait of Hormuz blockade is a wartime measure. Iran couldn't have blockaded Hormuz in peacetime without triggering the kind of military response it's now already absorbing. The war is what made the blockade possible as a strategy. Iran had nothing left to lose by escalating. The pre war discount was $18–24/barrel. It's now $7–12. That improvement is directly war driven. > Both sentences are baseless indictments, at best. First aimed at oil producers who are "skimming", which they are not. The Economist isn't making a moral indictment as much as it's describing a consequence of routing payments through thousands of shell accounts across multiple jurisdictions. > The second run-on is gaslighting Iran as a state, as hell-bent on bombing unnamed neighbors in "the gulf" which seems purposefully chosen as ambiguous. Iran has explicitly threatened retaliatory strikes on Gulf energy infrastructure. This isn't speculation or gaslighting, it's stated Iranian deterrence. The article is describing the strategic calculus that makes all out infrastructure strikes unlikely. > is stating facts then demonizing actors journalism? You are recharacterizing conclusions drawn from reported facts as demonization, which lets you dismiss any reporting that reaches an unflattering conclusion about any actor. Which specific factual claim in the article do you think is wrong?

crimshawz 7mo ago

[dead]

cm2187 7mo ago

It's a bit absurd to describe all the procedures Iran takes to disguise those ships. It's not like it is hard for the US military to track massive tankers in a small sea (or to intercept them if they wish to). Those tankers are tolerated by the US because they don't want to antagonise China more than they need right now (not the least to keep them out of this conflict), and don't want to add more pressure on the oil market. Not because somehow those ships evaded US vigilance thanks to Iran's cunning skills. But this is a damocles sword hanging over Iran. The US could seize those tankers if they want to apply more pressure.

cheriot 7mo ago
Agree it's a thin disguise. It works because the same sword hangs over Trump's head as well. He needs the price of oil to not spike too high so any oil supply is welcome.
- cm2187 7mo ago
  And for all the heated rethoric, both sides have shown a certain restraint so far, which is encouraging. It doesn't feel like a deal is out of the question.
  - jjgreen 7mo ago
    No point in making a deal with the US, they always welch.
    - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
      > No point in making a deal with the US Hot take on the internet. Different picture when bombs are raining down on your infrastructure.
jmward01 7mo ago
And by doing so escalate more and potentially lead Iran to hit critical infra across the gulf nations and potentially disrupt red sea shipping too. There is too much exposed, expensive and delicate infrastructure to adequately protect. Iran could likely cause far more damage than it already has, and to infrastructure that could lead to years, or even decades, of problems all at a time when oil is starting to wind down. The gulf nations know this. This could transition oil earlier than expected. Hit their oil infra, and their water infra and the region may not recover until oil is no longer in demand. Nations are likely taking notice of how cavalier the US is being with other nations security and prosperity right now. Spain is getting down right hostile and we have a lot of military assets there and along history of joint bases with them. This is potentially a major turning point for supporting the US in any endeavor. Basically, yeah, I am sure we know where those ships are but hopefully we are being as rational as possible somewhere in the government and are holding back in hopes of -something- being salvaged here.

cogman10 7mo ago

This war has been one of the best things to happen to the IRGC. Oil prices went up, sanctions got lifted, citizens are now united with the goals of the government, dissidents are silenced, the world hates that the US and Israel did this and blames them directly. Really, there's almost no goal of the IRGC that Trump didn't just speed run by starting a war. And this was all for what? The US has yet to articulate an actual reason they did any of this other than "Israel was going to do it, so we went along with them". All the politicians in support of this war flounder and have to rely on "Well, they hate us" as justification for why we are killing school girls and attacking Iran's power grids and desalination plants. I'm not a fan of the IRGC, but this really was the absolute worst way to address them.

JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
> war has been one of the best things to happen to the IRGC This is hyperbole. If Iran could veto the war at the start, they would have. They're coming out of it, right now, relatively better off than the U.S. was when we started inasmuch as we have achieved zero strategic priorities and they've survived while adding a revenue source. But they've also lost massive amounts of military and industrial investment, to say nothing of decades of leadership.
- cogman10 7mo ago
  > If Iran could veto the war at the start, they would have. Sure, because nobody likes the unknown prospect of dying or knowing exactly how far this war will ultimately go. However, this has all made the IRGC a lot stronger and has given them a lot more power. > But they've also lost massive amounts of military and industrial investment Investment made for exactly the purpose it's being used. They are also massively depleting the US and Israel's munitions. The math is really bad. The missiles and drones are pretty cheap and quick for Iran to manufacture and they've spent decades setting that up because of this very scenario. Meanwhile, the US hasn't had to exercise it's supplies and we already see they are running low as more and more explosives appear to be making their way through the Iron Dome. But also, the massive amount of damage that's been to US bases throughout the region. > to say nothing of decades of leadership. Iran's leadership doesn't work like a lot of other nations. The big mistake Trump made was assuming taking out the supreme leader was all it'd take for them to crumble. The government is a lot more complex and not fully invested in one powerful man. And it's this way exactly because of the threat of attack by the US. This is why after both the US and Israel got to the point where they couldn't figure out who was running Iran, Iran was still continuing attacks on US bases and Israel. Much like the US government and military, there's not a single politician or general you could take out that would cause a collapse in command. Unlike the US government, they have a very large government body that can pick and choose new leaders pretty quickly. It took them, what, 2 weeks to pick the next supreme leader? I'm sure Iran didn't want this war, but I'm also sure the IRGC has reaped massive amounts of benefits because of it. These are all very predictable results and the reason no president has been dumb enough to directly attack Iran. It's been reported that generals were advising against this attack. But even people without US intelligence could have predicted these outcomes.

aaron695 7mo ago

[dead]

enaaem 7mo ago

Trump cancelled the Iran deal. Now the US has nothing and Iran has found an infinite money glitch.

Eddy_Viscosity2 7mo ago

Will this income come anywhere near the cost of replacing all the infrastructure that was destroyed?