17 ms·
The Ayatollah Booth is egg on the US's face regardless, but $2M/ship is about $1/barrel for perspective. Spot price is $95/barrel right now.
by smallmancontrov 7mo ago
The Ayatollah Booth is egg on the US's face regardless, but $2M/ship is about $1/barrel for perspective. Spot price is $95/barrel right now.
- pclmulqdq 7mo ago$2M/ship is $1/barrel for VLCCs, but it's a lot more for smaller ships. Practically, nobody will use a ship smaller than a VLCC with the toolbooth.
- smallmancontrov 7mo agoVLCCs are already 2/3 the oil traffic, but yeah, rough day to be a small ship with cheap cargo.
- stanislavb 7mo agoIsrael is already breaking the ceasefire conditions. Ref: "Netanyahu: Ceasefire doesn’t cover Lebanon" https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/netanyahu-ceasefire-doesnt-cover-lebanon-us-told-israel-its-committed-to-achieving-our-shared-goals-in-talks-with-iran/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/netanyahu-cease...
- outside1234 7mo agoTerritorial expansion was probably always Israel's goal of this, with a bonus of weakening a regional rival.
- 21asdffdsa12 7mo ago[flagged]
- twobitshifter 7mo agoNo…attacks do not follow as a consequence from the action of giving land back. The conclusion from this reasoning would be to forever expand your borders. If it cannot be that the positive action of giving land causes an attack, think about what the real cause may be.
- School-Cotton 7mo agoThey have given back territory they don’t care about (Sinai), or “given back” territory but kept it under a permanent near-total blockade and military control (Gaza), but never given back territory they do care about and which is the main sticking point of the conflict (East Jerusalem and the West Bank). And they never will unless someone forces them to, which is unlikely.
- flyinglizard 7mo ago[flagged]
- ImPostingOnHN 7mo ago> 1. Assure there will not be forces It's not israel's place as the aggressor to "assure" anything. Lebanon (and Palestine) have *at least* as much right to be safe from israel as israel has to be safe from them. "Assuring" as used by you here should be taken in the same context as a controlling abuser "assuring" their spouse never disobeys them, or afrikaaners "assuring" that South Africans of other races have no power. > 2. Acquire a bargaining chip ahead of a future peace agreement with Lebanon Yes, this is territorial expansion as mentioned above. > 3. Signal to the Iranian axis and the rest of the Middle East that it has won this war Why would israel signal that Iran has won this war? Seems like they'd want to avoid attention on that.
- citrin_ru 7mo ago[flagged]
- ImPostingOnHN 7mo agoIt's clear that israel is an attacker here, and Iran, Palestine, and Lebanon are defending. Without attacks from israel and other israel backed groups, iran would not have attacked targets in israel. Even the most recent escalation started with israel (and the USA) attacking Iran a few weeks ago, not the other way around. Your take seems to hinge on holding an unfounded bayesian prior that israel is "the good guy" and therefore everything they do must be "defending". The world does not share this unfounded bayesian prior of yours, and thus remains unconvinced of the resulting conclusions drawn by israel and yourself. You will have to do a better job of convincing others, rather than simply asserting your opinions at them.
- spwa4 7mo ago[dead]
- zorobo 7mo agoIn the 75 years of their existence it seems like they suck at expansion. They should take a page from Indonesia’s book for example. Or turkey.
- throwworhtthrow 7mo agoIsrael violated the 2024 ceasefire over 10,000 times [0], not counting all the ones since Feb. 28. I guess this time they're not satisfied with having only 50 "freebies" a day. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Israel%E2%80%93Lebanon_ceasefire_agreement#Violations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Israel%E2%80%93Lebanon_ce...
- ra 7mo agoHave Israel ever respected a ceasefire?
- SirFatty 7mo agoHas Hamas or Hezbollah?
- igleria 7mo agoTextbook whataboutism.
- ChoGGi 7mo agoYou seem to be implying Israel is no better than a terrorist group.
- alsetmusic 7mo ago
- RA_Fisher 7mo agoThey’ll probably receive most if not all of Iran’s focus now.
- miroljub 7mo ago[flagged]
- arbuge 7mo agoPerhaps they'll pro-rate it by size.
- insane_dreamer 7mo agoMaybe they'll end up with a sliding scale fee based on ship size/capacity
- ericmay 7mo ago[flagged]
- smallmancontrov 7mo ago[flagged]
- ericmay 7mo agoIt doesn’t really bother the US specifically, it raises oil prices for everyone. The only difference is the US is the only that has a military that can actually do anything about it. We’re not going to let them charge ships like that nor would the Gulf States allow it - it’s existential. They expect to be able to trade products on the free market under safe seas like any other country. This is a core global principle. If the US walks away this failure falls on the global community for continuing to stand by and do nothing while these guys load up on missiles and try to build a nuclear weapon and then they can charge even more for the straight.
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago> We’re not going to let them charge ships like that nor would the Gulf States allow it - it’s existential We may not give a fuck. Unless the Gulf is going to secure Hormuz, or engage in tit-for-tat with Tehran, this could very well become the new status quo. From a purely pecuniary perspective, transit fees on Gulf oil means more profit for American exports. (And the party in power doesn't care about California.)
- Teever 7mo agoBut can the US military actually do anything about it? They've been trying for five weeks and Iran has successfully fended them off. It's really hard to look at this situation as anything but a loss for the United States. Tens of billions wasted in a matter of weeks, years of missile inventory depleted, People of all stripes rightfully calling Trump and Hegseth war criminals, and most of all -- they have nothing to show for it. Nothing. Iran won this war and they're going to be resupplied and rebuilt by China. This is a "If it bleeds we can kill it" moment for America's enemies. They know that they can stand up against America on the battle field and walk away bruised but still walking. The way I see it Americans are in complete denial about this right now. Denial is but the first stage of grief and the nation will have to trudge through the rest of that process but they'll eventually come to terms about the death of their empire. It'll take at least a generation before Americans can appreciate the consequences of their poor choices over the last few decades but they will come to terms with it. They have to or they risk a slow and steady spiral into irrelevance. The US gained absolutely nothing from this and lost everything. That's how every empire falls. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8GgdL2xBYY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8GgdL2xBYY
- spiderice 7mo ago[flagged]
- Onavo 7mo agoOil is a mostly liquid (pun intended) market.
- estearum 7mo agoFunny how the only people who believe that are the people who have been wearing the red hats for years now
- dzhiurgis 7mo ago[flagged]
- estearum 7mo agoUh no. It is empirically not egg on the face of the people who believed it was not possible to improve the Iran situation militarily. The US's failure just proved them correct. Yes, I agree this is bad. In fact it's worse than it was a few weeks ago.
- YZF 7mo ago[flagged]
- ImPostingOnHN 7mo agoYour post makes a lot of bold claims (lack of support post-attacks, current missile production numbers, large portion of internal security folks killed). From where did you get that info? > I'm not sure that we are worse than a few weeks ago By every measure I can find, we are worse off: everything costs more, I am at greater risk of attack at home and abroad; the theocracy in Iran has moved to consolidate power similarly to the theocracy in israel; more Iranians support the regime since they're all being attacked together; the global standing and trust of the USA is further diminished; allies have been shunned and insulted; war crimes are now OK according to the USA; billions have been wasted; stocks of interceptor missiles and other weapons are dangerously depleted; the USA and israel look like losers on the world stage now. Oh yeah, and a bunch of innocent people (including lots of children) were killed in the bombing. And that's all right now, no "wait and see". Are there any measures which indicate we're better off? Even if we assume the ones you listed were true, they are outweighed by all the damage listed above, and aren't particularly valuable to the USA, which generally did not suffer from random Iranian missile strikes or invading Iranian internal security forces prior to this war.
- fatbird 7mo agoIf Iran's 10 points become the basis of the peace, it ratifies Iran's sovereignty over the strait, at which point they can raise the price. It will be years before alternative routes devalue control of the strait, during which time Iran can siphon a lot of money out of passages taxes.
- taffydavid 7mo agoOne thing I've not heard much discussion of is alternative routes. In the early days of this war there were discussions i of pipelines but it tapered off pretty fast
- cassepipe 7mo agoPipelines are expensive and slow to build and notoriously vulnerable. Also you would need many I to match even half of the Hormuz throughput
- bluGill 7mo agoPipelines are possible, but they take time to build. The pipeline would have to cross several countries (depending on what route is taken - look at a map) which makes it much harder. Will Oman even be interested in this? Saudi Arabia I guess could build a pipeline to the red sea entirely internally, every other country in the region would have to cross someone else. Still if Iran does charge the $1/barrel of oil they are proposing expect the countries in the region to look into a pipeline. That is a lot of money and a pipeline could potentially be cheaper in the long run.
- jjk166 7mo agoThe big issue with alternative routes is that they don't really solve the problem. Ports in Oman and Yemen outside the persian gulf are still close enough to Iran to be subject to attack by drones and missiles. Saudi Arabia has invested considerably into pipelines to the Red Sea but Iranian-backed Houthis can strike there. Even if there was a safe port somewhere, the pipelines themselves would be easy targets. There's a reason no alternative route has been pursued over the decades. The most economical option is to just invest in the military technologies to pass through the Strait. Minesweepers, missile defenses, an appropriate number of escort frigates - an appropriate naval force could most certainly escort ships through. It's just incredibly dumb to start a war with an adversary that has been threatening to close a major waterway for decades immediately after decommissioning your minesweeper fleet and while there are zero frigates in your navy.
- baq 7mo ago$2M/ship is $100B/year at pre-war crossing rates.
- ra 7mo agoNice. I wonder what the costs of reparations would be if the ceasefire were to end the war?
- School-Cotton 7mo agoI’m 99% sure that if there is a deal where Iran collects a toll, it’s going to involve counting that toll (and/or sanctions relief, and/or unfreezing Iranian assets) as reparations. I would be very surprised if the US or Israel ever agree to direct payments to the Iranian government.
- vkou 7mo agoTruly an Art of the Deal - make countries that didn't choose to attack Iran... Pay for reparations. With friends like Uncle Sam, who needs enemies?
- selfmodruntime 7mo agoFor reference: This would almost triple their govts funds each year. One must also not forget that they're able to raise tolls in the future, both for monetary investment but also for negotiation purposes.
- api 7mo agoSo we spent a ton of money and a bunch of people died to negotiate a much worse situation. 5D chess!
- dmix 7mo agoMaking outrageous demands is normal in these negotiations. You can just look at what Hamas demanded during the ceasefires. What usually happens is no strong concessions from either side and hostilities just end. The regimes get to survive just in a badly degraded state. Most importantly Iran can't afford to keep the strait closed to enforce this. If they block shipping their own will be blocked as well - which hasn't yet happened, they were still allowed to ship oil. Iran was already in terrible financial shape before the war and they aren't negotiating from a strong position of power to take those risks.
- cm2187 7mo agoNot convinced it will happen. What would prevent Saudi Arabia from retaliating and introducing a special fee on all ships coming from Iran. It's not like intercepting those massive cargo ships in a small sea is of any difficulty for a well funded military.
- ra 7mo agoGeography and missiles? Iran have everything to lose and have been put in a position where they literally have to fight for their existence. Militarily Iran is a giant and Saudi Arabia is a minnow.
- cm2187 7mo agoSaudi Arabia has something like twice as many jet fighters than France. Even if you factor incompetence, it's not hard to hit a cargo ship or an oil production facility in absence of any meaningful air defence.
- boruto 7mo agoDoes Saudi really want to fight an existential battle alone with Iran over 100B? probably not possible politically too.
- sysguest 7mo agowell "want to" isn't "does not have to"
- School-Cotton 7mo agoThat would mean Saudi Arabia is starting a war with Iran, which they presumably don’t want to do.
- lenkite 7mo agoSaudi Arabia has FAR more to lose. Paying $1 or its equivalent in Yuan per barrel is utterly nothing for them. Chump Change. Unfortunately, I do not believe Israel will stand for peace on this terms, so a false-flag sabotage attack will happen as soon as they are freed from their conquest of Lebanon.
- sph 7mo agoRather than $2M per ship, it's €1.7M or 13.7M CNY per ship.
- kranke155 7mo ago1$/barrel - of barrels they are not producing surely ? That would make them able to levy Saudi Arabian and UAE oil and gas.