5 ms·

No, Iran is acting like time is on their side. Because it is. The iceberg the rest of the world is about to hit in the coming month or two is strategic reserves

by jmyeet 5mo ago

No, Iran is acting like time is on their side. Because it is. The iceberg the rest of the world is about to hit in the coming month or two is strategic reserves of crude oil as well as refined petroleum products (eg jet fuel, gasoline, diesel) being drained. That's going to be a whole new level of suffering. Trump is doubling down on Israel's demands. That's the true stumbling block here. Israel wanted this war. They still do. Israel thinks they can turn Iran into a failed-state like Somalia. Trump is also the least reliable indicator of what's going to happen becausee, as we all hopefully know by now, he just rants stream-of-consciousness like. The Joint Chiefs, the intelligence community and allies all knew this was doomed to failure. Closing the Strait of Hormuz has been historically modeled in terms of military exercises and capability for decades. It was unproven prior to this war if the US could reopen the Strait. Well, now we know. Congratulations, everybody, the system works. I don't know what increased Internet traffic from Iran means. As was proven last year though, Israel used that access for intelligence and assassination purposes (ie to identify target locations, particularly through the large number of of Afghan refugees that were in the country at the time, allegedly [1]). There is no grand strategy. There are no cards left to play by the US short of the use of nuclear weapons. I mean that literally. The uS has lost but unwillingness to break with Israel has stopped the administration from admitting it publicly. [1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckglp8epg11o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckglp8epg11o

bluegatty 5mo ago
Time is on their side - except for the embargo. That stops 90% of their revenue and that's a very real thing. It's interesting to see how far they think they can get away with this, but they are not in an easy situation. Soldiers and civil infrastructure don't last on $0. That money stops is the 'most likely thing' that will cause a real revolution. Both sides are hoping for 'regime change' by embargo it seems!
- jmyeet 5mo ago
  Sanctions don't work on enemies. We've had what? 4 years of sanctions on Russia now? How's that going? Iran has had over 40 years of almost uninterrupted sanctions. How was that going? North Korea? Sanctions force an enemy to build an economy to withstand those sanctions. This is easier when you can grow food, have water and have energy. Also, they've built their entire military to resist the one card you can play: strategic bombardment. Cheap missiles, super-cheap drones, both easy to produce and launch and underground facilities that are largely immune to bombing. Strategic oil reserves are getting perilously low [1] and everybody understands that Trump would rather let the world burn than restrain Israel in the slightest. [1]: https://archive.ph/lWiwl https://archive.ph/lWiwl
  - bluegatty 5mo ago
    It's fair to say sanctions don't always work but otherwise this is wrong on every account. - The Soviet Union fell apart for economic reasons, not due to ideology or anything else. - Sanctions 100% work. North Korea is a powerless useless state due to sanctions. They have not collapsed, but they can't do anything otherwise. - Sanctions on Russia are absolutely effective - we can see how the state budget gets drained and how it affects their ability to fight. Russia is finally at the 'end of it's rope' ad Putin is talking about 'the war coming to an end' - why? Because the economic engine is failing, and people are starting to turn against him. The 'hardship at home' is finally starting to take root, and it's putting a lot of pressure on Putin. It doesn't mean the economy or regime collapses, but it puts Putin in a corner, in a weakened position. - Iran is not North Korea - the leadership is not popular and the people are not 'brainwashed' like in NK, and economic sanctions will hit very hard. The JCPOA put in place by Obama was by far the best deal, but failing that, the 'oil blockade' is by far the best option for getting Iran to the table, probably more effective than any of the kinetic actions. Iran has bout 3 months until the pain starts to hit. The pain will hit 'the world' hard, but the US will only face mild inflation. Paradoxically - that mild inflation will infuriate voters and cause 'regime change' in the US at midterms. So - you can see 'sanctions' are working for Iran as well. - " Trump would rather let the world burn than restrain Israel in the slightest." this is false, and a total misunderstanding about Trump's position on Israel. Trump has restrained Israel on many occasions. He went after Iran for his own benefit not for anyone else. It worked last year to bolster his image, then after 'Venezuela' Trump saw the obvious path to popularity. Netenyahu told him 'it would be easy' to win - and even do 'regime change' aka appealed to Trump's ego, not to the plight of Israel. Even on the domestic issues, DJT is mostly after AIPAC money and votes. He's not strongly ideologically aligned, and he's happy to do deals with Qatar, UAE, Saudi that throws Israel's security interest to the window. Literally yesterday - Trump was plausibly going to offer 'a deal' that would have given Iran quite a lot, but it was his own pro-Israel senior political that forced him to backpedal. Senior GOP people came out and warned him off. DJT wants out of this situation and would throw all of us - including Israel to the wind. Note that Iran can re-organize their budget, change spending, get some Oil out otherwise, and 'prolong their burn' which then gives impetus for Trump to strike a deal. But time is not really on Iran's side - they think they have a bit of an edge, but it's definitely a game of chicken.
dnautics 5mo ago
> The iceberg the rest of the world is about to hit in the coming month or two is strategic reserves of crude oil as well as refined petroleum products (eg jet fuel, gasoline, diesel) being drained. It's not clear to me that the "world" will come down on Iran's side on this one. On the one hand you have a country that is perpetrating a violation of international norms by establishing a toll on the straight of hormuz and is shooting at or is threatening to shoot at the "world"'s ships, on the other hand you have a country that violated international norms by invading another country (ho hum, everyone does this) but isn't shooting at or threatening to shoot at your ships (mostly just iranian or dark ships). When the oil reserves run out, do you side with the bad guys that are making a token effort at helping to get oil to you, or do you side with the bad guys that are preventing oil from getting to you just to middle finger trump?
- t-3 5mo ago
  > ho hum, everyone does this No, just US, Israel, and Russia.
  - dnautics 5mo ago
    china has recently invaded bhutan and the Philippines -- not to mention historically vietnam, north korea, and tibet, saudi arabia and uae (directly https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/saudi-arabia-launched-covert-attacks-iran-regional-war-widened-sources-2026-05-12/ https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/saudi-arabia-laun...) participated in the attack on iran too, eritrea, ethiopia, sudan, congo, niger, Venezuela threatened guyana, Ukraine (understandably) invaded russia, though that turned out to be mostly pointless, armenia, azerbaijan...
    - t-3 5mo ago
      > china has recently invaded [...] the Philippines Uh, when? I couldn't find any information suggesting that such a thing happened. Fishing rights and other minor maritime disputes don't make an invasion.
- jmyeet 5mo ago

by jmyeet 5mo ago

bluegatty 5mo ago

Time is on their side - except for the embargo. That stops 90% of their revenue and that's a very real thing. It's interesting to see how far they think they can get away with this, but they are not in an easy situation. Soldiers and civil infrastructure don't last on $0. That money stops is the 'most likely thing' that will cause a real revolution. Both sides are hoping for 'regime change' by embargo it seems!

jmyeet 5mo ago
Sanctions don't work on enemies. We've had what? 4 years of sanctions on Russia now? How's that going? Iran has had over 40 years of almost uninterrupted sanctions. How was that going? North Korea? Sanctions force an enemy to build an economy to withstand those sanctions. This is easier when you can grow food, have water and have energy. Also, they've built their entire military to resist the one card you can play: strategic bombardment. Cheap missiles, super-cheap drones, both easy to produce and launch and underground facilities that are largely immune to bombing. Strategic oil reserves are getting perilously low [1] and everybody understands that Trump would rather let the world burn than restrain Israel in the slightest. [1]: https://archive.ph/lWiwl https://archive.ph/lWiwl
- bluegatty 5mo ago
  It's fair to say sanctions don't always work but otherwise this is wrong on every account. - The Soviet Union fell apart for economic reasons, not due to ideology or anything else. - Sanctions 100% work. North Korea is a powerless useless state due to sanctions. They have not collapsed, but they can't do anything otherwise. - Sanctions on Russia are absolutely effective - we can see how the state budget gets drained and how it affects their ability to fight. Russia is finally at the 'end of it's rope' ad Putin is talking about 'the war coming to an end' - why? Because the economic engine is failing, and people are starting to turn against him. The 'hardship at home' is finally starting to take root, and it's putting a lot of pressure on Putin. It doesn't mean the economy or regime collapses, but it puts Putin in a corner, in a weakened position. - Iran is not North Korea - the leadership is not popular and the people are not 'brainwashed' like in NK, and economic sanctions will hit very hard. The JCPOA put in place by Obama was by far the best deal, but failing that, the 'oil blockade' is by far the best option for getting Iran to the table, probably more effective than any of the kinetic actions. Iran has bout 3 months until the pain starts to hit. The pain will hit 'the world' hard, but the US will only face mild inflation. Paradoxically - that mild inflation will infuriate voters and cause 'regime change' in the US at midterms. So - you can see 'sanctions' are working for Iran as well. - " Trump would rather let the world burn than restrain Israel in the slightest." this is false, and a total misunderstanding about Trump's position on Israel. Trump has restrained Israel on many occasions. He went after Iran for his own benefit not for anyone else. It worked last year to bolster his image, then after 'Venezuela' Trump saw the obvious path to popularity. Netenyahu told him 'it would be easy' to win - and even do 'regime change' aka appealed to Trump's ego, not to the plight of Israel. Even on the domestic issues, DJT is mostly after AIPAC money and votes. He's not strongly ideologically aligned, and he's happy to do deals with Qatar, UAE, Saudi that throws Israel's security interest to the window. Literally yesterday - Trump was plausibly going to offer 'a deal' that would have given Iran quite a lot, but it was his own pro-Israel senior political that forced him to backpedal. Senior GOP people came out and warned him off. DJT wants out of this situation and would throw all of us - including Israel to the wind. Note that Iran can re-organize their budget, change spending, get some Oil out otherwise, and 'prolong their burn' which then gives impetus for Trump to strike a deal. But time is not really on Iran's side - they think they have a bit of an edge, but it's definitely a game of chicken.

dnautics 5mo ago

> The iceberg the rest of the world is about to hit in the coming month or two is strategic reserves of crude oil as well as refined petroleum products (eg jet fuel, gasoline, diesel) being drained. It's not clear to me that the "world" will come down on Iran's side on this one. On the one hand you have a country that is perpetrating a violation of international norms by establishing a toll on the straight of hormuz and is shooting at or is threatening to shoot at the "world"'s ships, on the other hand you have a country that violated international norms by invading another country (ho hum, everyone does this) but isn't shooting at or threatening to shoot at your ships (mostly just iranian or dark ships). When the oil reserves run out, do you side with the bad guys that are making a token effort at helping to get oil to you, or do you side with the bad guys that are preventing oil from getting to you just to middle finger trump?

t-3 5mo ago
> ho hum, everyone does this No, just US, Israel, and Russia.
- dnautics 5mo ago
  china has recently invaded bhutan and the Philippines -- not to mention historically vietnam, north korea, and tibet, saudi arabia and uae (directly https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/saudi-arabia-launched-covert-attacks-iran-regional-war-widened-sources-2026-05-12/ https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/saudi-arabia-laun...) participated in the attack on iran too, eritrea, ethiopia, sudan, congo, niger, Venezuela threatened guyana, Ukraine (understandably) invaded russia, though that turned out to be mostly pointless, armenia, azerbaijan...
  - t-3 5mo ago
    > china has recently invaded [...] the Philippines Uh, when? I couldn't find any information suggesting that such a thing happened. Fishing rights and other minor maritime disputes don't make an invasion.
jmyeet 5mo ago