It'll force American to negotiate with Iran and China/India will be the mediators. It will be the beginning of the end of the Petrodollar and likely force America to leave the Middle East. It will empower Russia, China, and India while hurting US interests. I don't know why we started this war at all other than to serve Israel's interests even when it means harming our own.
The ambassador to Israel is a Christian Zionist who believes in the rapture. The secretary of defense is a crazy person with a crusades tattoo. They would burn the USA down to the ground if it meant moving their insane superstitious agenda forward. Is it forwarding Israel's interests? Yeah. Are they doing it because they love Israel and the Jewish people? Not a chance. Isn't the Rapture cool?
I suspect Hegseth and other officials will be replaced when Trump internalizes how unpopular this war is and needs a scapegoat to facilitate a pivot. He's already blaming other people in his administration for anything that's going wrong.
Even if his officials are ideologically stable and consistent, he himself isn't.
I don't think he cares? He's going to cash out after this and his donors will make sure he is paid handsomely for this. He can't run again and Israel just took 10% of Lebanon and is poised to be the great regional power. They're already talking about Turkey and Pakistan as the new threats... They will just keep moving the goalposts until it stops working. I have no clue where this ends, but Iran could end up buying a nuclear weapon from Pakistan if this keeps heating up.
That is kind of his style. And then we have "anti-war" voices like future president Tucker Carlson who refuses to say Trump's name when criticizing US foreign policy. It just gives him room to say "it wasn't my fault, aren't I great?"
>Perhaps you joke, but does Tucker really have a chance at the Presidency?
People had the same attitude about Trump. Tucker has millions of followers and regularly gets more viewers than CNN. He is also one of the only talking heads that isn't on Israel's propaganda payroll. I think he'd actually go far in the primaries if he ran. Whoever wins next will be whoever is the least cozy with Israel. Democrats still polling at all-time lows despite this. I think whoever distances themselves from Israel the most (democrat or republican) is going to be the winner. People see how AIPAC and donors like the Adelsons control our country and force us into wars that don't benefit us. There will absolutely be blow back from this.
While I agree with you that Americans (on both sides) are increasingly getting frustrated with American politicians' near-blind devotion to Israel, it will not translate to public eschewing of Israel in American politics. Elections are still won by money-power, and AIPAC supplies a lot of that.
I don't think so, he's too much of a nerd. He uses too much reasoning in his communication (I am not saying good or bad reasoning) which is not what people want, especially not today. Even someone like Bernie Sanders was successful because he struck a cord, his message was clear and didn't need too much explanation. Tucker is mostly trying to be the smartest person in the room, an intellectual. Too many voters are turned off by this. FWIW I expected Trump to win in 2016 based on similar things.
Explain how the US would even approach or even be made to forcibly accept the idea of bowing to another country, especially those three? They are not the average European country and do not behave like them.
>Explain how the US would even approach or even be made to forcibly accept the idea of bowing to another country, especially those three? They are not the average European country and do not behave like them.
We don't control the Middle East--as proven by Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc. We definitely can't control the Strait of Hormuz and Iran can choke off 20% of of the world's energy/fertilizer. They will inflict global pain on the economy and we're nearly out of interceptor missiles, but Iran can keep producing cheap drones faster than we can re-arm interceptor missiles. America won't be able to end the conflict without China and India helping to negotiate with Iran. We've already cut sanctions on Russian oil... this is not helping America it's just empowering Russia, China, India, and Iran. The end result of this will be Iran will end up taking a toll on all goods allowed to pass by the Strait of Hormuz, sections on Russia will be dropped, and Iran will sell oil in Chinese yuan. So yeah, this will hurt the US--but I actually think that was Israel's plan all along. They want to control the Middle East and for the US to withdraw and be unable to dominate the region.
Is it going to be a GFC style crash where I want my assets in currency denominated investments (e.g. bonds) to buy assets at crazy low values or is it going to be mega-inflation where I want my assets in commodities and stocks?
Just keep in mind that we've had three 20% drawdowns in the past five-ish years that have all recovered. Even if we do have a crash, I don't think it'll last long. But, this war has thrown a wrench into things and I don't think AI spending can carry us through this year, so who knows.
I am not going to use this strategy but my guess is first the first then the second. Stocks seem to be already on very high levels. Commodities might fare less well as oil is major input. So high prices probably lead to less demand to lower prices or at least combating the cost increases from oil as input.
It's entirely possible that there could be an answer for which type of recession to expect but it still might not be priced in. For instance if many people think the recession is going to happen in 2028 and I think it will happen next month, we would have very different investments.
Not just the price, the physical volumes. China's central bank has been discounting their bonds beyond what the market can support in order to get more free cash to buy up as much metal as possible as soon as possible, to the point that people are making millions this month just in the arbitrage from buying up everything in the London and Chicago exchanges to give to China.
"There's likely to be a global recession, driving millions of people to destitution and starvation and thousands to death. How can I profit from this?!!!"
Wait, what?!? Nothing about trying to strategically put yourself in an ideal situation during a recession is going to make anyone else worse off. Much of this isn't zero-sum, and assuming the investments are not rent seeking.
If I were to invest in potatoes because I thought people might need potatoes, then there should be an incentive to make more potatoes, and if people need potatoes, then more potatoes are likely to exist... which helps people get food.
If I instead concern myself with clutching my pearls and tightly as I can, and I don't invest in potatoes, then there is less of an incentive to make more potatoes, fewer people are able to buy the limited supply of potatoes, and everyone is poorer for it.
This war of choice is going to redefine the US's policy and relationships with Middle East, China, Russia and Europe for the rest of the century. Even if it ends tomorrow. Mainly because the only way it ends tomorrow is if sanctions on Iran are lifted. And they should be lifted anyway so I'd be a fan of that.
China, Iran and Russia look to the the big winners here. Everyone else is a loser, the US the biggest loser of them all. In history books I think this will go down as the biggest geopolitical miscalculation and mistake in US history of anything to date and it's not even close.
The Middle East consists of a bunch of US client states where arms are used to maintain fealty. The US gives arms to a despotic regime who enrich themselves off of their country's natural resources and they use those arms to stay in power.
This last month has shown the US security guarantee to the Gulf to be a paper tiger. This is a seismic potential rift between the US and Israel. This war of choice has undermined relationship with long-term allies (eg in Europe) who were never consulted and never approved of this war and may suffer with significantly higher electricity prices as a result.
This is a Napoleon invading Russia level of blunder.
As weird as this sounds, militarily and strategically, Iraq was a relative "success". I mean not to the thousands or millions harmed or killed by US actions and all the damage done along the way, but Iraq now does a US-friendly regime and it exports oil to the US and a bunch of allies. Should we have done it? No. Was it worth the price? No. But was it a complete failure? Also, no.
Unlike Iraq, there's no way to invade Iran. it's surrounded by mountains on 3 sides and ocean on the third. It's a country is ~93 million people with a regime and a military specifically designed to resist US bombardment and interference. The chokehold it has on the Strait of Hormuz is currently being demonstrated. And there's nothing the US can do about that.
If the leaked terms of the 15 point plan are true (and that's a big IF) and any end to hostilities looks remotely like that, Iran is going to end up in a substantially better position than they had under the JCPOA and sanctions will also likely end. That's now the price of peace.
And in doing that the US has worsened and likely will redefine its relationship to every country from Spain to Japan.
1. Send Marines to seize Kharg island via long range air assault from 2 ARGs + land bases
2. Flood Kharg-adjacent mainland with tactical aviation to eliminate short range artillery and rocket systems
3. Fortify position on Kharg island and declare all oil revenue will be placed in US-controlled holding account, with release to Iran contingent on cooperation (re: Why occupy Kharg? Because then you have actual money in an account as leverage, while calming international oil prices and consumers, not just a blockade, which antagonizes international oil consumers)
4. Declare a buffer demilitarized zone around the Strait of Hormuz
5. Land Marines in buffer zone if necessary to monitor
~50% of the revenue to pay the Iranian military comes from oil exports. Therefore, the Iranian regime doesn't survive without oil export revenue. 90% of Iranian oil is exported through Kharg.
It's an aggressive plan, but it's feasible.
Especially because Iran has no ability to repel an invasion of the island or retake it once it's occupied.
Their only possible reaction would be to bombard troops there, destroying their own export infrastructure in the process.
Which would depend on how close to the mat the current regime wants to take this, as that would also seal their eventual downfall.
"Their only possible reaction would be to bombard troops there, destroying their own export infrastructure in the process."
Right, so if that's their only possible reaction, isn't that a bad thing for everyone? It looks like they've made it clear they're not going down without bringing everyone else with them, and why would they? What options do they have?
I mean they seem to have made it clear by their actions. They're in an existential situation, so its not like there is any reason to hold anything back.
If your opponent is trying to turn you into Libya, then whatever you do just has to not fail as badly as that for it to be the right move. You basically become a cornered animal.
The thing about disintegrating regimes is there is no "they".
There's people with power, looking out for their own self interests. You think after a few more weeks all of the newly promoted Iranian military leadership is going to weigh a few million dollars in personal benefit against the glory of the cause and decide on the latter?
OK, so take this back to your boots on kharg island plan, where this "no they" only has the option of bombarding our troops. Are you saying they also have the option of ... Getting a few million dollars in personal benefit somehow?
The only option they have on offer is death, either fighting the us and Israel, or fighting in whatever civil war crops up after. Why would they believe in any negotiations after the last two times?
there is no way the USMC would be able to hold Kharg and the buffer zone without extensive casualties. the buffer zone would be a full-fledged combat zone, non-stop. you'd see Ukraine-at-its-worst levels of drone strikes, and the US military is not equipped to deal with that, not yet.
the Iranian missile stockpile may be drained thin, but their army and conventional equipment surpluses could absolutely maintain a consistent and aggressive pushback.
> Their only possible reaction would be to bombard troops there, destroying their own export infrastructure in the process.
it's already destroyed mate. and keeping it up and running would be a tall order when the Iranians are right there.
> ~50% of the revenue to pay the Iranian military comes from oil exports.
this is a country that convinced children to charge through minefields during Iran-Iraq; you think pay is going to stop them? or that China and Russia wouldn't give them ample weapons?
I don’t disagree with any of your assessments, but I don’t know if it’s a bigger mistake than Iraq…yet. That war was a 10 year (longer if you bc point ISIS) debacle that cost trillions.
Let’s wait a few years before saying this mistake is bigger first.
However, one point that I agree with that might lead to this war being worse: the Gulf are showing some serious buyers remorse with sticking in the US orbit. Both the uselessness of America’s strategy and the almost clear prejudice Trump shows towards the Arabs vs Israel in the decision tree of this conflict is unsettling for the Gulf states.
Many people believe the root cause of the Arab Spring set of insurrections and wars was food inflation. And it's now a lot more expensive then what kicked off the Arab Spring.
Either that, or it will force most countries to electrify their economies, which has made economic + ecological sense for decades.
The oil interests will do everything they can to fight it. (Like buying off Trump, which probably had a lot to do with us starting the Iran war, and is certainly why we're cancelling many affordable energy build outs in the face of widespread shortages.)
Less corrupt economies will pull ahead, and technological progress will bifurcate. The US will probably be on the wrong side of this. China will probably be on the right side.
Well, we've lived that period in the corona pandemic when oil prices were skyrocketing, and all the product prices went up and never went back down as most politicians laid as always
Fortunately, this won't happen. Trump is a populist. The war will end simply because the repercussions are far too great. And even though Israel would like to see the deaths of others continue indefinitely, they are still too small and too weak and too dependent on the US to go it alone.
Misleading headline: Fink said that "years of above $100, closer to $150 oil" would trigger recession. Which, well, duh, but it's quite different from the implication that even a momentary peak would trigger that.
I also do wonder if oil prices would actually stay high even if the Strait of Hormuz stayed closed for years. Many analysts think that as a planet we're already past peak oil demand, and the price spike has turbocharged the transition to EVs (where I live, every EV dealer is flat out and waiting times are months). High prices also spur more production from everybody else. The tricky bit is specialist fuels like jet fuel, where you can't just turn a tap to make more.
TBH if US had it's shit together and sorted out refinery mismatch it can coast along as CONUS crude island with WTI prices of $40-60, but that's 7-10 year resolution. On paper if Trump sequenced refinery build out during Trump1, US can afford to toast gulf oil and be relatively insulated vs global prices... well not just insulated but have huge energy price advantage. There was lightcone where US could blow up global energy and be net benefactor, I guess thank god evil is stupid sometimes.
95 comments
Even if his officials are ideologically stable and consistent, he himself isn't.
>Perhaps you joke, but does Tucker really have a chance at the Presidency?
People had the same attitude about Trump. Tucker has millions of followers and regularly gets more viewers than CNN. He is also one of the only talking heads that isn't on Israel's propaganda payroll. I think he'd actually go far in the primaries if he ran. Whoever wins next will be whoever is the least cozy with Israel. Democrats still polling at all-time lows despite this. I think whoever distances themselves from Israel the most (democrat or republican) is going to be the winner. People see how AIPAC and donors like the Adelsons control our country and force us into wars that don't benefit us. There will absolutely be blow back from this.
>Explain how the US would even approach or even be made to forcibly accept the idea of bowing to another country, especially those three? They are not the average European country and do not behave like them.
We don't control the Middle East--as proven by Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc. We definitely can't control the Strait of Hormuz and Iran can choke off 20% of of the world's energy/fertilizer. They will inflict global pain on the economy and we're nearly out of interceptor missiles, but Iran can keep producing cheap drones faster than we can re-arm interceptor missiles. America won't be able to end the conflict without China and India helping to negotiate with Iran. We've already cut sanctions on Russian oil... this is not helping America it's just empowering Russia, China, India, and Iran. The end result of this will be Iran will end up taking a toll on all goods allowed to pass by the Strait of Hormuz, sections on Russia will be dropped, and Iran will sell oil in Chinese yuan. So yeah, this will hurt the US--but I actually think that was Israel's plan all along. They want to control the Middle East and for the US to withdraw and be unable to dominate the region.
"There's likely to be a global recession, driving millions of people to destitution and starvation and thousands to death. How can I profit from this?!!!"
If I were to invest in potatoes because I thought people might need potatoes, then there should be an incentive to make more potatoes, and if people need potatoes, then more potatoes are likely to exist... which helps people get food.
If I instead concern myself with clutching my pearls and tightly as I can, and I don't invest in potatoes, then there is less of an incentive to make more potatoes, fewer people are able to buy the limited supply of potatoes, and everyone is poorer for it.
Expensive oil has a lot of repercussions
China, Iran and Russia look to the the big winners here. Everyone else is a loser, the US the biggest loser of them all. In history books I think this will go down as the biggest geopolitical miscalculation and mistake in US history of anything to date and it's not even close.
The Middle East consists of a bunch of US client states where arms are used to maintain fealty. The US gives arms to a despotic regime who enrich themselves off of their country's natural resources and they use those arms to stay in power.
This last month has shown the US security guarantee to the Gulf to be a paper tiger. This is a seismic potential rift between the US and Israel. This war of choice has undermined relationship with long-term allies (eg in Europe) who were never consulted and never approved of this war and may suffer with significantly higher electricity prices as a result.
This is a Napoleon invading Russia level of blunder.
> biggest geopolitical miscalculation and mistake in US history of anything to date and it's not even close
Bigger than Iraq?
As weird as this sounds, militarily and strategically, Iraq was a relative "success". I mean not to the thousands or millions harmed or killed by US actions and all the damage done along the way, but Iraq now does a US-friendly regime and it exports oil to the US and a bunch of allies. Should we have done it? No. Was it worth the price? No. But was it a complete failure? Also, no.
Unlike Iraq, there's no way to invade Iran. it's surrounded by mountains on 3 sides and ocean on the third. It's a country is ~93 million people with a regime and a military specifically designed to resist US bombardment and interference. The chokehold it has on the Strait of Hormuz is currently being demonstrated. And there's nothing the US can do about that.
If the leaked terms of the 15 point plan are true (and that's a big IF) and any end to hostilities looks remotely like that, Iran is going to end up in a substantially better position than they had under the JCPOA and sanctions will also likely end. That's now the price of peace.
And in doing that the US has worsened and likely will redefine its relationship to every country from Spain to Japan.
It is the biggest own goal in US history.
>
And there's nothing the US can do about that.1. Send Marines to seize Kharg island via long range air assault from 2 ARGs + land bases
2. Flood Kharg-adjacent mainland with tactical aviation to eliminate short range artillery and rocket systems
3. Fortify position on Kharg island and declare all oil revenue will be placed in US-controlled holding account, with release to Iran contingent on cooperation (re: Why occupy Kharg? Because then you have actual money in an account as leverage, while calming international oil prices and consumers, not just a blockade, which antagonizes international oil consumers)
4. Declare a buffer demilitarized zone around the Strait of Hormuz
5. Land Marines in buffer zone if necessary to monitor
~50% of the revenue to pay the Iranian military comes from oil exports. Therefore, the Iranian regime doesn't survive without oil export revenue. 90% of Iranian oil is exported through Kharg.
It's an aggressive plan, but it's feasible.
Especially because Iran has no ability to repel an invasion of the island or retake it once it's occupied.
Their only possible reaction would be to bombard troops there, destroying their own export infrastructure in the process.
Which would depend on how close to the mat the current regime wants to take this, as that would also seal their eventual downfall.
Right, so if that's their only possible reaction, isn't that a bad thing for everyone? It looks like they've made it clear they're not going down without bringing everyone else with them, and why would they? What options do they have?
> they've made it clear they're not going down without bringing everyone else with them
Isn't that exactly what you would say even if you didn't mean it?
Definitely not Russia, China, and the US.
They all transparently see diplomacy and messaging around it as a tool of war. Small surprise when others do too.
If your opponent is trying to turn you into Libya, then whatever you do just has to not fail as badly as that for it to be the right move. You basically become a cornered animal.
There's people with power, looking out for their own self interests. You think after a few more weeks all of the newly promoted Iranian military leadership is going to weigh a few million dollars in personal benefit against the glory of the cause and decide on the latter?
The only option they have on offer is death, either fighting the us and Israel, or fighting in whatever civil war crops up after. Why would they believe in any negotiations after the last two times?
the Iranian missile stockpile may be drained thin, but their army and conventional equipment surpluses could absolutely maintain a consistent and aggressive pushback.
> Their only possible reaction would be to bombard troops there, destroying their own export infrastructure in the process.
it's already destroyed mate. and keeping it up and running would be a tall order when the Iranians are right there.
> ~50% of the revenue to pay the Iranian military comes from oil exports.
this is a country that convinced children to charge through minefields during Iran-Iraq; you think pay is going to stop them? or that China and Russia wouldn't give them ample weapons?
there is no winning play here
Let’s wait a few years before saying this mistake is bigger first.
However, one point that I agree with that might lead to this war being worse: the Gulf are showing some serious buyers remorse with sticking in the US orbit. Both the uselessness of America’s strategy and the almost clear prejudice Trump shows towards the Arabs vs Israel in the decision tree of this conflict is unsettling for the Gulf states.
The oil interests will do everything they can to fight it. (Like buying off Trump, which probably had a lot to do with us starting the Iran war, and is certainly why we're cancelling many affordable energy build outs in the face of widespread shortages.)
Less corrupt economies will pull ahead, and technological progress will bifurcate. The US will probably be on the wrong side of this. China will probably be on the right side.
I also do wonder if oil prices would actually stay high even if the Strait of Hormuz stayed closed for years. Many analysts think that as a planet we're already past peak oil demand, and the price spike has turbocharged the transition to EVs (where I live, every EV dealer is flat out and waiting times are months). High prices also spur more production from everybody else. The tricky bit is specialist fuels like jet fuel, where you can't just turn a tap to make more.