How Iran is making a mint from the current war (economist.com)

by Jimmc414 84 comments 57 points
Read article View on HN

84 comments

[−] Synaesthesia 46d 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 ...

[−] cogman10 46d 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 46d 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.
[−] cm2187 46d 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.
[−] thatcat 46d 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.
[−] vrganj 46d 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...

[−] orwin 46d 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..

[−] pzo 46d 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.

[−] mmooss 46d 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.

[−] JumpCrisscross 46d 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.

[−] bestouff 46d 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.
[−] graemep 46d 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.

[−] enaaem 46d 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.
[−] chinathrow 46d ago
Time to get off if oil, like yesterday.
[−] twodave 46d ago
"Enlightenment" is for civilizations with enough might to enforce it.
[−] dlev_pika 46d 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

[−] nine_zeros 46d ago
[dead]
[−] Jimmc414 46d ago
[−] Eddy_Viscosity2 44d ago
Will this income come anywhere near the cost of replacing all the infrastructure that was destroyed?
[−] enaaem 46d ago
Trump cancelled the Iran deal. Now the US has nothing and Iran has found an infinite money glitch.
[−] cogman10 46d 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.

[−] aaron695 46d ago
[dead]
[−] crimshawz 46d ago
[dead]
[−] cm2187 46d 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.

[−] jmward01 46d 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.
[−] JumpCrisscross 46d ago

>

by doing so escalate more and potentially lead Iran to hit critical infra across the gulf nations and potentially disrupt red sea shipping

Nothing indicates the U.S. is taking Iran's threats of escalation seriously. Like, I think we should. But it doesn't seem to be playing into the calculus. If Iran escalates, the U.S. can too. And I don't think Trump is bluffing about hitting power and water infrastructure.

The reason we aren't hitting the ships is because we want oil to keep flowing into the international markets.

[−] master_crab 46d ago
In the past it had less to do with seizing the vessels and more to do with keeping financial flows between organizations offering shipping services and oil hidden from the banking system. America could have easily seized any ship they wanted to during the sanctions over the past decade. They didnt because the sanctions are American constructs: they dont apply on the open seas where UNCLOS matters. America can still seize them, but the legality is murky and comes with a reputational cost.

Now with Hormuz closed, America needs every last oil barrel moving so the economy doesn’t grind to a halt. Remember, it’s a war of choice for the US. We don’t need Iran gone as much as we want low oil prices.

[−] JumpCrisscross 46d ago

>

the sanctions are American constructs: they dont apply on the open seas where UNCLOS matters

Technically correct. But the way these countries evade U.S. sanctions is by flying false or no flag. That, in turn, makes them vulnerable under UNCLOS's anti-piracy rules.

[−] krunck 46d ago
The Economist doesn't know the difference between journalism and opinion. Ignore them.