When elephants fight, it's the grass that suffers.
hasperdi 1 days ago [-]
Unfortunately they'll learn nothing. The rest of the world however... have to endure the consequences
Sabinus 1 days ago [-]
They will learn. If the Strait remains closed for two months it's a recession. The mid-terms will be a bloodbath.
adjejmxbdjdn 13 hours ago [-]
So we’re clear, this is a technical recession.
In the real world, the American resident is suffering deeply.
The fact that things are so bad for the average American when the economy is growing (thanks largely to healthcare and AI investment), makes me shudder at what may happen if those tailwinds slow down, or the existing headwinds (like the impact of the war) strengthen.
tstrimple 6 hours ago [-]
If the US population were capable of learning, Republicans wouldn't be elected. Alas, that's not the world we live in. Republican administrations are worse by basically every recordable metric. From job creation to deficit reduction to foreign policy. Every 4-8 years the Democratic party has to be the only adults in the room and clean up the shit Republicans create. Only for it to be turned around and handed back to the shit spreaders.
JumpCrisscross 1 days ago [-]
> If the Strait remains closed for two months it's a recession
"Based on the simulations of our global macroeconomic model, oil prices would only need to average close to $125 per barrel in the second quarter of this year for a recession to ensue soon thereafter, all else equal. And it is not difficult to envisage oil prices increasing to $125 per barrel. It only requires that the conflict and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz last a few weeks longer, say through July 4, or even much sooner, if the combatants increasingly target the region's energy-producing infrastructure."
If Wood Mackenzie is not your cup of tea, lots of other resources with a search of “recession strait of Hormuz” keywords. The only reason we’re not in a global recession yet was because China paused oil imports, due to their >1B barrel strategic reserves.
That forecasts a global recession if "the Strait remains largely closed through the end of 2026."
Even under that scenario, which would emerge after the Strait had been closed for over ten months, the forecaster only sees "US GDP growth" falling "below 1%," i.e. not a recession. (I'm ignoring the fact that the Strait has already been closed for more than 2 months.)
> Oil and gas traffic via the Strait of Hormuz may never go back to pre-war levels if Iran cements its hold over the chokepoint. The warnings come from several unrelated sources as the war continues to drag on, with some recovery in traffic but nowhere near pre-February 28 levels. Meanwhile, Big Oil is warning that the looming supply shortage is about to hit global markets in weeks.
> “No matter what happens, the Iranians will control the Strait of Hormuz for the foreseeable future,” Amos Hochstein, senior national security and energy advisor to President Biden, told CNBC last week. “It doesn’t even matter what the deal says. Everybody in the region believes that.”
> While the negotiations drag on, expectations that Iran will remain in de facto charge of the Strait of Hormuz appear to be strengthening. “Any end to the conflict that leaves Iran exercising operational control and influence over the Strait will result in appreciably lower flows through the waterway in our view,” RBC Capital Markets’ Helima Croft said in a recent note, as quoted by CNBC.
JumpCrisscross 21 hours ago [-]
None of this suggests recession for America. We're an energy and defence exporter. That broadly offsets the effects of higher energy prices.
Whether or not America winds up in a recession is going to be entirely a function of AI. That is what the economy is levered on.
amanaplanacanal 12 hours ago [-]
Being an energy exporter is good for oil companies, but how does it help consumers? Prices are still going up. Interest rates are still going up.
toomuchtodo 21 hours ago [-]
I agree the US goes full recession as soon as the confidence falls out from under the AI bubble and all of this investment leading to GDP growth ends, but I also don’t believe the US economy (even assuming reduced GDP to energy correlation over the last two decades) can sustain growth and will lead to contraction with oil prices at or above the $150-$200/barrel price band if persistent. The below prediction predicts a near term (July) recession call at less than $100/barrel.
Yes, and it won't change anything sadly, most autocratic governments also hold elections.
tibbydudeza 8 hours ago [-]
No worries AI spend and Klarna will make it all go away ;).
14 hours ago [-]
spwa4 1 days ago [-]
Let's see ...
One side is responsible for the "pax Americana" (but everyone here was born into the time period and so doesn't realize how exceptionally peaceful it is)
One side is responsible for at least 20.000 but more likely 60.000 Iranian deaths, just this year (and everybody seems to be worried about the other side's "warcrimes")
Not having big issues to figure out between these 2 who is the good guy ...
adjejmxbdjdn 13 hours ago [-]
The U.S. will almost certainly be responsible for an order of magnitude more deaths with the incredible costs that they’ve placed on the whole world just through the higher cost of oil.
And we haven’t even gotten to the impacts of fertilizer shortages during growing season.
And either way, how is replacing the leader of a terrible regime, with his even more hardline son, help with the killing in any ways?
The pro Democracy forces in Iran have been completely discredited and the one best opportunity they would have had to reclaim their country, during what was likely to be a contested transfer of power if the 80+ year old Ayatollah had passed naturally, has been lost. Instead the U.S. allowed the Iranian regime to transfer power without any challenges, transfer power to a guy who is the son of the old Ayatollah and even more close aligned with the IRGC, and has destroyed the pro-Democracy bases in Iran while strengthening the orthodoxy because the U.S. has been blowing up cities, where the anti-regime forces live, while the rural areas, where the regime’s supporters live, have been largely untouched.
tdeck 12 hours ago [-]
One of Israel's earliest airstrikes was a prison Iran used to hold dissidents
Calling in a massive airstrike on a prison where the opposition is being held isn't exactly the way to support the opposition.
throw37984 12 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
tdeck 11 hours ago [-]
Did you not have enough tokens to read the article?
FunnyUsername 8 hours ago [-]
You seem to be implying that the Israeli strike targeted or harmed dissident prisoners, rather than regime targets. The article doesn't say that. It says there was some "panic" about a damaged ceiling, "although they did not report any injuries". It also mentions some hearsay about "injuries to several men", with no further details like who said that or who the men were.
It seems pretty clear that Israel struck regime targets, and at worst there was relatively minor collateral damage (still unclear), which is a risk with just about any strike.
throw37984 10 hours ago [-]
Oh, I’ve read it. Including this gem:
"When you are in prison, it becomes your home. When I heard this morning that Evin prison was bombed, I felt a sharp pain in my heart. When I was released, I left a piece of my heart there."
Racism really makes people dumb.
tdeck 10 hours ago [-]
Oh, I’ve read it. Including this gem:
"When you are in prison, it becomes your home. When I heard this morning that Evin prison was bombed, I felt a sharp pain in my heart. When I was released, I left a piece of my heart there."
Racism really makes people dumb.
For those playing along at home, this is a quote from someone who was thankfully released prior to the bombing (in 2022), who is worried for the people still in there. I'm sure you missed this sentence which was hidden literally right above it?
> Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, a British-Iranian woman who was imprisoned for years at Evin, told the BBC she felt "sick" with concern following the strike.
barbazoo 1 days ago [-]
> One side is responsible for at least 20.000 but more likely 60.000 Iranian deaths, just this year (and everybody seems to be worried about the other side's "warcrimes")
> One side is responsible for the "pax Americana" (but everyone here was born into the time period and so doesn't realize how exceptionally peaceful it is)
The Pax Americana is great, but given America was one of the countries to start this war, I don't know how much credit they can get for something they just ended.
ericd 23 hours ago [-]
My understanding is that “Pax Americana” isn’t the absence of all war, it’s the absence of major war. So they haven’t just ended it.
1attice 10 hours ago [-]
So, more of a rhetorical flourish than actual peace, while America keeps meddling and firing. Got it.
ericd 6 hours ago [-]
I'm not making this up to make excuses for the US' behavior. Pax Britannica and Pax Romana weren't entirely peaceful either. Pax Romana had an unusual absence of civil war, but near-constant conflict at the edges of the empire. Pax Britannica refers to the absence of wars between great powers, but did have some brutal colonial conflict - the Opium wars, scramble for Africa, etc. Pax Americana has been very peaceful compared to WW1 and 2.
spwa4 1 days ago [-]
> given America was one of the countries to start this war
Are you sure? I am actually somewhat ambivalent on this. Iran wasn't exactly peaceful before February and attacked shipping regularly before then too. Oh and they attacked their own people, foreign nationals, Iranians abroad, and committed terror attacks abroad. They were involved in the Brussels Metro and airport bombing, not 2km from where I'm sitting right now.
> The Pax Americana is great, but given America was one of the countries to start this war, I don't know how much credit they can get for something they just ended
As I said, I'm sitting in Brussels, and everyone here is far more worried about the Ukraine war. Plus nobody's dying, nobody's making life impossible here. I find declaring the Pax Americana dead somewhat premature.
Maybe I'll be proven wrong, I guess. But people here are far more worried about Ukraine than Iran. I think they're wrong ... or at least, that's only a short term threat. The Iran war ... will end the strategic significance of the middle east if it lasts any longer. It will end oil. This is not 1972. Iran may destroy the middle east and itself, they will not destroy the EU, or even significantly hurt it. If their threats materialize, the EU is not America. We will simply say "No. Go F- yourself. Kthxbye", and that will only really suck for the middle east, not for us.
mcphage 1 days ago [-]
> Iran wasn't exactly peaceful before February and attacked shipping regularly before then too. Oh and they attacked their own people, foreign nationals, Iranians abroad, and committed terror attacks abroad.
None of the nations involved in this fight have been peaceful. That's why I'm talking about just this specific war.
> I find declaring the Pax Americana dead somewhat premature.
If America wins, then yeah, probably it'll limp on. If America loses, and Iran gets to dictate terms in the Strait of Hormuz, then I'm not sure how long it will last before other nations follow suit.
spwa4 1 days ago [-]
> None of the nations involved in this fight have been peaceful. That's why I'm talking about just this specific war.
Only if you take the 5 year old's definition of peaceful (ie. "not attacking")
Any reasonable moral position will of course mean that doing nothing, even if that means not attacking, is not necessarily a peaceful position. Nor is an attack necessarily not peaceful. For example, how Europe treated Ukraine before and during the war with Russia can easily be argued is not peaceful, it's helping the war criminal and it obviously did not lead to peace. The most generous interpretation you can make is that Europe was funding war. Only an idiot would call that a peaceful attitude. And for another example, what you wrote.
> ... then I'm not sure how long it will last before other nations follow suit.
Strange how you say the US is not peaceful, immediately followed by an argument why US's attack not only leads to peace, but the "non-attacking" nation must be defeated for peace. Which I'm sure we'll agree requires more violence. In fact your argument that Iran "defending itself" leads directly to a bigger war is accurate, I think.
Iran is basically fighting for a resumption of most parts, especially the bad parts, of colonialism (one definition of colonialism would be "taxing foreign nations" after all. I like that definition because a US audience will immediately realize why that leads to war)
That's the moral difficulty here: If the US wins, the west will be at peace with Iran. If Iran wins, war may very well be inevitable. In fact, war with a great many countries may be inevitable (Indonesia has already announced they want to tax the Malacca strait, and China has responded exactly the way you'd expect)
But yes at this point you have the ridiculous soundbite: "war is peace". The irony of that slogan, of course, is that it comes from 1984, as an example of "doublethink" which was George Orwell criticizing communism and totalitarianism. But the slogan is always used to defend totalitarian states, usually ones on the warpath.
mcphage 1 days ago [-]
> Only if you take the 5 year old's definition of peaceful (ie. "not attacking")
I'm not sure what definition of "peaceful" you're going with here, if it includes any of the US, Iran, or Israel, prior to the start of this war. I guess I'm not as sophisticated as you.
> Strange how you say the US is not peaceful, immediately followed by an argument why US's attack not only leads to peace, but the "non-attacking" nation must be defeated for peace. Which I'm sure we'll agree requires more violence. In fact your argument that Iran "defending itself" leads directly to a bigger war is accurate, I think.
I'm not sure why you think that's strange. There was a status quo: Iran lets ships through the Strait of Hormuz. It works well enough. Then the US attacked, and that status quo is gone. If the US ends this war without re-establishing the status quo, then the world will be worse for everyone, and other nations bordering critical shipping lanes will be encouraged to follow suit.
So it's better for everybody if the US wins. But the US doesn't have much leverage to do so, and so the situation is: the US started a war that it didn't need to start, but can't easily win. The foreign policies that built the Pax Americana have been abandoned.
spwa4 15 hours ago [-]
> I'm not sure why you think that's strange. There was a status quo: Iran lets ships through the Strait of Hormuz. It works well enough. Then the US attacked, and that status quo is gone. If the US ends this war without re-establishing the status quo, then the world will be worse for everyone, and other nations bordering critical shipping lanes will be encouraged to follow suit.
There was no status quo, there's just people looking (now, after the fact) for an obvious party to blame for the bucket flowing over. Status quo is just a war that's on pause rather than resolved.
The Iran war is a case of "the drop that overflowed the bucket". There was "peace" because Iran believed it could not win, while Iran's army was strengthening and becoming more extreme constantly. The water level in the bucket was rising, in other words, because of what Iran did. Now I can agree that Trump added a big fucking drop into that bucket (unless he wins, in which case he dropped the water level by A LOT. So to some small extent the jury's still out)
If you look at Iran's economy (which is all that matters), even before the war, the only option for Iran is a big external cash injection, and they are in total desperation since at least April 2025. That's what the IRGC is fighting for. That's the only way to end this war (because without that cash injection the Iranian population will keep attacking the IRGC. They have no choice but to continue attacking).
Oh, and oil is on it's way out, so this will not be the last war in the middle east. China refused the very obvious and cheap fix to their oil problems Putin was offering. They don't think they will still need oil soon.
And yes, people are desperate to look moral, and specifically to make doing nothing look moral. So we all blame the US and Trump. Great, and I don't like Trump either, but that's the sum total of the depth of that argument.
mcphage 10 hours ago [-]
> There was no status quo, there's just people looking (now, after the fact) for an obvious party to blame for the bucket flowing over. Status quo is just a war that's on pause rather than resolved.
Status quo is a shipping lane that's been open since the 1980s.
> So we all blame the US and Trump. Great, and I don't like Trump either, but that's the sum total of the depth of that argument.
You think the only argument against starting a war you're not ready to prosecute, doing it badly, disrupting the oil market for months, and potentially encouraging nations all over the world to start tolling international trade... is "Trump Bad"? I guess you were right, I really am the idiot in this conversation.
11 hours ago [-]
jim33442 1 days ago [-]
I'm fine with Pax Americana, even if you call it American imperialism, but this whole involvement with Israel and its problems is not in our interest. It's abundantly clear that we have traitors in our government working for another country. Sure Iran has a terrible regime, not supposed to be our problem though.
Not the first time I've seen this absurd "I'm fine with American imperialism" take on here. You must realize that if Iran is such as it is now, it's purely a reaction to the authoritarian regime of the Shah previously used to further American interests, and then to the sanctions imposed on the nation. Those 30K protesters that were murdered are a direct consequence of American imperialism. It's like suffocating someone for decades and then criticizing how they breath. And same goes for Cuba, Venezuela, etc.
The situation can't improve while the USA are doing everything they can to antagonize these places, isolate them, alienate them from their neighbors. Seeing ruthless authoritarians prevail there is completely expected.
spwa4 3 hours ago [-]
This sounds so incredible ... do you seriously believe that?
"it's purely a reaction to the authoritarian regime of the Shah previously used to further American interests"
Seriously? THAT is what you think Khomeini wanted and his grandson or whoever wants now?
"And same goes for Cuba, Venezuela, etc."
Oh, you're a "communism really only ever wanted good things for it's people, and it's America's fault they started shooting their own citizens" ... got it.
queenkjuul 1 days ago [-]
Ah yes, the exceptional peace of, let me check...
1.5M dead Koreans
3M dead Vietnamese
500,000-1,000,000 dead or displaced Iraqis
Coups in Honduras, Chile, Haiti, Guatemala, Venezuela, Syria, Libya...
Pax Americana my ass. Tell that to the global south
Sabinus 1 days ago [-]
The world wasn't exactly a kind place before Pax Americana. If you check the stats, the American era does pretty well for peace and prosperity, and it's not realistic to expect the Americans would oversee a conflict-free utopia.
tdeck 11 hours ago [-]
So in other words, while America is starting the most wars, it somehow gets credit for the hypothetical wars that weren't started? The assumption being that the natural state of the world is to have a world war every few years?
spwa4 10 hours ago [-]
The norm of human history is constant wars, extreme repression, and genocide, yes.
Oh, and levels of taxation even Karl Marx would immediately agree are theft. In fact, ending the pre-pax-Americana period is what the manifesto is about. (the period stupidly referred to as "modern times", where the rich aren't fighting over who gets to mars first, but massacring poor people to gain a few square kilometers of land, which ironically Soviets know all about)
I get that that's hard to see for anyone born far enough away from the beginning of the pax Americana, ie. let's say 5-10 years after world war 2 but that's really how things work.
And that means that you just won't believe the consequences of any real victory against the US either: a return to the norm. If Iran wins, immediately, 50 genocides will start. Not just in Iran. Global trade will freeze 90%, not just oil. Inequality will explode worldwide. And that's just the start. In a way, that's what Iran is fighting for.
tdeck 10 hours ago [-]
It's interesting to see the kind of nonsensical, evidence-free ideological statements that some people use to hand wave away decades of horrifying US perpetrated atrocities.
Ignore the genocide the US is engaged in right now, if it loses the war it started with Iran there will be 50 hypothetical genocides that I made up! Why stop at 50? Maybe there will be 500 or 5,000 genocides! If not for the benevolence of the US, we'd be having another world war every 2-3 years. It just stands to reason I suppose.
ebbi 23 hours ago [-]
> oversee a conflict-free utopia
Oversee is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
jim33442 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
arvid-lind 1 days ago [-]
aka, Them.
jim33442 5 minutes ago [-]
Yes them
tyrrvk 23 hours ago [-]
people are missing the 3rd actor in this trifecta/shit sandwich - Israel. Its the intentional bad faith actor who'll do whatever it takes to sink any peace talks - including genocide/invading Lebanon etc etc etc.
soraminazuki 23 hours ago [-]
Lesson learnt? I don't think so. The ones responsible are the most insulated from the consequences of their actions, which is why they're doing all of this in the first place. It's the rest of us who're paying the price.
JumpCrisscross 1 days ago [-]
> glad Iran is teaching the US and Israel a lesson
Nobody is learning anything. Hardliners in three capitals are performing for their own choirs.
In the meantime, it’s a bonanza for American energy and defence interests.
frm88 17 hours ago [-]
In the meantime, it’s a bonanza for American energy and defence interests.
It will have to be in orde to finance your new integration of the IDF as a 'Permanent pillar of U. S. military modernization' as per section 224 of the 2027 NDAA.
I'm worried that war being "a bonanza for American energy and defence interests" is the thing people learned and a direct cause of this current war starting and it not cleanly ending.
The constant vaccilating between peace deal being done and being non-existent could just be put down to having a sociopathic liar with no guardrails in charge, but it could also be the same sociopath and his family activley profiting from the war via "insider trading" on the 180 degree turns in the reporting.
duxup 22 hours ago [-]
I don’t think Israeli government really cares.
15 hours ago [-]
mring33621 1 days ago [-]
I believe that there are powerful elements in the USA that are happy with the Strait being closed. This is rewarding oil producers and processors in red states while hurting blue California proportionally more.
Also, it appears that Trump enjoys any actions that hurt allies more than they hurt him. He's waiting for someone who cares more about the Strait to devote their resources to sorting this out.
All noise to the contrary is lip-service and market manipulation.
1 days ago [-]
aaron695 21 hours ago [-]
[dead]
wetpaws 1 days ago [-]
[dead]
SilverElfin 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
unshavedyak 1 days ago [-]
Are they mutually exclusive?
pjc50 1 days ago [-]
"He's out of line, but he's right": while Iran are an extremely bad actor, before Trump the situation was stable. And the start of conventional hostilities was clearly from the US+Israel side.
(open question as to how much the October 2023 attack is the fault of Iran, specifically?)
Izkata 1 days ago [-]
There were negotiations before it all started and people seem to have missed or forgotten the claim that Iran mentioned having material to create 11 nukes during this. When this first came out all the news reported there was no evidence Iran had that, but now their refined uranium isn't really in question.
Also during this one of their missiles hit a target 4000 kilometers away, much further than they were claiming they had. That's far enough to hit Europe if it had gone in the other direction.
To me it's looking like the stability was an illusion.
analognoise 1 days ago [-]
It was also reported that all US intelligence agencies denied that Iran was making a nuke.
It was also reported that during negotiations before this war, Iran had offered 100% of all nuclear material to be surrendered to the USA, to prevent a war.
Also, Marco Rubio said directly that Israel was going to strike anyway, and that we had to respond. He later “clarified” that it was. 100% Trumps call.
So - if the stability was an illusion, it’s because Trump and Israel are unstable, right?
mring33621 1 days ago [-]
I'm not sure 'Illusion' is the right word, and it should probably read "Trump and Israel and Iran" are unstable.
But, yes
mrguyorama 1 days ago [-]
Israel was successfully defanging Iran's terror programs. That's in fact the entire reason this war exists. It was Israel's plan. This is all their retaliation for Oct 7th.
So why the hell are we there? We didn't build a coalition. We didn't really justify our involvement. Trump and Trump supporters insisted on isolationism, pulling back from being the world police, ignoring even heinous invasions like Ukraine to save a few pennies, but suddenly Iran has insulted us through its existence for far too long?
Bullshit.
Keep in mind, Iran was likely to evolve in some way in the next few decades as a result of their impending water crisis. Waiting for a better opportunity would have been the smart choice.
b345 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
Ancapistani 1 days ago [-]
"Most people", meaning "most people in your social circles" presumably - because that's certainly not the case where I am, and I'd like to see some polling data before considering that it's the case globally. I seriously doubt it.
And I could say the U.S. takes over countries like cuba and turns off their power. We’re definitely the good guys LOL.
Look, I live in the U.S. but i’m not stupid about what we do. We are a terror around the world. Nobody in this fight is the good guy.
ebbi 23 hours ago [-]
America bombs anyone and everyone if they're in the Middle East/Afghanistan/etc.
I'm glad America doesn't discriminate.
krapp 24 hours ago [-]
The American government would if it could.
Jensson 23 hours ago [-]
The Iranian government would execute much more than they already do if they could, but they can't due to unrest risk.
barbazoo 1 days ago [-]
I'm probably wrong but it seems glaringly obvious to me that the two supposed allies are not at all acting in a coordinated way. One hand doesn't know what the other one is doing or one hand is just ignoring it.
joxdosba 1 days ago [-]
This would be standard negotiations if the parties involved were competent.
In theory this gives the US the opportunity to offer Iran concessions in Lebanon at zero cost.
Danox 1 days ago [-]
Guess partner is the useful idiot in alliance?
zombot 13 hours ago [-]
Trump doesn't mind all the world burning as long as it distracts from Epstein.
selivanovp 1 days ago [-]
Quite contrary, I'm pretty sure that USA is well aware of what Israel is doing and both are acting in coordinated way. Both do not want any settlement in a region, they need more chaos and global supply interruptions. If it wasn't the case, USA could've stop weapons supply to Israel long ago.
LanceH 1 days ago [-]
What allies would those be?
Hugsbox 1 days ago [-]
The US and Israel. Nothing about their approach here seems coordinated, they're both just doing whatever.
favflam 1 days ago [-]
I don't think we got a full picture of Israel's leverage over US politicians and business people. How many people like Epstein are out there acting as "access agents" to Mossad? How many US gov employees and politicians like Shapiro of Pennsylvannia have served in the IDF? How can Shapiro with IDF experience ever be considered for VP of the US?
Why are American politicians so comfortable supporting an ethno-state even though the US is not supposed to support apartheid regimes? Why is the US administration now so willing to throw US allies (Japan, South Korea, NATO members) under the bus with a 1970s style energy crisis to save 1 country of 9 million from a war they single unilaterally started?
Finally, to answer the OP's question:
* Israel is facing an existential threat; the US ending the war means de facto end to their state;
* US - not allies as that requires mutual consent to wage war; see above text for actual real power relationship between Israel and the US
Supermancho 1 days ago [-]
> the US ending the war means de facto end to their state
Every state ends, regardless. I'm not convinced Israel will cease to exist in the next 5 years without US support. There are plenty of countries Israel can, will, and still do partner with to various degrees. Notably much of Europe.
JumpCrisscross 24 hours ago [-]
> I'm not convinced Israel will cease to exist in the next 5 years without US support
I genuinely couldn't believe people actually believed this until a friend of a friend voiced the opinion in person. Like, no. Israel doesn't poof if America stops supporting it. Destroying Israel would require American military action.
Jensson 22 hours ago [-]
> Destroying Israel would require American military action.
Or an Iranian nuke. Iran has a big clock ticking down to year 2040 where they say Israel will be destroyed by, if the current Iranian regime isn't destroyed by then they will do everything they can to destroy Israel. That is why they can't agree to not enrich uranium for 25 years, because that would prevent them from destroying Israel.
Anyway, if USA peace out and leaves Israel hanging Israel will just continue to bomb Iran now and never let Iran recover, since USA has weakened Iran enough for Israel to handle the rest now, so it wont happen. However if that happens you will see much more death in Iran and much more disruptions to global economy.
These are all Russian conspiracy theories. You should get help.
david927 1 days ago [-]
A CAPE ratio of 40x and record-high margin debt; what could go wrong?
outside1234 1 days ago [-]
The craziest thing to me is that the conventional wisdom is that this will be over by July.
We will be lucky if any ships get through the straight by December.
dgellow 17 hours ago [-]
Some ships are passing thorough, it’s just extremely limited. But you’re right, it will take a very long time for the Strait to be operating at a meaningful level
cassianoleal 1 days ago [-]
> the conventional wisdom is that this will be over by July
Whose "conventional" wisdom?
bryanlarsen 1 days ago [-]
Crude oil prices appear to encode an optimistic outcome.
ZeroGravitas 18 hours ago [-]
The negative reading of that signal is massive demand destruction like a global recession. So a reduction in oil supply and a reduction in demand equals only a minor rise in prices.
cassianoleal 1 days ago [-]
So "the market" is conventional "wisdom"?
AnimalMuppet 1 days ago [-]
It's the "wisdom" (rough consensus) of those willing to put their money where their mouth is. So, yes.
jjk166 1 days ago [-]
By what objective standards does a price 41% higher than prewar encode an optimistic outcome?
There has been a lot of posturing from both sides, this is probably going to continue for a couple of months more before they reach equilibrium.
cdrnsf 1 days ago [-]
I don't think we should consider gross incompetence on the part of the US to be posturing.
10xDev 1 days ago [-]
I'm only giving a neutral perspective. The moment the world stops relying on oil, Iran will lose its biggest leverage in this situation. Other sources of energy are going to be pushed even more.
dh2022 1 days ago [-]
There is more that goes through Hormuz than just oil- like fertilizer for example. Just been able to charge a fee for crossing the Hormuz is a strategic goal for Iran. This is an outcome of the war. Previously Iran did not know how weak US is - but now they figured out.
It would be interesting to see if this war will be a net negative for Israel. If Iran emerges with more financial resources out of the war you can bet they will fund Hamas and Hezbollah more than before the war.
nradov 1 days ago [-]
Fertilizer exports are a problem but trucks are keeping it moving at a somewhat higher cost.
From a distance, a railroad here would be great. Pay Ukraine to keep the drones away from it. I've been to the region, I understand that a sandy desert is a tough place to keep a rail line open though.
thrance 9 hours ago [-]
> The moment the world stops relying on oil,
This isn't happening anytime soon.
queenkjuul 1 days ago [-]
Millions of tons of chemicals, fertilizer, and metals used to pass through the strait, not just oil.
pickleglitch 11 hours ago [-]
Yeah, I don't see it. Trump is also pathologically incapable of admitting defeat (see Jan 6) and it will be very difficult for him to claim victory without getting something better than the deal Obama got. There's little to no incentive for Iran to give him any such deal. Israel also doesn't want the war to end and they can easily sabotage any real negotiations that appear to be getting serious.
Trump has no off ramp. I don't see this ending until he is out of office.
garbawarb 1 days ago [-]
I suspect Iran's goal is to drag this out until US midterm elections.
tim333 1 days ago [-]
Probably as that gets closer their leverage will increase both due to that and stocks running down.
outside1234 1 days ago [-]
Can't wait for Trump to offer them $300B of our money for this to go away so he can get back to golfing with our money.
sheikhnbake 1 days ago [-]
Maybe we can throw in some US treasury printing plates too
kashunstva 1 days ago [-]
I’m not sure he ever stopped golfing. But yes, getting back to some other distraction, an expensive one, no doubt - I’m sure that would ease his mind considerably.
kevin_thibedeau 1 days ago [-]
Cuba is up next but that can't get started until he has a "win" on Iran. They aren't giving him the chance to pretend he's a genius like all his lackeys do for him.
luke5441 1 days ago [-]
As far as I understood he already offered the reparations. Including real estate projects & investment fund, obviously.
Didn't make the problem go away.
DivingForGold 1 days ago [-]
Here we go ...
metalman 15 hours ago [-]
Iran has also suggested that they can shut down, Bab-el-Mandeb, which traslates as the "Gate of Grief" as a way to end the "war of choice", imposed by the zionist genocide alliance who are so deranged and puffed up with there impunity as to be threatening everybody as to who they will destroy after Iran, unless they help to do it.
The whole mess serving to drive a monumental push towards renewable energy everywhere else.
OutOfHere 1 days ago [-]
What I don't understand is why the markets and people still believe Trump's repeated lies about the deal. I also don't understand why he started a ceasefire in the first place.
Jensson 22 hours ago [-]
Iran did this to Obama as well, said one thing in private then announced a totally different thing in public. It makes them kinda hard to talk to. So they might tell American negotiators in private they agree to everything, then they go and say in public Americans agreed to do everything Iran wants, what would you do when that keeps happening?
jesuslop 22 hours ago [-]
Markets are looking revenue figures and forward guidance.
OutOfHere 21 hours ago [-]
Huh. The market literally jumps up and down strongly on news about Iran. I don't know what you're trying to cover up.
You're not really supposed to steal oil these days and troops on the ground would be easy targets for Iranian drones. I think the military solution would to be have Ukraine help out as they have offered with land and air and marine drones controlled remotely via starlink or similar.
It's good that Iran is teaching USA and Israel a lesson, while Iran (also) being bad guys.
https://prisonfreepress.org/docs/War_is_a_Racket_(S_Butler_1...
In the real world, the American resident is suffering deeply.
The fact that things are so bad for the average American when the economy is growing (thanks largely to healthcare and AI investment), makes me shudder at what may happen if those tailwinds slow down, or the existing headwinds (like the impact of the war) strengthen.
Who is forecasting this?
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/iran-oil-shock-mark-zandi-aro...
"Based on the simulations of our global macroeconomic model, oil prices would only need to average close to $125 per barrel in the second quarter of this year for a recession to ensue soon thereafter, all else equal. And it is not difficult to envisage oil prices increasing to $125 per barrel. It only requires that the conflict and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz last a few weeks longer, say through July 4, or even much sooner, if the combatants increasingly target the region's energy-producing infrastructure."
If Wood Mackenzie is not your cup of tea, lots of other resources with a search of “recession strait of Hormuz” keywords. The only reason we’re not in a global recession yet was because China paused oil imports, due to their >1B barrel strategic reserves.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Chinas-Oil-Buying-Paus...
https://www.kpler.com/blog/why-the-real-oil-shock-may-only-b...
Even under that scenario, which would emerge after the Strait had been closed for over ten months, the forecaster only sees "US GDP growth" falling "below 1%," i.e. not a recession. (I'm ignoring the fact that the Strait has already been closed for more than 2 months.)
> Oil and gas traffic via the Strait of Hormuz may never go back to pre-war levels if Iran cements its hold over the chokepoint. The warnings come from several unrelated sources as the war continues to drag on, with some recovery in traffic but nowhere near pre-February 28 levels. Meanwhile, Big Oil is warning that the looming supply shortage is about to hit global markets in weeks.
> “No matter what happens, the Iranians will control the Strait of Hormuz for the foreseeable future,” Amos Hochstein, senior national security and energy advisor to President Biden, told CNBC last week. “It doesn’t even matter what the deal says. Everybody in the region believes that.”
> While the negotiations drag on, expectations that Iran will remain in de facto charge of the Strait of Hormuz appear to be strengthening. “Any end to the conflict that leaves Iran exercising operational control and influence over the Strait will result in appreciably lower flows through the waterway in our view,” RBC Capital Markets’ Helima Croft said in a recent note, as quoted by CNBC.
Whether or not America winds up in a recession is going to be entirely a function of AI. That is what the economy is levered on.
https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/articles/high-oil-prices-c...
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-recession-warning-job-mar...
https://www.aei.org/articles/the-shrinking-economic-weight-o...
One side is responsible for the "pax Americana" (but everyone here was born into the time period and so doesn't realize how exceptionally peaceful it is)
One side is responsible for at least 20.000 but more likely 60.000 Iranian deaths, just this year (and everybody seems to be worried about the other side's "warcrimes")
Not having big issues to figure out between these 2 who is the good guy ...
And we haven’t even gotten to the impacts of fertilizer shortages during growing season.
And either way, how is replacing the leader of a terrible regime, with his even more hardline son, help with the killing in any ways?
The pro Democracy forces in Iran have been completely discredited and the one best opportunity they would have had to reclaim their country, during what was likely to be a contested transfer of power if the 80+ year old Ayatollah had passed naturally, has been lost. Instead the U.S. allowed the Iranian regime to transfer power without any challenges, transfer power to a guy who is the son of the old Ayatollah and even more close aligned with the IRGC, and has destroyed the pro-Democracy bases in Iran while strengthening the orthodoxy because the U.S. has been blowing up cities, where the anti-regime forces live, while the rural areas, where the regime’s supporters live, have been largely untouched.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8621gnknjo
Calling in a massive airstrike on a prison where the opposition is being held isn't exactly the way to support the opposition.
It seems pretty clear that Israel struck regime targets, and at worst there was relatively minor collateral damage (still unclear), which is a risk with just about any strike.
"When you are in prison, it becomes your home. When I heard this morning that Evin prison was bombed, I felt a sharp pain in my heart. When I was released, I left a piece of my heart there."
Racism really makes people dumb.
> Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, a British-Iranian woman who was imprisoned for years at Evin, told the BBC she felt "sick" with concern following the strike.
I can see people attributing this to the US as well after reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta....
The Pax Americana is great, but given America was one of the countries to start this war, I don't know how much credit they can get for something they just ended.
Are you sure? I am actually somewhat ambivalent on this. Iran wasn't exactly peaceful before February and attacked shipping regularly before then too. Oh and they attacked their own people, foreign nationals, Iranians abroad, and committed terror attacks abroad. They were involved in the Brussels Metro and airport bombing, not 2km from where I'm sitting right now.
> The Pax Americana is great, but given America was one of the countries to start this war, I don't know how much credit they can get for something they just ended
As I said, I'm sitting in Brussels, and everyone here is far more worried about the Ukraine war. Plus nobody's dying, nobody's making life impossible here. I find declaring the Pax Americana dead somewhat premature.
Maybe I'll be proven wrong, I guess. But people here are far more worried about Ukraine than Iran. I think they're wrong ... or at least, that's only a short term threat. The Iran war ... will end the strategic significance of the middle east if it lasts any longer. It will end oil. This is not 1972. Iran may destroy the middle east and itself, they will not destroy the EU, or even significantly hurt it. If their threats materialize, the EU is not America. We will simply say "No. Go F- yourself. Kthxbye", and that will only really suck for the middle east, not for us.
None of the nations involved in this fight have been peaceful. That's why I'm talking about just this specific war.
> I find declaring the Pax Americana dead somewhat premature.
If America wins, then yeah, probably it'll limp on. If America loses, and Iran gets to dictate terms in the Strait of Hormuz, then I'm not sure how long it will last before other nations follow suit.
Only if you take the 5 year old's definition of peaceful (ie. "not attacking")
Any reasonable moral position will of course mean that doing nothing, even if that means not attacking, is not necessarily a peaceful position. Nor is an attack necessarily not peaceful. For example, how Europe treated Ukraine before and during the war with Russia can easily be argued is not peaceful, it's helping the war criminal and it obviously did not lead to peace. The most generous interpretation you can make is that Europe was funding war. Only an idiot would call that a peaceful attitude. And for another example, what you wrote.
> ... then I'm not sure how long it will last before other nations follow suit.
Strange how you say the US is not peaceful, immediately followed by an argument why US's attack not only leads to peace, but the "non-attacking" nation must be defeated for peace. Which I'm sure we'll agree requires more violence. In fact your argument that Iran "defending itself" leads directly to a bigger war is accurate, I think.
Iran is basically fighting for a resumption of most parts, especially the bad parts, of colonialism (one definition of colonialism would be "taxing foreign nations" after all. I like that definition because a US audience will immediately realize why that leads to war)
That's the moral difficulty here: If the US wins, the west will be at peace with Iran. If Iran wins, war may very well be inevitable. In fact, war with a great many countries may be inevitable (Indonesia has already announced they want to tax the Malacca strait, and China has responded exactly the way you'd expect)
But yes at this point you have the ridiculous soundbite: "war is peace". The irony of that slogan, of course, is that it comes from 1984, as an example of "doublethink" which was George Orwell criticizing communism and totalitarianism. But the slogan is always used to defend totalitarian states, usually ones on the warpath.
I'm not sure what definition of "peaceful" you're going with here, if it includes any of the US, Iran, or Israel, prior to the start of this war. I guess I'm not as sophisticated as you.
> Strange how you say the US is not peaceful, immediately followed by an argument why US's attack not only leads to peace, but the "non-attacking" nation must be defeated for peace. Which I'm sure we'll agree requires more violence. In fact your argument that Iran "defending itself" leads directly to a bigger war is accurate, I think.
I'm not sure why you think that's strange. There was a status quo: Iran lets ships through the Strait of Hormuz. It works well enough. Then the US attacked, and that status quo is gone. If the US ends this war without re-establishing the status quo, then the world will be worse for everyone, and other nations bordering critical shipping lanes will be encouraged to follow suit.
So it's better for everybody if the US wins. But the US doesn't have much leverage to do so, and so the situation is: the US started a war that it didn't need to start, but can't easily win. The foreign policies that built the Pax Americana have been abandoned.
There was no status quo, there's just people looking (now, after the fact) for an obvious party to blame for the bucket flowing over. Status quo is just a war that's on pause rather than resolved.
The Iran war is a case of "the drop that overflowed the bucket". There was "peace" because Iran believed it could not win, while Iran's army was strengthening and becoming more extreme constantly. The water level in the bucket was rising, in other words, because of what Iran did. Now I can agree that Trump added a big fucking drop into that bucket (unless he wins, in which case he dropped the water level by A LOT. So to some small extent the jury's still out)
If you look at Iran's economy (which is all that matters), even before the war, the only option for Iran is a big external cash injection, and they are in total desperation since at least April 2025. That's what the IRGC is fighting for. That's the only way to end this war (because without that cash injection the Iranian population will keep attacking the IRGC. They have no choice but to continue attacking).
Oh, and oil is on it's way out, so this will not be the last war in the middle east. China refused the very obvious and cheap fix to their oil problems Putin was offering. They don't think they will still need oil soon.
And yes, people are desperate to look moral, and specifically to make doing nothing look moral. So we all blame the US and Trump. Great, and I don't like Trump either, but that's the sum total of the depth of that argument.
Status quo is a shipping lane that's been open since the 1980s.
> So we all blame the US and Trump. Great, and I don't like Trump either, but that's the sum total of the depth of that argument.
You think the only argument against starting a war you're not ready to prosecute, doing it badly, disrupting the oil market for months, and potentially encouraging nations all over the world to start tolling international trade... is "Trump Bad"? I guess you were right, I really am the idiot in this conversation.
The situation can't improve while the USA are doing everything they can to antagonize these places, isolate them, alienate them from their neighbors. Seeing ruthless authoritarians prevail there is completely expected.
"it's purely a reaction to the authoritarian regime of the Shah previously used to further American interests"
Seriously? THAT is what you think Khomeini wanted and his grandson or whoever wants now?
"And same goes for Cuba, Venezuela, etc."
Oh, you're a "communism really only ever wanted good things for it's people, and it's America's fault they started shooting their own citizens" ... got it.
1.5M dead Koreans
3M dead Vietnamese
500,000-1,000,000 dead or displaced Iraqis
Coups in Honduras, Chile, Haiti, Guatemala, Venezuela, Syria, Libya...
Pax Americana my ass. Tell that to the global south
Oh, and levels of taxation even Karl Marx would immediately agree are theft. In fact, ending the pre-pax-Americana period is what the manifesto is about. (the period stupidly referred to as "modern times", where the rich aren't fighting over who gets to mars first, but massacring poor people to gain a few square kilometers of land, which ironically Soviets know all about)
I get that that's hard to see for anyone born far enough away from the beginning of the pax Americana, ie. let's say 5-10 years after world war 2 but that's really how things work.
And that means that you just won't believe the consequences of any real victory against the US either: a return to the norm. If Iran wins, immediately, 50 genocides will start. Not just in Iran. Global trade will freeze 90%, not just oil. Inequality will explode worldwide. And that's just the start. In a way, that's what Iran is fighting for.
Ignore the genocide the US is engaged in right now, if it loses the war it started with Iran there will be 50 hypothetical genocides that I made up! Why stop at 50? Maybe there will be 500 or 5,000 genocides! If not for the benevolence of the US, we'd be having another world war every 2-3 years. It just stands to reason I suppose.
Oversee is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
Nobody is learning anything. Hardliners in three capitals are performing for their own choirs.
In the meantime, it’s a bonanza for American energy and defence interests.
It will have to be in orde to finance your new integration of the IDF as a 'Permanent pillar of U. S. military modernization' as per section 224 of the 2027 NDAA.
https://weichert.substack.com/p/congress-is-quietly-making-i...
The constant vaccilating between peace deal being done and being non-existent could just be put down to having a sociopathic liar with no guardrails in charge, but it could also be the same sociopath and his family activley profiting from the war via "insider trading" on the 180 degree turns in the reporting.
Also, it appears that Trump enjoys any actions that hurt allies more than they hurt him. He's waiting for someone who cares more about the Strait to devote their resources to sorting this out.
All noise to the contrary is lip-service and market manipulation.
(open question as to how much the October 2023 attack is the fault of Iran, specifically?)
Also during this one of their missiles hit a target 4000 kilometers away, much further than they were claiming they had. That's far enough to hit Europe if it had gone in the other direction.
To me it's looking like the stability was an illusion.
It was also reported that during negotiations before this war, Iran had offered 100% of all nuclear material to be surrendered to the USA, to prevent a war.
Also, Marco Rubio said directly that Israel was going to strike anyway, and that we had to respond. He later “clarified” that it was. 100% Trumps call.
So - if the stability was an illusion, it’s because Trump and Israel are unstable, right?
But, yes
So why the hell are we there? We didn't build a coalition. We didn't really justify our involvement. Trump and Trump supporters insisted on isolationism, pulling back from being the world police, ignoring even heinous invasions like Ukraine to save a few pennies, but suddenly Iran has insulted us through its existence for far too long?
Bullshit.
Keep in mind, Iran was likely to evolve in some way in the next few decades as a result of their impending water crisis. Waiting for a better opportunity would have been the smart choice.
And I could say the U.S. takes over countries like cuba and turns off their power. We’re definitely the good guys LOL.
Look, I live in the U.S. but i’m not stupid about what we do. We are a terror around the world. Nobody in this fight is the good guy.
I'm glad America doesn't discriminate.
In theory this gives the US the opportunity to offer Iran concessions in Lebanon at zero cost.
Why are American politicians so comfortable supporting an ethno-state even though the US is not supposed to support apartheid regimes? Why is the US administration now so willing to throw US allies (Japan, South Korea, NATO members) under the bus with a 1970s style energy crisis to save 1 country of 9 million from a war they single unilaterally started?
Finally, to answer the OP's question: * Israel is facing an existential threat; the US ending the war means de facto end to their state; * US - not allies as that requires mutual consent to wage war; see above text for actual real power relationship between Israel and the US
Every state ends, regardless. I'm not convinced Israel will cease to exist in the next 5 years without US support. There are plenty of countries Israel can, will, and still do partner with to various degrees. Notably much of Europe.
I genuinely couldn't believe people actually believed this until a friend of a friend voiced the opinion in person. Like, no. Israel doesn't poof if America stops supporting it. Destroying Israel would require American military action.
Or an Iranian nuke. Iran has a big clock ticking down to year 2040 where they say Israel will be destroyed by, if the current Iranian regime isn't destroyed by then they will do everything they can to destroy Israel. That is why they can't agree to not enrich uranium for 25 years, because that would prevent them from destroying Israel.
Anyway, if USA peace out and leaves Israel hanging Israel will just continue to bomb Iran now and never let Iran recover, since USA has weakened Iran enough for Israel to handle the rest now, so it wont happen. However if that happens you will see much more death in Iran and much more disruptions to global economy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Square_Countdown_Clo...
We will be lucky if any ships get through the straight by December.
Whose "conventional" wisdom?
https://xkcd.com/904/
https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/ships-are-sailing-dark...
Meanwhile Iran keeps trying to run the blockade they established and failing.
https://bsky.app/profile/tankertrackers.com/post/3mn66mhl4kc...
It would be interesting to see if this war will be a net negative for Israel. If Iran emerges with more financial resources out of the war you can bet they will fund Hamas and Hezbollah more than before the war.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/fertiliser-stuck-i...
From a distance, a railroad here would be great. Pay Ukraine to keep the drones away from it. I've been to the region, I understand that a sandy desert is a tough place to keep a rail line open though.
This isn't happening anytime soon.
Trump has no off ramp. I don't see this ending until he is out of office.
Didn't make the problem go away.
Trump was a bit negative about that "last person we need help from is Zelensky" - but the tech is quite good - vid of them trouncing NATO in drone exercises https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl-jU8XUdhQ also control system and a kind of amazon for drones https://youtu.be/W6pryqt1dwY