• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Monitoring the situation in Iran



TIL Japan has a huge fuckton of oil they keep laying around for emergencies. The third largest Strategic Petroleum Reserve in the world



Sidequest status update
 
Last edited:
This war should have never happened if the Strait of Hormuz couldn't be kept open and the gulf states protected from suicide drones. The U.S. is now operating on a very limited time window to achieve something that can be declared victory, and leave. We've given Iran a workable strategy because it knows it just has to wait us out.

And they don't have to hold out long. Oil sustained over $100 a barrel will force Trump to call it quits within weeks, not months.
 
Times like this I wish we bought an electric car. Tesla and BYD must be loving all this.
It really does feel like the end of days are near, flying, trains, transport. The cost of living as already crazy. Petrol outside of America are way worse.
Thanks America.

Anyone who thinks this is about freedom for the people in Iran, your absolutely crazy. Same old war for the same old reason, Oil. Oil America doesn't even need, but guess who does? their enemies.

Oil and Chips. Someone needs to figure out cold fusion and make more foundries.
 
Things are spiraling out of control. Prices on everything are already super high. On top of all this I have to worry about possible layoffs this week.
I am guessing poll numbers will continue to drop, more bombs will be dropped and within a week we will get a "mission accomplished" gibberish post and then will be leaving.
 
Lukaku's First Touch said:
mmm how many fighter jets did the Taliban have? Or how many battleships did the vietnamese have?

Boots on the ground is the only way to try and end this if you refuse to do any diplomatic end to this. But boots on the ground will probably end in disaster (again) for the US. Especially with the drone warfare we see in the Ukraine conflict. I wonder how America will react seeing their soldiers getting blown up in half in 4k videos...
Click to expand...

It's not 1968 anymore. It was a proxy war with the Soviets and China heavily funding the North Vietnam and they didn't even bomb the north directly because they didn't want to trigger or large scale intervention by China or the Soviets. A lot the Viet Cong hit-and-run night fightings tactics don't even work anymore, that's what 70 year worth of advancement in sensors and thermal imaging does. This was the boomer's war and they didn't want to fight it anyway so it was always going to be tough due to the boomers being boomers. Just like they pulled up the ladder to protect their assets even if it screws the future generation.

ChuckeRearmed said:
The problem with Iraq was an attempt to imitate the denazification by implementing an incompetent de-Ba'aathification, which was drafted by the same "academics" and "officials" who had no idea what they were doing, trying to imitate what happened to Germany and Japan post WW2, completely ignoring the local politics and balances (arabs are neither japanese nor europeans in that regard).
One thing, though, with the Iraq War was that there was an issue - with some vets complaining - that they were not allowed to go far enough in their attacks, with Pentagon tying one of their hands behind the back.

You don't need to be treated like liberators - neither Japan nor Germany (well maybe only partially in Germany) were treating the american soldiers as liberators.


Central regions are the core anti-IRGC supporters (though they lack military power), while the peripherals have separatist groups that does not support IRGC either (there were many protests before). It goes by ethnic lines really. It is like Assad supporters in Syria - except IRGC is much stronger interlinked with the government apparatus and various industries (well they have 40+ years to achieve that). IRGC by itself does not have that much of support - but they are much better equipped and that's why USA and Israel have been bombing so many launchers, military installations, commanders and such. The goal is ultimately to defang IRGC allowing the protesters - and some other groups - to be able to tackle the remaining forces.
Click to expand...

Not to mention Iran actively sought to destabilize the whole thing by funding and arming the proxies to fill the power vacuum against the Sunni minority. Iraq was a Sunni Ba'athist party ruling over the 60% Shia majority most of them populated the "Sunni Triangle". So it wasn't like it went to shit naturally.

Is Iraq going to fund Iran? Nope. Iran is on it's own with just words of support from China and Russia.

Rentahamster said:
Using military force against a ME nation that resulted in freedom and a better way of life for that nation - bad track record.
Click to expand...

That's Western hubris for you. Better way of life according to whom? Expecting the Iraqis our Afghans to just automatically accept Western secularism just because it's inherently "better"? Again according to whom?

Dictators are the only thing they know and the only reason Iranians are upset with the current dictator is their stance is affects their daily lives. If they get a new dictator and the dictator is benevolent and restores some semblance of regional stability, stop trying to export Khomeinism, and be on friendlier terms with the US to ease sanctions, and grant them a bit more freedom they'd be ecstatic. They don't care about gay pride or trans visibility day. The reason the Iranian Ayatollah doesn't want a secular Iran is simple; Shi'a is already a small minority sect in Islam. Having a secular Iran means them losing their clerical power/prestige to either secular muslims or the dominant Sunnis. That's why they're so hell bent on proxies in Sunni-dominant muslim countries.

I was in my early twenties when Iraq War started and like all young people we're hopeful even when it's stupid. Now I'm middle aged and I realize that you can't upgrade the operating system of these people no matter what. It's embedded in them. They have to forge their own path toward something resembling or approximating western liberal democracy that fits their culture and religion.

Ecotic said:
This war should have never happened if the Strait of Hormuz couldn't be kept open and the gulf states protected from suicide drones. The U.S. is now operating on a very limited time window to achieve something that can be declared victory, and leave. We've given Iran a workable strategy because it knows it just has to wait us out.

And they don't have to hold out long. Oil sustained over $100 a barrel will force Trump to call it quits within weeks, not months.
Click to expand...

Iran has used the threat of closing the Strait of Hormuz as a core geopolitical tool since the 1979 Revolution.

Major and Small Threats
  • February – March 2026 (Ongoing Conflict):
    • Following U.S.-Israeli strikes on February 28, the IRGC warned via VHF radio that "no ship is allowed to pass".
    • On March 2, 2026, an official confirmation of closure was issued, accompanied by threats to set any passing ship "ablaze".
  • June 2025:
    • Following U.S. strikes on nuclear sites, the Iranian parliament voted in support of closing the strait, though the Supreme Leader held the final decision.
  • April 2019:
    • Major-General Mohammad Bagheri stated that while Iran did not seek closure, it would do so if hostility increased and its own oil exports were blocked.
  • July 2018:
    • President Hassan Rouhani issued a vague/tacit threat, implying that if Iran's oil couldn't be exported, no one's would.
  • December 2011 – January 2012:
    • Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi warned that "not a drop of oil" would pass if sanctions were imposed.
    • "Small" Threat: In Jan 2012, Army Commander Ataollah Salehi warned a U.S. aircraft carrier not to return to the Gulf.
  • June 2008:
    • Iran asserted the strait would be sealed off if it were attacked by the U.S..
  • December 2007 – January 2008:
    • A series of naval skirmishes and aggressive maneuvers by Iranian speedboats near U.S. warships served as implicit threats to control the waterway.
  • 1990s:
    • Disputes over islands (Abu Musa and the Tunbs) led to repeated threats of closure during various standoffs with the UAE and U.S..
  • 1980–1988 (The Tanker War):
    • Iran repeatedly threatened to close the strait if Iraq continued to disrupt its shipping.
    • While never fully closed, Iran used naval mines to harass traffic, leading to direct U.S. military intervention.
Click to expand...

The difference now is they're closer than ever to obtaining nuclear weapons and with that a permanent lever with one of the most strategic chokepoints in the world.

Quit fk whining and look at the big picture.
 
Last edited:
ZehDon said:
Because American President's don't have the power to declare War. War isn't a meaningless word from a legal or statecraft point of view. If Trump's military actions are short/fast enough - less than 60 days, from memory - they can be declared as simple military operations, and that's totally fine. Venezuela is a perfect example of this (though, that raid is likely in violation of international law and treaties). Any longer than that time frame, and the President needs a new designation for their actions or they must ask Congress to declare a state of War. Other American Presidents have worked around this to keep military actions moving, calling them everything from "policing operations" to "counter-terrorism raids" to get around needing a state of War. But, if Trump wants War powers - to, say, call up a draft or postpone elections - he needs a state of War.
Click to expand...

"The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involved and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us..."

-Abraham Lincoln

zpg9xmNXy1btpGqi.jpg
 
rorepmE said:
Didn't WW2 started because of appeasement by leaders like Neville Chamberlain genuinely believed that if they met Hitler's "reasonable" territorial demands, he would be satisfied and peace would be preserved?
Click to expand...
Mainly because the Germans elected a crazy warmonger who put people in camps, tore up treaties and was sure he could win any war due to the superior nature of his warfighters fighting without any restrictions.
 
MisterFalcon said:
Mainly because the Germans elected a crazy warmonger who put people in camps, tore up treaties and was sure he could win any war due to the superior nature of his warfighters fighting without any restrictions.
Click to expand...
You realize what you said doesnt invalidate or change what the person you responded to said

They are correct in saying that Europe's leadership handled Hitler pathetically and that inevitably ended up in WW2...

The world still even had the Olympics there before ww2 kicked off and tried to pretend it was all happy happy
 
Last edited:
StueyDuck said:
You realize what you said doesnt invalidate or change what the person you responded to said

They are correct in saying that Europe's leadership handled Hitler pathetically and that inevitably ended up in WW2...

The world still even had the Olympics there before ww2 kicked off and tried to pretend it was all happy happy
Click to expand...
Iran is not 1930's Germany in power level, not even close. But say that it is, then this bombing campaign is not nearly enough. Hitler was not bombed into unconditional surrender, an invasion by millions will have to be done.
 
MisterFalcon said:
Iran is not 1930's Germany in power level, not even close. But say that it is, then this bombing campaign is not nearly enough. Hitler was not bombed into unconditional surrender, an invasion by millions will have to be done.
Click to expand...
Da fuck you talking about.

I feel like I had a fit, why are you talking about iran.
 
MisterFalcon said:
But say that it is, then this bombing campaign is not nearly enough. Hitler was not bombed into unconditional surrender, an invasion by millions will have to be done.
Click to expand...
They didn't have the ability to almost effortlessly drop a bomb precisely on Hitler's head. Slightly different scenario.
 
I'd say US and Israel have this week to do maximum damage they can to the IRGC and their vital infastructure before they need to jump on the off ramp.

Any remaining public support, patience, tolerance etc will be completely shot if they drag it on without seriously showing signs the regime has collapsed and has no means to do any damage to neighbouring countries or stop ships passing through the strait.

The market is still pricing this as a short-term conflict, but if it's not and it becomes a full blown spiral then we're going to see a massive global meltdown.

Inflation will skyrocket and not just fuel/energy. The global recession risk will be enormous.

I support the weakening and destruction of the current Iranian regime (even with having my sister and nephews permanetly living in the UAE and at risk), but if it's not weakening enough and being overthrown from within then they need to change tact and simmer it down quickly.
 
Last edited:
Go_Ly_Dow said:
I'd say US and Israel have this week to do maximum damage they can to the IRGC and their vital infastructure before they need to jump on the off ramp.

Any remaining public support, patience, tolerance etc will be completely shot if they drag it on without seriously showing signs the regime has collapsed and has no means to do any damage to neighbouring countries or stop ships passing through the strait.

The market is still pricing this as a short-term conflict, but if it's not and it becomes a full blown spiral then we're going to see a massive global meltdown.

Inflation will skyrocket and not just fuel/energy. The global recession risk will be enormous.

I support the weakening and destruction of the current Iranian regime (even with having my sister and nephews permanetly living in the UAE and at risk), but if it's not weakening enough and being overthrown from within then they need to change tact and simmer it down quickly.
Click to expand...
You think these morons have a long term plan? They actually thought they could just bomb these fanatics into submission.
That shit has never worked before when actual competent people were in charge over there... We know Trump will never admit defeat and Iran just put a new ayatollah in charge. It's completely fucked.

We can only hope it will end like the last bombing of their nuclear facilities where they just claimed the nuclear capability was destroyed (while then attackin again a couple of months later because of nuclear weapons lol).
 
Last edited:
Go_Ly_Dow said:
I'd say US and Israel have this week to do maximum damage they can to the IRGC and their vital infastructure before they need to jump on the off ramp.
Click to expand...

Claiming 'victory' and bailing with the current regime still in power would be a massive victory for the Iranian government (PR wise at least).

In between a bit of a rock and a hard place if it comes to that.
 
Last edited:
Ozzie666 said:
Times like this I wish we bought an electric car. Tesla and BYD must be loving all this.
It really does feel like the end of days are near, flying, trains, transport. The cost of living as already crazy. Petrol outside of America are way worse.
Thanks America.

Anyone who thinks this is about freedom for the people in Iran, your absolutely crazy. Same old war for the same old reason, Oil. Oil America doesn't even need, but guess who does? their enemies.

Oil and Chips. Someone needs to figure out cold fusion and make more foundries.
Click to expand...
If the US were smart they would put their enemies out of business by only having electric cars.
 
why does US most powerful ship fleet in the world hasn't secured hormuz straight to avoid/minimize this oil price increase before going full in on attacking Iran?
 
Darius87 said:
why does US most powerful ship fleet in the world hasn't secured hormuz straight to avoid/minimize this oil price increase before going full in on attacking Iran?
Click to expand...

They still possess weapons, missiles, rockets, drones which they can fire from concealed locations to damage ships and very few shipping or insurance company wants to take the risk even if the US and Gulf countries upped defence.

So until the IRGC and other terrorist funded groups in the vicinity are defanged entirely this remains an unresolved major issue.

For some reason the US and Israel are not destroying their weapons facilities as fast as is needed. I guess they have the remaining ones in very hard to reach and hidden places with their stockpiles underestimated. 🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:
rorepmE said:
Didn't WW2 started because of appeasement by leaders like Neville Chamberlain genuinely believed that if they met Hitler's "reasonable" territorial demands, he would be satisfied and peace would be preserved?
Click to expand...
I think it is really pushing it to say that Chamberlain was the major cause of WW2. He is mostly mocked because of a newsreel clip of him saying "peace in our time". But in the background he was buying time and allowing the UK to develop the tools it needed to survive the battle of Britain in terms of Air force spending on Radar and the Spitfire. Churchill didn't do that.
 
Darius87 said:
why does US most powerful ship fleet in the world hasn't secured hormuz straight to avoid/minimize this oil price increase before going full in on attacking Iran?
Click to expand...
If the only weapons Iran has were ships and planes it would be quite easy for the US do do this with minimal risk.

But it's 2026 and as the Houthis demonstrated, the infrastructure for launching drones and missiles is very easy to disperse, they can be hidden anywhere 100 km from the coast. To fully secure the Strait you would need hundreds of thousands of troops and you may as well drive to Tehran if you have that.
 
The incentive to go through the strait will be increasing ($$$) as -hopefully- Iran's ability to threaten it is decreasing over time. The limiting factor may end up being if/when the US feels comfortable that the threat level is low enough to risk sending ships in to escort them through.

The situation does not need to be solved immediately, but it will need to be solved fairly soon.
 
I find it pretty disgusting that the democrats / media use this as political slam. No one reports on the millions of atrocities Iran has done to its people and others since 1979. They don't show photos prior to 1979. It's all " oh trump bad "
 
calico said:
The incentive to go through the strait will be increasing ($$$) as -hopefully- Iran's ability to threaten it is decreasing over time. The limiting factor may end up being if/when the US feels comfortable that the threat level is low enough to risk sending ships in to escort them through.

The situation does not need to be solved immediately, but it will need to be solved fairly soon.
Click to expand...

I spoke with a friend in the maritime industry. Getting shipowners through would be a challenge unless Iran is completely defanged. Insurance claims still mean a net loss for shipowners so the US stopgap isn't as meaningful. Any loss of crew life opens the door for lawsuits and other trouble. Oil would have to become ridiculously expensive for the shipping fees to justify the risk.
 
calico said:
The incentive to go through the strait will be increasing ($$$) as -hopefully- Iran's ability to threaten it is decreasing over time. The limiting factor may end up being if/when the US feels comfortable that the threat level is low enough to risk sending ships in to escort them through.

The situation does not need to be solved immediately, but it will need to be solved fairly soon.
Click to expand...
They are unlikely to go through if they can't get insurance. With insurance rates and oil price rapidly climbing we get to see when it financially makes sense to take the tankers through. This could be $150 a barrel, I don't know. But if a tanker is put out of service by Iran then why wouldn't rates go up again? Then do we need $200 a barrel or more?
 
StueyDuck said:
You realize what you said doesnt invalidate or change what the person you responded to said

They are correct in saying that Europe's leadership handled Hitler pathetically and that inevitably ended up in WW2...

The world still even had the Olympics there before ww2 kicked off and tried to pretend it was all happy happy
Click to expand...
Ww2 would happen regardless of Chamberlain though. The seeds of WW2 were planted with the treaty of Versailles.
 
Nothing that is happening can have any of my support. And I hope my government comes forward and state the same.
Edit:
How on earth can be acceptable bombs falling in the middle of the streets blowing up cars and killing bystanders? No, "Iran has a terrorist regine" is not enough of excuse to justify this.
Bombs killing 150 children on a school and not even an apology? Not acceptable. No, "it was near a military base" doesn't cut it as an excuse either.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Locked
UK bans Coinbase ad mocking UK's current situation, portraying the country as dystopian
20
1K
TommyCronin6969 replied
Any recommendations on a portable monitor? The ones that look like an iPad.
2
362
IDKFA replied
Why isn't Windows 11 auto changing to the correct HDR/Monitor profile when I change which monitor I want to use? (It used to...)
2
337
YCoCg replied
Chat Control, the EUs super bill to monitor the web
2 3
142
3K
IDKFA replied
Bought a QD-OLED and am having a frustrating time with the color profile not automatically switching between the monitor and TV OLED (This wasn't an i
0
361
Ocean Dweller replied
Top Bottom