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

Monitoring the situation in Iran

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's not TDS nor damned if you or do damned if you don't. The real play is to make constituents think you did something at all.

Hormuz was open, no fee. Trump did something dumb with no plan. And indications are he's TACOing. So net…he didn't really do anything at all, maybe made some things worse, legitimized the regime further.

So he basically created a problem, pretended to solve it. Sounds like big government swamp to me. Drain it, no praise.
 
Meicyn said:
Looking forward to the Wikipedia entry on the Strait of Hormuz Toll Booth, made possible by the Trump Administration.

Let's do some math! Pre-war, about 80 tankers pushed through per day. $2M fee per tanker x 80 tankers = $160M per day. $160M x 365 days = $58.4B. Assuming the war ends by next month, from 1 May there are 245 days left in the year. So $160M x 245 days = $39.2B.

So for the remaining duration of Trump's Presidential term assuming a start date of 1 May, Iran will collect $156B. And then will continue to collect fees for the foreseeable future.

Art of the deal, indeed.
Click to expand...
IRGC is not going to collect any toll there.

dem said:
Is it TDS to call out his absurd behavior?

Or is it TDS when you defend it no matter what?
Click to expand...
No, in this matter there is neither TDS or not TDS. It is more about following the threats. TDS is opposing Trump in everything he does, regardless of logic and reasoning.
 
Last edited:
Iran's statement sounds like their keeping the Strait under Iran's new toll system, which isn't a reopening.

Unless Trump's negotiating team agreed they're not going to contest the point? Someone in the administration needs to clarify this.
 
ChuckeRearmed said:
IRGC is not going to collect any toll there.
Click to expand...

Meicyn Meicyn didn't say IRGC.


-


finance.yahoo.com

Iran Cashes In On Strait Of Hormuz With Tolls As Trump Declares America 'Totally Independent' Of Middle East Oil

As Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) tightens its financial grip on the world's most critical oil chokepoint with a new toll system, President Donald Trump dismissed the regime's power, declaring the United States entirely insulated from the crisis. A De Facto ‘Toll Booth’...
finance.yahoo.com finance.yahoo.com
 
Last edited:
Tams said:
Only it wasn't. Iran has been attacking ships quite randomly.
Click to expand...
Iran's actions during the war have been unacceptable and illegal, but I wasn't familiar with Iran attacking ships prior to Operation Epic Fury. It's not something I've heard before. If it was the case, then I'd understand the U.S. a little better. Because from what I've seen so far, we were negotiating with Iran, they agreed to major concessions based on what people in the talks were putting out there, and then we bombed them anyways. The U.S. looks extremely unstable at the moment.
 
Last edited:
I missed others have posted it, anyways with the ceasefire now in place and Hormuz open. I'd like to go fill my scat pack back up with 93+ octane and my truck.
 
Last edited:
DrFigs said:
Iran's actions during the war have been unacceptable and illegal, but I wasn't familiar with Iran attacking ships prior to Operation Epic Fury. It's not something I've heard before. If it was the case, then I'd understand the U.S. a little better. Because from what I've seen so far, we were negotiating with Iran, they agreed to major concessions based on what people in the talks were putting out there, and then we bombed them anyways. The U.S. looks extremely unstable at the moment.
Click to expand...

www.theguardian.com

A visual guide to the Gulf tanker attacks

A series of explosions on oil tankers in the Middle East has raised alarm as regional tensions escalate
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

www.bbc.co.uk

Strait of Hormuz: Iranian boats 'tried to intercept British tanker'

The vessels withdrew after receiving a warning from a Royal Navy ship, the Ministry of Defence says.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

Also, the normal shipping lanes go through Omani territorial waters, so Iran making (terrorising) ships to use Iranian waters is still wrong.
 
FullMetalx117 said:
It's not TDS nor damned if you or do damned if you don't. The real play is to make constituents think you did something at all.

Hormuz was open, no fee. Trump did something dumb with no plan. And indications are he's TACOing. So net…he didn't really do anything at all, maybe made some things worse, legitimized the regime further.

So he basically created a problem, pretended to solve it. Sounds like big government swamp to me. Drain it, no praise.
Click to expand...

I wonder if Maduro thinks he's a taco. Or the Ayatollah. Scratch that, he's not really thinking anything right now.
 
The stamenent from the foreign minister is interesting BTW


Last part is funny ("with due consideration of technical limitations" aka - we have no navy), but also interesting in a way that he said Iran's Armed Forces rather than the Revolutionary Guard.
 
y8ozK3P7kRmTZw9V.jpg


Maybe trumps just trying to get bibi and aipac to bother someone else.
 
ChuckeRearmed said:
Oh, I see. Well in any case, there won't be any toll booth there.
Click to expand...

No, there won't be a toll booth there physically. But the act of paying money to ensure safe passage for ships has already started.

This is a practice that wasn't happening before and is only adding millions of dollars to Iran's coffers per ship.


 
Tams said:
www.theguardian.com

A visual guide to the Gulf tanker attacks

A series of explosions on oil tankers in the Middle East has raised alarm as regional tensions escalate
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

www.bbc.co.uk

Strait of Hormuz: Iranian boats 'tried to intercept British tanker'

The vessels withdrew after receiving a warning from a Royal Navy ship, the Ministry of Defence says.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

Also, the normal shipping lanes go through Omani territorial waters, so Iran making (terrorising) ships to use Iranian waters is still wrong.
Click to expand...
I don't think these one-off incidents from years ago have anything to do with the current conflict. I respect that you took the time to respond, but this wasn't at the scale that would justify going to war with them.
 
adamsapple said:
No, there won't be a toll booth there physically. But the act of paying money to ensure safe passage for ships has already started.

This is a practice that wasn't happening before and is only adding millions of dollars to Iran's coffers per ship.


Click to expand...

They started it before but not after the ceasefire. That's the whole point.
 
ChuckeRearmed said:
They started it before but not after the ceasefire. That's the whole point.
Click to expand...

Yes, they didn't start it just now after the ceasefire announcement an hour ago.

They started it in March, in response to the attacks. I don't think they were doing it before that, last year etc for example.
 
adamsapple said:
Yes, they didn't start it just now after the ceasefire announcement an hour ago.

They started it in March, in response to the attacks. I don't think they were doing it before that, last year etc for example.
Click to expand...
I know that they hadn't been doing that before, but I was saying they wouldn't be doing that during the ceasefire.
 
Last edited:
Vestal said:
Btw.. These are the list of demands from Iran that are the basis of this cease fire according to Trump..

  1. Permanent End to Hostilities: A lasting, comprehensive end to the war, rather than a temporary ceasefire.
  2. Security Guarantees: A binding guarantee that Iran will not be attacked by the U.S. or Israel again.
  3. Lifting All Sanctions: Immediate removal of all U.S. economic sanctions against Iran.
  4. End to Regional Attacks: A complete halt to Israeli strikes in Lebanon and against other Iranian allies.
  5. Reopening the Strait of Hormuz: Reopening the critical energy route in exchange for accepting the deal.
  6. Hormuz Transit Fee: Imposition of a 2 million fee per vessel passing through the Strait.
  7. Revenue Sharing: Splitting the transit fees with Oman.
  8. Reconstruction Funding: Using shipping fees for Iranian infrastructure reconstruction, rather than seeking direct compensation.
  9. Safe Passage Protocols: Implementation of Iranian-controlled rules for safe passage in the Strait.
  10. A Broad Regional Settlement: A general framework to end all regional hostilities involving Iran and its proxies.

Umm.. This sounds like the IRGC would be making a KILLING financially for the foreseeable future all of it agreed upon across the globe and not in a clandestine fashion..


EDIT... So my question.. WTF was the point in ANY OF THIS?!?!?! To further legitimize a Theocracy?
Click to expand...

Yeah hopefully the "workable basis" line is doing a lot of heavy lifting because I don't see how 2-4 or 6-9 are acceptable. What an embarrassment for the administration if anything close to this is accepted.
 
TheAtomicPile said:
Yeah hopefully the "workable basis" line is doing a lot of heavy lifting because I don't see how 2-4 or 6-9 are acceptable. What an embarrassment for the administration if anything close to this is accepted.
Click to expand...
Absolutely agreed. This is a fucking mess through and through, and we got the carnival crowd running this on our end.
 
Vestal said:
Btw.. These are the list of demands from Iran that are the basis of this cease fire according to Trump..

  1. Permanent End to Hostilities: A lasting, comprehensive end to the war, rather than a temporary ceasefire.
  2. Security Guarantees: A binding guarantee that Iran will not be attacked by the U.S. or Israel again.
  3. Lifting All Sanctions: Immediate removal of all U.S. economic sanctions against Iran.
  4. End to Regional Attacks: A complete halt to Israeli strikes in Lebanon and against other Iranian allies.
  5. Reopening the Strait of Hormuz: Reopening the critical energy route in exchange for accepting the deal.
  6. Hormuz Transit Fee: Imposition of a 2 million fee per vessel passing through the Strait.
  7. Revenue Sharing: Splitting the transit fees with Oman.
  8. Reconstruction Funding: Using shipping fees for Iranian infrastructure reconstruction, rather than seeking direct compensation.
  9. Safe Passage Protocols: Implementation of Iranian-controlled rules for safe passage in the Strait.
  10. A Broad Regional Settlement: A general framework to end all regional hostilities involving Iran and its proxies.

Umm.. This sounds like the IRGC would be making a KILLING financially for the foreseeable future all of it agreed upon across the globe and not in a clandestine fashion..


EDIT... So my question.. WTF was the point in ANY OF THIS?!?!?! To further legitimize a Theocracy?
Click to expand...


These are some sky high demands, lol. They're probably expecting to negotiate somewhere in the middle.
 
DrFigs said:
I don't think these one-off incidents from years ago have anything to do with the current conflict. I respect that you took the time to respond, but this wasn't at the scale that would justify going to war with them.
Click to expand...

Of course they weren't at the same rate.

But Iran were still attacking shipping, only without any justification at all then.

I don't understand how this is hard for you to comprehend.
 
Tams said:
Of course they weren't at the same rate.

But Iran were still attacking shipping, only without any justification at all then.

I don't understand how this is hard for you to comprehend.
Click to expand...
Maybe getting confused with the Houthis who were attacking ships in the Red Sea?
 
Tams said:
Wow, the IQ levels have dropped here.

Trump has said the Iranian proposal is a workable basis to start with.

That doesn't mean the US would agree to such a high toll, or any toll.

Also, even the Iranian proposal suggests splitting it with Oman, yet a number of you here didn't bother reading that.
Click to expand...

You would know that the suggestion of a toll is against international conventions as freedom of navigation through natural waterways if your IQ was as high as you believe. Only man-made canals like the Panama and Suez can charge transit fees. Turkyie is only permitted to charge certain fees as part of the Montreux Convention which was a multilateral agreement between nations. Even then, they must be framed as service fees vs transition charges to comply with international law.

Calling a proposal that amounts to a complete capitulation to Iran's demands and a rewrite of internationally law a "workable basis" for an agreement is a stretch. It's basically untenable based on US stated goals and relative power. Trump simply wants an off ramp because the war is unpopular in an election year. Gas prices were soaring and even his most diehard supporters would have trouble with the butcher's bill incurred by a ground war in Iran.
 
Meicyn said:
They're functionally an extension of the IRGC, who funds them, Hamas, and Hezbollah.
Click to expand...
Yeah. So that's why the ceasefire is interesting - you have the civil branch making a statement, rather than the religious one. Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas etc. are all the part of the clerical IRGC branch, rather than armed forces. Will see how it is going to develop.
 
ChuckeRearmed said:
Yeah. So that's why the ceasefire is interesting - you have the civil branch making a statement, rather than the religious one. Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas etc. are all the part of the clerical IRGC branch, rather than armed forces. Will see how it is going to develop.
Click to expand...
They'll adhere to it I suspect, as there is now a two week window for China and Russia to provide more drone supplies.
 
Meicyn said:
They'll adhere to it I suspect, as there is now a two week window for China and Russia to provide more drone supplies.
Click to expand...
We will see. I suspect that the iranian elites will try to cull the IRGC. Especially considering that we haven't heard anything from Ghalibaf and others from IRGC branch.
 
Last edited:
Meicyn said:
They'll adhere to it I suspect, as there is now a two week window for China and Russia to provide more drone supplies.
Click to expand...
This is the crap that worries me. The more China and Russia get invested in current hostilities the easier shit spills out of control to something else entierly.
 
LyricalShrike said:
You would know that the suggestion of a toll is against international conventions as freedom of navigation through natural waterways if your IQ was as high as you believe. Only man-made canals like the Panama and Suez can charge transit fees. Turkyie is only permitted to charge certain fees as part of the Montreux Convention which was a multilateral agreement between nations. Even then, they must be framed as service fees vs transition charges to comply with international law.

Calling a proposal that amounts to a complete capitulation to Iran's demands and a rewrite of internationally law a "workable basis" for an agreement is a stretch. It's basically untenable based on US stated goals and relative power. Trump simply wants an off ramp because the war is unpopular in an election year. Gas prices were soaring and even his most diehard supporters would have trouble with the butcher's bill incurred by a ground war in Iran.
Click to expand...

I'm well aware of the International conventions*. Even abiding by those, the shipping route through the Strait doesn't go through Iranian waters, so it would be strait up racketeering and terrorism.

I was pointing out the idiocy of people who couldn't be bothered to read that even the Iranian 'proposal' wasn't as bad as they were making it out to be.


*Which don't have to be abided to. It's up to the country who's territory it is.
 
Brucey said:
Maybe getting confused with the Houthis who were attacking ships in the Red Sea?
Click to expand...

Tams said:
www.theguardian.com

A visual guide to the Gulf tanker attacks

A series of explosions on oil tankers in the Middle East has raised alarm as regional tensions escalate
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

www.bbc.co.uk

Strait of Hormuz: Iranian boats 'tried to intercept British tanker'

The vessels withdrew after receiving a warning from a Royal Navy ship, the Ministry of Defence says.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

Also, the normal shipping lanes go through Omani territorial waters, so Iran making (terrorising) ships to use Iranian waters is still wrong.
Click to expand...
 
Unknown Soldier said:


Today's reminder that Trump's predecessors all did the stuff he threatened to do but everyone was ok with it then because it wasn't Trump
Click to expand...


Same account that posted this earlier today. Now going into ten paragraph long tweets about the 'double standards' of media coverage from 'hypothetical strikes'.


JDdyMK6CmwqIkoVh.png




The comedy writes itself.
 
Last edited:
Tams said:
Based on the risk to the assets? Yes it is. That's all insurance is based on: risk analysis.

You know, what with being attacked a big fucking risk.
Click to expand...
How do you square that with your claim that the attacks preceded the war but dumb luck prevented insurers from charging higher premiums?
 


Iran and Oman will charge ships to pass through the Strait of Hormuz under the two-week ceasefire plan. Iran will use the funds for reconstruction, while Oman's plans are unclear. Source: AP
Click to expand...


what are Oman's "plans" ?







----------


edit:

Hegseth conference tomorrow morning .


 
Last edited:
Tams said:
I'm well aware of the International conventions*. Even abiding by those, the shipping route through the Strait doesn't go through Iranian waters, so it would be strait up racketeering and terrorism.

I was pointing out the idiocy of people who couldn't be bothered to read that even the Iranian 'proposal' wasn't as bad as they were making it out to be.


*Which don't have to be abided to. It's up to the country who's territory it is.
Click to expand...

If you actually knew what you were talking about you would have brought up the Bosporus precedent in the first place. Or you would have noted that Iran's fee is technically lower than those imposed for transit and piloting through the Bosporus by viture of it being a flat fee for ships carrying magnitudes more cargo (the words for your prompt to verify this are "Bosporusmax" and "VLCC"). Those were Iran's justifications if you had read further.

You chose to call out "idiocy" by using the fact that Iran proposes a fee split as a gotcha to support your guy while neglecting the magnitude of such a concession. How is a list of demands that gives Iran every one of its long term policy goals and formalizes Iran's sovereign control over the straight not as bad as people make it out to be? It's effectively a conditional surrender to Iran.

You also miss the reality of the strait now. Iran has proven that it can close the straight whenever it wants through sporadic missile fire and the US has not shown any capability to force it open. Iran would be free to close the strait again if Oman chose to contravene any treaty specifying transit fees. Iran's future closures of the straight would also be legally justifiable due to such an agreement being signed in the first place.

That's why I am critical of the ceasefire. I didn't want there to be war but I understood the threat Iran plays to world markets. I think leaving the job half-finished to avoid ground action and potentially giving into Iran's demands does irreparable damage to American hegemony which is even worse for long term stability than a war with Iran.
 
LyricalShrike said:
If you actually knew what you were talking about you would have brought up the Bosporus precedent in the first place. Or you would have noted that Iran's fee is technically lower than those imposed for transit and piloting through the Bosporus by viture of it being a flat fee for ships carrying magnitudes more cargo (the words for your prompt to verify this are "Bosporusmax" and "VLCC"). Those were Iran's justifications if you had read further.

You chose to call out "idiocy" by using the fact that Iran proposes a fee split as a gotcha to support your guy while neglecting the magnitude of such a concession. How is a list of demands that gives Iran every one of its long term policy goals and formalizes Iran's sovereign control over the straight not as bad as people make it out to be? It's effectively a conditional surrender to Iran.

You also miss the reality of the strait now. Iran has proven that it can close the straight whenever it wants through sporadic missile fire and the US has not shown any capability to force it open. Iran would be free to close the strait again if Oman chose to contravene any treaty specifying transit fees. Iran's future closures of the straight would also be legally justifiable due to such an agreement being signed in the first place.

That's why I am critical of the ceasefire. I didn't want there to be war but I understood the threat Iran plays to world markets. I think leaving the job half-finished to avoid ground action and potentially giving into Iran's demands does irreparable damage to American hegemony which is even worse for long term stability than a war with Iran.
Click to expand...

I didn't bring up the Bosporus precedent, you did...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Can we has back our Iran thread?
2 3
100
1K
LearnandBurn replied
  • Locked
UK bans Coinbase ad mocking UK's current situation, portraying the country as dystopian
20
2K
TommyCronin6969 replied
Any recommendations on a portable monitor? The ones that look like an iPad.
2
572
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
495
YCoCg replied
Chat Control, the EUs super bill to monitor the web
2 3 4
164
5K
Unknown Soldier replied
Top Bottom