-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Monitoring the situation in Iran
- Thread starter EviLore
- Start date
AJUMP23
Parody of actual AJUMP23
They operate on futures. You make promises to send oil at below market rates to supply resources you need in the time being.
The world can run on credit.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
As mentioned on the last page, individual countries are negotiating with Iran for safe passages for their ships, incl. France, italy India and more.
Wildebeest
Member
Iran is one of the largest countries in the world and nuclear materials are some of the smallest resources in the world, even the waste is negligible small. I'd be surprised if they had trouble hiding it.
Haint
Member
That is still a tiny fraction of normal operations though, and thus still high double digit loss of income, maybe 60, 70 or 80% instead of 90%. So if they wind up negotiating free passage with most countries, how do they create their doomsday $200 barrel scenario?
Their futures and "credit" would have to be sub prime triple F junk rated at this point as their government has a real chance of not existing. They would presumably have to be selling for pennies on the dollar due to the risk incurred, which would wreck similar havoc and still result in a catastrophic loss of income.
Last edited:
Chittagong
Gold Member
Going to call it now - DJT fucked up, miscalculated the Iranian population like Putin did the Ukrainian population, but unlike Putin who collected 10T worth of minerals, he will be left with a dick in his hand.
There was probably a one week window where this could have been pulled off and they blew it.
Cuba will provide some fire cover for the biggest taco feast ever, so folding the Iran adventure will coincide with a "deal" with them. Very real possibility of this fucking their midterms.
That's my prediction at this point from my discussions with finance bros.
There was probably a one week window where this could have been pulled off and they blew it.
Cuba will provide some fire cover for the biggest taco feast ever, so folding the Iran adventure will coincide with a "deal" with them. Very real possibility of this fucking their midterms.
That's my prediction at this point from my discussions with finance bros.
Vestal
Junior Member
do they have to create doomsday though? Look at how people are running around like chickens with their heads cut off and we haven't even reached 130 dollars a barrel.
Last edited:
calico
Member
It's not physically closed, they can allow through any ship they want.
They can't. If they start letting everyone and their dog through then their terroristic plan is finished.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
They don't care. Iran is in a suicidal mode now - banks are destroyed, transactions are tracked and so on. They are just in the mode - "let's go with a bang"
Vestal
Junior Member
Unless we are willing to commit boots on the ground Iran's regime appears to remain intact and will maintain control of the strait. Don't know how the current situation makes them suicidal when countries are actively engaging in diplomacy with them in order to get boats through the strait.
This all circles back to the basic fact that this entire endevor was forced and ill conceived.
Last edited:
Dr.Guru of Peru
played the long game
Weren't you calling this a Trump strategic master stroke a few days ago?
All those cringe"latinas of the middle east" social media posts probably got to him. Even early on you could tell there was something off with the way Trump talked about the war versus the rest of the administration.
Last edited:
Critical Hit
Member
Their local system has been independent for a long time (Shetab & Hawala).
Chittagong
Gold Member
I may have been wrong
lachesis
Member
Honestly though, I feel like the most of the modern conflicts stem from English/French/European colonial times where they drew the borderlines basically on their whim and vague in many regions - and US is dealing with it now.
Whole of Middle East, Pakistan India, Palkistan Afghanistan etc etc.
And US is doing what it can to resolve and eventually stabilize. What does Europe do? Basically hands off approach on issues they originally created sometimes makes me feel little disappointed.
Everyone seems to have idea of who did wrong first - including myself- but how far into the history does it count? 50 yrs? 100 yrs? Past that, the whole "fault" just reset, because it happened xx years ago? Whatever there is an ongoing issue, more often than not there are opposing justices to their side historically. You just have to dial the time back little further.
I do sometimes think how long did ww2 happen, and in my mind it feels like it happened 50 some yrs ago, but no. It happened 87 yrs ago… nearly 100 yrs soon… but people still talk about that event as if it happened just a few decades ago. Stuck in the past and making quick judgments on who's at fault, ignoring what has been brewing up for hundreds years already.
But all those anti war folks, I would like to see their practical solutions, and why their way would work on tough religious fanatical countries like Iran whom hold much grudge against anyone including their neighboring Islam nations enough to attack their civilians, and not rational enough to care for their own citizens and going for suicidal mode. But all I see is that they are just demanding without giving alternatives logical solution that convinces me.
Whole of Middle East, Pakistan India, Palkistan Afghanistan etc etc.
And US is doing what it can to resolve and eventually stabilize. What does Europe do? Basically hands off approach on issues they originally created sometimes makes me feel little disappointed.
Everyone seems to have idea of who did wrong first - including myself- but how far into the history does it count? 50 yrs? 100 yrs? Past that, the whole "fault" just reset, because it happened xx years ago? Whatever there is an ongoing issue, more often than not there are opposing justices to their side historically. You just have to dial the time back little further.
I do sometimes think how long did ww2 happen, and in my mind it feels like it happened 50 some yrs ago, but no. It happened 87 yrs ago… nearly 100 yrs soon… but people still talk about that event as if it happened just a few decades ago. Stuck in the past and making quick judgments on who's at fault, ignoring what has been brewing up for hundreds years already.
But all those anti war folks, I would like to see their practical solutions, and why their way would work on tough religious fanatical countries like Iran whom hold much grudge against anyone including their neighboring Islam nations enough to attack their civilians, and not rational enough to care for their own citizens and going for suicidal mode. But all I see is that they are just demanding without giving alternatives logical solution that convinces me.
Bojji
Gold Member
You think those regions were stable before Europeans conquered them? They were constantly fighting themselves and invading Europe for ~1000 years.
USA had problems with Muslims since country appeared on map, first USA war was with Barbary pirates
Last edited:
Wildebeest
Member
You should explain that to the Iranians. Maybe they will see how right you are stop fighting.
lachesis
Member
Haha, I am just humbly asking and looking for a solution, preferably with my head intact, not beheaded and displayed in front of a Toyota 4x4 pickup truck like Isis (IIRC) did some time back.
IlGialloMondadori
Member
This was obvious from day 1.
Like I said before, Hegseth is the Kristi Noem of war.
You put incompetent people in charge, you get incompetent results.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
Not really. The only thing that european powers brought was the definition of a state. And modern technology. If we look at the current conflicts - none of them are relatively new. You can probably go back thousand years and find the same war fought between almost the same ethnic groups. Wars stem from the politics. And politics is geography. To know a nation's geography is to know its foreign policy.
Sometimes it even rhymes. Like some people are joking about USS Tripoli travelling to Iran while also recalling the Barbary War.
Last edited:
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Not sure why some of you are thinking that forcing the IRGC's hand in using Hormuz as a political pressure point was the mistake. I mean if they could do this after being bombed to shit, why wouldn't they have been able to do the same thing but even more effectively were they allowed to be able to move first?
Like say, if they were allowed to get nukes ?
I really think some of you guys have sorely underestimated/are underestimating the threat posed by a rogue state like Iran! They have always presented a unique threat in the region.
Like say, if they were allowed to get nukes ?
I really think some of you guys have sorely underestimated/are underestimating the threat posed by a rogue state like Iran! They have always presented a unique threat in the region.
Hero of Spielberg
Member
Did the Barber pirates have cool haircuts?You think those regions were stable before Europeans conquered them? They were constantly fighting themselves and invading Europe for ~1000 years.
USA had problems with Muslims since country appeared on map, first USA war was with Barber pirates
IlGialloMondadori
Member
No one has seen any evidence Iran was going to "move first." The Pentagon stated there was no evidence there was an imminent attack. The military had indicated they had destroyed their ability to create nuclear weapons completely.
No one liked Iran's leadership, and were well aware of how terrible they were and their list of crimes. No one is disputing they were always a threat.
The problem is if you go in half-cocked without a strategy or a plan or goals other than to blow the shit out of stuff with incompetent leaders like Hegseth in charge, you typically end up with a mess on your hands. Which is what this is looking like more and more each day.
Biggest winner at this point is Putin.
Last edited:
rorepmE
Member
They have been fighting since Muhammad died.
The main difference is the Shi'a believed Muhammad's cousin AND son-in-law Ali ibn Abi Talib (take that as you will) is the heir to the leadership of Islam. The Sunnis believe it was Muhammad's best bud Abu Bakr.
The Shi'a "curse" Abu Bakr and the 2 other "Caliphs" as usurpers. And by curse I don't mean a diss track ala Eazy-E to Dre, Snoop and Death Row Records. But publically praying to "Allah" to damn those 3 early caliphs for stealing Ali's rightful place as the heir of the prophet and their leaders are infallible.
The Sunni, especially the more puritanical sects like Wahhabi see Shi'ites as idolaters because they believe they worship the Ayatollahs.
The Sunnis outnumber the Shia 9-1 globally but in countries like Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon, Bahrain et al have significant Shi'ites population. Bahrain for example is like 3/4 Shi'a but the monarchy are Sunni.
tl;dr Muhammad forgot to pick his successor and they have been fighting each other ever since and add in modern geopolitics and power and events like the Iranian Revolution...
Last edited:
Lord Panda
The Sea is Always Right
Last edited:
Bojji
Gold Member
calico
Member
Correct. Iran's terroristic policy toward the strait proves beyond doubt the US position that Iran cannot be allowed nuclear weapons.
The story that the US somehow overlooked the strait is obviously nonsense. They understood the risk and decided it was the lesser risk.
Of course, for basically all of Western history, problems like this would be addressed with nothing like the current level of squeamishness towards incurring casualties. Considering the military action is being conducted with almost zero tolerance for casualties, something has to give, and in this case the trade off is slightly elevated oil prices, though even these currently aren't all that unusually high in real terms.
Hero of Spielberg
Member
Pentagon reportedly sending more warships and Marines to Middle East
The USS Tripoli, USS New Orleans, USS San Diego and the embarked 31st MEU are reportedly heading to the Middle East in support of Operation Epic Fury.
www.militarytimes.com
Boots on ground time?
Red Crayon Aristocrat
Member
This has already gone on longer and had a higher cost than Trump hoped or expected I'd bet.
The issue with the middle east is any time you try to "fix" things it only makes it worse, Saddam may have been a stinker, taking him out didn't do Iraq any real favors, people thought the Arab Spring was going to be a good thing, but all both things basically really lead to was further chaos, blossoming into stuff like ISIS.
It sucks, but the best you can seem to hope for is relative stability while the rest of the world does it's thing, when shit gets stirred up, it affects the rest of the world in negative ways, the 2010s chaos leading to stuff like the refugee crisis of 2015, I'm scared to think of what this might cause.
Trump was always going to eventually bite off more than he could chew on something, young people are not going to fight another middle east war, the United States as we know it will not survive a third blunder ala Vietnam, Iraq, it would kick off the revolution, Civil War 2, who knows what, at the very least it'd mark the end of us as an empire and China would take the lead from us.
Trump needs to be very, VERY careful about his next move, this was already probably a thing best left well enough alone.
The issue with the middle east is any time you try to "fix" things it only makes it worse, Saddam may have been a stinker, taking him out didn't do Iraq any real favors, people thought the Arab Spring was going to be a good thing, but all both things basically really lead to was further chaos, blossoming into stuff like ISIS.
It sucks, but the best you can seem to hope for is relative stability while the rest of the world does it's thing, when shit gets stirred up, it affects the rest of the world in negative ways, the 2010s chaos leading to stuff like the refugee crisis of 2015, I'm scared to think of what this might cause.
Trump was always going to eventually bite off more than he could chew on something, young people are not going to fight another middle east war, the United States as we know it will not survive a third blunder ala Vietnam, Iraq, it would kick off the revolution, Civil War 2, who knows what, at the very least it'd mark the end of us as an empire and China would take the lead from us.
Trump needs to be very, VERY careful about his next move, this was already probably a thing best left well enough alone.
Last edited:
Dr.Guru of Peru
played the long game
DJT been playing 4D chess all along. Too bad he's just a pawn.
No way this is a temporary move. The effects of the war are going to last for months at the minimum and the sale of Russian oil will soon become normalized.
Last edited:
IlGialloMondadori
Member
Instead, he's going to invade Cuba.
Tams
Member
Ahhh the 'let's negotiate' crowd are here.
Sure, you can do that. Then they jack up the price of allowing it. I bet you let bully's steal your lunch money because they then left you alone.
Meicyn
Member
I know Rubio was vehemently against putting American boots on the ground whereas Hegseth was for it. Guess Hegseth is getting what he wants.Pentagon reportedly sending more warships and Marines to Middle East
The USS Tripoli, USS New Orleans, USS San Diego and the embarked 31st MEU are reportedly heading to the Middle East in support of Operation Epic Fury.
Boots on ground time?
StueyDuck
Member
I still dont get this narrative that it was just trump being a silly boy.
The IRGC have been an active enemy of the US for 40 odd years, they were actively breaking treaties for years and years trying to get nuclear enriched materials to create a nuclear bomb.
They've funded proxy wars, funded terrorist organizations, were a part of the 9/11 attacks...
Whether Donald trump or Wingo the flim flam was in charge of the US, this was always going to happen
Iran have never, nor will they ever come to the negotiating table, and as they themselves chant, openly. They wish death to the west and especially America.
There was never a scenario in alternate history where this war doesnt take place.
These enemies go back long before Donald Trump was ever even thinking of taking a leap into politics.
DrFigs
Member
This is untrue. They've consistently been coming to the negotiating table and we're the ones that keep backtracking on diplomatic talks. It happened w/ the JCPOA, which Trump unilaterally exited from. It happened back in June when we allegedly "totally obliterated" their nuclear facilities, and it happened this time as well. We keep baiting them with the prospect of diplomacy and then drop bombs on them anyway. According to Oman's foreign minister who would be in the know in the negotiations, significant progress was being made in these last rounds and Iran even agreed to give up stockpiling nuclear material. The talks seem to have fallen apart because Israel was planning on attacking Iran, and the U.S. thought that this would lead to retaliatory attacks - so we attacked first. Confusing, yes, but that is what secretary of state, Marco Rubio said.
Last edited:
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
The IRGC's entire posture has been hostile for decades! Noone seriously believes they were building a nuclear program as a deterrent.
As you say, they were always a threat...
The point of the pentagon's strategy is not to "go in", its to disarm, destabilize, and isolate. Its more about creating the conditions for/opportunity for regime change, then forcibly imposing one.
"Boots on the ground" is not part of the plan, what purpose would a land invasion/occupation serve ?
Lastly, how is Putin winning anything ? He's just lost a key supplier of weapons for his failing campaign in Ukraine, and a regional ally in the ME. As a net exporter of petrochemicals obviously the disruption in the strait isn't going to affect Russia directly, but given the pressure to the shadow fleet that's not a help. Especially as he's got to be worried about the Chinese seeking to expand their interests at the fringes...
Sorry, but it seems to me Trump's foreign policy is extremely effective. Honestly, compared to the weak, ineffectual governments across the rest of the West... most of whom are struggling to hold onto power in their own countries... he looks good.
I'm sure everything in the US is far from perfect. But straight-up, look the miserable state of Europe as a comparison to see where following the established path leads.
If I'm as fat as a car and I tell you I'm skinny maybe I'm lying.
Bojji
Gold Member
Officially he never called himself atheist or agnostic. He used church on many occasions when he was rising to power:
Last edited:
Vestal
Junior Member
the hell are you talking about? Did you even bother reading what you were responding to?
It was the presence of US troops on the ground in Saudi Arabia and Somalia (invited in by their governments) that got Osama Bin Laden targeting the USA, not the Iraq war.:
"In 1988, after Soviet forces were defeated and withdrew from Afghanistan, bin Laden founded an organization called al Qaeda, or "the Base," to continue the cause of jihad (holy war) through violence and aggression.
Al Qaeda soon began raising money, setting up training camps, and providing military and intelligence instruction in such areas as Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Sudan. Under bin Laden's direction, al Qaeda started launching attacks and bombings in various nations to further its violent aims.
During this time, bin Laden was becoming increasingly hostile to the United States. In particular, he opposed the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia and Somalia and sought to drive our nation's personnel out of these areas by force.
After centering his operations in Sudan in the early 1990s, bin Laden began formulating plans to attack the West with an evolving, deadly new brand of jihad.
Bin Laden and other members of al Qaeda also began issuing fatwas—rulings on Islamic law—indicating that attacks on the U.S. and its citizens were both proper and necessary. Bin Laden later openly declared war on the United States."
DrFigs
Member
I think Scott Jennings really is one of those "pretending to be retarded" guys. He's clearly just going for a clip here that plays well to the conservative audience. I think we all understand the concept of cause and effect. In the same way we can say poverty leads to gang violence without saying that gang violence is a good thing.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked