By the end of this thing I fully expect Trump to hand-deliver them the plans for the bomb and claim that it’s a win because he didn’t allow them to develop it themselves.
"No no, you see, we gave them plans but with all of the critical pieces redacted. That means we 'honored' the agreement but didn't actually have to give them anything important."
Meanwhile, Iran highlights the "redacted" text and just pastes it into a text file
It wasn't really a huge toll. It was 1 dollar a barrel, a ship carrying a million barells worth 100 million dollars of oil would pay 1 million. That is a 1% tax which isn't that big unless you are an oil company that is used to paying nothing or getting a subsidy.
I'm waiting for Iran to let through European bound vessels for free to set Trump up to order strikes on Spanish or British ships.
Start up a whole new front where NATO kicks the USA out and blockades the USA from international trade.
well, you're right that the oil companies shipping the oil can easily pay the price, but that doesn't mean they won't still pass the cost on, even if they are getting subsidies. and the average ship carries around 2 million barrels. sure, some carry less, and the big ones can carry up to ~ 4 million, but the point is that the costs will be passed on to the customer either way.
not to mention the massive backlog which already exists. even if they opened up the strait right now, to full capacity, it could take months to clear the backlog. and with those waiting to go through in line running out of (or already completely out of) supplies, some starving, this gets even more desperate. and stupid.
Isnt the strait like open seas and not anyone's territorial waters? If so, I dont see taxing vessels legal, no matter how small the fee is.
I've worked for a publicly listed company, and we've been doing savings for mere $10k's. I think while compared to the oil carried the fee would be small, you could employ 20 people for a year for that sum. And that's a one way fee for one vessel
I'm confused by why everyone sees this as stupid. It seems like an obvious eventuality. Why would Trump allow Iran to use the strait? Leaving it open to Iranian interests only benefits Iran.
because it only escalates the conflict further while possibly dragging in other major actors like china and India when what both sides need now (not to mention the global economy) is a negotiated peace.
edit: the consequences so far have already been terrible, and the longer this conflict goes on, the worse it will get for literally everyone.
I mean for however smart Iran had been playing things, their ceasefire conditions were not made to end the conflict. I mean there is global opposition to a toll on the strait.
Not to mention that this blockade stance is at least not diplomacy through bombs.
Not to mention that this blockade stance is at least not diplomacy through bombs.
it sure is when Trump threatens to blow up anyone who opposes his blockade. it's just bombs through different means. and Iran is smart enough that they hold all the cards here-- Trump called the blockade illegal and the charging of tolls illegal (both true, technically), then proceeds to demand a share of the tolls and blockades the strait himself. Both of these are obviously non-starter positions which he has repeatedly, himself, very loudly called illegal, placing him in no position to use them as negotiating positions and making him look like both a hypocritical ass and an idiot. well, ya know, more.
this puts Iran ahead, again whenever they start negotiations again, and, until then, now they have a bunch of US navy warships to shoot at in the strait, just sitting there, that weren't there before, in range of their missiles and drones. boom.
add this to a long list of Trump strategic missteps and losses so far, and this weakens Trump's and the US's position even further
I'm not saying it's not an aggressive action, but saying I'll bomb anything that crosses this line is vastly different to I'll keep bombing your entire country.
I mean, how do you think Iran would enforce a toll on the strait. A threat of violence is part of diplomacy, maybe not the best kind of diplomacy, but still.
While it is an interesting comparison, it is actually the reverse.
The point of a siege is to starve out the defenders, while suppressing relief, so that the defenders will eventually submit. (See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_(military))
In this case, if we map "blockade" onto "besiege", it was Iran that initiated the blockade of the Gulf States. So if Trump blockades the blockade, he's not doing Caesar's move, he's doing Vercassivellaunos's move. Trump is not the besieger, he's the relief.
That said, the blockade of Hormuz is strategically very different from besieging a fortified position. The strategic value of a siege is localized, it's about defeating the enemy and neutralizing that position. The strategic value of the blockade of Hormuz is global. The Iranians are not trying to neutralize the Gulf States. They are trying to force a cost on the world economy, to get the rest of the world to restrain the powers attacking them. The strategic gamble I think is that they are hoping that the global effects of the blockade are non-linear, whereas the effects on them are linear.
By the end of this thing I fully expect Trump to hand-deliver them the plans for the bomb and claim that it’s a win because he didn’t allow them to develop it themselves.
Meanwhile, Iran highlights the "redacted" text and just pastes it into a text file
"But the only thing you redacted was the uran part in the word uranium. And then only the once!!"
You're... Technically correct! The best kind of correct!
I think this is a major reason they will never assassinate Trump. He is a major asset to Iran...
Ah the classic “if I can’t have it nobody can”
A favourite of the consentually challenged.
well, Iran was letting a few ships through under strict circumstances, especially if they paid a huge toll. Trump is creating a total blockade.
still stupid, but there is a difference.
It wasn't really a huge toll. It was 1 dollar a barrel, a ship carrying a million barells worth 100 million dollars of oil would pay 1 million. That is a 1% tax which isn't that big unless you are an oil company that is used to paying nothing or getting a subsidy.
I'm waiting for Iran to let through European bound vessels for free to set Trump up to order strikes on Spanish or British ships.
Start up a whole new front where NATO kicks the USA out and blockades the USA from international trade.
well, you're right that the oil companies shipping the oil can easily pay the price, but that doesn't mean they won't still pass the cost on, even if they are getting subsidies. and the average ship carries around 2 million barrels. sure, some carry less, and the big ones can carry up to ~ 4 million, but the point is that the costs will be passed on to the customer either way.
not to mention the massive backlog which already exists. even if they opened up the strait right now, to full capacity, it could take months to clear the backlog. and with those waiting to go through in line running out of (or already completely out of) supplies, some starving, this gets even more desperate. and stupid.
and don't even get me started on NATO
Would you rather by oil for $60 + $1 toll, or for $150? Either one gets passed on to customers.
I'd rather have neither, and the strait controlled by the UN, like before Trump fucked everything up with this idiotic and unnecessary war
Well I want a pony that builds drones and shits money.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
tolls that get passed on to customers isn't "good" for anyone but the toll-collector and, potentially, the embezzling oil company
If the alternative is no oil at all, yes they are. 1% tolls are bloody great. Give me 1% tolls.
Isnt the strait like open seas and not anyone's territorial waters? If so, I dont see taxing vessels legal, no matter how small the fee is.
I've worked for a publicly listed company, and we've been doing savings for mere $10k's. I think while compared to the oil carried the fee would be small, you could employ 20 people for a year for that sum. And that's a one way fee for one vessel
Possession (of drones) is nine-tenths of the law.
Employing 20 people for 1 million dollars a year is pretty criminal, that's like 5000 each...
I think you missed a zero.
I guess I did, that's embarassing
I'm confused by why everyone sees this as stupid. It seems like an obvious eventuality. Why would Trump allow Iran to use the strait? Leaving it open to Iranian interests only benefits Iran.
because it only escalates the conflict further while possibly dragging in other major actors like china and India when what both sides need now (not to mention the global economy) is a negotiated peace.
edit: the consequences so far have already been terrible, and the longer this conflict goes on, the worse it will get for literally everyone.
I mean for however smart Iran had been playing things, their ceasefire conditions were not made to end the conflict. I mean there is global opposition to a toll on the strait.
Not to mention that this blockade stance is at least not diplomacy through bombs.
it sure is when Trump threatens to blow up anyone who opposes his blockade. it's just bombs through different means. and Iran is smart enough that they hold all the cards here-- Trump called the blockade illegal and the charging of tolls illegal (both true, technically), then proceeds to demand a share of the tolls and blockades the strait himself. Both of these are obviously non-starter positions which he has repeatedly, himself, very loudly called illegal, placing him in no position to use them as negotiating positions and making him look like both a hypocritical ass and an idiot. well, ya know, more.
this puts Iran ahead, again whenever they start negotiations again, and, until then, now they have a bunch of US navy warships to shoot at in the strait, just sitting there, that weren't there before, in range of their missiles and drones. boom.
add this to a long list of Trump strategic missteps and losses so far, and this weakens Trump's and the US's position even further
A blockade is diplomacy through bombs though, how do you think a blockade is enforced?
I'm not saying it's not an aggressive action, but saying I'll bomb anything that crosses this line is vastly different to I'll keep bombing your entire country.
I mean, how do you think Iran would enforce a toll on the strait. A threat of violence is part of diplomacy, maybe not the best kind of diplomacy, but still.
Because if he blockades Chinese oil ships, as he would need to to actually blockade the Strait, he's declaring war on China.
Or china goes lol and doubles down heavier on green energy instead of spending on military. Which is the logical thing to do.
Ah yes the rare offensive surrender gambit
oh hey we had the same thought
we are good at strategery you and me
I'm convinced that some A.I. told Trump to do that.
Either Grok or Co-pilot. Grok because it's insane, and Co-pilot because it's just bad.
You would have to have a mind to be insane. Math can't be insane. Stop antropomorphising machines.
Grok is just bad in a different way from Copilot.
Grok-Pilot.
I fucking laughed when I saw the news. Its the ultimate "no, you can't quit, im firing you" sure dude whatever you say.
Can't tank the global economy if I tank it first.
Art of the Deal!
if you can't beat the enemy, join them
Does that mean US warships will be in range of Iran missiles or has that always been the case?
No. All reports of US ships approaching were ships that Iran ordered to turn back, and they did. The US can blockade from Indian Ocean/Arabian sea.
A few already are in range of Iran drones. It will mean some more ship will.
Iran seems not interested in attacking them right now. What makes sense, since they are in negotiations.
Yknow, you say this, but honestly it worked for Caeser against Vercingetorix
Nah, all that Caesar got was getting blockaded himself. Blockading the blockade blockading the blockade was what actually worked.
While it is an interesting comparison, it is actually the reverse.
The point of a siege is to starve out the defenders, while suppressing relief, so that the defenders will eventually submit. (See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_(military)) In this case, if we map "blockade" onto "besiege", it was Iran that initiated the blockade of the Gulf States. So if Trump blockades the blockade, he's not doing Caesar's move, he's doing Vercassivellaunos's move. Trump is not the besieger, he's the relief.
That said, the blockade of Hormuz is strategically very different from besieging a fortified position. The strategic value of a siege is localized, it's about defeating the enemy and neutralizing that position. The strategic value of the blockade of Hormuz is global. The Iranians are not trying to neutralize the Gulf States. They are trying to force a cost on the world economy, to get the rest of the world to restrain the powers attacking them. The strategic gamble I think is that they are hoping that the global effects of the blockade are non-linear, whereas the effects on them are linear.
6d chess master has spoken
Duck season!
Don't be fooled by the rocks that I got
I'm still I'm still Donnie from the block
Used to have a little, now I have a lot
I like the other Don Tzu drawing, too. It is funny. Especially with how badly he is doing with this shit.
you know i was watching star trek the other night and you know the first thing picard did when he got command of the flagship?
he surrendered.
bad. fucking. ass.
he surrendered. and won. bet krasnov doesn't have enough balls to pull that off.
Not that this war and everything about it from our (US) side isn't certifiably retarded... ... couldn't we have just done that in the first place?