Iran Super Thread- Merged

[KevinB]

You've made a better case here for war than any administration official (including POTUS) did.

I'd suggest that while there are some strategic thinkers assisting the Administration - no one in the Administration understands (or cares to understand) how to communicate with anyone who isn't in (the very edge of) their base.

 

[KevinB]

Called it.

Amazing how war in Iran will end up fucking up Ukraine and Europe even more in the long run.

Well with any lucky Ukraine can apply more permanent "sanctions" on Russian oil...

 

[Czech_pivo]

I'd suggest that while there are some strategic thinkers assisting the Administration - no one in the Administration understands (or cares to understand) how to communicate with anyone who isn't in the (very edge) of their base.

Goes back to my comments that I'm not convinced that the most intelligent people are being listened to or calling the shots.

 

[OldSolduer]

Well not good news

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

Honestly we should know this already.

 

[brihard]

Agreed.
However keep in mind was published March of 2025, from 2024 collation and honestly OBE at time of printing.

There has been releases since from DIA, CIA, as well as Congress and the WH of declassified information showing how far away Iran was from having enough fissile material for a bomb.
Even the UN has admitted that it was likely 10 days away before the US strikes last year, and based on the recently released declassified reports, Iran has begun to attempt assembly.

Also keep in mind that the USG sent JSOC assets to seize a Russian flagged ship that had departed Iran for Venezuela — something one generally doesn’t do in international waters - as well as warned off the Russian DDG and SSN attempting to escort it that they would be sunk if they intervened.

It doesn’t take a SCI cleared three assessment to understand that ship had something very significant on it.

If this is accurate, this is really something the U.S. government should be talking about to a reasonable extent. If this information is true and is openly enough known that you feel fine with just casually dropping it here, it should be safe enough to offer the world at least a partial explanation of some courses of action that otherwise appear reckless and wildly destructive. The ship is already seized, the bombs already dropped… The other guy has seen all this happen already.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Stocks vs. Flows.

Building an EV is a discrete draw down of rare earth stocks. If China stops shipping rare earths, the car still works. It doesn't magically turn into a pumpkin. And that's aside from, ya know, the US having the ability to simply produce rare Earths, which they refuse to because they don't like the pollution.

Meanwhile, gas is a continuous flow, hypersensitive to every geopolitical event. And now every adversary on Earth knows that all they have to do to get Americans to quit any fight is just jack up gas to $3.5/gal. Knowing the pain threshold of Americans is very revealing of the decision space of every POTUS. Ergo, a limit on strategic independence.

But hey, if Americans (and folks like you) don't get this. It's fine. CRINK does. And Iran just demonstrated how well they understand this.

Prices don’t have to jack up. The US and Canada are net exporters. We don’t have to participate on the global oil market to secure ourselves. We choose to, there is a difference.

 

[KevinB]

If this is accurate, this is really something the U.S. government should be talking about to a reasonable extent. If this information is true and is openly enough known that you feel fine with just casually dropping it here, it should be safe enough to offer the world at least a partial explanation of some courses of action that otherwise appear reckless and wildly destructive. The ship is already seized, the bombs already dropped… The other guy has seen all this happen already.

I long ago stopped wondering why the USG constantly misses the mark to inform the world. After being on TF McCall in Iraq, I kept waiting for John McCain to drop the news about the degree of Yellowcake enrichment, the enrichment equipment, the Chem and Bio stuff seized from Saddam - the Yellowcake briefly made the news when it was sent/sold to Canada for destruction - but really only as a footnote deep in the news.

Even the Army's recent release about the TF Commander doesn't mention everything pulled out.

Retired US Army colonel led joint task force that safely removed tons of uranium from Iraq

FORT LIBERTY, N.C. – A retired U.S. Army colonel led a task force that safely removed more than 550 metric tons of Iraqi uranium in 2008.Retired Col. B...

www.army.mil

We seem to believe the only Strategic Communication method is a IO campaign - and we can't do those targeting US Citizens (and strongly recommended against using on Allied nations) - so not a lot of brainpower seems to go into explaining any actions.


------- I don't have any insider knowledge about what exactly was on that ship --
But I do know if you spin up a 160th TF and send a Squadron from DevGrp to go grab it -- it fits into a very small window of items.

I also cannot understand why you wouldn't want to share that with the world -- (maybe it was shared within NATO or at least 5EYES ?)
Unless your DNI is basically a Russian agent...
Oh Wait.

 

[brihard]

Prices don’t have to jack up. The US and Canada are net exporters. We don’t have to participate on the global oil market to secure ourselves. We choose to, there is a difference.

Countries don’t sell to countries. Companies sell to companies. Canadian oil companies will sell to whoever will give them the best price. We have the infrastructure we have, not the infrastructure we imagine or wish for. Oil exports out west and imports in the east are simply the reality. Even in a perfect regulatory space the sheer size of Canada would probably still make it more cost effective to do that than to ship oil across Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and northern Ontario.

If Canada chooses to put in infrastructure to do something different - which I actually cautiously support as a strategic choice - it would have to be recognized that that is necessarily economically inefficient, and the government would almost certainly have to intervene with financial support to make that project viable. It would be an economically sub-optimal choice in the interest of redundancy and resilience.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I'd suggest that while there are some strategic thinkers assisting the Administration - no one in the Administration understands (or cares to understand) how to communicate with anyone who isn't in (the very edge of) their base.

And it appears you’re more comfortable with nuance & shades of grey than some at the highest levels of Washington these days.

 

[ytz]

Prices don’t have to jack up. The US and Canada are net exporters. We don’t have to participate on the global oil market to secure ourselves. We choose to, there is a difference.

There's no public appetite for nationalization of oil and gas in the US and Canada. So for all practical purposes, this is a distinction without a difference.

 

[Brad Sallows]

There's no public appetite for nationalization of oil and gas in Europe. So for all practical purposes, this is a distinction without a difference.

The public appetite for extreme measures usually correlates well with extreme circumstances, and the latter are not really in effect at scale anywhere in Europe except Ukraine. The public knee still jerks extremely flexibly, as evidenced by how easily safety-over-liberty and intrusive government policies sell in response to perceived crime and public disorder, or economic downturns.

Europe is the birthplace of marxism and fascism, and I trust it to continue to cleave to its roots when things get tough or the rulers find the people too unruly.

 

[ytz]

The public appetite for extreme measures usually correlates well with extreme circumstances, and the latter are not really in effect at scale anywhere in Europe except Ukraine.

What are you on about? I didn't see any discussion on "We should nationalize oil and keep going in Iran". Reality is the Americans declare victory and go home before gas prices hit $4. Because that is all that matters to the American voter.

You guys are twisting yourselves into pretzels trying to pretend this isn't true.

 

[ytz]

Countries don’t sell to countries. Companies sell to companies. Canadian oil companies will sell to whoever will give them the best price. We have the infrastructure we have, not the infrastructure we imagine or wish for. Oil exports out west and imports in the east are simply the reality. Even in a perfect regulatory space the sheer size of Canada would probably still make it more cost effective to do that than to ship oil across Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and northern Ontario.

If Canada chooses to put in infrastructure to do something different - which I actually cautiously support as a strategic choice - it would have to be recognized that that is necessarily economically inefficient, and the government would almost certainly have to intervene with financial support to make that project viable. It would be an economically sub-optimal choice in the interest of redundancy and resilience.

Let's go back here.

I suggested that the only way to create the decision space where gas prices are irrelevant is to not rely on gas. Ie Drive EVs.

Response: "China is going to own us"

Obviously that's not true cause EVs don't turn into pumpkins when trade with China stops. Also we can make rare earths here.

Response: "We can just nationalize oil and sell at a discount relative to global markets".

This is not a serious conversation.

 

[KevinB]

Let's go back here.

I suggested that the only way to create the decision space where gas prices are irrelevant is to not rely on gas. Ie Drive EVs.

Response: "China is going to own us"

Obviously that's not true cause EVs don't turn into pumpkins when trade with China stops. Also we can make rare earths here.

Response: "We can just nationalize oil and sell at a discount relative to global markets".

This is not a serious conversation.

I think most of that spun off @Eaglelord17 's rather misplaced assumption that just because one is a net exporter that the world market doesn't affect pricing.

@brihard pointed out that it was privately held/publicly traded companies that sold to one another -- they have the mandate to get the best value for their shareholders, thus they are not going to cut themselves off the global market to sell domestically at a discount.
Even if the American and Canadian government forcefully "price fixed" domestic oil (which is extremely unlikely anyway), there isn't the national infrastructure in either country to move the required amounts of petroleum products that are needed.

While EV's are practical for city commuters, they are not practical for a lot of people's requirements - so even rapid investing in domestic EV production, and rare earth mineral exploration, and refining is not going to replace the fossil fuel needs of the countries.
Yes maybe 75% of households could replace a vehicle with an EV - and that would significantly lower fuel demands - but if we look at US Fuel uses.

AI Search:

The United States primarily consumes fuel for
transportation (37%) and industrial (35%) sectors, with petroleum and natural gas dominating the energy mix. Transportation, the largest consumer, uses 68% of total petroleum, with light-duty vehicles (cars, SUVs) accounting for 91% of gasoline consumption.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (.gov) +2
Primary Fuel Consumption by Sector (2023)

• Transportation (37%): Heavily dependent on petroleum (68% of total US petroleum), specifically gasoline for cars/trucks and diesel for freight.
• Industrial (35%): Uses fossil fuels for manufacturing, agriculture, mining, and construction.
• Residential (15%): Primarily natural gas and electricity for heating, cooling, and appliances.
• Commercial (13%): Energy for businesses, government, and institutional buildings.
  U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (.gov) +3

Key Fuel Uses

• Gasoline: Almost entirely used for transportation, with 91% going to light-duty vehicles.
• Diesel: Primarily used in medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, as well as rail, water, and some commercial applications.
• Jet Fuel: Accounts for 7% of transportation petroleum.
• Natural Gas: Widely used in the industrial sector and for residential/commercial heating.
  Coltura +3
• Trends
  • Transportation dominance: Nearly 70% of all petroleum is consumed by the transportation sector.
  • Gasoline Superusers: 10% of U.S. drivers (high-mileage) consume more gasoline than the bottom 70% combined.
  • Production: U.S. total energy production has exceeded consumption since 2019.
  • Energy Mix: In 2023, petroleum (38%) and natural gas (36%) remained the top sources, though renewable energy continues to grow.
    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (.gov) +3

So 37% of Fuel used is Gasoline, 91% of Gasoline is used in light duty vehicles.

If you can get rid of 75% of Gasoline Cars (unlikely but hey this is the internet - lets game it anyway) with EV's, those are going to be the bottom % - and with the above notes about the top10% "Super Users" using more than the bottom 70% - the best you would see is a 50% reduction in Gasoline usage.

You only see a ~16-19% drop in fuel used with a massive EV transition. To accommodate that change, you are going to need a massive infrastructure remake, and significant domestic electricity demand increase to charge.


In short the Gasoline market isn't going anywhere anytime soon, and I agree with the comments you have made elsewhere that there needs to be a pivot away from fossil fuels to RE - it is going to take decades to make a noticeable change.

 

[HavokFour]

More pain at the pump likely coming.

UAE oil giant ADNOC shuts Ruwais refinery after drone strike, source says

Abu Dhabi state oil giant ADNOC has shut its Ruwais refinery in response to ‌a fire at a facility within the complex following a drone strike, a source with knowledge of the situation said on Tuesday, marking the latest energy infrastructure disruption due to the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran.

www.reuters.com

 

[The Bread Guy]

No kidding. Whoever did this really fucked up. Really good way to guarantee no stone gets left unturned investigatively.

Already a "Candid Camera" shot of the vehicle out there via TPS ....

 

[ytz]

While EV's are practical for city commuters, they are not practical for a lot of people's requirements - so even rapid investing in domestic EV production, and rare earth mineral exploration, and refining is not going to replace the fossil fuel needs of the countries.
Yes maybe 75% of households could replace a vehicle with an EV - and that would significantly lower fuel demands - but if we look at US Fuel uses.

Nobody says every single vehicle or even application of oil and gas needs to be replaced. But if you want voters to be less sensitive to the price of gas then you have to have more people who are driving EVs than not. I guarantee you that if 50% of voters were driving EVs, POTUS wouldn't be nearly as sensitive to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz as he is right now.

And let's be honest here, most people aren't economic geniuses thinking through second or third order effects and long term inflation. The sticker shock isn't over what grocery delivery drivers are paying and how that feeds through. It's what they are actually paying at the pump.

If it takes decades to switch? Good timeline for adversaries to wreak havoc knowing full well that American decision-making will be constrained by domestic gas prices for that time.

Put that red hat on. If I were Iran I would prolong this war and start demanding concessions from the US knowing full well how much American politicians fear $1 per gallon more.

 

[Kirkhill]

Democracies fighting a war in public.

 

[Brad Sallows]

What are you on about? I didn't see any discussion on "We should nationalize oil and keep going in Iran". Reality is the Americans declare victory and go home before gas prices hit $4. Because that is all that matters to the American voter.

What I'm on about is that there could be an appetite for nationalization, depending on circumstances. The circumstances don't have to be severe for lesser things like a National Energy Policy or a crown-owned corporation (Petro-Canada) to arise. So it's better to not be so dismissive just because things are hunky-dory right now.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Put that red hat on. If I were Iran I would prolong this war and start demanding concessions from the US knowing full well how much American politicians fear $1 per gallon more.

Your fundamental assumption isn't particularly strong. Americans have paid high gasoline prices in the past without revolting.

Monthly averages back to 1978. Second chart is CPI-adjusted. Current price average is around $3.50.

China is likely more at risk for some kind of social upheaval than the US due to a prolonged oil shortfall. Their partially command economy can't always adjust quickly enough.