Iran Super Thread- Merged

[ytz]

It’s kind of weird seeing you suddenly get all gung ho on LOAC given past discussions on the merits and use of international law, but here we are I guess.

It's the precursor to arguing that we should jump into the fray.

 

[brihard]

It's the precursor to arguing that we should jump into the fray.

From my many years of interactions with Brad, I would be surprised to see him take that particular position.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Whatever happens between now and say 9am EST on Monday, it will be interesting to see what The Donald says/does as I'm not sure he's willing to allow the stock market to repeat what occurred on Friday again on Monday, or the rest of the shorten week (with the market being closed on Friday). Its also 'Quarter end' on Tuesday, so that very well may factor into his words/actions as well.

How the big oil and gas CEOs think the Iran war supply disruption will play out​

How the big oil and gas CEOs think the Iran war supply disruption will play out

The oil industry's grim outlook for global oil and gas supplies stands in contrast to the Trump administration's promise that the disruption is short term.

www.cnbc.com

• Oil industry executives painted a grim picture of the Iran war supply disruption at S&P Global’s annual CERAWeek energy conference in Houston.
• They warned that the disruption is bigger than the markets understand and prices are unlikely to return to pre-war levels soon.
• The disruption to jet fuel, diesel and gasoline is even bigger. Shortages are rippling through Asia and will hit Europe by April, they said.
• Security experts said escalation of the war is likely. The conflict could break the Gulf Arab nations economies

Extract from above article:

The war could break the economic model developed by the Gulf Arab nations. Iraq, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and potentially Saudi Arabia could see a 30% drop in their annualized gross domestic product, Sankey said.

Would that necessary be a bad thing?

 

[ytz]

Whatever happens between now and say 9am EST on Monday, it will be interesting to see what The Donald says/does as I'm not sure he's willing to allow the stock market to repeat what occurred on Friday again on Monday, or the rest of the shorten week (with the market being closed on Friday). Its also 'Quarter end' on Tuesday, so that very well may factor into his words/actions as well.

How the big oil and gas CEOs think the Iran war supply disruption will play out​

How the big oil and gas CEOs think the Iran war supply disruption will play out

The oil industry's grim outlook for global oil and gas supplies stands in contrast to the Trump administration's promise that the disruption is short term.

www.cnbc.com

• Oil industry executives painted a grim picture of the Iran war supply disruption at S&P Global’s annual CERAWeek energy conference in Houston.
• They warned that the disruption is bigger than the markets understand and prices are unlikely to return to pre-war levels soon.
• The disruption to jet fuel, diesel and gasoline is even bigger. Shortages are rippling through Asia and will hit Europe by April, they said.
• Security experts said escalation of the war is likely. The conflict could break the Gulf Arab nations economies

It's actually truly amazing and beyond all reason that oil isn't $150 globally. Even though cash prices out of Dubai are already $160+.

Saw a great Economist interview where the interviewee (at CERAweek) made the point at the end that none of these execs have also fully grasped what this will do for EVs yet. Not because of climate change. But because nobody is going to forget the time their economy got wrecked by supply interruption.

But if you own some oil stock or really some options, Friday was great. Heck, I have some cash ready to go into index funds if he pushes this in to recession. Already wiped off 6 months of gains across the market. I'm hoping for 2023 prices before this is done. At least it makes up for me paying more at the pump.

 

[Brad Sallows]

So if UAE air defences engage Iranian drones and missiles that are targeting bases from which US forces are deploying to attack Iran does that count as "active engagement in hostilities"?

Unless they know beforehand exactly where something is going to land, and there's no likelihood of error, they aren't "actively engaging in hostilities" if they knock shit down.

 

[Brad Sallows]

So the Soviets placing missiles in Cuba made the Cubans what exactly in your way of reasoning? Neutrals?

From what I read, the US and Soviet Union weren't at war.

 

[HavokFour]

Ukraine has been busy shaking hands with all this going on.

Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE.

Ukraine securing 10-year defense deals with Gulf states amid Iran war​

"The first priority is weapons — their production, exchange of experience, and the exchange of scarce resources that one country may have and another lacks," he said.

"During these 10 years, we will engage in co-production. We will build factories both in Ukraine and in these countries."

In turn, the Ukrainian leader discussed long-term energy cooperation with the three countries. Ukraine’s energy sector is under constant attack from Russia while Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz sent fuel prices through the roof.

After the last brutal winter revealed massive oversights in the energy sector, Kyiv is already preparing for the next heating season.

Zelensky didn’t reveal anymore details about the 10-year agreements. But he stressed that Ukraine’s expertise goes beyond just drone production — it also includes Ukrainian soldiers' four-years of experience countering Russian aerial attacks as well as Ukraine’s electronic warfare systems.

 

[Brad Sallows]

It’s kind of weird seeing you suddenly get all gung ho on LOAC given past discussions on the merits and use of international law

My own enthusiasm is compromised by realism. International law has to be flexible enough to allow mostly peaceful countries to deal with habitual shit-disturbers, harshly if necessary. If international law is repeatedly applied in a one-sided manner that always seems to bind one side, then it loses its merit/legitimacy - the frustrated parties are simply going to walk away from it. My standard is a bit lax; my point is to hold other people who claim to hold a higher standard, to the standard they claim - to be rigorously consistent, even when it doesn't suit their politics.

Iran’s attacks have for the most part been very rational from a strategic standpoint. There’s very clear messaging in most of what they’re hitting, and how hard they hit it. More to the point, being the clobberee in this particular fight, they’re going to seek whatever options they can to preserve at least some strategic leverage.

Iran's government doesn't respect most laws and customs enough to deserve the benefit of any excuse-making. If they choose terror, people ought to call it what it is and demand punishment. There will certainly be a collective pounce on the US if it follows through on some of Trump's blustering threats.

Too much of what I read is inflected by the desire of people to see Trump (or the US, or Israel) get a comeuppance. Not long ago it was necessary to have a discussion to clarify whether it was unfair of the US to sink an Iranian warship on the fringes of the theatre (I recollect a similar argument over the Belgrano when I was in high school). Now some people are wanting to blur/erase significant distinctions of involvement in the category of "belligerents" who are not actually fighting. I'm utterly certain that military assets are always fair game, and utterly certain that non-military assets are not always fair game and that the calculation depends in part on what the owner is doing.

 

[Brad Sallows]

It's the precursor to arguing that we should jump into the fray.

I already stated a position/idea. Neutral countries should escort neutral shipping to encourage the combatants (ie. Iran) to leave it alone. They don't have to fight anyone; they don't have to pick a side; they could even choose to suck up an attack without responding to more than the direct event.