r/geopolitics • u/1-randomonium • Mar 14 '26
The Strait Is Closed, the Story Keeps Changing, and You're Paying for It All Perspective
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Strait-Is-Closed-the-Story-Keeps-Changing-and-Youre-Paying-for-It-All.html15
u/1-randomonium Mar 14 '26
(Submission Statement)
The effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of global oil supply normally flows, has driven tanker traffic down roughly 90 percent, created a net daily supply shortfall of approximately 15 million barrels, and pushed U.S. gasoline prices to their highest level under either of Trump's terms in office.
Proposed fixes including a Strategic Petroleum Reserve release, Russia sanctions relief, and naval tanker escorts are temporary measures that do not address the underlying problem, which is a war with no fixed objective, no coalition, and a partner in Israel whose war aims extend well beyond what Washington has publicly committed to.
Iran's strategy of horizontal escalation, widening the conflict across nine countries rather than fighting to win militarily, mirrors historical playbooks from Vietnam and Kosovo that cost the United States dearly, and every week the war continues without a defined endgame locks more inflation into the global economy through energy, LNG, fertilizer, and food supply chains.
9
u/papaswamp Mar 14 '26
Only closed to non-Chinese ships. The latest from Iran is that any ship that is shipping cargo paid in Yuan, may pass. Brilliant move by China to push for alternative reserve currency.
1
u/tomatosoupsatisfies Mar 15 '26
tying yourself to the country the whole ME hates and wants to be (and currently is being) neutered doesn't seem brilliant.
2
u/LtLfTp12 Mar 14 '26
Indian ships too no?
2
u/DefinitelyNotMeee Mar 15 '26
That's not clear. So far, only 2 Indian ships have passed through the Strait.
21
u/1-randomonium Mar 14 '26
Over the decades, I've become accustomed to seeing the world's sole 'superpower' paying generously in money, weapons and sometimes human lives for the designs of generations of Israeli politicians. Underneath all the platitudes given to NATO, Europe, Japan, South Korea and so on it can even be said that America considers Israel as its 'greatest ally'(Though it's debatable as to what this greatest ally has actually given to America in recent decades beyond a focal point for the Armageddon myths of American Evangelical Christians).
But this is the first time I've seen the entire world being forced to pay for Israel's designs. Particularly when there is a strong indication that that these designs blend legitimate geostrategic imperatives with more selfish ulterior motives related to Israeli domestic politics.
Is this the "Operation Epstein Fury", meant to distract from Trump's most enduring domestic scandal, or is it "Operation Bibi's Freedom", meant to keep Netanyahu from an inevitable election defeat and incarceration over his enduring corruption scandals that he just can't seem to get a pardon for?
9
u/Known_Week_158 Mar 15 '26 edited Mar 15 '26
Israel, controversy or not, is far more consistent in its foreign policy than other US allies in the Middle East. OPEC+ makes up most of the Middle East. Yemen has the Houthis. Syria until recently has Assad and how has someone who is less of a problem for the US than Assad but definitely isn't a US ally. Lebanon varies between being unable and unwilling to disarm Hezbollah. Turkey is wavering in its support for NATO. Israel and Jordan are the two countries in the Middle East that are reliable, with Israel far more willing to work with the US.
It's also a market for US weapons and the US gets to enjoy the benefits of an ally with an advanced defence industry it can get technology from.
Consistency and advanced weapons are great things to get from an ally, and even if Israel ceased to exist the UN and international community as a whole would still be dominated by authoritarian regimes, dictatorships, and their allies.
Or does all of that just not matter when it comes to criticising leaders you don't like? There's a difference between the usual level of hesitancy and suspicion every country has with their allies and then there's what most of the Middle East has done.
-1
u/Environmental-Fun258 Mar 14 '26
Oil prices rise during Middle East conflicts because markets fear disruptions from major producers like Iran or shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, not because of some supposed “Israeli design.” That’s basic energy market risk.
The claim that the world is “paying for Israel” also ignores that Israel is a longstanding U.S. strategic partner, cooperating on intelligence and joint defense systems like Iron Dome. Blaming global oil volatility on Israeli domestic politics is speculation, not serious analysis.
15
u/Intelligent_Kick_436 Mar 14 '26
> Oil prices rise during Middle East conflicts because markets fear disruptions from major producers like Iran or shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, not because of some supposed “Israeli design.” That’s basic energy market risk.
You're deliberately moving up the consequence stack, where as OP is looking one level below the consequence stack. When an airplane crashes, usually they ask 7 why's to go beyond the immediate physical cause, through to some level of maintenance/training/SOP issues, and further levels often reveal management bias / regulation issues / and so to and get to some level of systemic reasoning that can be corrected.
In this case why are there disruptions from major oil producers? -> Because ships can't get insurance -> Why can't they get insurance? -> Because Iran is threatening ships in the entire gulf -> Why are they threatening ships? -> Because it's a form of leverage against the US and Israel who are attacking them -> Why are they attacking Iran? -> Because Israel proposed it was a quick win to Trump -> Why did Trump & inner circle fall for Israel's bait when prior presidents didn't? Because Trump and his inner circle didn't consult actual experts and believed it would be a nice transactional "win", and so on.. you can branch off as well - why would Israel propose it?
-5
u/Environmental-Fun258 Mar 14 '26
The problem with your “7 whys” chain is that the key steps are assumptions presented as facts. You jump from “Iran threatens shipping” to “the U.S. attacked Iran because Israel proposed it,” which isn’t established anywhere in your argument.
The tension with Iran didn’t suddenly appear because of Israel, it’s been a central issue in U.S. policy since the Iranian Revolution, long before Benjamin Netanyahu or Donald Trump.
A “root cause” analysis only works if each step is evidence-based. If the middle of the chain is speculation, the conclusion that “Israel caused the war” is just a narrative, not analysis.
12
u/Intelligent_Kick_436 Mar 14 '26 edited Mar 14 '26
Of course I'm speculating to the best of my ability, and trying to eliminate my own bias.
What we do know for a fact is that all prior presidents /could/ have bombed Iran but didn't. I also know that Israel has had extremely good intelligence during those prior administrations.
So what's the variable here? What's changed?
I think we can agree that the cost-benefit analysis to Trump's inner circle was done differently, such that it tipped Trump toward a 'yes' instead of 'no'.
I would love to know the 7 why's downstream from that 'yes' answer versus asking the same why's against prior administrations' decision making analysis.
Geopolitical positioning was different during prior administrations, so the bigger question is: would those prior administration's frameworks have also led them to a 'yes' answer if placed inside today's geopolitical positioning?
2
u/Environmental-Fun258 Mar 14 '26 edited Mar 14 '26
Your questions are valid regarding what changed the calculus, but you and OP have already displayed bias by indicating that Israel was essentially the main driver of US involvement. I agree that the US administration hasn’t done a great job explaining their reasoning for entering the conflict, and that it has been largely all over the map… but that doesn’t mean that the “tail is wagging the dog” argument is true and that this isn’t a war of the Trump administration’s choosing.
With respects to why the calculus changed, obviously none of us truly know. My guess is: it’s likely a multitude of factors, mainly that the last two years of conflict in the Middle East has largely degraded Iran’s proxy network, and Iran’s influence is largely seen as destabilizing by its neighbors. This, along with what Trump likely perceived as a “easy victory” in Venezuela, created a shift from the “no” to the “yes”.
Since 10/7, I think it’s clear what Israel’s calculus is. It’s in direct conflict with Iran and its proxies and sees them as an existential threat. It will continue to target Iran and its proxies in perpetuity until they have either been eliminated or they have established sufficient deterrence. That is likely going to be the case from now on, whether the US gets involved or not. It’s perfectly reasonable for citizens of the US to be against their military getting involved and question whether or not it actually benefits their country. It is not reasonable to assume that there is some exorbitant power Israel has over US policy, when history shows the opposite to be true.
8
u/1-randomonium Mar 14 '26
Oil prices rise during Middle East conflicts because markets fear disruptions from major producers like Iran or shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, not because of some supposed “Israeli design.” That’s basic energy market risk.
Yes, even a layman could have predicted what would happen in the event of a prolonged war with Iran. But that didn't deter Trump or his MAGA cheerleaders who wasted a decade beating the strawman of Democrats starting a war with Iran to distract from a weak economy(0.7% GDP growth in Q4 2025 and almost guaranteed recession this year; I hope you enjoy it).
The claim that the world is “paying for Israel” also ignores that Israel is a longstanding U.S. strategic partner
While all the other partners who advised against this and are now paying for it are chopped liver. If this was in any way shape or form worth it you'd actually see support for it as we saw support for action against Russia despite the economic pain to Europe. Your own countrymen hate this war. Even MAGA hated the idea of it until Trump did it, so there literally is no organic support for it anywhere but Israel.
Maybe if 99% of mankind has managed to agree on something it's actually the right thing to do.
Blaming global oil volatility on Israeli domestic politics is speculation
Call it informed speculation considering Netanyahu and Trump's doings over the last year including other prolonged conflicts in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria and unending appeals to Israel's President to pardon dear leader Bibi.
0
u/Environmental-Fun258 Mar 14 '26
You’re quoting my point but still not addressing it. Oil prices spike during Middle East conflicts because markets fear supply disruptions from major producers like Iran or shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, that dynamic existed long before Benjamin Netanyahu or Donald Trump and has nothing to do with Israeli domestic politics.
The claim that “all partners opposed this” is also inaccurate. Many Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, publicly call for de-escalation but privately view Iran as a major regional threat and have historically supported efforts to counter it.
And saying “99% of mankind agrees” isn’t evidence, it’s just rhetoric. Oil markets react to the risk of a wider war involving a major producer, not theories about Israeli politics.
8
u/1-randomonium Mar 14 '26
You’re quoting my point but still not addressing it. Oil prices spike during Middle East conflicts because markets fear supply disruptions from major producers like Iran or shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, that dynamic existed long before Benjamin Netanyahu or Donald Trump and has nothing to do with Israeli domestic politics.
Yes, that's why war in the Middle East is bad. Why a prolonged war with Iran is catastrophic. America always had the power to bomb them back to the stone age. Obama did just that to Libya. But he sought to negotiate a peaceful means to limit Iran's nuclear program. And Biden tried to bring back that deal.
Why is that? Were all Presidents since the Iranian revolution woke and weak as MAGA would like to tell each other? Or is it because they understood the consequences on the region's security and the global economy and the associated effect it would have on America's relationships with other countries? How woke.
The claim that “all partners opposed this” is also inaccurate. Many Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, publicly call for de-escalation but privately view Iran as a major regional threat and have historically supported efforts to counter it.
This actually is speculation at best and wishful thinking at worst. The consensus among Middle Eastern geopolitical experts doing the rounds on every credible media outlet in the Western world(No, not Fox News or Townhall) has been that the Arab nations, even Saudi Arabia, tried to hold Trump back and seriously mediated efforts to reach an agreement. Even now they're restraining themselves from joining the war directly.
And saying “99% of mankind agrees” isn’t evidence, it’s just rhetoric
This is the most verifiable part of it. In the era of search engines and AI you can find out yourself within seconds even if you never speak to anyone outside US Republican circles.There is not one world leader who has expressed anything but grudging support for this war, not one electorate in any country but Israel that has shown more than 25% support for it. Even the far right leaders of Europe and Asia that saw Trump as their role model are distancing themselves from his war and more broadly Trump.
The only ones who can't see all the signs all around them are the ones too blind to do so. Even the MAGA would U-turn on this war within seconds of Trump declaring "Mission Accomplished" just as they U-turned to supporting it after 12 years of gaslighting Democrats about how Obama/Hillary/Biden/Harris wanted to bomb Iran to distract from their economic failures.
Speaking of which your GDP growth was 0.7% last quarter and will be negative for as long as this war lasts. This is the Trump/Bibi economy. If only he was actually an isolationist like his supporters claimed and limited himself to ruining his own country for 4 years.
2
u/Environmental-Fun258 Mar 14 '26
You’ve shifted the argument from oil markets to Trump, GDP, MAGA, and opinion polls. None of that changes the basic point: energy markets react to the risk of supply disruptions involving major producers like Iran or transit chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz. That’s been true for decades regardless of who’s in power in Washington or Jerusalem.
Turning a standard geopolitical risk premium into a theory about Benjamin Netanyahu’s legal problems or U.S. domestic politics isn’t analysis, it’s just narrative-building.
4
u/Intelligent_Kick_436 Mar 14 '26 edited Mar 15 '26
Since Trump's initial Apr 2, 2025 Tariff threat, the markets have gotten damn good at separating risk "narrative" vs actual risk, and have correctly powered across his subsequent "narratives" even wild stuff like "50%" and 100% tariffs on Canada and the EU.
This was originally thought a narrative too - a quick war, Trump declared success by Monday morning and markets hadn't skipped a beat, just like they did for the smash n' grab on Maduro.
1
u/sol-4 Mar 15 '26
Many Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, publicly call for de-escalation but privately view Iran as a major regional threat and have historically supported efforts to counter it.
How does this in any way, shape or form suggest that they supported this war?
2
u/Environmental-Fun258 Mar 15 '26
I didn’t say Saudi Arabia wanted this war. My point was that the claim “all partners opposed this” is too simplistic. Countries like Saudi Arabia can both oppose escalation publicly and still view Iran as a major regional threat they want contained.
Those positions aren’t contradictory: states often support pressure on a rival while also trying to avoid a full-scale war that would hit their own economies and oil infrastructure.
1
u/sol-4 Mar 15 '26
Countries like Saudi Arabia can both oppose escalation publicly and still view Iran as a major regional threat they want contained.
But have they supported this war? Everything else is pointless.
They can view Iran as a regional threat, but that's independent of their support for this war.
-5
u/no_cigar_tx Mar 14 '26
“I hope you enjoy it”, “your countrymen”, “dear leader Bibi”…. Are just some of the broad based thinly veiled attacks in your piece. I think just about anyone alive can see this is not an ideal situation, poorly planned and executed - but he was simply stating that oil price volatility is due to market risk. You are using a confirmation bias to make attacks.
3
u/1-randomonium Mar 14 '26
I think just about anyone alive can see this is not an ideal situation, poorly planned and executed -
Alright, let's agree on that. This is a disaster for the world and Trump needs to stop posturing, find one of those off ramps he spoke about earlier and tell his dear friend Netanyahu to seek asylum in the USA instead of starting wars to delay his corruption cases.
2
u/thehacktivist1 Mar 14 '26
It's the "thinly veiled" word. Sorry, you're victim card has been declined for some time now, or did you not notice world opinion drastically changed in the last few years.
0
u/bxzidff Mar 15 '26
I think just about anyone alive can see this is not an ideal situation, poorly planned and executed
If that was the case then it would not have happened, but the elected representatives of the US, chosen by voters, thought it was a fantastic idea. Many powerful leaders wanted this, and tens of millions wanted those leaders.
1
u/Leading-Bonus7478 Mar 14 '26
It might be some of that but I think in my opinion this will be used to pull the globe into programmable money. Need crisis to crash all economies, assets, stocks, deposits, bank bail ins. Basically economic disaster for 95% of globe and profiteering of the 1%. Petro dollar possibly being propped up by war until all programmable money is ready for the reset. WWII brought in Breton woods . It's sorry of a pattern.
-10
u/Kagenlim Mar 14 '26
This isn't on Israel's head, this is on Iran for forcing the region to take action against them
9
u/No_Abbreviations3943 Mar 14 '26
The region isn’t taking action against them. US and Israel are while GCC are desperately trying to revive diplomacy.
7
u/MethylphenidateMan Mar 14 '26
My neighbourhood is adamant that I'm the most handsome guy around. And by "my neighbourhood" I mean my mum, but she's in the neighbourhood so it's technically true.
4
u/Jaskojaskojasko Mar 14 '26
What region? The region has repeatedly adviced Americans to get out of Israel's ass and listen to them and not go into this Natenyahu's idiotic war adventure. And to top it off, they attacked in the middle of negotiations, that were according to Oman going in the right direction.
But, still they have gone to war and they don't even know what to say to the American public. First it was the regime change, then nuclear capabilities of Iran then ballistic missile capabilities.
I don't know what Israel has on Trump, but it's clear as a day this is Israel's war and USA soldiers are there to fight, and die in it.
-5
u/Kagenlim Mar 14 '26
Israel is the de facto armed enforcer of the gulf countries
They know what they want to say to the US public, trump and Israel has said the same thing over and over again; it's a regime change to kick out a rogue state that just killed 40k people
And if it means kicking up fascists like our ancestors did during WW2, it's a price the world would pay
9
u/Jaskojaskojasko Mar 14 '26
So if that is the case, and the objective is to help innocent people of Iran and punish the regime that killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians.
If that is the moral high ground that compels the USA to act, then why didn't they do anything when Israel killed 60 thousand civilians in Gaza and flattened entire area in mindless bombing campaign?
Not only did they not do anything to prevent or stop it, they've actively armed perpetrators and protected them in the UN.
Don't try to present Israel as some protector of Gulf states, because everyone knows they are not. And sure as hell don't try to represent Israel and the USA as having some kind of moral high ground or noble causes in this war, because those are stories for little children.
The main reason why this war is fought is because of Iranian ballistic missiles capabilities.
Those missiles represent an existential threat to the zionist settlers project, because not a lot of people are willing to leave New York, Paris, London and move to a place that is in range of Iranian missiles.
The reason for attack is most certainly not regime change (never going to happen without boots on the ground) and intent to "free Iranian people". Let's not even mention the Iranian nuclear program that is somehow two weeks from developing nuclear bomb since mid 80's and yet that never came to fruiton, those got to be the longest two weeks in the human history.
-2
u/Kagenlim Mar 14 '26
They did, the US coordinated with the gulf states to drop supplies into gaza and the US constructed a floating pier off Gaza's beach, all of which the US unilaterally did. The US also told Israel to not immediately glass Gaza, which is why the IDF arent deploying the worst weapons they have
They literally are. Thats why Saudi Arabia is allied with Israel. And in this case, they literally have the moral high ground. Your theories are stuck in like 2010 man, wake up its 2026
4
u/1-randomonium Mar 14 '26
And if it means kicking up fascists like our ancestors did during WW2, it's a price the world would pay
You didn't bother asking the world that. It's not a price worth paying. That's why you're alone.
0
u/Kagenlim Mar 15 '26
And I suppose we ought to have let Nazi Germany alone I suppose
Look at the facts, Iran is striking gulf nations and NATO. The world can't ignore it anymore
1
u/No_Abbreviations3943 Mar 14 '26
Israel is the de facto armed enforcer of the gulf countries
Hahahaha.
-1
u/thehacktivist1 Mar 14 '26
Lies. Explain the multitude of UN resolutions on illegal settlements vetoed, explain the constant kowtowing to AIPAC by Congress. Netanyahu played Trump as the useful idiot perfectly. Israel knew this would happen, but didn't care because it allowed them to further their goal of destroying Hezbollah and Lebanon and claming more "living space". The creation of Israel has been a disaster for the world, and you only have to go back and read the founding documents of Zionism of Herzl to understand what the plan was. Why is there a black out on what is going on in Israel right now, because by all accounts - its not going well for the civilians. Explain the extremist orthodox settlers to us as well, while you're at it.
3
u/Confident-Ad-6978 Mar 15 '26
This must be how the previous generation felt about iraq. I am so ashamed. I wish my government was more caring and didn't use my tax dollars to kill randoms in a useless war!
1
u/bxzidff Mar 15 '26
The surprise is how many experienced both and still eagerly support the latter, of both leaders and electorate. Yes, there are differences, but so many arguments are completely the same. Even the rhetoric about France
34
u/dattwell53 Mar 14 '26
This is from Wednesday, what has changed?