rsemmes
Active Member
The US has a plan... Removing sanctions, to everyone.
Maybe he could impose tariffs on Netanyahu, afterwards, for being naughty...
Maybe he could impose tariffs on Netanyahu, afterwards, for being naughty...
Middle East Defence & Security
- Thread starter MaenZ
- Start date
One very famous pro Brexit government MP in the UK expressed surprise at how much trade came through Dover from France , I mean would have thought the English channel was a major source of trade, I mean it's only been in use for a couple of thousand years
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
What does it even mean “to put boots on the ground to take control of Hormuz”?
He's now in the Reform (read xenophobic, racist) party.
The really mind-blowing thing about what he said about Dover was that he seemed unaware of how it would be seen. He was so ignorant that he didn't have any idea how ignorant he was. And the Tories made him a government minister - four times!
Trump Says US Considers ‘Winding Down’ Iran Military Effort
While the marines are moving into the region?
While the marines are moving into the region?
SolarisKenzo
Well-Known Member
Ordinary Friday night non-sense.
Markets are closed so he's free to do whatever he feels.
Markets are closed so he's free to do whatever he feels.
rsemmes
Active Member
Easy...
Just like in Vietnam, Trump only has to deploy firebases all along those ~500km; and in Qeshm island. Of course, it is going to be a lot easier now, because there is no jungle. Yes, they will have to send patrols to recon the areas between firebases, but that is going to be easier too, because now they will have a lot of radars and drones to do it. Obviously, that will provide Iran with a lot of fixed (and closer) targets, but that is just but a small inconvenience, like making gas at the pump more expensive.
Never mind the topography of the coastline, they will deploy (and supply) everything by helicopter. Well, they could drop some paras first, like in Dien Bien Phu...
Easy for Trump, I mean.
Last edited:
rsemmes
Active Member
And not only Dover...
I remember how surprised they were by, being an island, the quantity of imports (and exports) we were getting through ports; and paperwork.
Joint statment from a number of countries condemning Iran's attacks on shipping and civilian infrastructure in the Strait of Hormuz. Possibly the first step before military intervention. The world literally cannot afford a disruption to oil supplies.
www.gov.uk
Joint statement from the leaders of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, Canada and others on the Strait of Hormuz: 19 March 2026
Joint statement from the leaders of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, Canada, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Denmark, Latvia, Slovenia, Estonia, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Czechia, Romania, Bahrain, Lithuania, Australia and United Arab Emirates on the Strait of...
SinisterMinister
Member
The combined combat power of the countries on that list is what, maybe 20% of CENTCOM?Joint statment from a number of countries condemning Iran's attacks on shipping and civilian infrastructure in the Strait of Hormuz. Possibly the first step before military intervention. The world literally cannot afford a disruption to oil supplies.
Joint statement from the leaders of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, Canada and others on the Strait of Hormuz: 19 March 2026
Joint statement from the leaders of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, Canada, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Denmark, Latvia, Slovenia, Estonia, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Czechia, Romania, Bahrain, Lithuania, Australia and United Arab Emirates on the Strait of...
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
And imagine thinking it would work.
And he had now put himself in the position where he will have to either back down on his threat (the logical step for anyone with common sense), but show more weakness and basically lack of ability to deter/resist. Or, conversely, he will have to act and do what he promised and see if this would happen (which it will):
In addition, assuring more internal support for the regime, which is now more radical than before. Houthis finally get involved? Who knows.
If you look at the guy’s tweets, you can really see the fight within. It’s as if the guy is bipolar. I know, madman strategy and 4D chess and all… In reality, probably an entitled, weak-minded, old narcissist, who had been encouraged like never before for the past 14-16 months; he had now stepped into something more than he can process and, while his usual tactics have shown to fail in this case over and again, he keeps employing those same tactics. This is not a strategy of a madman, this is the definition of insanity.
Assuming some coalition will act on opening the strait. What can they really do? Nothing that the US can’t, I would say. The question is then, can they not act?
China… The manufacturing hub of the world. The leading actor in green energy, with advertised, what they now call, excess capacity (while Trump has been killing even the idea of it domestically). The major buyer of the Russian oil (used to be at a significant discount vs most of the rest of the world). The major buyer of the Iranian oil (used to be at a significant discount vs most of the rest of the world). The largest strategic reserves of oil in the world, thanks to the previous two sentences, gratitude of the shortsighted politics of the western world. Can buy anything anyone else can buy at market prices and can probably offer premium for the US shale oil (or anything else) to substitute for the oil they may be missing from the Gulf. Or, timed right, they can lose some reserves domestically to keep the market price down to soften the global recession caused by Iran (read the US).
A while back (1.5 years ago or so?), over the conversation with someone here via the PM, I said that the USA and the world can outlive another Trump and be just fine. I may have been very wrong and underestimated the effect of Trump2 greatly. What are you gonna do though.
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
It was also clear who Trump is - an entitled, incompetent manchild who burned everything he has ever touched. If it was not clear to anyone had any doubts, Trump‘s 1st term was enough to make it crystal clear. When general Mattis left the clown show of an administration, any hope that this man could have a tiny bit competence was gone for me. Fast forward to the 2nd administration, now the professionals who knew what they were doing were replaced by conmen and podcasters. It‘s only a testament to his incredible luck that he lasted for a year without a major screwup. Now he has finally run out of his luck.
So my point is, the responsibility lies solely with the American public. They replaced a competent professional administration that delivered them the strongest economy of G7 with a bunch of clowns willingly. This is not a country that is fit to take any kind of leadership role in the world.
rsemmes
Active Member
Or not.Joint statment from a number of countries condemning Iran's attacks on shipping and civilian infrastructure in the Strait of Hormuz. Possibly the first step before military intervention. The world literally cannot afford a disruption to oil supplies.
Joint statement from the leaders of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, Canada and others on the Strait of Hormuz: 19 March 2026
Joint statement from the leaders of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, Canada, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Denmark, Latvia, Slovenia, Estonia, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Czechia, Romania, Bahrain, Lithuania, Australia and United Arab Emirates on the Strait of...
"You guys are overthinking it.
It's just a declaration.
Italian defence minister said this morning:
Ho letto interpretazioni totalmente errate sul documento approvato oggi da alcune nazioni europee e non, tra cui l’Italia. Nessuna missione di guerra. Nessun ingresso ad Hormuz senza un a tregua e senza un’iniziativa multilaterale estesa. Siamo consapevoli però dell’importanza per tutti di lavorare per la riapertura in sicurezza di Hormuz e riteniamo che sia giusto ed opportuno che siano le Nazioni Unite ad offrire la cornice giuridica per un’iniziativa pacifica e multilaterale per raggiungere questo obiettivo.
Translation:
I have read completely misinterpretations of the document approved today by some European and non-European nations, including Italy.
No war mission.
No entry into Hormuz without a truce and a comprehensive multilateral initiative.
We are aware, however, of the importance for everyone of working towards the safe reopening of Hormuz, and we believe it is right and appropriate for the United Nations to provide the legal framework for a peaceful and multilateral initiative to achieve this goal."
SolarisKenzo
Maybe "the world" should tell the US: Stop disrupting Hormuz traffic. Trump started playing with a hornet nest and "the world" got stung.
Sorry if it is not on topic, but do you think this situation can affect the desirability to invest in Fossil Infrastructure.
And will not people start to seek something more stable, that is not dependent on this kind of thing they are causing on Fossil Fuel market.
Would not other energy forms start to be seen as more approachable, when they cannot be affected by this kind of thing at all, but are small units that can produce electricity locally without any sort of transportation or any sort of endlessly consumable fuel source which they themself do not produce or control ?
For example lets say Australia. They have lots of sun, lots of wind, lots of land, lots of coast. Why on purpose choose to be tied on an energy source that can cripple your economy once the transportation, production or any sort of happening affects its availability or pricing.
Every unit that consumes electricity can be made to produce electricity as well. But instead we gamble it all in this kind of energy source that is imported, pollutes, is controlled by small amount of people, who are manipulating its availability, price and market.
Would not energy independence be a benefit ?
Making you immune to anything that happens on transportation, or generation of outside energy sources you choose to stay dependant on.
Will people finally start to think, that Energy Independence can be a boon and not a burden ?
The usual mantra they say is "If you make any other Energy Infrastructure than Fossil Fuels, you are crippling your economy as it is not economically sustainable".
Then what is this then ? Everyone is talking about crippling their economy from the smallest fluctuating on the flow of imported energy on their country.
If you have no other sources of Energy, and do not even plan to acquire any. When it hits 300 dollar a barrel, you will buy it. 500 dollar a barrel, you buy it still. 1 000 dollar a barrel, you beg them to sell it to you or else your country is shut down ?
The real expense of making a solar panel in Australia is probably the same as one gallon of fuel. And if you do not want to do that yourself, China can sell them cheap. Then, the Solar panel can be included on any infrastructure, even inside car chassis, that uses electricity. Then, after you have used that for tens of years, 98% or more of the material used to make a solar panel can be recycled to make a new. You basically gain a new one endlessly for free, when fuel is consumed once, and you can never have it back but must buy more endlessly and fight wars for it.
Solar Panel is made of Aluminium Chassis, small amount of Silver Threads. Crystallized Silicon. Then the electric box and coating for the crystallized silicon that protects it from weather effects like hail storms. Thats all you need. And you can also make it elastic and include it inside any thing, probably even clothes.
Will this kind of thing gain popularity. That when there are problems in oil market you can just say so what, i produce 100% of my energy domestically.
There are endless amount of options. Water, Alternative Fuels, Bio Fuels, Energy Waste, Solar, Wind, Nuclear. Even Coal or Steam. And so on.
So whats the problem ?
Does this whole thing not seem something artificial ? That some small amount of people is creating for the world, which benefits only them, and no one else. Which could be fixed with only having a will to do so and then never hear the word "energy crisis" again.
How i see things. Word supposedly needs to be in constant state of an artificial "Energy Crisis" and it almost always relate to Fossil ones.
So to say on the topic. The whole situation on Middle East and Iran. Can also be because of this. To generate this situation where the oil prices grow. There might really be no other reason ?
So why people go on with this. Why not generate your own energy ?
Then why do not people outsource all food production, shut down domestic agriculture and choose to acquire full dependence on imported food and then, when the flow of imported food on your country stops, you create an artificial famine on your people on purpose ?
Why not outsource also food. So that you choose not to produce it yourself. As you will choose not to produce energy either, which is food for your industry. So why do everyone choose to have National Food Security and Independence, but not National Energy Security and Independence ?
Is there something going on here ?
The thing in the Middle East is Fossil Fuels. And there probably never was anything else. If there would be no Fossil Fuels, no one would be there.
Then, you can also perceive this on the point of military view. Do you rather have 5 energy plants on your whole country, that can be crippled, and all of your energy production diminished with 5 successful strikes. Or do you plan to have million energy plants, as in for example, individual homes that produce energy, and that all of your buildings produce energy by having a solar panel roofing. And then can only be crippled as a whole with million successful prices because you divide, and not centralize your production on few units.
This whole thing they are creating loses also on military point of view. All your power plants are big units, that produce for many. Not many small units that produce for few. You can mix them both, and have an energy infrastructure that is very hard to take out. Or you can gamble your everything to imported energy, which is then not received when you are blockaded, and then few large power plants which is then taken out with few successful strikes and you are blind without energy.
Then also. When your electrical network is crippled by missile strikes. If all of your individual buildings produce energy, they still have electricity even they would not even be part of the national energy grid. Because all of your buildings produce electricity, and can only be taken out if you destroy every single building in a country that is arranged like this.
So are we being mislead ? And for some reason, fall for it ?
Nations are on purpose choosing to make themself to be on mercy of outside energy suppliers. Then choose to centralize all their energy production capability that it can be crippled with few missiles and then shut down as a whole. Really ?
There is no resilience. But a nation that is easily crippled by sanctions, blockades and few missiles. Then all of your electricity is off.
And this is the strategy you choose ?
And then when you acquire decentralized small energy units, the best you can come up with is a diesel generator. Which is shut down once you run out of oil. For example, if your oil imports are cut off when you do not produce yourself. Or even you would produce, there are only few oil rigs that need to be destroyed with few missiles and your production or refining capability is shut down.
You are basically handing it on your enemy on silver platter.
You can see this on Qatar. One Iranian strike knocked out 17% of their Gas capacity, and that is i dont know how much, but some percentages of the capacity of the whole world. And then, the stock markets are affected and all of the economy goes in shock. Does not seem very resilient system but rather as system, that if someone goes for it, can be shut down very easily world wide, so that no one can produce oil or gas anymore and then when everyone chose to be dependent on only fossil fuels, then the whole world shuts down. For example in a World War scenario, Fossil Infrastructure would be first one to be destroyed and it is very easy to acquire. So why all in that ?
Why does any general choose to generate critical vulnerabilities on their system on purpose ?
It is hard to understand why they do this.
How they are doing this: Please, cripple our National Heating and Electricity with few missile strikes. This is what we choose.
And not doing like this: You cannot cripple our Heating or Energy system, as each individual house and industry have their individual heat and energy source.
You choose to be easy target by centralizing everything to big units that control all your vital systems. And then choose to become dependent on critical minerals, energy and so on foreign imports, which at many time is imported straight from your potential adversary. This is what i really wonder. People are professionals. And they choose like this. And then if anyone attacks them and war comes, they will suffer and struggle.
This is what the US chooses too. If you would example want, US would be very easy to shut down with few missiles that go trough. All of their energy, heating, industry and so. They have centralized everything. They dont have the real means to repair or maintain anything. And they do not have the resilience against cold, when their heat source is cut off, and they have centralized that too to be shut down with one missile for everyone. There is no resilience. They would lose heating. They would lose energy. And they do not maintain the capacity to repair it. The thing is, they do not believe anyone can ever hit them. So they do not think they need to be prepared for that. And they only go against targets that cannot defend. They will never attack anyone who can.
And will not people start to seek something more stable, that is not dependent on this kind of thing they are causing on Fossil Fuel market.
Would not other energy forms start to be seen as more approachable, when they cannot be affected by this kind of thing at all, but are small units that can produce electricity locally without any sort of transportation or any sort of endlessly consumable fuel source which they themself do not produce or control ?
For example lets say Australia. They have lots of sun, lots of wind, lots of land, lots of coast. Why on purpose choose to be tied on an energy source that can cripple your economy once the transportation, production or any sort of happening affects its availability or pricing.
Every unit that consumes electricity can be made to produce electricity as well. But instead we gamble it all in this kind of energy source that is imported, pollutes, is controlled by small amount of people, who are manipulating its availability, price and market.
Would not energy independence be a benefit ?
Making you immune to anything that happens on transportation, or generation of outside energy sources you choose to stay dependant on.
Will people finally start to think, that Energy Independence can be a boon and not a burden ?
The usual mantra they say is "If you make any other Energy Infrastructure than Fossil Fuels, you are crippling your economy as it is not economically sustainable".
Then what is this then ? Everyone is talking about crippling their economy from the smallest fluctuating on the flow of imported energy on their country.
If you have no other sources of Energy, and do not even plan to acquire any. When it hits 300 dollar a barrel, you will buy it. 500 dollar a barrel, you buy it still. 1 000 dollar a barrel, you beg them to sell it to you or else your country is shut down ?
The real expense of making a solar panel in Australia is probably the same as one gallon of fuel. And if you do not want to do that yourself, China can sell them cheap. Then, the Solar panel can be included on any infrastructure, even inside car chassis, that uses electricity. Then, after you have used that for tens of years, 98% or more of the material used to make a solar panel can be recycled to make a new. You basically gain a new one endlessly for free, when fuel is consumed once, and you can never have it back but must buy more endlessly and fight wars for it.
Solar Panel is made of Aluminium Chassis, small amount of Silver Threads. Crystallized Silicon. Then the electric box and coating for the crystallized silicon that protects it from weather effects like hail storms. Thats all you need. And you can also make it elastic and include it inside any thing, probably even clothes.
Will this kind of thing gain popularity. That when there are problems in oil market you can just say so what, i produce 100% of my energy domestically.
There are endless amount of options. Water, Alternative Fuels, Bio Fuels, Energy Waste, Solar, Wind, Nuclear. Even Coal or Steam. And so on.
So whats the problem ?
Does this whole thing not seem something artificial ? That some small amount of people is creating for the world, which benefits only them, and no one else. Which could be fixed with only having a will to do so and then never hear the word "energy crisis" again.
How i see things. Word supposedly needs to be in constant state of an artificial "Energy Crisis" and it almost always relate to Fossil ones.
So to say on the topic. The whole situation on Middle East and Iran. Can also be because of this. To generate this situation where the oil prices grow. There might really be no other reason ?
So why people go on with this. Why not generate your own energy ?
Then why do not people outsource all food production, shut down domestic agriculture and choose to acquire full dependence on imported food and then, when the flow of imported food on your country stops, you create an artificial famine on your people on purpose ?
Why not outsource also food. So that you choose not to produce it yourself. As you will choose not to produce energy either, which is food for your industry. So why do everyone choose to have National Food Security and Independence, but not National Energy Security and Independence ?
Is there something going on here ?
The thing in the Middle East is Fossil Fuels. And there probably never was anything else. If there would be no Fossil Fuels, no one would be there.
Then, you can also perceive this on the point of military view. Do you rather have 5 energy plants on your whole country, that can be crippled, and all of your energy production diminished with 5 successful strikes. Or do you plan to have million energy plants, as in for example, individual homes that produce energy, and that all of your buildings produce energy by having a solar panel roofing. And then can only be crippled as a whole with million successful prices because you divide, and not centralize your production on few units.
This whole thing they are creating loses also on military point of view. All your power plants are big units, that produce for many. Not many small units that produce for few. You can mix them both, and have an energy infrastructure that is very hard to take out. Or you can gamble your everything to imported energy, which is then not received when you are blockaded, and then few large power plants which is then taken out with few successful strikes and you are blind without energy.
Then also. When your electrical network is crippled by missile strikes. If all of your individual buildings produce energy, they still have electricity even they would not even be part of the national energy grid. Because all of your buildings produce electricity, and can only be taken out if you destroy every single building in a country that is arranged like this.
So are we being mislead ? And for some reason, fall for it ?
Nations are on purpose choosing to make themself to be on mercy of outside energy suppliers. Then choose to centralize all their energy production capability that it can be crippled with few missiles and then shut down as a whole. Really ?
There is no resilience. But a nation that is easily crippled by sanctions, blockades and few missiles. Then all of your electricity is off.
And this is the strategy you choose ?
And then when you acquire decentralized small energy units, the best you can come up with is a diesel generator. Which is shut down once you run out of oil. For example, if your oil imports are cut off when you do not produce yourself. Or even you would produce, there are only few oil rigs that need to be destroyed with few missiles and your production or refining capability is shut down.
You are basically handing it on your enemy on silver platter.
You can see this on Qatar. One Iranian strike knocked out 17% of their Gas capacity, and that is i dont know how much, but some percentages of the capacity of the whole world. And then, the stock markets are affected and all of the economy goes in shock. Does not seem very resilient system but rather as system, that if someone goes for it, can be shut down very easily world wide, so that no one can produce oil or gas anymore and then when everyone chose to be dependent on only fossil fuels, then the whole world shuts down. For example in a World War scenario, Fossil Infrastructure would be first one to be destroyed and it is very easy to acquire. So why all in that ?
Why does any general choose to generate critical vulnerabilities on their system on purpose ?
It is hard to understand why they do this.
How they are doing this: Please, cripple our National Heating and Electricity with few missile strikes. This is what we choose.
And not doing like this: You cannot cripple our Heating or Energy system, as each individual house and industry have their individual heat and energy source.
You choose to be easy target by centralizing everything to big units that control all your vital systems. And then choose to become dependent on critical minerals, energy and so on foreign imports, which at many time is imported straight from your potential adversary. This is what i really wonder. People are professionals. And they choose like this. And then if anyone attacks them and war comes, they will suffer and struggle.
This is what the US chooses too. If you would example want, US would be very easy to shut down with few missiles that go trough. All of their energy, heating, industry and so. They have centralized everything. They dont have the real means to repair or maintain anything. And they do not have the resilience against cold, when their heat source is cut off, and they have centralized that too to be shut down with one missile for everyone. There is no resilience. They would lose heating. They would lose energy. And they do not maintain the capacity to repair it. The thing is, they do not believe anyone can ever hit them. So they do not think they need to be prepared for that. And they only go against targets that cannot defend. They will never attack anyone who can.
Last edited:
SinisterMinister
Member
Depends on how Iran reacts of course. But assuming they activate the Houthis and close Bab al-Mandab, you'd lose the 3-4 million bpd that the Saudis can export through there. Of course you would lose everything the Iranians export through Kharg, but it's unclear how much they could divert to Jask. They're currently around 2 million bpd, maybe you could get 500k through Jask?
The other variable is Fujairah, where the UAE exports what they can. There have been strikes there but it's still operational. If the Iranians up the strike volume to the point of a shutdown, you lose an additional 1-2 million bpd.
So really you are talking about an additional supply disruption of around 5-7%
Now consider that Trump just lifted sanctions on Iranian oil and you have to wonder, why exactly would they want Kharg? Feels like a misdirection to me.