| ▲ | trhway 7 days ago |
| why US wouldn't block those tankers? Is there 5-dimensional chess somewhere here that i don't see? One can also wonder what money and through which banks Iran is getting for that oil - i'd find it hard to believe that Iran would accept Chinese currency and store it in Chinese banks. |
|
| ▲ | whynotmaybe 7 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Saw a funny remark about 9d chess and with what's happening nowadays, I have the feeling that I'm not even smart enough to understand a game of coin flip. Why wouldn't Iran accept Yuan? Without doing anything special, China is becoming the most reliable trade partner in the world. |
| |
| ▲ | nine_k 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Some oil deals between Russia and China already run on yuan (RMB). I suppose the yuans are promptly reinvested into Chinese goods, often the dual-use kind. | |
| ▲ | mmooss 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The US dollar is the standard currency for international trade, but the US government of course has great influence over its use. For example, they sanction anyone who does business with Iran. This tactic, used against Russia, Iran, and others, has turned them to seeking other, safer currencies. The Euro is risky; EU members are American allies, generally speaking, and also may act against Iran, etc. for their own reasons. The most widely used currency and most stable economy (an unstable economy causes and unstable currency) is the Chinese yuan or renminbi. | | |
| ▲ | AlecSchueler 7 days ago | parent [-] | | That sounds like more reasons to use it? | | |
| ▲ | mmooss 6 days ago | parent [-] | | I think I misread the GGP comment. Why not use the Chinese yuan? It's not as liquid or as stable as the US dollar. If you sell something for $10 billion US dollars then you can use that money to buy almost anything in the world. If you sell it for equivalent yuan, your options are much more limited. For some things you might need, it could be similar to showing up to a shopping mall in Chicago with yuan - you effectively have no money (without finding a way to convert them to dollars, which brings you back to the original problem). Also, while China is a major economic power, they are not considered as stable as the US government (though the gap is closing quickly). Your $10 billion in yuan today might be worth $9 billion tomorrow. | | |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | comrade1234 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The u.s. removed sanctions on Iranian oil so that Iran can buy more weapons from china to attack the u.s. it makes no sense but that's what's going on. |
| |
| ▲ | LeFantome 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It is more important to the US administration that more oil be on the world market to keep prices in check than it is to protect US troops. Makes perfect sense (completely immoral but easy to understand). | |
| ▲ | simulator5g 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It makes sense. Israel is using the US to provoke Iran into attacking the US, so that the US can attack Iran in response, claiming that they are defending themselves. | |
| ▲ | sysguest 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | damn the whole operation is all-or-nothing... US just shouldn't have started this if it couldn't finish off the regime cleanly this is going to become a worldwide economic disaster: iran learnt it can
1. bully nearby gulf-nations
2. block hormuz without much retaliation, and US can't do much due to internal politics (well a lot of people don't like Trump...) so what cards do each nations have left? can US "talk" with / use threats against iran and "make it a good guy"? just talking threats can't force current regime to 'become good' -- bombing's not scary anymore even economic gifts won't work: economically, iran is not vietnam: it has huge oil reserves, and it can hold hormuz hostage -- so time and effort can't make current regime 'a friend of US' so... diplomatic chance is LONG GONE... even if biden or obama becomes the president, they can't solve this: the 'benefit of doubt' is gone so... unfortunately... the only card left for US and its allies... is ground troops...
or some alternative to hormuz... | | |
| ▲ | watwut 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > can US "talk" with / use threats against iran and "make it a good guy"? Problem is Iran leadership especially would need to retarded to trust any good guy promisses from USA. I mean, USA breaks promisses to literally anyone, but it specifically bombed Iran already twice during negotiations. And its history involves usa turning hostile each time relationships seems to get better. How can you play good guy with history like that? And with present of attacking literal own allies? | | |
| ▲ | sysguest 6 days ago | parent [-] | | yeah that's why I said the whole operation is "all or nothing" |
| |
| ▲ | gmerc 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | remember Afghanistan? There's no "finish the regime quickly". These are religious fanatics. See Taliban. | | |
| ▲ | jurgenburgen 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | This is not religious fanaticism, it’s just a hated state apparatus trying to survive. If I was in the Iranian government making decisions I would squeeze the strait of Hormuz until Trump cries uncle because that’s the best way to survive. A bad deal will just give a short break before Israel and US strike a third time. | | |
| ▲ | sysguest 6 days ago | parent [-] | | > it’s just a hated state apparatus trying to survive. well unfortunately its survival would mean tighter control of iranian populace: it now has an excuse to do so ("are you an american spy? why do you disobey higher command?") iran will become more like north korea more than before... as for the iranian people? well those guys could have been driving porsche like qataris people... | | |
| ▲ | donkyrf 5 days ago | parent [-] | | They could've been driving Porsches, except for the D'Arcy Concession which only left Iran with 16% of the profit from oil business in their country for a few decades... followed by Britain using their military might when Iran decided that a few decades of that was enough... followed by the US supporting regime overthrows after that... and so on and so on... Iran is the way it is because the West has been ruthlessly exploiting their resources, undermining their government, and attacking them militarily for the last 100 years. |
|
| |
| ▲ | sysguest 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | well I didn't expect this to be easy but at least I expected US to be more prepared than this |
| |
| ▲ | mindslight 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > US can't do much due to internal politics (well a lot of people don't like Trump...) I don't know why you're throwing this out casually, like the difficulty is merely due to political dissent? People "don't like" Trump precisely because all of his policies are exactly like this idiotic attack on Iran - poorly thought out, and inevitably end up doing the exact opposite as what he claims they will do. Trump's whole modus operandi has always been aggressive escalation against other parties, then making negative-sum "deals" to extract wealth. This half-works in business but absolutely fails in international relations (why all of our traditional allies are sitting this one out, at best). You keep attributing these actions to the "US", but the truth of the matter is that the competent people at the top who was coming up with options like "here is a plan but it requires hundreds of thousands of US troops for years" would have been sidelined and replaced with a Party loyalist sycophant who said it would be easy. For further reading, see this HN thread on the Military Failures of Fascism https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47523207 | | |
| ▲ | sysguest 3 days ago | parent [-] | | well if the current president was Biden, people wouldn't complain even if the plan was bringing 100,000 ground troops. Of course whether people like/trust the current president or not matters on the range of military power he can project on foreign land dang if it was obama, it could have been 500,000 and almost no one would even fuss | | |
| ▲ | mindslight 2 days ago | parent [-] | | You're saying that you personally wouldn't complain if it were Biden sending 100,000 troops, or Obama sending 500,000 troops? I certainly would. But the fact that the US doom industry has been beating the drum at Iran for years, while the US military intelligence community has still held back on actually attacking speaks volumes about what a poor idea this was. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | lancebeet 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Blocking them would further increase the global oil price which is probably contrary to the administration's wishes. |
| |
| ▲ | pennomi 7 days ago | parent [-] | | Because the average voter cannot see past the price at the pump. People are remarkably uninformed about how the world works. | | |
| ▲ | nine_k 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The price at the pump affects not only a voter's commuter car, but also every truck that delivers goods across the US. This may have a much larger knock-on effect. OTOH the US is the largest oil producer in the world [1]. Theoretically the US could keep domestic prices in check, but that would require rather drastic administrative pressure, likely only legal at wartime. [1]: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61545 | | |
| ▲ | salawat 6 days ago | parent [-] | | It'd also require completely different refineries. Most U.S. oil is Sweet light vs the Heavy stuff we import and refine from overseas. |
| |
| ▲ | orwin 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's not only that. Oil prices also greatly increase the price of logistics, mining, metallurgy and fertilisers. | | | |
| ▲ | trhway 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | that brings the question - given the amount of media and propaganda, is it a failure or a result of that media and propaganda. | |
| ▲ | DrProtic 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | What they have to see in this case in your opinion? | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | Caius-Cosades 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Asia-Pacific region gets virtually all of it's oil, gas and fertilizer precursors from strait of Hormuz. Sure. You can block those ships and tankers if you're the US. Doesn't particularly hurt the Iranians, but sure as hell hurts everyone(except China, due to them having their coal-gas industry, strong fertilizer industry etc.) in Asia-Pacific, including Australia. |
|
| ▲ | orwin 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They get Chinese currency and trade it to Afghanistan/Pakistan/Turkmenistan (and probably India and China) to buy food and weapons. |
|
| ▲ | netsharc 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| As Trump said, "we're not desperate for a deal, they're the ones who are desperate". Meaning, Trump realizes he sent his military, lead by the genius Hegseth, into a mess, and he is now desperate to get out, since Iran has the power to inflict more pain on the world and have him be the one to be blamed... |
|
| ▲ | credit_guy 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| My guess is that both those tankers and the oil they carry belong to owners other than Iran at that point. If the US seizes such a tanker, it could be perceived as sn act of aggression by China, for example, if they are the ones who bought the oil. |
| |
| ▲ | Caius-Cosades 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Intercepting those tankers will make US extremely popular in Asia-Pacific. Who doesn't love famine? |
|
|
| ▲ | casey2 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The US wants too keep the price of oil high so they can get investment in the Venezuelan oil fields. But they don't want the global economy to collapse. They also want Iran participating in globalism. |
| |
| ▲ | petre 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Doesn't matter what they want. It's already a shit show. China will clearly emerge as the sole winner out of this. | | |
| ▲ | CommanderData 6 days ago | parent [-] | | China is well positioned to always win. The US is etching closer and closer at weakening it's neighbours, once they have been defeated China will be the next Iran. |
|
|
