| ▲ | dgrin91 20 hours ago |
| My guess is that is this because UAE has ports on the other side of Hormuz and doesn't want to be restricted in their usage by OPEC? Does this mean UAE thinks Hormuz will be a problem for a long time? And what does it mean for oil prices long term? |
|
| ▲ | bawolff 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > My guess is that is this because UAE has ports on the other side of Hormuz and doesn't want to be restricted in their usage by OPEC? Does OPEC limit that? It would be very surprising to me if they did, as the point of opec is only to limit production when oil prices are low. They aren't low right now. |
| |
|
| ▲ | elictronic 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It means the UAE is pissed Iran attacked it then tried to block all passage through UAE controlled waters. |
|
| ▲ | jmyeet 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The UAE has the ADCOP (Abu Dhabi Cross Oil Pipeline) to move oil to beyond the Strait. It has a capacity of ~1.8Mbpd (million barrels per day) so is only a fraction of the UAE's total oil exports and a tiny fraction of the oil exports impacted by the Strait being closed. It's also being used already. I don't know how these particular oil exports have been impacted. They are beyond the Strait but not by that much. Iran is still entirely capable of harassing shipping there. I believe the US has given tacit approval or is behind this move entirely for what comes when the Strait inevitably reopens and that is to get the UAE to export well beyond what they might otherwise as an OPEC member. The UAE like most GCC countries is entirely dependent on US arms to maintain their regime so I simply cannot imagine them doing this without the US putting them up to it or looking the other way. |
| |
| ▲ | nwellnhof 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > ~1.8Mbpd (million barrels per day) Mbpd = thousand barrels per day,
MMbpd = million barrels per day | |
| ▲ | petesergeant 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > so is only a fraction of the UAE's total oil exports Isn’t it 30-50%ish depending on how you count it? Calling it “a fraction” makes it sound much smaller in conventional English. |
|
|
| ▲ | itopaloglu83 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They might be leaving either for a) price independence or b) currency flexibility. |
| |
|
| ▲ | voidfunc 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Do they? I just looked at a map and I see very little oil infrastructure on that side of Hormuz plus isn't Oman Iran aligned? |
| |
| ▲ | infecto 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | No expert but I always got the impression Oman was a neutral party. They help run the Hormuz with Iran but largely neutral in world politics. | |
| ▲ | coffeebeqn 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It also looks fairly easy to mine/blockade outside of their territorial waters. You don’t need that many drones to make the whole area unusable for marine transport. The strait is the clearest choke point but I don’t know how much bypassing it would help UAE | | | |
| ▲ | wodenokoto 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Fujairah, on the other side of Hormuz is the fourth largest bunkering hub in the world. That’s not “little oil infrastructure” | |
| ▲ | mywittyname 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They do, it's only like 1-2 million barrels a day in capacity right now. | |
| ▲ | weard_beard 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Oman is the Switzerland of the Middle East. | | |
| ▲ | mothballed 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | As democratic popular opinion turns against classical liberal economic principles, many theocratic or monarchist hell holes are increasingly becoming the unexpected underdog turned winners in economic freedom. It's been fascinating to watch. | | |
| ▲ | weard_beard 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | My understanding is that unique historical, cultural, and even geographical factors have led to this outcome for Oman. I would encourage you to read up on the history of the country to understand the nuance here and not paint with such a broad brush. | | |
| ▲ | mothballed 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | Everyone has a unique "..." and a nuance here and a nuance there. UAE has a unique yada yada and also ended up with a surprisingly remarkably free economic index despite being a theocratic monarchy. As did the monarchy Lichtenstein, British controlled Hong Kong, and the one-party state of Singapore (technically democratic, in practice it functions like a recallable monarchy). Also of note the three richest countries by GDP PPP per capita are Monaco (hybrid monarchy with monarchist veto powers), Lichtenstein (hybrid monarchy with monarchist veto powers), Singapore (single party state). | | |
| ▲ | throwaway2037 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > one-party state of Singapore (technically democratic, in practice it functions like a recallable monarchy).
This is untrue. It would be more accurate to say that the same party has been in power since independence from the UK. Each election in the last 30 years has slowly moved the needle -- fewer and fewer of seats held by the majority party (PAP). I guess there will be a non-PAP prime minister in the next 20 years. Sure, it doesn't look like other democracies, but please don't call it one-party. Also: See Japan. Many outsiders just don't understand democracy in Japan and try to impose their worldview on a different type of democratic system. | | |
| ▲ | mothballed 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'll yield that it isn't a pure one party state. There is some room for difference of opinion whether you want to characterize it as one or not. But let's not play the bullshit and borderline xenophobic, ad-hominem attack that it's just "outsiders" who "just don't understand." Or try and distinguish that it's people 'imposing their worldview' (something every human does no matter what they are arguing). But don't take my word for it. Read what Lee Kuan Yew had to say himself[0]: The PAP represents the broad middle ground in society and attracts the best and brightest people into Government, LKY said last night. He therefore did not see a two- or multi-party system emerging in Singapore soon.
Ah yes, good ol LKY, the outsider who just doesn't understand Singapore, and with such a non-Singaporean 'viewpoint' that he had quite popular support (even if you want to argue it is a minority, it was widespread enough as to be valid enough to be considered one valid and widespread Singaporean point of view). Calling it not a two or multi-party system, leaving quite obviously his assertion is that it's a one-party system.This and other points, documented by Yeo Lay Hwee (Senior Fellow, Singapore Institute of International Affairs) , who even if she flip flops between suggesting Singapore is a one-party state, lists quite a few reasons why it is a reasoned viewpoint from an understood observer [1]. [0] https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/digitised/article/s... [1] https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/iez/01361007.pdf |
| |
| ▲ | pjc50 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'm not sure what the conclusion is from this other than that the wealthy love having an autocratic tax haven microstate to park the money they earned from liberal democracies in. | | |
| ▲ | mothballed 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | This is true, but these countries aren't doing it for the benefit of foreigners, they're doing it for the benefit of themselves. |
| |
| ▲ | EduardoBautista 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The UAE is not theocratic. Yes, Islam is the official religion but there is freedom of religion. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | saberience 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You should visit Fujairah ! Huge facilities there. | |
| ▲ | newsclues 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habshan%E2%80%93Fujairah_oil_p... |
|
|
| ▲ | juujian 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That would also explain why UAE is oddly in favor of a war in their region. |
| |
| ▲ | energy123 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Oman benefits significantly more from the war in Iran than the UAE, but is the most favorable country towards Iran in the GCC. See the visual here: https://archive.is/Xt3gd Saudi Arabia and the UAE have been urging the US to bomb Iran since 2015 for their own non-oil reasons. They see political Islamism as a strategic and domestic threat. That's why they had Qatar under a blockade for a number of years. Iran is their biggest rival, exporting militancy to Yemen - the Houthis who UAE and Saudi Arabia battled for a number of years last decade. A number of attacks on Saudi and UAE oil and gas facilities from Iran Quds-backed militant groups in Iraq across 2019-2022. None of this makes the news in the West. | | |
| ▲ | dmix 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | UAE's major issue with Saudis is their quiet support for Islamism as well. They know countries like Iran exploit for it like a wildcard which always backfires and destabilizes the region, which is bad for business. | | |
| ▲ | throwaway2037 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > UAE's major issue with Saudis is their quiet support for Islamism as well.
What is the meaning of "Islamism" here? GCC is something like 98-99% Muslim by native population. Also, Saudi Arabia is the home of the two most important masjids in the Islamic world. | | |
| ▲ | energy123 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | ISIS and Iran are pan-Islamist, which is the strain of Islamism that the UAE and Saudi Arabia fear most. Pan-Islamists don't respect national boarders, democracy, nationalism or monarchies. |
| |
| ▲ | Cyph0n 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | No. The UAE’s major issue is that KSA has finally awoken from its deep nonsensical slumber (I can elaborate further if there is interest). This is a battle of economies and regional influence. | | |
| ▲ | dmix 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | MBZ is definitely more anti-islamism than the saudis. UAE really doesn't like muslim brotherhood while Saudis have supported groups aligned with them in Yemen plus Saudis are getting closer to Turkey/Qatar. Even UAE/saudi backing different groups in Sudan war is rooted in Yemen/brotherhood issue. Both Sudanese groups sent competing troops to fight in Yemen. > While Saudi Arabia does not have any problems with Islamists and in fact more or less openly supports them, according to Donelli, the UAE sees radical religious groups as a threat to its domestic stability, as well as stability in the wider region. This distinction is also evident in the two countries’ support for the respective sides in Sudan. The UAE supports RSF’s more secular version of Islam, whereas the SAF under al-Burhan’s leadership is widely seen as more or less a continuation of the regime of Omar al-Bashir, which was heavily influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood. https://nai.uu.se/stories-and-events/news/2025-02-07-gulf-st... | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | g8oz 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | They are a wannabe Israel, a bad faith actor sowing chaos for geopolitical advantage. They've been spending money on Washington lobbyists to advocate for this war for a long time. And this isn't the only skulduggery they've been up to. They've supported the warlord Haftar in Libya and the genocidal RSF militia in Sudan. They've hired American mercenaries to assassinate Islamist civil society figures in Yemen. They pay European right-wing influencers to spread anti Muslim content (yes you read that right). They are the buyer for conflict gold coming from the Congo. In short they are a problem. |
|
|
| ▲ | 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | glass1122 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [dead] |
|
| ▲ | smt88 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | rigonkulous 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The US is bombing cities. | | | |
| ▲ | pjc50 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | US-backed Israeli forces are already destroying Lebanon: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/mapping-the-destruction... > Legal experts, analysts and local officials warn that the ultimate objective is the “emptying of residential geography”, carving out a depopulated “buffer zone” at the forward edge of the border that permanently prevents displaced residents from returning and establishes a violently enforced demographic reality on the ground. That's called "ethnic cleansing" when carried out by other countries. Iran will not agree to peace while this is going on. Partly because that's Iranian proxy forces in there among all the civilians getting killed. | |
| ▲ | redwood 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think you underestimate the impact of a blockade on Iran's ports... Iran (and China) can maintain this posture for ballpark a month or so more before economic mayhem leads to another popular uprising. Time is in the US's hands up until the midterms and even then until January | | |
| ▲ | 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | torlok 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think you underestimate how little economic pressure matters when people are up against an invader who attacked amidst negotiations for bogus reasons, threatened total annihilation, and killed thousands, including a school full of children. | | |
| ▲ | nixon_why69 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | And, to add on, how much more it matters when a very rich population didn't sign up for this at all and has no vested interest in "winning" at cost. | |
| ▲ | redwood 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is a population that absolutely despises their government. At least a very large percentage are in that category. I think you misunderstand the reality on the ground | | |
| ▲ | rigonkulous 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | Iranians despise their government in about the same way that Americans despise their government - which is to say, both peoples got the government they deserve... |
|
| |
| ▲ | nixon_why69 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What happens when Chinese flagged ships dare us to shoot them? | | |
| ▲ | redwood 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | Do you mean Chinese military vessels? Or do you mean oil tankers? Oil tankers don't require you to shoot you simply commandeer. If China were to involve its Navy in opening the straight that's exactly what Good outcome could look like | | |
| ▲ | nixon_why69 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | Or it could be Really Really Bad Outcome, let's not be too flippant about this. Out of curiousity, what's your good outcome from the Chinese sending destroyers to the gulf? | | |
| ▲ | redwood 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | If the Chinese take on the burden of maintaining the free flow of shipping through the Gulf by stepping up as one of the key beneficiaries of said shipping that would simply be an appropriate burden sharing mechanism in my view. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | rigonkulous 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | hmm .. imho .. the supply chain between Iran, Russia, and China is .. radically .. under-estimated in the equation by those states who have lost control over the worlds energy supplies. It is more like the Western nations which cannot withstand another month of all this 'posturing' .. But there is some resilience to the idea that the Iran/Russia/China corridor is going to keep those nations relatively buffered from total disaster. |
|
|
