ListNook

CurrentElectrical736 Apr 2, 2026 +535

How long with that take to build?

535

tpfb Apr 2, 2026 +684

And how long would it take for it to be blown up

684

SecureInstruction538 Apr 2, 2026 +166

Pipeline? Not likely if it is underground. The transfer stations? Depends how long it takes to fly the drones to it.

166

redditvirginboy Apr 2, 2026 +173

>Not likely if it is underground This is gonna be SO EXPENSIVE that it's gonna kill the project itself probably.

173

putsch80 Apr 2, 2026 +62

Most pipelines in the U.S. are underground. The network is huge. And it’s not particularly expensive to do. They cross mountain ranges and vast distances. [U.S. underground hydrocarbon pipeline map](https://pipeline101.org/location/).

62

Hipsthrough100 Apr 2, 2026 +20

Do you have some imaginary idea that they are “built underground”? They are built on surface and buried. The work is very vulnerable to military action. Secondly most pipelines you’re referring to are like 10 feet underground just to be fully below frost lines and prevent heaving. That’s not impossible to strike.

20

patriotfanatic80 Apr 2, 2026 +11

The saudi east west pipeline is buried 20 feet underground for most of it. It goes from the gulf to the red sea. Not sure why you're defending this position so hard when a country in the gulf already did what other countries in the gulf want to do.

11

namisysd Apr 2, 2026 +2

striking underground targets requires heavier ordinance than the types of drones being used against tankers; Irans does not have a large quantity of cruise and ballistic missiles compared to suicide drones. The reality is they are not going to waste resources on underground pipelines when the pipeline infrastructure is more vulnerable to cheaper weapons.

2

Hipsthrough100 Apr 3, 2026 +1

Okay. Like we are talking theoretical about someone talking about all the pipelines built in NA. Most of those are not that deep and they all come out of the ground at terminals, plants and well heads connect to them. You only need to break a pipe in one main spot anyway to shut that for awhile.

1

SecureInstruction538 Apr 2, 2026 +95

You'd be surprised. During underground in a location that gets temperatures in excess of 120 will allow for flow regulation. Shields it from UV degradation, abrasive sand storms, makes it harder to attack it or accidently strike it and underground has less shifting than sitting it on the surface.

95

PrincebyChappelle Apr 2, 2026 +52

Plus, probably lots of c**** pipeline labor available from 3rd world countries.

52

RontoWraps Apr 2, 2026 +40

What’s some more slave labor in the Middle East

40

lizardtrench Apr 2, 2026 +14

UV's not really going to affect metal pipe. Corrosion is generally worse underground than above. And repairs are going to be more difficult, take longer, and require you to get an excavator over there vs. just airlifting a new section of pipe in. I think a lot depends on just how far you can bury it underground and the capabilities of the attacker. If it takes them 10 times more effort to get at it, but it takes you 10 times more effort to repair, then the value proposition becomes iffy. It also says a lot that other pipelines built to bypass the strait during times of conflict (the Saudi one, for example) were not built underground.

14

Kaffe-Mumriken Apr 2, 2026 +11

Okay Elon we know you want your boring co there

11

SecureInstruction538 Apr 2, 2026 +16

Wouldn't need a boring machine. A bunch of trench diggers would be more than sufficient.

16

Kaffe-Mumriken Apr 2, 2026 +5

Just green light project plowshare at this point

5

WatRedditHathWrought Apr 2, 2026 +1

Don’t give em any ideas. It’d be worse than nuking a hurricane.

1

reginathrowaway12345 Apr 2, 2026 +3

Pretty sure some drones would delay that type of project pretty quick.

3

ChadThunderDownUnder Apr 2, 2026 +2

This is not as good of a solution as you think. For one, the construction is visible on satellite and is likely going to be otherwise difficult to hide with something that big. Two, your suggestions below of a trench are silly. You think a missile can’t destroy something 4-5m deep? That pipeline will have to be **much** farther down to avoid damage. It’s very open to attack during the project too.

2

patriotfanatic80 Apr 2, 2026 +4

This pipeline would pretty obviously be done after this war was over. The saudis have a pipeline that does this exact thing and are currently using to bypass the strait.

4

Crudadu Apr 2, 2026 +7

I mean israel has pipelines all over and you don't hear much about them being destroyed.

7

ChadThunderDownUnder Apr 2, 2026 +1

That’s because there are better targets at the moment

1

OneLastAuk Apr 2, 2026 +4

This is silly commentary. The pipes are pretty c**** and are not complicated. With electronic and manual cutoff valves every so often, you can shut off, repair, replace, and re-cover the damaged sections in a day...and that's ignoring the discussion of whether Iran has the capability or accuracy to even hit a segment.

4

iced_bunghole Apr 2, 2026 +5

Never under estimate the UAE using slave labor to get it done

5

paulwesterberg Apr 2, 2026 +1

I don't think that slaves would build it faster than skilled pipeline crews. This is an AI estimate of the timelines required: > Building a major oil pipeline to bypass the Strait of Hormuz typically takes 7 to 10 years for planning and construction. While specific shorter routes, such as the 380-km UAE Habshan-Fujairah pipeline, took roughly 3 years to become operational, a project designed to handle the full capacity of the 20-million-barrel-per-day bottleneck would likely require over a decade, with projects sometimes estimated to take 10–15 years.

1

silicondali Apr 2, 2026 +35

Where do you think pipelines are normally installed?

35

cynicallyspeeking Apr 2, 2026 +20

Are they not normally installed overground?

20

BannedSvenhoek86 Apr 2, 2026 +12

I work on natural gas in Appalachia. It's all underground, up the mountains and everything. They literally winch the machines at the top of the hill and dig at like 60° angles, and dudes on side by sides run up and down all day doing the ground work. It looks fun as hell tbh. Lot better than doing electric on them. Also people that own land get paid money if a pipe goes under their property line. Even if it's a mile underground, if it crosses your land you get a check every month it's flowing.

12

UsedToHaveThisName Apr 2, 2026 +33

No. No they are not.

33

cynicallyspeeking Apr 2, 2026 +14

Interesting, not sure why you (or someone else) downvoted for asking a question, this site is wild. I was just thinking of some time I saw an Alaska / Canada pipe line on Google earth. Perhaps that's an exception.

14

Fivein1Kay Apr 2, 2026 +21

That is like that to preserve the permafrost.

21

EndangeredBanana Apr 2, 2026 +24

In some places in Canada and probably Alaska oil pipelines are built above ground in order to protect the perma-frost. In most other situations, building below ground is preferable as it protects the pipeline from the elements, accidents and sabotage. Additionally, the oil will be less affected by temperature changes in the environment.

24

GfuelFiend Apr 2, 2026 +2

Is it to protect the permafrost or is it to protect the pipeline from the permafrost?

2

Ochoytnik Apr 2, 2026 +1

Except where they are

1

redditvirginboy Apr 2, 2026 +3

>Where do you think pipelines are normally installed? I mean it depends on the region and at some length there would be sections that are above ground, which is a problem if the premise of putting it underground is to protect it from being blown up than just from exposure to natural elements, no?

3

silicondali Apr 2, 2026 +7

Above ground pipelines are atypical outside of within the fence line of an operating facility. They are pressurized devices full of flammable materials. Surface conveyance would be a nightmare to manage.

7

gc11117 Apr 2, 2026 +3

GCC slave labor plus GCC money makes me think they can get it done

3

UnlikelyReplacement0 Apr 2, 2026 +2

Not to mention that if the conflict with Iran is still going on, the construction of said pipeline could be harried with drone attacks.

2

Ok_Trade_1692 Apr 2, 2026 +1

Best to start building the pipeline from the exit then...

1

toeknn Apr 2, 2026 +1

If it were anywhere but a region infamous for large expensive vanity megaprojects maybe. This wouldnt be a vanity project tho. Itd be a protect your business investment.

1

SporksInjected Apr 2, 2026 +1

Probably cheaper than $2M x n-ships per day.

1

Aggressive_Lie_4446 Apr 2, 2026 +1

Except such pipelines existed in the past. The Trans-Arabian pipeline which existed from 1950 to 1990 went from the Saudi oilfields all the way to Lebanon via Jordan and Syria. Further than even Haifa. Ditto the Kirkuk-Haifa pipeline which passed through Northern Iraq, much of Syria and into Mandatory Palestine and stopped operating in 1948. I mean the US has longer pipelines from Canada to Louisiana and Russia has much longer pipelines into Europe and China than the proposed pipelines will be.

1

paulwesterberg Apr 2, 2026 +1

I agree that such a pipeline is definitely possible to build, but it will likely take 3+ years to complete. If global oil supply remains constrained to prices near $200 a barrel till 2030 there will be a massive uptake in EVs which could impact the profitability of such a project. Also a pipeline can only be used to move one petroleum product at a time. The Strait being closed impacts refined fuels, natural gas, aluminum and helium.

1

AU36832 Apr 2, 2026 +1

Pipelines aren't that expensive. And much more economical than any other mode of transport. Better for the environment as well.

1

patriotfanatic80 Apr 2, 2026 +1

The saudis already built an east west pipeline. Its only expensive if you don't take into account how much they lose by not having it.

1

Zenith_X1 Apr 2, 2026 +1

It can cost 20-30 billion but if the result is a half-trillion in safe oil income then 20-30 billion is c****. Scale matters.

1

theoreoman Apr 3, 2026 +1

All oil pipelines are burried. They have giant machines that can do thousands of ft per day

1

xylopyrography Apr 2, 2026 +6

Pipeline need surface stations which are targets. And you can still destroy things that are underground. If the pipeline is buried at normal depths it can probably be damaged with 1 missile. if it's buried at twice or three times the depth, they just fire 10 missiles at the same spot.

6

HippyHunter7 Apr 2, 2026 +3

Oh yay. I can't wait for the land version of Exxon Valdez 2: Electric Bugaloo.

3

letsgobernie Apr 2, 2026 +8

The constructions takes years and the construction itself will be blown up. If existing functional infra is blown up, obviously new infra will be. One cannot do such large scale projects without a peace deal.

8

St_BiggieCheese Apr 2, 2026 +4

You can for sure bomb a pipeline. The ground shakes n moves.

4

apexxin Apr 2, 2026 +2

Fun fact, you can blow things up that are underground - quite easily. Especially a pipeline.

2

TheRealAfinda Apr 2, 2026 +1

[ Removed by Listnook ]

1

sapien3000 Apr 2, 2026 +1

Transfer stations can be swarm with c**** drones. Refinery in Haifa was already hit this week

1

gedbybee Apr 2, 2026 +1

Depends on how far underground. While they’re building they probably get hit.

1

Skiingfun Apr 2, 2026 +1

If only explosions could reach 10 ft underground.

1

Ludwigofthepotatoppl Apr 3, 2026 +1

Just means a drone won’t work, but a proper missile probably would.

1

Gh0stPeppers Apr 2, 2026 +3

There seems to be a misconception that they can just continue to fire at surrounding Arab states with impunity. They’ve only gotten away with it so far by mostly hitting US targets. They very well may go to war if they start directly hitting Saudi assets for Example.

3

AWhole2Marijuanas Apr 2, 2026 +3

Ever see the cartoons where the one guy lays down track, and the other guy rips it up behind him? That'll be the Gulf States and Iran.

3

TWVer Apr 2, 2026 +18

Several years. However, rebuilding the destroyed oil and gas refineries and infrastructure in the Gulf region will also take 3 to 5 years (which is how long this oil crisis is likely going to last at minimum even if the war ends today). Therefore a pipeline could be done concurrently and be ready once the refineries are back up to full capacity.

18

paulwesterberg Apr 2, 2026 +3

I agree that the timeline is likely 3+ years. But you can't use a single pipeline to move all the different refined products produced by refineries and natural gas so it isn't a practical solution to the strait being closed.

3

TWVer Apr 2, 2026 +1

I didn’t claim it would be enough to completely replace it. At best, it could supplement it. Also, every Gulf state would need to invest in separate pipeline infrastructure and like pay a hefty toll to Saudi-Arabia.

1

MiserableTennis6546 Apr 2, 2026 +33

It takes years.

33

atlhart Apr 2, 2026 +15

2 weeks

15

nightpanda893 Apr 2, 2026 +4

Week and a half if you work through lunch

4

Nowayisthatway Apr 2, 2026 +51

There are already pipe line from the red sea to a port city in the Israeli mediterranean coast. There are infastructures already in place saudi- jordanian pipelines. Just need to connect the two existing pipelines Although the saudi pipeline does need a bit of repair work.

51

CurrentElectrical736 Apr 2, 2026 +21

How long will this take?

21

Nowayisthatway Apr 2, 2026 +29

I am no plumber but assuming the extreme has happened and that all of the pipes are rotten, then replacing them with some of the high tech inflating plastic pipes would the fastest way. Although I am not sure if it is good enough for oil movement. It would take some months. If you replace all the metal pipelines with newer steel pipe lines a bit less than three years The original pipeline took 3 years to install, the modern route would be shorter, and much of the modern transportion routes (i.e newer highways) are much more developed. So a gross guess would maybe be 2.5 years? This whole guessing situation is doing a lot of heavy lifting I am a normal citizen so I don't know much other than that it would probably take less time than it did 30 years ago? I am refering to the trans jordan pipeline btw

29

apathetic_revolution Apr 2, 2026 +5

The trans-Jordan pipeline was built by American firms with a regional labor pool. Israel's construction projects have been relying on Chinese firms and laborers, who are famously, absurdly fast at completing mega-projects. I'm not saying they could get this done in a week, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did either.

5

rmp266 Apr 2, 2026 +16

....and then Iran blows it up.

16

lost_horizons Apr 2, 2026 +7

The kinetic war will eventually end, then it's just a matter of adapting to the peace with new pipelines and shipping routes.

7

Nowayisthatway Apr 2, 2026 +8

🤷‍♂️

8

riko77can Apr 2, 2026 +9

Aside from the fact that they have already bypassed Hormuz by pipelining it to the Red Sea, that pipeline already can’t handle the necessary volume.

9

pinkmeanie Apr 2, 2026 +6

Also this helps East Asian customers not a bit.

6

paulwesterberg Apr 2, 2026 +1

A pipeline can only be used to move one petroleum product at a time. The Strait being closed impacts refined fuels, natural gas, aluminum and helium.

1

jason2354 Apr 2, 2026 +4

With enough capacity to replace what shipping can handle?

4

bsnimunf Apr 2, 2026 +1

I imagine that's pretty easy with a pipeline.

1

son_et_lumiere Apr 2, 2026 +3

Shipping from the Mediterranean to Asia would either require going all the way around Africa or squeezing through the Suez canal which require smaller ships because of the restricted width of the canal. Both of those increase shipping costs. Shipping out of the Red Sea still has its turmoil due to the Houthis who are backed by Iran.

3

dbxp Apr 2, 2026 +3

The Saudi pipeline maxes out at 5mbpd, the straits usually transport 20 so it's not really a full bypass. Heading south from Qatar and UAE to Duqm in Oman seems the way to go IMO. Shorter pipeline, closer to Asia and avoids Yemen. & Somalia

3

paulwesterberg Apr 2, 2026 +1

A pipeline can only be used to move one petroleum product at a time. The Strait being closed impacts refined fuels, natural gas, aluminum and helium.

1

Nowayisthatway Apr 2, 2026 +2

The article mentions new industrial rail lines being constructed so if you add a bunch of trains and some more pipe systems maybe it is possible

2

ProtoplanetaryNebula Apr 2, 2026 +5

If you factor in the planning, consultation, financing, building etc. 10+ years. By which time the war will have finished and there will be no need for the pipeline anyhow.

5

askalotlol Apr 2, 2026 +20

> planning, consultation, financing, building etc lol. these are the gulf states. the governments do what they want, use slave labor to do it, and have oil money to finance it.

20

Wise_Mongoose_3930 Apr 2, 2026 +4

This isn’t America. They don’t have pesky things like ‘workplace safety’ slowing them down.

4

new_account_wh0_dis Apr 2, 2026 +1

Yeah but if Iran mines the shit out of it or starts aggressively charging fees it would still be possible worth it

1

xantub Apr 2, 2026 +6

More importantly, how long will that take to destroy?

6

theoreoman Apr 3, 2026 +1

Depends how much money they throw at it and how little they care about environmental consultations. In 1950 Canada built a 1100 mile pipeline in 150 days

1

samdave69 Apr 2, 2026 +368

Pipe dreams…

368

xmuskorx Apr 2, 2026 +47

In a medium to long term this or something similar WILL happen. Hormuz closure is a temporary issue on scale of years but not decades.

47

paulwesterberg Apr 2, 2026 +2

If it stays closed for 5 years with oil at $200 a barrel then everyone will switch to EVs and oil from the Persian Gulf won't be needed as much.

2

Keeltoodeep Apr 2, 2026 +9

There are already pipelines doing this right now. They just need to be expanded and built out

9

letskeepthiscivil Apr 2, 2026 +1

XD I needed the laugh.

1

Foolishium Apr 2, 2026 +1

Exactly. Even if Gulf States hate Iran Guts, they also won't throw their weight behind Israel unless they get massive concession. Why go via controversial Israel when acceptable Syria is no longer pro-Iran and pro-Sunni?

1

BiscottiNo6948 Apr 2, 2026 +13

It took Aramco about 10years to build 750 miles of pipeline from jubail to yanbu ( eastern province to red Sea). Granted that pipeline prefab, laying machines have improved, I'd say looking a minimum of 7 years if they can agree on where the pipe will pass. Considering the geopolitics on that region, I doubt if Saudi will allow the pipeline to pass thru their country.

13

fgtrtdfgtrtdfgtrtd69 Apr 2, 2026 +105

Wouldn't Iran just strike the pipeline?

105

enigmaticowl Apr 2, 2026 +102

There’s already a Saudi-Israeli pipeline that they could have targeted at any point but haven’t done so yet. Seems like they’ve been (mostly) reluctant to escalate things to *that* drastic of a level with the Gulf states, probably because they know it’d be followed up with the decimation of Kharg Island.

102

Joltie Apr 2, 2026 +18

> Saudi-Israeli pipeline ???

18

Fungii Apr 2, 2026 +1

The city of Haifa forms part of the Haifa metropolitan area, the third-most populous metropolitan area in **Israel**.

1

jcrestor Apr 2, 2026 +9

Because the capacity is low. It is not a priority target. A pipeline though that effectively threatens to cut all leverage Iran currently has over the world’s oil prices on the other hand…

9

voidvector Apr 2, 2026 +18

Both sides already hit each other's desalination plants, so pipeline would definitely be on the list. Probably just require a few more rounds of back and forth.

18

enigmaticowl Apr 2, 2026 +27

The pipeline would be an exponentially bigger deal, not only for its greater (and longer lasting and harder to compensate for) economic/infrastructural/environmental consequences, but also because of how direct of a blow it would be to Saudi Arabia in particular (compared to the other Gulf states). Obviously the pipeline is not at the same level on their list as other infrastructural targets (that they have tried to hit) because they haven’t even tried to hit it yet for some reason; I think it makes a lot more sense to conclude that it’s because they understand that that’s kind of the ultimate point-of-no-return (in terms of the swift, harsh retaliation that it would certainly invite, which would take the form of Kharg Island being leveled, and then the Strait of Hormuz, which is their only leverage left, becomes obsolete) than to assume that they just simply haven’t gotten around to trying to hit it yet with even one of their 1,000+ missiles or 2,200+ drones that they’ve launched since Feb. 28th.

27

TinyH1ppo Apr 2, 2026 +7

My understanding is that both sides are limiting strikes on oil infrastructure because opening that can of worms hits a bit of a mutually assured desructuon type of situation.

7

ClubsBabySeal Apr 2, 2026 +5

It's a pipe. It's hard to hit and you can repair it in a weekend. You'd hit everything that isn't a pipe. They have a hard enough time hitting much larger objects. You don't see the Ukrainians trying to blow up pipes either.

5

United_Intention_323 Apr 2, 2026 +15

Theres no actual evidence of Iran’s desalination plant getting hit. The US and Israel also deny it. Iran hasn’t even released a photo of it.

15

Flayer723 Apr 2, 2026 +7

Iran has also said the attack on the Kuwaiti desalination plant was a false flag by Israel. Clearly desalination plants are a pretty big escalation.

7

CanadianTrollToll Apr 2, 2026 +2

Considering Tehran has had risks of running out of water I feel like attacks on those facilities would be a massive escalation.

2

alexidhd Apr 2, 2026 +14

Well, yes but also a pipe is way more difficult to target and way easier to defend than a tanker in the strait. For Air defenses to protect a tanker they would have to detect an Iranian missile right at launch, accurately predicted its trajectory/target and then launch an interceptor immediately - that’s not feasible. A pipe would be several hundred miles inland, there’s plenty of time to detect anything in the air and intercept it. Pipes are not huge like refineries and they aren’t immediately next to water, they are a lot further.

14

SolemnaceProcurement Apr 2, 2026 +6

They are also much easier to fix, especially on land. You just need to replace few dozens meters of destroyed pipeline. Much harder to fix hit oil tankers. Also you can burry them.

6

mhornberger Apr 2, 2026 +20

Pipelines are harder targets than huge oil tankers, and further away (being in someone else's country), and can also just be repaired.

20

drbooberry Apr 2, 2026 +7

A large static flammable structure stretching hundreds of miles is a harder target than a mobile one on water?

7

Keeltoodeep Apr 2, 2026 +10

Very hard to destroy the entire thing. This is why Ukraine has stopped targeting railways. That section is repaired fast.

10

mhornberger Apr 2, 2026 +25

Large in total volume, but thin. And blowing up one section just shuts it down until that section is repaired. Taking out one section doesn't destroy the whole thing. They have containment measures, isolation valves, etc, that shut off when one section is damaged. And the mobile target on water is sailing a few kilometers from your own coast, a coast with tons of caves and places to hide.

25

Wise_Mongoose_3930 Apr 2, 2026 +4

The mobile one is moving so slowly compared to a missile it may as well be sitting still. Pipelines are also underground. And tankers are extremely flammable.

4

popeter45 Apr 2, 2026 +4

Not easy as Iranian drones are nowhere near accurate enough for a pipeline, haven’t been able to hit any so far have they?

4

VanCityPhotoNewbie Apr 2, 2026 +120

The issue of this pipeline isn't actually getting it built, it is actually being able to defend it. This whole Iran situation has shown what happens when you start attacking the world supply of energy.....and it shows other countries what to do if you fight a super power.....literally go kamikaze on vital natural resources like oil refineries and wells. Attack data centers, destroy tourism hotspots like Dubai...etc. It doesn't matter who or what country. And the CBC did a really good short form video on explaining how Iran was able to do this. Because of its fractured military by design, even if you "killed the head", each military branch will act independently but with the same goal, inflicting maximum damage.

120

mzackler Apr 2, 2026 +29

Except how do you sustain that? You either have a bunch of independent warlords fighting for power or somehow build central again. Are each of them going to have their own factories for missiles?

29

pmormr Apr 2, 2026 +49

The goal is to make the US lose, not to win.

49

ryvern82 Apr 2, 2026 +22

Cohesive culture, doctrine and structure. They've been planning for this exact scenario for decades.

22

OP_Skis_In_Jeans Apr 2, 2026 +2

> go kamikaze on vital natural resources like oil refineries and wells. This strategy only works in countries who have zealots willing to die for the cause in charge. Most countries don't fit the bill, in fact, only a few do. Even then, it's still a risky strategy: it assumes that the opposing side will keep the gloves on.

2

paulwesterberg Apr 2, 2026 +1

The US already assassinated around 50 government officials, bombed a school and killed 175 children, is threatening to hit power plants and water desalinization facilities. Those are all war crimes so I would say the gloves are off.

1

ZestyBeanDude Apr 2, 2026 +18

Does this even make sense considering Asian countries are the primary buyers of oil from the GCC?

18

Smok3dSalmon Apr 2, 2026 +7

You’re asking the right questions. This would cause a rebalancing of the global supply chains. I think Russia would sell more to Asia instead of Europe.

7

_THEWATERB0Y_ Apr 2, 2026 +18

Wouldn’t this require the Arab countries to recognize Israel as a legitimate country? If I recall correctly the only one that does is UAE.

18

Own_Pop_9711 Apr 2, 2026 +45

No it just requires them to want money

45

Ultra_Metal Apr 2, 2026 +20

The UAE, Bahrain, Jordan, Egypt, Sudan and Morocco recognize Israel and have peace agreements with them. The only one in the path that doesn't is Saudi Arabia and they're friendly with Israel despite not recognizing it.

20

bramleyapple1 Apr 2, 2026 +15

Can't they just bulldoze a canal through Dubai?

15

Nowayisthatway Apr 2, 2026 +20

The UAE is too close to Iranian coasts drone luanch spot points. The only way that a canal would be built is if they collab with oman or saudi. Although building it through Saudi would mean bulldozing a heck of a lot of mountains, compared too a bit less but still a heck of alot of mountains through Oman

20

bramleyapple1 Apr 2, 2026 +16

Is actually making a (poorly made) joke about destroying Dubai, but your points make sense!

16

Nowayisthatway Apr 2, 2026 +9

OMG sorry 😭 I like talking about things like that since it sparks my intrest so I take a lot of it a tat bit too seriously

9

bramleyapple1 Apr 2, 2026 +3

Haha to be fair I'd assumed there was a reason but didn't really know so your comment was helpful!

3

CyroSwitchBlade Apr 2, 2026 +4

The Line 2.0

4

Gollum_Quotes Apr 2, 2026 +1

They should just dig strait downwards to other side of planet where it safer to ship the oil

1

bramleyapple1 Apr 2, 2026 +2

Or via big zeppelins, for really impressive drone attacks

2

Dr_Porknbeef Apr 2, 2026 +3

This has been Israel's dream for a long time. That will require a complete reboot of Iran's political system.

3

watergate_1983 Apr 2, 2026 +3

what is stopping iran from bombing it

3

bipolarbear326 Apr 2, 2026 +5

Just in time for the 2030 oil crisis

5

Whataloadofbs87 Apr 2, 2026 +4

This is exactly what Israel was after in the first place.

4

jjpamsterdam Apr 2, 2026 +8

There used to be a [pipeline from Kirkuk to Haifa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirkuk%E2%80%93Haifa_oil_pipeline?wprov=sfla1). It was built in the 1930s to supply Europe with oil from Iraq. Although still a monumental task, there might be merit in looking into modern day pipeline infrastructure from the Gulf to the coast of Oman.

8

AUX4 Apr 2, 2026 -5

No serious person would ever consider a pipeline with Haifa. Isreal have proven to be an incredibly destabilising country and definitely not investment ready. More likely to see more investments in pipeline through Oman, especially considering Gulf oil goes to Asia more than Europe now.

-5

Eisenlion Apr 2, 2026 +2

Grow up

2

AUX4 Apr 2, 2026 +7

In relation to what? Most of the oil which flows through the strait currently is destined for the Asian market. Oman would be the obvious choice if you wanted to bypass the strait.

7

MegaLemonCola Apr 2, 2026 +2

That would require building in the Empty Quarter, a particularly desolate part of the Arabian Desert. Not sure how feasible that would be.

2

meedmishmohd Apr 2, 2026 +10

Fun fact: they have not.

10

DukeandKate Apr 2, 2026 +6

Even though relations between Israel and *some* Arab countries is warming I can't see a collection of Arab states funding a multi-billion dollar project to build a pipeline through Israel. Relations can change quickly and Israel would have not problem holding it hostage.

6

cytokine7 Apr 2, 2026 +5

I mean building mutual beneficence is exactly how lasting piece of achieved. Why would Israel “hold out hostage” when it’s generating so much money?

5

DukeandKate Apr 2, 2026 +4

Relationships can change. Just look at Russia and Europe. Israel and Arab nations have had lots of hostiles over the decades.

4

BrightAnalysis1955 Apr 2, 2026 +2

Does this logic apply to Russia too?

2

LongLongMan_TM Apr 2, 2026 +7

Of course Israel wants the world to be more dependent on Israel. Does that suprise anyone? Just a couple days ago Donnie suggested people buying oil from the US if they can't get it from Hormuz.

7

brentspar Apr 2, 2026 +5

Via Haifa, that sounds safe and reliable. /S in case it's needed

5

dbxp Apr 2, 2026 +2

Imagine if they invested in pipelines to avoid the strait which has been a known weak point for decades intead of The Line

2

CrazyPea3105 Apr 2, 2026 -10

Basically doing what israel wants.

-10

mhornberger Apr 2, 2026 +30

Mitigating the threat that Iran poses is kinda what *everyone* wants. Everyone other than Iran, of course. If they can't prevent Iran from attacking ships in the strait, then investing in pipelines may be the next best option.

30

oivaizmir Apr 2, 2026 +1

So hard to keep up, has hell frozen over?

1

ratudio Apr 2, 2026 +1

but that does not stop from iran firing missle at that location.

1

RabbitCity6090 Apr 2, 2026 +1

For the long term yes. But iran is just going to blow it up as soon as they dig the first hole. Or iran might dig the hole for them.

1

Life-is-beautiful- Apr 2, 2026 +1

Ok, I'm being serious about this. Why can't they create a new canal just to the north of Dubai? It might still end up shorter than the Panama canal? Panama canal took like 10 years to build. All the bombs that are dropping in Iran can drop here to create the strait faster?

1

MikeSteamer Apr 2, 2026 +1

The future most-bombed pipeline in the world. Sitting duck.

1

CunningBear Apr 3, 2026 +1

Well that sounds fast and c****. Not to mention totally safe from rockets and drones.

1

CTMADOC Apr 2, 2026 +1

Making a giant target for drones and missiles...

1

jiminuatron Apr 2, 2026

Pipeline, meet Shahed. This is pointless unless there is a security guarantee.

0

baumbach19 Apr 2, 2026 +1

They absolutely should then Iran would be completely irrelevant with no navy, no air force, nothing.

1

roller_coaster325 Apr 2, 2026 +1

This makes no sense. The huge quantity of oil means trains would never work. Also, no way oil will be going through Israel, especially when it would go through Lebanon or Syria. Seems like quasi fake news n

1

bandwagonguy83 Apr 2, 2026 +1

Will they gice ISR such a piwerful leverage?

1

Skiingfun Apr 2, 2026 +1

Sounds like a new target is all.

1

Gulf states consider bypassing Strait of Hormuz with new oil pipelines via Haifa - FT

💬 Send a Message

164 Comments