· 184 comments · Save ·
News & Current Events Apr 15, 2026 at 1:34 AM

Sanctioned tanker turns back to Strait of Hormuz, day after Gulf exit

Posted by Inevitable-Row1759



🚩 Report this post

184 Comments

Sign in to comment — or just click the box below.
🔒 Your email is never shown publicly.
EmptyVolition242 4 days ago +242
Sounds like everyone doesn't really know what's going on and is waiting to see how the other is gonna act.
242
snoopingforpooping 4 days ago -95
Yes, Iran can wait them out and they know full well US won’t impound Chinese ship especially since they own all that US Debt. It’s no wonder we keep hearing from the White House about negotiations in a few days because they need this to end. We are in an election year and gas prices keep going up. Iran doesn’t have elections to worry about.
-95
SilverCurve 4 days ago +76
That was a Chinese ship who just got turned back. Trump is flailing strategically but the blockade is real.
76
TacticalPidgeon 4 days ago +23
This isn't true at all. Iran will reach capacity for their storage a little over a week from now. If their wells are shut down and sit without any action for a couple more weeks then water coning can happen and make the oil useless or at least economically impossible to recover. This is a huge deal for them that they can't wait out. And it isn't a short term issue. Reaching that point would be devastating for a long time for their production capabilities, which is their primary source of export revenue. They would literally have to pay for the entire process of drilling all new wells all the way to completion of those wells while also not producing much if anything during that long timeframe.
23
awr90 4 days ago -3
Yep. If the US would have done this in the beginning Iran would have already folded.
-3
SpaceDecorator 4 days ago
Bingo
0
dbandit1 4 days ago -6
They could swap/sell more to Russia, especially now that genius Trump has lifted sanctions on Russia
-6
EmbarrassedHelp 4 days ago +17
Iran has about 10 days or something like that until their oil holding facilities are 100% full, and then they have to shut everything down to wait.
17
EmptyVolition242 4 days ago -9
I feel like a deal will be made with European nations before then. Given Europe's pretty solid stance against the war, and the fact that Iran needs to get rid of the oil, I think a quid pro quo agreement will be made sidelining Trump.
-9
zbb93 4 days ago +21
I'm pretty sure the US blockade is intended to block that type of deal.
21
corizano 4 days ago +3
Maybe US is the enemy at this point then.. It’s not Iran holding the world to ransom it’s the US..
3
Next_Instruction_528 4 days ago +4
The strait isn't blocked just ships coming from Iran. That's not holding the world hostage that's what the irgc was doing when they blocked everyone except them.
4
awr90 4 days ago +3
EU can’t do shit about the US blockade.
3
sonofeevil 4 days ago -7
Some sanctions, repatriating their stores gold reserves, moving away from the US dollar would all hurt very much. If the EU was willing to pull the right strings the USA would fold at Hormuz.
-7
PleaseGreaseTheL 4 days ago +7
You think the EU wants Iran controlling the strait and blocking oil shipments to countries it dislikes? The EU is angry at the administrations horrific diplomacy and it us angry about the oil pain, it wants free trade in that region to resume, not end forever. The EU wants the USA to fix the problem that we created. Lashing out randomly when we have a madman at the helm does not further european interests at all.
7
alivenotdead1 4 days ago +6
The UN literally just formally labeled the IRGC a terrorist organization. Do you really think they're going to make a deal that would compromise the US's leverage on the war against said terrorist organization? That would be getting involved. Something most of Europe had been very adamantly against. https://europeanwesternbalkans.com/2026/03/19/all-wb-countries-align-with-the-eu-decision-to-designate-the-irgc-as-a-terrorist-organization/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
6
EmptyVolition242 4 days ago
If the alternative is no fuel for cars, planes, cargo ships etc..., yes they will!
0
alivenotdead1 4 days ago +2
Europe has had sanctions on Iranian oil since 2012. European oil companies get their oil from all over the place. Right now European tankers are pouring into the Gulf of Mexico especially as well as the North Sea and Africa. Some Saudi oil is still coming up through other channels as well. It would also be illegal under EU law and UN sanctions for any member to do so.
2
unquietmammal 4 days ago +4
China owns 750 billion of US debt. The United States owns 1.2 trillion in Chinese debt. As well as an additional trillion from pre CCP China. The real reason the major powers don't screw with eachother all that much is because the economies are heavily intertwined. The spice must flow. Between the US and China is nearly 50% of global industrial capabilities and some insane amount of capital I'm guessing about 50%. The US is in a position because they can just blow everything up but it will negatively effect the worldwide economy. From what I understand most Americans and Europeans are generally in favor of Iran not being under theocratic rule and having a stranglehold on the region but don't like Trump or how is handling everything. Most of Europe cares more about Ukraine, and an oddly large amount of people care about Mexico and Cuba.
4
restore_democracy 4 days ago +103
I forget, are we still calling on NATO to open the Strait?
103
PanamGotMeOiledUp 4 days ago +34
Depends if trump feels like it when he wakes up tomorrow, it's that or another little tantrum how everyone else is wrong. Maybe we get lucky and he doesn't wake up but the chances are unfortunately low for now.
34
Clinkzeastwoodau 4 days ago +6
I think we are in the timeline where NATO shows up to open the straight but the US is the one they have to stop from keeping it closed.
6
So_Not_theNSA 4 days ago +2
The strait is only closed by the US to ships using Iranian ports or paying Iranian tolls btw
2
aceinthehole001 4 days ago +1
I know you are but what am I?
1
kristospherein 4 days ago +1
Yes, they should attack the country closing the Strait to get it open. /s
1
Mana_Seeker 4 days ago +187
Who'd have thunk that blockading a blockade is a better strategy than boots on the ground I didn't have that in my cards
187
otclogic 4 days ago +76
This has been an obvious option. Anytime “taking Kharg Island” was mentioned you have to ask what putting hundreds of Marines in range of Iranian short-range munitions would accomplish that the AL Carrier Strike Group couldn’t with a blockade.
76
Mana_Seeker 4 days ago +31
Yes, it does appear obvious to me in hindsight now, haha It's a better stepping stone than straight to boots on the ground on the escalation ladder
31
otclogic 4 days ago +11
Yes, but it could hint more at impetus for a deal rather than toppling of taking the strait by force. The markets are certainly taking it to mean that Trump and Vance believe a deal is possible with economic pressure.
11
LondonPaul 4 days ago +5
Hopefully that also means that competent people who work for them also believe a deal is possible. I’m not sure what trump believes has any bearing on reality
5
-spicychilli- 4 days ago -5
Vance is a million times smarter than Trump, and having him lead negations instead of Kushner makes the feasibility of peace much higher. Vance was against going to war in the first place.
-5
Dracula30000 4 days ago +12
> A million times smarter A million times 0 is still zero.
12
Villag3Idiot 4 days ago +20
It'll be fine. The marines can just shoot down the drones and can spread out to mitigate the splash damage from rockets. It worked in Starcraft.
20
rhino369 4 days ago +8
They could probably pull it off but it would waste a lot of money and at least some lives. This blockade is basically free. 
8
Feynnehrun 4 days ago +5
Free except for the massive operational costs and the whole tanking the world economy with rising oil costs cascading to every other product and service.
5
rhino369 4 days ago +5
That’s already happening regardless. 
5
Feynnehrun 4 days ago +2
It wasn't before the US decided to go in and bomb everything.
2
rhino369 4 days ago +1
Right but we did and we can’t just walk it back. Iran isn’t accepting that. 
1
Toasterturning1234 4 days ago
What did the US do to try and walk it back? You can't just bomb someone and then get mad if they don't cooperate afterwards, acting as if you never bombed them.
0
rhino369 4 days ago +1
That’s sort of my point. We made a mess and Iran won’t let us walk away cleanly. 
1
warbastard 4 days ago +1
I hope their commanders have high APM.
1
Scedasticity1 4 days ago +3
It's been so weird to me to see people saying that a reciprocal blockade is stupid; from the very beginning this was the smartest option. Allowing Iranian oil out while no one else's could get through incentivises Iran to maintain the blockade by increasing the price they get and providing them with cash to continue paying their soldiers. The fact that the US doesn't have any generals left clever enough to put this together sooner is crazy.
3
FunTransportation147 2 days ago +1
The fired them all and replaced the with yes men.
1
UnoriginalStanger 4 days ago +3
From what I've heard taking Kharg Island makes no sense but a strategically sabotaging Kharg Island can make sense. You want to rend it innoperable for the time being but not prevent it from becoming operable post war. Counterblockading does the same thing mostly without the risk boots temporarily on the ground would bring but it has it's own risks if a Chinese ship decided to really test how far the US is willing to go.
3
awr90 4 days ago -3
The US boarded and seized Russian ships a couple months ago. They will hold a Chinese ship until a deal with Iran is made. In fact I think that’s actually the plan
-3
UnoriginalStanger 4 days ago +5
Russian shadowfleet ships are not quite the same.
5
awr90 4 days ago +2
Should have been done from day one. Iran would have ran out of storage and folded weeks ago.
2
Next_Instruction_528 4 days ago +1
They could also just hit the pipe going to the island cutting off the island all together.
1
Phase3Investor 4 days ago -4
Any conflict only prolongs strait closure **US Presidents CANNOT make a deal with Iran even if they wanted one** Iran as a minimal demand wants US sanctions lifted permanently However legally US Presidents can only *temporarily waive* sanctions not permanently lift them Only Congress can lift Iran economic sanctions But thanks to the influence of AIPAC and the pro-Israeli lobbyists in Congress (who lobbied for the santions on Iran) there is zero chance of Congress lifting Iran sanctions. Israel wants Iran and the US in conflict not making deals with each other. And this is also why the JCPOA nuclear deal with Iran failed from the very start under Obama long before Trump tore up the deal: because Congress never lifted the santions needed to implement it: "if the situation is not appreciably better soon, it will be impossible for the US and its partners to argue credibly that they are not in breach of the JCPOA..." https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03068374.2016.1225896 And the Iranians had started to complain too: https://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/iran-nuclear-deal-us-222029 **So the US has legally prevented itself from making a deal with Iran** [Yes Trump can pretend to make a deal on his own with Iran that lifts sanctions while ignoring Congress, but in that case the foreign banks and corporations that face the risk of multimillion dollar fines for sanctions breaches imposed by OFAC (that answers to Congress not Presidents) plus Iran would also not accept such a fake deal. Obama and Kerry also tried to rally foreign companies to do business with Iran under the JCPOA despite continued sanctions but those companies ignored them due to continued risk of sanctions-related fines: John Kerry's Awkward Push For Investment In Iran - NPR https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/05/25/479462791/john-kerrys-awkward-push-for-investment-in-iran
-4
_ryuujin_ 4 days ago +6
i mean only congress can apply tarrifs and approve how money is spent. but look hows that going. 
6
Phase3Investor 4 days ago +1
Like I said even if he ignores Congress, nobody else will so any deal he cooks up supposedly lifting sanctions fails
1
_gravy_train_ 4 days ago +5
The Republican controlled Congress is pretty subservient to Trump. If he told Congress to lift the sanctions, there’s a non-zero chance they would.
5
Phase3Investor 4 days ago -1
AIPAC's influence is biparisan, bigger than Republicans. In any case as a practical matter Trump is not going to go to bat on behalf of Iran in Congress to lift Iran sanctions since he's in Israel's pocket too
-1
ReserveFormal3910 4 days ago
AIPAC is not omnipotent if they voted to lift sanctions then what? Fund a primary all by themselves? They are becoming toxic and the American people are not going to tolerate high gas prices and a recession for Israel.
0
Phase3Investor 4 days ago -1
So you're suggesting some sort of Congressional mass rebellion against AIPAC for the sake of Iran?
-1
Korgoth420 4 days ago
The only problem is that the DJT administration is completely lawless and emboldened.
0
Phase3Investor 4 days ago +1
Like I wrote trump can pretend to go around the law and make his own deal with Iran but others including Iran won't accept such a fake deal due to risk of continued sanctions enforcement.
1
Objective-Picture-72 4 days ago -7
It's not going to work long-term. It only works if the US Navy is willing to fire upon a civilian vessel (which they won't.). Tankers aren't taking the risk in the short-run because a settlement might happen but eventually they'll all just starting moving in / moving out and daring the US Navy to kill innocent people.
-7
TheGoodspeed15 4 days ago +10
Why would they fire on a ship 😂 They have helicopters. They have Marines. They have Marines that ride in helicopters
10
imacompnerd 4 days ago +20
The navy can disable a ship without killing the crew.
20
old_righty 4 days ago +13
They can board it.
13
hobard 4 days ago +2
They could. They’ve been pretty averse to boarding sanctioned ships in the past though. See the Russian tanker they chased across the Atlantic.
2
EmbarrassedHelp 4 days ago +2
That's because the US NAVY isn't legally allowed to board foreign ships for enforcement operations during peacetime. Only the US Coast Guard can do so legally.
2
hobard 4 days ago +4
They’re also not legally allowed to blow up fishing boats in peacetime. It doesn’t seem like the law is much of a constraint on the US military at the moment.
4
timblom 4 days ago -11
Which is an offense called Piracy and still carries the death penalty by hanging in many countries.
-11
rmslashusr 4 days ago +6
Piracy requires the action not be state-sanctioned. If a Cuban warship seized a US flagged ship we could consider it an act of war, but if we captured their naval personnel responsible and hung them “for piracy” instead of treating them as POWs we would be committing a war crime.
6
fury420 4 days ago +8
No, it's called enforcing a blockade and is explicitly part of the laws of the sea. >Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/san-remo-manual-1994/article-93-108
8
jayrocksd 4 days ago +3
Only if you assume that the US and Iran are currently at peace with each other.
3
DocThrowawayHM 4 days ago +2
It is not, it is an interdiction to enforce a blockade without sinking the ship. You can argue about the merits and morals of that action, and of the blockade and its legality itself, but it is objectively not piracy. Article 101 (Helpfully titled *Definition of piracy*) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea defines piracy this way: "Piracy consists of any of the following acts: (a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed: (i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft; (ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State; (b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft; (c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b)." Note that it specifically describes "for private ends" and "by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or private aircraft", which a Navy ship is not. Navies and Coast Guards board and seize vessels and their cargo fairly regularly, and blockades and embargos are a basic and routine fact of naval warfare, and have been for centuries at least.
2
Objective-Picture-72 4 days ago +1
Yes but not all the ships. The only way to stop a mass exodus of ships is via kinetic means.
1
HiEarthOrbitz 4 days ago +1
Been there, done that (Gulf War I).
1
otclogic 4 days ago +1
The people aren’t the issue; its the ecological disaster of sinking a tanker, not to mention that under trump the oil would go right into the Treasury. 
1
SpaceDecorator 4 days ago +1
What flavor kool-aid causes delusions?
1
jirashap 4 days ago
Bec Trump would want his own Guatanamo Bay It's a great idea - would setup the US strategically in the Gulf for the next 50 years - if only we didn't have bozos running the war
0
cybercuzco 4 days ago
I’m betting there’s a big “don’t order me to do this because I won’t” vibe in the marine corps right now.
0
CrystalMethNdCookies 4 days ago +4
Fabian strategy in action Something-something broken institute is right twice a day?
4
Twofer-Cat 4 days ago +15
USA isn't blockading a blockade. Iran was threatening ships going to other Gulf states but not themselves, USA is threatening ships going to Iran but not other Gulf states (unless they pay Iran's extortion).
15
SpaceDecorator 4 days ago +2
Actually a genius move
2
Shot-Toe-2884 4 days ago +1
Iran set the conditions on their own to allow US to blockade them. Before the war, this would have been seen as a massive escalation by the USA and was totally off the table. Now there is a precedent created by the IRGC. Khamenei called for the closure of the strait, so Iran took full responsibility, and it gave the US freedom to act on this without consequence, because if they don't, the strait is still closed regardless. Iran said so themselves. Iran's hasty closure of the strait by blowing up civilians will go down as a profoundly short-sighted, catastrophic miscalculation. They never had the means to enforce tolls. It was absurdly unrealistic and it had zero legal basis according to international law. The IRGC was just circle jerking their own propaganda and a bunch of stupid people took the bait. I cannot believe how many listnookors and journalists were willing to let Iran get away with that stunt without acknowledging how insanely reckless and illegal it was. It wasn't even an attack on the US. Few countries were impacted less than the US. It was an attack on the very foundation of international law. It was aimed at the entire world economy.
1
sentrypetal 4 days ago -8
Is it? Iran can just wait it out for a couple of months. There are rail line between China and Iran so they aren’t going to starve. A loan of a few billion and they could wait this out until a Great Depression hits.
-8
CircumspectCapybara 4 days ago +10
*Super tankers* carry oil at a volume no overland system can hope to match. And any static rail lines and trains are easy targets.
10
dbandit1 4 days ago +1
They dont need to match it
1
Cool_Youth3564 4 days ago +15
So can the US. What is Iran gonna do, blockade all oil trade from US ports? Iran will need to figure out their next move
15
sentrypetal 4 days ago -9
Iran just needs to wait. Wait until oil hits $200 a barrel. Wait for Trump to TACO.
-9
Cool_Youth3564 4 days ago +16
If Iran keeps waiting what do you think happens to their economy? These aren’t tariffs. Iran makes money through oil.
16
TheGoodspeed15 4 days ago +2
They sell oil to China over the land like they've been doing
2
sentrypetal 4 days ago -1
They are connected to China by Rail. They will get food and supply from China in return for an IOU. So no their economy won’t collapse.
-1
SpaceDecorator 4 days ago +4
Their regime will collapse when the lights go out, it'll happen
4
sentrypetal 4 days ago +3
They are an oil producer. Energy for lights is the last of their concern lol. They also produce 80% of the food they require and 95% of the water is through aquifers. So unfortunately no very unlikely the lights go out.
3
SpaceDecorator 4 days ago +2
I hope Iran has plenty of engineers ready to fix the piles of metal that once used to be called electrical substations! Candlesticks will be there 🕯️
2
Mana_Seeker 4 days ago -3
They'll probably try to negotiate first If that fails, they might plan to launch a missile at US ships, other adversary countries might help Iran with that Perhaps, that's something the US navy has already factored in? A US ship sinking or hit by Iran would be a big setback/escalation, and an obvious goal for Iran if talks fail
-3
rhino369 4 days ago +8
The US has been bombing the shit out of Iran for a month using Navy ships. If Iran could hit them, they wouldn’t have waited. 
8
NoVax-Djocovid 4 days ago +4
Imagine thinking that isn’t going to get bombed if this drags on
4
sentrypetal 4 days ago +2
I don’t disagree but rail is easy to fix. Ukraine proved this.
2
rhino369 4 days ago +6
Rail is easy to fix but it’s also easy for the US to bomb.  The US can also hit their locomotives.  Russia doesn’t have air supremacy in Ukraine. 
6
TheGoodspeed15 4 days ago +1
You can fix rail in an hour
1
eg714 4 days ago +4
That rail line would get bombed most likely. Probably in the works.
4
count023 4 days ago +5
As it has been consistently shown in Russian invasion. bombing a rail line costs a lot for the attacker, achieves little and is fixed quickly 
5
DocThrowawayHM 4 days ago -2
A drone loitering over the rail line and lobbing a Hellfire at every train passing below is a slightly more effective strategy, however.
-2
sentrypetal 4 days ago +1
That is correct. This is the only way. However rail can be fixed quickly. The Ukrainians proved this. As long as rail exists the US cannot stop Chinese weapons and food and supplies flowing through. This was the reason the railways were created in 2017.
1
eg714 4 days ago
Yea unless they employ the Israeli method and bomb the help.
0
AccomplishedDesk8283 4 days ago +2
Hahaha
2
phaskellhall 4 days ago
I don’t think this is going to work the more I think of it. It might work for Iranian boats or some powerless country what happens when China sends an oil tanker over there to get Iranian Oil? No way is the US going to do anything to a Chinese boat and then what happens?
0
BoringRedHorse 4 days ago +108
So the USA is going to starve Iran from oil revenue, by starving the world for oil. Kill the disease by killing the patient.
108
aust_b 4 days ago +9
Good thing Trump is a doctor as of a couple days ago.
9
FuraidoChickem 4 days ago +22
mainly china. But Iran will block the ships that goes around the world and make them pay a toll
22
mebbyyy 4 days ago +43
*East and mainland SE Asia, China isn’t the only one majorly affected by this. Not to mention they still have the Russian oil unlike Japan, SK, PH etc. which would absolutely cripple them if this continues
43
shooshkebab 4 days ago +2
Which affects the entire world because oil prices are global. SE Asia etc just bid higher for western oil, pushing up prices for all of us. Don't forget diesel and jet fuel that are made in greater proportions around that area... The reason European countries may have shortages of jet fuel in weeks to come and possibly even diesel. Refined products are another issue
2
vand3lay1ndustries 4 days ago +2
They can also have their partners block/mine other straits, like Bab al-Mandab.
2
Orennji 4 days ago
Taiwan starves first though. 
0
DungeonDefense 4 days ago -1
Iran only consist of 15% of China's oil imports. They can subsidize that from their reserves and increase purchases from the world market.
-1
awr90 4 days ago -7
Venezuala was the other 40% that’s gone too. China is in deep shit
-7
DungeonDefense 4 days ago +10
Nope Venezuela is about 3-4.5% https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/venezuela-china-oil-ties-severely-impacted-by-us-action/
10
otclogic 4 days ago +7
In asia, they will run out of oil and switch back to coal for a lot of their power generation. The EU is looking at steep price hikes. The US is looking at reactively moderate price hikes and windfall profits for oil corps. The ones who are really impacted the most are GCC. They’re tourism and oil industries are destroyed. However, the US bases there have access to plenty of oil I bet
7
Suspicious-Coffee20 4 days ago +10
renewable as never look this good.
10
HalfADozenOfAnother 4 days ago +4
I think people way underestimate how quickly GCC nations can create alternative export means. A nation can accomplish a lot with unlimited slave labor and $150+ oil
4
otclogic 4 days ago +2
I haven’t seriously looked at it other than the alleged pipeline plans on the map. What’s the projection? 
2
HardlyW0rkingHard 4 days ago +10
There is enough reserves to try to starve the regime out.  They're going to keep starving out until those in Iran who want to take a deal, take one and those that don't want to take the deal will fight the ones that do. This is part of the reason they're pushing these Islamabad talks. There is a large portion of the basij in the IRGC that does not want any negotiation with the US after they killed khamenei. Those pragmatist in the regime that see the writing on the wall will be put at odds with them and this will lead to further destabilization of a regime that has decentralized it's command.  Imo this is the best strategy forward.
10
meerkat2018 4 days ago +12
In the situation you are describing, decentralization strategy might turn out to be a weakness rather than a strength. Someone who unifies a few factions will be able to grab the power quickly.
12
HardlyW0rkingHard 4 days ago +12
Yes. The Islamic Republic touted this mosaic command strategy where command becomes decentralized if the ayatollah is compromised. This is supposed to be a strength because it mean the islamic republic will "survive" for a very extended period, however that's assuming that nobody tries to take grab of power... which I believe is happening between Ghalibaf and Araghchi. These two are the pragmatists who want survival over ideology; they are not the hardliners in the sense that they just want power regardless of how they get it There have already been multiple IRGC commanders who have publicly shamed Ghalibaf for meeting with the US. They will stretch these talks further and further which will create a bigger and bigger divide within the regime that already has very dwindled numbers. IMO the islamic republic has already collapsed. The war-time panic and cut-off internet has made it impossible for those within the country to realize to what extent things have deteriorated . The problem is that the strait remains closed because of this decentralized command strategy that I mentioned. If the strait was not an issue, the best strategy from the US would be to back off right now and watch the regime crumble. However, with midterms coming up and the strait remaining closed, that is not a viable strategy for the trump admin right now. I believe the direction they have chosen, is the best path and they should keep moving forward. I would not be surprised if they actually come to an agreement because I actually don't believe whatever agreement they come up with will be the final agreement. I believe it will be a decoy deal to push the regime into further in-fighting.
12
Bad_pun_job 4 days ago +1
except that the last time they had serious negotiations, US went ahead and bombed them anyway. A rational actor will just assume that negotiations are just a distraction and play along.
1
HardlyW0rkingHard 4 days ago +3
Except they're agreeing to talks anyways. They wouldn't meet in Islamabad if they didn't have intention to negotiate in good faith. If there is nothing to be said, then why bother meet? The optics within the country and among the leadership speaks for itself.
3
Bad_pun_job 4 days ago
appearances. Like how SL govt came for peace talks and then genocided their Tamils anyway.
0
HardlyW0rkingHard 4 days ago +3
Iran is a country of 90 million. Your example is a terrible thing that happened but this case is much different. 
3
justinballsonya 4 days ago +9
It was always a mistake. Just have a clear line of succession and replace people as needed. Have protocols so the entire line of succession is not in one room together. The same structure every functioning country has such as the U.S. presidential line of succession. It's not complicated. They are foolish religious zealots pretending to have some sort of wisdom they do not possess. They could be the most powerful and wealthiest nation in the entire middle east so easily. It's even more absurd anyone buys their B.S. when they can't even make their economy function properly let alone all the repressions and killings.
9
KingSwzzy 4 days ago +8
"There is enough reserves to try to starve the regime out. " The reserves that were released is enough to last 4 months. That was 2 months ago. Did ya'll say this same shit about sanctioning Russian oil 3 years ago?
8
MercantileReptile 4 days ago +1
There is enough for the US to comfortably wait. Who gives a f*** about the rest of the Planet. Can't wait for EU politicians to find a spine and close US bases. It's high time the US gets an actual consequence for screwing with the World's trade and now energy supply.
1
Codex_Dev 4 days ago +1
I can already see Iran fracturing into warlords like Libya and Somalia. Once the generals in charge realize they can act with impunity, there is going to be a civil war bloodbath as different sides fight for control over public resources.
1
Bad_pun_job 4 days ago +1
Countries like India will be on the knees far quicker than Iran will yield. Most westerners just cant comprehend how vital the Strait is for countries like India. Its not just petrol, but most of our fertilizer inputs and pretty much 60% of our domestic LPG use comes from the strait. If this continues any longer, India will extremely fucked up.
1
HardlyW0rkingHard 4 days ago
For sure. I am not trying to say the strait is not vital.
0
CircumspectCapybara 4 days ago +8
A lot of the world is turning to US for oil actually. Several tankers were en route to Hormuz when the US announced the blockade, and they turned around and headed for Texas. The US is a net exporter of oil after all, and oil exports are the Iranian regime's lifeblood, so this (plus potentially taking out the oil infra on Kharg from the air as the "nuclear option") is going for the jugular.
8
Ajhale 4 days ago +5
Great, it can pick its first shipment up when it gets there in 2 months!
5
BoringRedHorse 4 days ago +2
This doesn't make sense to me though. The USA mostly exports of light, sweet oil. Those Texas refineries process heavy sour crude but where is that sour crude coming from that those refineries are refining? Surely wherever it's coming from will be vastly insufficient in volume then compared to the demand?
2
-spicychilli- 4 days ago +2
Canada and Venezuela. It’s not enough to replace the global supply that’s missing. Not close, but it is still oil that the world needs. You’re correct that it doesn’t meet the demand, but also that’s not incompatible with the world needing to turn to the US because there isn’t enough global supply.
2
Alive_Internet 4 days ago -10
Empty oil tankers are flocking to the gulf of America for oil. It’s unfortunate that Listnook cannot give Trump credit where credit is due. This is an absolute genius move that guarantees a US win and a China loss.
-10
OpeningTechnical5884 4 days ago +3
Pretty much all oil exporters outside the ME are seeing a huge increase in demand. Thats what happens when 20% of the worlds supply gets cut off.
3
KingSwzzy 4 days ago +6
This isn't going to help America you brain broken shit. There's a reason why countries are cutting oil exports. Exporting oil from the US while oil costs are rising globally is going to skyrocket gas prices in the US even more and cripple the broader economy. Literally THE MOST BASIC supply/demand principle. Did everyone's brain turn into f****** soup in the last decade, holy shit.
6
SpaceDecorator 4 days ago +2
Record profits for energy shareholders disagree
2
KingSwzzy 4 days ago +2
I'm sorry are you actually illiterate? "cripple the BROADER economy" Do you think energy shareholders are the broader economy?
2
SpaceDecorator 4 days ago +1
If you had been paying attention the the markets since COVID recovery you wouldn't be saying that, you would be the beneficiary instead of this annoying listnook canary
1
-spicychilli- 4 days ago +1
It hurts Americans but vastly improves American negotiating power. Trump has already said he doesn’t give a shit about gas prices right now. These aren’t incompatible statements IMO.
1
KingSwzzy 4 days ago +1
"vastly improves American negotiating power" As opposed to killing their ENTIRE GOVERNMENT right? I'm sure losing a few million dollars a day is way worse. Jesus f****** christ.
1
-spicychilli- 4 days ago +1
If this goes on for a month it makes it so they would practically have to put in new oil wells for all their extraction sites. Not just a few million dollars, and creates a level of urgency to not destroy what funds the IRGC. China will not be happy at the time that will be required for everything to be fixed. There’s a reason this action caused a change in the dynamic.
1
MastodonParking9080 4 days ago +1
High oil prices for an oil export countries is just wealth rrdistribution. Some winners, some loosers, but the overall effect is not crippling.
1
KingSwzzy 4 days ago +2
I'm losing my f****** mind. The 1979 oil crisis led to one of the worst economies in American history. What do you mean high oil prices is just "wealth redistribution"? Why are their so many randoms who just say shit to say shit?
2
MastodonParking9080 4 days ago +1
US was not a oil exporter back then like today, with the Shale Revolution that began in the 2000s.
1
justinballsonya 4 days ago +4
Honestly I doubt it was his idea and was something advisors have been telling him to do from the beginning he ignored to try his genius ideas until he couldn't anymore.
4
PolarWater 4 days ago +1
aBsOlUtE gEnIuS *gluck glogg schlucck*
1
mastercafe7 4 days ago +2
Mostly starving usas Asian allies.  Japan, South Korea and the Philippines get most of the oil from the Middle East tankers.  
2
Bad_pun_job 4 days ago +1
not to mention India. India imports about 60 percent of its LPG consumption and out of these imports about 90 percent come through the Strait of Hormuz, which has been impacted due to current happenings. This is from Indian govt. LPG is used everywhere in India, from cooking gas in homes (pretty much 80% of urban homes use LPG), Restaurants, Tuktuks and industries. LPG is already being rationed and most restaurants are facing closures with several industries/industry clusters already shutting down. India really cant afford Hormuz closure for any longer without it becoming a civil disaster.
1
SPQR301 4 days ago +1
[ Removed by Listnook ]
1
Damoksta 4 days ago +1
No, only 20% of the world's supply. But a critical lifeline for China (who's running out of oil by 8th June according to Ryan McBeth's substack). This is economy warfare as it finest.  The dark side of Brenton Woods agreement is in effect.
1
Great_Northern_Beans 4 days ago
"Disease" is an interesting choice of word to describe a country under imperial siege from a world superpower that wants to r*** them for their oil (again...). I get that that's not what you were going for with the analogy (I hope?), but it's probably worth pointing out the implicit power dynamic created with language like that.
0
Jealous-Spinach-4881 4 days ago +27
Why didn’t the US do a blockade earlier? 
27
rhino369 4 days ago +35
The US naively thought they could quickly get Iran to concede without stopping the flow of oil.  Once it became clear Iran only had two card—blocking oil and destroying oil production—but that those cards were pretty damn good—they realized their original goal wasn’t going to work. 
35
sundae_diner 4 days ago +1
Right. So the US is stealing a card by blocking oil?  That doesn't make any sense.
1
Own_Pop_9711 4 days ago +13
They needed the price of oil to go up slower. That's why they did these crazy sanction exemptions also. Oil triplinh overnight is politically much worse than doubling and then slowly creeping up.
13
-spicychilli- 4 days ago +5
I think there’s truth to what you’re saying but also not why it took so long to start a blockade. I think they thought it wouldn’t be necessary and Iran would have conceded by now. That hasn’t been the case so they’re escalating tactics to create leverage.
5
StockCasinoMember 4 days ago +21
Hoping to cut a deal to avoid it and stabilize oil prices in the moment.
21
Suspicious-Coffee20 4 days ago +10
Because other country beside the usa could pay themselves out of the conflict. with this they all get dragged in. This will not make europe and asia happy in the long run.
10
mutedscreaming 4 days ago +1
Trump didn't realise he could start charging a toll. By Monday it will be 5 million per vessel paid in Trumpcoin.
1
sounddude 4 days ago +15
Yes, stopping their flow of oil will cause them harm, but the amount of fertilizer that feeds the world is also being stopped. That will add additional chaos and harm to the world economy. If not more than oil. Everyone needs food and if current crops can't be fertilized. Only a matter of months before things get real serious.
15
QwertzOne 4 days ago +3
The thing is that US doesn't care. In short term it harms US, but in the long term US or Russia will benefit from disturbed global trade, because they have all kinds of resources like oil, gas, water, inputs for fertilizers and they want other countries to become more dependent on them. By benefit, I mean other countries will suffer more, so it's typical Trump/Putin, they don't care if it's bad, if others will suffers even more than their own people.
3
Cryptocaned 4 days ago +1
It doesn't even harm the US in the short term, they're actually benefiting because we now have to buy more oil from the US since the straits are closed, and at a wildly inflated price to boot. This war is basically a market manipulation/oil control move, Iran is only the target because they export such a large amount of oil.
1
sounddude 4 days ago
I don't see how [US can benefit long term when our capacity to grow crops is decimated](https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/15/us-farmers-struggling-to-afford-fertilizer-amid-iran-war.html). You'll have to explain that to me. I dont see how causing oil/fuel prices to skyrocket means the world will become more dependent on those producers.[ If anything its become clear that China stands to win the 21st century at this point seeing as it make was more sense to move to renewables.](https://warontherocks.com/the-iran-war-and-the-energy-lesson-we-failed-to-learn/) Again, I'll let you explain because it doesn't make any sense to me. The petrodollar is being undone in real time and countries are beginning to take out their gold which is what kept the US as the reserve currency. Electing Trump was the biggest self own and will cost the US immensely. We are in the nascent stages of that and it wont be short process.
0
Kind_Silver_1921 4 days ago +5
What? But listnook said the US was going to be forced to sink it and start a war with China then China would economically destroy the US This must be fake news
5
awr90 4 days ago +8
Listnook idiocy. China wants no part of the US militarily or economically
8
PanamGotMeOiledUp 4 days ago +7
Trump is literally the only reason I'm getting a new electric car at the beginning of the month, I was never planning on ever getting one but seeing a single man ruining it for literally everyone made me decide to go green and live off solar power fuel, can't take that away from me.
7
Blahkbustuh 4 days ago +16
I got an EV 2.5 years ago and was surprised at how liberating it was to no longer care or think about gas, oil companies, or the Middle East. Forget the pollution and CO2 side of it.
16
PanamGotMeOiledUp 4 days ago +5
That's what I'm hoping for, I can charge slow but free at home and even get fast charging for 35 cents and unlike the oil we use for fuel, electricity will get cheaper as we get more green.
5
Glanzick_Reborn 4 days ago +1
Nothing ever gets cheaper. :(
1
VicenteOlisipo 4 days ago +2
*Open the Strait you crazy bastards! Praise be to Allah*
2
[deleted] 4 days ago -4
[removed]
-4
throwaway_ghast 4 days ago +18
Brother the whole world is in shambles.
18
[deleted] 4 days ago -16
[removed]
-16
marx2k 4 days ago +4
...looks at national debt, inflation, unemployment rate, gas prices, farm harvest forecast...
4
bacharama 4 days ago +1
They're an institutionalized tanker now...
1
Opening_Tie1856 4 days ago -8
Sanctioned tanker turned back after briefly crossing the Strait of Hormuz. US blockade is still holding but tracking data tells a different story. Six merchant ships reversed after military direction while a few Iran linked vessels still slipped through . Peace talks might restart in the next two days so markets are already reacting with oil prices dropping over 4%. Diplomacy or escalation, that is the real question right now
-8
United_Intention_323 4 days ago +8
Which ones slipped through?
8
awr90 4 days ago +8
Zero have made it through
8
marx2k 4 days ago +2
Oil prices have dropped 2.25% in 5 days
2
Drak_is_Right 4 days ago
Hegseth is itching for another video of a ship being torpedoed.
0
Far_Out_6and_2 4 days ago -6
China now might put some assets there few frigates subs etc
-6
Commercial_Radio2919 4 days ago +7
Their navy is not designed for this. Sure they can deploy a few ships from a nearby base. But that's only a short term solution. China struggled to navigate around Taiwan. Tow boats had to be brought out to finish the mission. Blue water(USA) vrs Brown water navy. "Whats going on with shipping" does a great job describing this.
7
← Back to Board