Lmfao 12 tankers a day. Im willing to bet there are 12 ships a day that have buyers lined up to pay....moreso as this drags on.
496
Gurashish10002 days ago
+280
The Tankers are worth like $200 million and are carrying $100-200 million worth of oil.
$2 million worth of transit fee doesn't look that bad for safe passage.
280
Kendertas1 day ago
+47
Yeah tankers are weird since they pay for themselves so quickly, but there is only so many news ones being built so its more the opportunity loss when they are sunk that is catastrophic, not necessarily the value of the physical ship itself.
47
soks861 day ago
+3
That's the thing with the stock market though, it prices in expected profits that are totally based on capturing opportunity. The economy going south is the loss of opportunity expressed across the globe, since in many cases our economic inputs come from markets with international exposure.
3
dafunkmunk2 days ago
-39
Yea but I think the issue is what's to stop them from asking for more. If everyone relents and starts paying the toll, it does nothing but embolden Iran. Iran can look at people being desperate enough to pay $2 million and then start asking for $5 million. Then it could go up to $10 million. If they believe they have full control of the strait, then they can start acting like trump and keep grabbing for more money and more power until it boils over and countries band together to do something about it.
It's risky business to placate people like this. Europe letting Hitler do what he wanted early on emboldened him to keep pressing for more which lead to a world war. The whole world playing nice with trump and stroking his ego thinking it would be easier has helped lead him into a full blown maniac invading countries on a whim. I feel like it's pretty slim odds that Iran leaves it at $2 million and doesn't start demanding more with threats of closing the strait again
-39
Lemzz2 days ago
+40
They won't raise it higher because Iran has a vested interest in oil flowing through the straight as well. The amount is technically $1 per barrel, and when the barrel is $100 no one will bat an eye at paying 5x that. The toll is more about exerting their sovereignty, and since they aren't stupid, they know they can't fight the US military directly. Economic warfare is 1000x more effective for them because the rest of the world wouldn't come defend them militarily either, or even attempt to stop the US and Israel from killing tens or hundreds of thousands of them, but the rest of the world damn well will put an end to this when they get no more oil, lng, fertillizer, sulfur, helium, and everything downstream from these products. They are also splitting the toll 50/50 with Oman.
Almost every nation is already warning their populations that rationing is coming VERY soon, and shortage of fuel is going to happen. Our own president is trying to brush off 25% increase in gas in a month, as "just a cost of doing business". Mass flight cancellations, gas prices going vertical, and double digit inflation is coming very soon, and will end this. The toll will likely stay as a means of rebuilding the billions of dollars of damage to the oil infrastructure around the gulf.
40
redpandafire2 days ago
+15
What’s amazing is the ramifications of stopping oil for six weeks will be realized just in time for American mid terms.
15
FutureComplaint2 days ago
+10
Lets make prices skyrocket! That’ll get people to vote for us!
- Republicans
10
teth211 day ago
You really don't think they would or could increase the toll?
When introducing a toll which is illegal, it'd probably be better to start low at the start and eventually raise it later once it's been established that they own the strait.
If they charged 20 million, they'd not only get more countries willing to go to war with them but even the citizens would become more in favor of it.
0
Lemzz1 day ago
+3
Legality would have to be up to some international lawyers to argue, which wouldn't be decided any time soon, and definitely not during this war. Iran's claim would be that their navy is properly identifying the vessels and cargo and escorting the ships through straight, which levying a charge for services would be appropriate, like the fees that are charged at every major canal crossing. This would also be the gray area by which they are attacking vessels breaking their blockade, like "we don't know if they are our enemies military ships" type thing.
Maybe a sound argument against it just being a fee simply for transiting their waters ( which would be illegal ) and ultimately probably not something that stays in place permanently if they aren't actively engaged in war because of international pressure, but nothing would stop them from saying they are permanently "at war" either.
You are probably correct in saying if they jacked the charge way up it would turn many nations against them, which is likely why it will stay low and eventually cease, but for now it's 1 effective piece on the chess board where nations can choose to pay it and get oil, or don't and get none ( and potentially lose the vessel/crew ). It puts other nations on the hot seat to pressure the US/Israel to stop because it doesn't seem unreasonable given the situation.
3
VelvetCowboy192 days ago
+4
Small toll = lots of people pay, big $$$
Big toll = nobody pays, no $$$
4
texachusetts1 day ago
+1
The insurance d******* rates for toll payers should make the tolls worth it.
1
apexxin2 days ago
+787
“The tankers” don’t gaf if the owner of the cargo is willing to pay and wants it out.
787
Myjunkisonfire2 days ago
+148
Right? Their $50m cargo has gone up in value to $110m. The buyer would happily pay an extra $2m to guarantee its delivery.
148
organasm2 days ago
+287
They kept talking about providing insurance and I kept thinking about it like who cares about boat/cargo insurance when you might not make it through alive.
287
kullwarrior2 days ago
+114
If theres no insurance to cross the strait, it's unlikely companies will attempt it in the first place.
114
organasm2 days ago
+127
No, what I'm saying is if there were a threat to my life as a crew member/captain, no amount of insurance would get me to attempt it.
127
Ixisoupsixi2 days ago
+38
It’s an attitude like this that will keep you from moving up in this company. We’re looking for people that are willing to stay late, work on weekends, AND forfeit their lives so we can build more plastic and make more money.
38
Mother_Airline_62761 day ago
+5
“We’re looking for Rockstars at our company!”
Rockstar= underpaid/overworked boot licker
5
22over7closeenough2 days ago
+70
But but it's the capitalists who are really risking everything! /s
70
Psychoanalytix1 day ago
+3
Don't talk like that, you're hurting my money's feelings!!!!!!!
3
FlashyHeight93232 days ago
+5
But how much money?
5
New_Blacksmith_7091 day ago
+1
Anyone who spends half their life away from family and is in charge of expensive cargo probably makes bank. Kind of like oil rig workers.
1
Stonp2 days ago
+9
Yeah usually you have to get special war insurance, but it wouldn’t cover this instance. It doesn’t even cover costs of waiting for safe passages of transport
9
Grow_away_4202 days ago
+8
Owners have a lot to consider, the sailors well being, the safety of their property. Two million seems like a small price for someone who owns a VLT or other gigantic ship to get it out of the gulf, the sailors on shore, and the ship back to moving goods around safer waters.
8
StephenHunterUK1 day ago
+3
>the sailors well being
A lot of people in the maritime industry would laugh at that comment, considering the widespread use of flags of convenience:
[https://safety4sea.com/itf-issues-three-new-additions-to-flags-of-convenience-list/](https://safety4sea.com/itf-issues-three-new-additions-to-flags-of-convenience-list/)
3
Anyales2 days ago
+5
They should just zig zag the missiles, im sure it would be fine
5
joelfarris1 day ago
+4
You joke, and I have to admit it would be funny for tankers to be running S-patterns through the strait while trying not to run into each other while coming and going, but remember that this is somewhat of a bluff on Iran's part as well.
If they f*** up and accidentally sink a massive tanker in that strait and block it, and they can no longer get their oil out, ~50% of their nation's economy disappears in a _poof_, and not to mention they're gonna start getting some really angry phone calls from China.
4
Fallen_Jalter1 day ago
+2
Not to mention they lost track of their own mines if they are to be believed
2
StephenHunterUK1 day ago
+3
The strait isn't that narrow - it's not the Suez Canal (which was blocked for eight years after 1967), but a massive oil spill would be an environmental disaster, especially for the UAE's tourist industry. Or what's left of it.
3
Initial_E2 days ago
+1
Why should I risk my life if my boss is a cheapskate? I think they do care, but in the opposite direction.
1
Individual_Door_32512 days ago
+224
That meeting in Pakistan going to be a lost cause.
224
r2k-in-the-vortex2 days ago
+136
The point of the talks is for both parties to show the world how hard they are working for peace before they start bombing eachother again.
136
00-Monkey2 days ago
+97
Idk, there’s a slim chance that JD simply doesn’t show up, and then they bomb the meet up location.
Surely that will bring about the “regime change” needed
97
Minguseyes2 days ago
+62
I dunno, getting rid of Vance and Kushner could be appealing to the orange blob …
62
TheDungen2 days ago
+12
I see the appeal myself though I wouldn't want Witkoff feeling left out.
12
NoFox14462 days ago
+28
Based on the reports this week of threatening Leo, it would not surprise me if he was diverted to the Vatican to kill again.
28
Aggressive_Chair14702 days ago
+14
it definitely feels like a trap but im not sure for who. surely both sides taking extreme precautions
14
GoodTeletubby2 days ago
+13
I mean, there's a slim chance that Vance shows up, and the US *still* bombs the place through some back channel. Protestant armageddonists won't blink twice at sacrificing a Papist to get their holy war to end the world started again.
13
rapax2 days ago
+3
Why not have Vance skip the summit, and you bomb Mar-a-Lago instead?
3
TheDungen2 days ago
+2
Won't Thiel be upset though? Vance is his proxy.
2
Jayrodtremonki2 days ago
+3
Is The Godfather playing on TV at Mar a lago tonight?
3
fec22452 days ago
+1
I don't think you'd bet on that even with favorable odds but it probably was fun to write.
1
00-Monkey2 days ago
+1
I said a slim chance. I’ve never bet on anything that I feel like I have a sub 40% chance of winning. Even then I rarely bet as I’m fairly risk averse.
1
fec22452 days ago
+1
>Even then I rarely bet as I’m fairly risk averse.
Probably for the best if your putting the probability within an order of magnitude of 40%
1
00-Monkey2 days ago
+1
I said I don’t bet under 40% chance.
I have not assigned a probability to them bombing negotiators besides saying slim. 40% is obviously not slim
1
flybydenver1 day ago
+1
Eyeliner meets oceanliner
1
Virtblue2 days ago
+1
and blame it on afganistan
1
foul_ol_ron2 days ago
+1
Or Iceland.
1
Effectuality2 days ago
+2
Icy what you did, there.
2
TheDungen2 days ago
+1
Its essentially what they did last time.
1
Weissritters2 days ago
+8
Depends, Pakistan may roll out their best couch…
8
Myjunkisonfire2 days ago
+12
Yep. This war has created a tollbooth opportunity for Iran that didn’t exist in peacetime. They either happily maintain the war with their new windfall income or accept peace with the tolls in place, which would be a symbolic defeat for America.
Combined with Netanyahu not wanting peace. Trump has got himself in a shitty situation.
12
Tsquare431 day ago
+2
Which is why is expecting NATO, Japan, South Korea, etc to clean it up.
2
cheerfulwish1 day ago
+2
This issue will go beyond a symbolic defeat for America if they are allowed to interfere with freedom of navigation. This will open up the possibility of other countries (China for example) to also claim fees for usage of “their” waters for transit. Trump has really ducked the whole world over (again) with this one
2
fec22452 days ago
+2
How would peace with a "toll" in place look? They attack any ship that passes through without paying? A war crime that risks ecological disaster?
2
AK_Panda2 days ago
+2
If they aren't at war, then they likely seize the ship if it hasn't paid the toll and hold it till the owner agrees to pay.
2
fec22452 days ago
+2
The Somali approach? But ships started carrying armed guards to deal with that.
2
AK_Panda1 day ago
+1
Big difference between scaring off pirates with a couple armed guards and fending off a nation state actor.
1
fec22451 day ago
+2
They don't have naval vessels, it'd be the same speed boats the Somali pirates used
2
7ddlysuns2 days ago
+8
JD will totally ace it
Edit: Jesus no he won’t, I’m amazed anyone took that seriously 😂
8
whatproblems2 days ago
+9
i bet he yells at them for wearing the wrong suit
9
LeviAEthan5122 days ago
+8
He's the guy with a death aura right? Might not be a complete waste for their objectives
8
TheDungen2 days ago
+4
Doesn't seem to work on Trump unfortunately.
4
Autisum2 days ago
+1
[ Removed by Listnook ]
1
Yvaelle2 days ago
+1
Your thinking of Steven Miller, Trump's senior advisor on evil
1
joelfarris1 day ago
+3
The Senior Evil Advisor?
3
kingcakeaholic2 days ago
+1
* Is a lost cause
1
Lundetangen1 day ago
+1
3D chess would be Iran using the same tactics as Israel and the US and just bomb the shit out of the negotiators
1
ausmomo2 days ago
+167
Didn't Trump say they should pay a toll to the USA to use the strait?
167
VexedCanadian842 days ago
+175
He's trying to figure out how to make money out of this.
He seems to like the idea of the tolls, just as long as he benefits.
175
redyellowblue50312 days ago
+43
I mean they are requesting 1.5 trillion for next years defense budget not including the 200 billion drunkard Hegseth requested.
They’re gonna need that toll money.
43
OozeNAahz2 days ago
+52
You don’t understand. He wants the toll money. It will never hit the US treasury. Just like the Venezuelan oil money. Offshore accounts controlled by him.
52
redyellowblue50312 days ago
+5
Oh I know. I was being facetious.
5
tierciel2 days ago
+7
Lol the toll wouldn't go in the government coffers! It would go straight into Trump's personal offshore account.
7
redyellowblue50312 days ago
+2
100%.
2
ekobres2 days ago
+2
War budget. It’s the Department of War now. So it’s a war budget.
2
Pik0002 days ago
+1
Bold to assume the US is going to get it and not directly into his bank accounts
1
TheDungen2 days ago
+2
He wants his share. Not for the US for him personally. He should be more worried considering these are extremists and he did kill a lot of their people. Of they promised to cut him in I would be very suprised if it wasn't to get a chance to bump him off later.
2
ary314152 days ago
+1
I think it also comes across to Trump as a way that he can accede to Iran's demand to control the strait, but be able to claim it as a victory still cause the US gets paid too.
1
TheDungen2 days ago
+1
Yes... about the part there the US gets paid though.
1
that1tech2 days ago
+10
See that’s different because it funds Freedom and Eagles and shit
10
whosthatcarguy2 days ago
+4
You gotta pay the troll toll…
4
duaneap2 days ago
+2
And this dumb f*** talks about paper tigers.
2
dragon_idli2 days ago
+120
* A tanker waiting at sea is more costly than the toll
* With reduced insurance cover providers, a loss of one tanker - minimum $120 mil loss(ship cost) + oil load + crew recovery & rehabilitation + revenue loss from no ship until a replacement is built + insurance hike for the ship's operator across their fleet due to risk assessment.
Good luck urging ships to take the risk and loss upon themselves by not paying toll.
120
dgkimpton2 days ago
+22
Indeed. As Trump is so fond of saying "just the cost of doing business".
22
fec22452 days ago
+5
The Gulf countries' don't want to surrender their sovereignty to Iran, the terms could change at any point and throttle their economies if they allow this precedent to be established. They could make it conditional in their contracts.
5
dragon_idli2 days ago
+4
Gcc and iran have had a long standing disagreement about multiple things. Gcc are based on monarchies which iran back then was against it, arab vs persians, shia vs sunni and add usa cia along with idf/israel medling with the region and destabilising it further since 1950's.
Cia and mi6 overthrew/killed a democratic iran in 1953 coupe because the then Iranian leaders wanted their own country to prosper from their oil resources. Irgc got founded as a result of that cia and mi6 operation. They successfully installed a monarch(shah) in iran.
Too long of a history where cia, mi6 and idf/mossad kept playing/meddling iran/iraq and are the reason for the current irgc + conflict and basically the reason for the last two major wars on this planet. The ones who really suffered were the iranians, iraqi civillians and usa armed forces who thought they were fighting for their country. Iranians lost their freedom after the regime change in 50's due to cia in my view.
Iran has a very few bargaining chips and the straight is one of those and they will play it to their advantage.
4
fec22452 days ago
+7
Most countries could sink civilian ships at will, Iran advantage is their willingness to.
7
AK_Panda2 days ago
+2
Or they could bite the bullet, pay the toll for now and get to work on pipelines to the red sea and/or Mediterranean.
Better than having your oil infrastructure and potentially desalination plants spontaneously exploding.
2
fec22452 days ago
+2
If you ever looked at a map of the region you'd realize that most gulf countries don't have access to the Red Sea.
2
AK_Panda1 day ago
+1
You are aware infrastructure can span multiple countries right?
1
fec22451 day ago
+1
You think Qatar wants to surrender their sovereignty to the Saudis?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_diplomatic_crisis
1
AK_Panda1 day ago
+1
Then they can negotiate with Iran.
1
fec22451 day ago
+1
Or else they'll commit an act of terrorism in violation of the laws of war?
1
dragon_idli2 days ago
+1
Problem is the existing pipeline aswell had an attack at the end and that stopped the operations. Not sure if it is back up now after ceasefire.
Natural geographical advantage cannot be bypassed with built structures due to the vulnerability.
But yes, they should invest in having atleast 80% transfer capacity. The current pipelines combined are at 45%.
1
Lanster272 days ago
+1
Just think of all the detention fees.
1
thenasch1 day ago
+1
He's urging operators to not go through the strait at all, not to go without paying.
1
Awkward-Candle-49772 days ago
+25
That can create precedence for south of china sea, taiwan strait
25
mapadofu2 days ago
+10
Malacca
10
Awkward-Candle-49772 days ago
+1
malacca strait isnt under conflict situation
1
mapadofu2 days ago
+11
For now ;)
11
Awkward-Candle-49772 days ago
+2
Even so, alternative routes through sunda strait or makassar strait aren't much further
2
PhysicallyTender1 day ago
+1
Indonesia would like to have a word with you.
1
Awkward-Candle-49771 day ago
+3
I'm Indonesian btw.
In 1982, Indonesia agreed for 3 free north-south international sea routes crossing the archipelago
3
PhysicallyTender1 day ago
+1
Which can be revoked if any of the major superpowers are dumb enough to start some shit with you.
1
Telcontar772 days ago
+8
You mean the precedent the **if** you can survive more then a month of large scale terrorist attacks by the US and Israel, **then** you get to leverage your relatively unique geographical position to impose a toll on shipping? I'm sure countries will be rushing to be have their country be assaulted and violated by the Axis of Epstein, just to make some extra money.
8
VilleKivinen2 days ago
+3
Turkey might have just found out that they have a new source of revenue.
3
AK_Panda2 days ago
+3
Let's be honest, if Turkey told Russia that they had to pay $2m per ship to transit or they could f*** off, we'd probably think that was hilarious. Or at least I would.
3
Sacaron_R32 days ago
+2
If the international community doesn't want to pay tolls, they could also simply freeze american assets and use them to benefit Iran. That seemed to do the trick after Russia invaded Ukraine.
2
ozrocket2 days ago
+45
I'm assuming the people who are urging the tankers not to pay Iran are safe and sound on dry land thousands of kilometters away
45
PracticalAd50502 days ago
+12
Yes. Probably in America, exporters of overpriced gas and oil.
12
rabidstoat2 days ago
+7
It's actually a group called Intertanko which represents about half of the oil tanker fleet.
They are also advising not to use the strait currently due to safety concerns, and to instead wait for a more certain peace agreement.
7
cogit22 days ago
+71
Some business guy is saying paying the toll isn't the way to go. Does business guy have a military he can use to secure the strait? No.
Business guy clearly doesn't understand Iran has the strait under its control with as little as one $50k Shahed drone, and until that is addressed, not paying only means future ship explosions.
Evidently dude doesn't understand the hornet's nest the US has unleashed.
71
wiseoldfox2 days ago
+29
Business guy needs to meet Insurance guy. Maybe have lunch.
29
cogit22 days ago
+8
Insurance guy: "Thanks for the free lunch. You don't need my service anymore right? Nah, what do you have to lose? Just sail!"
8
bixtuelista2 days ago
+11
not just any business guy, but business guy who is a legend for sucking at business.
11
TheDungen2 days ago
+2
Philip Belcher? Never heard of him.
2
HadoBoirudo2 days ago
+9
The first rule I learned in business from my boss is that "there are no moral high points to defend and no points of principle in business, you just need to stick to doing what makes economic sense". If you win a legal case, you win, if you lose but are actually morally right, you still lose - move on. Simple.
I am not saying I agree with that view, but it is how businesses largely work.
If the toll is the new cost of doing business for shipping oil, and if you need to pay it to stay in business, then companies will pay the toll.
9
StephenHunterUK1 day ago
+1
That's literally how we got slavery. It made more "economic sense" to bring millions of slaves over from Africa to work the land because they were less likely to die of disease than white people.
1
cogit22 days ago
+1
This is a shipping rep literally saying people shouldn't pay. They're trying to organize a boycot basically.
1
AK_Panda2 days ago
+3
Seems unlikely it'll work. Price will just rise until whoever owns the ship decides it's too lucrative to not pay the toll.
3
turbo_dude2 days ago
+1
Tolls/tariffs, same difference to the raping ape
1
doolpicate2 days ago
+8
We have the idi*t king Donald to thank for this "improvement."
8
nicethingslover2 days ago
+7
If the Iranians were Americans they would advertise for a subscription model. Buy your basic tier for 10 tankers per month or choose the most popular tier: the unlimited enterprise tier. Even cheaper if you pay per year!
7
drewid91 day ago
+1
Call the Iranian Embassy. They just found their new negotiator.
1
uberduck2 days ago
+7
Let me guess. It's the US urging?
7
Zorops1 day ago
+6
But putting tariffs on your own population is fair.
6
MoveEither19862 days ago
+43
In other news: Iran urged to ignore the assassination of their leaders, the slaughter of their children, and play nice like everyone else.
43
Resident_Monk_44932 days ago
+4
“Poor USrael, we will forfeit our sovereignty and economy to appease the shareholders, don’t worry “
4
meechmeechmeecho2 days ago
-4
They got over all those dead protestors pretty quickly
-4
MoveEither19862 days ago
+6
Hey, don't get me wrong, I think all the governments involved are assholes. I just find it absurd when one of them tells the other to play fair or else. It's like they're in a bar room brawl and one of them calls the other out because: dress code.
6
No_Indication96302 days ago
+9
Is the person saying that Bibi who would like to keep the war going because he's a psychopath?
9
turb0_encapsulator2 days ago
+9
$1 per barrel is nothing to make sure you don't get blown up. Everyone but the US is just going to pay it.
9
SP15702 days ago
+10
Options:
- wait for peaceful resolution: extra costs, loss of revenues, growing issues with crew morale and health
- cross without paying: chances of BOOM!
- pay the toll: c.1% extra cost and life goes on
I hope someone will sue the US and Israel for compensation.
10
TellMotor38092 days ago
+48
I agree USA and Israel should pay instead
48
Dimhilion2 days ago
+8
Yep let Iran charge the 1 dollar pr barrel. When the world complains, just explain it is to cover the damage the US/Trump caused to their country. And that is what they get for letting someone that insane just do what he wants. Blame trump.
Want it to go away? Lets negotiate a proper security deal, so the next madman cant just go do the same again.
I dont support terrorists, or Iran in general, but this is entirely on Trump. I think, in this limited case, Iran has the right to charge for passage.
8
dave_gormen_31 day ago
+4
tanker1: after you
tanker2: no, i insist, you first
tanker1: no, really, YOU first
Other tankers:
4
tiregroove2 days ago
+6
The US should pay a toll to the rest of the world for starting a war completely unprovoked and driving up the price of oil for everyone else.
This is another tariff.
Meawhile trump made out like a bandit buying oil futures as he bombed them.
[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-04-10/senators-push-cftc-to-probe-oil-trading-before-trump-iran-news](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-04-10/senators-push-cftc-to-probe-oil-trading-before-trump-iran-news)
6
Ouch2592 days ago
+3
The Comex is so corrupt and its not just oil trading. The banks are criminal.
3
OnePilotDrone2 days ago
+11
No pay = no access, simple as that. The fee is actually extremely low $2mil per ship. Surprised Iran even put it that low.
Oil prices right now are hovering around $98, one large tanker can carry up to 2 million barrels of oil on the ship. The Iranian fee amounts to about a $1 per barrel which is basically 1% fee on each barrel of oil.
Pretty sure every cargo owner would be more than happy to pay that price for safe passage. People need to realise that this illegal war started by USA and Israel has basically destroyed the freedom of navigation in Hormoz. Iran holds all the cards as we've seen during the last 6 weeks of the war.
11
reflect252 days ago
+6
mhmm i mean it's still quite a lot of money added up in the long run. 2 million per ship. with just 10 ships per day for a year that'd be 2 \* 10\* 365 = 7300 mill or 7.3 billion. and before the strait closure around \~100 ships per day or aka 73 billion
6
VhenRa2 days ago
+4
It sucks. But it sucks less than no fuel.
4
OnePilotDrone2 days ago
+2
Yes definitely but compared to the alternative which is no passage, a 1% fee or currently sitting at an extra dollar per barrel is miniscule. Instead of a barrel costing $96, it will now cost $97 a barrel with the fees and everything paid.
Its the new truth after the illegal war USA and Israel staged against Iran. Before all this, passage was safe and free. Irans gonna need revenue to rebuild their hospitals/schools/universities etc so the fee is inevitable. The fee will be shared with Oman aswell.
It's a perfect example of "cause and effect"
2
Current-Code2 days ago
+5
"Please die for me,
Praise be to God!
Thank you for your attention on this important matter"
5
MarmotFullofWoe2 days ago
+3
Is it ok to pay it if Donald Trump gets a cut?
3
pinewind1082 days ago
+3
I'd think countries like South Korea would happy put up a dollar a barrel for a reliable supply.
3
punkindle2 days ago
+3
(slaps head)
Why didn't I think of that. Just don't pay. Of course!
3
HylanderUS2 days ago
+2
There's probably one of those reaaaaaally long red/white bar that needs to be lifted up, and they just figured out they can go around
2
millerlit2 days ago
+3
When your country is at risk of running out of oil and destroying their economy they would rather pay then have a revolt from the people. Also tankers are super slow so they are sitting ducks for a drone.
3
Amerlis2 days ago
+6
Yeah nah. Probably costs a Pretty Penny per day to keep those tankers hauling product to where you need them to go to get paid. 2 million for safe passage and getting paid or keep shelling out daily as they sit dead in the water. Tough call.
6
Thin-Discipline16732 days ago
+2
Bada boom!
2
BaselineUnknown2 days ago
+2
Gonna find those 11 mines really quick.
2
whatdabee2 days ago
+5
Don't pay, just tank the drones
5
FuckingColdInCanada1 day ago
+2
Can't.
No healers in the party.
2
dxdifr1 day ago
+3
Here's an idea. Why don't the us government seize american oil and force them to build modern refineries with their billions of dollars of profit so we dont have to use the straight of Hormuz ??????????
3
potato_analyst2 days ago
+3
Was free before the attack on Iran
3
drewid91 day ago
+1
Yup and things changed. 2 nations bombed the everloving pants off a sovereign nation. Then made up reasons why they did it.
1
The_Island_Idiot2 days ago
+2
If you don’t want to pay a toll fee , don’t do business in the Strait of Hormuz
2
drewid91 day ago
+2
Ttttthhhats the capitalist answer
2
Daysaved2 days ago
+1
Yeah no one is going through that thing for a while. Iran came out today and said they have no clue where all the mines they put out there are.
1
makawakatakanaka2 days ago
+1
So what then, don’t go through, or risk getting blown up? Without outside intervention it’s going to be a stand still
1
Street_Anon1 day ago
+1
You think Arab countries would allow this? Nope!
1
NotSoSalty1 day ago
+1
Out of curiosity, Iran's fishing industry wouldn't be harmed by dumping tons and tons of oil into the water, would it?
1
stewmander2 days ago
+1
It's a sold strategy, let's see if it pays off for 'em.
1
isthereadrwho1 day ago
+1
Urged by whom? Donald Trump who's sitting safely in the White House surrendered by the army and Secret Service. Well let's put him on one of those tankers that decides not to pay just to see what happens, what do y'all think? He can bring Melania and Brandon if he wants
1
ImAjustin2 days ago
-8
So let’s say they don’t pay the toll. Is Iran going to bomb that tanker? Couldn’t that be an act of war in itself?
-8
AtrociousMeandering2 days ago
+17
I'm curious why you think it matters. Genuinely.
Iran is in fact at war, so the only reason I can think it might matter is getting an additional country involved. Except, the ship won't be flying a major country's flag, they all register with the small countries that don't do inspections or have labor rights.
17
balooaroos2 days ago
+10
That's what's happened already. It's the reason ships aren't going through anymore, they don't want to get blown up too. Act of terrorism or piracy might be a better description since it's not against a military target or country.
10
33810242 days ago
+4
\>>Couldn’t that be an act of war in itself?
What is Iran just call it a special military operation instead?
4
Natural-Strategy50232 days ago
+3
Sure, just as the US could blow up any tanker of theirs, China’s, Russia’s, India’s, etc
172 Comments