Can someone explain why gas prices are going down if the strait is blocked?
78
Dauntless_Idiot2 days ago
+31
There are many reasons.
The vast majority of GCC members were not shipping oil out in exchange for Iran shipping 0.5-1.5 mb/d. The other \~18.5 mb/d are potentially able to leave when they weren't before. Potentially, oil supply could increase because only Iranian ports are blockaded.
There is like \~8 to 8.5 mb/d going through pipelines.
Markets already priced in a certain amount of oil escaping per day and we might be exceeding that.
The ceasefire and reports from both sides that a deal was way closer than expected with the nuclear issue being the big remaining issue. I was actually surprised by these. The blockade turned an Iranian card into a slight US card so a deal is even more likely.
Oil has to be shipped to places which can be up to \~2 months.
A blockade is usually not a short term policy. It does make it safer for non-gcc countries to start drilling new oil wells with break even prices of \~$70. Especially if Iranian ones end up being shutdown, restarting them is not a quick process. In the opening stages the promise of it being a 4-5 week war made this risky and it wasn't happening for a while.
US ships transited the Strait in the mined area. There have been no reports of any mines being sighted by anyone. Its up in the air if mines were deployed.
451 ships were attacked during the 1980s Tanker War. The market can accept some level of risk. A predictable stabilized risk is usually better than a highly volatile one.
31
redpandafire2 days ago
+22
This is the only accurate post explaining why prices are what they are. Everyone else is assuming the people, who’s entire job it is to price oil, cannot price oil better than listnookors can.
22
JColby0418 hr ago
+1
The post above you’re referring to is also a guess. They do list some facts, but the word used several times, “potentially” has semi-educated guess written all over it.
1
yoursandforever2 days ago
+1
Sure but the wild card is volatility in the Oval Office.
1
whooo_me3 days ago
+61
Because the people who should be worried, can't figure out what the hell is going on with U.S. policy; and are unjustifiably optimistic as a result?
61
Jealous_Response_4922 days ago
+24
That and the trading is largely automated, and detached from reality.
24
CrunchyCds3 days ago
+28
It takes weeks for ships with barrels of oil to reach their destination and so we were still getting oil from before the blockade and we have oil reserves we are burning through to artificially shield the American public from the crisis currently hitting South Eat Asia. What is going to happen is the illusion is going to collapse very suddenly as oil is a real finite resource that the market can't just manipulate forever.
28
Jealous_Response_4922 days ago
+17
Supplies are still in transit to the Americas, but they end next week, Europe this week, and Asia a a few weeks or so ago.
Reality of this crisis hasn't quite been felt yet, but it will be.
17
Gibbyalwaysforgives2 days ago
+3
I think Asia definitely because right now Diesel is expensive in Korea and you can’t get a lot. So there is some worry there.
3
LeinDaddy2 days ago
+5
First. Trump has actually done a good job at convincing Wall Street that the war is going to be over soon. It's his main message.
Pre war, 20 million barrels crossed the strait daily, that's down to about 0. About 7 million barrels have been made up from the surrounding countries increasing production creating a 13 million barrel daily shortfall in worldwide need. Asia is feeling this the most, specifically China, Korea, and Japan. We're about 500 million barrels behind pre war distribution.
All of this has caused approx $50 per barrel difference in futures prices vs spot prices. Eventually Wall Street futures contracts will reflect spot pricing.
Second, the US is going to feel the effects of the strait closure last due to domestic production. If the strait opens today, it'll take 2-3 months for the world market to catch back up. But the US is going to feel the closure soon as Asian markets are further squeezed. Expect 5 dollar per gallon gas over the next 4 to 6 weeks on average in the US.
TLDR: it'll catch up soon
5
FusciaHatBobble2 days ago
+3
Gas prices are baswd not just on actual supply and demand, but also on speculation for what future supply and demand will be. If you see things that seem counter-intuitive and divorced from reality, its because changes are being fueled moreso by speculation than actual material conditions.
This same justification explains why gas prices shot up over several days when it actually takes several weeks for supply chain disruptions to fully materialize.
3
Darkelementzz3 days ago
+4
Because only Iran is being blockaded. Iraq, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Bahrain are starting to trade again, hence market rebound and lower prices
4
twoworldman3 days ago
+8
Are they? The US is blockading Iran ports and Iran is blockading everyone else. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I checked the marine tracker and there still doesn't seem to be traffic going through the strait.
8
Gender_is_a_Fluid3 days ago
+5
Iran is still blocking the straight themselves though?
5
Darkelementzz3 days ago
+6
Allegedly. They mined a portion of it but there have been de-mining activities over the last week.
6
PatSajaksDick3 days ago
+2
But isn’t the strait still dangerous to pass?
2
fury4203 days ago
+8
Only a portion of the strait has been allegedly mined, and it seems like Iran not firing at merchant vessels is being treated as part of the ongoing ceasefire between the US, Israel and Iran.
Which kind of puts Iran in a bind, do they start firing again to enforce their prior threats about strait closure, knowing it may restart the war overall?
8
yoursandforever3 days ago
+1
Wouldn’t put it past them at all.
1
ohhhbooyy2 days ago
+2
Strait is blocked for ships going to or coming from Iran. All other ships are able to cross. So countries like Saudi Arabia can ship their oil without US intervention.
2
AdCreepy51652 days ago
+1
Because the western nations weren't buying Iranian oil to begin with? Really the blockade was probably a better move than blowing up bridges and schools.
1
DrinkingBuddy223 days ago
+2
Possibly global markets stabilizing or market is pricing in stability with the purchase of more US oil? One could hope.. 🤣
But don't listen to me, I'm no where in an educated position to even be commenting on this 😂
2
yoursandforever3 days ago
+296
Which accomplishes what again?
296
Settra_Rulez3 days ago
+169
Depriving them of their main revenue stream.
169
Dortmunddd2 days ago
+84
Pyrrhic Victory if you look at it globally. The US is spending more than the $4M/tanker to do the blockade.
84
scarr3g2 days ago
+79
Hey, it costs a lot of US taxpayer money to make US taxpayers pay more at the pump.
79
Codex_Dev2 days ago
+7
Allegedly, Iran does not have enough storage space for their oil, so essentially the oil wells will eventually get "blocked up" in like a week or two, which would require them to shut them down and seal them. (which is very expensive to re-activate)
7
Eaopracessu2 days ago
+56
And making costs go up for their own consumers.
56
--TheCity--2 days ago
+35
So you are willing to suffer and have everyone else suffer as long as Iranians suffer more. Sounds about like every war.
I like people who don't start wars.
35
FeelingKind76442 days ago
+11
"No new wars,' but for repubs it's "No, new wars!"
11
UnknownHero22 days ago
+24
$4m is kind of trivial compared to the value of what's on those ships. A tanker can carry up to 2 million barrels of oil. That's like $200 million in value. Container ships carry even more value, well over a billion in some cases.
This war is stupid, but we need better arguments than that.
24
OSUfan882 days ago
+6
Actually, that’s a fantastic point.
6
Dortmunddd2 days ago
+4
Fair enough.
4
welshwelsh2 days ago
+2
US GDP is $32 trillion, while Iran's is $300 billion.
The US will not notice the $50 million spent on the blockade. That's just a rounding error for US spending. The Pentagon misplaces that kind of money every day and nobody cares.
But the blockade is estimated to cost Iran about $400 million per day in lost income, which is about half their daily GDP. That is absolutely catastrophic. A lot of the oil money is funneled to the IRGC, so this will hurt them badly.
2
Dortmunddd2 days ago
+11
That’s the same logic Russia uses in terms of who will run out of troops first. The reality is both countries are losing.
11
likely-2 days ago
+11
Holy comparison lmao
11
Lokon192 days ago
+6
The size difference between Ukraine and Russia and the US and Iran is way smaller. And the US is not fighting a grinding war of attrition.
6
Spantastik2 days ago
+2
The us isn’t in a ww1 style grinding war of attrition but they are absolutely losing resources for no gain
2
Salt_Crow61592 days ago
+3
Destroying Iran and his army (I guess) is "nothing."
3
VirtualFantasy2 days ago
+1
In all forms of violence, including war, the only thing that matters is who gets hurt WORSE. It really doesn’t matter how badly you get hurt as long as you’re able to walk away and your opponent can’t.
Is that moral? Is that just? Is that ethical? Irrelevant. War is none of those things. It’s fundamentally incapable.
1
J12BSneakerhead2 days ago
+1
One can afford to lose and the other can't is the difference.
1
OSUfan882 days ago
+3
It is so Listnook to downvote this comment. They cannot stand anything disrupting their curated echo chamber.
3
UCF_Knight122 days ago
+2
Yup! The straight should not be open to the benefit of Iran only. It is all or nothing.
2
[deleted]3 days ago
-5
[deleted]
-5
RidgedLines3 days ago
+43
Where did you get $26 million from? And oil very much is their main income source.
43
sleezly3 days ago
+20
Lot more than $26 million if there’s Iranian oil on any of those ships.
20
Settra_Rulez2 days ago
+9
We’re talking about oil and petrochemical exports, which are the first and second largest sectors of their economy. Their economy will collapse if they aren’t able to gain revenue from these areas.
9
[deleted]2 days ago
+5
[deleted]
5
Lokon192 days ago
+7
Russia had hundreds of billions in reserves that Iran does not. And china essentially saved them by giving them a life line
7
Settra_Rulez2 days ago
+3
That’s because they are different countries with different economies and in wildly different situations. President Pezeshkian himself warned of economic collapse in the coming weeks and that’s before the blockade set in.
3
GoodDecision3 days ago
+25
Blocking Iran from doing business in their ports, tanking their economy.
25
FlibbleA3 days ago
+6
Iran is estimated to have 150mill barrels in floating storage out in the ocean far away from the blockade. They have said they have enough to sell for 90days. If that is true it is going to take 3 months before the blockade starts biting them.
6
lacrosse19913 days ago
+16
I saw that Iran is close to capacity for in country oil storage at this point, and in 13-16 days they could be forced to shut down their oil fields as a result. That would apparently cause some damage to equipment and prevent them from being able to start up the operations for another few months. Not sure if this is part of the aim with the blockade too.
16
Jealous_Response_4922 days ago
+9
Yeah, not just Iran, but other oil/gas wells in the region, operate under a pressurised system, can't simply switch them off, and expect them to turn back on at previous capacity.
edit; Environmental disaster that it may well be, don't be surprised to see oil pumped onto the surface or gas vented and burned off to preserve the pumping capacity.
9
James-W-Tate2 days ago
+3
They'll absolutely keep pumping oil.
3
Jealous_Response_4922 days ago
+2
Likely, those that can, as for the installations already destroyed, they're gonna be offline for awhile, as in a few years possibly, and then,pumping at a lower capacity than before this idiotic affair began.
2
cbs-anonmouse3 days ago
+9
Okay. So we potentially tank their economy. Then what?
Meanwhile, Iran is still able to block other ships from passage through the Straits, or demand a ransom to let them through. So who can hold out under that state of affairs longer?
9
Historical_Owl_16353 days ago
+31
They’d be under immense pressure from external dependents and internal civilians to figure something out.
I’m not saying wether I agree or not wether it will work, but that’s the thought process.
31
Captain_Wag3 days ago
+26
Who can hold out under that state of affairs longer? Probably the country that has 600 times the GDP of the other country. Just a wild guess. Shot in the dark.
26
MC_Gengar2 days ago
+9
You're vastly underestimating how strong internal and external pressures would become. This is the same jackass logic that cost the US Vietnam. War isn't just "my numbers vs your numbers biggest one wins" if it was then the US wouldn't f****** exist to begin with.
9
Captain_Wag2 days ago
+2
Vietnam was a whole other scenario. Their economy was mostly agricultural. Crops are spread out and they're difficult to find in a jungle. Oil refineries are not something you can hide. That and the US military has been given 30 trillion dollars since that war ended. It's a tad bit more advanced currently. The big factor here is that Iran's GDP is about 20% oil. Losing the ability to sell oil costs them about 25 billion per month in lost revenue. That is not a small number and it's definitely not one you can afford to scoff at while you're at war with another country.
2
WorstCPANA2 days ago
+1
I don't think this is the same logic that lost the Vietnam war for the US. That was a war of attrition - we killed a million of their people thinking it was going to break their will, it did not.
This isn't about who can kill more, it's whether Iran can survive an economic collapse, in a period when they were already hurting economically, and when their population hates them.
These dictatorships that Russia and China prop up are only surviving as long as they have money - if they're deprived of say, all the money flowing into their country, they have to face the unrest that they've been fostering for 50 years.
I don't understand how you think the strategies are similar to Vietnam's at all....can you explain a bit more how to came to that conclusion?
1
I_worship_odin2 days ago
+8
It’s tough to say. On one hand you have a country whose economy is ruined and dependent on oil for the majority of their revenues, who has already killed tens of thousands to keep control. On the other hand you have a country who is paying $1 more at the pump for gas.
It’s a toss up really.
8
jlharper2 days ago
+1
Well, let's see.
One country is there under false pretenses and spending billions every day just to support their position as they are half way around the world and having to funnel supplies to their troops.
The other is based out of their own country which is local, and is in a war for survival where failure to persist could mean the eradication of their entire way of living.
America has already shown it doesn't have what it takes to win a long term war against an inferior force. They stalemated in Iraq, and stalemated in Afghanistan against one of the weakest fighting forces in the world without accomplishing their stated goals. It is safe to say they will stalemate in Iran without accomplishing their goals.
1
Captain_Wag2 days ago
+1
False pretenses? We are there because Iran gunned down their own civilians so fast the hospitals ran out of body bags to put them in. In addition to the nuclear armaments they continue to pursue.
1
jlharper2 days ago
+3
Okay, so why hasn’t America invaded every other country that has human rights abuses?
Iran had no nukes and America destroyed their enrichment facilities during the 12 day war in 2025, remember?
If you think the US invaded Iran because of what Iran does to its citizens or because Iran had nukes, then I have a bridge to sell you.
3
Settra_Rulez3 days ago
+7
It adds pressure for them to agree to forgo nuclear enrichment in exchange for the blockade to be lifted while the negotiations are ongoing.
7
Stonebagdiesel2 days ago
+1
Who can hold out longer, the regime whose already weak economy was crushed by bombing and blockades, or the country that just secured a new source of oil from Venezuela, is a net exporter of oil, and has the strongest economy in the world? 🤔
1
mrroofuis3 days ago
+3
Hate to tell you. Their economy has been tanked by all the bombs that rained on them for weeks
Fun fact: war is expensive
3
User-no-relation2 days ago
+4
Make the stock market go up? For some reason
4
MrDerpGently3 days ago
+30
You see, as a pariah state that was already heavily sanctioned this will make it hard to make money selling oil to China unless China decides they want to, in which case we will undoubtedly let them. But for now China and Iran are content to watch the US piss away it's global position for nothing.
30
Ibewye2 days ago
+8
China has already said they will continue to import oil from Iran regardless of US.
8
Key_Marsupial_14062 days ago
+13
Yet the sanctioned Chinese tanker every top post on Listnook claimed went through the blockade is still stuck in the strait.
[https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:3722428](https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:3722428)
13
DenimDangerAAC3 days ago
-8
China can do this because it’s invested more than any other nation in renewables. While they also have the largest coal fired generation fleet in the world as well, they have plenty of their own coal deposits to meet their demand. China doesn’t need anything coming from the Strait, and is making Trump and Co. look like the dipshits they truly are for the world to see.
-8
HereticLaserHaggis3 days ago
+23
They also consume way more oil than everyone else (by a lot)
China has done really well with renewables but they're a country who's based their entire economy around manufacturing, it's very energy intensive.
23
Lokon192 days ago
+4
They actually import most of their oil from the gulf
4
pharm4karma3 days ago
+1
Your point contradicts itself. China is the only opposing force to the US. If China DGAF, which I agree they are happy to take a back seat on this one, then it's a win-win for America, Europe and the Middle East. Ridding ourselves of this scummy regime with little consequence from China means the blockade has no opposition. I'm certainly not a trump apologist, but ridding our world of a tyrannical state was necessary and I don't think it could have gone much better TBH.
1
Dependent_Star39982 days ago
+2
How does this rid the world of Iranian tyranny?
Making Iranians suffer at the hands of America BREEDS future generations of tyranny.
2
GenXPowaah2 days ago
+1
Which tyrannical regime you talking about Iran, Israel or the US?
1
Key_Marsupial_14062 days ago
+1
More nations in the Middle East have friendly relations with Israel than with Iran. That's why Iran relies on so many non-state actors to try to have influence in the region - Houthis, Hezbollah, etc,
1
johnnyrollerball693 days ago
+4
This is a great question. Nobody has ever doubted they could stop ships. What they believe it accomplishes is the real tell.
IMO, an utterly useless show of force, given the circumstances.
4
yoursandforever3 days ago
+3
If the objective is to get Iran to pinky-swear they won‘t develop nukes then ya anything is useless.
3
toeknn3 days ago
+7
Shattered the illusion that Iran had control of the strait and was in position to profit from it.
Theres the downvotes. Much of listnook bought the illusion that Iran had control of the strait.
7
hughcifer-1061033 days ago
+17
The fact that the Strait is still closed by Iran challenges what you’re saying here. Iran is still charging a toll as well.
17
RidgedLines2 days ago
+1
Charging a toll to all the ships transiting the strait right now?
1
Rivster792 days ago
+2
No one thought Iran had control of the strait. You are mistaking control with ability to disrupt. 2 very different things.
2
toeknn2 days ago
+2
Yea no i was on listnook. People definitely thought iran was the controller.
2
yoursandforever3 days ago
+7
Sure but:
Iran doesn’t have to control the strait the way the US is doing it. They just need to set up a protection racket.
All they need to do is land a pot shot on one non-Chinese tanker to have the insurance companies declining to participate, effectively shutting it down for all but their biggest customer.
Not sure how a literal per-transit fee would work, but unless the US is willing to police the strait forever, there’s nothing stopping other countries from paying Iran protection money in some manner.
7
toeknn3 days ago
-3
A protection racket is pointless if all traffic is suspended anyway. Any control iran was exerting was permitted in an enviroment where the US was willing to incur cost to keep world eco going. The US does not need to incur that cost.
The US could maintain the blockade forever. Its c**** to do compared to other things.
-3
FlibbleA3 days ago
+6
US was threatening to destroy an entire civilization unless it opened the strait. Now the US can have the strait closed forever, it doesn't matter...
Wouldn't the cheapest option be for the US to just declare victory and leave?
6
Luciifuge2 days ago
+4
We’re to far into it for that. USA won’t leave without major concessions from Iran for their demands.
4
FlibbleA2 days ago
+5
That is what is called a sunk cost fallacy
5
hughcifer-1061032 days ago
+2
And Iran won’t make concessions without the US doing so also. This is a stalemate - even if the US destroys more Iranian infrastructure. The effect will drive up real costs of oil and cause an economic disaster for the entire West - US included. Iran’s economy has been sanctioned for so long it simply won’t matter to them, just like this oil blockade doesn’t really affect them much.
2
one8sevenn2 days ago
+1
It’s not that relatively expressive to perform this blockade.
Sea is the cheapest route of travel and those ships have to be somewhere (They generally don’t deploy from the US). Those ships would just go on patrol elsewhere and not head back to the US.
The US could maintain the blockade an extremely long time.
1
[deleted]2 days ago
[deleted]
0
Purple_oyster2 days ago
+1
It helps to ensure the oil supply is stopped and shuts down the straight of Hormuz. Uhhhhh isn’t that the plan or ummmm maybe it isn’t not sure
1
HumanChallet2 days ago
+1
F****** over the dark fleet
1
MrRoboto123453 days ago
+138
And none of them were Chinese, right?
138
down_vote_magnet_3 days ago
+165
I believe the one Chinese ship that was able to pass through was the one that came from UAE and not Iran. Also sounds like blockade is from ships sailing from Iran
165
DrSFalken3 days ago
+117
Yes, CENTCOM was specific that the blockade is of Iranian ports and not the strait itself. The goal is to impose similar economic pain on Iran that they're imposing on others by closing the strait. Ships leaving from / traveling to non-Iranian ports are free to transit (as far as the USN is concerned).
117
fury4203 days ago
+30
And there are even exceptions for humanitarian shipments to Iran:
>U.S. Central command will enforce a naval blockade of all Iranian ports and coastal areas effective 1400 UTC on 13 April 2026.
>This blockade will be enforced in the Gulf of Oman and Arabian Sea east of the Strait of Hormuz. The blockade encompasses the entirety of the Iranian coastline to include but not limited to ports and oil terminals. The blockade applies to all vessel traffic, regardless of flag. Neutral vessels currently in Iranian ports are granted a grace period to depart Iranian ports that expires at 1400 UTC on 13 April 2026. Following this time, any vessel entering or departing the blockaded area without authorization is subject to interception, diversion, and capture. The blockade will not impede neutral transit passage through the Strait of Hormuz to or from non-Iranian destinations. Neutral vessels may still be subject to the right of visit and search to determine the presence of contraband cargo. Humanitarian shipments including food, medical supplies, and other goods essential for survival of the civilian populations will be permitted, subject to inspection.
https://msi.nga.mil/NavWarnings
30
Casual-Speedrunner-73 days ago
+13
> The Rich Starry, a Chinese-owned tanker previously sanctioned by the US for smuggling Iranian petroleum products, left the strait and then turned back this week, according to publicly available ship-tracking data.
> Radio transponder data for the vessel, which is sailing under the flag of the landlocked East African nation of Malawi, shows it entered the Persian Gulf on April 4 empty of cargo. It turned off its transponder for more than a week, a tactic smugglers often use called “running dark” to avoid showing its location.
> The Rich Starry’s signal popped back up off the United Arab Emirates on Monday, laden with oil, though it is possible the ship wasn’t transmitting its accurate location. Smugglers sometimes “spoof” their locations by transmitting inaccurate co-ordinates.
13
Bradleybeal232 days ago
+2
i love when this type of language is used to make it seem like something extremely shady and underhanded is going on, like these are gangs of pirates smuggling guns and drugs across international waters, when in reality it’s just normal trade.
2
Dark_World_Blues3 days ago
+45
One of the first ships to turn back was Chinese.
45
Alive_Internet3 days ago
-1
Don’t let the Chinese bots on Listnook fool you into downplaying the US win here. No Chinese ships are getting through, and the only way for China to not collapse from a lack of oil is to either force Iran to accept a deal or give the US whatever it wants to end the blockade. This is a brilliant move by the US to end the conflict without violence.
-1
Codex_Dev2 days ago
+2
China is also not too happy about Iran imposing a toll on the Strait.
2
alpha-delta-echo3 days ago
+13
The brilliant move would have been to not start this bullshit in the first place.
13
ithinkitslupis3 days ago
+12
huh? Idk your comment sounds more like propaganda than the others tbh.
12
SheSaidOtaku3 days ago
+7
True lol. I don't side either because i don't live near those countries. But his comment really look like Trump Fanboy.
7
dornwolf3 days ago
+8
Well he’s very proud that they are blockading a blockade of a previously completely open passage
8
yoursandforever3 days ago
+2
Well China’s not about to collapse from a lack of imported oil. Here’s a Google A.I. Overview:
As of late 2025–2026, China imports roughly **70% to 74%** of its total oil supply, making it the world's largest importer of crude oil. Oil accounts for about 20% of China’s total energy consumption, meaning imported oil constitutes roughly 14–15% of China's overall energy mix.
And, Iran isn’t the only place to buy oil.
2
Puzzleheaded-Leg26472 days ago
+1
Not brilliant. More like the last option without withdrawing.
1
smoothtrip2 days ago
+1
Lol. No violence. The US attacked Iran without provocation.
1
ronweasleisourking2 days ago
+7
Sure it did. Also wasn't the point to reopen the straight that was closed because TRUMP F****** BOMBED IRAN AND THEY CLOSED IT AS A RESULT
7
FreshPrinceOfH2 days ago
+12
I’m not the smartest man in the world. So be patient with me here. How does this help?
12
one8sevenn2 days ago
+8
It limits the Iranian economy and weapon shipments while providing protection for the gulf states to produce oil again.
It is something that should have been done a while ago, but the Trump administration got rid of competent people.
Trump thought Iran would be another Maduro situation and then scrambled until finally getting lucky with this blockade
8
FreshPrinceOfH2 days ago
+1
So if I understand this correctly. Blockades are bad when they are Iranian, and good when they are American?
1
one8sevenn2 days ago
+2
Blockades are bad in general for the world in an economic sense. Especially in a region that has so much trade and energy.
Blockades are an excellent military tool for whomever has the military power to perform them.
In this case with the US choosing to go to war with Iran, blockading Iran would have been the smart move to put pressure on them to surrender or make peace faster to reduce the global economic impacts.
There is only so long Iran can continue without getting resupplied.
Iran blocking the strait was a good move for them, if the US caved to it and left. If the US had public pressure and left as a result, it would be a big win for Iran.
If the US was more reliant on the gulf, then it would be a harder Decision to make.
Irans issue is their navy is destroyed and they have no way of policing the blockade other than randomly placing mines.
2
BrofessorFarnsworth2 days ago
+12
Well, it keeps the news cycle from asking the important questions about the Epstein files
12
Mana_Seeker2 days ago
+3
~~voyage voyage~~
blockade blockade
3
Wonderful-Pause10483 days ago
+45
.. Pentagon says, … aha
45
ComprehensiveBear5763 days ago
+18
Uniformed members speaking on behalf of the pentagon, atleast for this war, have seemed relatively non political and mostly sticking with facts. The routine I have seen is Trump goes on and says a bunch of crazy and we usually need to wait a few hours or a day to see what the pentagon explains. Which is likely what was originally briefed to Trump before he turned it into stuff like” entire navy is at the bottom of the ocean”. The translation is that the majority of the Iranians large warships are destroyed, however 60 percent of the smaller fast attack vessels of the IRGC remain operational as they were hiding underground pens, this takes away the larger threats to the US navy but leaves the threat to merchant shipping mostly intact”
It’s like the war objectives. The pentagon never seemed to indicate they’ve received tasking for regime change as their objectives have been pretty consistent from the beginning until now, which is the derogation of the IRGC military capabilities. If you listen to Trump, you would think we have completely different objectives. I’ve generally found them down to earth throughout this crisis.
I take it you disagree? I am sure there are some facts that can be disputed but you seem to believe they are a BS Factory and that really hasn’t been my assessment.
18
Horror_Employer26822 days ago
+1
They could have stopped 1% of the ships going through and ‘USN stops X ships’ is still a fact
1
SlugFromSnug2 days ago
+1
I'm sure they will find that WMD soon
1
QueenBurong3 days ago
+6
Yeah, as soon as I see that guy's face I just know it's BS.
6
SlugFromSnug3 days ago
-5
Amazing how the USA now has less credibility than China and Iran
-5
_Kramerica_3 days ago
-4
Exactly. Had me in the first half.
-4
BakuRetsuX2 days ago
+4
How does this work. The US is saying they will stop Iranian tankers. But aren't the others going through the straight paying Iran to go through? So they get paid regardless. Also, the oil can be off loaded to other ships that aren't Iranian and be sold through multiple channels. In Bitcoin, Gold , and Yuan... right? So just because no ship with the Iranian flag is being let through by the US blockade, doesn't mean Iran isn't making money. A naval blockade is a 19th-century solution to a 21st-century economic problem. While the U.S. can physically stop a flagged Iranian tanker, they cannot easily stop the flow of digital currency or the "re-labeling" of oil on the high seas.
4
one8sevenn2 days ago
+3
Ships going to or coming from Iranian ports. Doesn’t matter what flag they fly.
Technically this blockade isn’t just in the Persian gulf either.
There are generally more ways around sanctions , which is what you mentioned as work arounds. It’s a lot harder if it is big tanker ships to work around with satellite imagery
3
BakuRetsuX2 days ago
+1
Ok, but I was reading that they just turn off their AMS(spelling) system and the tracking stops. Or they spoof them and show them somewhere else while they transfer their oil and mix them with other tankers. Even using satellite, it would be hard tracking so many ships. And if China brings their tankers or slaps their flag on Iranian tankers, what is the US supposed to do? Many reports are saying these ships are going through fine. Maybe they've stopped them now? Plus, that's a huge area to cover. Not sure if we even have enough resources to implement a successful blockage. It seems it was more of a show of force to see what the Iranians would do in response. Regardless, if it works, it works, right? Just that all of this could have been avoided. The lost of our troops over this , even in small numbers is still something we have to bear with.
1
MJ4202 days ago
+2
Wow...very not impressive, helpfull, convincing...Keep it it up Donald!!!
2
prancing_moose2 days ago
+2
We’re here to force Iran to open the straight by ensuring nothing gets through!
2
Swimming-Repeat-322 days ago
+2
Or let through everyone but Iran.
🔥💸🔥💰🔥💲🔥
2
[deleted]2 days ago
+4
[deleted]
4
awr902 days ago
+3
Sounds like you should just accept that you don’t understand simple tactics. Iran was blockading the straight for select ships by threats only. The US navy is blockading traffic with physical force so that Iran cannot send their own ships and Chinese ships through the straight. One is not like the other.
3
Swimming-Repeat-322 days ago
+1
You can beat a blockade by blockading the blockade- Don Tsu
I heard you like blockades; so we blockaded your blockade- trumpzibit
1
one8sevenn2 days ago
+2
If Trump had competent people in his administration, then he would have blockaded first.
Since he doesn’t, the Iranians had to give him the best idea to defeat them.
This war would be close to over, if the US initiated the blockade after the initial bombing campaign
2
Jonnyflash803 days ago
+7
The Pentagon; the least reliable news source
7
P0Rt1ng4Duty3 days ago
-2
I trust my horoscope more than the Pentagon.
-2
PepperMill_NA3 days ago
+5
Makes sense if you're at war. Which, of course, the US is not, at war. I know because my President told me.
My point is playing games with the semantics doesn't change the reality. The US Congress has abdicated its duties. Only Congress can declare war. This is an undeclared war of aggression by the US.
We gave a toddler a gun and now he's shooting what ever catches his attention. The people who are supposed to be the supervising adults are going to Disney World.
5
ResortClear7303 days ago
+12
Love it or hate it the war power resolution act gave the power for this to happen to the executive branch. Congress would need to get involved to curtail the powers given in that law, like has been done in the past. This keeps getting voted down by the Republican Party, so here we are.
This has been thrown around a ton but the last time Congress declared war was December 8th, 1941.
12
glencoe6063 days ago
+2
They are only stopping ships going to and from Iran and the smaller country ships that can’t defend themselves. There are lots of ships getting through they don’t talk about. Every ship from China and Japan gets through. India and Malaysia too.
2
Settra_Rulez3 days ago
+10
There’s no reason to stop ships that are originating from UAE. Chinese ships connected to Iran have already been turned back.
10
Cellophane72 days ago
+1
Doesn't this mean Iran still gets to charge its tolls though?
1
one8sevenn2 days ago
+3
They can, but why would you pay them if Iran doesn’t control the strait
3
Cellophane72 days ago
+1
My understanding is that they've got mines that are extremely difficult to remove. They're not necessarily firing on boats (though they're 100% doing that too), but boats can't get through without their permission.
I'm not sure though, I haven't dug into the exact mechanics at play lol
1
likely-2 days ago
+2
Sauce?
2
NineClaws3 days ago
Progress?
This is where America is. Doing what it can the bring the world economy into a Great Recession all for Israel.
0
TheWorclown3 days ago
-4
“I wouldn’t need to hurt the world if they just let me conquer a few countries unquestioned!” is peak abuser behavior.
-4
Stonebagdiesel2 days ago
Idk why you think we are doing this for Israel. We are doing this for us. This is the biggest power play on the geopolitical stage in decades. The US is securing the global energy market and putting themselves as the global curator. They are building immense leverage against China.
0
Necx9993 days ago
+4
Just think this was open and free before Trump attacked Iran. Now we are spending money daily just patrolling the strait. This must be costing more than a billion a day total with all operations..
What are we doing!
4
klingma3 days ago
+9
Should we ignore how they funded the Houthi rebels who were actively attacking ships transiting the Bab Al-Mandab Strait last year, and strained maritime commerce?
It's not like Iran's hands are clean here.
9
IceMaker982 days ago
Apparently this would consistute a number of strikes on the country doing this that hits both civilian infrastructure as well as maybe military.
but ya know, america would never be hypocritical, they'd definitely be ok with the same thing they did to iran happening to them rigth?
0
Everheart19552 days ago
+2
What an absolutely horrendous waste of taxpayer dollars.
2
The_mingthing3 days ago
+1
So they stopped none?
1
Inner-Conclusion29773 days ago
+1
From reading the comments, you guys should check out Mr. Global. He explains all these current events
1
Emergency-Pack-54972 days ago
+1
Open the fuckin strait you crazy b******
1
Boys4Ever2 days ago
+1
Did we pick on anyone that can pick on us
1
Aggressive-Will-45002 days ago
+1
Do we have a more trustworthy source?
1
BaconISgoodSOGOOD2 days ago
+1
Is this the daily quota?
1
moofie742 days ago
+1
Boy that strait sounds open AF.
1
Pickledpickler292 days ago
+1
So Iran were blockading it, now the US is blockading it. Why is the US blockading it exactly?
1
LengthinessOk52412 days ago
+1
Are they Chinese?
1
Kaiel14122 days ago
+1
They really just be reporting small victories at this point just to bury the fact that
THE STRAIT IS STILL CLOSED
1
EntityLtdCo2 days ago
+1
No you didn't! It's like that one kid in class who always makes shit up.
1
MourningRIF2 days ago
+1
Great... Now how many got through? Wouldn't that be a better measure of the effectiveness of your blockade?
1
Significant-Law-37612 days ago
+1
Gee, can’t approve that Gaza canal fast enough eh?
1
manfr571 day ago
+1
Et ils sont contents les guignols
1
JColby0418 hr ago
+1
That’s right. Get em boys, and gals.
1
CarPhoneRonnie3 days ago
-5
huh weird thought u was tryin to open the strait homie
-5
GoodDecision3 days ago
+10
They are blocking the *ports* in Iran, not the strait. It's a blockade.
10
ohst8buxcp73 days ago
+14
For countries not named Iran yes....
14
PrandialSpork2 days ago
+1
If tanker interception is costing US Navy $4m each and Iran is charging $2m each
How about everyone just go home, put a clicker on the strait and US pay Iran $2m for every click. There's heaps of money just bump up the tariffs a bit more
Job done. Vote for me.
1
darthy_parker3 days ago
+1
With “friends” like the U.S., who needs enemies?
1
SirJezza2 days ago
+1
The whole war is nonsense but the U.S. blockade seems to be the only somewhat effective strategy they have tried at least now they can say they “control” the strait
1
tun3man3 days ago
+1
Only 13?! Hahahahhahahahahahaha
1
Kijimea08152 days ago
+1
Pentagon says.. that doesn't mean shit.
1
Key_Marsupial_14062 days ago
+5
It's pretty easy for international shipping vessels to be tracked. In fact they're all tracked on a public service via transponders on every single vessel. You can view it in real time on [marinetraffic.com](http://marinetraffic.com)
5
JJB462 days ago
+1
What gives a right to government and the president to be the president of the world?
1
imaginary_num6er3 days ago
Devil's in the details
0
Kei_CL3 days ago
-4
There is no "good guys" in this war. Just evil people trying to get money from the suffering o thousands. Iran government is evil but the US has sponsored so much terrorism and suffering in the world while acting like the good guys since 1945. Trump might be a evil pos but he is not doing anything different, he is just being more open about the evilness of the US.
-4
wwarnout3 days ago
So, applying the Trump administration truthfulness adjustment, either they stopped no ships, or they stopped hundreds.
182 Comments