How high can we get prices at the pump? We’re going to find out.
62
EsperaDeus3 days ago
+11
Bessent suggests US could see $3 gas between June 20 and September 20
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5832776-strait-hormuz-gas-prices/
11
abbzug3 days ago
+50
Is he suggesting we're switching to the metric system?
50
Lower-Limit36953 days ago
+34
it would be hilarious if the US switched over to metric because MAGA voters would be too stupid to know the difference between liters and gallons.
34
perenniallandscapist3 days ago
+7
Oh my gosh! Gas prices went down 75%! Yay! /s
The joke being a liter is about a quarter of a gallon.
7
HOLEPUNCHYOUREYELIDS3 days ago
+2
Just like how they stopped 1/3 lb burgers because people thought it was less than a 1/4 lb burger lol
2
foghillgal3 days ago
+9
Bessent talks out of his ass once again.
9
giantroboticcat3 days ago
+8
Bold prediction to claim that gas prices will drop during the season gas prices historically peak.
8
Im_better_than__u3 days ago
+5
Of what year 2028, 2029...?
5
Desert-Noir3 days ago
+3
We are paying $3 a litre here already.
3
inothatidontno3 days ago
+2
Europe or Australia? We americans do not realize how good we have it at least in some aspects. Gas was $3.50 a gallon on my drive home today. I went electric last year so idc anymore.
2
Desert-Noir3 days ago
+2
Australia, NZ is a little bit more than us too. Europe is another level.
2
imaginary_num6er3 days ago
+2
That’s nice for Californians
2
Unknown_Default3 days ago
+1
Gonna just slurp all their lies huh
1
Ancient-Bat17553 days ago
+1
Oh thank goodness, I was worried since I only paid $3.89 today.
1
HystericalSail3 days ago
+18
Clue has been obtained. Our administration finally figured out that Russia and Iran already sell all the oil they produce, it's not like they can produce more. They just got higher prices as a result of the waivers.
18
Professional_Mud_3163 days ago
+5
***IRAN’S OIL***
*Peace Magazine*
*1 Apr 2026*
***The United States and United Kingdom have long inclined toward sanctioning Iran, its officials, and their allies. These sanctions have significantly reduced Iran’s oil revenue.***
***The 1979 Revolution, which expelled major Western interests from Iran, was largely driven by British and American corporations’ exploitation of Iran’s abundant fossil fuel resources. That expulsion represented an enormous loss of profit — a lesson that energy industry executives appear have not forgotten. These corporations have lobbied in Washington and London to ensure such an outcome never happens to them again, anywhere in the world.***
***Should Iran be militarily defeated by Western forces, it would almost certainly be compelled to reopen its vast fossil fuel reserves to those energy companies. Those corporate interests — and likely the Israeli government as well — would welcome the fall of the Iranian government as a means of regaining access to those resources.***
***The U.S. and British invasion and occupation of Iraq from 2003 to 2011 were probably driven by precisely this kind of corporate greed. Some American companies secured lucrative contracts for oil services and exploration in Iraq following the war, and British companies — particularly BP — gained significant access to Iraq’s oil reserves.***
***Yet I saw virtually nothing in mainstream Western media about these post-war corporate incursions into Iraq. I have little confidence that the same outlets would report fully on similar developments in a post-war Iran.***
*Frank Sterle Jr. White Rock, B.C.*
5
jzsang3 days ago
+13
Good! Easing sanctions on Russian oil only makes Russia to want the war between the U.S. and Iran to continue.
If Russia wants more sanctions relief, they should stop in Ukraine. Of course, Putin’s ego won’t allow it.
13
DexJedi3 days ago
+8
Sounds logical.
My gut feeling tells me Trump will call for Ukraine to stop resisting instead.
8
Shot-Toe-28843 days ago
You could seriously argue that was the point of Trump lightening their sanctions. To incentivize Russia not to get involved. But the problem with that is Russia was never going to get involved in the first place.
An orthodox Christian society isn’t about to go to war for an Islamist theocracy just so the theocrats can keep their nukes. Pretty fuckin hard to justify that to any population.
0
jzsang3 days ago
+2
I *think* I’m following your idea, but if I am not and need to be clearer:
I am not saying Russia was ever going to go directly against Iran. They definitely weren’t. They are allies when it is convenient. Russia has for example supplied Iran with weapons and intelligence and seemingly continues to license Iranian drone technology in their invasion of Ukraine.
If I wasn’t clear, what I am trying to say is, after the sanctions waiver was announced, Russia might’ve thought that, as long as the war in Middle East continues, they would continue to get temporary sanctions relief to help stabilize the price of oil. This line of thinking would obviously incentivize Russia to continue to supply Iran with weapons and intelligence to ultimately prolong the war.
2
Colbert20203 days ago
+6
Easing the sanctions on your CURRENT ENEMY IN WAR so they can GENERATE EVEN MORE WEALTH DURING THE WAR had to be the stupidest decision I've ever f****** seen. It had to be made by Trump or his stupid Secretary of Treasury.
They should have blockaded Iran's oil ON DAY ONE OF THE STRAIT BEING CLOSED. Instead Trump just flailed around like a petulant toddler.
6
Majestic-Attitude6153 days ago
+1
has that ever been done - incoherent policy - if you are trying to change a regime - letting them acquire more money seems like a fantastic idea
26 Comments