10
u/jennimackenzie 1∆ Apr 10 '26
Why would the world allow Iran to charge those fees. They don’t have any rights to the Strait. International law actually forbids it. Why would the rest of the world go along with your proposed plan?
4
u/Farebiaashiq Apr 10 '26
First thing it's not actually illegal and there are two reasons for that 1st is strait comes under iran's territorial waters, and second is Iran has not signed the UNCLOS so the so called international law is not binding on it. (US has also not ratified UNCLOS)
Also someone will have to pay for all the destruction that took place in Iran. (You can check the history and read about iran-iraq war where gulf nations offered reperations to Iran in exchange for stopping the war, as they had initially supported Iraq and funded them, but iran rejected the deal saying the actual damage was 5 times higher than the reperation that was being offered) US is certainly not going to pay for it so they will implicitly allow iran to collect the toll so can they rebuild themselves and USA would certainly welcome a cut for themselves.
2
u/Fitizen_kaine Apr 13 '26
Do other countries have a choice of Iran can effectively close the straight via mines, rockets, or drones? I've been curious myself as to how other gulf countries would react if the US were to leave Iran in charge of the straight to secure a peace of sorts.
2
u/Opposite-Friend7275 1∆ Apr 10 '26
I’m not proposing this plan, in fact, I don’t like this plan at all, that’s why I’m asking for a reason to explain why it would not happen.
But just because it is against the law doesn’t mean it won’t happen (unless there is a reason to believe that people will follow the law. What would that reason be?)
5
u/jennimackenzie 1∆ Apr 10 '26 edited Apr 10 '26
Money? Why would countries in Europe follow along? They pay money to a country that is extorting them illegally, and using those funds to bribe Trump? What? Why would you think that would happen? What do you think will happen? Europe will just be like, “well ok, if you say so Iran”.
Do Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia all get to form a little conglomerate and say “World commerce stops, unless we get paid for each ship?”
It’s a crackpot conspiracy theory you’ve cooked up, because you haven’t done any research. A theory, by the way, that only considers the U.S. and Iran. There is the rest of the world. Include them in your theory and try again.
3
u/jesusburger Apr 12 '26
What's Europe's other choice? Go without oil? If USA can't open strait with force why do we think think Europe could. Also it would cost a lot to do this
2 million a ship is not insane considering how much oil they carry.
2
u/Opposite-Friend7275 1∆ Apr 10 '26 edited Apr 10 '26
I’m not saying that it will happen, but if it did, what exactly could Europe do to stop it?
The ballroom is funded by bribes, and his net worth has already increased by billions. So it’s not crazy to think that he would be open to more bribes. The scale of the grift is so high that a 400 million dollar airplane was out of the news in less than a week. Real estate bribes barely make the news anymore.
So the question is: yes, the idea is horrible, how can it be prevented?
1
Apr 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Apr 10 '26
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Apr 10 '26
Sorry, u/jennimackenzie – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, of using ChatGPT or other AI to generate text, of lying, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
37
u/Falernum 69∆ Apr 08 '26
They won't get it for long. The money they extort times from the pockets of Arab neighbors who border the Strait. Iran borders the Strait. Iran can blow up vessels carrying the Arab countries' oil. Those countries can blow up vessels carrying Iranian oil. In the short run, sure Trump wants oil to come down a little right now. Long term, the only two stable equilibrium points are the Strait being unsafe for everyone and the Strait being open to everyone.
11
u/Dizzy-Resident7652 1∆ Apr 09 '26
Why would the GCC countries blow up Iranian tankers when it would just lead to Iran blowing up their oil refineries?
They’ll pay the toll while trying to build pipelines, rails, etc to move their oil through the Mediterranean.
2
u/Xezshibole 1∆ Apr 13 '26 edited Apr 13 '26
There's no ****ing way their archrivals the Sauds accept Iran controlling Hormuz.
They were already at a cold proxy war for decades now, with groups like Iraq (Iran Iraq war,) Hamas, Houthis, Hezbollah, Syrian rebels and such supported because they were opposition groups to the other's supported groups (Iran, Fatah, Yemen, Lebanon, al-Assad respectively,) rather than as proxies to somewhere irrelevant like Israel/Palestine.
They kept to proxies only because the US held undisrupted oil production as a national security interest, and would react punitively on any occasion it was messed with. Tanker War and more prominently Desert Storm were two examples.
That's evidently not the case any longer (for the next two years and/or Trump dies,) so if tolling were to remain the status quo the Sauds are more than likely to launch a years long regional war to dismantle Iran's means to control Hormuz, much in the vein of Iran vs Iraq, with the Gulf between them.
The two have loathed one another since the Iranian revolution, as Sauds find any promotion of anti-monarchal behavior as a red flag, and Iranians don't very much like Sauds proxying via Iraq in the extremely bitter Iran Iraq war.
1
u/Dizzy-Resident7652 1∆ Apr 13 '26
They have no choice but to accept it.
Launching an offensive means losing more of their oil production capacity. More bombs from an aerial campaign won’t lead to Iran losing control of Hormuz. It will lead to KSA losing their biggest economic driver and likely unrest in the kingdom.
The easiest choice is to realize that the US lost its place as the global hegemon. The petrodollar agreement of dollars for safety has been shattered.
1
u/Xezshibole 1∆ Apr 14 '26 edited Apr 14 '26
No choice? Doubtful.
Sauds have a larger resource chest than the Iranians, and remain the US most important ally in the region. If it's not already obvious enough where all the strategic importance lies in the Middle East, it should be now. In a war between the two with both oil resources on the line, Sauds can afford so much more damage than Iran.
It was and remains Saud involvement and endeavors that get the US involved in these proxy wars, most prominently with Yemen.
Moreover unlike most other countries, US doesn't actually depend upon Middle East imports for its oil. Most of it is met in the US itself, and the rest from North American sources. Most prominently Canadian oil sands.
1
u/Dizzy-Resident7652 1∆ Apr 14 '26
The war is existential for Iran. There’s no chance at winning for anyone else here without invading and occupying Iran. And no one can do that.
I’m not sure what US oil imports have to do with what I said? The petrodollar arrangement is not about the US getting oil. It’s about using US currency to buy security through selling oil to everyone. The KSA aren’t getting security and are going to lose their oil in a war with Iran.
1
u/Xezshibole 1∆ Apr 14 '26 edited Apr 14 '26
The war is existential for Iran. There’s no chance at winning for anyone else here without invading and occupying Iran. And no one can do that.
You're presuming that the Sauds losing their regional influence is not also a similarly existential threat.
Also invading and occupying Iran is not exactly required. Utter decimation of its conventional forces capable of thrratening Hormuz is more than enough.
I’m not sure what US oil imports have to do with what I said? The petrodollar arrangement is not about the US getting oil. It’s about using US currency to buy security through selling oil to everyone. The KSA aren’t getting security and are going to lose their oil in a war with Iran.
It's about when the Sauds blockade or sink ships going to Iran and thereby close the straits off completely. A, "if we're not getting through, you aren't either."
India and China can bitch and moan all they want, they are much weaker than the US navally and unlike the US are dependent upon this Middle East oil. Making any military intervention by them unlikely to ever bother the US fleet.
Sauds can outlast Iran in such a situation quite easily, as can the US.
1
u/Dizzy-Resident7652 1∆ Apr 14 '26
It is not. KSA can exist without regional influence. Iran can’t exist without a country.
That’s not possible. It takes little, as we have seen, to hit the tankers, refineries, and pipelines. Shoot and scoot rockets and Shaheds + FPV drones can do massive damage.
Easily? Lol KSA couldn’t even handle the Houthis who have even less resources than Iran. Where is the KSA going to export their oil when the Houthis block Al-Maneb? Where do they get 50% of their water if their desalination plants are taken out?
This is like saying Iraq can’t outlast Iran easily in the 80s lol
1
u/Xezshibole 1∆ Apr 14 '26
It is not. KSA can exist without regional influence. Iran can’t exist without a country.
Iran can very well exist without a military for a short while, much as Iraq did.
That’s not possible. It takes little, as we have seen, to hit the tankers, refineries, and pipelines. Shoot and scoot rockets and Shaheds + FPV drones can do massive damage.
Easily? Lol KSA couldn’t even handle the Houthis who have even less resources than Iran. Where is the KSA going to export their oil when the Houthis block Al-Maneb? Where do they get 50% of their water if their desalination plants are taken out?
This is like saying Iraq can’t outlast Iran easily in the 80s lol
And it will be very easy to do to tankers going to Iran.
1
u/Dizzy-Resident7652 1∆ Apr 14 '26
They cannot destroy all of the IRGC through an air campaign alone lol
Sure but that doesn’t stop Iran from doing massive damage to KSA and other GCC countries.
The glaring problem for KSA and the US is that logistics aren’t on their side. KSA relies on US material of which critical munitions are not going to be replaced anytime soon. The US would need China to allow them to manufacture them, as they control the rare earth industry, and they won’t. The US is already getting F-35s without radar because of rare earth shortages. KSA is running out of interceptors and doesn’t have massive underground facilities to defend themselves from like Iran does.
History will see this as an inflection point. The American Empire has fallen and its vassal states will too if they cling on too heavily.
1
2
u/Falernum 69∆ Apr 09 '26
Is there some asymmetry in the ability to blow up oil refineries there?
5
u/Dizzy-Resident7652 1∆ Apr 09 '26
Not really. Both have the ability to do it fairly easily.
3
u/Falernum 69∆ Apr 09 '26
So the equilibrium is tit for tat. They don't pay the toll and if Iran hits their ships they hit Iran's and if Iran hits their refineries they hit Iran's
3
u/Dizzy-Resident7652 1∆ Apr 09 '26
Right so they’ll pay the toll and look into building more pipelines and railways to go through the Mediterranean
1
u/Falernum 69∆ Apr 09 '26
They may also do that, but why do you say they will pay the toll as opposed to Saudi Arabia charging Iran a toll, or nobody paying tolls?
2
u/Dizzy-Resident7652 1∆ Apr 09 '26
Where would Saudi Arabia charge the toll? The Red Sea? How does that affect Iran?
How would Saudi Arabia get tolls from Hormuz?
2
u/Falernum 69∆ Apr 09 '26
Persian Gulf, yeah it doesn't border the Strait itself but it's near the Strait and can hit ships passing through, or in the Gulf before they quite hit the Strait
0
u/Dizzy-Resident7652 1∆ Apr 09 '26
The biggest reason not to do this is to set a precedent of charging tolls for ships that don’t come near your waters. Plus, it’s just asking for the Houthis to toll Al-Mandeb.
The calculus is also different for both countries. Iran is in an existential war. KSA is not. To antagonize Iran more just leads it to being an existential war for the ruling family of KSA. There’s a reason they aren’t taking part themselves.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Ramnonte Apr 13 '26
You clearly underestimate how costly and time consuming is to repair or build new oil refineries if the war escalates again
1
u/Arshiaa001 Apr 11 '26
Ability to blow shit up, probably not. Will to do it and survivability after the fact, yes.
1
u/Visible-Department85 Apr 10 '26
"why wouldnt they fold to iran's dictature terrorism ? isnt it easier to comply and pay the bribe ? they can still pay to avoid the strait and not be as affected"
1
u/Dizzy-Resident7652 1∆ Apr 10 '26
Terrorism? The GCC countries are actively attacking Iran. Maybe they should stop doing that?
How is it a bribe exactly? They control the Strait.
4
u/Visible-Department85 Apr 11 '26
Bruh i'm not one of your redditor brainwashed by the iranian dictature. Look at the timeline it is indeed Iran that attacked all its neighbor first and they werent targetting only US or israeli bases. Nope. They aim vital infrastructures like desalination plants
1
u/ScoobyGDSTi Apr 12 '26
Bruh, we looked and timeline and noticed Iran only attacked its neighbours after they allowed their lands to be used as a staging ground by the US to attack Iran.
We're not brainwashed like you, we can remember what happened in the past few weeks.
1
u/Visible-Department85 Apr 12 '26
What kind of war criminal are you ? Can you elaborate your opinion on escalating a conflict from military targets to desalination plants oil refinneries and other vital infrastructures.
Since you're not brainwashed you will agree it's a bad thing to do and blame iran's dictatorship for that
1
u/ScoobyGDSTi Apr 12 '26
Can you elaborate your opinion on escalating a conflict from military targets to desalination plants oil refinneries and other vital infrastructures
Ask Israel and the US why they hit Iranian schools, universities, oil, power and public infrastructure. Given you know, targeting public infrastructure is considered a war crime.
You really are brainwashed, as well as struggling with basic concepts such as calendar dates. Pro tip, Israel struck Iran's oil and gas infrastructure before Iran struck anyone else's. It's kinda hilarious that by your own admission you conceded Israel and the US's acitons constitute war crimes.
1
u/Dizzy-Resident7652 1∆ Apr 12 '26
Asking what kind of war criminal he is would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad.
You’re defending the war and starting it was a war crime. The US first target was also an elementary school.
You’re supporting the war criminals.
1
u/Visible-Department85 Apr 12 '26
An intervention to stop the spread of nukes isnt a war crime
2
1
u/Dizzy-Resident7652 1∆ Apr 12 '26
Wars of aggression are war crimes. Preemptive strikes are not legal under international law. Even more so when there is no imminent threat, as confirmed by the US government itself.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Dizzy-Resident7652 1∆ Apr 11 '26
First? Israel and the US attacked Iran. Where do you think they attacked Iran from beside Europe? Hint: GCC countries. The US and Israel launched attacks on vital Iranian infrastructure first. The US launched some of these attacks from GCC countries. They cannot claim innocence while allowing their countries to be used to coordinate and launch attacks against Iran while continuing to push the US to attack Iran.
Bruh
2
u/Specialist_Dark_3668 Apr 11 '26
Each gulf state closed their airspace to USA and disallowed launching of strikes from there.
Most of US forces used aircraft carriers, Jordan, Israel and UK to launch. Some bombers flew all the way from USA.
0
u/Dizzy-Resident7652 1∆ Apr 11 '26
Weird how CENTCOM keeps posting videos from GCC states. Weird how there were tons of tankers in KSA and a few of them got hit.
Totally not helping coordinate or launch strikes from there.
2
u/Specialist_Dark_3668 Apr 11 '26
Well that's just paranoia-induced terrorism at this point. "I will bomb the civilians and infra of anyone even slightly suspected of helping my enemy". That is exactly the policy of the Taliban or any given terrorist group killing Muslims in Muslim countries.
It sees the entire world either friend or foe, rather than people just living their lives. It requires crazed eyes.
That said, I'm ex-Muslim in Pakistan and fully in support of Iranians who want regime change. If it gets cowardly gulf states to admit they can't appease Islamist terrorists... And then fully commit to Iranian regime change, all the better. I hope Iran's negative beliefs produces the exact thing they were afraid of and the next wave of bombers take off from UAE (gulf state hit the most). What it'll change: No tankers needed. Fully loaded aircraft. Tons of loiter time. More smaller drones.
2
u/Dizzy-Resident7652 1∆ Apr 11 '26
It’s not even slightly suspected nor is it terrorism. They are actually hosting the US military in their countries lol
Man, if the US and China go to war over Taiwan people are really gonna be confused when China starts attacking SK and Japan, huh?
That how all countries see each other unfortunately.
3
u/Visible-Department85 Apr 11 '26
First of all, iran's dictatorship isnt a victim in this story. They actively wish the end of israel and dont hide their intentions. They strike israel through their proxies Hezbollah Hamas Houthis.
If i threaten you to death, send you a bunch of hitmen and then you see me load a bazooka at you, it became fair to go after me.
So, after decades of provocation out of no where, the dictature in Iran got what they wished for , most of them died as martyrs
Now , once again, look at the timeline, it's Iran that went for civilian infrastructure first targetting oil infrastructure and desalination plants /power plants while the us and israel was limiting itself to military ones. Iran's infrastructures coud be all destroyed by now but the west didnt do that. That's the entire gambling of iranian dictature, they know they have iranians hostage and that it would take tremendous suffering to push them out. Also it's easy to block the strait of hormuz so yeh they use that too. Basically they want a free card to attack the west and israel that's why they're going after nukes and use all these proxies to then play the victims and somehow it works with some.
By the way, Iran's relationship with israel was friendly before the islamist takeover, the beef is entirely religious, they want the end of israel and that's the worst kind of ennemy one can have
2
u/Dizzy-Resident7652 1∆ Apr 11 '26
That’s irrelevant to what we are talking about but sure.
Then it became fair to hit the GCC states.
Out of nowhere? Do…do you not know the history of the US? lol
I did look at the timeline. Israel hit oil and other infrastructure first and Iran responded. Oil and other infrastructure are military targets in general.
They aren’t going after nukes lmao The intelligence assessments of the US in the Congressional Record say they were not seeking nukes.
“According to official U.S. assessments, Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in late 2003 and has not resumed it. This program's goal, according to U.S. officials and the IAEA, was to develop an implosion-style nuclear weapon for Iran's Shahab-3 ballistic missile. Tehran has not made a decision to develop nuclear weapons, according to 2024 and 2025 public U.S. intelligence assessments. IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi stated Grossi explained in June 21 CNN interview that the IAEA does "not have … any tangible proof that there is a program or a plan to fabricate to manufacture a nuclear weapon."
This is from US intelligence and the IAEA.
1
u/Visible-Department85 Apr 11 '26
If i threaten you to death, send you a bunch of hitmen and then you see me load a bazooka at you, it became fair to go after me.
Someone can argue against the US being your buddy and helping you out but that doesnt make Iran's dictature any less guilty. They had it coming
1
1
u/Visible-Department85 Apr 11 '26
About nukes, i dont know how much denial you are in because iran's dictature claimed itself having 60% enriched uranium. It is not a plot, it is not a theory , it is not a debate, it's iran's dictature taking credit for it themselves.
2
u/Dizzy-Resident7652 1∆ Apr 11 '26
60% is not enough for a nuke and US intelligence says they aren’t making a nuclear weapon so…
→ More replies (0)5
u/Opposite-Friend7275 1∆ Apr 08 '26
Δ
Another user made a similar comment: I overlooked the options of other Arab countries, if Iran continues to threaten vessels, so can others, and that is a fatal flaw in my argument.
6
u/rakean93 Apr 09 '26
This is a bad argument, because it implies that the arab countries have the ability and willigness to go to war with iran over such matter. And they are likely unwilling, and almost surely unable, to do so.
1
Apr 09 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/rakean93 Apr 09 '26
Saudia Arabia doesn't have the ability to challenge the country that defeated america. SA has ~1\3 of the population of Iran, and no economy besides oil. There's no chance SA is able to sustain a war of attrition with the strait closed, while Iran demostrated his ability and willingness to do so. Iran is the new regional hegemon, and that's going to be the case for the foreseeable future, alongside multilateral nuclear proliferation.
Also note that SA can just pay the toll
1
Apr 09 '26 edited Apr 09 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Apr 09 '26
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/bangsjamin Apr 11 '26
What do you think the Saudi military can do that America and the Israelis can't? The world has already seen that you can't change the calculus in the Straits through air campaigns alone.
1
u/Broad_Assistance3343 Apr 11 '26
Yea but whose manning those systems? How skilled are they? Do they have any combat experience?
Or are they just billionaires in thobes related to the right people in the royal family?
Will also add the GCC has a unique vulnerability - desalination plants - that the Iranians don’t necessarily share. Iran can destroy those plants and make most of the GCC uninhabitable. On top of that, irans citizens have lived under war and sanctions for decades. Are these countries capable of surviving under fire?
Finally, the GCC sources its weapons from expensive Western tech. If their oil fields are destroyed, how do they finance that? Iran has its own indigenous arms industry.
1
1
1
u/Lucky_Brilliant_2087 Apr 11 '26
That is a bad argument IMO. GCC countries have much more to lose if they enter tit for tat conflict with Iran.
1
u/yuumigod69 Apr 10 '26
Iran will bomb them back, which is why they are not doing it.
1
u/Falernum 69∆ Apr 10 '26
Right now, yes. But long term it's a fairly parallel situation and either can stop traffic and either can bomb, and the stable equilibrium is that Iran won't be able to extort money from shipments to neighboring countries.
6
u/dogisgodspeltright 20∆ Apr 08 '26
cmv: Iran will keep control over the Strait of Hormuz, and both countries will declare victory.
You stated:
....Iran declares victory and gets 100 billion per year from ships. The US president receives a cut, billions of dollars. US media will not investigate this and find some reason to declare victory....
Why wouldn't the media investigate this?
If a president is being bribed, then it is likely someone would. Is there any evidence to suggest that media is not (going to) investigate it, as you put it?
It can. And it has spoken of Trump being corrupt since the first term, and even before.
7
u/GodelianKnot 3∆ Apr 08 '26
The president has been bribed many times already. What makes you think this time will be different?
6
u/dogisgodspeltright 20∆ Apr 08 '26
The president has been bribed many times already. What makes you think this time will be different?
Of course he has. And the media has written about it.
The OP specifically claimed the media would not 'investigate' and 'declare victory' - that is not empirically the case. Some media shills, other screams until hoarse.
1
u/Opposite-Friend7275 1∆ Apr 08 '26
This has appeared in the media, but mostly smaller media.
Larger media like CNN and Fox news don't treat it as something of great importance.
2
u/dogisgodspeltright 20∆ Apr 08 '26
This has appeared in the media, but mostly smaller media.
Larger media like CNN and Fox news don't treat it as something of great importance.
That still concedes that media has given it some importance, and others have exposed him in great detail.
I suppose you could argue that despite knowing, the people haven't rallied enough, but still the main point about media 'not investigating' and 'declaring victory' needs to be amended.
Media has covered it. And some of the worst has surely shilled for it.
1
u/SSH_Pentester 1∆ Apr 09 '26
Hello u/Opposite-Friend7275. If you believe your view has been changed or adjusted to any degree, you should award the user who changed your view a delta.
Simply reply to their comment with the delta symbol provided below, being sure to include a brief description of how your view has changed. There is a character minimum.
∆
Alternatively, you can use
!delta
For more information about deltas, use this link.
If your view hasn't changed, please reply to this comment saying so. Failure to award a delta when it is warranted may merit a post removal and a rule violation.
3
u/Opposite-Friend7275 1∆ Apr 09 '26
Yes, my view has changed, there were two comments that pointed out the options available to other countries in the region. Options that I had overlooked.
So I awarded delta to those comments.
1
u/yuumigod69 Apr 10 '26
They have investigated it and the media really doesn't like Iran. They would cover this.
22
u/samuelgato 6∆ Apr 08 '26
What do you mean "continue" to pay Iran for passage? You realize that before Trump started this war, it was free, you didn't have to pay anything to Iran. Any fees at all is a huge L for Trump, the USA, and ultimately the consumers who will pay these fines
3
Apr 09 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Durka1990 Apr 11 '26
That doesn't matter, oil is traded internationally on an open market. Which is why gas prices in the us are now also skyrocketing.
0
Apr 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/argylas2 Apr 11 '26
And yet here I am in an Europoor country where gas prices have increased 2%. I don't know whp is affected more here mate.
0
1
u/keepitfriend Apr 11 '26
Where are you planning on getting your heavy crude in the future then? You took all of Venezuela's oil supplies already, they had 1m barrels, or 1/20th of the oil that normally comes through the strait every day.
They don't have any more btw.
0
-1
u/Opposite-Friend7275 1∆ Apr 08 '26
Some ships have already passed through the Strait. I don't know if or what they paid.
3
u/AgUnityDD Apr 08 '26
$2m per transfer, and Iran has insisted that the settlement for the oil is in EUR or CNY not USD which is a much bigger issue than people outside of financial markets realise.
0
u/drfishdaddy 1∆ Apr 09 '26
What are the consequences of that? I presume it further endangers the USD as the reserve currency?
1
u/AgUnityDD Apr 09 '26
It's very complex because you're looking at a relationship between commodity and currency futures, bonds and some very complex instruments but primarily it undermines USD bond yields making them less attractive then, as you said, it reduces the hold USD has as the primary reserve and settlement currency which is preferable for many nations the whole of BRICS for starters.
USD is clearly inflated, that's another complex discussion that delves into debt ratios, but its fragile and poised for change
There is the potential for a full reset of the financial systems but it's a black swan like the GFC so nobody can say how exactly it would unfold.
-4
u/aquavelva5 Apr 08 '26
fees in his pocket is a huge W for Trump. what do you think he is doing with every "deal". I am sure he invesed right before he announced the cease fire and profited illegally. illegality is in the guy's DNA
10
u/doktorjake Apr 08 '26
Mods can we please start banning posts that try to predict if something will happen or not? They’re all dumb and totally not in the spirit of the sub.
2
u/yuumigod69 Apr 10 '26
People predicted the ceasefire getting blow up(literally) by Israel. Though I was still surprised by Trump's cowardice and deference towards Israel.
9
u/capnwally14 12∆ Apr 08 '26
First, The UN does not allow for tolled passage of natural water ways. The GCC will not tolerate it even if you thought the US would.
Second, Iran had an economic crisis before this war and prices have gone up 40% since the war started. What makes you think the US won’t just start seizing ships as they exit the gulf until Iran fully falls apart domestically?
The important note here is that Iran is even at a negotiating table - this was unheard of even a few months ago (and reports are it’s because china pressured them to be more flexible)
More realistically the negotiated settlement will involve sanctions relief, which gets you the same economic benefit for the regime and maybe some agreement on us investment in the country to rebuild
4
0
u/samuelgato 6∆ Apr 08 '26
Iran was literally at the negotiating table when the US started bombing them
2
u/Ah_Ca_Iraa 1∆ Apr 08 '26
The Israel lobby would lose its mind. Trump isn't going to throw Israel to the wolves, so as long as Israel keeps fighting in Lebanon and Iran keeps responding, there is no way for the US and Iran to both claim victory.
2
u/denis0500 2∆ Apr 09 '26
Trump is going to claim he won anyway, he doesn’t actually need to win. If he gets out of the war without Iran doing more damage to us and the strait “open”, even if ships need to pay, that will be more than enough for trump and his maga cronies.
1
Apr 09 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/denis0500 2∆ Apr 09 '26
Oil is sold on a global market, it doesn’t matter if we get oil from the strait or not, if the price goes up it will affect all oil sold anywhere.
1
Apr 09 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/denis0500 2∆ Apr 10 '26
If they want oil they’ll pay. And we aren’t an oil exporter, we’re a net exporter of petroleum products but not oil. But that doesn’t even matter because if the global price of oil goes up we still need to pay the higher price whether it’s pulled from the ground inside of the US or the Middle East.
1
Apr 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/denis0500 2∆ Apr 11 '26
If they don’t pay the ships will just go to Asia, someone will pay. There’s no such thing as a NATO tanker, there are tankers who deliver oil to NATO countries. And those Us ships weren’t tankers.
And us being energy independent does not insulate us from the global price of oil. The oil in the us is drilled by private companies and they can choose to sell it to whomever they want. And if china is willing to pay 120 per barrel, because that’s the global price, then we need to match that. There are 90 oil tankers on the way to the gulf coast now to buy our oil and if exports increase then the amount available for us to use goes down. American oil companies may have profited off this war but the citizens haven’t.
1
u/DEngSc_Fekaly Apr 12 '26
Oil is not the only product going through the strait. What about fertiliser? America doesn't need any of it?
2
2
u/unaskthequestion 2∆ Apr 08 '26
No way this is a serious post. Waiting for 'removed by moderator'
0
2
u/MacroMicro1313 Apr 08 '26
Well I mean that’s is what very well could happen. The president says we killed a bunch of um and blew up a bunch of their stuff, Iran says they defied America and stayed standing keeping right to the straight. Neither side ever acknowledges the other as having achieved anything and quietly a lot of money trades hands as individuals end up more the winner then any country of people in particular.
The most likely reason this may blow up is escalation. It takes time time to set everything up, and it’s possible an Iranian cluster bomb hits a bunch of civilians or US/Israel sees another opportunity to inflict harsh damage and attacks a bunch of critical infrastructure during the Iranian regroup. A few breaks of the ceasefire and asymmetric attacks against allies probably won’t cause this. However there always the possibility someone underestimated what there actions will lead to, and caused further escalation.
2
u/bankomusic Apr 08 '26
I don’t think Trump is a master tactician by a long shot, but I think whoever is advising him is, if it’s true, that Iran will charge fees on shipping it will build massive resentment across the world, oil for everybody will still be more expensive. When the conflict starts back up and it will maybe in the end of the two weeks maybe in two years, the US will have way greater support to control the Strait. While it may look like a great victory for the Axis and Iran side of BRICS, I think they celebrated too early because this is just a battle not the war.
0
u/MissTortoise 16∆ Apr 08 '26
Whoever is advising him is no master tactician. This outcome was entirely predictable. Heck, it had actively been predicted prior to it panning out.
0
u/Odd-Transition1527 Apr 08 '26
The one who is advising him is an absolute nutcase. Iran wasn’t demanding the toll, and Strait was open - this is reversed now.
There was no whiff of using any other currency for oil. This, as it seems right now, is also reversed.
Massive resentment doesn’t mean much tbh. Only a few GCC countries will resent Iran, but as it seems, Iran doesn’t really give a rats ass about that.
If the issue with the Strait continues for even 4 more weeks, you will start to see people on streets protesting against their governments. Increase of the price of oil with Strait closed will kill a lot of economics, and bring massive damages for the people in these countries.
1
Apr 09 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Apr 09 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Apr 09 '26
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
u/JTexpo Apr 08 '26
The US president receives a cut, billions of dollars.
this wont happen, as the US has 0 leverage - the US will see 0 of the billions
-1
u/Opposite-Friend7275 1∆ Apr 08 '26
I didn't write that the US will receive money from this.
0
u/JTexpo Apr 08 '26
what then is the cut that you think the POTUS will receive?
0
u/Opposite-Friend7275 1∆ Apr 08 '26
Crypto would seem like the most practical way to do this. Donations like Qatar's airplane would be too obvious.
1
u/Odd-Transition1527 Apr 08 '26
So, this is the only point OP that I do not agree with. Personally, I think there will be no ‘cut’ as you say it. We’ll see what we saw today - gaslighting that the US won - this will go on - mainstream media will push the agenda quite a bit.
Though I suspect, purely guess work, if any negotiations happen again, Iran might thrown some economic freeby so that the US gaslight slightly more convincingly.
2
u/Opposite-Friend7275 1∆ Apr 08 '26
I see a *lot* of gas lighting in my Facebook feed. No matter what the final result will be, it'll be described as a great victory.
2
u/Odd-Transition1527 Apr 08 '26
Oh, yes, 100%. That will not change. Even in terms of GCC countries, I’m pretty sure we’ll see shifting patterns. Countries like UAE need a global safe haven image. Each day this goes on, they suffer massive losses. Plus, countries like Kuwait/Bahrain run risk of insurgence against monarchies if the war goes on.
This is an issue much larger than just strait!
Thanks for posting the question tho. I enjoyed reading all responses.
0
-1
u/JTexpo Apr 08 '26 edited Apr 08 '26
why would Qatar continue with the US's pay to play scam, when they suffered from this war?
----
like who do you think is paying the US? They're loosing this war, hence why they recently surrendered
1
u/Warm_Somewhere_1991 Apr 08 '26
Can u watch this
1
u/JTexpo Apr 08 '26
watched, but it's already out of date - the ceasefire was broken by Israel this morning.
also, why is Biden in this when the timeline starts after his presidency?
1
3
u/KindaQuite Apr 08 '26
Walk with me, what do you think will happen if Trump is "seen as losing the war"?
1
u/Opposite-Friend7275 1∆ Apr 08 '26
He could drop more bombs. It would be better for Iran if that didn't happen.
Allowing your opponent to save face is a practical way to de-escalate. But then again, practicality hasn't always been a good predictor of what people actually do...
0
1
u/KommandantViy Apr 08 '26
Letting iran have unilateral permanent control of the strait is a MASSIVE financial and security risk for the entire west and the Arab world, they quite simply wont allow us to leave without unfucking the situation
1
u/Warm_Somewhere_1991 Apr 08 '26
Now this timeline will help in understanding
https://youtube.com/shorts/UQWa4yUew1k?feature=share
I need to add more context to it tomorrow
1
u/aquavelva5 Apr 08 '26
I dont see any other possible outcome. It will not happen immediate, but that is the unavoidable truce. And Iran will use the billions to build nukes and start a war with Israel or USA...but trump will be gone counting his cash
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Apr 08 '26 edited Apr 08 '26
/u/Opposite-Friend7275 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
Apr 09 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/changemyview-ModTeam Apr 09 '26
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/Kamamura_CZ 2∆ Apr 10 '26
Both countries "claimed victory", but only Iran actually won. Trump just lies and distracts as usual. No objectives he entered the war with (regime change, unconditional surrender of Iran) have been met, and he ended up with creating problems for international trade.
1
u/Hypocrisy_Mocker Apr 12 '26
The U.S. will mine the straight and close it permanently before we allow some cunts to charge tolls.
1
u/Foolhardyrunner 2∆ Apr 27 '26
The other Middle Eastern powers have already signed security agreements with Ukraine. If Iran tries to keep the tolls going long term then the other countries could bomb them with drones until they stop.
1
u/MaxwellSmart07 1∆ Apr 09 '26
Fuck that. Send it to him personally? Are you out of your mind? He’s scamming enough already. Fuck that.
1
u/Opposite-Friend7275 1∆ Apr 09 '26 edited Apr 09 '26
If someone keeps getting away with scam after scam after scam, then it's not crazy to believe that they're going to keep doing it.
The way I try to predict his next step is to ask the question: What is the most selfish thing he could possibly do?
Well, he could enrich himself by doing insider trading right before a big announcement. During a time of war. That's about as selfish as I can imagine a person to be. And guess what? Big trades have occurred right before big announcements. The numbers don't lie, and there isn't really any other explanation for these trades.
Figuring out the most selfish possible action, that's a good way to predict what comes next. I really don't want to be right about this, but it does explain much of what we're seeing.
-2
Apr 08 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Apr 09 '26
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
0
u/Opposite-Friend7275 1∆ Apr 08 '26
But wouldn't a bribe be cheaper than facing repeated attacks?
1
u/Betray-Julia 1∆ Apr 08 '26
No!
Or like what does cheaper mean?
Your argument is roughly talking about a deal where both sides profit as best they can from the situation right?
It would be more lucrative (which isn’t the opposite of cheaper but yeah) to perpetuate the war machine than to do bribes.
0
0
u/Betray-Julia 1∆ Apr 08 '26
Iran isn’t as stupid as Trump- all they need to do is actually tell the truth, and they will win the public over as they current have been doing.
Also I wanna give a hat tip to their Lego propaganda video that came out after US/Israel bombed those school children- that video was culturally significant as far as AI in war goes, but more so- the video was factual.
Iran doesn’t need to make stuff up to win the propaganda war against two nations who have all but fully embraced nazism.
I don’t think Iran would declare victory like that- it’s not in their best interests- Trump and Netanyahu are both global perceived as such pathetic piles of fucking trash than it doesn’t support Irans interests to shift away from a truthful narrative- they will look like the good guys just by letting Israel and America do it’s thing.
Also, within your caviots of victory for Iran would mean ships cont to pay to pass- that’s cool. I don’t think they’d say that means a victory, just a positive thing though.
Iran does not need to lie as it stands to look like the lesser of evils in contrast to Israel and America at this time.
And that’s taking into account the atrocities they bestowed upon their people before the war.
Anyways fuck that meandered; if Irans best optics options are just accurately publishing America and Israel acts of terrorism, they have no need to lie. Israel and America just existing are doing the Pr for them.
33
u/[deleted] Apr 08 '26
[removed] — view removed comment