No one particularly responds to the points that the administration sucks at selling the war. First and foremost, they had to sell it to Americans and allies BEFORE it started.
We have heard as reasons that they were about to launch a first strike, and that a bomb was imminent. We know the first was BS, as was the second. Trump had said Midnight Hammer set back their program "decades." Just yesterday Hegseth said Midnight Hammer "obliterated" their program.
So we did not have to launch this war now for either reason. Leaving it to certainly appear that Israel wanted to control part of Lebanon and we decided to help.
Obviously we thought we could do this and control the situation. There is reporting out that the troops killed in Saudi Arabia early on did not have drone protection. Hegseth yesterday did not directly refute that. So we launched an attack when we did without having all our defensive assets deployed, costing us lives. We began the war with the minesweepers halfway around the world.
It seems obvious we launched based solely on the decapitation. That would lead to the logical conclusion, we thought that was all that was needed. Hit a couple of key other leaders and military units and Iran will collapse.
So now we are at the cease fire. I cannot fault the administration for this but it clearly is because we are out of weapons. We can no longer sustain the pace we were on and we would have to slow up, making us look weaker.
None of that has anything to do with the next question .
Leaving now creates major problems. I feel like Germans learning we were at war with the USSR. There were undoubtedly Germans who saw that as a massive mistake, but, once made there weren't a lot of choices beyond "don't lose to the Soviets." Late in the war it exhibited itself by maps tracking Allied advance compared to Soviet and repeated threats from Hitler to western commanders to defend or else.
So now we are stuck, we have to have the Straight open and we have to have the program stopped. If there was doubt before, and there was as we fought proxy wars against the soviets for 40 years without anyone going nuclear. So no guarantees before now. But now, we must assume they will want serious revenge.
We do not have to have the Strait open. Eventually, higher prices and the market will take care of the problem. The question is does Trump think the blockade it's worth losing badly in the fall. I still think oil and rates need to go higher before we find out how committed he is to it.
What kind of ridiculous commentary is that? Eventually higher oil prices will take care of the problem?
Yes, via demand destruction. And what goes along with demand destruction?
War is not won solely on the battlefield.
Economics and politics are the final measures for success.
See, American Revolution, Vietnam and Afghanistan for examples.
Some of you - the weirdos and 
- really need to STFU and go read a f*cking book.
Thanks for your attention to this matter.
@carramrod I haven't made a case for or against the war because the administration is pathetic at explaining why we are at war. If we really believe they were close to the bomb, it is easily defendable. If it was to teach Iran a lesson for 79, it is not defendable.
Looks like that ideal world is already fast approaching. The numbers are large, but not as large as you were suggesting. I think this is a wake up call that the world no longer wants to depend on that tiny little pathway and it will be phased out as a critical choke point.
I read the article, and yes it looks like they are analyzing the problem, but I didn't see anything in there that disputes what I said. 20 million barrels of oil had been going through the strait every day. The article seems to imply that there are various ways to get 4-5 million barrels out alternate paths relatively easily, but that still leaves a 15 million barrel deficiency.
As a point of reference, the Keystone Pipeline is designed to move about 600,000 barrels a day at a cost of about 8.5 billion dollars. So the number may not be trillions, but hundreds of billions is still within the realm of reason.
@twenty maybe a recession or maybe not. And then more oil eventually comes online as markets attack the problem. Then the world moves on and the Straight of Hormuz is no longer a choke point.
We do not have to have the Strait open. Eventually, higher prices and the market will take care of the problem.
You don't think Iranian missiles can hit Saudi pipelines?
No, and if they could (or did) Iran would be destroyed. It would mean Trump was correct in attacking Iran and you would see everyone starting to turn on Iran, including China.
They already did, you must have missed that
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/09/iran-war-oil-saudi-arabia-east-west-pipeline.html
We do not have to have the Strait open. Eventually, higher prices and the market will take care of the problem.This is a fascinating point. Several of the Gulf countries are already circumventing that supply line. Other than that gulf and Hormuz, Iran is kind of off the beaten track. Other than their oil and any other natural resources, they’re relatively inconsequential.If militarily Hormuz has always been a sticking point, problem solved. Surprisingly simple solution. Pity that it wasn’t planned for in advance. But that’s water over the dam.
I think Trump could even save face right now in terms of the elections by simply coming out and saying OK world, we’re moving forward. Hormuz is closed and we are going to circumvent it and get the world economy back to normal and Iran can play ball or be stuck in their hole for the foreseeable future.
Not sure about the logistics of all that but you gotta do what you gotta do. At least we wouldn’t need to drop any more bombs in this scenario. Just in time for the 60-dsy deadline also.
In an ideal world yes, the other nations can eventually figure out a way to bypass the strait, but the logistics are massive
Absolutely, positively, it would cost more money. Shipping via an oil tanker / cargo ship is the most efficient way to do it. Pipelines / overland shipping routes are already set up to move product to the Persian Gulf. Everything within a 200 mile radius of the gulf that gets shipped internationally is set up to go there. This would be the equivalent of you telling all of the products that currently go out of Baltimore to instead be transported down to New Orleans instead.....permanently.
It would take a decade to set up the infrastructure and billions / trillions of dollars. Money that would be passed on to all consumers.
What's the cost of a nuclear Iran controlling the Straight of Hormuz and being able to strike Europe and Israel?
We do not have to have the Strait open. Eventually, higher prices and the market will take care of the problem.
You don't think Iranian missiles can hit Saudi pipelines?
No, and if they could (or did) Iran would be destroyed. It would mean Trump was correct in attacking Iran and you would see everyone starting to turn on Iran, including China.
They already did, you must have missed that
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/09/iran-war-oil-saudi-arabia-east-west-pipeline.html
No, I didn't miss that. That was back in early April. I think our military has taken out their ability to do it now. I could be wrong, but if Iran chooses that path they're f#cked.
War is not won solely on the battlefield.
Economics and politics are the final measures for success.
See, American Revolution, Vietnam and Afghanistan for examples.
Some of you - the weirdos and
Thanks for your attention to this matter.
Hey, dummy. The U.S. economy is also kicking Iran's economy a#% as well.
We do not have to have the Strait open. Eventually, higher prices and the market will take care of the problem.
You don't think Iranian missiles can hit Saudi pipelines?
No, and if they could (or did) Iran would be destroyed. It would mean Trump was correct in attacking Iran and you would see everyone starting to turn on Iran, including China.
They already did, you must have missed that
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/09/iran-war-oil-saudi-arabia-east-west-pipeline.html
No, I didn't miss that. That was back in early April. I think our military has taken out their ability to do it now. I could be wrong, but if Iran chooses that path they're f#cked.
We haven't. That was literally like a day or two before the ceasefire.
What's the cost of a nuclear Iran controlling the Straight of Hormuz and being able to strike Europe and Israel?
That's a separate line of discussion.
The question being asked was, can all the countries that currently use the strait find alternate ways to get their products in / out that in doing so will render Iran's control of the strait moot.
I am simply answering that question. Yes, it is possible, but there are significant costs / time associated with doing it.
I explained my position on this war in the "what will it take to end the war" thread. At this point, we are in it, regardless of what the reasons were that got us to this point. I believe that either A) We should claim victory, pull out, and let the ME countries deal with the fallout of Iran trying to strongarm their hold on the strait (which threatens their profits) or B) Go all in, boots on the ground, and force the regime change completely with occupation. Hopefully pull some lessons-learned from Afghanistan and do it better this time.
Doing this half-cocked has put us in a game of chicken (economically). Who will blink first and make concessions at the table.
@twenty maybe a recession or maybe not. And then more oil eventually comes online as markets attack the problem. Then the world moves on and the Straight of Hormuz is no longer a choke point.
Markets can't attack this problem in the short nor medium term, you only have so much capacity globally.
Maybe if you're talking very long term (5-10 years), they'll be changes to global energy supply routes.
But there isn't the 15m/BPD excess capacity that's currently being lost just out there. We're already down about 1 billion barrels from the global market. And that lost supply with increase by 400 million barrels / month until Hormuz is reopened.
What's the cost of a nuclear Iran controlling the Straight of Hormuz and being able to strike Europe and Israel?
That's a separate line of discussion.
The question being asked was, can all the countries that currently use the strait find alternate ways to get their products in / out that in doing so will render Iran's control of the strait moot.
I am simply answering that question. Yes, it is possible, but there are significant costs / time associated with doing it.
I explained my position on this war in the "what will it take to end the war" thread. At this point, we are in it, regardless of what the reasons were that got us to this point. I believe that either A) We should claim victory, pull out, and let the ME countries deal with the fallout of Iran trying to strongarm their hold on the strait (which threatens their profits) or B) Go all in, boots on the ground, and force the regime change completely with occupation. Hopefully pull some lessons-learned from Afghanistan and do it better this time.
Doing this half-cocked has put us in a game of chicken (economically). Who will blink first and make concessions at the table.
I disagree with boots on the ground. Once again it's not a game of chicken economically. We're kicking their a#% economically and long term we end up benefiting from it. We pay a dollar or two more for gas, have slightly higher inflation, and maybe a recession. Two years from now we produce more oil and a lot less travels through Hormuz. Iran's economy gets destroyed.
@twenty maybe a recession or maybe not. And then more oil eventually comes online as markets attack the problem. Then the world moves on and the Straight of Hormuz is no longer a choke point.
Markets can't attack this problem in the short nor medium term, you only have so much capacity globally.
Maybe if you're talking very long term (5-10 years), they'll be changes to global energy supply routes.
But there isn't the 15m/BPD excess capacity that's currently being lost just out there. We're already down about 1 billion barrels from the global market. And that lost supply with increase by 400 million barrels / month until Hormuz is reopened.
Of course I'm talking long term and I think the market would fix it within 24 - 36 months. Governments respond quickly when they think their head might end up on a spike. Suddenly, climate change, regulations, and the bird nobody has heard about aren't a thing anymore.