US Perspective on the Iran - Israel / US War

Back channels have gone haywire , war if not stopped may lead to a bigger catastrophe than what we are anticipating.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
hussain0216 said:
It doesn't matter one tiny bit

Oil is a commodity, just like gas and urea

Once supply is cut, demand across the world sky rockets, that forces prices up and then states start to go into deficit followed by crises


The U.S because of its idiocy has created a crises

What's more IRAN KNOWS IT, and iran will fight tooth and nail to keep the Hormuz closed, hit and destroy U.S bases and presence in the region

But because the economic consequences of Hormuz closure are so bad for multiple states, the pressure for ceasefire and end to the conflict are immense

But the pressure is on the U.S, that's why they are behaving erratic with all these threats and firing of your generals

Now your planning a physical invasion of a state of 93 million people, who can fight back, thousands of miles away from the U.S, after getting rid of multiple military high ranking officers who objected to your lunacy


The Zionists have actively destroyed U.S primacy in the world for their own gain, you should have been aware of their games
Click to expand...


It's going to be a bloodbath brother, and not in America's favour. The math is unforgiving. Iran has 2400 kilometers of Persian Gulf coastline wrapping around the strait and Kharg. That's not a front line you suppress, that's a kill box you're sitting inside.
 
Probably why U.K. and European aren’t sending there troops in.
 
Hamartia Antidote said:
But that isn't an existential crisis specifically for the US...that's for almost everybody.
Click to expand...

I would need multiple posts to explain the knock on consequences of this crises for multiple states, from food production and shortages, to fuel crises and costs, to financial crises that will effect U.S bonds and debt

It's just a witches brew of shit that could have been avoided if the U.S wasn't controlled by the Israel firsters
 
mythbuster said:
Back channels have gone haywire , war if not stopped may lead to a bigger catastrophe than what we are anticipating.
Click to expand...
How so? Are you talking about Orangeman deciding to strike Iran's energy sector?
 
Persian Gulf said:
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.


I am interested in the US perspective on this apparent hypocrisy
Click to expand...

@Persian Gulf
I cannot give you "the" American perspective on this. My 80-year old Virginian thought is that it is indeed "hypocrisy" of the first order. I am of the Vietnam era in that I was a high school class of 1963, college class of 1967, and though I didn't serve there myself, I knew many, many classmates who did and were killed and maimed. After Vietnam, the only foreign USA military intervention I have supported was the effort in the first years of Afghanistan to seek "revenge" for the 9/11 attack. I did not believe that USA support for Israel, by that time (2001) justified the Al Qaeda attack on us. Since then, I think the USA has been misled by our "elite" foreign policy establishment who are very heavily influenced, if not controlled, by Israeli interests and sympathizers. It is ludicrous for the USA to run a $1B defense budget, now proposed to be $1.5 by Trump next year, when we have such an enormous debt. I have not been able to really understand why the world subsidizes this spending of ours, except that other nations are even worse, fiscally, then we are.

What is truly sad is that Rubio can say such things and, probably, not realize that he is a hypocrit. It is also truly sad that too many Americans are so wrapped up in getting through their own lives that they let our "elites" get away with it.
 

The Iran War Is Making the American Economy More Dominant Than Ever​


We cannot permit a resource so vital to be dominated by one so ruthless. And we won’t.”—George H.W. Bush, 1990, on Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait
“Go get your own oil!”—Donald Trump, March 31, 2026, on Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz
President Trump didn’t attack Iran to help the U.S. economy at the expense of its allies. Nonetheless, that is more or less what has happened.
Despite high gasoline prices, the U.S. economy is holding up. Abroad, though, interest rates and inflation risks have shot up, fuel is being conserved, and economic forecasts are darkening.
Economists at Citi have marked down the eurozone’s growth this year by 0.4 percentage point, the United States’ by just 0.1 point. The reason: Net imports of oil and liquefied natural gas consume 1% to 2% of European gross domestic product, whereas net exports contribute 0.2% to U.S. output.

These figures help explain why Trump is prosecuting war in the Persian Gulf differently from his predecessors. His strategic motives aren’t that different: to deny a hostile power the means to dominate the region, and to protect Israel.
Where Trump differs is in the economics. Past presidents believed that the free flow of oil was one of those global public goods that the U.S. was uniquely equipped, even obliged, to safeguard.
George H.W. Bush made the case in 1990 for pouring troops into the Gulf region not just to free Kuwait from a dangerous dictator’s clutches, but to deny him control over 20% of the world’s oil reserves.
“There is no substitute for American leadership,” he told Congress that September. “There will be a lasting role for the United States in assisting the nations of the Persian Gulf.”
By contrast, Trump, in remarks to the nation Wednesday evening, sounded indifferent to whether the Strait of Hormuz reopened: “The United States imports almost no oil through the Hormuz Strait and won’t be taking any in the future.” Those who do, he said, should buy more from the U.S.—“We have plenty”—and take the lead on reopening the strait.
Trump’s revamping of the U.S. role in world security and trade now extends to oil. No longer does the U.S. see itself as the guarantor of international stability and norms, but rather as a self-interested actor using control of oil to enhance its own power.
The U.S. became an energy superpower through serendipity and policy. The shale revolution vastly increased domestic oil and gas production, while federal and state policy and the construction of liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities made that output available to the world.
In the process, oil and gas became key contributors to U.S. economic growth and prestige. The U.S. earns more from exports of LNG than of corn and soybeans, and twice as much as it does on movie and TV content, S&P Global reports.
Fossil fuels are foundational to Trump’s vision not just of domestic prosperity but international clout. He created a National Energy Dominance Council shortly after taking office, and his National Security Strategy, issued last November, calls “American energy dominance” a “top strategic priority.”
When U.S. forces captured Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro in January, the benefit was twofold. A regime that had challenged U.S. hegemony in the Western Hemisphere was pacified, and the U.S. gained de facto control of a major source of oil. Trump has already used that control to restrict cargoes to Cuba in hopes of changing its leadership.
The European Union once depended on Russia for 45% of its natural-gas imports. Russia weaponized that dependence by withholding supplies after its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. At enormous cost, Europe pivoted to safer alternatives. The U.S. now supplies 57% of the EU’s LNG imports, according to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.
In the wake of Trump’s threats to seize Greenland and leave the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Europeans may wonder whether they have simply swapped one geopolitical vulnerability for another. Trump suggested he might impose a trade embargo on Spain for refusing to let American forces use its bases to attack Iran. Analysts said a loss of U.S. LNG would be costly for Spain, but also unlikely. The EU could retaliate.
Trump may have initially hoped the Iranian regime, like Venezuela’s, would quickly fold, giving up its nuclear ambitions in return for sanctions relief. Conceivably, Trump may have gained some say over Iranian oil, as he did with Venezuela’s. With those two countries pacified, the threat to the world’s oil market of geopolitical instability would fall.
That may yet come to pass. Its military decimated and nuclear ambitions under rubble, the regime may yet make peace. And if it doesn’t, the strait may yet be reopened by force: American troops are pouring into the region and other countries are discussing how to reopen the strait. For all Trump’s talk of leaving control of the strait in Iranian hands, that would contradict what his own National Security Strategy deemed a core national interest.
Even if U.S. control of global oil and gas expands—either because of forgone Gulf supplies or its control of Iranian shipments—economic reality limits how useful that is geopolitically. “To be really dominant you have to have low costs, and we don’t,” said veteran oil analyst Philip Verleger.
Trump has few obvious levers to compel private producers to withhold supply, and in any case that would be contrary to his domestic priority of keeping prices low.
Other countries became eager customers of U.S. oil and gas thanks to a reputation for reliability built up before Trump’s second term. Weaponize that relationship and they will look for alternatives. Just ask Russia.

Source:WSJ
 
جوبا said:

The Iran War Is Making the American Economy More Dominant Than Ever​


We cannot permit a resource so vital to be dominated by one so ruthless. And we won’t.”—George H.W. Bush, 1990, on Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait
“Go get your own oil!”—Donald Trump, March 31, 2026, on Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz
President Trump didn’t attack Iran to help the U.S. economy at the expense of its allies. Nonetheless, that is more or less what has happened.
Despite high gasoline prices, the U.S. economy is holding up. Abroad, though, interest rates and inflation risks have shot up, fuel is being conserved, and economic forecasts are darkening.
Economists at Citi have marked down the eurozone’s growth this year by 0.4 percentage point, the United States’ by just 0.1 point. The reason: Net imports of oil and liquefied natural gas consume 1% to 2% of European gross domestic product, whereas net exports contribute 0.2% to U.S. output.

These figures help explain why Trump is prosecuting war in the Persian Gulf differently from his predecessors. His strategic motives aren’t that different: to deny a hostile power the means to dominate the region, and to protect Israel.
Where Trump differs is in the economics. Past presidents believed that the free flow of oil was one of those global public goods that the U.S. was uniquely equipped, even obliged, to safeguard.
George H.W. Bush made the case in 1990 for pouring troops into the Gulf region not just to free Kuwait from a dangerous dictator’s clutches, but to deny him control over 20% of the world’s oil reserves.
“There is no substitute for American leadership,” he told Congress that September. “There will be a lasting role for the United States in assisting the nations of the Persian Gulf.”
By contrast, Trump, in remarks to the nation Wednesday evening, sounded indifferent to whether the Strait of Hormuz reopened: “The United States imports almost no oil through the Hormuz Strait and won’t be taking any in the future.” Those who do, he said, should buy more from the U.S.—“We have plenty”—and take the lead on reopening the strait.
Trump’s revamping of the U.S. role in world security and trade now extends to oil. No longer does the U.S. see itself as the guarantor of international stability and norms, but rather as a self-interested actor using control of oil to enhance its own power.
The U.S. became an energy superpower through serendipity and policy. The shale revolution vastly increased domestic oil and gas production, while federal and state policy and the construction of liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities made that output available to the world.
In the process, oil and gas became key contributors to U.S. economic growth and prestige. The U.S. earns more from exports of LNG than of corn and soybeans, and twice as much as it does on movie and TV content, S&P Global reports.
Fossil fuels are foundational to Trump’s vision not just of domestic prosperity but international clout. He created a National Energy Dominance Council shortly after taking office, and his National Security Strategy, issued last November, calls “American energy dominance” a “top strategic priority.”
When U.S. forces captured Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro in January, the benefit was twofold. A regime that had challenged U.S. hegemony in the Western Hemisphere was pacified, and the U.S. gained de facto control of a major source of oil. Trump has already used that control to restrict cargoes to Cuba in hopes of changing its leadership.
The European Union once depended on Russia for 45% of its natural-gas imports. Russia weaponized that dependence by withholding supplies after its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. At enormous cost, Europe pivoted to safer alternatives. The U.S. now supplies 57% of the EU’s LNG imports, according to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.
In the wake of Trump’s threats to seize Greenland and leave the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Europeans may wonder whether they have simply swapped one geopolitical vulnerability for another. Trump suggested he might impose a trade embargo on Spain for refusing to let American forces use its bases to attack Iran. Analysts said a loss of U.S. LNG would be costly for Spain, but also unlikely. The EU could retaliate.
Trump may have initially hoped the Iranian regime, like Venezuela’s, would quickly fold, giving up its nuclear ambitions in return for sanctions relief. Conceivably, Trump may have gained some say over Iranian oil, as he did with Venezuela’s. With those two countries pacified, the threat to the world’s oil market of geopolitical instability would fall.
That may yet come to pass. Its military decimated and nuclear ambitions under rubble, the regime may yet make peace. And if it doesn’t, the strait may yet be reopened by force: American troops are pouring into the region and other countries are discussing how to reopen the strait. For all Trump’s talk of leaving control of the strait in Iranian hands, that would contradict what his own National Security Strategy deemed a core national interest.
Even if U.S. control of global oil and gas expands—either because of forgone Gulf supplies or its control of Iranian shipments—economic reality limits how useful that is geopolitically. “To be really dominant you have to have low costs, and we don’t,” said veteran oil analyst Philip Verleger.
Trump has few obvious levers to compel private producers to withhold supply, and in any case that would be contrary to his domestic priority of keeping prices low.
Other countries became eager customers of U.S. oil and gas thanks to a reputation for reliability built up before Trump’s second term. Weaponize that relationship and they will look for alternatives. Just ask Russia.

Source:WSJ
Click to expand...
Something for you to ponder upon ! WTI crude ( Texas crude) was historically 4 to 5 dollars cheaper than Brent crude and now it's 2 dollars more than Brent crude.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

  • Total: 4 (members: 1, guests: 3)

    Pakistan Defence Latest

    Country Watch Latest

    Latest Posts

    Share this page

    Back
    Top