Your thoughts on the U.S. going to war with Iran?

[Patroklos]

It would take a day to reopen the Straits of Hormuz (assuming their Kilos don't mine it). But even if they didn't close it themselves, we would probobly impose escort rules anyways if a limited airstrike was able to remain limited. Just in case.

[MichaeltheGreat]

And I'm sure the various insurers of oil vessels and cargos, and energy traders, refiners, and oil and LNG inventory managers, etc., all around the world, are reassured and will sleep better now that you've spoken definitively.

And what, "bringing democracry to Iraq" was about three weeks?

[Patroklos]

Defeating "Iraq" militarily happened ahead of schedule. Bombing the ABOT and KABOT oil terminals did not effect the price of oil, though obviously Iran is different. Though attacking oil tankers in the SOH, especially neutral ones, would of course percipitate the destruction of many more things in Iran for NO benefit to them.

The staits can be closed by missiles or mines. Missiles are only a concern if somone happens to be transiting at the time of airstrikes, which, probobly () wouldn't be the case.

Mines, well, one Kilo at least and probobly two will be destroyed peirside. The other one or two that survive are not suicidal.

Iran has three Kilos btw.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Defeating "Iraq" militarily happened ahead of schedule. Bombing the ABOT and KABOT oil terminals did not effect the price of oil, though obviously Iran is different. Though attacking oil tankers in the SOH, especially neutral ones, would of course percipitate the destruction of many more things in Iran for NO benefit to them.

The staits can be closed by missiles or mines. Missiles are only a concern if somone happens to be transiting at the time of airstrikes, which, probobly () wouldn't be the case.

Mines, well, one Kilo at least and probobly two will be destroyed peirside. The other one or two that survive are not suicidal.

Iran has three Kilos btw.

Remember Boghammers? Or were you out of diapers back then? First, the Iranian's won't ever start shooting. They'll continue to do their thing until the US unilaterally decides to bomb something, then they'll play games, and it really doesn't matter how much you can knock out anything that moves. Hundred million dollar tankers with tens of millions in cargo aren't going to run the risk, because (a) they're civilians, (b) their insurers won't insure them, and (c) their owners won't run the risk.

Meanwhile, (d), futures market traders aren't by nature as glibly optimistic as an O2 can afford to be (or have you made O3 yet? ), and so it won't matter if anything actually gets disrupted or not, because the futures market is all about assessing perceived risks in supply. If Iranian oil comes out of the market, we're already half screwed to the wall in terms of supply-demand imbalance, so it won't take any real disruption in the gulf - just the perception that it's likely to be attempted will affect supplies.

[Patroklos]

, the Iranian's won't ever start shooting. They'll continue to do their thing until the US unilaterally decides to bomb something

Pretty sure we are talking about Iranian retaliation, nobody has postulated on an Iranian first strike, yet. And whether it is unilateral or not really doesn't men two ****s and a **** to Iran as far as a response. Even if internationally supported, US forces are the only ones capable of doing anything.

Hundred million dollar tankers with tens of millions in cargo aren't going to run the risk

They sure did during the Iran/Iraq war, and with FAR less protection than they would have this time around. But more importantly, Kuwait, Qutar, and UAE have no choice but to continue operations. Saudi Arabia has their West coast (not sure if they have pipeline capacity out there) but I bet will continue to ship as well.

Honestly all Iran can do is disrupt oil traffic for a few days at most, their only real hurtful option is withdrawing their own oil. Which will hurt, but not cause the end of the world. And we are not talking about invading the place, in which case Iran will continue its production as well because, well, they have no choice.

As much as people think our economies are ruled by oil, the oil producing Middle Eastern economies are FAR more dependant on oil money.

And its still O2, thank God.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Patroklos
How exactly do you think they will attack us on the ground?

I ask this because I honeslty don't see their rallied forces getting to their own border, let alone attacking us.

I would imagine any retaliation would be against the fleet in the gulf. There is almost zero hope of that doing anything either, but they actually have the capability of try with much less loss.

Unless you just mean insurgent help.

Your guys in Iraq would need more body bags. For themselves and the opposition. Same **** as you already have, but more intensive.

[Pekka]

I don't think this war is feasible in any way, shape or form.

Iran won't be the more better military countries but it won't be Iraq either. It's too difficult to predict. Too much variables.

What can Iran do? Plenty. That's the wrong question to ask, it's what we can do after supposedly they have been defeated? With Iraq in the hands and in some sense Afghanistan still too?

I feel this is one of them definitions of the opposite of not learning the history and banging our heads against the wall.

There's got to be a better way. If not, I'd rather isolate ME and let them do what they do and forget about any kind of supremacy in that area.

Because that's what it's about. I mean, that's what it really is about. Unless of course we were all dropped on our heads as a child and just didn't get it

[Pekka]

but as far as should there be plans and resources to go in there if absolutely necessary? Yes.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Pretty sure we are talking about Iranian retaliation, nobody has postulated on an Iranian first strike, yet. And whether it is unilateral or not really doesn't men two ****s and a **** to Iran as far as a response. Even if internationally supported, US forces are the only ones capable of doing anything.

The relevance of first strike/retaliation here is nil. The market will respond (as will shippers and insurers) on the basis of their assessment of risks and probabilities. Who actually done what to who isn't really a big deal in that calculation, and whether or not the reasons for it are worthwhile are even less relevant.

They sure did during the Iran/Iraq war, and with FAR less protection than they would have this time around. But more importantly, Kuwait, Qutar, and UAE have no choice but to continue operations. Saudi Arabia has their West coast (not sure if they have pipeline capacity out there) but I bet will continue to ship as well.

The geopolitical and strategic relevance of the conduct of the Iran/Iraq war is about the same to the present situation is about as little as the conduct of Xerxes and Thermistocles at Salamis.

Honestly all Iran can do is disrupt oil traffic for a few days at most, their only real hurtful option is withdrawing their own oil. Which will hurt, but not cause the end of the world. And we are not talking about invading the place, in which case Iran will continue its production as well because, well, they have no choice.

A few days here, a few days there, somebody looks at what happens if their inventory is delayed, and the futures market goes nuts. It doesn't matter if the oil flows without disruption, it matters what the traders think might happen in worst case scenarios, and they're a tad less optimistic than you. With Venezuela and Nigeria flaky, no reliable oil from Iraq, the Cantarell field in decline, and increasing demand from China, it doesn't take much perception shift to cause huge reactions in the markets.

As much as people think our economies are ruled by oil, the oil producing Middle Eastern economies are FAR more dependant on oil money.

That depends on your point of view. If you're a religious fanatic who knows that a significant portion of the world will whore itself for your oil, and you don't care about the standard of living for your peasantry, you have a different concept of "more dependant" than does a leader who has to look to reelection from a well-off, soft and comfortable electorate.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Let's not forget past issues that we never made right. Such as, overtaking the American embassy and seizing hostages.

Or when we put the Shah in power who was a bastard.

[Ted Striker]

As far as this war goes, it's the last straw for the USA to show the world we're not totally a bunch of *******s.

If we attack Iran, we're pretty much asssholes for the next 50 years, minimum.

The idea of nuking them to stop nukes is even more looney.

[SlowwHand]

Yes, Ted. The Shah was so much worse than Khomeni.

[Ted Striker]

Yeah, but he had our endorsement.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Yes, Ted. The Shah was so much worse than Khomeni.

Khomeini and his successors seem to have more popular support.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Khomeini and his successors seem to have more popular support.

opposing him carries the penalty of going to hell.