Reply With Quote
ok, then what?
"demand destruction"
causing a global recession by stumbling into a global energy supply shock with no strategy for solving it won't soon be forgotten by the whole freaking world
In this context, “break” fundamentally means demand destruction. Typically, higher prices can incentivize suppliers to realign logistics and trade routes to allow more supply, even with the same amount of production behind it. But all of those things are insufficient for the loss we’re currently facing. If we continue down this path, prices will need to rise to such a level as to actually force a physical, volumetric reduction in demand.
That’s not something we’ve typically seen in these types of crises. What you would often see is a high price level that over a longer period of time saps consumer spending and causes all the recessionary issues that we usually talk about. But rather than a price elasticity demand destruction [where consumers choose not to buy], it’s an income elasticity demand destruction [where they can’t afford to buy]. It’s not that you don’t drive to work because the price of gas is too high, it’s you don’t drive to work because you lost your job. That is the more common way we see demand destruction manifest.
In this situation, if the Strait remains closed, the price is just going to keep rising and rising and rising until you get fewer planes in the air and fewer people driving. And I think that is the kind of situation we’re kind of looking at now.https://hbr.org/2026/03/the-oil-shoc...ing-to-feel-itGasoline is going to hurt household budgets, and it’s very politically sensitive. But middle distillate products are actually much more important for the economy because that’s shipping costs, that’s freight, that’s groceries, that’s Amazon boxes, that’s airfare, everything else. So, I think that is a much more economically and structurally important fuel, particularly when we’re talking about potential inflationary pressures.
If central banks are trying to look at inflationary pressures, they’ll be looking at gasoline for a view on consumer expectations. But I think they’ll be looking primarily at diesel for the kind of structural, inflationary impact it can have.
ok, then what?
planting season for the northern hemisphere is right now
lower crop yields and higher prices for food are pretty much guaranteed
WALLER SAYS THE FED CANNOT "LOOK THROUGH" A LARGE AND PERSISTENT OIL SHOCK; AT THIS POINT CAUTION FOR THE FED IS WARRANTED
lol
We condemn in the strongest terms recent attacks by Iran on unarmed commercial vessels in the Gulf, attacks on civilian infrastructure including oil and gas installations, and the de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iranian forces.
We express our deep concern about the escalating conflict. We call on Iran to cease immediately its threats, laying of mines, drone and missile attacks, and other attempts to block the Strait to commercial shipping, and to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolution 2817.
Freedom of navigation is a fundamental principle of international law, including under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
The effects of Iran’s actions will be felt by people in all parts of the world, especially the most vulnerable.
Consistent with UNSC Resolution 2817, we emphasise that such interference with international shipping and disruption of global energy supply chains cons ute a threat to international peace and security. In this regard, we call for an immediate comprehensive moratorium on attacks on civilian infrastructure, including oil and gas installations.
We express our readiness to contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the Strait. We welcome the commitment of nations engaging in preparatory planning.
We welcome the International Energy Agency decision to authorise a coordinated release of strategic petroleum reserves. We will take further steps to stabilise energy markets, including working with producing nations to increase output.
We will also work to support the most affected countries, including through the United Nations and the international financial ins utions.
Maritime security and freedom of navigation benefit all countries. We call on all states to respect international law and uphold the fundamental principles of international prosperity and security.
Are you in favor of Trump's choice to follow Bibi into war against Iran, snacks?
Yes or no.
Why is that an lol? Please share so we can all laugh too
"US lifts sanctions on Iran" is one of Iran's preconditions for reopening Hormuz, right?
Iran fires intermediate range missiles at Diego Garcia
Last edited by Winehole23; 03-21-2026 at 08:15 AM.
"totally destroyed"
tactical success for strategic failure has been the story of US armed forces in East Asia and South Asia this century so far, it doesn't look like that has changed very much
https://www.cato.org/blog/strategic-failure-iranThe Trump administration has led the United States into war with Iran, assuming it could secure a quick victory with limited costs. They were wrong. After more than two weeks of consistent bombing, new US intelligence suggests Iran’s regime is now consolidating power, unlikely to collapse, and led by a cadre more extreme than before. Despite this, Washington is deploying thousands of additional troops to the Middle East, and Trump inches closer to a potential ground campaign inside Iran. It is time to face reality: tactical successes cannot mask what has quickly become another strategic failure in the Middle East.
There was no question whether the United States and Israel could inflict major damage on the Iranian regime and its military. It took them only 100 hours to drop more bombs than in the first six months of the US-led counter-ISIS campaign and less than 24 hours to assassinate Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The war has certainly achieved discrete tactical successes aimed at weakening Tehran. Yet the central question has always been the strategic end such force is meant to achieve.
Here, the administration’s strategy is divorced from its ostensible aims. Among the many contradicting rationales floated by Washington to justify the attack, two have been most prominent: eliminating Iran’s nuclear program and effecting regime change in Tehran. Washington has achieved neither of these objectives, nor is it in a position to do so.
SEND MOAR TROOPS
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle...se-2026-03-18/President Donald Trump's administration is considering deploying thousands of U.S. troops to reinforce its operation in the Middle East, as the U.S. military prepares for possible next steps in its campaign against Iran, said a U.S. official and three people familiar with the matter.
The deployments could help provide Trump with additional options as he weighs expanding U.S. operations, with the Iran war well into #its third week.
Adam Smith (D-WA)
https://adamsmith.house.govhttps://newrepublic.com/article/208015/transcript-trump-war-takes-dark-turn-leaks-unnerve-dems-madnessSargent: Yes. And I want to be clear, though—you think that his idea is to go in with troops on the ground and try to change the regime that way? I mean, does that make any sense? Like, how would it happen?
Smith: It doesn’t make any sense. But the idea in Trump’s mind—look, whenever Trump encounters an adversary of any size, he has pretty much the same approach: Kick him in the balls, force him to say “uncle.” That’s pretty much the only card he’s got to play. Think about the way he ran his businesses—he sued people all over the place, he declared bankruptcy, he didn’t pay his bills. He’s now trying to prosecute enemies large and small across the government. He cut off like $500 billion in programs. He goes for the punch in the face, right off the bat. I mean, that’s his move. The problem is, Iran has said, yeah, we took the kick—we’re not going anywhere. And then Trump doesn’t really have a play at that point.
So he gets frustrated, and he’s like, No, you will bow to my will. And he tends to double and triple down. And again, in this case, we’re not talking about pulling Nicolás Maduro out of some weak, collapsing Venezuelan government. We’re not talking about the horrific crime that we are committing against Cuba right now—just choking off their oil and waiting for them to die. We’re talking about going into a country that’s dug in, of 93 million people with over a million troops and a passion to fight us. Remember how the Iranians fought in the Iraq War, and they were nowhere near as solidified or capable of defending their regime then as they are now. So Trump’s fantasies are confronting reality, and we all are paying a terrible price for that.
nuclear brinksmanship, it it strictly necessary?
our decider in chief is flailing
Russia's strategic narrative appears to be against the US/Israel war on Iran
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
