Post New

Eom

Both open and closed at the same time?

Steve

Both open and closed at the same time?

Open

Closed

Open

Closed/Open

Open/Closed

Closed/Closed (with accompanying threats of destroying Iranian civilization)

Proposed Open/Open (with sharing of toll fees)

Open/Closed

Closed/Closed (with some ships getting through)

Renewal of threats to destroy civilization while proclaiming they are close to a deal.

Have I missed anything?

Open

Closed

Open

Closed/Open

Open/Closed

With a tip of the cap to Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck's "Duck Season! / Wabbit Season!" routine.

Have I missed anything?

Yup. Trump the Pirate King running the strait, and pocketing all the toll revenue, himself.

Trump says US could charge for Strait of Hormuz passage amid Iran war

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/4/6/trump-says...

Steve

Yup. Trump the Pirate King running the strait, and pocketing all the toll revenue, himself.

I think I covered that with his offering to split tolls with Iran.

Then again, Steve, this last month and a half has been such a rolling tide of dumbfuckery, I may have missed it.

Meanwhile

Iran says it has no plans to send negotiators to Pakistan for a new round of talks after the United States seized an Iranian-flagged cargo ship in the Strait of Hormuz.

…

Israeli strikes target four towns in southern Lebanon despite ceasefire


Someone remind me what the US objective is here… art of the deal experts… keep big oil happy with high oil prices? lower price at the pump (and elsewhere) for midterm voters? profit from weekly swing trades and grifting? make sure Israel can do „its thing“? Ensure maximum vanity effect due to breathless news reporting?

Iran says it has no plans to send negotiators to Pakistan for a new round of talks after the United States seized an Iranian-flagged cargo ship in the Strait of Hormuz.

NYT 35 mins ago: Iran War Live Updates: Tehran and Washington Plan New Talks in Pakistan
Despite mixed messages in public, several Iranian officials indicated their delegation would travel to Islamabad on Tuesday, when Vice President JD Vance is scheduled to arrive with a team of U.S. negotiators.

Both sides are "negotiating" via the media.

I expect a "deal" similar to the one Obama had, and both sides claim victory. Everyone goes home happy. SNAFU.

Israeli strikes target four towns in southern Lebanon despite ceasefire

That is the usual Israeli interpretation of "cease fire": slow the pace of offensive operations. Lebanese are making their way south, to their homes, because "cease fire", and finding the Israelis busy shelling and bulldozing their homes.

Meanwhile, "Bibi" has to pretend his is concerned about this.

Outrage over Israeli soldier's vandalism of Jesus statue in Lebanon

There has been widespread condemnation after an image of an Israeli soldier apparently hitting a statue of Jesus with a sledgehammer in southern Lebanon went viral.

Israel's prime minister said he was "stunned and saddened". Its foreign minister said: "We apologise for this incident and to every Christian whose feelings were hurt."

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpd575n1znzo

Don't think for a moment the Israelis will not drive the Christians out of Lebanon, just as roughly as they drive the Muslims out.

Steve

Someone remind me what the US objective is here… art of the deal experts… keep big oil happy with high oil prices? lower price at the pump (and elsewhere) for midterm voters? profit from weekly swing trades and grifting? make sure Israel can do „its thing“? Ensure maximum vanity effect due to breathless news reporting?

Besides looting the Treasury, handing over the country to Putin and outlawing the democrat party?

The short term goals are these:

-Ensure Iran never has a nuclear weapon
-Reduce/eliminate their ability to project power in the region. That means reducing their capabilities to develop and launch ballistic missiles and cutting them off from their terror proxies.

The longer term goals are these. By "longer term" I mean a couple of years:

Put the United States on a much stronger footing vis a vis China in the event of an invasion of Taiwan by:
-Reducing China's influence on world trade choke points
-Increase the United States' influence on these same choke points
-Realign global energy markets to reduce the influence of bad actors operating in shadow markets (Russia, Iran, Venezuela)

That last point is going to cause some consternation and some "See! It's all about Big Oil!". That's certainly one way to think about it.

Another way is this:

Why would anyone who rails against Putin want him to be able to sell his oil despite sanctions? Why would anyone who thinks China is an economic rival think that allowing them to buy oil from bad actors at lower prices is a good thing?

Don't think for a moment the Israelis will not drive the Christians out of Lebanon, just as roughly as they drive the Muslims out.

Palestinian Christians have been telling us this for decades.

The short term goals are these:

-Ensure Iran never has a nuclear weapon
-Reduce/eliminate their ability to project power in the region. That means reducing their capabilities to develop and launch ballistic missiles and cutting them off from their terror proxies.

But these aren't short term goals. These are goals that extend out into the future - in perpetuity if taken literally.

You can't ensure Iran never has a nuclear weapon by destroying things they have today. You can't reduce Iran's capabilities to develop and launch ballistic missiles and cut them off from their terror proxies going forward by destroying things today. Because as long as the regime continues to control the country, they can always restart these things and get back to where they are now within a year or two. If not faster.

These are goals that can only be accomplished by either: i) overturning the regime; or ii) getting them to agree to an enforceable deal that you believe they can be relied on to abide by going forward. Based on our prior conversations, it seems like you believe that the second option is not possible. And we're not pursuing the first.

Put the United States on a much stronger footing vis a vis China in the event of an invasion of Taiwan by:
-Reducing China's influence on world trade choke points
-Increase the United States' influence on these same choke points
-Realign global energy markets to reduce the influence of bad actors operating in shadow markets (Russia, Iran, Venezuela)

But Iran doesn't further any of these goals. China's got more influence over world trade choke points now, because Iran has vastly more influence over Hormuz than they did before the war - and Iran's going to need China so much more once this war is over. Similarly, the U.S. is going to have less influence over Hormuz once the war is over, because Iran will have demonstrated they have the unilateral ability to close it against the wishes of the U.S.

I'm not sure that removing sanctions on oil exporting nations "realigns" global energy markets. China's going to continue to be the largest customer of Iran and Russia even if we take sanctions off them, especially since we're using other levers to try to force Europe to buy less Russian oil and gas.

Why would anyone who rails against Putin want him to be able to sell his oil despite sanctions? Why would anyone who thinks China is an economic rival think that allowing them to buy oil from bad actors at lower prices is a good thing?

Oddly enough isn’t that what Trump has been supporting?

By starting this war, the Trump administration has created a supply shock that has forced the United States to provide temporary sanctions relief to Iran, the country it is fighting against, as well as a belligerent Russia. Despite the administration’s attempt to downplay the benefits the two countries will receive, sanctions relief will likely result in increased revenue for Iran and could result in Russia receiving $3.3 to $5 billion in additional oil revenue in March.

https://www.cfr.org/articles/trump-gambled-by-easi...

Regarding nuclear weapons, Iran was under control until Trump I abandoned the treaty.

has forced the United States to provide temporary sanctions relief to Iran, the country it is fighting against, as well as a belligerent Russia.

How about "has given the United States cover to provide...". The intended beneficiary is, of course, Putin. For those who missed it, Trump the Conqueror has extended Russia's sanction relief.

US extends waiver on Russian oil sanctions to ease Iran war shortages despite Bessent denial

https://apnews.com/article/russian-oil-sanctions-i...

Steve

...especially since we're using other levers to try to force Europe to buy less Russian oil and gas.

???

I agree with everything else you wrote. But I question this. The US has been very tepid against Russia. First, the MAGA congress of 2022-24, and now this administration. Europe is clamoring to arm Ukraine, and deprive Russia of trade. Except for Hungary, pretty much the entire EU is on-board with reducing their demands for Russian oil and gas. Isn't their gas pipeline completely shut down (in part because they were stupid enough to attack their own pipeline in Ukraine, and in part because Europe is actively reducing their demand even as they don't have alternatives ready yet)?

You can't ensure Iran never has a nuclear weapon by destroying things they have today. You can't reduce Iran's capabilities to develop and launch ballistic missiles and cut them off from their terror proxies going forward by destroying things today. Because as long as the regime continues to control the country, they can always restart these things and get back to where they are now within a year or two. If not faster.


Well that depends, doesn't it?
Even 60 Minutes had to swallow it and admit that a) yes, Iran has enough material for a number of bombs and b) they've been cheating and lying for 20 years about (which puts Paid to the absurd talking point that they only started things back up after Trump cancelled The Most Holy Obama's JCPOA deal).

It will come down to their nuclear material. One doesn't just get Mahamoud and Bijan together and tell them to go whip you up some HEU. It's more complicated than that.

But Iran doesn't further any of these goals.

Yes it does. I've outlined why at least 4 times now. Loads of other national writers are starting to figure out the grand moves behind everything we're doing right now. Doing Venezuela, doing Iran and securing a defense agreement over the Straits Of Malacca adds up to one thing: countering China.

China's got more influence over world trade choke points now,

Do they, now.
Are they still in effective control of the Panama canal?
Say, how wide are the Straits of Malacca? (about 2 miles). What do you think an agreement to "pursue asymmetric Naval warfare and defense" with Indonesia (and its literal thousands of islands) means for them in that body of water? IIRC ~80% of their commercial trade goes. Right. Through. There. If they bomb Taiwan, what do you suppose happens in the SoM?

And Hormuz? Say, how much oil is getting out and going to China from Iranian wells? That'd be 0 barrels per day.

Similarly, the U.S. is going to have less influence over Hormuz once the war is over, because Iran will have demonstrated they have the unilateral ability to close it against the wishes of the U.S.

You missed some things.
1, literally hundreds of oil tankers are heading pell-mell across the Atlantic to dock in Texas and Louisiana. They're not going there for Spring Break.

2, Iran has no Navy. No Air Force. And interestingly, doesn't seem to be using heavy weapons on anyone to "close" the strait. Even Bill had to admit that "gunboat" might just mean a couple of guys with AKs running their Mercury outboards at full throttle.

3, The ties to the Gulf States have never been stronger. You think we're not going to continue to have a large presence there? Or get financial help to build even more?

4, a "40 nation coalition led by the UK and France" is going to patrol the strait and keep it open. Have you no faith in the mighty Navies of NATO? Or maybe you'd like to agree with my assessment of their power projection capabilities now?

I agree with everything else you wrote. But I question this. The US has been very tepid against Russia.

Oh, I'm just trying to extend the courtesy to Dope of taking seriously MAGA's stated assertion that U.S. policy towards Europe is to force them to be more self-reliant and capable of independently resisting a potential Russian threat. MAGA foreign policy has generally been very critical of what they identify as European weakness vis-a-vis Russia, specifically including their dependence on Russia as a critical source of energy. MAGA considers the rather harsh approach of the U.S. to Europe as being an effort to force them to stand on their own and depend less on the U.S. as a bulwark against a Russian threat, including diplomatic efforts to encourage Europe to wean itself off of Russian energy supplies.

Trump has personally expressed that message:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/23/business/trump-...

....but it also seems to be a consistent position of the MAGA approach to Europe, namely that they're compromising their own security by relying on Russian imports rather than becoming more energy independent (or importing more from the U.S.).

Oddly enough isn’t that what Trump has been supporting?

I knew someone would come back to this.

Do you think it's a coincidence that Zelensky just suddenly decided to start pounding the crap out of Russia's oil export infrastructure? They can sell more, true...but they have to do it through regular markets. Not their shadow fleet.

Regarding nuclear weapons, Iran was under control until Trump I abandoned the treaty.

Last night 60 Minutes shot this one down. Iran's been cheating for 20 years. They never had any intention whatsoever to honor Obama's plan.

Oh, I'm just trying to extend the courtesy to Dope of taking seriously MAGA's stated assertion that U.S. policy towards Europe is to force them to be more self-reliant and capable of independently resisting a potential Russian threat.

Because a self-reliant Europe doesn't need as much US investment in its defense. Freeing us up to take care of business in the Pacific.

Even 60 Minutes had to swallow it and admit that a) yes, Iran has enough material for a number of bombs and b) they've been cheating and lying for 20 years about (which puts Paid to the absurd talking point that they only started things back up after Trump cancelled The Most Holy Obama's JCPOA deal).

No one denied that Iran has enough material for a number of bombs or that they've been lying about their nuclear program. The criticism of Trump's withdrawal from the JCPOA is that it created a framework to catch them in their lies and enforce a commitment to remain below an energy-level enrichment ceiling. Which they did, until Trump cancelled the JCPOA.

1, literally hundreds of oil tankers are heading pell-mell across the Atlantic to dock in Texas and Louisiana. They're not going there for Spring Break.

I didn't miss that. They're going there to buy oil. The world oil market is global and fungible. Since the strait is closed, other countries have to take oil from us - which is why gas prices in the U.S. have risen to over $4.00 per gallon, even though we don't import much oil from the Middle East.

2, Iran has no Navy. No Air Force. And interestingly, doesn't seem to be using heavy weapons on anyone to "close" the strait. Even Bill had to admit that "gunboat" might just mean a couple of guys with AKs running their Mercury outboards at full throttle.

So what? They don't need any of that stuff to control the strait. The strait can be closed with attacks from the coastline, or gunboats (which is what the UK forces identified them as).

3, The ties to the Gulf States have never been stronger. You think we're not going to continue to have a large presence there? Or get financial help to build even more?

I thought that you said the whole point of this venture was that the U.S. would not have to devote as much of our attention and resources to the area, and could instead focus more on China. Obviously if we're going to have just as large a presence there as before, then that goal won't happen. And there's almost certainly going to be some very raw feelings among the Gulf States over the fact that we split open a hornet's nest of economic pain over our "friends" who were standing under the branch at the time, without consulting them or informing them.

And China's ties to Iran are going to be stronger after the war is over, and Iran's got more power over the strait now. We're not going to be financing and investing in the reconstruction of Iran - that'll all be China.

4, a "40 nation coalition led by the UK and France" is going to patrol the strait and keep it open. Have you no faith in the mighty Navies of NATO? Or maybe you'd like to agree with my assessment of their power projection capabilities now?

What do power projection capabilities have to do with it? The United States can't force open the strait - even though I think you would argue we have the greatest power projection capabilities on the planet. That's because all the power in the world can't prevent coastal attacks on merchant vessels in the strait - unless we move in with a massive ground invasion and seize the coast.

This is the continued folly of the invasion of Iran. We have known for decades and decades that there is no good military answer for their ability to close the strait, that "power projection capabilities" can't solve that problem. That's why prior Presidents had the wisdom and foresight not to invade Iran. For whatever reason, Trump decided to invade without having a solution to keep the strait open - whether because he believed that there would be a Venezuela-type result or mistakenly thought that taking out their Navy and Air Force mattered to control over the strait or whatever. But here we are....

So, no. The 40 nation coalition is unlikely to force open the strait if Iran wants to close it, for the same reason that the U.S. has failed to force open the strait after Iran decided to close it. Because conventional military power can't do that, absent a big old ground invasion.

Even 60 Minutes had to swallow it and admit that a) yes, Iran has enough material for a number of bombs and b) they've been cheating and lying for 20 years about (which puts Paid to the absurd talking point that they only started things back up after Trump cancelled The Most Holy Obama's JCPOA deal).

And people should believe the Ellison propaganda network, with the overhang of threatened FCC action if they don't toe the regime's line, because?

1, literally hundreds of oil tankers are heading pell-mell across the Atlantic to dock in Texas and Louisiana. They're not going there for Spring Break.

Trump the Conqueror brags about that every day. The primary motivation for disrupting oil exports from the Gulf, *after* seizing control of Venezuela's oil, IS to increase demand, at higher prices, for USian oil. They said it out loud, at the convention, in the summer of 24: "energy domination".

Steve

Do you think it's a coincidence that Zelensky just suddenly decided to start pounding the crap out of Russia's oil export infrastructure? They can sell more, true...but they have to do it through regular markets. Not their shadow fleet.

Do you want to imply Zelensky was somehow in on an ingenious master plan here, rather than acting under extreme pressure? He certainly doesn’t seem to know about it:

Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky has condemned a US decision to extend the period during which Russia is allowed to sell oil despite Western sanctions. The move means countries can purchase Russian oil and petroleum products already loaded on vessels at sea until 16 May.

The US argues that the waiver is meant to ease the energy supply crunch sparked by the US-Israel war with Iran. But in his remarks on Sunday, Zelensky said "every dollar paid for Russian oil is money for the war" in Ukraine.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c248m3z49j1o


Isn’t the more rational explanation that Trump makes it up as he goes along, while his advisers desperately try to prevent the worst, while you are trying to project strokes of genius he doesn’t possess?


'Trump screamed at aides for hours, was kept out of room': Report narrates what unfolded after Iran shot US jet

And people should believe the Ellison propaganda network, with the overhang of threatened FCC action if they don't toe the regime's line, because?

So not even CBS is good enough these days. Wow.

They said it out loud, at the convention, in the summer of 24: "energy domination".

I’d rather live in a world where we are
1) energy independent
2) net suppliers of energy
3) sitting atop the pyramid in terms of energy strategy

Isn’t the more rational explanation that Trump makes it up as he goes along, while his advisers desperately try to prevent the worst, while you are trying to project strokes of genius he doesn’t possess?

Let’s not make this personal.
This was all spelled out in the recent national security strategy documents. They’re publicly available.

The doc clearly spells out that China is the main focus.

I’d rather live in a world where we are
1) energy independent
2) net suppliers of energy
3) sitting atop the pyramid in terms of energy strategy

Ah, you want to pay cash for all three Brooklyn Bridges, sold "as-is, where-is". Understood.

NEVER happen under Spankee. The *definition* of DEPENDENCY.

Even Bill had to admit that "gunboat" might just mean a couple of guys with AKs running their Mercury outboards at full throttle.

It wouldn't be a gunboat. Iranians gunboats typically use a 50 cal.

Renewal of threats to destroy civilization while proclaiming they are close to a deal.

Have I missed anything?

To find out whether it's open or closed you have to drive your tanker through?

To find out whether it's open or closed you have to drive your tanker through?

Yep. If you enter the Strait, and your tanker is dead, it was closed.

To find out whether it's open or closed you have to drive your tanker through?

What about a non-tanker?

So not even CBS is good enough these days. Wow.

The Ellison's needed FCC approval for their takeover of Paramount. We know that receiving that approval included installing Bari Weiss as minder over CBS "news". What we don't know, for sure, is what other "understandings" were included in that deal.

I’d rather live in a world where we are
1) energy independent
2) net suppliers of energy
3) sitting atop the pyramid in terms of energy strategy

I agree, bigly, with #1, because dependence on anyone else, gives them a control lever, that they will surely use.

Steve

Ellison's

oh...jit

Steve

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.