By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Crude prices are escalating to their highest levels in nearly two weeks, now exceeding $116 a barrel for Brent crude, due to an intensifying US-Israel war on Iran. Iran’s preparation for a potential US ground invasion and warnings to punish regional allies, coupled with Houthi missile launches at Israel and Israel’s expanded invasion of Lebanon, have significantly disrupted global energy supplies. The effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran, responsible for about one-fifth of global oil and LNG supplies, has plunged the world into its most severe energy crisis in decades, with prices already up nearly 60 percent and further increases anticipated.
Read the original article here
Oil prices have surged past the $116 a barrel mark, a significant jump that coincides with Iran’s stern accusation that the United States is actively preparing for an invasion. This dramatic escalation in oil costs is undeniably linked to the geopolitical tensions brewing, and the market is clearly reacting with apprehension about potential disruptions to supply.
The accusations leveled by Iran suggest a serious perceived threat, and observers are questioning what specific actions by the US could have tipped off Tehran. Speculation points to troop movements, like the deployment of the 82nd Airborne and two Marine Expeditionary Units, as potential indicators that Iran is picking up on. For some, a $115 a barrel price point has been previously discussed as a critical threshold, and the current spike suggests that this line may have been crossed, further fueling concerns.
The idea of a US invasion being a “suicide mission” is a sentiment echoed by many, with questions arising about the strategic objectives and the very feasibility of such an undertaking. The description of such a conflict as being designed by a six-year-old highlights a perceived lack of foresight and a potentially disastrous approach, implying that any such military action would be ill-conceived and doomed from the outset.
It’s a concerning thought that the repercussions of such a conflict could force a reinstatement of the Iran nuclear deal, albeit under a different name. This would be a significant shift, driven by the immense cost of war, which is estimated to be a staggering $2 billion per day. This daily expenditure could fund a considerable number of oil tankers passing through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint that Iran could potentially control.
The question of how to “un-ring that bell” – meaning to undo the consequences of initiating conflict – is a poignant one, with the potential cost in human lives being immeasurable. However, amidst the grim outlook, some silver linings are being considered, such as the widespread adoption of remote work infrastructure and lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, which could potentially reduce overall oil demand.
The immediate impact on consumers is starkly evident at the gas pump, with prices soaring. One report details filling up at $4.45 a gallon, a stark contrast to the $2.75 experienced before these geopolitical tensions began to escalate, leaving many to wonder why prices aren’t even higher given the circumstances. Meanwhile, the political theater continues, with observations of prominent political figures seemingly detached from the unfolding global events, further fueling public frustration.
The prospect of the Bab el-Mandeb strait being closed adds another layer of anxiety to the already volatile situation. The current narrative of “winning” is met with exhaustion and a desire for a resolution, with some even sarcastically wishing for oil prices to reach $250 a barrel and stay there, a stark indicator of the current sentiment.
Despite the dire predictions, there’s a strong sentiment that this war is a foolish endeavor, and Iran’s accusations of US “preparation” are met with skepticism. The timing is particularly odd, with recent statements from the US President suggesting an agreement had been reached, creating a confusing and contradictory narrative. Furthermore, the US allowing Russia to continue its oil and gas exports provides Russia with a much-needed revenue stream for its war efforts, adding another layer of complexity to the global energy and geopolitical landscape.
It’s acknowledged that the current situation should never have occurred, and the word “accuses” in relation to Iran’s claims is noted as potentially an understatement. America has, in fact, publicly stated its preparations for potential military action, making Iran’s warning less of a surprise and more of a confirmation. One potential positive outcome being discussed is the global push towards renewable energy sources and electric vehicles, spurred by the necessity to reduce reliance on fossil fuels.
The notion that Iran might be “three weeks behind the rest of the world” in their assessment is presented, suggesting that if they are just now “accusing” the US of “preparing” for an invasion, it might indicate internal disarray. Iran’s known arsenal of oil-based weapons, such as flamethrowers and napalm, is also mentioned as a significant deterrent, suggesting any invasion attempt would likely result in a brutal and costly defense, potentially a “Basra Beach Barbecue.”
The question of what tipped them off, beyond the obvious troop movements, is rhetorical, implying that the signs were clear for anyone paying attention. The idea of Trump tweeting out invasion plans or an accidental text message including Iranian leadership highlights a perceived lack of strategic discretion. The mention of “the orange idiot threatening to do something drastic” points to concerns about unpredictable political actions exacerbating the situation.
The comment about “I meant €115” and the historical context of oil prices are significant. Oil exceeding $100 a barrel in 2007, which would equate to a much higher figure today, makes the current $116 seem almost conservative to some, given the underlying geopolitical risks. The sentiment that the public is being misled about the direct causes of oil price fluctuations is strong, with the current situation being presented as a prime example where presidential actions have a direct and undeniable impact.
The US’s preparedness for drone warfare is questioned, especially in light of recent events in Ukraine, raising concerns about the safety of military bases and the potential for significant casualties in a ground conflict. The possibility of an initial invasion of Kharg Island being repelled or even completely annihilated is a deeply worrying scenario, drawing parallels to past military miscalculations. Iran’s enhanced understanding of drone warfare and its knowledge of potential US attack vectors are seen as significant advantages. The projected casualty rate for American soldiers involved in any landing operation on Kharg Island is estimated to be substantial, highlighting the immense risks involved.
The objective of opening the Strait of Hormuz is identified as a singular, yet potentially self-defeating, goal, as it was open before the conflict began, labeling it a “masterclass” in misguided strategy. The idea that this is all a distraction and that the mission has been accomplished in that regard suggests a cynical view of the current events.
The prospect of Iran accepting the same terms as the Obama-era deal is considered unlikely, especially given the perceived betrayal by the US previously. Iran is expected to demand greater concessions and guarantees, leveraging its ability to disrupt the global economy. This would likely result in a less favorable deal for the US than the original agreement.
The original Iran nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), is described as a meticulously crafted agreement involving years of groundwork, international cooperation, and intrusive nuclear inspections in exchange for phased sanctions relief. The deal had the backing of Iran’s leadership and was instrumental in navigating complex international relations, with countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia having their own geopolitical concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions and regional influence.
The Trump administration’s withdrawal from the JCPOA and its subsequent “maximum pressure” campaign is seen as a pivotal moment that escalated tensions. The demand for a more comprehensive capitulation from Iran, including the complete cessation of its nuclear program, the dismantling of regional proxies, and the abandonment of its long-range missile program, alongside the prohibition of using Hormuz as leverage and attacking energy infrastructure, is viewed as an unrealistic and overly aggressive stance.
The belief that Iran would capitulate under such pressure, following the example of Venezuela, is seen as a flawed assumption. Iran’s past retaliatory actions, such as targeting US bases after the Fordow incident, are interpreted as evidence of fear and a strategic response to perceived threats, rather than a sign of impending surrender. The financial motivations behind these actions are also brought into question, with accusations of market manipulation for personal gain by individuals with insider knowledge.
The broader impact on the economy is also a significant concern, with the focus on oil prices overshadowing the disruption to other critical exports like Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). LNG is essential for global energy needs and the production of fertilizers, which are crucial for food security. The multifaceted nature of oil’s utility, extending beyond transportation and energy to include essential products like plastics, further exacerbates the potential economic fallout.
The current crisis is potentially more severe than the COVID-19 pandemic, lacking the sense of global solidarity and the possibility of a swift recovery. The absence of a “vaccine” to rapidly rebuild infrastructure and restore stability in the Middle East means that the path to recovery is uncertain and prolonged. Unlike the rapid rebound seen in travel and economic activity after the development of COVID-19 vaccines, the resolution of this conflict is far from clear.
The cascading effect of energy shortages on global manufacturing, particularly in Asia, could lead to widespread factory closures, impacting the production of essential goods like computer chips. This would further disrupt the global economy, affecting industries reliant on these components. The realization that there is no immediate end in sight, unlike the distant but visible hope offered by vaccines during the pandemic, paints a bleak picture. The only conceivable quick exit strategy involves a US withdrawal, which is considered highly improbable given the circumstances.
The refusal of Gulf countries to accept a “Hormuz tollbooth” and Israel’s potential territorial ambitions highlight the complex regional dynamics and the lack of easy solutions. The US is perceived as being caught in an “escalatory ladder,” where any retreat would be seen as a blow to its global power and political standing.
The impact on everyday citizens is immense, with reports from France detailing significant increases in fuel prices, from €1.80/liter to €2.26/liter, and even higher in rural areas, reaching €2.50/liter. This burden on ordinary people is a stark reminder of the human cost of geopolitical conflicts. Some express the view that those who voted for certain political figures need to “learn their lesson” through economic hardship, specifically targeting the “God, Guns, and Oil crowd,” implying a sense of karmic justice.
The notion of Trump being an “asset” to Putin and Israel is a recurring theme, suggesting a perceived alignment of interests that benefits these parties at the expense of global stability. The distinction between “preparing” for an invasion and having “boots on the ground” is crucial, as Iran’s accusation likely refers to concrete preparations, not necessarily an active invasion force.