By Matt Underwood The United States will be hitting Iran “very hard tonight,” and the intention is to eventually take control of Kharg Island and other oil infrastructure, thereby dominating Iran’s oil and gas markets. This strategic move is envisioned as being similar to how the United States is managing Venezuela’s markets, an arrangement that is described as “working out brilliantly for both Venezuela and the United States of America.” The assertion of overwhelming military superiority is also made, with claims that Iran’s Navy, Air Force, radar, anti-aircraft capabilities, and most of its offensive power are already gone.
The pronouncements about hitting Iran “very hard tonight” and the subsequent seizure of oil infrastructure seem to be part of a broader pattern of communication, where statements are made in their entirety to avoid selective media reporting that might seek to portray them as more moderate. The context of these declarations also includes commentary about the need for parental controls on social media platforms, suggesting a concern over the unfiltered nature of such pronouncements. There is also an anticipation of a shift in strategy, with predictions that a “deal” might be pursued in the following weeks, implying a cyclical approach to these international relations.
The reaction to these statements suggests a widespread perception that they are not necessarily reflective of imminent military action, but rather a form of political theater. The lack of significant reaction in oil markets is noted as evidence that these pronouncements are not taken as indicators of actual reality. The timing of these statements, particularly in relation to significant global events like the start of the FIFA World Cup, is seen as a deliberate attempt to distract or to coincide with other news cycles, such as the release of Epstein files, further fueling speculation about the motivations behind them.
The idea of going after more public infrastructure raises concerns about the impact on ordinary citizens, suggesting that the intended targets and consequences might extend beyond military objectives. There is a recurring sentiment that such pronouncements are a tactic to manage perceptions or to influence market dynamics, with speculation about potential personal financial benefits through oil options. The repeated cycle of threats and potential de-escalation through deals is observed with a sense of weariness and frustration.
The announcement of a supposedly impending military operation to an adversary is viewed with skepticism, as it seems to provide an advantage to the targeted nation. The suggestion of specifying the exact time and location of an attack, even sarcastically, highlights the perceived recklessness of such public pronouncements. It is also noted that similar threats of hitting hard have been made previously without subsequent action, leading to a sense of disbelief and a characterization of these statements as akin to announcing fight cards rather than actual military plans. The broader implications for military personnel and the risks they are exposed to due to these pronouncements are also a significant concern.
The commentary also touches upon the broader international perception of the United States, with claims that “the rest of the world hates you.” This sentiment is interwoven with criticisms of the leadership, labeling them as incompetent, a rapist, and a liar. The notion of targeting oil and gas markets, particularly Kharg Island, is seen as a significant provocation that could lead to extreme retaliatory measures, such as Iran adopting a “scorched earth” policy. There is a strong hope expressed that these pronouncements are merely bluffing, a pattern that has become increasingly predictable.
The idea of the US firing at civilian commercial ships is raised as a concerning escalation, suggesting that the current administration continues to break new ground in its approach to foreign policy. The phrase “pound sand” is used to describe the perceived ineffectiveness and futility of these repeated threats. The question of whether these are new declarations or rehashes of previous headlines is also posed, highlighting the repetitive nature of the discourse. The perception that these actions are designed to benefit specific interests, such as “big oil,” is also a prominent theme, leading to a sense of shame regarding the deployment of military personnel into harm’s way.
The comparison to Venezuela is used to illustrate a perceived pattern of intervention and market control, though the efficacy and positive outcomes of this comparison are questioned. The idea of “taking control” of oil markets is presented as a significant ambition, but the means by which this is intended to be achieved, particularly through military action announced in advance, is met with disbelief. The sheer predictability of the cycle of threats, potential market manipulation, and subsequent “deals” is a source of frustration for many observers.