By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following an attack on three merchant ships in the Strait of Hormuz, U.S. military forces launched new strikes against Iran early Wednesday. These actions further imperiled the fragile interim deal intended to end the fighting between the two nations. In response to Iran’s aggression, the United States revoked a license that had authorized the sale of Iranian oil, citing the need for consequences. Iran condemned this move, calling it a violation of the agreement and holding the U.S. responsible for the repercussions.
Read the original article here
It’s hard not to feel a sense of weary déjà vu when news breaks about three tankers being hit in the Strait of Hormuz, especially when it coincides with the United States revoking a license that previously authorized the sale of Iranian oil. The timing, coming on a Tuesday no less, sparks a peculiar mix of frustration and almost dark amusement. One can’t help but wonder if those who bet on market fluctuations are feeling a significant pang of disappointment right now. The effectiveness of certain embargoes, when viewed against the backdrop of ongoing geopolitical turmoil, often seems to fall short of achieving the intended yields, leading to a cycle that feels all too familiar.
The immediate aftermath of such incidents often brings a cascade of reactions, from disbelief to outright laughter, a coping mechanism for a situation that feels both serious and, in a twisted way, absurd. Questions inevitably arise about the impact on global fuel prices, especially as conflicts like this are drawn out, mirroring the persistent upward trend in grocery prices seen during past supply chain disruptions, which never seemed to fully recede even after the initial issues were resolved. It’s a cycle that can leave one feeling resigned, wondering if this is simply the new normal.
The decision to revoke the oil sale license by the U.S. brings a new dimension to an already tense situation. There’s a certain irony in the U.S. asserting control over international trade licensing in such a manner, almost as if wielding a parental decree: “Go to your room! Your Wi-Fi privileges are revoked!” This move, ostensibly a consequence for Iran’s actions in the strait, has predictably escalated tensions. The rationale, explained by a U.S. official speaking anonymously, centers on Iran’s unacceptable actions requiring a firm response, yet the exact nature of Iran’s involvement in the tanker incidents themselves remains a point of contention and speculation.
Iranian state television’s account of a liquefied natural gas tanker being attacked after ignoring warnings, without directly claiming responsibility, adds another layer of complexity. This ambiguity, coupled with the suggestion of a “false flag” operation from some observers, hints at a fractured situation within Iran itself. The idea that internal command and control might be compromised, with factions like the IRGC pursuing more aggressive tactics while others seek negotiation, makes a cohesive strategy elusive. This lack of a unified leadership can lead to unpredictable escalations, making any prospect of normalcy in the region incredibly difficult to achieve.
The economic implications of these events are significant. The potential for a substantial ecological disaster due to spilled oil in the Strait of Hormuz is a grave concern, and the idea that this conflict is being deliberately prolonged to force a deal with the U.S. while American stockpiles dwindle suggests a strategic calculation at play. However, the idea that Iran is beholden to a U.S. license to sell its oil, especially considering they often operate outside established financial systems like SWIFT, might be a misinterpretation of the leverage at hand. The situation feels less like a matter of licensing and more like a complex game of brinkmanship.
The concept of “TORTA Thursday,” a humorous acronym for “Threaten Often, Retreat, Try Again,” captures a perceived pattern of negotiation tactics that many find unproductive, particularly when dealing with leaders who have a history of not upholding agreements. The notion that a deal with such an individual is a “sucker’s game” stems from a long list of perceived broken promises and unfulfilled claims of victory. It’s almost as if the very act of creating instability, like splintering a nation’s military command, makes subsequent peace efforts inherently more challenging, a consequence that perhaps should have been more predictable.
The narrative of this conflict feels cyclical, with the belief that a war was over, only for it to resurface. In this context, the alleged attacks on the tankers by Iran, which then triggered the U.S. response of revoking the oil sales license, appears to be a straightforward, albeit unfortunate, cause and effect. However, the suggestion that the U.S. might have attacked the tankers and *then* revoked the license adds a confounding element, blurring the lines of responsibility and intent. This potential for miscommunication or deliberate obfuscation only deepens the sense of uncertainty.
The economic fallout from such events is not limited to immediate price hikes. Shortages can persist long after the initial conflict subsides, as supply chains and strategic reserves require considerable time and effort to rebuild. This means that elevated demand can continue for an extended period, contributing to a “new normal” of higher prices. The idea that businesses, facing recurring supply chain issues, wouldn’t eventually seek alternative arrangements speaks to the entrenched nature of global oil dependence and the complex geopolitical factors that influence it, impacting real human lives and livelihoods across the globe.