Iran has reportedly proposed to the United States that the two countries focus on reopening the Strait of Hormuz and postpone consideration of Iran’s nuclear program and other issues.
My honest opinion is that Sanction must keep the strait close for Iranian trade. Opening the strait for Iran means cash for weapons & military build-up! In real World one makes a deal when can close a deal! - Viktor, the Magnificent, title: Magnus NUCLEUS for Purity of Thought
Yes everything in Global Politics is decided in this war with Iran - US Global Leadership, Currency & Financial Strength, Relations with Gulf state, Overall US-israeli Socio-economic competitiveness in the World! My core strategic Concepts for a Global Socio-Economic Doctrine in the 21 century is available here:
Richard, easily the worst advice you have ever offered. The English language does not contain the right words to accurately express the depth and breadth of your folly.
Why is Iran coming to the table?
Because the American blockade denies the murderous regime of the funding to continue their evil.
Now is the time to bankrupt the regime. Just like the USSR’s implosion was driven by an empty wallet, Iran is on the verge of a total financial collapse. They already cannot pay their thugs.
I suppose you think that we can do that without crashing our own economy but I think you are handwaving away their control of 20% of the world oil supply cause you got your head stuck in the sand I don't want to accept unpleasant realities
Your entire argument depends on pretending the U.S. is somehow insulated from global oil pricing, which just isn’t true. We don’t live in a sealed system—we sell into and buy from a global market. If 20% of supply is constrained, prices rise globally, and that flows straight into U.S. fuel costs, transport, and inflation. Domestic production doesn’t magically wall us off from that—it just means we participate in the market on both sides.
I agree with you, the US is not insulated from global oil pricing, but it is insulated from supply shortages.
In the 1970s, we had two oil shocks wherein there was a refined products SHORTAGE that drove prices up, but also created unfillable shortages.
We will not experience that problem because DRILL, BABY, DRILL has us producing more than enough product.
Our gas prices are still below the peak of Biden prices and well within the range of Obama prices on crude. We'll be fine. I was getting a little spoiled with gas below $2.00/gal. [I paid $1.49/gal on Biden's Inauguration Day at Sam's Warehouse in Tuscaloosa -- just passing through -- and remarked to my wife, "We won't see these prices again for a little while." Little did I know.]
We're not going to have anything like a depression and the oil prices/gas prices will come down like a crowbar thrown out of a plane's window once things are sorted out in the Middle East which they will be within the next 90 days.
I beg to differ with you as it relates to refined product because our markets are not nearly as global when it comes to refined product. Much of our usage is regional which is why California is so screwed having killed all their refineries and instituting specialized specifications on refined products.
You’re drawing a distinction without a real difference. Saying the U.S. is “insulated from shortages but not prices” doesn’t actually solve the problem—price is the mechanism by which shortages are transmitted in a global market. We don’t need gas lines for it to hurt the economy; a global supply shock just shows up here as higher prices, which hits everything from transportation to inflation. The 1970s comparison actually proves the point in reverse—the structure of the market changed, but the vulnerability didn’t disappear, it just shifted from physical shortages to price shocks. “Drill, baby, drill” doesn’t insulate us from that either because U.S. producers sell into a global market at global prices; increased domestic output doesn’t create a protected internal pool, it just means U.S. companies also benefit when prices spike. And the idea that refined products are somehow insulated because they’re “regional” is overstated—yes, there are regional bottlenecks and specifications, but refined product prices still track crude and global conditions closely, which is exactly why disruptions anywhere still ripple through here. What you’re really doing is mixing long-term adjustment with short-term impact—yes, supply can rebalance over time, but markets don’t wait for that, they reprice immediately based on risk. That’s why even the expectation of disruption moves prices before any actual shortage shows up, and why saying “we’ll be fine” ignores how the system actually behaves in the moment that matters.
Walter, I am not actually trying to solve a problem. Just a random observation and response to what you wrote.
The energy market is not a "market" in the sense of a free market in which supply and demand are allowed to range far and wide, free and fair.
It is a manipulated market.
As an example, when the US attacked Iran, Saudi Arabia increased production and then immediately decreasted production by almost 25% for an odd reason -- they began to shift their shipping from the Persian Gulf to Yanbu on the opposite side of Saudi Arabia via the East - West pipeline(s) and they only hold 5mm bbl/day.
You seem to believe that a physical shortage and a price increase are the same thing -- they are not.
In the 1970s, the US was forced to import both crude and refined product because it was not producing enough of its own. For neither love nor money, the US could not get more product.
There was a shortage.
Now, is quite different -- we will have zero shortages and we can have whatever TF we want and can afford. Thus far that seems to solely be a premium at the pump and no shortage.
Wildly different and, yes, because this Trump chap had the foresight to turn the industry loose via Drill, Baby, Drill.
Markets do, in fact, reprice based on a number of things including risk, but it is also true that large users of crude and refined product lock up the price for extended periods of time. They don't just sit around and let the market set the price.
This price increase -- began under Biden -- will be a quick up and an even wilder and vastly quicker fall back to prior levels and below.
As to the regional nature of gas prices in the US, you are just wrong. There is even an impact based on the local retailer.
You misread the leverage that the U.S. holds. Iranian is coming to the table to end a blockade that is BOTH leading to extreme suffering in Iran and a disastrous worldwide depression. You have a theory that further pressure will lead to only one side of those consequences happening.
Iran will never "come to the table" to surrender. They are only interested in a deal that will enrage you. Leadership has to choose between enraging people who want to unrealisticly "finish the job" and protecting the world from a deadly depression.
Economic pressure is not enough leverage to force this particular regime to surrender. It would require a massive invasion, and not just controlling some Islands in the Strait. Your vision of a relatively easy path to "finish the job" is a fantasy.
Iran has already come to the table -- the extremist fanatical Mullahs are history; the faux civilian government is history; and, now we have the naked aggression of the barbaric IRGC unmasked as the true power in Iran.
That is progress, great progress. If anyone had said that would be the state of affairs 2 months in, the world would have stood and applauded.
The idea that the world is going to enter into a "deadly depression" is unsupported by any evidence -- we are well within Obama era energy and gas prices -- whilst Iran has lost any authority to its now 98% devalued currency, 50%+ unemployment, 100% inflation, zero net foreign investment, the Sepah bank data center bombed into dust, and the inability to pay current payables including the payroll of the IRGC/Basij/pensioneers as they come due.
On top of that, the Iranian ability to derive any revenue from oil is now gone and as fields are shut in as all storage is full, the ability to recover is rapidly fading.
Iran has a monthly burn rate of about $4B with maybe $20B cash on hand and zero income.
The US -- already producing more than Saudi Arabia and Russia combined -- will have some short term inflation -- haha, transitory.
So, let them marinate. Stir the pot from time to time. They're cooked.
"The idea that the world is going to enter into a "deadly depression" is unsupported by any evidence -- we are well within Obama era energy and gas prices"
We are 6 weeks into the crisis. Markets are betting on TACO. THe shit has not hit the fan.
The fact that we are not in economic peril is irrelevant. If Trump stays the course
Actually, we are 3 days short of 9 weeks in having struck Iran on 2-28-26.
The US has seen a predictable price increase in gas and not much else.
Iran, OTOH, has taken more than 15,000 bombs, had its Supreme Leader knocked out, had his replacement KOed, seen its leadership decapitated, really the fanatical extremist Mullahs are gone, the civilian leadership is gone, the Iranian rial is toilet paper, inflation is more than 100%, unemployment is more than 50%, zero net foreign investment, their bank data centers are gone, the Iranians cannot meet payroll, and now they have their only reliable source of revenue being blockaded.
It gets worse because they are using their tankers for storage. They have no place to put the oil.
Iran is the one who is screwed and all Trump has to do is to stay the course.
Oh, yeah, China is struggling with from whence to buy oil -- Venezuela and now Iran are history.
How much better could it be going for the US?
Give me some data, some evidence to support your opinion if there is any.
Europe & Asia are already straining. The U.S. is not an economic island. The danger arrives 4 to 6 months from now. Good catch on 9 weeks rather than 6 - that changes everything.
It doesn’t matter if Iran regresses to a barter system. The people who control Iran will never surrender. You are dealing with patriots and fanatics who have nothing to lose.
If you want to control Iran you will have to fight for it.
Total population of Iran is 92,000,000; hardcore IRGC is maybe 1,500,000, but already the lower ranks are not getting paychecks.
Basij -- bad militia -- and Artesh -- army -- are not receiving timely payment as are pensioneers not receiving timely payment.
Missed paychecks are as powerful as bombs when it comes to keeping the gang together.
The Speaker of the House, old hardcore IRGC, his wife just bought two luxury apartments in Istanbul. WTF does that indicate?
As to fighting for it, so what. They can be bombed until the ranks are sufficiently thinned to advance an alternative government as an idea only.
In all these shit hole countries -- Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, Syria -- the key is free and fair elections to change the regime and to get the revenue into the new regime. We don't need paradise, just an ally who is friendly and not trying to develop a nuke would be fine.
The Arabs sans Iran will do fine running the Middle East. UAE just punted from OPEC/OPEC+ over quotas. They can product 5MM bbl/day and OPEC has them assigned at 3-3.5MM bbl/day. Great development.
If some people feel this way it is totally irrelevant to the problem at hand.
Trump got himself into this dilemma. Haas offered an escape hatch for Trump that is massively preferable to continuing the unwinable game of chicken he is embarked on. I don't expect Trump to take the advice because it is humiliating to fall so far short of his goals. So we continue down a path of mutual destruction.
You sort of validate my point: It’s not Trump in this dilemma, it’s the US. What Haas offers is not a solution, it’s a capitulation. The Mullahs were hated by their people long before Trump. They may be filled with hate (more likely it’s a form of “pluralistic ignorance”-Google). It’s not obvious how they pay their foot soldiers as the vice tightens. We are 7 weeks into this and everyone wants to run because oil went up a little even though it’s less than the Putin Price hike or very high on a historical basis.
On the other hand, if we turn tail and accept defeat, Iran will retain its uranium, will rebuild its missiles, and fund proxies disrupting its neighbors and menacing Israel.
And if we can’t bear the pain of $100 oil or kick the Russians out of Ukraine, how can we assist Taiwan, Philippines, or Myanmar resist China? Can we endure the pain of a cellphone embargo? TV disruptions?
The pain is not $100 oil. It is starvation globally due to insufficient fertilizer. Its a real possibility of a depression in Europe & asia. Much more.
Haas offers half a loaf, not capitulation.
You demand total surrender. Since you don't acknowledge the cost of attempting to secure total victory it makes sense. We are headed for deep damage globally with Iranian transformation unlikely.
It is May1. If the fertilizer flows soon, it cannot possibly get to the fields until June. That’s too late for this year. Whatever damage there is, it has already happened. Until the Fall, or S Hemisphere planting season, there isn’t much impact. You can as ai when fertilizer gets applied for wheat and corn.
Trump worshipers like you would rather pretend that we can do this indefinitely while every day the straight remains closed our economy gets closer to a recession. But we can't exempt ourselves from that reality just because it's uncomfortable.. and it's also unrealistic to think that the Iranians are going to give into our demands before that happens based on just a blockade after they have endured decades of sanctions
2. Assume you are right. Oil goes to $130 (not obvious or likely) and we have a recession. We have them every 7 or 8 years. We survive, the voters blame Trump, life goes on. I wouldn’t wish for a recession but compared with WWII or other adversity, isn’t it worth it to get rid of an Iranian menace? A Putin ally? To deter China in Taiwan?
You’re begging the question. You don’t get to assume that enduring a recession is “worth it” unless you first prove that Trump’s actions are actually preventing the bad outcomes you named. Where is the evidence that this makes Iran less likely to get nuclear weapons, less likely to start another war, less likely to align with Russia, or less likely to encourage China? You’re just assuming the benefit and then asking whether the cost is acceptable. But the real possibility is that we get the recession and Trump has made every one of those outcomes more likely by wrecking deterrence, burning leverage, and leaving us with fewer good options. So before we talk about whether the pain is “worth it,” you have to establish what concrete strategic gain we’re supposedly buying with that pain. Right now, all I see is self-inflicted economic damage attached to a policy you haven’t shown will actually solve anything.
Concur with you that my premise is that continued pursuit of a disarming Iran is preferable to capitulation. There is no proof, only weighing the preponderance of the evidence. But I think we can see that capitulation reduces the strength of US deterrence in Taiwan. And failure to follow through in Iran makes it more likely they rebuild their proxy network, produce more ballistic missiles, and resume development of a nuclear weapon where they have fuel for 10+ bombs.
Ah, so now we’ve upgraded from ‘assume the benefits’ to ‘well, we have to keep going because stopping looks like capitulation.’ That’s not strategy—that’s sunk-cost thinking dressed up as toughness. You’re still assuming the policy is working when there’s no evidence it is, and ignoring the possibility that it’s already backfired so badly that it’s made the original goal less achievable. At some point, continuing the same approach doesn’t show resolve—it just locks in the damage.
You’re framing any alternative as ‘letting Iran do whatever it wants,’ which is a false choice. The real question is whether what we’re doing is actually constraining them or accelerating exactly the outcomes you say you want to avoid. If the policy has already burned leverage, hardened their position, and pushed them closer to the very things we’re trying to stop, then doubling down isn’t strength—it’s just refusing to admit the strategy failed.
Just when I think that I wish almost any other person in the world other than Trump were in a position to handle the current crisis, I read the comments to almost any article on almost any serious topic, and I am reminded, no, there are many people who I wouldn't want in charge. Including, no doubt, myself, as my views are based on limited information filtered through others and a lack of sufficient time to really study the situation, or even to understand the background. Trying lawsuits hardly qualifies me as an expert on international matters, no matter how much I read. But based on what I do know and the readings I have done, I think your recommendation is the best course of action. Trying to crash Iran, no matter how appealing, while putting the world economy at significant risk, or setting the stage for escalation to a ground war if the blockade doesn't work quickly enough, sets off way too many unintended consequences. Is this worse than where we were on February 28th? Of course it is, but that ship has already sailed (which, given the situation, is obviously a terrible metaphor.)
At this point, if there is a genuine issue with fertilizer,it’s too late for this season. The Oil market has adjusted which isn’t to say there isn’t pain, but why not see it through? The IRGC can’t pay its soldiers and the masses hate their government.
there's nothing to see through other than economic damage that will pitch us into a recession if we keep up this up we're gonna make that more and more likely without making it appreciably more likely that the Iranians will give into our demands
well then essentially we are accepting a long-term economic damage to ourselves in return for practically no chance of the Iranians giving into our demands without even more disastrous escalation
Whose side are you on? Iran is not a rational actor and always lies. You originally suggested the blockade which now seems to be hurting Iran more than military strikes. If it makes things difficult for China, so much the better! We cannot give in to prolonged ceasefires which would give Iran the ability to rearm and raise additional cash.
how do you identify desperation? When someone frames facing reality itself as dis loyalty so the loyalty is defined by willingness to participate in collective self delusion. But how does that help the country? Doesn't it actually make us weaker? Isn't a disloyal person the one who actually encourages people with false hopes and unrealistic expectations so they were not prepared to deal with the situation in the best way?
Weeks ago, you were clear in your recommendation that the Strait should be open to everyone - or no one. What you are espousing here is a big shift from that position. Do you believe that Iran and its proxies will allow the strait to be open, without charging a hefty price or fee to the countries it opposes? I do not believe so which I why I disagree with this rationale you are laying out. Also. I do not believe Iran will any longer be willing to earnestly negotiate its nuclear capability if the big stick of the Strait is no longer in play.
Wouldn’t the acknowledgment of the Strait as international waters make it open to all? With the involvement of other countries in the region and NATO as a mechanism for keeping it that way? That’s how I read this…
You write that the gap on nuclear issues includes "what should be done with the nearly one thousand pounds of enriched uranium in Iran." Exactly. That's the core problem — and your "Strait First" formula makes it worse, not better.
Iran has already moved in heavy equipment to excavate and permanently conceal that uranium, buried by the bombing. Every day the Strait negotiation drags on is a day Iran uses to make those "nearly one thousand pounds" unreachable — and any future deal, including Trump's, vastly harder to achieve.
You're essentially proposing to trade a temporary economic crisis for a permanent nuclear one. Opening the Strait matters — but not if the price is allowing Iran to hide its weapons-grade uranium forever.
Isn't that too high a price to pay just for lower gas prices?
This is effectively a pro-China and pro-Iran argument because their interests are treated as goods in themselves, not merely as factors to consider. China’s access to cheap Iranian oil is framed as something to restore, rather than part of the strategic problem. Meanwhile, the piece separates the Strait from Iran’s nuclear program, gives up major leverage, and assumes diplomacy can still work later. That is not neutral realism; it favors Beijing and Tehran while postponing the central threat.
It appears that Mr. Trump will not be accepting Iran's deal after all. That is not a surprise and I am rather annoyed that Mr. Haass did not mention in his excellent column that Trump was not a responsible negotiator and would most likely NOT do the smart thing.
Apparently the reason Trump would not accept the deal is because it would not make him look like a winner. How can you seriously debate with someone so incompetent and immature.
If you remove the blockade and the Strait is open, we are almost back to the status quo ante. Trump, being one who has a short attention span, will lose interest and move onto another issue (Greenland?) as negotiations bog down. This is what Iran wants: kick the can down the road. You cannot give up the stick that easily.
Opening the strait alleviates economic pressure on everyone; agreeing to start parallel negotiations, which will be long and arduous, on other issues keeps discussion channels open and perhaps allows perspective and context to emerge in both DC and Tehran (but what about Tel Aviv?). … So perhaps a broader JCPOA 2 could result —???
So what have we gained from this “ little adventure?”a no longer free strait of Hormuz, no regime change and no change in nuclear issue. The art of the deal LOL
So we should both stop blockading, when Iran is really not blockading anything and is by far hurt the most by the US blockade. We should let Iran charge fees for passage, like they own the Strait, tacitly recogni,ing their authority and ownership, which has never been even proposed before. We should also just kick the nuclear can down the road for negotiations, thus allowing them to restart their enrichment program. This sounds like Joe Biden dictated it in his bathrobe, while drooling fruit cup down his chin and watching his TV programs with the ghost of Neville Chamberlain.
My honest opinion is that Sanction must keep the strait close for Iranian trade. Opening the strait for Iran means cash for weapons & military build-up! In real World one makes a deal when can close a deal! - Viktor, the Magnificent, title: Magnus NUCLEUS for Purity of Thought
yeah but it also means that our economy doesn't collapse
Yes everything in Global Politics is decided in this war with Iran - US Global Leadership, Currency & Financial Strength, Relations with Gulf state, Overall US-israeli Socio-economic competitiveness in the World! My core strategic Concepts for a Global Socio-Economic Doctrine in the 21 century is available here:
https://www.dnamanagement.org/blog/the-perspective-of-viktor-hadjiev
Regards, Viktor, title Magnus NUCLEUS for Purity of THOUGH
Troll
Richard, easily the worst advice you have ever offered. The English language does not contain the right words to accurately express the depth and breadth of your folly.
Why is Iran coming to the table?
Because the American blockade denies the murderous regime of the funding to continue their evil.
Now is the time to bankrupt the regime. Just like the USSR’s implosion was driven by an empty wallet, Iran is on the verge of a total financial collapse. They already cannot pay their thugs.
Finish the job.
“It’s the economy, stupid.”
Cheers
I disagree and appreciate that you wrote with such amicable candor
I suppose you think that we can do that without crashing our own economy but I think you are handwaving away their control of 20% of the world oil supply cause you got your head stuck in the sand I don't want to accept unpleasant realities
Yes, I do.
We are in the mid-range of Obama era energy costs with a massive increase in domestic production.
The 20% of the world oil supply issue -- a real issue for the rest the world -- will not even remotely impact the US. Just the way it is.
Show me some evidence that this is anything other than a short term inconvenience. Evidence, not opinions.
Your entire argument depends on pretending the U.S. is somehow insulated from global oil pricing, which just isn’t true. We don’t live in a sealed system—we sell into and buy from a global market. If 20% of supply is constrained, prices rise globally, and that flows straight into U.S. fuel costs, transport, and inflation. Domestic production doesn’t magically wall us off from that—it just means we participate in the market on both sides.
I agree with you, the US is not insulated from global oil pricing, but it is insulated from supply shortages.
In the 1970s, we had two oil shocks wherein there was a refined products SHORTAGE that drove prices up, but also created unfillable shortages.
We will not experience that problem because DRILL, BABY, DRILL has us producing more than enough product.
Our gas prices are still below the peak of Biden prices and well within the range of Obama prices on crude. We'll be fine. I was getting a little spoiled with gas below $2.00/gal. [I paid $1.49/gal on Biden's Inauguration Day at Sam's Warehouse in Tuscaloosa -- just passing through -- and remarked to my wife, "We won't see these prices again for a little while." Little did I know.]
We're not going to have anything like a depression and the oil prices/gas prices will come down like a crowbar thrown out of a plane's window once things are sorted out in the Middle East which they will be within the next 90 days.
I beg to differ with you as it relates to refined product because our markets are not nearly as global when it comes to refined product. Much of our usage is regional which is why California is so screwed having killed all their refineries and instituting specialized specifications on refined products.
You’re drawing a distinction without a real difference. Saying the U.S. is “insulated from shortages but not prices” doesn’t actually solve the problem—price is the mechanism by which shortages are transmitted in a global market. We don’t need gas lines for it to hurt the economy; a global supply shock just shows up here as higher prices, which hits everything from transportation to inflation. The 1970s comparison actually proves the point in reverse—the structure of the market changed, but the vulnerability didn’t disappear, it just shifted from physical shortages to price shocks. “Drill, baby, drill” doesn’t insulate us from that either because U.S. producers sell into a global market at global prices; increased domestic output doesn’t create a protected internal pool, it just means U.S. companies also benefit when prices spike. And the idea that refined products are somehow insulated because they’re “regional” is overstated—yes, there are regional bottlenecks and specifications, but refined product prices still track crude and global conditions closely, which is exactly why disruptions anywhere still ripple through here. What you’re really doing is mixing long-term adjustment with short-term impact—yes, supply can rebalance over time, but markets don’t wait for that, they reprice immediately based on risk. That’s why even the expectation of disruption moves prices before any actual shortage shows up, and why saying “we’ll be fine” ignores how the system actually behaves in the moment that matters.
Walter, I am not actually trying to solve a problem. Just a random observation and response to what you wrote.
The energy market is not a "market" in the sense of a free market in which supply and demand are allowed to range far and wide, free and fair.
It is a manipulated market.
As an example, when the US attacked Iran, Saudi Arabia increased production and then immediately decreasted production by almost 25% for an odd reason -- they began to shift their shipping from the Persian Gulf to Yanbu on the opposite side of Saudi Arabia via the East - West pipeline(s) and they only hold 5mm bbl/day.
You seem to believe that a physical shortage and a price increase are the same thing -- they are not.
In the 1970s, the US was forced to import both crude and refined product because it was not producing enough of its own. For neither love nor money, the US could not get more product.
There was a shortage.
Now, is quite different -- we will have zero shortages and we can have whatever TF we want and can afford. Thus far that seems to solely be a premium at the pump and no shortage.
Wildly different and, yes, because this Trump chap had the foresight to turn the industry loose via Drill, Baby, Drill.
Markets do, in fact, reprice based on a number of things including risk, but it is also true that large users of crude and refined product lock up the price for extended periods of time. They don't just sit around and let the market set the price.
This price increase -- began under Biden -- will be a quick up and an even wilder and vastly quicker fall back to prior levels and below.
As to the regional nature of gas prices in the US, you are just wrong. There is even an impact based on the local retailer.
You misread the leverage that the U.S. holds. Iranian is coming to the table to end a blockade that is BOTH leading to extreme suffering in Iran and a disastrous worldwide depression. You have a theory that further pressure will lead to only one side of those consequences happening.
Iran will never "come to the table" to surrender. They are only interested in a deal that will enrage you. Leadership has to choose between enraging people who want to unrealisticly "finish the job" and protecting the world from a deadly depression.
Economic pressure is not enough leverage to force this particular regime to surrender. It would require a massive invasion, and not just controlling some Islands in the Strait. Your vision of a relatively easy path to "finish the job" is a fantasy.
Iran has already come to the table -- the extremist fanatical Mullahs are history; the faux civilian government is history; and, now we have the naked aggression of the barbaric IRGC unmasked as the true power in Iran.
That is progress, great progress. If anyone had said that would be the state of affairs 2 months in, the world would have stood and applauded.
The idea that the world is going to enter into a "deadly depression" is unsupported by any evidence -- we are well within Obama era energy and gas prices -- whilst Iran has lost any authority to its now 98% devalued currency, 50%+ unemployment, 100% inflation, zero net foreign investment, the Sepah bank data center bombed into dust, and the inability to pay current payables including the payroll of the IRGC/Basij/pensioneers as they come due.
On top of that, the Iranian ability to derive any revenue from oil is now gone and as fields are shut in as all storage is full, the ability to recover is rapidly fading.
Iran has a monthly burn rate of about $4B with maybe $20B cash on hand and zero income.
The US -- already producing more than Saudi Arabia and Russia combined -- will have some short term inflation -- haha, transitory.
So, let them marinate. Stir the pot from time to time. They're cooked.
"The idea that the world is going to enter into a "deadly depression" is unsupported by any evidence -- we are well within Obama era energy and gas prices"
We are 6 weeks into the crisis. Markets are betting on TACO. THe shit has not hit the fan.
The fact that we are not in economic peril is irrelevant. If Trump stays the course
we will be well screwed.
Actually, we are 3 days short of 9 weeks in having struck Iran on 2-28-26.
The US has seen a predictable price increase in gas and not much else.
Iran, OTOH, has taken more than 15,000 bombs, had its Supreme Leader knocked out, had his replacement KOed, seen its leadership decapitated, really the fanatical extremist Mullahs are gone, the civilian leadership is gone, the Iranian rial is toilet paper, inflation is more than 100%, unemployment is more than 50%, zero net foreign investment, their bank data centers are gone, the Iranians cannot meet payroll, and now they have their only reliable source of revenue being blockaded.
It gets worse because they are using their tankers for storage. They have no place to put the oil.
Iran is the one who is screwed and all Trump has to do is to stay the course.
Oh, yeah, China is struggling with from whence to buy oil -- Venezuela and now Iran are history.
How much better could it be going for the US?
Give me some data, some evidence to support your opinion if there is any.
Europe & Asia are already straining. The U.S. is not an economic island. The danger arrives 4 to 6 months from now. Good catch on 9 weeks rather than 6 - that changes everything.
It doesn’t matter if Iran regresses to a barter system. The people who control Iran will never surrender. You are dealing with patriots and fanatics who have nothing to lose.
If you want to control Iran you will have to fight for it.
Total population of Iran is 92,000,000; hardcore IRGC is maybe 1,500,000, but already the lower ranks are not getting paychecks.
Basij -- bad militia -- and Artesh -- army -- are not receiving timely payment as are pensioneers not receiving timely payment.
Missed paychecks are as powerful as bombs when it comes to keeping the gang together.
The Speaker of the House, old hardcore IRGC, his wife just bought two luxury apartments in Istanbul. WTF does that indicate?
As to fighting for it, so what. They can be bombed until the ranks are sufficiently thinned to advance an alternative government as an idea only.
In all these shit hole countries -- Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, Syria -- the key is free and fair elections to change the regime and to get the revenue into the new regime. We don't need paradise, just an ally who is friendly and not trying to develop a nuke would be fine.
The Arabs sans Iran will do fine running the Middle East. UAE just punted from OPEC/OPEC+ over quotas. They can product 5MM bbl/day and OPEC has them assigned at 3-3.5MM bbl/day. Great development.
It's going to be fine.
Your proposals mean Iran is weakened but has won the war. Why?
1. Iran retains its nuclear material.
2. The regime outlasted the U.S. and remains in power.
3. The idea that help is on the way for the Iranian people is gone. The “revolution” is dead.
These were all goals stated by Trump at various times but were not achieved.
Because trump haters would rather the Us lose than Trump get credit.
If some people feel this way it is totally irrelevant to the problem at hand.
Trump got himself into this dilemma. Haas offered an escape hatch for Trump that is massively preferable to continuing the unwinable game of chicken he is embarked on. I don't expect Trump to take the advice because it is humiliating to fall so far short of his goals. So we continue down a path of mutual destruction.
Fertilizer issue:
https://www.wsj.com/world/asia/u-s-iran-wars-next-casualty-global-food-7bb7f8bf?st=L2DzhH&reflink=article_copyURL_share
Unfortunately, it is too late to do anything for spring planting.
https://amitsegal.substack.com/p/its-noon-in-israel-iran-is-drowning?r=hibdz&utm_medium=ios
This is covered in lots of places.
Another on Iran’s fuel storage problem.
https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iran-is-flooded-with-so-much-unsold-oil-that-its-stashing-it-in-derelict-tanks-ed8e62b1?st=gxHDRv&reflink=article_copyURL_share
You sort of validate my point: It’s not Trump in this dilemma, it’s the US. What Haas offers is not a solution, it’s a capitulation. The Mullahs were hated by their people long before Trump. They may be filled with hate (more likely it’s a form of “pluralistic ignorance”-Google). It’s not obvious how they pay their foot soldiers as the vice tightens. We are 7 weeks into this and everyone wants to run because oil went up a little even though it’s less than the Putin Price hike or very high on a historical basis.
On the other hand, if we turn tail and accept defeat, Iran will retain its uranium, will rebuild its missiles, and fund proxies disrupting its neighbors and menacing Israel.
And if we can’t bear the pain of $100 oil or kick the Russians out of Ukraine, how can we assist Taiwan, Philippines, or Myanmar resist China? Can we endure the pain of a cellphone embargo? TV disruptions?
The pain is not $100 oil. It is starvation globally due to insufficient fertilizer. Its a real possibility of a depression in Europe & asia. Much more.
Haas offers half a loaf, not capitulation.
You demand total surrender. Since you don't acknowledge the cost of attempting to secure total victory it makes sense. We are headed for deep damage globally with Iranian transformation unlikely.
It is May1. If the fertilizer flows soon, it cannot possibly get to the fields until June. That’s too late for this year. Whatever damage there is, it has already happened. Until the Fall, or S Hemisphere planting season, there isn’t much impact. You can as ai when fertilizer gets applied for wheat and corn.
So it’s really oil prices and helium.
Trump worshipers like you would rather pretend that we can do this indefinitely while every day the straight remains closed our economy gets closer to a recession. But we can't exempt ourselves from that reality just because it's uncomfortable.. and it's also unrealistic to think that the Iranians are going to give into our demands before that happens based on just a blockade after they have endured decades of sanctions
1. Not Trump voter.
2. Assume you are right. Oil goes to $130 (not obvious or likely) and we have a recession. We have them every 7 or 8 years. We survive, the voters blame Trump, life goes on. I wouldn’t wish for a recession but compared with WWII or other adversity, isn’t it worth it to get rid of an Iranian menace? A Putin ally? To deter China in Taiwan?
You’re begging the question. You don’t get to assume that enduring a recession is “worth it” unless you first prove that Trump’s actions are actually preventing the bad outcomes you named. Where is the evidence that this makes Iran less likely to get nuclear weapons, less likely to start another war, less likely to align with Russia, or less likely to encourage China? You’re just assuming the benefit and then asking whether the cost is acceptable. But the real possibility is that we get the recession and Trump has made every one of those outcomes more likely by wrecking deterrence, burning leverage, and leaving us with fewer good options. So before we talk about whether the pain is “worth it,” you have to establish what concrete strategic gain we’re supposedly buying with that pain. Right now, all I see is self-inflicted economic damage attached to a policy you haven’t shown will actually solve anything.
Concur with you that my premise is that continued pursuit of a disarming Iran is preferable to capitulation. There is no proof, only weighing the preponderance of the evidence. But I think we can see that capitulation reduces the strength of US deterrence in Taiwan. And failure to follow through in Iran makes it more likely they rebuild their proxy network, produce more ballistic missiles, and resume development of a nuclear weapon where they have fuel for 10+ bombs.
Ah, so now we’ve upgraded from ‘assume the benefits’ to ‘well, we have to keep going because stopping looks like capitulation.’ That’s not strategy—that’s sunk-cost thinking dressed up as toughness. You’re still assuming the policy is working when there’s no evidence it is, and ignoring the possibility that it’s already backfired so badly that it’s made the original goal less achievable. At some point, continuing the same approach doesn’t show resolve—it just locks in the damage.
You’re framing any alternative as ‘letting Iran do whatever it wants,’ which is a false choice. The real question is whether what we’re doing is actually constraining them or accelerating exactly the outcomes you say you want to avoid. If the policy has already burned leverage, hardened their position, and pushed them closer to the very things we’re trying to stop, then doubling down isn’t strength—it’s just refusing to admit the strategy failed.
Just when I think that I wish almost any other person in the world other than Trump were in a position to handle the current crisis, I read the comments to almost any article on almost any serious topic, and I am reminded, no, there are many people who I wouldn't want in charge. Including, no doubt, myself, as my views are based on limited information filtered through others and a lack of sufficient time to really study the situation, or even to understand the background. Trying lawsuits hardly qualifies me as an expert on international matters, no matter how much I read. But based on what I do know and the readings I have done, I think your recommendation is the best course of action. Trying to crash Iran, no matter how appealing, while putting the world economy at significant risk, or setting the stage for escalation to a ground war if the blockade doesn't work quickly enough, sets off way too many unintended consequences. Is this worse than where we were on February 28th? Of course it is, but that ship has already sailed (which, given the situation, is obviously a terrible metaphor.)
At this point, if there is a genuine issue with fertilizer,it’s too late for this season. The Oil market has adjusted which isn’t to say there isn’t pain, but why not see it through? The IRGC can’t pay its soldiers and the masses hate their government.
there's nothing to see through other than economic damage that will pitch us into a recession if we keep up this up we're gonna make that more and more likely without making it appreciably more likely that the Iranians will give into our demands
What consequences of a recession are so bad that it’s not worth it to eliminate an Iranian nuke?
This is a deal killer:
"I would suggest that any easing of economic sanctions targeting Iran, or any return of frozen Iranian assets, be saved for nuclear negotiations."
well then essentially we are accepting a long-term economic damage to ourselves in return for practically no chance of the Iranians giving into our demands without even more disastrous escalation
agreed, thank you for this post
Whose side are you on? Iran is not a rational actor and always lies. You originally suggested the blockade which now seems to be hurting Iran more than military strikes. If it makes things difficult for China, so much the better! We cannot give in to prolonged ceasefires which would give Iran the ability to rearm and raise additional cash.
how do you identify desperation? When someone frames facing reality itself as dis loyalty so the loyalty is defined by willingness to participate in collective self delusion. But how does that help the country? Doesn't it actually make us weaker? Isn't a disloyal person the one who actually encourages people with false hopes and unrealistic expectations so they were not prepared to deal with the situation in the best way?
Weeks ago, you were clear in your recommendation that the Strait should be open to everyone - or no one. What you are espousing here is a big shift from that position. Do you believe that Iran and its proxies will allow the strait to be open, without charging a hefty price or fee to the countries it opposes? I do not believe so which I why I disagree with this rationale you are laying out. Also. I do not believe Iran will any longer be willing to earnestly negotiate its nuclear capability if the big stick of the Strait is no longer in play.
Wouldn’t the acknowledgment of the Strait as international waters make it open to all? With the involvement of other countries in the region and NATO as a mechanism for keeping it that way? That’s how I read this…
"Τhe lesser of two evils..." is best at the moment.
You write that the gap on nuclear issues includes "what should be done with the nearly one thousand pounds of enriched uranium in Iran." Exactly. That's the core problem — and your "Strait First" formula makes it worse, not better.
Iran has already moved in heavy equipment to excavate and permanently conceal that uranium, buried by the bombing. Every day the Strait negotiation drags on is a day Iran uses to make those "nearly one thousand pounds" unreachable — and any future deal, including Trump's, vastly harder to achieve.
You're essentially proposing to trade a temporary economic crisis for a permanent nuclear one. Opening the Strait matters — but not if the price is allowing Iran to hide its weapons-grade uranium forever.
Isn't that too high a price to pay just for lower gas prices?
This is effectively a pro-China and pro-Iran argument because their interests are treated as goods in themselves, not merely as factors to consider. China’s access to cheap Iranian oil is framed as something to restore, rather than part of the strategic problem. Meanwhile, the piece separates the Strait from Iran’s nuclear program, gives up major leverage, and assumes diplomacy can still work later. That is not neutral realism; it favors Beijing and Tehran while postponing the central threat.
It appears that Mr. Trump will not be accepting Iran's deal after all. That is not a surprise and I am rather annoyed that Mr. Haass did not mention in his excellent column that Trump was not a responsible negotiator and would most likely NOT do the smart thing.
Apparently the reason Trump would not accept the deal is because it would not make him look like a winner. How can you seriously debate with someone so incompetent and immature.
If you remove the blockade and the Strait is open, we are almost back to the status quo ante. Trump, being one who has a short attention span, will lose interest and move onto another issue (Greenland?) as negotiations bog down. This is what Iran wants: kick the can down the road. You cannot give up the stick that easily.
Opening the strait alleviates economic pressure on everyone; agreeing to start parallel negotiations, which will be long and arduous, on other issues keeps discussion channels open and perhaps allows perspective and context to emerge in both DC and Tehran (but what about Tel Aviv?). … So perhaps a broader JCPOA 2 could result —???
So what have we gained from this “ little adventure?”a no longer free strait of Hormuz, no regime change and no change in nuclear issue. The art of the deal LOL
Please consider reading a short personal story about the air strikes in Iran:
https://substack.com/@projectbaba1/note/p-196107180?r=2y2sri&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
Dumbest. Analysis. Ever.
So we should both stop blockading, when Iran is really not blockading anything and is by far hurt the most by the US blockade. We should let Iran charge fees for passage, like they own the Strait, tacitly recogni,ing their authority and ownership, which has never been even proposed before. We should also just kick the nuclear can down the road for negotiations, thus allowing them to restart their enrichment program. This sounds like Joe Biden dictated it in his bathrobe, while drooling fruit cup down his chin and watching his TV programs with the ghost of Neville Chamberlain.