Iran

#4,701
#4,701
jmacvols1 said:
GROK:

Reports indicate that on June 22, 2025, the Iranian Parliament voted unanimously to close the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global oil trade route, in response to U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. However, the decision is not final and requires approval from Iran's Supreme National Security Council and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Some sources, including Iranian state media, have not confirmed immediate closure, and one report suggests claims of an imminent closure may be rumors, as no official Iranian media has quoted the IRGC Navy commander on this matter. Iran has also been reported to be engaging in GPS jamming in the strait, affecting over 1,000 vessels daily, as an alternative to physical closure.

A closure, if implemented, could disrupt 15-20% of global oil and over 30% of liquefied natural gas trade, potentially causing a sharp rise in global energy prices. However, analysts note that a complete closure is unlikely due to Iran's partial control of the strait, U.S. naval presence, and economic risks to Iran, including backlash from allies like China and India, who rely heavily on the strait for energy imports. Historically, Iran has threatened closure but never fully shut the strait, even during the Iran-Iraq War.

There are conflicting reports, with some sources claiming the strait is already closed, while others, including maritime trackers, indicate traffic continues. Given the lack of confirmation from official Iranian channels and the strategic complexity, the situation remains uncertain.
Click to expand...
4% of the worlds oil production is not even worrisome for the West, which can easily be made upfor by GCC or a number of nations.
 
#4,702
#4,702
Carl Pickens said:
Iran has been enriching uranium to levels significantly beyond those needed for civilian nuclear power, particularly reaching 60% purity, which is close to weapons-grade. The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) has reported on Iran's increasing stockpile of uranium enriched to 60%, a level that raises serious concerns about proliferation. While Iran maintains that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, the IAEA has reported finding uranium particles enriched to 83.7% at the Fordow facility, which is very close to the 90% needed for weapons-grade material.
Click to expand...
Exactly.. it is clear those folks are up to no good and they are cuckoo.. a very dangerous combo.. add to the fact that they openly say that Israel should not exist and acknowledge that we are next on the list of countries they hate..yeah, that’s bad
 
  • Like
Reactions: USF grad in TN and Carl Pickens
#4,708
#4,708
MercyPercy said:
So what happens now if we didn't penetrate enough to destroy all the sites? Did anyone think about that?
Click to expand...

I have yet to see evidence we actually used bunker busters. Hopefully this "attack" was more of a PR stunt and had been worked through Iranian back channels before. At this time, Iran doesnt seem to be too worried about it. I think there would be a strong response if we actually obliterated their nuclear program.
 
#4,710
#4,710
rekinhavoc said:
It was my hope that Israel would pummel the regime and the Iranian people would rise up (still a possibility). We would not have to step in.

Now that we are here , Iran has never negotiated in good faith. Trump gave them a chance. Their stall to live another day tactics aren't going to work this time.


No troops period.
Click to expand...

Be honest, the US hasnt negotiated in good faith either.

Ending Iran's nuclear program is a pipe dream. There is no way to stop it without heavy boots on the ground or regime change with a western puppet installed.
 
#4,711
#4,711
volgr said:
I have yet to see evidence we actually used bunker busters. Hopefully this "attack" was more of a PR stunt and had been worked through Iranian back channels before. At this time, Iran doesnt seem to be too worried about it. I think there would be a strong response if we actually obliterated their nuclear program.
Click to expand...
A PR stunt? dang you need to take a break
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77, 85SugarVol, NorthDallas40 and 4 others
#4,712
#4,712
GroverCleveland said:
Hmmm. From what I've read, it appears no one had a clue about last night until Trump announced it. If correct, is it reasonable to think the earlier gaffes have been corrected?
Click to expand...

That’s fine. If he didn’t break any laws he doesn’t owe me any explanation. I’m just laughing at those who suddenly consider Hegseth and others to be trustworthy. It doesn’t mean I don’t like Hegseth or want him replaced. I just think we should call a spade.
 
#4,715
#4,715
Orangeburst said:
4% of the worlds oil production is not even worrisome for the West, which can easily be made upfor by GCC or a number of nations.
Click to expand...
some argue there is a difference in the flow of oil (fungible) and price of oil. Even though oil can be transported from one place to another, the price will still go up:

GROK:
...oil is fungible, meaning one barrel of crude can generally substitute for another, regardless of origin, assuming similar quality. This fungibility affects how disruptions like a potential Strait of Hormuz closure impact global markets.
Price vs. Flow of Oil:
  • Price: A closure threat or actual disruption in the Strait of Hormuz would likely spike oil prices globally due to perceived scarcity and risk. Even if no physical shortage occurs, market speculation and fear of reduced supply can drive prices up. For instance, 15-20% of global oil and 30%+ of LNG pass through the strait, so any disruption signal could push Brent or WTI benchmarks higher, potentially exceeding $100/barrel, as seen in past crises.

  • Flow: Fungibility means oil can reroute to mitigate physical shortages. If the strait closes, alternative supplies (e.g., Saudi Arabia, U.S. shale, or Russian oil) could redirect to affected markets, though at higher costs and with delays. Pipelines like Saudi Arabia’s East-West Pipeline or UAE’s Fujairah bypass could partially offset losses, but they lack the strait’s capacity. Actual flow disruptions would depend on the closure’s duration, Iran’s enforcement capability, and global spare capacity (currently limited per OPEC reports).
Key Considerations:
  • Iran’s ability to fully close the strait is questionable due to U.S. naval presence and partial control (Oman co-manages the strait).
  • A prolonged closure would hurt Iran’s economy, as it relies on oil exports, potentially forcing allies like China to seek alternatives.
  • Current reports (June 22, 2025) are mixed—some claim a parliamentary vote to close the strait, but no confirmation from Iran’s Supreme Leader or maritime data showing stopped traffic.
In short, a Hormuz closure would primarily disrupt prices through market panic and risk premiums, while fungibility and alternative routes could limit long-term flow issues, though not without logistical strain and elevated costs.
 
#4,718
#4,718
jmacvols1 said:
some argue there is a difference in the flow of oil (fungible) and price of oil. Even though oil can be transported from one place to another, the price will still go up:

GROK:
...oil is fungible, meaning one barrel of crude can generally substitute for another, regardless of origin, assuming similar quality. This fungibility affects how disruptions like a potential Strait of Hormuz closure impact global markets.
Price vs. Flow of Oil:
  • Price: A closure threat or actual disruption in the Strait of Hormuz would likely spike oil prices globally due to perceived scarcity and risk. Even if no physical shortage occurs, market speculation and fear of reduced supply can drive prices up. For instance, 15-20% of global oil and 30%+ of LNG pass through the strait, so any disruption signal could push Brent or WTI benchmarks higher, potentially exceeding $100/barrel, as seen in past crises.

  • Flow: Fungibility means oil can reroute to mitigate physical shortages. If the strait closes, alternative supplies (e.g., Saudi Arabia, U.S. shale, or Russian oil) could redirect to affected markets, though at higher costs and with delays. Pipelines like Saudi Arabia’s East-West Pipeline or UAE’s Fujairah bypass could partially offset losses, but they lack the strait’s capacity. Actual flow disruptions would depend on the closure’s duration, Iran’s enforcement capability, and global spare capacity (currently limited per OPEC reports).
Key Considerations:
  • Iran’s ability to fully close the strait is questionable due to U.S. naval presence and partial control (Oman co-manages the strait).
  • A prolonged closure would hurt Iran’s economy, as it relies on oil exports, potentially forcing allies like China to seek alternatives.
  • Current reports (June 22, 2025) are mixed—some claim a parliamentary vote to close the strait, but no confirmation from Iran’s Supreme Leader or maritime data showing stopped traffic.
In short, a Hormuz closure would primarily disrupt prices through market panic and risk premiums, while fungibility and alternative routes could limit long-term flow issues, though not without logistical strain and elevated costs.
Click to expand...
oh no doubt it will spike short term, just on market fears
 
#4,719
#4,719
UTSuave’ said:
You do realize he’s a liar and this is world war 3 right?..mark my words next presidential election it will go democrat…this man campaigned on “peace”..we want peace and have a big mess at home the previous administration caused..the last thing we need is another war..the MAGA movement is tarnished..
Click to expand...
LOL
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Crush
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top