There's currently a gas crisis in India. A country that had a $10 billion investment in an Iranian port to trade oil and gas directly with them, except they decided to become America's bitch and halted the project after American sanctions.
Anyways, everyone's affected - gas cylinder booking requests which usually take a couple of days to fulfill currently have a 30 day period to fulfill in some major cities. Roadside vendors are shutting down temporarily, as are many restaurants.
At least EVs have had a good success rate in adoption, so commuting isn't as much affected. But freight is pretty much fucked.
Again, this is a country that could have gotten a sweetheart deal from Iran, just like China, but apparently decided to become a little bitch.
The benefits of living in an authoritarian state. The CCP says "we will provide for cheap electric trucks" and it happens, no matter if that displaces tens, if not hundreds of thousands of workers in ICE car manufacturers.
Poverty doesn’t have the luxury to choose or take moral stands. When a dollar worth oil price fluctuation can lead to thousands going hungry for a day, you as a leader will do everything to avoid catastrophic sanctions.
India agreed to capitulate on the Iranian port investments before the US-Israeli invasion, when Trump was playing the tariff games. If a growing economy can be subverted and forced to act against its interests, is it really a superpower at that point?
Guess the US Deputy Secretary was right when he stated that they'll never make the same mistakes with India that they made with China.
> Again, this is a country that could have gotten a sweetheart deal from Iran
India has a deal with Iran as well and the first ship to sail via Hormuz after the conflict started (the Shenlong Suezmax) ended up in India [0]
India giving sanctuary to an Iranian naval ship and offering sanctuary to a second one - which their captain rejected and is now at the bottom of the Indian Ocean (IRIS Dena) [1] - bought India the goodwill needed to implement the deal mentioned above.
Edit: can't reply
> We could have an entire Indian-owned port, outside the straits in question, with an attached O&G pipeline that we paid for, connected directly to the oil and gas fields in Iran
Duqm Port in Oman, Sohar Port in Oman, Fujairah Port in the UAE, and Shahid Beheshti Port in Chabahar, Iran are all either Indian operated or include an Indian financial stake with first right of refusal for Oil and LNG exports and outside the Straits of Hormuz.
> Yay, we got one ship to cross the straits
Did you even read the Bloomberg article? There were only 20 Indian LNG ships within the strait of Hormuz at this time, and they are being given passage. These aren't overnight tankers (that isn't even a thing at this size). The war only started a week ago and it's a Suez Supermax at that - they won't go beyond 15 mph/19 knots.
> the rare earth minerals in Afghanistan that we had received sanction to mine prior to the war, that would also have been shipped through this port
India still has access to Shahid Beheshti Port, and it's not like India has even completely taken advantage of the existing critical minerals within India, let alone hypothetical and high risk critical minerals projects in Afghanistan - a country literally in the middle of a war with Pakistan.
We could have an entire Indian-owned port, outside the straits in question, with an attached O&G pipeline that we paid for, connected directly to the oil and gas fields in Iran. Not to mention all the rare earth minerals in Afghanistan that we had received sanction to mine prior to the war, that would also have been shipped through this port.
The cognitive dissonance in nationalist Indians is honestly tiresome and unsurprising at this moment.
Parent company in Delaware only for VC funding from US VCs. Final setup in Estonia for cost, Netherlands for ease of doing business and Switzerland for prestige or some intangible shit.
If you're not going for VC funding from the US, you can skip the Delaware setup and setup solely in the EU, ideally in the place where you're currently at. Don't make it all the more complicated than it needs to be. By the time you're big enough to obtain VC funding, your legal partners will have a better idea of how to structure the company.
> Then we had about 20 years of politicians who thought the soft power stuff was all you needed
Actually, about 9 years. Then Afghanistan happened, followed by Iraq. Hard power was back baby!
> The security concerns haven't changed, but the way of dealing with them has.
The security concerns were never there to begin with, unless you mean the security concerns of Israel. With the US as the hegemon, it is in the US's interests to maintain the security of key trade corridors, the most volatile and important of which is the Hormuz strait (arguably even more than the Suez). Post Iranian Revolution, every action of the US has only served against its interests, to further destabilize the corridor - whether it was funneling weapons to Saddam, invading Saddam 20 years later, not to mention the constant sabre-rattling against Iran throughout.
> I'm confused as to why Filipinos are protesting against taking out the Iranian regime; it's a direct blow to Chinese expansionism, as well as the jihadist groups in the south
Lol no. Getting involved with Iran means fighting a country that has every intention to bog down the US in a long war, at no cost consideration for its citizens. China loves the war - it's a repeat of Vietnam. China is literally dishing out intelligence to Iran and helping them skirt sanctions. Also Iran, which is Shia, isn't involved with the terror groups in Mindanao (which are hardline Sunni and funded by the US GCC allies).
> But America's taking out the weakest links in the Russian-Chinese-Iranian-Venezuelan axis
The weakest link in the axis was literally Venezuela - proximity to the US, a hated president, and competing factions vying for power. Well, at least before the US decided it was a dandy idea to kidnap Maduro.
> A short-term rotation away from East Asia doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad strategic move.
The Iran war is going to be anything but short-term, as the Iranians have stated. Even if the US wants to exit the campaign, the Iranians will not let them, and if the US decides to unilaterally stop bombing Iran, it leaves Israel open to the Iranians, which is something Israel and AIPAC won't let the US do.
The Asian allies know this, which is why everyone from South Korea to Japan to Philippines to Australia has been worried - because they know that this leaves fewer American resources for them. The US has already begun diverting THAADs and Patriots from SK to the Middle East because they've been depleted. The UAE was begging around for interceptors from Italy (at a 125% premium) and then Russia, because the US failed to provide for its "capable allies". The Gulf states internally already see the US, including US defence products, as unreliable in supply and are already moving to lock in deals with EU providers such as Rheinmetall.
Maybe the Asian countries can finally get together and hash out a way to deal with Israel. It seems like an insurmountable problem. The elites in the US either fall in line or when they try to push back they are eventually forced to relent(ex. Musk in the early Twitter days).
This entire saga has been a wake up call to the middle eastern states. They thought all the money they paid to the US over the years got them a first class ticket when in reality they are sitting way back in economy.
There aren't many options on the table. Cozy up to China? Maybe the middle eastern and OECD countries can do it but not the Asian countries. The right strategy would be to join forces to try and help the US get back on track because what other superpower is there? And that means somehow dealing with Israel as they are going to continue causing trouble for everyone.
They don't need to deal with Israel when Israel itself is a ticking time bomb. This war and this presidency with their kompromat on Trump was their only shot at becoming an expansionist regional hegemon. Israel is facing a demographic timebomb, and a reverse-Aliyah exodus of top talent to literally anywhere else, including the UAE and the US. Turns out, nobody likes living in a military state, except for a bunch of ultra-orthodox emigres and Hasidic Jews, who are both growing like crazy and have zero inclination to serve in national defence, and have piss poor technical aptitude.
> This entire saga has been a wake up call to the middle eastern states. They thought all the money they paid to the US over the years got them a first class ticket when in reality they are sitting way back in economy.
This is the biggest change. The Gulf states were completely blindsided by the war, and are now rethinking their alliance with the US. Expect to see more Chinese and EU bases in the region - China already has a military base in the UAE. Al Udeid is going to be massively downsized. And these guys are going to be shopping in the EU for weapons systems, not the US.
> Cozy up to China? Maybe the middle eastern and OECD countries can do it but not the Asian countries.
The right strategy is for the Asian countries to stop quarreling between themselves and forge new defensive alliances. Or alternatively, submit to Chinese hegemony as tributary states (tributing natural resources that is), as they used to do in the past.
>Israel is facing a demographic timebomb, and a reverse-Aliyah exodus of top talent to literally anywhere else, including the UAE and the US.
While I generally agree that Israel is on shaky ground, I'm not sure this is fully accurate. Ok to be fair, yes a lot of liberal educated Israeli seem to have left a while ago but if you look at their demography they are one of the only few countries that has a positive demography. As other countries begin to degrade from this population decline many more Israeli's may return as well.
>Turns out, nobody likes living in a military state, except for a bunch of ultra-orthodox emigres and Hasidic Jews, who are both growing like crazy and have zero inclination to serve in national defence, and have piss poor technical aptitude.
This contradicts the timebomb narrative and yes this will definitely cause problems just like the decline in education in the US will rear its ugly head years down the line....but having population means possibility, it does not matter how educated a person is if they don't exist.
>This is the biggest change. The Gulf states were completely blindsided by the war, and are now rethinking their alliance with the US. Expect to see more Chinese and EU bases in the region - China already has a military base in the UAE. Al Udeid is going to be massively downsized. And these guys are going to be shopping in the EU for weapons systems, not the US.
Its really unbelievable to see how the US has destroyed many relationships in real time and the Trump loving crowd continues to pretend like nothing is wrong. They are gearing up to blame the other side as well once things become visibly painful. Just like the Afghanistan withdrawal under Biden I suspect this mess will become visible after Trump is long gone and the successor will get all the blame.
I generally try not to believe in conspiracy theories but is the US being set up to fail by multiple advisaries (including Israel) or is it really just stupidity and a broken system of accountability?
>The right strategy is for the Asian countries to stop quarreling between themselves and forge new defensive alliances.
Thats the thing, I don't know if they are capable of this given their poor demography. I was thinking that maybe the correct move is to swallow their pride and try and patch up relationships when Trump is gone while also doing more themselves(whatever they can). In fact that might end up being the default move for the EU as well. Bringing in more of China so as to not be completely dependant on the US but ensuring the US is still part of the game in a significant way. I have not seen anything other than tepidness and strongly worded letters from EU since Trump came back and it makes me think there isn't a real life and death motivation for them to become independent. Its much easier to patch things up and hope for the best.
Apart from the demographic counter you put out, agree on all points. The Hasids vapidly oppose any participation in the military, and are already contesting and protesting it in the courts, which are hearing none of it, much to their chagrin. These are a bunch of folks who haven't had the typical education geared towards scientific talent, who haven't had even the necessary hardening needed to function in modern society - the Israeli state massively subsidizes their lifestyle as long as they're engaged in religious education. Changing community mindsets is much harder than training afresh.
About the Asian countries, you're right, but I'm still optimistic that with a looming Chinese threat, they might consider strengthening regional bodies like ASEAN. But again, imperialistic China might end with Xi, and China hasn't even been traditionally expansionist outside their core regional claims. Yes, they are strongly irredentist, but that's also a relief for Asian countries - yes, they will be threatened at sea, as China claims more sea, but apart from Taiwan and maybe Amur Russia, China has no interest in actually landing boots on the ground in most of Asia.
I think this is a bizarre comparison. The people of Vietnam hated the French colonial occupation, and most of them despised the American-backed regime as well. They were fighting a 20-year-long anti-colonial war for independence (something that China, by the way, does not want any of the people they've colonized to emulate).
On the contrary, there's every indication that the people of Iran, as well as Venezuela, legitimately hate their repressive regimes and want nothing more than a chance to overthrow them. This isn't imposing regime change on some country that had never thought of it. It's clearing the path for the people of that country to execute regime change for themselves.
In that sense, our role here is quite a lot more like the Soviets in Vietnam, than America in Vietnam, or of either country in Afghanistan. We're not in the position of needing to prop up a puppet regime or find ethnic groups or exogenous actors. All we really need to do is target the existing oppressors.
>> if the US decides to unilaterally stop bombing Iran, it leaves Israel open to the Iranians, which is something Israel and AIPAC won't let the US do.
Stop with the AIPAC > blaming Israel for getting America into this. Israel did great work taking out Iran's defenses and gaining air superiority in the previous 12-day war, and it was only held back from continuing by the US - temporarily losing the total control it held. Furthermore, in no way is Israel going to be open to attack after this, whether or not the US remains involved.
Consider what happens if this war does succeed in weakening the Iranian regime to the point where the people can come back into the street and overthrow it: Russia loses its drone and missile manufacturer, the West has a bargaining chip in oil against China's control of rare earths, and conceivably there is a broad peaceful order in the Middle East between Sunnis, Shia and Jews, all relatively Western-facing, potentially progressive and aligned with the US and Europe. Would that be a terrible outcome?
> It's clearing the path for the people of that country to execute regime change for themselves.
That is fundamentally untrue. In Venezuela, regime ended up completely intact, except the change on the top. There is no "clearing the path" and there is no "regime change".
In Iran, protests stopped. The lead was replaced by more hardline lead. Nationalists now wont go against the regime, even if they dislike it.
If they loose control over country, there will be civil war and unrest, but all chances of some moderates consolidating power went down. Or, even more likely, regime wont fail and will have stronger grip over the country.
> Russia loses its drone and missile manufacturer,
This war is massive gift to Russia. The sanctions are removed, the oil prices go up. Russia wants this war to go on as long as possible, it is like a lifeline for them.
>> That is fundamentally untrue. In Venezuela, regime ended up completely intact, except the change on the top. There is no "clearing the path" and there is no "regime change".
I think there was massive disappointment in Venezuela that we didn't go further, and that the regime is still in place. I'm extremely disappointed that we let it off there. I'm sick of America making promises to people, since Budapest, since Prague, since the Syrian rebels...
>> In Iran, protests stopped. The lead was replaced by more hardline lead. Nationalists now wont go against the regime, even if they dislike it.
In this case, I hope we don't let the people down. And I think it's far too soon to say that the protests stopped. The Basij are out in force, they're more heavily armed, and bombs are falling. Next week or next month, the entire situation may be different. The people are certainly waiting until the bombs stop. No one goes to protest in the middle of a war. The idea is to create the conditions so that when the bombing stops, the regime is too weak to kill 30,000 more people in the next protest.
It's incredibly naïve to think regime change supported by the people is actually the objective. It's a good thought but which is absolutely out of control of the military actions by Israel or the USA.
The main objective is to neuter the Iranian regime to diminish how threatening it could be to Israel, behead the government, destroy military targets, destroy its lifeline from the oil industry. If regime change happens because conditions worsen it's a good bonus but without forcefully removing the regime with boots on the ground it's just wishful thinking that it's the main objective.
Iraq was also under a brutal dictatorship with Saddam, it took more than a decade of ground operations to actually change it. Iran is more populous, has a much more loyal regime security force, is more ideologically driven, and has a much worse geography for any ground invasion.
When the bombing stops there will be so much destruction that the regime can point towards the USA and Israel that it will keep having loyalists behind to defend them, the IRGC will absorb the more loyal ones and grow to keep stamping out revolutionaries.
The US leadership knows they can't destroy Iran's nuclear weapons program or cause regime change. The objective seems to be mainly destroying lots of missile launchers, boats, and drone factories (which Iran demonstrated could do enough damage and use up enough interceptors to make Israel stop attacking them and sue for peace during the 12 day war). When the bombing stops and Iran restarts production, the US will go bomb them again. The US also didn't seem to expect that Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz, and currently has no plan as to how to get it safely back open.
In essence the war is about making Iran less of a threat to Israel no matter the cost to the US or to the rest of the West.
I'm amazed by the lengths Americans will go to try to convince themselves they're the good guys. America never has and never will go to war to liberate a people from oppression and spread democracy or other fairy tale. America goes to war for one thing and that is defend the interests of America and its proxy in the middle East, Israel.
So the interests of the US are the continuation of its imperialist control over the world through oil and the dollar, and those of Israel the expansion of its hegemonic domination over the middle East.
However this time, while Israel does indeed extend its hegemonic ambitions over the region by invading and bombing Lebanon, the US seem not to be in total control of what's happening in oil markets, the strait of Hormuz, and the toppling of the Iranian regime. There are many factors why, among which the fact that the regime has prepared for years for such a scenario and can not easily be killed by decapitation, and that it actually has partisans and the Iranian people is not going to simply revolt as one.
This war is also a highly assymetrical one, and that's why the comparison with Vietnam is valid.
Trump and Co. have already mentioned they have no interest in changing the regimes from the party bodies, either the communists in Venezuela or the IRGC in Iran. He has repeatedly stated that he prefers an insider. Too bad, in Iran's case, he got the toughest insider possible and had Israel kill that guy's entire family too. He even snubbed Machado for Delcy Rodrigues, just to claim a skin-level victory, even though Delcy is much more a hardliner than Maduro.
The point of nukes for NK is not about being able to use them to attack its neighbours. The point of nukes for NK is to ensure that they don't get invaded themselves. That's why NK makes a big deal about nukes that can reach the US - currently the only viable threat the NK regime has had is the US.
Which is also the reason why Pakistan pursued a nuclear programme (vs India). Which is why India pursued a nuclear programme (vs China). Which is why China pursued a nuclear programme (vs the USSR). People apparently discount the important of nukes and MAD doctrine in helping preserve the peace in today's world.
The US doesn't want to invade North Korea. North Korea is a Chinese ally. China doesn't want the US on its border. North Korea doesn't need its own nukes to keep the US out.
At least, that was true. Here in 2026, nobody can say what the US will do with its military. Its goals are opaque and its actions often self-defeating.
Even so, if the US invades North Korea, NK's nukes won't be the most important thing. It would instantly become a US/China conflict with much, much, much larger stakes.
But the fact of the matter is, in the event the US does invade North Korea, Rocketman has the option to launch nukes at the US - something that the US knows, hence it won't do anything about. Nukes also give NK more optionality, instead of being a territorial buffer state for the Chinese.
> because in no earthly circumstance will I ever be able to pay it back.
Well at that point, all hell breaks loose - that's the Weimar story all over again.
The minute the US isn't able to project power globally, and the minute the Gulf states shift even a single transaction away from the petrodollar, the USD is finished. At that point, it might not make sense for them to accept the USD or dollar-denominated debt, either because of constant devaluation or the pointlessness of holding onto US Treasuries (because the US won't pay its debt). No one would buy US debt as a safe haven any more, which means the US won't be able to fund its budget.
You’ve been able to buy gulf oil in non-us currency all along. You can buy it in yuan, pounds, euros etc.
Dollar hegemony isn’t because of the petrodollar. It’s the other way around. The oil states throw off huge amounts of profit and oil is such a big market you need the dollars reach to service it.
You can't buy them off the bat from a petrostate. Heck, even China had to enter multi-year special negotiations with Saudi Arabia to even get a batch of oil sold in yuan terms. Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein were the two proponents of selling oil in euros, and look where that led them.
The spot market is different but that's not where most of the world's oil is sold.
> The oil states throw off huge amounts of profit and oil is such a big market you need the dollars reach to service it.
The oil states prefer dollars (and have pegged their currency to the dollar) solely because of a number of historical decisions that enabled dollar hegemony, which made the oil states peg their currency to the dollar and prefer the USD. That's changing now, but only very recently and at a snail's pace.
You can’t trade oil in any currency off the bat. It’s a complex market involving globe spanning logistics and geopolitics.
But I’ve personally traded oil in euros and know people that trade it in pounds daily. The yuan negotiations were complex because China wanted to get the currency controls set right so that it didn’t destabilize their peg while the saudis didn’t want get stuck with the worlds most illiberal currency.
This week India went back to trading for oil in rupees with an American global adversary at the behest of the US president.
The gulf states bargain on security was a boon for them and the states, but again the correlation was reversed. The Americans provided security, a willing and ravenous market for the goods and a stable liberal currency when few others could.
> I’ve personally traded oil in euros and know people that trade it in pounds daily.
Don't equate spot market buying with what countries do for national supply. When countries buys from Petro states, they're not buying on the spot market.
You cannot buy oil from Saudi Aramco in pounds or euros because why not. They will simply laugh you out of the office and tell you to deal with an oil trader (the actual people you're dealing with, on the spot market). But you can actually buy from them directly in USD (which a lot of the aforementioned trading firms like Glencore, Trafigura and even Jane Street actually do).
Your hypothesis then is that if Oman prices a single term contract not in dollars that will _cause_ the end of dollar hegemony rather than be the result of it?
Even though the largest oil producer in the world will continue to price in dollars no matter what. The third largest oil producer was forcibly dedollarized already and the gulf state national producers already sell oil into the spot market outside of dollars today?
reply