It's important to clarify that these are the trading prices at the main oil futures exchange in London. The spot prices in the landing hubs like Gujarat, Odisha and Singapore are significantly higher.
If you or your firm handles trucking or mining or tractors or something like buses, stock up on additives where the vast majority of production (like brake fluid, AdBlue (DEF) and gear oil) is Asian now before they get even more expensive. To give a sense of perspective, I've seen prices for transmission fluid and antifreeze almost double month-on-month in England where I am.
Israeli Defense Minister said earlier today that “Significant surprises are expected today across all arenas that will escalate the war to a new level.” And now they have targeted the world's largest gas field (shared with Qatar).
Iranians have said they would retaliate against oil fields and refineries in Israel and the Gulf. But since the majority of US air defenses have been diverted in defense of Israel it looks like the gulf arab states will bear the brunt of the retaliation. It looks like they have already successfully struck targets in Saudi Arabia[1] and Qatar[2].
This is the moral hazard in action as a result of unconditional support for the rogue-state that is Israel . Israel continues to escalate since they face little of the consequences - being under the US security umbrella. It is the rest of the world that pays the price instead (apart from Russia). In a sane world we would be changing this equation such as by pulling air defense, air support, lethal aid, air tankers support, EWACs, intelligence and satellite sharing, defense away from Israel. But the Trump administration and indeed the collective west seems to be under the chokehold of the Israel lobby.
A part of the problem is that the complicit media and politicians diverts the public's attention and energies away from relevant things like weapons-transfers, monetary flows, technology transfers, intelligence-sharing, foreign lobbying, legal and media cover for child-sex-trafficking and honeypot operations and onto minimally impactful elements like song and dance competitions.
It's Israel's behaviour that is causing antisemitism.
There is a theory that they actively want this, because it encourages people (often with significant human capital) to leave western countries and move to Israel.
This is not a new thing, Theodor Herzl famously said that antisemites were zionist's best allies
Israelis are constantly fighting for their survival. Thousands of rockets over their heads every year. Surrounded by 4 terrorist groups whose whole existence is based on goal of eradicating jews.
> Stop defending yourself, otherwise we'll have to kill you
With this prices it is cheaper to make fuel from coal, the break even price was about 80-90 USD/barrel. And if this continues for months this will pushes wind and solar and electrical cars making natural gas and oil much less relevant. Maybe that was the plan.
> And if this continues for months this will pushes wind and solar and electrical cars making natural gas and oil much less relevant. Maybe that was the plan.
This is one of the most batshit insane things I've ever read. What on Earth would make you think this?
I doubt it was anyone's plan. However it is likely the effect - you can build more wind and solar anywhere. Asia is finding it hard to get oil which means anyplace in Asia that gets power from wind/solar (or coal - but not where the investments will go although there are a number of things like that in play) instead of oil/gas will have no problems. People unable to get gas who see EVs still working will want one - those with money will buy them. People who see EVs stranded too (because the local power is oil/gas) will still be mad - but they will ask what can change, and wind/solar are right there are cheap answers and so they will get it.
Of course the open question is how long will this last? If this situation ends this week (seems unlikely but...) people will go back to what they did before and forget about this until the next oil crisis - just like every other one. However if this drags on a few years expect major changes in energy mix as people find other answers. Either way, wind/solar are cheap and so utilities around the world are looking to get some installed because it is generally a great investment.
"Trump started the war in Iran to make green energy and EVs more desirable" is an actual conspiracy theory that is going around, although, ya, definitely an unintended consequence.
High oil prices does increase demand for petrodollar, but EV adoption decreases. But I don't think revenue from petrodollar really matters much when you spend nearly $1b per day on missiles.
I think real irony is that Iran keeps shipping oil to China and India. At which point US will start nabbing these tankers?
I don't think the US wants a war with China yet, so bombing a Chinese tanker sounds like a bad idea, but Trump isn't exactly the most stable genius, so who knows.
India is right next to Iran, it would be really hard to cut off trade between them. Pakistan definitely doesn't want to get involved (being an ally of the US AND China).
We shouldn't even be giving them defensive weapons because that only enables them to wage war without consequence. In this specific case its a moot point since we joined this war in the most direct way possible but in general every time we shoot down one country's missiles but not the other we are participating in the war, especially when the side we protect is the aggressor.
Even at $100 oil is the cheapest it's ever been historically. OPEC nations don't measure inflation in terms of U.S. CPI. They use gold as their benchmark. In 1969 a barrel of oil was worth $400 in today's money. What's incredible is even with the recent price rally, you can still buy oil at $71/barrel if you're willing to wait a few years to get your oil, due to the extreme backwardation of oil futures. That's an 82% discount over the historical norm. Also in real terms oil was worth about $500/barrel in the 2000s.
Any effective defensive weapon is an offensive weapon, in that it allows you to commit other resources to offense, or defend against a retaliation in response to an escalating offense on your part.
Yeah, any kind of aid (e.g. food or medicine) allows the people you're aiding to spend more on the military if they want. I guess the only way around it is to set limits on someone's military capability and make aid conditional on not crossing these limits.
Why are you blaming Israel? Iran has been fueling the fires for year by send piles of money and weapons to anyone who had a serious plan to attack Israel.
Not that Israel is perfect, but there is plenty of blame to go around and recognizing that reality is required before we can even try to think of a solution. (I don't have one)
Because they're the ones that poured water onto the burning pan of oil. Nobody is claiming that they created the problem in its entirety, but they have made it significantly worse this month.
There are vague allegations of Iran being the "leading state sponsor of terror" on one scale, and then Israel openly doing a genocide and starting wars of aggression and assassinating countless civilian and military leaders on the other scale, with a growing number of American bodies as cannon fodder.
Nah, there's nothing vague around their funding and training of various militaries and militias in the area. There's more than enough war crimes on both sides to go around, and any concept of justice that is predicated on prosecuting one side exclusively is simply bankrupt. If Israeli civilians are fair game because of Israel's war crimes, then American civilians are fair game for the same reason. And I reject any theory of justice that bites that particular bullet.
No one denies that Iran has strategic partnerships in the region. The question comes down to whether you believe armed resistance is ever legitimate or you blanket-dismiss it as "terrorism", in order to justify the territorial encroachment, ethnic cleansing, or mass murder that is brazenly perpetrated by Israel.
Alas, both sides are very much engaged in their own brands of terrorism, and both sides' propogandists will attempt to crucify you if you call what they do terrorism.
This is a valid question, and the answer is unfortunately no. There's a lot to unpack there but basically the president is acting unilaterally and in a manner which advance the interests of foreign nations.
War? Time will tell, but I'm not hopeful. I have no clue what Trump could have done instead that would work out, but war isn't looking like a good answer (no surprise to me - though I didn't expect it to get this bad so fast)
Iran has been funding a lot of the "attack Israel" groups in the area. When your income depends on hating Israel it is hard to see a more moderate view. In turn this gives the extremists in Israel a better line of why elect them over someone more moderate. (Lets me clear I'm not trying to clear Israel of their crimes here, only suggesting that Iran bares some blame for those crimes).
The above, but applied to other countries and not as extreem. Iran is funding many anti-democracy groups in the region.
Iran has a lot of smart, well educated people - who can't get enough water to drink. If Iran had a better government those people could develop things of use to improve the world, but instead many are stuck as poor despite having the ability to not be.
Changing Iran would not solve all the problems, but it would ease a large share and maybe leave room for a better world. The only question is how to do this - world history doesn't have a good record for changing evil governments.
I give a lot of the blame to the government of Israel because it seems (according to the Trump administration) there was no real reason to attack except for Israel was going to attack and we would become targets if they did.
High ranking people in Trump's own administration (or at least until very recently) have openly stated Israel was the main reason why we got involved.
Sure seems to me in terms of our current situation, Israel really wanting to get involved in a strike is the but-for cause. At least according to what the Trump administration has stated.
Again the US admin proves how dumb they are, even Pres. Bush II knew it would be real stupid to attack Iran.
But one thing, higher oil prices may get the US to really get working to avoid Climate Change. Yes, some progress has been made, but real CO2 emissions is increasing. The only time it decreased a bit was during the Covid Shutdown.
But one plus may occur, higher price of oil.
Yes, higher prices will cause suffering with the poor and middle classes, but that suffering pales in comparison to what +1.5C will cause. We are already on track for more then 2C. Suffering from that will be far worse than $150 USD price per barrel. Better to take a small hit now and hope it can keep us below 1.5C then trying to live with 2C.
Yes, I posted this knowing it will be down-voted, but cheap oil only makes +3C guaranteed to happen. Who cares about the young anyway /s
I think you are failing to understand how (some) people think in the US. Expensive oil for some means that we should drill more oil wells. There is money sitting under the ground and we stick a pipe down and get it - AMAZING.
That is how people think about high oil prices.
If oil was to go to zero people would stop pumping it and burning it (for that to happen the alternatives have to be cheaper/better). That is what will fix climate change in the US.
The demand for oil will likely never truly go to zero; too many products (outside of energy generation) rely on their byproducts.
As for the bigger picture — yes, higher prices for oil might spur extraction in regions outside of the middle east, but that's a local only viewpoint. Globally, higher oil prices reduce consumption and make green alternatives more attractive on net.
I'm not convinced. As those other things become less byproduct and more the product that oil is pumped for the costs change. Oil is cheap today in part because of volume. However as volumes go down a lot of the infrastructure doesn't make sense to run at all. We will need to build new smaller refineries to handle the smaller world demand - when oil companies look to do that they are going to ask for who will sign a long term contract (even a small refinery is expensive) and a lot of users of oil are going to realize that alternatives to oil are perhaps more expensive, but they don't involve the same long term contracts. Poorly managed companies are the ones who won't sign the contract and when they discover they can't get oil anymore they will be forced to look for an alternative, and that will drive investment in the alternative. (we already know how to make plastics from plants - it is just more expensive - but someone forced to use plant based plastics will be sure to market their green features)
1. We stop using oil because we have better, cheaper alternatives, as you already said. Alternatives are cheaper if they become cheaper, but also if oil becomes more expensive. Higher oil prices may stimulate some oil exploration in the short term in the places that have oil. Everywhere else it's going to cause a scramble to renewable alternatives.
2. We stop using oil because we have technologically regressed to the Middle Ages
Nobody forced Iran to bomb gas and oil fields that aren't even of their enemies, and to start doing it before Pars was bombed (e.g. Shah gas field was targeted 2 days ago). Place the blame on Iran who is actually 'wrecking Asia' and not the ones fighting it.
> Relax, go outside, touch grass. The sun will rise again.
Yeah, and don't forget, this is all about helping the environment and the Iranian people, freeing them from that pesky and unnecessary for life energy by releasing some much needed smoke. /
That 'touch grass' phrase is interpreted differently outside of America. It is yet another detestable Americanism. Just saying.
Besides, grass is part of the problem, particularly for the arid South West, where these ecological deserts known as lawns, golf courses and landscaping are grass, which is the only plant that grows when the place is covered with RoundUp.
I digress. However, man has a point. It would be easy to say Trump is a clown without a clue or a plan, however, we as I see it, we are switching over from the empire controlling the world with the petro-dollar, to controlling the world with bombs.
The empire can't blockade China directly as that would be an act of war, and the Chinese would have a right to respond with force, sinking all of Uncle Sam's battle ships with hypersonic missiles before you get to touch your beloved and utterly toxic HOA-approved grass.
However, just blow up the entire Middle East and cut the Chinese off from the oil that is needed for their manufacturing requirements. China has a lot of coal, solar and nuclear going on, plus they are best buddies with Putin, but we have a lot of the Russian shadow fleet going up in flames at the moment.
The grand plan has been going on from PNAC and 9/11. Iran is the last one to be ticked off in the Middle East, so you can see it as the finishing line. Iran just has to be destroyed and it seems that Satan and his little Zionist helper have plenty of experience at that.
The EU has been fully Stockholm Syndromed, so there is a true Iron Curtain between Russia and Europe now, only Hungary are allowed some of the good Russian hydrocarbons, Germany and every other country in Europe now has to pay in dollars for American LNG, or Qatari LNG, but that latter option has just gone.
Yes, the sun will rise again. Americans will be touching grass for the 'gram once again. Everything will be fine in the USA, although it won't be petrodollar dominance giving the exorbitant privilege, instead it will be bombs all the way. Note that Cuba is next, and DJT is going to Chy-naaa soonly and bigly. They should arrest him for war crimes, but you know they won't.
Any objectors or rabble rousers will be Charlie Kirked. It will just be another era of terror. This is the normal state of affairs.
Meanwhile, we have crazies in the WH wanting some Biblical End Times outcome to this. They are serious about Jesus coming back, which is not exactly likely, and, even if he did step foot on planet earth again, do you think he would save a single Zionist? As if!
Anyway, we will see if touching grass works out. I mean, in the UK, during the Blitz, people were touching grass all the time. I think the Andy Groves quote applies, 'only the paranoid survive'.
Civilization is ending and you took time out of your apocalypse preparations to make a new account here? To write this? Where are your priorities?
A couple years from now when you are shivering in a cave you aren't going to be thinking "I may not have hoarded enough ivermectin but at least I got the last word on that HN thread".
In the worst there will be some people dying, a lot of people get poor and maybe democracies will be replaced by feudal structures. It's still far away from the end of civilization.
The natural gas field strike very conveniently increases the EU dependencies on US LNG. The diversification via Qatar had already been shut down, now Israel drives the Iranian gas buyers to compete on the world market.
It is a great plan. The Gulf Monarchies are weakened (that is what you get for your Trump bribes ...), the EU is weakened, and the US controls all energy flows.
China can use the land route to Russia. The EU is going to commit economic suicide instead.
> Nothing this administration ever does is planned.
You are joking, right? Project 2025 has achieved 50% of its goals in record time[0]. Trump disavowed both it and invading Iran, but make no mistake. Both were “the plan”.
"this administration" is not running the show. This is going exactly according to someone else's plan.
After the dust settles:
- GCC is knocked down a few notches and that oil and gas money is no longer competing for influence
- US is out of MENA and Centcom will return to Florida; there is no way Arab governments will let US rebuild its bases in their countries. See burning infrastructure, airports, and decimated trade in tourism, air travel, hitech, ... You thought the Orange One thought up the idea of burning all our aliances, pissing off Europe, alarming Asia allies, and making "fortress America" all by his lonesome? Really?
- Israel will be lording it over the area. Maybe they will start having bases on Arab lands.
- China will be at the mercy of whoever now controls Middle East
- Project 2025 is really about controlling us natives here in America when the coin finally (dear lord) drops over here.
The Syria part was quietly executed under Biden, whose administration deserves full credit. "Destabilizing" means fragmenting, I'm not saying that Assad was any good of course.
Syria was in a civil war since 2015. The US (and Israel and Russia) failed to control their intelligence assets on the ground. Sadly we don't have Hillary's emails like for Lybia, so I can't mock France DGSE for loosing their asset, and control over the rebels, within two weeks.
In Syria it might have taken years, but considering the reaction of the US, Israel and Russia to the sudden Syria push, I guarantee the admin in power wasn't informed. What is more likely is that they lost actionable assets during COVID. At best the CIA was aware but didn't inform Mossad not the US, but that would be giving them a lot of credit.
Great plan for whom? Trump is headed towards Nixon levels of popularity and Nixon methods of ejection with this sort of stuff. The war is hugely unpopular, Trump is less popular, and if gasoline prices stay high and we get involved in a ground war there may be a popular revolution even before Democrats get elected and are able to impeach.
Deals done in Yuan will still get through Hormuz. EU could switch currencies for fossil fuels, get their energy, and further lessen their dependence on a US that expresses nothing but hate and disgust for the EU.
Popularity is the core of everything in a democracy. The reason Republicans are terrified of Trump and fall in lockstep is that Trump can get rid of them via primaries, and that requires Trump's popularity with a small but rabid MAGA base. But Republicans in 2028 will have to survive an election without Trump bringing that base to the ballot.
If Trump's popularity falls to Nixon levels, and the MAGA coalition continues to fracture at the current rate it's falling apart, within a year or tow, there could very well be 60 votes in the senate that go against Trump.
EU has had a lot of time to recognize the situation they have been in regarding energy.
Sorry, but this will never not be not amusing. Where Trump being a stopped clock warns the UN about relying on foreign energy and the German delegation laughs as they were shutting down their nuclear and increasing reliance on Russia for energy.
> EU has had a lot of time to recognize the situation they have been in regarding energy.
There is no case of they just needed to pay attention earlier. The problem is known. There is just no good solution. Drastically scaling back energy consumption isn't going to happen any time soon and would harm the economy. So we can choose between Russia, the Middle East and the USA. Best would be of course to reduce fossil use, but that is orthogonal.
Trump? The same Trump that threatened Greenland while the EU is relying on US LNG? Indeed the EU should not rely on US energy.
Trump is completely inconsistent anyway. First he blamed the EU for wanting to continue the Ukraine war. Then he periodically floats lifting Russia sanctions. But if the EU were to lift Russia sanctions, that of course would lead to severe repercussions.
Trump is about economic suppression of the EU.
If you say "nuclear energy". The US has imported Russian uranium to at least 2025.
You could do this whole plan without needing to do the assassination part, as long as you are willing to throw Ukraine under the bus. Conversely, even if the assassination scheme goes exactly as planned, there is no way of guaranteeing that the new Russian leader would be willing to restart gas deliveries until the war in Ukraine has wrapped up. Given that especially the eastern EU countries have absolutely no intention of allowing Ukraine to lose, this seems like a very tall order.
Finally, both Nordstream 1 AND Nordstream 2 still have a gaping holes in them from the bombings so restarting deliveries will probably take several years at least.
All in all, this plan gets only a 2 out of 10 for being impractical, too slow AND depending on factors outside our control. 1 point because it does at least sound spy-ish and proactive.
The problem for Europe is that they have nothing to trade with Russia. They can get better prices elsewhere.
Before 2022 we had the big EU auto companies in Russia, we also had nice handbags, shoes and outfits to sell to Russia. Plus we could have them hide their money in London property. Machine tools were also a brisk trade.
Nowadays Russia needs nothing from Europe. Nothing apart from peace and their 300 billion back. But we have gone past that stage. The Russians have never broken any energy contracts in this, the West has cut themselves off.
Regarding the EU not wanting the former Ukraine to lose, there is a difference between what the officials want and what the people want. From Finland to Portugal I am sure most people would want no war and cheap energy, however, their 'leaders' are just doing what Washington tells them to do.
Huh? Even in the US the majority are sympathetic to Ukraine in every survey. Sure we all want no war - but we are not really in favor of no war at any price.
They could try, but frankly, Russia's not very good at that game anymore. They have lost their mojo. Look how many swings they had to take at Navalny, and their feckless Novichok tomfoolery in the UK. My money's on the Secret Service.
A terrible idea, you think the Russians are going to appreciate you killing their leader?
A better idea is to try to get Russia to join the EU and use an open market to exert control over the more extreme behaviors and tendencies in Russia. A lot of Russian behavior is based on paranoia (completely justifiable paranoia when you see the way the US is behaving) so perhaps having them in the European fold will chill them out a bit - obviously this is far fetched but it's at least a way to fix this long term.
> A terrible idea, you think the Russians are going to appreciate you killing their leader?
As a Russian? Absolutely yes.
We had a dry run 3 years ago, during Prigozhin's mutiny. He was advancing towards Moscow at freeway speeds, and the population was happily taking pictures. Nobody was organizing barricades, protests, or pro-government rallies.
Putin is not a mad dictator ruling against everyone’s wishes. He’s a leader of a large establishment elite which shares his views and gets very rich. If you replace Putin, most likely outcome is his replacement will not be very different (and probably worse, since the country will be even more anti-Western after the assassination)
Nope. Putin _is_ a mad dictator completely disconnected from the realities of Russia. Just like Maduro in Venezuela. So if he's killed, nobody is going to be bothered by this except a few dozen of his closest allies.
Putin's regime is purely authoritarian ("information autocracy") it has _no_ ideology. Moreover, the government in Russia does everything it can to keep the population passive.
And before you ask, Iran was different because it's _not_ an authoritarian country. It's a full-blown totalitarian theocracy with an official ideology and the elites there actually _believe_ in their doctrine. They have a core of people who will die rather than betray it. And most importantly, they have actual institutions that can survive the death of individuals.
These "decapitation" strikes can't be much more than narcissistic projection. Trump and Netanyahu are "unilateralists" (de facto dictators) and narcissists, and think everyone else must be as well, ergo decapitation strikes must be successful.
It may have been true in the case of Maduro, but the jury is out (we also "decapitated" Hugo Chavez in the early 2000s but he came roaring back).
It is emphatically not true in the case of Iran, Russia, China, DPRK or any state that has been truly sovereign for a couple generations. These states have deep political power structures that don't rely on the whims of one individual.
It really feels like we need to re-read or Orwell to understand how these countries operate. Trump believes the narrative you spelled out above because it's simple and reinforces his personal view, but it's just not true of these long-lived autocratic states. You may see power concentrated in a single individual but the entire system behaves the same way. "Kill the body and the head will die" takes a lot more work & discipline then lopping off a few necks of the hydra and hoping they don't multiply.
That would be on-brand for European leadership. It's a good thing European countries aren't shutting down nuclear power plants and increasing dependence on Russian oil and gas...
It's important to clarify that these are the trading prices at the main oil futures exchange in London. The spot prices in the landing hubs like Gujarat, Odisha and Singapore are significantly higher.
If you or your firm handles trucking or mining or tractors or something like buses, stock up on additives where the vast majority of production (like brake fluid, AdBlue (DEF) and gear oil) is Asian now before they get even more expensive. To give a sense of perspective, I've seen prices for transmission fluid and antifreeze almost double month-on-month in England where I am.
various markets, all of them I think
https://oilprice.com/oil-price-charts/
Yeah parent is talking out of his ass. Oil is incredibly cheap to transport so prices are roughly the same.
Israeli Defense Minister said earlier today that “Significant surprises are expected today across all arenas that will escalate the war to a new level.” And now they have targeted the world's largest gas field (shared with Qatar).
Iranians have said they would retaliate against oil fields and refineries in Israel and the Gulf. But since the majority of US air defenses have been diverted in defense of Israel it looks like the gulf arab states will bear the brunt of the retaliation. It looks like they have already successfully struck targets in Saudi Arabia[1] and Qatar[2].
This is the moral hazard in action as a result of unconditional support for the rogue-state that is Israel . Israel continues to escalate since they face little of the consequences - being under the US security umbrella. It is the rest of the world that pays the price instead (apart from Russia). In a sane world we would be changing this equation such as by pulling air defense, air support, lethal aid, air tankers support, EWACs, intelligence and satellite sharing, defense away from Israel. But the Trump administration and indeed the collective west seems to be under the chokehold of the Israel lobby.
[1] - https://x.com/MenchOsint/status/2034348372346245584 (alt : https://xcancel.com/MenchOsint/status/2034348372346245584 )
[2] - https://x.com/MenchOsint/status/2034340405060194649 (alt : https://xcancel.com/MenchOsint/status/2034340405060194649)
We can't even get Israel out of the Eurovision song contest. Having them face any real consequences is still far away.
A part of the problem is that the complicit media and politicians diverts the public's attention and energies away from relevant things like weapons-transfers, monetary flows, technology transfers, intelligence-sharing, foreign lobbying, legal and media cover for child-sex-trafficking and honeypot operations and onto minimally impactful elements like song and dance competitions.
[flagged]
It's Israel's behaviour that is causing antisemitism.
There is a theory that they actively want this, because it encourages people (often with significant human capital) to leave western countries and move to Israel.
This is not a new thing, Theodor Herzl famously said that antisemites were zionist's best allies
Israelis are constantly fighting for their survival. Thousands of rockets over their heads every year. Surrounded by 4 terrorist groups whose whole existence is based on goal of eradicating jews.
> Stop defending yourself, otherwise we'll have to kill you
Did you learn this in RuSSia's propaganda school?
I also thought it was to induce their version of armageddon.
To me it seems legitimate to criticize ant government. Does not have to have anything to do with religion.
Please don't go there. This is a deadly serious matter.
With this prices it is cheaper to make fuel from coal, the break even price was about 80-90 USD/barrel. And if this continues for months this will pushes wind and solar and electrical cars making natural gas and oil much less relevant. Maybe that was the plan.
Nowhere in deciding to attack Iran was "maybe this will help wind, solar and electric cars."
plans change… :)
This would require there to be a plan in the first place..
no plan is not a plan? :)
Whose plan?
> And if this continues for months this will pushes wind and solar and electrical cars making natural gas and oil much less relevant. Maybe that was the plan.
This is one of the most batshit insane things I've ever read. What on Earth would make you think this?
I doubt it was anyone's plan. However it is likely the effect - you can build more wind and solar anywhere. Asia is finding it hard to get oil which means anyplace in Asia that gets power from wind/solar (or coal - but not where the investments will go although there are a number of things like that in play) instead of oil/gas will have no problems. People unable to get gas who see EVs still working will want one - those with money will buy them. People who see EVs stranded too (because the local power is oil/gas) will still be mad - but they will ask what can change, and wind/solar are right there are cheap answers and so they will get it.
Of course the open question is how long will this last? If this situation ends this week (seems unlikely but...) people will go back to what they did before and forget about this until the next oil crisis - just like every other one. However if this drags on a few years expect major changes in energy mix as people find other answers. Either way, wind/solar are cheap and so utilities around the world are looking to get some installed because it is generally a great investment.
"Trump started the war in Iran to make green energy and EVs more desirable" is an actual conspiracy theory that is going around, although, ya, definitely an unintended consequence.
Given how the previous conspiracy theories turned out we really needed some unconfirmed ones, thanks.
Citation needed. I really struggle to believe anyone actually believes this.
High oil prices does increase demand for petrodollar, but EV adoption decreases. But I don't think revenue from petrodollar really matters much when you spend nearly $1b per day on missiles.
I think real irony is that Iran keeps shipping oil to China and India. At which point US will start nabbing these tankers?
I don't think the US wants a war with China yet, so bombing a Chinese tanker sounds like a bad idea, but Trump isn't exactly the most stable genius, so who knows.
India is right next to Iran, it would be really hard to cut off trade between them. Pakistan definitely doesn't want to get involved (being an ally of the US AND China).
US wouldn't bomb tankers, obviously. But boarding and sending them where they came from does make sense.
False flag operation makes some sense too.
> Maybe that was the plan.
Whose?
In the US, the frackers will switch back on if it continues long enough.
The Saudis have been trying very desperately to keep the price of oil below the threshold where that occurs.
The Mossad and various abrahamic apocalyptic cults will finally push us into green tech. Maybe I judged them too harshly.
Earlier:
Iran's South Pars Gas Field Is Attacked by Israel, Sending Energy Prices Soaring
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47428611
btw fertilizer prices are now 40% higher
this is going to destroy world economy on every angle
fuel and now food
it's like the Israeli's figured out the answer to their problem was to make it everyone's problem
how about we stop giving them offensive weapons, defensive only or we'll be going through this every decade
We shouldn't even be giving them defensive weapons because that only enables them to wage war without consequence. In this specific case its a moot point since we joined this war in the most direct way possible but in general every time we shoot down one country's missiles but not the other we are participating in the war, especially when the side we protect is the aggressor.
> this is going to destroy world economy on every angle
Oil prices were around $100 for a lot of the early 2010s. It's been three weeks. Calm down.
Even at $100 oil is the cheapest it's ever been historically. OPEC nations don't measure inflation in terms of U.S. CPI. They use gold as their benchmark. In 1969 a barrel of oil was worth $400 in today's money. What's incredible is even with the recent price rally, you can still buy oil at $71/barrel if you're willing to wait a few years to get your oil, due to the extreme backwardation of oil futures. That's an 82% discount over the historical norm. Also in real terms oil was worth about $500/barrel in the 2000s.
Its going to get a *lot* worse.
Any effective defensive weapon is an offensive weapon, in that it allows you to commit other resources to offense, or defend against a retaliation in response to an escalating offense on your part.
Yeah, any kind of aid (e.g. food or medicine) allows the people you're aiding to spend more on the military if they want. I guess the only way around it is to set limits on someone's military capability and make aid conditional on not crossing these limits.
Why are you blaming Israel? Iran has been fueling the fires for year by send piles of money and weapons to anyone who had a serious plan to attack Israel.
Not that Israel is perfect, but there is plenty of blame to go around and recognizing that reality is required before we can even try to think of a solution. (I don't have one)
Because they're the ones that poured water onto the burning pan of oil. Nobody is claiming that they created the problem in its entirety, but they have made it significantly worse this month.
And netanyahu funded Hamas, seems like Israel should target him.
and why do we care? we elected “America First” President, not “Isreal First, America who gives a hoot”
There are vague allegations of Iran being the "leading state sponsor of terror" on one scale, and then Israel openly doing a genocide and starting wars of aggression and assassinating countless civilian and military leaders on the other scale, with a growing number of American bodies as cannon fodder.
It is up to you to decide where justice lies.
Nah, there's nothing vague around their funding and training of various militaries and militias in the area. There's more than enough war crimes on both sides to go around, and any concept of justice that is predicated on prosecuting one side exclusively is simply bankrupt. If Israeli civilians are fair game because of Israel's war crimes, then American civilians are fair game for the same reason. And I reject any theory of justice that bites that particular bullet.
No one denies that Iran has strategic partnerships in the region. The question comes down to whether you believe armed resistance is ever legitimate or you blanket-dismiss it as "terrorism", in order to justify the territorial encroachment, ethnic cleansing, or mass murder that is brazenly perpetrated by Israel.
Armed resistance is legitimate as long as harm to civilians is carefully avoided.
Let's not downplay it as "strategic partnerships" and "armed resistance". It is terrorism. Both sides perpetrate it.
Alas, both sides are very much engaged in their own brands of terrorism, and both sides' propogandists will attempt to crucify you if you call what they do terrorism.
Are you saying the IDF is a terrorist organization?
Are you blaming Israel for american troops in Iran? Is the US not a sovreign nation anymore?
This is a valid question, and the answer is unfortunately no. There's a lot to unpack there but basically the president is acting unilaterally and in a manner which advance the interests of foreign nations.
He is still the president of the USA. Every American over the age of 18 is responsible for his actions.
Minus 2? If anyone has an explanation as to how war with Iran is to the benefit if the U.S. I'd genuinely like to hear it.
Why does it matter if it is for the benefit of the US? Doing something irrational does not absolve of responsibility.
War? Time will tell, but I'm not hopeful. I have no clue what Trump could have done instead that would work out, but war isn't looking like a good answer (no surprise to me - though I didn't expect it to get this bad so fast)
Iran has been funding a lot of the "attack Israel" groups in the area. When your income depends on hating Israel it is hard to see a more moderate view. In turn this gives the extremists in Israel a better line of why elect them over someone more moderate. (Lets me clear I'm not trying to clear Israel of their crimes here, only suggesting that Iran bares some blame for those crimes).
The above, but applied to other countries and not as extreem. Iran is funding many anti-democracy groups in the region.
Iran has a lot of smart, well educated people - who can't get enough water to drink. If Iran had a better government those people could develop things of use to improve the world, but instead many are stuck as poor despite having the ability to not be.
Changing Iran would not solve all the problems, but it would ease a large share and maybe leave room for a better world. The only question is how to do this - world history doesn't have a good record for changing evil governments.
I give a lot of the blame to the government of Israel because it seems (according to the Trump administration) there was no real reason to attack except for Israel was going to attack and we would become targets if they did.
High ranking people in Trump's own administration (or at least until very recently) have openly stated Israel was the main reason why we got involved.
Sure seems to me in terms of our current situation, Israel really wanting to get involved in a strike is the but-for cause. At least according to what the Trump administration has stated.
Again the US admin proves how dumb they are, even Pres. Bush II knew it would be real stupid to attack Iran.
But one thing, higher oil prices may get the US to really get working to avoid Climate Change. Yes, some progress has been made, but real CO2 emissions is increasing. The only time it decreased a bit was during the Covid Shutdown.
But one plus may occur, higher price of oil.
Yes, higher prices will cause suffering with the poor and middle classes, but that suffering pales in comparison to what +1.5C will cause. We are already on track for more then 2C. Suffering from that will be far worse than $150 USD price per barrel. Better to take a small hit now and hope it can keep us below 1.5C then trying to live with 2C.
Yes, I posted this knowing it will be down-voted, but cheap oil only makes +3C guaranteed to happen. Who cares about the young anyway /s
I think you are failing to understand how (some) people think in the US. Expensive oil for some means that we should drill more oil wells. There is money sitting under the ground and we stick a pipe down and get it - AMAZING.
That is how people think about high oil prices.
If oil was to go to zero people would stop pumping it and burning it (for that to happen the alternatives have to be cheaper/better). That is what will fix climate change in the US.
The demand for oil will likely never truly go to zero; too many products (outside of energy generation) rely on their byproducts.
As for the bigger picture — yes, higher prices for oil might spur extraction in regions outside of the middle east, but that's a local only viewpoint. Globally, higher oil prices reduce consumption and make green alternatives more attractive on net.
I'm not convinced. As those other things become less byproduct and more the product that oil is pumped for the costs change. Oil is cheap today in part because of volume. However as volumes go down a lot of the infrastructure doesn't make sense to run at all. We will need to build new smaller refineries to handle the smaller world demand - when oil companies look to do that they are going to ask for who will sign a long term contract (even a small refinery is expensive) and a lot of users of oil are going to realize that alternatives to oil are perhaps more expensive, but they don't involve the same long term contracts. Poorly managed companies are the ones who won't sign the contract and when they discover they can't get oil anymore they will be forced to look for an alternative, and that will drive investment in the alternative. (we already know how to make plastics from plants - it is just more expensive - but someone forced to use plant based plastics will be sure to market their green features)
> Globally, higher oil prices reduce consumption
When oil is high, GDP takes a hit. Less is happening.
There are only 2 ways oil goes to 0:
1. We stop using oil because we have better, cheaper alternatives, as you already said. Alternatives are cheaper if they become cheaper, but also if oil becomes more expensive. Higher oil prices may stimulate some oil exploration in the short term in the places that have oil. Everywhere else it's going to cause a scramble to renewable alternatives.
2. We stop using oil because we have technologically regressed to the Middle Ages
I prefer option 1.
[flagged]
Nobody forced Iran to bomb gas and oil fields that aren't even of their enemies, and to start doing it before Pars was bombed (e.g. Shah gas field was targeted 2 days ago). Place the blame on Iran who is actually 'wrecking Asia' and not the ones fighting it.
Relax, go outside, touch grass. The sun will rise again.
> Relax, go outside, touch grass. The sun will rise again.
Yeah, and don't forget, this is all about helping the environment and the Iranian people, freeing them from that pesky and unnecessary for life energy by releasing some much needed smoke. /
That 'touch grass' phrase is interpreted differently outside of America. It is yet another detestable Americanism. Just saying.
Besides, grass is part of the problem, particularly for the arid South West, where these ecological deserts known as lawns, golf courses and landscaping are grass, which is the only plant that grows when the place is covered with RoundUp.
I digress. However, man has a point. It would be easy to say Trump is a clown without a clue or a plan, however, we as I see it, we are switching over from the empire controlling the world with the petro-dollar, to controlling the world with bombs.
The empire can't blockade China directly as that would be an act of war, and the Chinese would have a right to respond with force, sinking all of Uncle Sam's battle ships with hypersonic missiles before you get to touch your beloved and utterly toxic HOA-approved grass.
However, just blow up the entire Middle East and cut the Chinese off from the oil that is needed for their manufacturing requirements. China has a lot of coal, solar and nuclear going on, plus they are best buddies with Putin, but we have a lot of the Russian shadow fleet going up in flames at the moment.
The grand plan has been going on from PNAC and 9/11. Iran is the last one to be ticked off in the Middle East, so you can see it as the finishing line. Iran just has to be destroyed and it seems that Satan and his little Zionist helper have plenty of experience at that.
The EU has been fully Stockholm Syndromed, so there is a true Iron Curtain between Russia and Europe now, only Hungary are allowed some of the good Russian hydrocarbons, Germany and every other country in Europe now has to pay in dollars for American LNG, or Qatari LNG, but that latter option has just gone.
Yes, the sun will rise again. Americans will be touching grass for the 'gram once again. Everything will be fine in the USA, although it won't be petrodollar dominance giving the exorbitant privilege, instead it will be bombs all the way. Note that Cuba is next, and DJT is going to Chy-naaa soonly and bigly. They should arrest him for war crimes, but you know they won't.
Any objectors or rabble rousers will be Charlie Kirked. It will just be another era of terror. This is the normal state of affairs.
Meanwhile, we have crazies in the WH wanting some Biblical End Times outcome to this. They are serious about Jesus coming back, which is not exactly likely, and, even if he did step foot on planet earth again, do you think he would save a single Zionist? As if!
Anyway, we will see if touching grass works out. I mean, in the UK, during the Blitz, people were touching grass all the time. I think the Andy Groves quote applies, 'only the paranoid survive'.
[flagged]
Do you have any idea what has happened ? This is the literal end of civilization.
Civilization is ending and you took time out of your apocalypse preparations to make a new account here? To write this? Where are your priorities?
A couple years from now when you are shivering in a cave you aren't going to be thinking "I may not have hoarded enough ivermectin but at least I got the last word on that HN thread".
End of civilization takes a lot more than high oil/fertilizer prices, even if it causes famine in poorer countries.
> End of civilization takes a lot more than high oil/fertilizer prices,
Energy prices factor into everything else, so there literally will be a lot more than higher oil/fertilizer prices.
The end of civilized relations between countries is a sign of sick and dying civilization and we are there already, plenty of other evidence too.
> even if it causes famine in poorer countries.
So compassionate of you.
In the worst there will be some people dying, a lot of people get poor and maybe democracies will be replaced by feudal structures. It's still far away from the end of civilization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_too_shall_pass
The sun will still rise after civilization ends too.
The natural gas field strike very conveniently increases the EU dependencies on US LNG. The diversification via Qatar had already been shut down, now Israel drives the Iranian gas buyers to compete on the world market.
It is a great plan. The Gulf Monarchies are weakened (that is what you get for your Trump bribes ...), the EU is weakened, and the US controls all energy flows.
China can use the land route to Russia. The EU is going to commit economic suicide instead.
> It is a great plan.
Let's be real here. Nothing this administration ever does is planned.
> Nothing this administration ever does is planned.
You are joking, right? Project 2025 has achieved 50% of its goals in record time[0]. Trump disavowed both it and invading Iran, but make no mistake. Both were “the plan”.
[0] https://www.project2025.observer/en
"this administration" is not running the show. This is going exactly according to someone else's plan.
After the dust settles:
- GCC is knocked down a few notches and that oil and gas money is no longer competing for influence
- US is out of MENA and Centcom will return to Florida; there is no way Arab governments will let US rebuild its bases in their countries. See burning infrastructure, airports, and decimated trade in tourism, air travel, hitech, ... You thought the Orange One thought up the idea of burning all our aliances, pissing off Europe, alarming Asia allies, and making "fortress America" all by his lonesome? Really?
- Israel will be lording it over the area. Maybe they will start having bases on Arab lands.
- China will be at the mercy of whoever now controls Middle East
- Project 2025 is really about controlling us natives here in America when the coin finally (dear lord) drops over here.
The plans to destabilize Syria and Iran have existed since the Obama administration. Trump is just the hatchet man.
There is a stark difference between planning something and actually doing it.
The Syria part was quietly executed under Biden, whose administration deserves full credit. "Destabilizing" means fragmenting, I'm not saying that Assad was any good of course.
Syria was in a civil war since 2015. The US (and Israel and Russia) failed to control their intelligence assets on the ground. Sadly we don't have Hillary's emails like for Lybia, so I can't mock France DGSE for loosing their asset, and control over the rebels, within two weeks.
In Syria it might have taken years, but considering the reaction of the US, Israel and Russia to the sudden Syria push, I guarantee the admin in power wasn't informed. What is more likely is that they lost actionable assets during COVID. At best the CIA was aware but didn't inform Mossad not the US, but that would be giving them a lot of credit.
Great plan for whom? Trump is headed towards Nixon levels of popularity and Nixon methods of ejection with this sort of stuff. The war is hugely unpopular, Trump is less popular, and if gasoline prices stay high and we get involved in a ground war there may be a popular revolution even before Democrats get elected and are able to impeach.
Deals done in Yuan will still get through Hormuz. EU could switch currencies for fossil fuels, get their energy, and further lessen their dependence on a US that expresses nothing but hate and disgust for the EU.
Popularity doesn't matter. The only thing that will remove Trump from office is Jan 20th 2029.
That is probably when he leaves office - but congress can stop a lot of things he is doing if they try.
Popularity is the core of everything in a democracy. The reason Republicans are terrified of Trump and fall in lockstep is that Trump can get rid of them via primaries, and that requires Trump's popularity with a small but rabid MAGA base. But Republicans in 2028 will have to survive an election without Trump bringing that base to the ballot.
If Trump's popularity falls to Nixon levels, and the MAGA coalition continues to fracture at the current rate it's falling apart, within a year or tow, there could very well be 60 votes in the senate that go against Trump.
Nixon method of ejection indeed.
He did say he wanted regime change after all
EU has had a lot of time to recognize the situation they have been in regarding energy.
Sorry, but this will never not be not amusing. Where Trump being a stopped clock warns the UN about relying on foreign energy and the German delegation laughs as they were shutting down their nuclear and increasing reliance on Russia for energy.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FfJv9QYrlwg
> EU has had a lot of time to recognize the situation they have been in regarding energy.
There is no case of they just needed to pay attention earlier. The problem is known. There is just no good solution. Drastically scaling back energy consumption isn't going to happen any time soon and would harm the economy. So we can choose between Russia, the Middle East and the USA. Best would be of course to reduce fossil use, but that is orthogonal.
There is just no good solution.
Refraining from shutting down their nuclear plants for no good reason would have been a start.
That's not a solution. A solution is something you can actually do.
They can restart them and/or build new ones. Fission isn't some lost technology like Greek fire or Damascus steel.
Trump? The same Trump that threatened Greenland while the EU is relying on US LNG? Indeed the EU should not rely on US energy.
Trump is completely inconsistent anyway. First he blamed the EU for wanting to continue the Ukraine war. Then he periodically floats lifting Russia sanctions. But if the EU were to lift Russia sanctions, that of course would lead to severe repercussions.
Trump is about economic suppression of the EU.
If you say "nuclear energy". The US has imported Russian uranium to at least 2025.
If I were the EU, I'd send a covert ops team to assassinate Putin. Then start talking with his successor and re-establish the Nord Stream deliveries.
You could do this whole plan without needing to do the assassination part, as long as you are willing to throw Ukraine under the bus. Conversely, even if the assassination scheme goes exactly as planned, there is no way of guaranteeing that the new Russian leader would be willing to restart gas deliveries until the war in Ukraine has wrapped up. Given that especially the eastern EU countries have absolutely no intention of allowing Ukraine to lose, this seems like a very tall order.
Finally, both Nordstream 1 AND Nordstream 2 still have a gaping holes in them from the bombings so restarting deliveries will probably take several years at least.
All in all, this plan gets only a 2 out of 10 for being impractical, too slow AND depending on factors outside our control. 1 point because it does at least sound spy-ish and proactive.
The problem for Europe is that they have nothing to trade with Russia. They can get better prices elsewhere.
Before 2022 we had the big EU auto companies in Russia, we also had nice handbags, shoes and outfits to sell to Russia. Plus we could have them hide their money in London property. Machine tools were also a brisk trade.
Nowadays Russia needs nothing from Europe. Nothing apart from peace and their 300 billion back. But we have gone past that stage. The Russians have never broken any energy contracts in this, the West has cut themselves off.
Regarding the EU not wanting the former Ukraine to lose, there is a difference between what the officials want and what the people want. From Finland to Portugal I am sure most people would want no war and cheap energy, however, their 'leaders' are just doing what Washington tells them to do.
Huh? Even in the US the majority are sympathetic to Ukraine in every survey. Sure we all want no war - but we are not really in favor of no war at any price.
> You could do this whole plan without needing to do the assassination part
Not really. Putin will not deal with Europe honestly.
That could work really well, or it could fail in a humiliating public way and totally confirm+legitimize that regime's paranoia. Huge downsides.
The West is getting very cavalier about murdering the government officials of other countries.
A window in Russia is likely far more deadly than any of the western security services.
Wouldn't they reciprocate the tactic instead?
They could try, but frankly, Russia's not very good at that game anymore. They have lost their mojo. Look how many swings they had to take at Navalny, and their feckless Novichok tomfoolery in the UK. My money's on the Secret Service.
A terrible idea, you think the Russians are going to appreciate you killing their leader?
A better idea is to try to get Russia to join the EU and use an open market to exert control over the more extreme behaviors and tendencies in Russia. A lot of Russian behavior is based on paranoia (completely justifiable paranoia when you see the way the US is behaving) so perhaps having them in the European fold will chill them out a bit - obviously this is far fetched but it's at least a way to fix this long term.
> A terrible idea, you think the Russians are going to appreciate you killing their leader?
As a Russian? Absolutely yes.
We had a dry run 3 years ago, during Prigozhin's mutiny. He was advancing towards Moscow at freeway speeds, and the population was happily taking pictures. Nobody was organizing barricades, protests, or pro-government rallies.
Putin is not a mad dictator ruling against everyone’s wishes. He’s a leader of a large establishment elite which shares his views and gets very rich. If you replace Putin, most likely outcome is his replacement will not be very different (and probably worse, since the country will be even more anti-Western after the assassination)
Except, like Trump, they get more stupid as you go.
There must limits to stupidity, mustn't there?
One would think. I don't think we've hit the limit yet.
Nope. Putin _is_ a mad dictator completely disconnected from the realities of Russia. Just like Maduro in Venezuela. So if he's killed, nobody is going to be bothered by this except a few dozen of his closest allies.
Putin's regime is purely authoritarian ("information autocracy") it has _no_ ideology. Moreover, the government in Russia does everything it can to keep the population passive.
And before you ask, Iran was different because it's _not_ an authoritarian country. It's a full-blown totalitarian theocracy with an official ideology and the elites there actually _believe_ in their doctrine. They have a core of people who will die rather than betray it. And most importantly, they have actual institutions that can survive the death of individuals.
Real life isn't a James Bond movie. The next guy in line is more belligerent than Putin
Then kill him too.
Eventually nobody will want the job.
I don't feel like that's working out so great in Iran.
We'll see, I guess. Early days.
That goes for both parties involved in the assassination game, and I'm pretty sure the Russians won't tap out first
These "decapitation" strikes can't be much more than narcissistic projection. Trump and Netanyahu are "unilateralists" (de facto dictators) and narcissists, and think everyone else must be as well, ergo decapitation strikes must be successful.
It may have been true in the case of Maduro, but the jury is out (we also "decapitated" Hugo Chavez in the early 2000s but he came roaring back).
It is emphatically not true in the case of Iran, Russia, China, DPRK or any state that has been truly sovereign for a couple generations. These states have deep political power structures that don't rely on the whims of one individual.
It really feels like we need to re-read or Orwell to understand how these countries operate. Trump believes the narrative you spelled out above because it's simple and reinforces his personal view, but it's just not true of these long-lived autocratic states. You may see power concentrated in a single individual but the entire system behaves the same way. "Kill the body and the head will die" takes a lot more work & discipline then lopping off a few necks of the hydra and hoping they don't multiply.
This^, also quite bizarre to read all the blood thirsty comments above… what is this, 4chan?
I I where the EU, I would send ops teams to assassinate Bibi.
That would be on-brand for European leadership. It's a good thing European countries aren't shutting down nuclear power plants and increasing dependence on Russian oil and gas...
I read this to mean a labor-strike at first glance