Post New

So today General Caine came out and said that the blockade is going to go global: what that means is that Iran's shadow fleet - which was always illegal and always subject to search and seizure by anyone willing to do it - is now on notice that when we find them, we take them.

“In addition to enforcing the blockade, all Iranian vessels, vessels with active OFAC sanctions, and vessels suspected of carrying contraband, are subject to belligerent right to visit and search,” the notice said, referring to the Office of Foreign Assets Control. “These vessels, regardless of location, are subject to visit, board, search, and seizure.”

For those who want to start talking about the 'Pirate king', go ahead, but you should understand that maritime law allows this. (You can't fake a country's flag on a vessel and it's against all sorts of maritime laws to lie about/obfuscate your destination and routes).

For those who want to insist that there's no plan, you might want to start assembling the puzzle pieces in your mind about what the administration has been doing. Venezuela. Iran. Panama. Straits of Malacca. F-47. The Navy's massive ship order. Rare Earth minerals. Zero foreign dependence on energy. Reshoring manufacturing. Ask yourself why that might be valuable. Ask yourself why we might need to do this and then ask yourself what if we hadn't done any of it.

Hegseth today:
Our capabilities are not the same, our military and yours. Remember, this is not a fair fight. And we know what military assets you are moving, where you are moving them to. While you are digging out, which is exactly what you are doing, digging out of bombed-out and devastated facilities, we are only getting stronger. You are digging out your remaining launchers and missiles with no ability to replace them. You have no defense industry, no ability to replenish your offensive or defensive capabilities. You only have what you have. You know that. And we know that. You can move things around, but you can't actually rebuild. You can dig out for now, but you can't reconstitute.

But we can. We are reloading with more power than ever before, and better intelligence, even more importantly, better intelligence than ever before, as you expose yourself with your movement to our watchful eye. We are locked and loaded on your critical dual-use infrastructure, on your remaining power generation, and on your energy industry. We'd rather not have to do it, but we're ready to go at the command of our President and at the push of a button.

These are all simple statements of fact. We have satellites overhead. Drones in the air. Mossad on the ground. Iranian citizens calling us up and telling us things. Kurds over Iran's borders. And likely other things.

This isn't a fair fight. I'm not sure why in some minds Iran was lifted up to this mythical position of being able to go toe-to-toe with us. That was never in their cards. I do understand the handicap of not understanding the basic calculus of move/countermove that limits the thinking of some: creative problem solving is something people have or they don't.

At any rate. Students of history will understand what's happening as a variant of the Nixon/Henry Kissinger stratagem of getting the North Vietnamese to the Paris peace talks.

At any rate. Students of history will understand what's happening as a variant of the Nixon/Henry Kissinger stratagem of getting the North Vietnamese to the Paris peace talks.

Hey, easy there chum, some of us are trying to sip hot coffee here! Did you do your master's thesis at Murdoch University of on how those peace talks with the Vietcong turned out?

(From the wonderful film A Fish Called Wanda, 1988)

Otto: "Shut up. We didn't lose Vietnam. It was a tie!"

Wanda: "Now let me correct you on a couple of things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself." And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up."

Students of history will understand what's happening as a variant of the Nixon/Henry Kissinger stratagem of getting the North Vietnamese to the Paris peace talks.

An odd comparison, given that the U.S. failed to achieve almost all of our strategic objectives in the Vietnam war, no matter how successful any individual operation(s) was in killing or blowing up the targets.

I'm not sure why you have to be disparaging of the reasoning of folks on this board. None of us think that the Iranians can prevail militarily over the U.S. We have the ability to do a massively large range of things to them without them being able to resist. What folks point out, though, is that the main objectives of the war (to prevent them from ever getting a nuclear weapon, to prevent them from being a regional threat going forward, to prevent them from sponsoring terror groups) are not things that can be achieved with the stuff we can do to them absent a much more serious commitment of ground troops.

Again, we're likely to come out of this with something pretty much like what we could have gotten in late February without the war: a promise not to have nuclear weapons, a promise not to take uranium above a certain enrichment level, and eliminating their existing 60% uranium supplies. What critics of the war question is the massive cost to us in doing it this way since we have been unable to dislodge the existing regime and we've opened up a massively significant strategic weapon for them in controlling the strait.

After all, it's Iran that's executed a very strong strategy of getting the U.S. to the Islamabad peace talks. Seizing the strait forced a ceasefire when it wasn't really in our interests to accept one. Pretty successful move on our part.

An odd comparison, given that the U.S. failed to achieve almost all of our strategic objectives in the Vietnam war, no matter how successful any individual operation(s) was in killing or blowing up the targets.

Not at all. But first one must understand that by that point the US' goal was to get out of Vietnam. That was literally the only goal at that point as after all, Nixon had campaigned on it.

I'm not sure why you have to be disparaging of the reasoning of folks on this board.

Because much of it is rooted in Orange man, BAD! and is generally sophomoric. <--- That's me being kind. Much of the "commentary" here is pretty laughable, if not outright stoopid.
As long as the lefties on this board continue to fling random insults and generally act like jackasses, I'll (rightly) disparage the lack of brainpower that exists on that side of the aisle.

What folks point out, though, is that the main objectives of the war (to prevent them from ever getting a nuclear weapon, to prevent them from being a regional threat going forward, to prevent them from sponsoring terror groups) are not things that can be achieved with the stuff we can do to them absent a much more serious commitment of ground troops.

Depends, doesn't it? First on what we mean by "serious commitment" of ground troops. Seizing Kharg Island or some of the others isn't a "serious commitment". Secondly, you're not factoring in the economic costs that Iran is reaping here for themselves. All sorts of interesting developments are taking place that are allowing us to do a lot more than was possible before.

To wit:
https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/204447293210614185...

HOLY SMOKES. Sec. Scott Bessent just said that because Iran BOMBED Gulf neighbors, those countries are suddenly opening up Iranian regime BANK accounts to Treasury

So he can FREEZE their assets! Checkmate playing out. 🔥

"What may prove to be FATAL mistakes the Iranians made was bombing their [Gulf] NEIGHBORS."

"Who are now willing to be much more transparent in terms of the funds, or do a deeper dive in investigating the funds that are held within their banking systems."

"So, we have pushed out to them the request that we want to freeze more funds of the leadership of the IRGC and any members of Iranian leadership."

"The other thing that we have done is we have told companies, we have told countries that if you are buying Iranian oil, that if Iranian money is sitting in your banks, we are now willing to apply secondary sanctions, which is a very stern measure."

"The Iranians should know that this is going to be the FINANCIAL equivalent of what we saw in the KINETIC activities."

The Iranians thought they could effectively blackmail the region but forgot the first law of bluffing: have good options in case somebody calls your bluff. They really thought they could bully the Gulf states into splitting with us if they indiscriminately fired loads of missiles and drones at them. Ooops. Should have read the room, fellas.

What's never been understood by this board is that the United States has many levers. Many, many levers. This board thinks there are 2 modes to a conflict: bomb the sh1t out of someone or invade with 500,000 troops. That's what liberals took away from Gulf Wars 1 and 2. Pity.

What critics of the war question is the massive cost to us in doing it this way since we have been unable to dislodge the existing regime and we've opened up a massively significant strategic weapon for them in controlling the strait.

Except. They don't control the strait.
Haven't you found it curious that we haven't seen much if any footage of mines being destroyed? How many merchant ships have actually been hit at all? The last time Iran closed the strait there was all kinds of pictures of burning cargo ships.

How come in the internet age we haven't seen that plastered all over the news? Do you think the media would hesitate to say "See, this is what Trump has done!"?

After all, it's Iran that's executed a very strong strategy of getting the U.S. to the Islamabad peace talks. Seizing the strait forced a ceasefire when it wasn't really in our interests to accept one. Pretty successful move on our part.

This is 180 degrees off of what's been going on.
First off, this is absent a reckoning of our tactical objectives. We've largely eliminated what we wanted to eliminate. In that case, a strategic pause to reset for the next phase - economic blockade - was warranted. Which we're now doing.

Iran vastly overplayed the one card it had both in effect and in timing. By blockading them we've executed a jiu-jitsu reversal of epic proportions. Which was always the plan, btw. It was laughably absurd for the left and our european "allies" to claim there was never a plan. That was nonsense on stilts but nonetheless, away it went.

Their economy was in bad shape before. What kind of shape do you think it's in now? How about a week from now? The Israelis bombed the exact petrochemical plant that they hit for a specific reason.

And speaking of the economy, have you looked into where a lot of supertankers are headed toward right now? What do you think are the implications of that?

The immortal VDH on Iran:

https://amgreatness.com/2026/04/14/iran-a-longer-v...

Iran: A Longer View
America’s leverage in the Strait exposes Iran’s weakness—turning its greatest asset into a liability and reshaping the balance of power without a ground war.

*Potentially* without a ground war.

The prognosis of the Iran War is now so couched in politics and so warped by the American Left that the public has grown tired and wants it all to go away. But in truth, the situation is so fluid that any accurate prediction is impossible. Yet there is good reason to believe in an eventual outcome quite favorable to the U.S. and one far better than the status quo ante bellum.

Indeed.

In other words, Trump can flip the Iranian strategy of selective entrance to the Strait, with the key difference that he has the wherewithal to carry out such a calibrated blockade, and Iran does not. World opinion will be with him, for economic reasons and, should Iran seek to stop him, for its breaking the ceasefire and thus justifying the rain of retaliatory bombs that will descend upon it.

Or if Iran restarts missile and drone attacks on U.S. military and allies in the region, the administration can warn Iran that it will lose its oil facilities on Kharg Island as well as dual-use generation plants—until it relents.

But in the long term, no one will forget Iran’s third—and most egregious—effort to hijack the Strait, despite its failure to do so completely and for any sustained period.

Jiu-jitsu. A great reversal from having Iran in our guard to a full mount position.

Given the hysteria of his political enemies, who smell a takeover of Congress in November, impeachment for Trump, trials for his family members, and the end of the Trump counterrevolution, the stakes are high. To avoid all that, he needs a booming economy based on a steady stock market, lower interest rates, and a return to historically low oil prices—but in the next seven months.

The American people also expect a “win” in Iran, defined now by the inability of Iran to close the straits, to launch missiles at U.S. and allied targets, and the surrender of fissionable nuclear material. Iran feels they can delay, harangue, barter, and passively-aggressively stall until the midterms. So the window on the military solution is closing fast.

Trump might point out that the long-term outlook is not good for Iran. Saudi Arabia will expand its pipeline capacities to the Red Sea. The UAE will do the same and expand its existing pipeline to the Gulf of Oman. There is even some talk of Saudi Arabia building a new massive line across Jordan to the Israeli Mediterranean port of Haifa. These Gulf agendas will eventually make the Strait irrelevant to oil exporters like Iran and flip its advantage to the disadvantage of Iran’s vulnerable dependency on the Strait.

In sum, we should ignore the periodic 24-hour schizophrenia of the Left and the media, and instead examine the reality of the war so far, and what will be its likely long-term effects.

But first one must understand that by that point the US' goal was to get out of Vietnam. That was literally the only goal at that point as after all, Nixon had campaigned on it.

Sure - you can always choose to abandon your initial strategic goals and take whatever you can get, or just negotiate the terms where you cut and run. But that's hardly a masterstroke of success.

Secondly, you're not factoring in the economic costs that Iran is reaping here for themselves.

I am. Iran will suffer terribly economically. Whether we blockade the strait or whether we bomb all their civilian facilities.

But that doesn't really help us achieve our strategic goals. In war, it is possible for both sides to lose, and lose badly - so simply pointing out that Iran is suffering does not in any way mean we are moving to achieve our goals.

Except. They don't control the strait.
Haven't you found it curious that we haven't seen much if any footage of mines being destroyed? How many merchant ships have actually been hit at all? The last time Iran closed the strait there was all kinds of pictures of burning cargo ships.

They do control the strait. The mines weren't what stopped ships from going through - it was land-based attacks that made it too risky for them to proceed. That threat is still there. Traffic through the strait is still a tiny fraction of what it was before, and is still limited to vessels that are allies of Iran.

First off, this is absent a reckoning of our tactical objectives.

No one has criticized or question our ability to achieve our tactical objectives. The U.S. military has performed flawlessly. All of our critiques are pointing out that achieving our tactical objectives will not achieve our strategic objectives.

Which was always the plan, btw.

Then why didn't we blockade the strait at the beginning of the war? Why did we temporarily lift sanctions on Iranian oil?

It wasn't always the plan. We never planned that the strait would be closed. It's an adjustment to what the Iranians have done to try to minimize the strategic advantage they gained by demonstrating they could successfully attack vessels in the strait.

And speaking of the economy, have you looked into where a lot of supertankers are headed toward right now? What do you think are the implications of that?

They're heading to the U.S., and the implications are that domestic energy prices will track global energy prices - vastly higher than they were before the war, imposing a major drag on the U.S. economy and exposing us to the risk of recession and shortages as everyone else in the world if an accommodation with Iran isn't reached soon.

For those who want to start talking about the 'Pirate king', go ahead, but you should understand that maritime law allows this. (You can't fake a country's flag on a vessel and it's against all sorts of maritime laws to lie about/obfuscate your destination and routes).

Interdicting an enemy's commerce, in time of war, is perfectly fine....in time of war. A Congress that declines to explicitly tell the POTUS to stop his war, is not exactly a ringing endorsement of that war.

US lawmakers reject measure to block Trump from striking Iran

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yve8dmvn5o

Of course, Trump the Great and Powerful WILL take that as a license to make war on anyone, anywhere, at his whim.

Notice oil futures are up 4%+ today. Would not put it past Trump the Conqueror to have arranged the "cease fire", and chatter about negotiations, and the war ending "soon", to deescalate the situation in Congress, until the war powers measure is voted down. Then resume the war. Typical "JC" move: promise anything, to get what you want. The moment you get what you want, all the promises made are immediately forgotten.

Steve

Nixon had campaigned on it.

Are you aware that Nixon talked to the Vietnamese to scuttle the talks with LBJ?

Are you aware that Nixon talked to the Vietnamese to scuttle the talks with LBJ?

The right doesn't get to hear that kind of factual information.

Nixon had campaigned on it.

Marjorie Taylor Green was on Amanpour last night, complaining that what Trump the Conqueror is doing is not what he campaigned on. What is he doing is the opposite. Congratulations, MTG, you have been "JCed".

Steve

These Gulf agendas will eventually make the Strait irrelevant to oil exporters like Iran and flip its advantage to the disadvantage of Iran’s vulnerable dependency on the Strait.

This is YOUR OWN POST showing how clueless you truly are regarding oil.

To ship oil FROM THE US TO ASIA is about 52 days.

To ship oil FROM THE MIDDLE EAST TO ASIA is about 22 days.

Game. Set. Match.

Sure - you can always choose to abandon your initial strategic goals and take whatever you can get, or just negotiate the terms where you cut and run. But that's hardly a masterstroke of success.

Did Nixon get us into Vietnam? No, he campaigned on ending the war. His sole goal was to do that. At any rate, that's not the point.
Nixon and Kissinger played a masterful game of good cop (Kissinger)/bad cop (Nixon). When the Vietnamese would stall, Nixon would order up more B-52 raids and Kissinger would tell them that Nixon was nuts and that it would be better to make a deal with him.

Trump is doing the same exact thing, albeit with a few twists. Pity that people underestimate him and his team so much they can't see the obvious but that's a 'them' problem.

But that doesn't really help us achieve our strategic goals. In war, it is possible for both sides to lose, and lose badly - so simply pointing out that Iran is suffering does not in any way mean we are moving to achieve our goals.

The Gulf states are losing money. Have you asked yourself why they're telling us to finish Iran off? Maybe you should consider that some are willing to endure short term pain for long term benefits.

They do control the strait. The mines weren't what stopped ships from going through - it was land-based attacks that made it too risky for them to proceed. That threat is still there. Traffic through the strait is still a tiny fraction of what it was before, and is still limited to vessels that are allies of Iran.

Ah. How many ships have been hit? Versus how many aren't willing to risk it? Two different things, and implies their "Control" may be more psychological than physical.

No one has criticized or question our ability to achieve our tactical objectives. The U.S. military has performed flawlessly. All of our critiques are pointing out that achieving our tactical objectives will not achieve our strategic objectives.

This wasn't the point I was making. We got a cease-fire on our timeline, not theirs. That's what's being missed. Those ships shooting missiles need time to reload, make repairs and let the crew rest. Aircraft need maintenance and pilots need some downtime after the tempo they were put through. We're getting that now. Stuff is being flown in. Lessons are being absorbed. Tactics analyzed. More intelligence being collected.

All that stuff that Hegseth was talking about.

Then why didn't we blockade the strait at the beginning of the war? Why did we temporarily lift sanctions on Iranian oil?

Because their Navy, Air Force, missiles and drone capability needed to be addressed first. The Joe Biden model was to paint big red bullseyes on our ships and steam them into the middle of the Houthis' shooting gallery in the Red Sea. I can't for the life of me fathom why somebody didn't raise more of a stink over the stupidity of that approach.

As to your second question, Trump is threading the needle on world energy prices. He said words to the effect today that "if you had told him the price of oil would only be $92 buck a barrel 5 weeks in, I'd have been very happy with that". And he's right. All the doom and gloom projections were for oil at $150 a barrel and higher. Instead, what's happening? Global energy markets are shifting.

They're heading to the U.S., and the implications are that domestic energy prices will track global energy prices - vastly higher than they were before the war, imposing a major drag on the U.S. economy and exposing us to the risk of recession and shortages as everyone else in the world if an accommodation with Iran isn't reached soon.

You're 1/3rd right. Yes, they're heading to the US to fill up. Which means more American oil gets to market to relieve the worldwide supply shortage.
'Imposing a drag on the US economy'? Hardly. US refineries are going to need to ramp up capacity as well which means more jobs and more economic activity, not less.

Then there's Venezuela. You were adamant that nobody would step forward and spend a single dime bringing their production back up. How do you feel about that prediction now?

BTW. Ursula von der Leyen is busy telling europeans to turn the lights off at night and not to drive anywhere. Would you rather have their energy position or ours?

Interdicting an enemy's commerce, in time of war, is perfectly fine....in time of war.

Heh. Those ships are sailing under false pretenses (sailing under flags of nations that have nothing to do with the ships). That's a no-no, and every Western country could have done something about it a long time ago *if* any of them had the political will to do so.

We have the will now.

In war, it is possible for both sides to lose, and lose badly - so simply pointing out that Iran is suffering does not in any way mean we are moving to achieve our goals.

Absolutely. Just look at Ukraine. Both Ukraine and Russia are "losing". Neither has achieved their goals, both have lost lives and resources, both economies are a mess. Ukraine will both win and lose when Russia finally has to go home. Russia will just lose, even if they manage to keep some of their captured lands in the Donbas (which may not happen).

Iran cannot stop us from doing whatever we want. Just like Vietnam, just like Afghanistan, just like Iraq. Doesn't mean we're winning. They can still strike us, just like all the other examples I gave. We won every battle in 'Nam, but we still accomplished nothing (except mass casualties). Tet? We won. We obliterated them. But we still lost.

I think people keep thinking about marching to Berlin, the enemy gives up, and a new government arises that is friendly to us. That's not how it works now.

Those ships are sailing under false pretenses

Nope. That is not how ship registries work.

Except. They don't control the strait.
Haven't you found it curious that we haven't seen much if any footage of mines being destroyed? How many merchant ships have actually been hit at all?

For the record, the few mines that have been laid were not done to blow up ships. It hadn’t gotten that far. They were there as a message to insurance companies, without which shipping won’t proceed. The one other benefit is to narrow the shipping lanes and keep ships within easy targeting range of their drones, should they decide to do that, if things escalate.

A chart of shipping prior to the war shows two distinct and relatively wide paths of ships transiting up and/or down the Strait. The same chart of the past two weeks shows two things: much much much less shipping, and much narrower lanes where the ships are traversing.

Nixon talked to the Vietnamese to scuttle the talks with LBJ

Saint Ronnie Ray Gun copied that trick a decade later, negotiating with Iran to continue holding the hostages until after the 1980 election and inauguration, scuttling Carter’s chances in that election.

—Peter

The Iranians' goose isn't fully cooked, but the oven is pretty much done pre-heating:

https://x.com/Osint613/status/2044483626868277429?...

The U.S. Treasury warned banks in China, Hong Kong, the UAE, and Oman that they are processing transactions on behalf of Iran, signaling possible secondary sanctions.

As I've said, thanks to the Iranians shooting missiles at the Gulf states, they rather willingly allowed Scott Bessent and his team of financial assassins from the US Treasury Department in to look at their transactions.

And Lo and Behold! Loads of ghost ship stuff. We'll be along to clean that up shortly. This means

We can now financially track every illicit oil transaction. We know the account numbers, we know the shell companies, we know the dates of expected deliveries and the routes to be taken. The Treasury Department followed up this press conference with a formal letter to all countries partaking in the shadow oil market to cease immediately or else face the consequences.
https://hotair.com/generalissimo/2026/04/17/separa...

Hahahahahhaha. Time to start rolling up the 570-odd ships that carry sanctioned oil:

https://x.com/Osint613/status/2044713918858162514?...

USNAVCENT expands the Iran blockade worldwide. Iranian vessels, OFAC sanctioned ships, and suspected contraband carriers can now be boarded and seized by U.S. forces anywhere, with the move targeting Iran’s shadow fleet of more than 570 tankers.

Key points

• Blockade in force since April 13 now applies worldwide under belligerent rights
• Neutral flagged vessels tied to Iran or sanctions also at risk

• $400M + per day in Iranian oil revenue at risk
• Nearly 90% of Iran’s trade is sea based
• Rising risk of economic collapse and currency crisis

Source: USNAVCENT / NCAGS advisory via Seatrade Maritime (Marcus Hand), April 16, 2026;

I like it. Maybe something will fall out of the sky.

Post New

Macroeconomic Trends and Risks FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.