US- and Greek-owned tankers ablaze after Iran claims 'underwater drone' strike
lloydslist.com
lloydslist.com
If Iran does have underwater explosive drones, why would they boast about it and invite attacks upon that weapon and its deployment systems?
See how that doesn't make any sense?
To complicate adversary targeting priorities. If you have to shift your pre-planned bombing sorties away from, say, local Basij HQ buildings, it takes pressure off of the Iranian government. Assigning aircraft to find/fix/target/track/engage "underwater drone launch points" is probably like searching for a needle in a haystack given the size of Iran's coastline.
A true UUV attack is probably outside Iran's wheelhouse, but cutting-down an attack speedboat to the waterline seems very realistic.
That said, a UUV fleet would have downsides for Iran. It's expensive, dependent on imports and an overmatch for swarm-style attacks. Attack boats are a closer fit for the "cheap/attritable" tactics we see used with Shaheds.
You just need a body (plastic tube), batteries, motors, and a computer. Maybe with a "range extender" gas engine. Everything can be COTS, and Iran certainly can manufacture occasional custom components.
After all, it can manufacture centrifuges for uranium enrichment.
My money is still on low-observable attack craft, or a high-low mix that deprioritizes submersibles. Iran has an impressive panopoly but also has casus belli to lie out their nose. If Iran does have fully submersable UUVs, I'd expect them to be saved for a direct confrontation with the US Navy, not tankers.
I could definitely be wrong though, I don't have any insider info to work with here.
Some are now fully submersible: https://insightcrime.org/news/under-radar-what-hundreds-ofna...
I think it is indeed more likely that they used a low-profile boat, but I won't discount a full submersible. Or maybe a combination: a low-profile boat that uses a regular outboard gas engine to get close to the target, and then dives and attacks like a torpedo.
> If Iran does have fully submersable UUVs, I'd expect them to be saved for a direct confrontation with the US Navy, not tankers.
I don't think they can do serious damage to large US Navy vessels.
Shaheeds are aerodynamic clones of the Israeli Harpy SEAD drone, which in turn were based on the German Dornier DAR of the 1980s.
Compared to the loitering anti-radar DAR, the Shaheed is electronically extremely simple and not much more advanced than the WW2 V-1.
The fact that Russia started producing Shaheeds reflects more on the poor state of Russian industry than any sophistication of Iranian technology.
We have US cloning Iranian drones now https://www.euronews.com/2026/03/10/flm-136-americas-cheap-i...
Lancets were miles better than Switchblades.
AFAIK Switchblades were used only in first months of the war then completely abandoned.
Could be a copy of those? They don't look that complicated - tube with explosives, battery, electric motors, some sort of computer/radio control. Not so different to a Shahed in complexity.
The more FUD they can generate around transport in the strait of Hermuz the better for them.
Maybe they have this capability and maybe they don’t, but they are clearly able to hit these tankers with something. Ukraine has been using these drones so it’s entirely possible Iran has this tech too.
Pretty impressive effect, given that there is no such ban. There are a number of other rules which can combine to make it look approximately like there is, but there isn't.
Well, no, it doesn't, and its important to note what the actual bans are to understand why it doesn't. There is:
* a fairly hard ban (essentially absolute, except for an exception noted at the end of this list) on men who are already priests marrying in the Catholic Church,
* a softer ban on married men becoming priests in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church (this is the 12th Century rule you reference),
* no ban on married men becoming priests in the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church,
* a fairly hard ban (essentially absolute, except for an exception noted at the end of this list) on currently-married men becoming bishops in the Catholic Church,
* no ban on men who are widowers (including men admitted to the priesthood while married) becoming bishops in the Catholic Church,
* no ban on a married Catholic man (possibly a layman, a Latin Rite deacon, one of the already exceptional Latin Rite priests, or an Eastern Rite priest) being ordained Bishop of Rome after being elected by the College of Cardinals (the rule for this specific allows any Catholic man to be elected) to the Papacy, though its never happened.
It is not impossible for a man to be both married and have children licitly while being a Catholic priest, and it is not impossible for a man to licitly have children through marriage as a widower while being a Catholic bishop (including the Pope), and its even technically possible for a married man with children to be Pope, though it is improbable that someone not already a bishop---and therefore not currently married, but possibly widowed and with children—and cardinal would be elected.)
As I said originally, there is no rule against a Catholic priest having children, though “there are a number of other rules which can combine to make it look approximately like there is.”
That was the theme of the third "act" of one of my favorite novels, 1978's The Vicar of Christ by Walter F. Murphy.
Act 1: The protagonist — a young Catholic, son of a U.S. diplomat, and U.S. Marine Corps junior officer, is wounded at Iwo Jima in WWII. After becoming a law professor, he's recalled to active duty for the Korean War, where he's awarded the Medal of Honor for valor as a battalion commander in combat. (The author was himself a decorated Marine officer in Korea.)
Act 2: Years later, the protagonist is a longtime law school dean. He's appointed Chief Justice of the United States because of political deal-making between the President and a couple of different senators who have agendas.
Years after that, after a personal tragedy, the protagonist resigns and joins a monastery.
Act 3: Having been a monk for just a couple of years, the protagonist is elected pope by the College of Cardinals as a compromise candidate after a long deadlock between the two front-runners. He takes the name "Francis" (after Francis of Assisi) and immediately begins shaking things up both institutionally and doctrinally — to the displeasure of traditionalists.
Ukraine has been defending against these drones for past 4 years!
EDIT: nevermind, we are talking about sea babies, not shaheds - different kind of drones.
[1] https://gcaptain.com/iranian-shadow-fleet-and-greek-affiliat...
With all the technology advancement and improvement with access to information in the last 30 years, why does it feel that all of this culminates to more disinformation, more pain, and less understanding?
Maybe in hindsight, "flooding the zone" will be considered a much bigger threat than it is today. Most of what's going on in the last 12 months have happened in plain sight and would have never worked 30 years ago. Today, it just flies, attention span be damned.
30 years ago people were like "meh, sure we don't get something, I bet there are hidden interest that I don't know about". Nowadays they are like "oh, yeah we attack country X because they have aliens that attack us telepathically, I know that for sure and if you don't agree you are an alien too!".
We have so much stuff that we just throw things away if a tiny piece of it gets tarnished / broken.
The US's population density is pretty low and we have a ton of land not in cities that's very sparsely populated.
Like it largely seems that geopolitics of now is about creating scarcity.
How else do you create scarcity except by controlling all the resources?
Neither of which is actually true for oil. We're still finding oil reserves faster than we deplete them, major users such as China are rapidly decarbonizing, and the price was relatively low before the war.
But the people in power thought it was true, which is all that matters.
Case in point: switching from oil to renewables - which can lower dependency to external actors a lot as solar panels and windmills have life span of years, so even if the producers suddenly refuses to sell more, one has some time to find an alternative - was done slower than it could have because of "discussions".
Since 20 years I almost feel the discussion "climate change or not" is fueled by people that want dependency on oil, such that we don't talk about the issue of a couple of big producer points of failure (USA, Russia, Gulf countries). Not sure if oil companies are smart enough to finance green groups (to which I agree generally but is besides the point), such that the public discourse stays in a conflict area (climate) rather than a simple one (independence), but if they are that would be meta-evil.
This is directly caused by technology. Morons have helped the worst possible people build surveillance and coordination and propaganda networks and are all confused pikachu about that going exactly the way you should have expected it to go.
Technology was also bypassing the "resource" problem at warp speed. Solar panels are the energy future, and thanks to China being actually good at strategic planning, solar can be deployed and utilized far faster than any other energy innovation. With the sheer abundance possible through bulk solar, water scarcity is an engineering issue, about manufacturing enough plumbing and membranes to desalinate whatever you need.
We are fighting an 80s oil war because people voted for an 80s TV personality to run our country after he was known to rape kids, brag about Mein Kampf (even though everyone knows he doesn't read for fun), and attempt to invalidate the 2020 election.
Israel saw a clear opening to wildly advance their imperialist ambitions and because Donald Trump is so damn stupid we have jumped in to this absurdist situation because Donald Trump wanted to be seen shooting first, because he thinks that looks "Strong".
Dems had Trump dead to rights for insurrection. They had everything in the Epstein files and didn't drop it. They told you they were working tirelessly for a ceasefire - while unilaterally vetoing 4 of them at the UN.
Genocide. They armed genocide. Which we could all see on our phones.
They loved arming it so much, they decided they'd rather keep arming it than gain millions of votes in swing states vs Trump.
Trump is worse. Yes. But when both parties in the two party system are pro-genocide, pro-torture, pro-ICE, pro-Epstein etc etc etc, you can't blame the whole problem on just half the people involved.
Americans are under the delusion that Democrats are the second coming of Christ, even after it enabled and took part in genocide. To anyone outside of the West, the differences between the two parties are inexistent.
The memoryholing of all Democrats' failures, corruption, and horror is painful to watch. But they do it with a different kind of posturing, and this seems to be sufficient to most.
Yeah that's the really painful bit alright. The pretence isn't even good.
But they'll get so mad at you for pointing out the obvious.
It's been this way for a long time - MLK pointed all this out 6 decades ago. It's gotten worse since, to the point where over 98% of US voters in 2024 didn't hold enabling live-streamed genocide as a red line for their vote.
I'll keep talking about it, and USians will probably keep getting mad at me for it. Ah well.
Kind of interesting how we have some areas of the world where there are no geopolitics and people live in peace and don't see any differences between the people they come across in the grocery store. And other places in the world where those vary same cultures in that midwestern grocery store might now be picking up arms against eachother.
And also kind of interesting how no one cares to highlight this cognitive dissonance we have, how an israeli and a persian can live as neighbors in the US, but in the middle east they are water and oil.
In surveying my friends in Silicon Valley, it seems that most VCs/techies know that: 1. This administration is likely leading us into long term wars and social instability 2. American Dynamism and Defense Tech (or more politely bundled into "DeepTech") are war profiteering, benefiting from greater instability
Speaking / acting out against the American military complex and Big Tech/VC's role in this carries 3 big risks: 1. Not being invited to parties ("too much negative energy, we want to be surrounded by positivity" or "don't talk politics") 2. Censorship and reduced following across most major social media platforms 3. Being economically left out as the world bifurcates into a K-shape economy
As a result, most of my community (generally peace-loving, music-loving humans) seem to be either taking a position of "the world has always been at war and will always be at war, I'm just a realist" or "I'm just going to focus on my locust of control and my personal wellbeing" or "if it's gonna happen anyways, I might as well make money off of it". There is a strong contingent of the resistance as well (still fighting for climate, social justice, peace) but much higher rates of depression and social isolation in this group
So it does not seem to be a problem that can be solved by more information and more technology (though k-12 and higher education assuredly is worth investing in), but perhaps by less nihilism and a stronger social/moral fabric
A big reason I am considering starting a company again is that we need more flags of institutions that carry large weight/reputation and stand for a set of values that is different than the current (and historical) status quo. I expect most of my community would be thrilled to align with those flags if those flags where held up tall and broke through the noise
Which is to say, if you're considering setting up one of those flags, please please do. The world doesn't have to be this way.
Because the United States government is so grossly dysfunctional that a blatant real world re-enactment of Wag the Dog[1] has gone off without a hitch. "Without a hitch" in the "distract from the President's rape of a child" sense of the original film, of course.
Someone with a 500$ laptop, internet connection and a handful of social media accounts can do a level of damage and cause pain that would be impossible 3-4 decades ago.
Technology might advance, but people are still people. Greed, stupidity, ego, jingoism...these don't change no matter how much tech advances
One of the original adages in technology is:
garbage in, garbage out.
https://www.spglobal.com/energy/en/news-research/latest-news...
Either way for sure this will cause further backlog. And for what.
I wonder how many more caches of drones Iran has lying around. Days? Weeks? Years?
There's also the question of how to resupply any anti-drone systems in the area - maybe we'll see convoys carrying interceptors crossing the Arabian desert.
'Nope'
They'll signal something else later and things will open up.
If the goal was to hurt China / BRICS and kneecap Iran it seems on point.
It's always hard to predict how the USA will vote when "war" is happening.
This 'Venezuelan oil' is a pipe dream for the moment. It will take a significant amount of years to get anywhere near completed.
USA, Europe, and many other countries depend on China for manufacturing. I doubt that this is going to solve inflation.
But it will fill the pockets of a few people in oil rich countries that can still export.
And it will go higher now. And given the President's hatered for high interest rates and the next fed chairman being a garden-variety lick-spittle, things are not looking up.
I think this has been the crux of many allegations against China. They don't operate fairly in global markets.
You are mistaken to assume there was a goal. Trump has admitted he did this because he was told that Iran were about to attack the U.S. not because of any strategic goal.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GaazFYTrQ_A&pp=ygUYaXQncyBjb21...
While also hurting Europe, South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, and many more. Very on point...
It will hurt everyone, Americans included, oil is a global market, fertilisers are a global market, those are basic inputs for probably every single thing produced in the world.
So now all of us around the globe have to pay the price for American Imperialism, compounded by the complete shattering of the USA's soft power as an ally, this will only create more animosity against the USA from all sides. Very on point.
But the USA oil industry can make a buck until everything buckles, or perhaps the USA admin will introduce price controls like in the 1970s, that worked very well too.
Only because those countries choose for that to be the case. For example, Saudi Arabia and Russia don't do that. Local prices and export prices are different.
But the US, Canada, the Netherlands, and long list of other countries could make this crisis have zero effect on local prices. They choose to take every excuse to raise prices (in fact the Netherlands goes further: if sales tax on gas raises because prices raise, the amount of tax paid is kept constant if prices drop. So they artificially raise local gas prices. So if gas prices are low, tax on gas has at one point reached 72%), but it is fundamentally a government choice.
The US Government cannot force US companies to sell at a lower domestic price if they can get a higher price exporting. I know that God-Emperor Trump pretends that he can command the oil sector to make less money, but he can't.
>For example, Saudi Arabia and Russia don't do that
2 countries famous for being beacons of free-market capitalism.
That's not a mechanism that anyone is proposing. The US government can, however, apply an export tariff that's used to subsidize local prices.
Yes, it sounds crazy right now, but a lot of things sounded similarly crazy 10 years ago, and here we are.
> but he would have to be pretty bad off to come to that belief.
Well, did you hear that the dead are walking around with no arms and no legs because they were blown off? Trump said that, a few days ago.
The mainstream media is incredibly generous to him, they parse out the non-crazy from his word salad and report on that.
Start to worry of the Republicans start talking about expanding the Supreme Court to add their own to it
Can't? They already did.
Civil war? Elections. WWII? Elections. Covid? Elections.
I could see Trump trying this, but I also can see dozens of other people or groups, some richer, more powerful, more competent, and more ruthless than Trump, just waiting in the wings for the guardrails to come off to make a play to rule the territory of the former United States. If he tries and succeeds at this it's open-season. It's not a Trump dictatorship, it's a civil war, akin to the Chinese Civil War after the emperor fell or the Syrian civil war after the Arab Spring.
Sure, but there's mechanism in real life that allows cancelling elections like sending your newly funded ICE goons to polling places. Ideally everyone follows the constitution but in reality (even looking at past administrations) there's nothing stopping the executive from taking an action and saying "oops guess we'll let the courts figure it out!"
If so, why do you think this is not relevant to this particular empire at this particular time?
That doesn't mean all extant empires are currently actively falling, and soon, will have fallen.
The US is less divided now than it was during the Civil War, which it survived. Why would it be more likely to fall now than then?
We have the highest concentration of weapons per capita in the world and a deeply ingrained expectation of voting. In a very dark humor sort of way it would be absolutely hilarious if someone was stupid enough to attempt to intervene in the process.
We might go down in flames but you can be absolutely certain we'll have collectively agreed to light them ourselves.
Free elections, on the other hand...
> Why worry about how the midterms, if you can create a situation where elections cannot be held at all...
The same guy that told the government of Georgia to add 10,000 votes to his total so he'd win.
The same guy that received 0 punishment for either action.
Why wouldn't he try something for the mid-terms?
and
> but the federal government has no direct control over any of the voting processes
Coming soon, to polling booths near you, "random" ICE activity.
Trump is not all powerful, unless everybody gives up their power. Not everybody is as weak as the SV elite, and the failures of Big Law and others that bent the knee were very instructive to everybody else. Bowing down to the king makes you his servant, but it does not protect you in any way.
But there's not enough of them. Even for Minneapolis, a mid-size city. There might be a few targeted attacks, lots of voter intimidation, but the US is a very big place, and the ranks are too small, and their popularity is tiny compared to other authoritarian regimes.
It's going to be ugly, maybe really really ugly with violence and innocent voters hurt, but the forces of democracy will win out. Minneapolis shows that there's a strong backbone to this country still, even if some swing voters were tricked.
Now imagine you're a voter who shows any signal of potentially being Dem-aligned - for example a slightly darker complexion, or maybe dyed hair. On your way to the polling station, masked ICE goons "scan your face" with their AI apps, and the apps tell them you're illegal, so they put you into a van and drive you to a holding facility.
What recourse do you have? Even if they let you go the next day, you've lost your vote. And that's not a given, what if they hold you for weeks or months? How many people have others who depend on them, so they can't risk this?
I don't mean to sound dramatic, but if anything like this happens (and there's basically no way it won't) the fascist takeover is complete, and your only recourse left is civil war.
Volunteer doing what? Donate to what? Boycott what with what demands? What's the most successful boycott in your estimation? I can only really think of buses in Montgomery and the Swadeshi movement in India, but even that started in like the 1910s and they didn't get independence until 1947 and who knows how much it mattered. If there were a big crank somewhere and you could guarantee me that turning it gives better than 50% odds that the world gets better in the ways I consider better, I'd be turning the crank. We'd all be turning the crank! But what's the crank?
As for a recent successful boycott, see Disney Plus cancellations in response to Jimmy Kimmel being taken off the air.
here are some concrete things I can think of: - don't like that Sam Altman is aligned with the regime? boycott chatgpt, it fell from the top spot in the app store and Sam Altman felt forced to address the controversy to his employees, it wouldn't take much more to turn the tide and other companies take notice and be disinclined to do similar - don't like that your elected representative was mum on the Iran war? write them an email, call their office - think that a candidate is best chance at change? donate to their campaign - show up at the next No Kings protest, politicians take notice of the coverage and what people are mad about
If you are waiting for a guarantee your actions will affect change I can't help you, but I can guarantee doing nothing won't.
The corruption competence of this body of actors is as impressive as it is horrific.
Lincoln says, "With malice toward none, with charity for all"
Trump is the exact opposite of Lincoln being "With malice towards all, with charity for none"
The irony of the situation is that they are from the same party.
He believed that the greatest danger to America came from within, warning that if the nation faltered, it would be due to self-destruction rather than external forces
Lincoln's famous speech: , "At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."
Lincoln was ahead of his time and might as well have predicted something like Trump.
There is no crisis that would create a situation where elections "cannot be held".
That is to say, if the current admin attempts to suspend elections, the legality of that and the magnitude of the reaction will be the same, crisis or no.
That's not precedent for the federal government declining to hold elections in any way.
The GOP won't even kill the fillibuster in the senate because they know change is coming.
But they claimed "flawless victory".
Both things cannot be true at the same time.
Their concept of truth lasts only as long as a single news cycle (sometimes even less).
They keep making the same mistake: underestimating that your adversary gets a vote, whether it's Iran, trade partners, colleges, Colbert, the Kennedy Center's audience, or Minneapolis.
I expect more competency from US Presidential administrations, and also expect more competency and indpendence from the various parts of the executive branch, which should execute their missions without micro-management from the President, and I further expect far more competence from Congress and the US Supreme Court in setting law and enforcing law. It's bad enough that we have an incompetent Presidential administration, but that damage should be limited by the independence of the other parts of the government. The blast radius should be far smaller, we shouldn't have a King.
We wouldn't be having a discussion about the US having a king if Biden's administration was actually competent at doing its job.
Nonetheless, I wouldn't call Biden incompetent on any of that.
Biden did not lose, Kamala Harris lost. Biden was not incompetent, but he was successfully portrayed as incompetent by applying a very different standard to Biden than to Trump 45.
Maybe if they were actually competent they wouldn't have made the mistake then?
> Biden did not lose, Kamala Harris lost.
Harris had no choice but to carry the Biden administration's poor approval on her back. Furthermore if Biden knew he would be unelectable in 2024 earlier he could have dropped out earlier and allow Harris (or other Democrats) more time to campaign. But he chose to stay until a disastrous televised debate forced him out, out of… what, exactly?
> but he was successfully portrayed as incompetent by applying a very different standard to Biden than to Trump 45.
Biden defenders always bring up how we shouldn't criticize him because Trump is worse. Ok. But you realize that's an absurdly low bar to clear, no? We are not upset that Biden is worse than Trump, we are upset that Biden is worse than what we expect from a someone with a letter D next to his name.
Is that so?
"Vice President Kamala Harris was asked by the co-hosts of The View on Tuesday whether she would have done anything differently than President Biden, responding 'not a thing comes to mind,' before coming back to the question and adding that she plans to appoint a Republican to her Cabinet if she is elected in November."
Someone really hopes you forgot about them...
https://x.com/sentdefender/status/2032091651422720197
*Edit: Now I understand that some companies may make more money, but the economy overall may suffer.
*Seems like I hit a nerve with stereotypical people groups.
Plus gas is largely immune to sales tax and we don't really tax corporations so this will largely lead to no revenue for the US and instead just record profits for Exxon.
Or it's for "Da NuKeS ThEy AbOuT To GeT" it's even dumb because they killed the only dude who was against Iran getting nukes. [0]
Or he got tricked by bibi &co into yet another middle east war I don't have words to describe how dumb it is.
[0] Iranian intelligence minister Esmaeil Khatib said that the country may nevertheless change their stance if "pushed in that direction" like a "cornered cat". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei%27s_fatwa_against...
Iran now admitted it had 60% enriched uranium, which is weeks from 90% for nukes.
For energy, only 3-5% enrichment is needed. Anything >20% is weapons-usable.
https://apnews.com/article/iran-nuclear-enrichment-c0079c387...
I guess that's another war to end all wars to add to the list
Really.
No. Sorry but China has not firmly refused to acknowledge the necessity of renewables. Quite the contrary, actually.
[0] https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/annual-invest...
https://open-ev-charts.org/#global:electric-sales:quarter
It won't change rapidly in the US, because the current administration opposes renewables at every turn and keeps low cost BEVs out of the US, but most of the world's energy/oil needs are outside the US. This situation will accelerate a global process that was already gaining speed.
The Ukraine would like to have a word.
For example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Baby#Sub_Sea_Baby
Similarly you say "The commonwealth of Massachusetts" but not "The Massachusetts".
This does not apply to Ukraine, unless you want to say "The Republic of Ukraine".
Of course that could be the entire idea.
See: https://bsky.app/profile/mekka.mekka-tech.com/post/3mgrvx5gr...
Probably a 'why not both' question though. If the US could quick deploy enough pipelines to support the entire d-day offensive back during ww2 I don't see why we couldn't do so today
- We likely don't have the assets to move the amount traffic that needs to get through
- We probably can't protect them perfectly (we don't have maritime supremacy) so ships will still take damage and that will stop the convoys pretty quickly
I suspect the escort ships would be fine though. They can defend themselves.
So if we did start them, they wouldn't continue for long until the economic pain was pretty massive and the cost of loosing ships was worth it.
From underwater drones? Does that technology exist?
That's harder than bombing schools, goat herders or kidnapping the leader of the most corrupt country in the world, are you sure they can still pull it off, I'm starting to think even they know they cannot anymore.
After seeing the latest white house CoD style propaganda videos and Pete "Kafir" Hegseth speeches it's clear the people in charge completely lost it
> In After the Empire, written in 2001, Todd claimed that the reason for America’s “theatrical micromilitarism” was to prove that it was still an indispensable power in a post-USSR world. In his latest work, however, he revises this thesis, arguing that it would imply attributing rational intentions to Washington.13 The American liberal oligarchy is not driven by any clear project.
https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2024/11/how-the-west-was-...
The WW2 convoy situation was far easier to escort (but still quite dangerous obviously) because:
1. The Atlantic is a much bigger place, even considering common routes and chokepoints.
2. U-Boats had to surface frequently, making them extremely vulnerable to Allied air cover.
3. U-Boats had to be within visual range to strike convoys, versus the drone and missile world we live in now.
I don't really have anything constructive to add, but hope folks in US realize just how insane all this is. Like can we just not have wars, like pretty please anything but more bombs and killing...
Like what happened to the walls folks in US were building a while ago, can we fund another, I will donate a 100$ if we wrap up all this shit this week. Heck if Russia and other countries pack it up I will add another 100$ to it...
Does that work, does anything work? ._.
Let's do something productive, honestly AI slop is more productive than this. I still can't wrap my head around this nonsense.
I am 25 I don't wanna know a world at war, just a few hundred more years of peace please, then you folks can feel free to go to war with Zurgs or something with your AGI drones...
Even if Trump's claims that the war will end shortly were true. Oil prices are guaranteed not coming down if many more of these ships are sunk.
https://public.axsmarine.com/blog/build-time-for-new-vessels...
The problem is they are halted, which causes price spikes.
$120/barrel Oil will screw up the whole world.
But stopping it suddenly breaks rock structures and makes it harder for oil to flow. So the entire thing has to be repaired.
Does he even care if his actions hurt the country or global stability at all, so long as his supporters remain unwavering? It seems like he doesn't, so here we are.
There is no plausible stimulus that he might actually care to respond to.
Imagine if multiple Western countries allied early to correct this regime (and not just with sanctions).
It's not that it's impossible to go through it, but you have to do something specific in order to do so beyond just trying to go through, or you're going to walk straight into getting a bloodey nose.
But yeah, these ships weren't anywhere near the strait.
> IRAN has claimed responsibility for an attack on two oil tankers anchored in Iraqi territorial waters, as conflicts in the region continue to escalate and strikes on commercial shipping spread beyond the Strait of Hormuz.
Do you have some solid sources on the ground to the contrary?
Some circles might have only pro-Trump Americans. Others might only have anti-Trump Americans. And yet your experience is all-knowing? With 15 families? Outside of Iran (presumably).
My professor from my graduate program and his family are all Iranian. It's no surprise that they anti-regime: his wife's uncles were generals in the Shah's army, and were "disappeared" during the Revolution. They've been living in Japan for ~40 years. Hardly indicative of the opinion of the "man on the street" in Tehran, Isfahan, or Mashhad.