Oil at $150 will trigger global recession, says boss of financial BlackRock
bbc.com
bbc.com
Even if his officials are ideologically stable and consistent, he himself isn't.
People had the same attitude about Trump. Tucker has millions of followers and regularly gets more viewers than CNN. He is also one of the only talking heads that isn't on Israel's propaganda payroll. I think he'd actually go far in the primaries if he ran. Whoever wins next will be whoever is the least cozy with Israel. Democrats still polling at all-time lows despite this. I think whoever distances themselves from Israel the most (democrat or republican) is going to be the winner. People see how AIPAC and donors like the Adelsons control our country and force us into wars that don't benefit us. There will absolutely be blow back from this.
We don't control the Middle East--as proven by Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc. We definitely can't control the Strait of Hormuz and Iran can choke off 20% of of the world's energy/fertilizer. They will inflict global pain on the economy and we're nearly out of interceptor missiles, but Iran can keep producing cheap drones faster than we can re-arm interceptor missiles. America won't be able to end the conflict without China and India helping to negotiate with Iran. We've already cut sanctions on Russian oil... this is not helping America it's just empowering Russia, China, India, and Iran. The end result of this will be Iran will end up taking a toll on all goods allowed to pass by the Strait of Hormuz, sections on Russia will be dropped, and Iran will sell oil in Chinese yuan. So yeah, this will hurt the US--but I actually think that was Israel's plan all along. They want to control the Middle East and for the US to withdraw and be unable to dominate the region.
"There's likely to be a global recession, driving millions of people to destitution and starvation and thousands to death. How can I profit from this?!!!"
If I were to invest in potatoes because I thought people might need potatoes, then there should be an incentive to make more potatoes, and if people need potatoes, then more potatoes are likely to exist... which helps people get food.
If I instead concern myself with clutching my pearls and tightly as I can, and I don't invest in potatoes, then there is less of an incentive to make more potatoes, fewer people are able to buy the limited supply of potatoes, and everyone is poorer for it.
Expensive oil has a lot of repercussions
China, Iran and Russia look to the the big winners here. Everyone else is a loser, the US the biggest loser of them all. In history books I think this will go down as the biggest geopolitical miscalculation and mistake in US history of anything to date and it's not even close.
The Middle East consists of a bunch of US client states where arms are used to maintain fealty. The US gives arms to a despotic regime who enrich themselves off of their country's natural resources and they use those arms to stay in power.
This last month has shown the US security guarantee to the Gulf to be a paper tiger. This is a seismic potential rift between the US and Israel. This war of choice has undermined relationship with long-term allies (eg in Europe) who were never consulted and never approved of this war and may suffer with significantly higher electricity prices as a result.
This is a Napoleon invading Russia level of blunder.
Bigger than Iraq?
As weird as this sounds, militarily and strategically, Iraq was a relative "success". I mean not to the thousands or millions harmed or killed by US actions and all the damage done along the way, but Iraq now does a US-friendly regime and it exports oil to the US and a bunch of allies. Should we have done it? No. Was it worth the price? No. But was it a complete failure? Also, no.
Unlike Iraq, there's no way to invade Iran. it's surrounded by mountains on 3 sides and ocean on the third. It's a country is ~93 million people with a regime and a military specifically designed to resist US bombardment and interference. The chokehold it has on the Strait of Hormuz is currently being demonstrated. And there's nothing the US can do about that.
If the leaked terms of the 15 point plan are true (and that's a big IF) and any end to hostilities looks remotely like that, Iran is going to end up in a substantially better position than they had under the JCPOA and sanctions will also likely end. That's now the price of peace.
And in doing that the US has worsened and likely will redefine its relationship to every country from Spain to Japan.
It is the biggest own goal in US history.
1. Send Marines to seize Kharg island via long range air assault from 2 ARGs + land bases
2. Flood Kharg-adjacent mainland with tactical aviation to eliminate short range artillery and rocket systems
3. Fortify position on Kharg island and declare all oil revenue will be placed in US-controlled holding account, with release to Iran contingent on cooperation (re: Why occupy Kharg? Because then you have actual money in an account as leverage, while calming international oil prices and consumers, not just a blockade, which antagonizes international oil consumers)
4. Declare a buffer demilitarized zone around the Strait of Hormuz
5. Land Marines in buffer zone if necessary to monitor
~50% of the revenue to pay the Iranian military comes from oil exports. Therefore, the Iranian regime doesn't survive without oil export revenue. 90% of Iranian oil is exported through Kharg.
It's an aggressive plan, but it's feasible.
Especially because Iran has no ability to repel an invasion of the island or retake it once it's occupied.
Their only possible reaction would be to bombard troops there, destroying their own export infrastructure in the process.
Which would depend on how close to the mat the current regime wants to take this, as that would also seal their eventual downfall.
Right, so if that's their only possible reaction, isn't that a bad thing for everyone? It looks like they've made it clear they're not going down without bringing everyone else with them, and why would they? What options do they have?
Isn't that exactly what you would say even if you didn't mean it?
Definitely not Russia, China, and the US.
They all transparently see diplomacy and messaging around it as a tool of war. Small surprise when others do too.
If your opponent is trying to turn you into Libya, then whatever you do just has to not fail as badly as that for it to be the right move. You basically become a cornered animal.
There's people with power, looking out for their own self interests. You think after a few more weeks all of the newly promoted Iranian military leadership is going to weigh a few million dollars in personal benefit against the glory of the cause and decide on the latter?
The only option they have on offer is death, either fighting the us and Israel, or fighting in whatever civil war crops up after. Why would they believe in any negotiations after the last two times?
The writing is on the wall that the US wants to end the war (and Israel won't have a choice but to follow). Which means anyone with military command authority in Iran has leverage to extract concessions from the US.
Do either of us think the current US admin is above causing a few million to appear in a bank account somewhere, in exchange for secret cooperation?
Especially when the calculus is between stick (Israeli assassination) and carrot (money), and that substantial personal wealth means power in any post-war Iranian order. Or living as a wealthy expat as plan B.
The point of regime decapitation, to give the Israeli assassinations (especially of internal security force leaders) their most strategically foresighted interpretation (instead of the more likely opportunistic one), is to shuffle people into power that haven't already made a resist vs cooperate decision.
At some point, everyone cares about their own skin and their future most.
> Especially when the calculus is between stick (Israeli assassination) and carrot (money), and that substantial personal wealth means power in any post-war Iranian order. Or living as a wealthy expat as plan B.
No, of course we wouldn't (and I'd say shouldn't) be above that. The question is how that comes to pass.
Imagine you're some sort of Iranian official that actually has some sway in the country.
1) why on earth would you even entertain negotiations, when your enemy repeatedly uses them as cover for sneak attacks?
2) assuming you get past 1), and the us offers you money. If you take it and leave, you don't have any influence in your country anymore anyway, so what have we gained? If you take it and stay, do the people still follow you if you capitulate? And what's to stop Israel from assassinating you anyway, or launching another war 6 months from now?
The only rational move seems to be to establish deterrence by making this thing as painful as possible for everyone involved, and us invading plays right into that.
the Iranian missile stockpile may be drained thin, but their army and conventional equipment surpluses could absolutely maintain a consistent and aggressive pushback.
> Their only possible reaction would be to bombard troops there, destroying their own export infrastructure in the process.
it's already destroyed mate. and keeping it up and running would be a tall order when the Iranians are right there.
> ~50% of the revenue to pay the Iranian military comes from oil exports.
this is a country that convinced children to charge through minefields during Iran-Iraq; you think pay is going to stop them? or that China and Russia wouldn't give them ample weapons?
there is no winning play here
With 30+ km systems launchedu from flat terrain, right onshore of US air power? That's the limit of 155mm conventional, and Iran isn't launching gold-plated Excalibur rounds.
That means rocket artillery, either in unguided mode (see next point) or SRBM (of which they don't have an unlimited supply).
Enabling drone strikes at 30+ km over water against US EW looks very different than terrestrial Ukraine too.
> it's already destroyed mate
Citation-needed that the oil infrastructure on Kharg was destroyed.
> this is a country that convinced children to charge through minefields during Iran-Iraq
I expect the zeal of modern Iranian youth for the revolution is dimmed from 1980.
Let’s wait a few years before saying this mistake is bigger first.
However, one point that I agree with that might lead to this war being worse: the Gulf are showing some serious buyers remorse with sticking in the US orbit. Both the uselessness of America’s strategy and the almost clear prejudice Trump shows towards the Arabs vs Israel in the decision tree of this conflict is unsettling for the Gulf states.
What the US is gearing up for right now is a multiyear war where the US military goes into the island tunnels and tries to hold the Straight open by force.
Consequently, they can offset core staple inflation (and usually choose to) to decrease unrest.
It's core inflation without high oil prices that torpedoes their fiscal options.
The immigration crisis caused by Arab spring toppled many governments in Europe.
If a similar set of crises happened in the Americas it would make the US's illegal immigration situation much worse.
that was entirely of their own making, though
The oil interests will do everything they can to fight it. (Like buying off Trump, which probably had a lot to do with us starting the Iran war, and is certainly why we're cancelling many affordable energy build outs in the face of widespread shortages.)
Less corrupt economies will pull ahead, and technological progress will bifurcate. The US will probably be on the wrong side of this. China will probably be on the right side.
Europe started implementing these initiatives a couple of decades ago, it makes sense there as they are a net importer, with residential prices around 3x higher than the US. In my country a newly built house (very low energy demand) is often cheaper to heat with a heat pump than natural gas, especially if combined with solar PV - but that's still more expensive than a home in the US.
The most impactful usages are transportation, as everywhere basically everything is transported by road, and renewable electricity generation, so fossil fuels can be used elsewhere (residential, industrial, etc).
Oil companies have actually not benefited from America's middle-eastern wars. America's regime-change wars have made the region less profitable for US oil companies. Why invest in infrastructure in countries with unstable regimes, or risk of infrastructure becoming a target?
If anything, energy companies would benefit from the sanctions on Iran being lifted, so they could invest in infrastructure there, or buy gas from Iran.
I hope one day this silly 'war for oil' meme will disappear.
That’s a weird thing to say considering that the Iran hostage crisis helped swing an election almost half a century ago. It’s not like nobody thought about going to Iran until someone bribed Trump to do it.
The far more rational theory is that Trump did it to deflect from his failure to combat inflation domestically. They made an entire movie about his. (Wag the Dog.)
I also do wonder if oil prices would actually stay high even if the Strait of Hormuz stayed closed for years. Many analysts think that as a planet we're already past peak oil demand, and the price spike has turbocharged the transition to EVs (where I live, every EV dealer is flat out and waiting times are months). High prices also spur more production from everybody else. The tricky bit is specialist fuels like jet fuel, where you can't just turn a tap to make more.
- Qatar produces 20-33% of the world's helium;
- The supply chain for ~30 of the world's fertilizer relies upon supply chains going through the Strait of Hormuz. How do you feel about 10-20% food inflation?
- ~20% of the world's LNG passes through the STrait. Let's see how that bites come (NOrthern Hemisphere) winter;
- Many Asian countries are wholly reliant on Gulf oil for electricity and fuel; and
- Roughly ~20% of California's oil comes from Iraq. The US is the world's largest single oil and gas producer but that doesn't really matter when California has blocked any pipelines into the state such that ~75% of their oil arrives by ship.
Oil demand to a point is fairly inelastic but once you get beyond about $120-130 you start getting into destructive demand. Fuel prices really spike and in many places, it's going to severely disrupt electricity.
There are many fuel usages for which we have no alternative, namely shipping and aviation. Oh and a lot of heavy machinery and industrial uses of diesel.
Additionally, there are significant (at least 25% of the total) non-energy uses. Construction, plastic, roads, etc.
Weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels is a decades-long project and only China really is trying to do that. I suspect only China has the long-term supply chains, willpower and commitment to pull off that kind of national project.
There are service stations in rural Victoria that have run out of petrol[0]. If farmers can't run their machines, I don't want to continue that train of thought. I would hope that governments would obviously prioritise food production and distribution over, kinda everything else, but logic and government seem to have a strange relationship.
[0]: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-24/victorian-petrol-stat...
What is also true is that media has been saying both:
- Don't panic buy, we've got plenty
- We'll start running out in mid-April.
So, unlike TP during COVID, which can be manufactured locally, there is a dark cloud on the horizon and precious little to encourage any optimism regarding the Strait of Hormuz.
[0]: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-produc...
[1]: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/oil-demand-by...
[2]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/307194/top-oil-consuming...
The biggest non-consumer transportation usage is trucks, and I expect them to electrify relatively quickly. Trucking is a low margin business and fuel is their biggest expense.
> there aren't really any feasible alternatives here
It's not feasible yet, but I really hope that carbon sequestration comes into play here. Plastic lasts a really long time, so turning CO2 into plastic is one way to go carbon negative.
EVs were only going to grow in popularity anyway, but this feels like it's jumped the adoption curve up a peg or two immediately.
What I'm interested in seeing is whether infrastructure can scale with the additional interest. And I don't think it will because the the current government is already planning to add an "EV tax" to make up for the fuel excise, and the opposition government (if/when it gets back in) is owned by the fossil fuel lobby, and so they'll be doing whatever they can to slow it down.
Obviously there's work to be done on charging in apartments and highways, but this is a more tractable problem than (say) trying to double hydrogen or even gasoline filling stations overnight.
Everyone else is, to a greater or lesser extent, at the mercy of the DCFC infrastructure, and it is sorely lacking in many places - even ones you'd expect it to be pretty good.
Most people who have a driveway or garage where they can install an EVSE (or an apartment complex where the parking has chargers) don't even need to charge every day. Depending on the commute it could even be just two or three times a week. It would usually only be when your only option is trickle charging out of a standard wall outlet that you are in the 'might not be able to charge in time for the next drive' territory, not with EVSE where you can get 7 kW single phase or 11 kW three-phase with most cars (some cars can do up to 22 kW with three phase but that's rare for them to support that on AC charging and it would be rare to have an EVSE that could do that power at home).
Anecdotally, I have 5+ friends with EVs, and every single one of them charges theirs from a standard 15A wall outlet. (I have an EV, but I also have a real charger.) Sure, most of the time it's fine - but when it's not, then you have to really care about whether that nearby EVgo pedestal is working today.
But furthermore: most apartment dwellers, many renters, people in multifamily homes/complexes where their parking spaces are not near their personally-metered power, those who have to street park - many more people than you may think have difficulty charging at home. I wish it weren't the case, and I'd love to see better solutions here.
> kilometers
It's much more tenable in the 220V world, for sure.
But even if you only charge during road trips, the quality of the chargers during those road trips matters!
I'm in the privileged position that I have solar panels and can charge in the garage. I only just had a conversation with someone who was considering an EV, but their 'housing configuration' doesn't support it, it just wasn't feasible purely from a charging perspective in their situation.
More public infrastructure, and knowledge of the presence of said infrastructure would open up EVs to a wider set of use cases. It's almost the 'confidence' in the suitability of EVs that needs to be worked on.
Without any special car-charging equipment, just with a regular outlet, I'm able to get over 100 miles of range every night (charging only from 11pm to 7am).
This is enough for a pretty long daily commute and it doesn't block car use during normal hours.
Big disclaimer - I'm from Europe, which helps my case because of shorter commutes and faster home charging with 220 volts.
But at the end of the day I think the solution lies in equipping all parking spaces at home and at work with power outlets. DCFC is definitely needed, but should be viewed as a solution for exceptional cases (i.e. roadtrip that exceeds your range), not a gas station for EVs.
What I meant to say was the kind of infrastructure that defeats some of the FUD around EVs, such as chargers at rest stops along highways, in parking lots, hotel/motel car parks, etc. Chargers could/should become a value-add for businesses that survive on servicing road-trip transient customers.
> Anybody with a house can charge at home, using cheap off-peak power at night and/or solar panels during the day.
Yes! This is decentralised, existing infrastructure, and that should neither be forgotten nor understated: the ubiquity of 'the lowly power point' is greater than that of the fuel nozzle (in complete awareness of the relatively large disparity between charging time and refueling time, which is a whole can of worms on its own).
A gas station just needs a tank and a pump. You can put it anywhere and can operate with a small generator if 110V electricity is not available. Even as a country you don’t need infra. Just some trucks to import from the closest refinery/ port
My understanding is that much of the grid already exists if there is a town or even just a rest stop present, it likely has grid power. I will grant that this doesn't speak to the suitability of said existing infrastructure for running one or a number of a high voltage / high speed chargers.
> Just some trucks to import from the closest refinery/ port
Driving thousands and thousands of miles.
I do not try to claim that trucking fuel over long distances is efficient. Just stating that gas stations themselves need no additional infrastructure.
You need to install several specialized sealed tanks underground, and the pumps that will get the gas & diesel (and sometimes kerosene) in them up to the cars.
You then need to be able to make secure, safe deliveries of highly flammable liquids to the site regularly, forever.
Once an EV charger has been installed, it'll need occasional maintenance, and if some yahoos vandalize it it might need repair or replacement, but otherwise it's pretty much good to go, potentially for decades.
https://nitter.net/jackprandelli/status/2036210941373591828#...
EDIT: btw does your username mean you have a big ass?
yes suppose to be maximize gluteus as squat joke but maxglute for brevity.
The statement about oil prices is probably a public statement to Trump to "get this situation resolved ASAFP, I've told you what will happen!".