Iran stops negotiations with U.S., vows to 'completely' block Strait of Hormuz | Hacker News Reader

Iran stops negotiations with U.S., vows to 'completely' block Strait of Hormuz

cnbc.com

111 pointsdgellow129 comments

I'm glad Iran is teaching the US and Israel a lesson. Their aggression and attacks have gone unchecked for far too long.

I'm having a hard time not cheering for "the little guy" here before realizing that everyone actively involved here is actually bad.

Let's see ...

One side is responsible for the "pax Americana" (but everyone here was born into the time period and so doesn't realize how exceptionally peaceful it is)

One side is responsible for at least 20.000 but more likely 60.000 Iranian deaths, just this year (and everybody seems to be worried about the other side's "warcrimes")

Not having big issues to figure out between these 2 who is the good guy ...

> One side is responsible for the "pax Americana" (but everyone here was born into the time period and so doesn't realize how exceptionally peaceful it is)

The Pax Americana is great, but given America was one of the countries to start this war, I don't know how much credit they can get for something they just ended.

My understanding is that “Pax Americana” isn’t the absence of all war, it’s the absence of major war. So they haven’t just ended it.

So, more of a rhetorical flourish than actual peace, while America keeps meddling and firing. Got it.

I'm not making this up to make excuses for the US' behavior. Pax Britannica and Pax Romana weren't entirely peaceful either. Pax Romana had an unusual absence of civil war, but near-constant conflict at the edges of the empire. Pax Britannica refers to the absence of wars between great powers, but did have some brutal colonial conflict - the Opium wars, scramble for Africa, etc. Pax Americana has been very peaceful compared to WW1 and 2.

> One side is responsible for at least 20.000 but more likely 60.000 Iranian deaths, just this year (and everybody seems to be worried about the other side's "warcrimes")

I can see people attributing this to the US as well after reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta....

We could be glib: when actually reading through that page, it's pretty obvious that the Iranian revolution was a leftist revolution (and Moscow was supporting a side, the side that "won"). But was anyone really expecting leftists to take responsibility for the consequences of what they did?

Oh and it was Britain that was supporting the Shah. The US was involved, mostly to counter the KGB, but not much at all. I totally don't understand why Britain gets a free pass.

And you'd think communists would stop supporting the mullahs, especially after the killings. You'd be wrong:

http://marxist.com/imperialists-and-pahlavis-hands-off-iran....

Sometimes one gets the impression the left now is reduced to ... well. Iran's government massacres protestors, tortures women, represses it's own people, has committed genocides and tries actively to commit more genocides, attacks and murders innocent people outside of Iran and makes weapons for Moscow.

Leftists, at least the ones on online fora, care about exactly 1 of those things.

Ah yes, the exceptional peace of, let me check...

1.5M dead Koreans

3M dead Vietnamese

500,000-1,000,000 dead or displaced Iraqis

Coups in Honduras, Chile, Haiti, Guatemala, Venezuela, Syria, Libya...

Pax Americana my ass. Tell that to the global south

The world wasn't exactly a kind place before Pax Americana. If you check the stats, the American era does pretty well for peace and prosperity, and it's not realistic to expect the Americans would oversee a conflict-free utopia.

> oversee a conflict-free utopia

Oversee is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

So in other words, while America is starting the most wars, it somehow gets credit for the hypothetical wars that weren't started? The assumption being that the natural state of the world is to have a world war every few years?

The norm of human history is constant wars, extreme repression, and genocide, yes.

Oh, and levels of taxation even Karl Marx would immediately agree are theft. In fact, ending the pre-pax-Americana period is what the manifesto is about. (the period stupidly referred to as "modern times", where the rich aren't fighting over who gets to mars first, but massacring poor people to gain a few square kilometers of land, which ironically Soviets know all about)

I get that that's hard to see for anyone born far enough away from the beginning of the pax Americana, ie. let's say 5-10 years after world war 2 but that's really how things work.

And that means that you just won't believe the consequences of any real victory against the US either: a return to the norm. If Iran wins, immediately, 50 genocides will start. Not just in Iran. Global trade will freeze 90%, not just oil. Inequality will explode worldwide. And that's just the start. In a way, that's what Iran is fighting for.

It's interesting to see the kind of nonsensical, evidence-free ideological statements that some people use to hand wave away decades of horrifying US perpetrated atrocities.

Ignore the genocide the US is engaged in right now, if it loses the war it started with Iran there will be 50 hypothetical genocides that I made up! Why stop at 50? Maybe there will be 500 or 5,000 genocides! If not for the benevolence of the US, we'd be having another world war every 2-3 years. It just stands to reason I suppose.

Since you've successfully moved into the blatantly absurd, how about I just let Captain Darling and General Melchett explain how the period before the Pax Americana worked. First, WHAT the rich were fighting over:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZT-wVnFn60

And how it affected normal people:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgyB6lwE8E0

My grandfather explained this in much harsher terms to me (he's dead now, even though he got past 100 years), with explicit mention of which of 2 options is the better one: killing 100 people in your own city or returning to this situation again. He was a baby at the end of WW1 and lived through (with kids of his own) WW2.

(but even that beats how Iran's islamic government treats it's own citizens. Did you know primary school children make excellent demining equipment, and on top of that make very cheap poison gas detectors? The islamic mullahs sure do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_key_to_paradise )

I've a friend up the coast, nearly 100 now, a ham operator who used to relay space shuttle calls, former operator in PNG, British soldier during the Mau-Mau uprising.

Back in the day, during WWII, he was defusing bombs and mines while a young boy scout.

So, you know, not just Iran - the UK also.

Ah yeah the US would never demand young volunteers to be fed to the meat grinder

They would compel them, by law, to be fed to the meat grinder. And not to defend their homeland, but to murder civilians in another hemisphere, and apparently i must remind you, TO THE TUNE OF 4,500,000 DEAD CIVILIANS IN KOREA AND VIETNAM ALONE.

> you check the stats, the American era does pretty well for peace and prosperity,

Well having just checked the stats i think you're very much wrong, and taking a lot of credit for the US where it isn't due.

I'm fine with Pax Americana, even if you call it American imperialism, but this whole involvement with Israel and its problems is not in our interest. It's abundantly clear that we have traitors in our government working for another country. Sure Iran has a terrible regime, not supposed to be our problem though.

I'm no supporter of Trump, but the Iranian regime plotting to assassinate an American president - if true - poses a problem for America: https://justice.gov/opa/pr/iranian-intelligence-agent-convic...

Not the first time I've seen this absurd "I'm fine with American imperialism" take on here. You must realize that if Iran is such as it is now, it's purely a reaction to the authoritarian regime of the Shah previously used to further American interests, and then to the sanctions imposed on the nation. Those 30K protesters that were murdered are a direct consequence of American imperialism. It's like suffocating someone for decades and then criticizing how they breath. And same goes for Cuba, Venezuela, etc.

The situation can't improve while the USA are doing everything they can to antagonize these places, isolate them, alienate them from their neighbors. Seeing ruthless authoritarians prevail there is completely expected.

This sounds so incredible ... do you seriously believe that?

"it's purely a reaction to the authoritarian regime of the Shah previously used to further American interests"

Seriously? THAT is what you think Khomeini wanted and his grandson or whoever wants now?

"And same goes for Cuba, Venezuela, etc."

Oh, you're a "communism really only ever wanted good things for it's people, and it's America's fault they started shooting their own citizens" ... got it.

Was Reza Shah any better? He was overthrown by WW2 Allies, mainly UK and USSR. Anyway I wouldn't put it past the US to have messed up Iran during the coup against the PM, but in that case it's the Israeli control I was complaining about. Anything we do in that region is probably not in our own interest.

But Cuba and Venezuela govts deserved what they got, and it was plenty of our business being in our backyard.

people are missing the 3rd actor in this trifecta/shit sandwich - Israel. Its the intentional bad faith actor who'll do whatever it takes to sink any peace talks - including genocide/invading Lebanon etc etc etc.

The U.S. will almost certainly be responsible for an order of magnitude more deaths with the incredible costs that they’ve placed on the whole world just through the higher cost of oil.

And we haven’t even gotten to the impacts of fertilizer shortages during growing season.

And either way, how is replacing the leader of a terrible regime, with his even more hardline son, help with the killing in any ways?

The pro Democracy forces in Iran have been completely discredited and the one best opportunity they would have had to reclaim their country, during what was likely to be a contested transfer of power if the 80+ year old Ayatollah had passed naturally, has been lost. Instead the U.S. allowed the Iranian regime to transfer power without any challenges, transfer power to a guy who is the son of the old Ayatollah and even more close aligned with the IRGC, and has destroyed the pro-Democracy bases in Iran while strengthening the orthodoxy because the U.S. has been blowing up cities, where the anti-regime forces live, while the rural areas, where the regime’s supporters live, have been largely untouched.

One of Israel's earliest airstrikes was a prison Iran used to hold dissidents

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8621gnknjo

Calling in a massive airstrike on a prison where the opposition is being held isn't exactly the way to support the opposition.

They explicitly said that they were trying to free people held there.

Oh, AND they succeeded at that.

You can have two thoughts at the same time.

It's good that Iran is teaching USA and Israel a lesson, while Iran (also) being bad guys.

Unfortunately they'll learn nothing. The rest of the world however... have to endure the consequences

They will learn. If the Strait remains closed for two months it's a recession. The mid-terms will be a bloodbath.

> If the Strait remains closed for two months it's a recession

Who is forecasting this?

https://www.woodmac.com/press-releases/strait-of-hormuz-clos...

If Wood Mackenzie is not your cup of tea, lots of other resources with a search of “recession strait of Hormuz” keywords. The only reason we’re not in a global recession yet was because China paused oil imports, due to their >1B barrel strategic reserves.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Chinas-Oil-Buying-Paus...

https://www.kpler.com/blog/why-the-real-oil-shock-may-only-b...

That forecasts a global recession if "the Strait remains largely closed through the end of 2026."

Even under that scenario, which would emerge after the Strait had been closed for over ten months, the forecaster only sees "US GDP growth" falling "below 1%," i.e. not a recession. (I'm ignoring the fact that the Strait has already been closed for more than 2 months.)

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Persian-Gulf-Oil-...

> Oil and gas traffic via the Strait of Hormuz may never go back to pre-war levels if Iran cements its hold over the chokepoint. The warnings come from several unrelated sources as the war continues to drag on, with some recovery in traffic but nowhere near pre-February 28 levels. Meanwhile, Big Oil is warning that the looming supply shortage is about to hit global markets in weeks.

> “No matter what happens, the Iranians will control the Strait of Hormuz for the foreseeable future,” Amos Hochstein, senior national security and energy advisor to President Biden, told CNBC last week. “It doesn’t even matter what the deal says. Everybody in the region believes that.”

> While the negotiations drag on, expectations that Iran will remain in de facto charge of the Strait of Hormuz appear to be strengthening. “Any end to the conflict that leaves Iran exercising operational control and influence over the Strait will result in appreciably lower flows through the waterway in our view,” RBC Capital Markets’ Helima Croft said in a recent note, as quoted by CNBC.

None of this suggests recession for America. We're an energy and defence exporter. That broadly offsets the effects of higher energy prices.

Whether or not America winds up in a recession is going to be entirely a function of AI. That is what the economy is levered on.

I agree the US goes full recession as soon as the confidence falls out from under the AI bubble and all of this investment leading to GDP growth ends, but I also don’t believe the US economy (even assuming reduced GDP to energy correlation over the last two decades) can sustain growth and will lead to contraction with oil prices at or above the $150-$200/barrel price band if persistent. The below prediction predicts a near term (July) recession call at less than $100/barrel.

https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/articles/high-oil-prices-c...

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-recession-warning-job-mar...

https://www.aei.org/articles/the-shrinking-economic-weight-o...

Being an energy exporter is good for oil companies, but how does it help consumers? Prices are still going up. Interest rates are still going up.

Mark Zandi from Moody's Analytics

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/iran-oil-shock-mark-zandi-aro...

"Based on the simulations of our global macroeconomic model, oil prices would only need to average close to $125 per barrel in the second quarter of this year for a recession to ensue soon thereafter, all else equal. And it is not difficult to envisage oil prices increasing to $125 per barrel. It only requires that the conflict and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz last a few weeks longer, say through July 4, or even much sooner, if the combatants increasingly target the region's energy-producing infrastructure."

Yes, and it won't change anything sadly, most autocratic governments also hold elections.

So we’re clear, this is a technical recession.

In the real world, the American resident is suffering deeply.

The fact that things are so bad for the average American when the economy is growing (thanks largely to healthcare and AI investment), makes me shudder at what may happen if those tailwinds slow down, or the existing headwinds (like the impact of the war) strengthen.

No worries AI spend and Klarna will make it all go away ;).

If the US population were capable of learning, Republicans wouldn't be elected. Alas, that's not the world we live in. Republican administrations are worse by basically every recordable metric. From job creation to deficit reduction to foreign policy. Every 4-8 years the Democratic party has to be the only adults in the room and clean up the shit Republicans create. Only for it to be turned around and handed back to the shit spreaders.

The point is that all the civilians dying for nothing.

When elephants fight, it's the grass that suffers.

It has been known for about a hundred years that war is a racket.

https://prisonfreepress.org/docs/War_is_a_Racket_(S_Butler_1...

I believe that there are powerful elements in the USA that are happy with the Strait being closed. This is rewarding oil producers and processors in red states while hurting blue California proportionally more.

Also, it appears that Trump enjoys any actions that hurt allies more than they hurt him. He's waiting for someone who cares more about the Strait to devote their resources to sorting this out.

All noise to the contrary is lip-service and market manipulation.

> glad Iran is teaching the US and Israel a lesson

Nobody is learning anything. Hardliners in three capitals are performing for their own choirs.

In the meantime, it’s a bonanza for American energy and defence interests.

I'm worried that war being "a bonanza for American energy and defence interests" is the thing people learned and a direct cause of this current war starting and it not cleanly ending.

The constant vaccilating between peace deal being done and being non-existent could just be put down to having a sociopathic liar with no guardrails in charge, but it could also be the same sociopath and his family activley profiting from the war via "insider trading" on the 180 degree turns in the reporting.

In the meantime, it’s a bonanza for American energy and defence interests.

It will have to be in orde to finance your new integration of the IDF as a 'Permanent pillar of U. S. military modernization' as per section 224 of the 2027 NDAA.

https://weichert.substack.com/p/congress-is-quietly-making-i...

The Iranian government executes gay people.

What type of silly response is that?

And I could say the U.S. takes over countries like cuba and turns off their power. We’re definitely the good guys LOL.

Look, I live in the U.S. but i’m not stupid about what we do. We are a terror around the world. Nobody in this fight is the good guy.

The American government would if it could.

The Iranian government would execute much more than they already do if they could, but they can't due to unrest risk.

America bombs anyone and everyone if they're in the Middle East/Afghanistan/etc.

I'm glad America doesn't discriminate.

Lesson learnt? I don't think so. The ones responsible are the most insulated from the consequences of their actions, which is why they're doing all of this in the first place. It's the rest of us who're paying the price.

I don’t think Israeli government really cares.

I'm probably wrong but it seems glaringly obvious to me that the two supposed allies are not at all acting in a coordinated way. One hand doesn't know what the other one is doing or one hand is just ignoring it.

What allies would those be?

The US and Israel. Nothing about their approach here seems coordinated, they're both just doing whatever.

I don't think we got a full picture of Israel's leverage over US politicians and business people. How many people like Epstein are out there acting as "access agents" to Mossad? How many US gov employees and politicians like Shapiro of Pennsylvannia have served in the IDF? How can Shapiro with IDF experience ever be considered for VP of the US?

Why are American politicians so comfortable supporting an ethno-state even though the US is not supposed to support apartheid regimes? Why is the US administration now so willing to throw US allies (Japan, South Korea, NATO members) under the bus with a 1970s style energy crisis to save 1 country of 9 million from a war they single unilaterally started?

Finally, to answer the OP's question: * Israel is facing an existential threat; the US ending the war means de facto end to their state; * US - not allies as that requires mutual consent to wage war; see above text for actual real power relationship between Israel and the US

> the US ending the war means de facto end to their state

Every state ends, regardless. I'm not convinced Israel will cease to exist in the next 5 years without US support. There are plenty of countries Israel can, will, and still do partner with to various degrees. Notably much of Europe.

> I'm not convinced Israel will cease to exist in the next 5 years without US support

I genuinely couldn't believe people actually believed this until a friend of a friend voiced the opinion in person. Like, no. Israel doesn't poof if America stops supporting it. Destroying Israel would require American military action.

> Destroying Israel would require American military action.

Or an Iranian nuke. Iran has a big clock ticking down to year 2040 where they say Israel will be destroyed by, if the current Iranian regime isn't destroyed by then they will do everything they can to destroy Israel. That is why they can't agree to not enrich uranium for 25 years, because that would prevent them from destroying Israel.

Anyway, if USA peace out and leaves Israel hanging Israel will just continue to bomb Iran now and never let Iran recover, since USA has weakened Iran enough for Israel to handle the rest now, so it wont happen. However if that happens you will see much more death in Iran and much more disruptions to global economy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Square_Countdown_Clo...

These are all Russian conspiracy theories. You should get help.

This would be standard negotiations if the parties involved were competent.

In theory this gives the US the opportunity to offer Iran concessions in Lebanon at zero cost.

Guess partner is the useful idiot in alliance?

Trump doesn't mind all the world burning as long as it distracts from Epstein.

Quite contrary, I'm pretty sure that USA is well aware of what Israel is doing and both are acting in coordinated way. Both do not want any settlement in a region, they need more chaos and global supply interruptions. If it wasn't the case, USA could've stop weapons supply to Israel long ago.

The craziest thing to me is that the conventional wisdom is that this will be over by July.

We will be lucky if any ships get through the straight by December.

> the conventional wisdom is that this will be over by July

Whose "conventional" wisdom?

Crude oil prices appear to encode an optimistic outcome.

So "the market" is conventional "wisdom"?

It's the "wisdom" (rough consensus) of those willing to put their money where their mouth is. So, yes.

By what objective standards does a price 41% higher than prewar encode an optimistic outcome?

https://xkcd.com/904/

A 10% reduction in supply of a commodity with fairly inelastic demand usually results in a lot more than a 40% increase in price.

I say it usually results in a lot less. Prove me wrong.

An infinitesimal reduction in supply of a product with a perfectly inelastic demand curve will result in an infinite increase in price.

More concretely, the oil supply tightening in response to COVID was considerably smaller than todays, yet oil prices spiked higher than we have today.

> An infinitesimal reduction in supply of a product with a perfectly inelastic demand curve will result in an infinite increase in price.

And an infinitesimal reduction in supply of a product with a perfectly elastic demand curve will result in zero increase in price. So the real value has to lie somewhere between 0 and infinity. That's not a particularly useful prediction.

> More concretely, the oil supply tightening in response to COVID was considerably smaller than todays, yet oil prices spiked higher than we have today.

That is not what happened, oil prices tanked in response to covid despite global oil production falling by about 10%. 2020 had the lowest average price of Brent Crude since 2004, and did not recover to the level immediately before the pandemic until March 2021. You may have been thinking of the elevated prices in early 2022 shortly after the Russian invasion of Ukraine which peaked in May 2022. Of course that war which has continued for years affecting a major oil exporting nation only led to an 18% increase in price, quite a bit below the 41% increase seen in the current situation.

The negative reading of that signal is massive demand destruction like a global recession. So a reduction in oil supply and a reduction in demand equals only a minor rise in prices.

Banks and economists base their predictions on very optimistic timelines of the strait reopening soon. The alternative is truly apocalyptic.

Some ships are getting through already.

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/ships-are-sailing-dark...

Meanwhile Iran keeps trying to run the blockade they established and failing.

https://bsky.app/profile/tankertrackers.com/post/3mn66mhl4kc...

Some ships are passing thorough, it’s just extremely limited. But you’re right, it will take a very long time for the Strait to be operating at a meaningful level

A CAPE ratio of 40x and record-high margin debt; what could go wrong?

Can't wait for Trump to offer them $300B of our money for this to go away so he can get back to golfing with our money.

I’m not sure he ever stopped golfing. But yes, getting back to some other distraction, an expensive one, no doubt - I’m sure that would ease his mind considerably.

Cuba is up next but that can't get started until he has a "win" on Iran. They aren't giving him the chance to pretend he's a genius like all his lackeys do for him.

Maybe we can throw in some US treasury printing plates too

As far as I understood he already offered the reparations. Including real estate projects & investment fund, obviously.

Didn't make the problem go away.

There has been a lot of posturing from both sides, this is probably going to continue for a couple of months more before they reach equilibrium.

I don't think we should consider gross incompetence on the part of the US to be posturing.

I'm only giving a neutral perspective. The moment the world stops relying on oil, Iran will lose its biggest leverage in this situation. Other sources of energy are going to be pushed even more.

There is more that goes through Hormuz than just oil- like fertilizer for example. Just been able to charge a fee for crossing the Hormuz is a strategic goal for Iran. This is an outcome of the war. Previously Iran did not know how weak US is - but now they figured out.

It would be interesting to see if this war will be a net negative for Israel. If Iran emerges with more financial resources out of the war you can bet they will fund Hamas and Hezbollah more than before the war.

Fertilizer exports are a problem but trucks are keeping it moving at a somewhat higher cost.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/fertiliser-stuck-i...

I was wondering what the solution to this was.

From a distance, a railroad here would be great. Pay Ukraine to keep the drones away from it. I've been to the region, I understand that a sandy desert is a tough place to keep a rail line open though.

Millions of tons of chemicals, fertilizer, and metals used to pass through the strait, not just oil.

> The moment the world stops relying on oil,

This isn't happening anytime soon.

Yeah, I don't see it. Trump is also pathologically incapable of admitting defeat (see Jan 6) and it will be very difficult for him to claim victory without getting something better than the deal Obama got. There's little to no incentive for Iran to give him any such deal. Israel also doesn't want the war to end and they can easily sabotage any real negotiations that appear to be getting serious.

Trump has no off ramp. I don't see this ending until he is out of office.

Iran has also suggested that they can shut down, Bab-el-Mandeb, which traslates as the "Gate of Grief" as a way to end the "war of choice", imposed by the zionist genocide alliance who are so deranged and puffed up with there impunity as to be threatening everybody as to who they will destroy after Iran, unless they help to do it. The whole mess serving to drive a monumental push towards renewable energy everywhere else.

I suspect Iran's goal is to drag this out until US midterm elections.

Probably as that gets closer their leverage will increase both due to that and stocks running down.

What I don't understand is why the markets and people still believe Trump's repeated lies about the deal. I also don't understand why he started a ceasefire in the first place.

Iran did this to Obama as well, said one thing in private then announced a totally different thing in public. It makes them kinda hard to talk to. So they might tell American negotiators in private they agree to everything, then they go and say in public Americans agreed to do everything Iran wants, what would you do when that keeps happening?

Markets are looking revenue figures and forward guidance.

Huh. The market literally jumps up and down strongly on news about Iran. I don't know what you're trying to cover up.

news impact oil futures, inflation expectations, fed rates, discounted cash flows then valuations.

Here we go ...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com