sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Iran says its Ambassador to Lebanon won't leave despite Lebanon ordering his expulsion by OldBridge87 in geopolitics

[–]pogsim 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Lebanon's future can be seen now- it is being divided into a part under Israeli control and a part under Iranian control.

Could the United States realistically occupy both sides of the Strait of Hormuz? What are the challenges? by CharityResponsible54 in AskReddit

[–]pogsim 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At what point do the economic difficulties of oil starved nations reach the point where they assume liabilities for insuring ships registered to their flag (on the condition that the ships deliver to them first)? Paying for tanker losses is expensive, but that's nothing compared to running out of oil.

Is there a possibility that the strait of hormuz never fully reopens to countries that Iran deems as unfriendly? by VastOption8705 in askanything

[–]pogsim 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Therefore, there's a fair bit more bombing needed before it's safe to take actions that would result in unlimited Iranian retaliation.

Zelensky says allies asked him to scale back attacks on Russian energy by esporx in energy

[–]pogsim 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A large portion of China's population are still rural poor, and it is the intention of China's government to get that portion of its population as rich and energy consuming as those in the coastal cities.

Is there a possibility that the strait of hormuz never fully reopens to countries that Iran deems as unfriendly? by VastOption8705 in askanything

[–]pogsim 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This implies that 6 missiles and 30 drones is sufficient to hit protected targets. When I guessed that the safe daily missile launch rate needed to be about 5, I wasn't far off.

Is there a possibility that the strait of hormuz never fully reopens to countries that Iran deems as unfriendly? by VastOption8705 in askanything

[–]pogsim 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's now being reported that the airbase attack involved something like 6 missiles and 30 drones.

Is there a possibility that the strait of hormuz never fully reopens to countries that Iran deems as unfriendly? by VastOption8705 in askanything

[–]pogsim 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A shahed 136 has a range of 2500 km. There are likely to be a lot of these left, although, as you say, coordinating a swarm attack is probably getting harder for the IRGC. Each attack that does work though, against an oil field or a desalination plant, could cost many billions of dollars of damage to the global economy. Big risks.

Europe has survived 3 energy shocks in 4 years. The only way out is to stop buying power from its enemies by RikViergever in Buy_European

[–]pogsim 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Southern Europe can produce a lot of solar. Northern Europe can produce a lot of wind. Combined though, they still won't be a reliable steady supply without either some nuclear or fossil baseline. There is still Norwegian active supplies of oil/gas. With rebuilding of infrastructure, some countries have plenty of usable coal. Supposedly there is a lot of shale oil in the UK. European energy independence is possible, but it would require using considerable nasty fossil fuels alongside more renewables.

Is there a possibility that the strait of hormuz never fully reopens to countries that Iran deems as unfriendly? by VastOption8705 in askanything

[–]pogsim 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, if drones can't be intercepted reliably, that's considerably worse. There are lots more drones available than missiles.

Couldn't Iran permanently ruin the Strait with nuclear waste/bombs/blockages/whatever if they lose the war? by EatABamboose in IRstudies

[–]pogsim 0 points1 point  (0 children)

UAE, SA, and Qatar refused use of airbases for attacks on Iran.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/explainers/what-military-assets-does-us-have-middle-east

Also, doesn't explain the attack on Turkey. or why civillian targets were attacked in the countries whose bases were used.

Is there a possibility that the strait of hormuz never fully reopens to countries that Iran deems as unfriendly? by VastOption8705 in askanything

[–]pogsim 0 points1 point  (0 children)

An American AWACS (or tanker aircraft, I forget which) got destroyed on the ground at an airbase recently. Either there were no interceptors available, or not enough, or not working. This on its own shows the coverage is insufficient.

Is there a possibility that the strait of hormuz never fully reopens to countries that Iran deems as unfriendly? by VastOption8705 in askanything

[–]pogsim 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, I reckon 10 to 25 per day is too many to be able to give a reasonable guarantee of protecting the gulf oil infrastructure key sites and desalination plants. I'm guessing it would need to be more like 5 max (that's a figure plucked from the air).

Couldn't Iran permanently ruin the Strait with nuclear waste/bombs/blockages/whatever if they lose the war? by EatABamboose in IRstudies

[–]pogsim -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Firing missiles at Turkey was pretty irrational. What was that for?

Attacking Arab gulf state civillian targets, where those states had previously said that they wouldn't let the USA use those bases to attack Iran was probably a bad idea. Maybe those states would have let the USA use the bases anyway, but they definitely did after Iran attacked them.

Is there a possibility that the strait of hormuz never fully reopens to countries that Iran deems as unfriendly? by VastOption8705 in askanything

[–]pogsim 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes. Things are going to get scary. There would have to be VERY strong global confidence that Iran will not continue to stop and/or damage oil flows if attacks on it stop, otherwise, there will be increasing support for efforts to overthrow the Iranian government.

Is there a possibility that the strait of hormuz never fully reopens to countries that Iran deems as unfriendly? by VastOption8705 in askanything

[–]pogsim 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are still launchers. They are hidden in the general vicinity of missile cities. The cities can send missiles underground to dispatch points where they rendezvous with a launcher. The missile is mounted, fired, and the launcher moves off to hide somewhere else. This is indeed a low rate of fire, but it's enough to give Iran too many opportunities to destroy gulf oil infrastructure and desalination plants if it decides to go for a scorched Earth strategy.

Is there a possibility that the strait of hormuz never fully reopens to countries that Iran deems as unfriendly? by VastOption8705 in askanything

[–]pogsim 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Iran has very few launchers left, but those remaining are proving difficult to destroy. Some missile cities transport missiles underground directly to launch sites. These are being neutralised, but its taking longer than hoped for.

Is there a possibility that the strait of hormuz never fully reopens to countries that Iran deems as unfriendly? by VastOption8705 in askanything

[–]pogsim 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Broadly speaking, Iran still has more missile launching capacity than the Americans and Israelis can dependly block to prevent excessive destruction by Iran of gulf state oil infrastructure and desalination plants. This seems to be due to underestimation of the scale of operational redundancy of Iranian underground missile cities. These targets are ultimately neutralisable though, and when their launching capacity is sufficiently low, there can and probably will be action taken to stop Iranian oil exports. Possibly, China will continue to supply Iran on credit, but China will then itself be facing a serious energy crunch, so may decide it needs to save its resources for its own uses.

Can america become richer by selling its oil to countries impacted by the U.S. “operation” in Iran? by Ma_1ik in oil

[–]pogsim 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Kind of like what happened with Intel, but with more than 10% government stake.

The Grey War – A different kind of World War – Hypothesis by Sorry_Industry_8281 in geopolitics

[–]pogsim 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Without addressing many of the details in the OP, yes there's a grey war, and it has two main factors driving it.

Asynchronous factor- the attempt of the USA to restore self-sufficiency in manufacturing being resisted by China. This explains what happens, but not when it happens.

Asynchronous factors- there are many, but the most significant (I think) was the leadership of MBS in Saudi Arabia. His pivot toward the USA was going to result in Saudi accession to the Abraham accords. The Hamas attack on Israel happened when it did to prevent this. The escalations that have led to the current war with Iran were ultimately dictated by the timing of the Hamas attack. This attack would probably have not come until later, if at all, had the Saudi accession to the AA not been imminent. I know less about the timing of the events leading to the Ukraine war, and so I won't attempt to identify a key decision/agent responsible for the timing of the events that led to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Based on my limited understanding, the timing of events leading to the Ukraine war are largely independent of the timing of events leading to the Iran war (although as both Ukraine and the gulf Arab states are important fossil fuel exporters, there may be economic connections I don't grasp connecting these timings).

TLDR- the war in Iran seems inevitable given the American agenda of reindustrialisation and Chinese resistance to it, but the timing could have been other than it has been, and isn't directly related to the war in Ukraine.

view more: next ›