As I will explain, the outcome that looks like losing may actually be the best path forward for the world’s remaining economies.
The fighting today is with respect to which parts of the world will get which energy resources, and at what prices. Even before the current conflict, there was a shortage of jet fuel and diesel. The only reasonable outcome I can think of is that the US will only be able to tap its own energy resources, plus those of its nearby neighbors (Figure 1). Consequently, the economy will gradually reorganize in ways that use fuels more sparingly.
The outcome outlined in Figure 1 implies that Donald Trump and the US-Israel coalition will lose the war against Iran. It appears that the physics of the situation (or perhaps the Higher Power behind the physics of the situation) has chosen the flawed personality of Donald Trump to accomplish the required result. This is a situation where what seems to be the US losing in its conflict against Iran is actually winning for the overall world economy. If oil can be used more sparingly in the future by servicing people closer to where end products are made, the available energy resources will provide greater benefit to society as a whole.
In the remainder of this article, I will try to explain the situation more fully.
[1] Background
In physics terms, an economy is a dissipative structure. In order to stay away from a dead state (collapse), it needs to “dissipate” energy of the right kinds. A human is also a dissipative structure. We dissipate food to stay away from a dead state.
From a physics point of view, fossil fuels are as essential to economies as food is to humans. Without fossil fuels, economies tend to collapse and die. With an adequate supply of easily extractable and transportable fossil fuels, economies are able to grow. However, when these fuels become less available due to the exhaustion of nearby resources, or for other reasons, economies are forced to shrink. Rising population can also be a factor because every person in the world needs food and at least minimal transportation. The war is about future standards of living in countries around the world.
An underlying problem is that the world now has too many people for the available resources, such as fresh water. One chart showing data through the end of 2023 indicates that the Middle East is home to 4,863 desalination plants, or about 42% of the world’s total. This region is acutely stressed for fresh water. The Middle East cannot grow much of its own food; it must depend on imports, which are grown and transported using oil.
Previous analyses (here and here) have shown that diesel and jet fuel supplies have been in increasingly short supply since long before the Iran War.
Critical minerals, used in electrification, are also in very short supply. In a finite world, the easy-to-extract minerals are extracted first, leaving the high-cost-to extract minerals for the future.
In today’s fossil fuel economy, oil is the largest component. Oil is usually the highest-priced of the fossil fuels because it is energy-dense and easy to transport and store. If oil supply fails, an economy is likely to collapse. Coal and natural gas are the other fossil fuels. Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is natural gas that is super-chilled and shipped long-distance by boat. Similarly to oil, its price is under pressure today.
[2] The world’s fossil fuel economy already seems to be at a turning point in its economic cycle.
It is well known that economies exhibit cyclical behavior. Researchers Peter Turchin and Sergey Nefedov analyzed eight economies that collapsed and published their findings in their book Secular Cycles. They found that populations that discovered new resources were able to grow for a period of time until they came close to the carrying capacity of the resources available. After approaching the carrying capacity, economies reached a period of stagflation, characterized by slower growth, inflation, and spiking prices as shown on Figure 3.
At this point, the fossil fuel system has been growing for over 200 years. It has undergone stagflation since the early 1970s. It is now ready to begin the downswing of the Crisis Years.
Now, the Iran War seems to mark the beginning of a fairly long Crisis Period. The Stagflation Period was expected to last 50 to 60 years. The year 2026 is 56 years after the time US crude oil production stopped growing, so the timing is roughly in line with expectations. However, we don’t know whether the Crisis Period will really last between 20 and 50 years, since the situation is now quite different compared to cycles before fossil fuels were added to the economy. But it does look like the world economy is headed for reorganization based on the limited fuel supply.
[3] In order for an economy to “work,” oil prices need to be both low enough for consumers, buying end products such as food made possible by the use of oil, and high enough for oil producers.
This issue is not one most people think much about. There are really two different oil price levels that are important:
(a) The price level affordable by consumers. If consumers cannot afford food or basic transportation, this quickly becomes a problem that leads to unhappiness with elected officials. This is the reason why elected officials often try to hold down oil prices.
(b) The price that oil producers require in order to make an adequate profit and allow investment in new wells to offset depletion in existing wells. In the case of oil exporters, oil prices may need to be very high to permit high taxes on oil exports to support food subsidies and other government programs.
I believe that a major problem we have reached today is that countries that are primarily oil exporters, such as Russia and countries in the Middle East, need far higher oil prices than consumers are able to pay. Even if the wars in Ukraine and Iran stopped tomorrow, the world would still have this underlying issue.
[4] Since 2014, oil prices have been too low for countries that use taxes on oil exports as a major source of tax revenue.
Figure 4. Oil prices in 2025 US$, with ovals marking three different oil price periods. Oil prices are based on oil data from the 2025 Statistical Review of World Energy, published by the Energy Institute, adjusted by the US CPI Urban increase to 2025 levels. The 2025 average Brent oil price is from EIA data.
Figure 4 shows average world oil prices on an inflation-adjusted basis, to 2025 price levels. As such, prices for earlier dates appear much higher on the graph than past observers would have seen them.
The low oil prices from 1948 until early 1973 were good for economies around the world, including the US. In the early days of oil extraction, oil was easy to extract and close to where it was to be used. The cost of extraction and transport was low. Consumers started seeing many more products become available. Many families in the US could afford a car for the first time. Also, the US was able to support the recovery of European economies from the impact of World War II at a cost that was not excessive.
In recent years, costs have risen. This is especially the case for the price needed by oil exporters. Part of the problem is that the size of the population requiring subsidy keeps growing, while oil production has been close to flat.
A second part of the problem is that economies of oil exporters often have few other sources of taxable revenue. Oil exporters are trying to change this by adding downstream manufacturing that uses the oil and gas they produce. A third part of the problem is that, as population grows, the higher population tends to use more of the available oil supply, leaving less for export.
Figure 6 shows that, in the 2011-2013 period, oil prices seemed to be high enough for most OPEC members (except Iran). Fiscal break-even prices indicate how high oil prices need to be, including the amount of tax revenue needed to balance budgets.
The notation in yellow on Figure 6 shows that the expected fiscal breakeven break-even for the period under analysis for all OPEC members combined was $105. EIA data shows that the average Brent oil prices during this period were $111 in the year 2011, $112 in the year 2012, and $109 in 2013. Thus, prices were high enough for most producers. Iran was an outlier on the high side, with a range for the 2013-2014 period of $110 to $172. (A more recent forecast for Iran shows a 2025 fiscal breakeven price of $124, which remains far above the pre-Iran war oil price.)
Figure 4 shows that oil prices began to fall in 2014. At these lower levels, it became increasingly difficult for oil exporters to obtain enough tax revenue to significantly help their local populations. They started needing to use more debt to fund their local economies. As a result, they gradually became increasingly unhappy. Figure 4 shows that the average price 2025 for Brent oil was only $65.
To make matters worse for oil exporting countries requiring high prices, oil price forecasts by the EIA and IEA for the year 2026 were even lower because of an expected oversupply of oil. Countries with growing oil production included Argentina, Brazil, China, and Guyana. In addition, some counties on the coast of Africa are hoping to add oil production. Unless world demand is growing rapidly, more oil supply tends to lead to lower prices and a worse situation for oil exporters trying to balance their budgets with taxes on exported oil.
[5] Without the war, LNG prices would also have been too low for LNG exporters.
LNG is a “modern” way of shipping natural gas. Only about 13% of natural gas is transported as LNG. It tends to be an expensive method of transport. Recent reports indicate that a huge amount of future LNG supply is planned for the next few years.
Adding a huge amount of LNG would probably cause prices to drop significantly. This would be great from the point of view of consumers, but it would likely leave prices too low for producers. As I see the situation, Middle Eastern producers are likely to need prices in the $15 to $20 range per million metric tons of LNG, while India is not willing to pay more than $10 per unit, and those wanting to replace coal are unwilling to pay more than $5 per unit. Thus, without the war, LNG would have had a similar problem to that of oil, with prices far too low for exporters.
[6] From Iran’s point of view, I see the war as similar to a suicide, when a farmer can no longer support his family.
With Iran’s fiscal breakeven price at $124 per barrel and the pre-war Brent price at only $65, Iran was already in an impossible position. In fact, Iran could see that all of the Middle East infrastructure would be close to worthless, at expected 2026 oil and LNG prices. So why not take it down as well?
If nothing else, a war might help raise prices, at least a bit. Notice that on Figure 4, oil prices bounced up a little from their very low level in 2022, the year when the Ukraine conflict started.
[7] Losing any significant share of energy supply is likely to significantly reduce world GDP.
If the energy supply were to be lost, the world would be dealing with the losing something equivalent to its food supply. If the world economy loses even 10% of its oil and LNG, it is not difficult to imagine world GDP falling by 10%. At this point, we don’t know precisely how much energy supply, of which kind, will be lost, or for how long. The amount lost could be far higher than 10%. Also, the outage could last for years.
There are many issues involved. Supply lines are breaking down forcing businesses to find closer sources for both energy products and products made using cheap local energy products, such as fertilizer and aluminum. The war, as it is taking place today, is leading to major damage to energy-related structures in the Middle East. Destroyed LNG structures are estimated to take at least five years to replace. Damage elsewhere is also immense. Rebuilding the oil infrastructure will also likely take at least five years.
[8] The US understands the importance of Middle Eastern oil and gas. It uses its strong relationship with Israel to further its military presence in the Middle East.
Israel is a very high-level ally. In fact, a 2025 US Department of State Fact Sheet says that the US is committed to helping Israel in the case of an attack:
Steadfast support for Israel’s security has been a cornerstone of American foreign policy for every U.S. Administration since the presidency of Harry S. Truman. . . Israel is the leading global recipient of Title 22 U.S. security assistance under the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program. . .Israel has been designated as a U.S. Major Non-NATO Ally under U.S. law. This status provides foreign partners with certain benefits in the areas of defense trade and security cooperation and is a powerful symbol of their close relationship with the United States. Consistent with statutory requirements, it is the policy of the United States to help Israel preserve its QME, or its ability to counter and defeat any credible conventional military threat from any individual state or possible coalition of states or from non-state actors, while sustaining minimal damages and casualties.
However, if we look to see where US military bases are located, they are not in Israel. Instead, a map shows that the “persistent” US military bases are all located around the Persian Gulf (Figure 8).
These bases were clearly intended to protect oil transiting through the Persian Gulf. At this point, all of the persistent bases have been severely damaged by missiles from Iran.
The major interest of the US has been the availability of oil and natural gas from the Middle East. No one ever considered the idea that low prices might be the force that would bring down Middle Eastern oil and natural gas exports.
Friendship with Israel provides the US a convenient close by ally. It also pleases both Jewish Americans who support Israel and those evangelical Christians who hold a religious view that Israel is needed for the second coming of Christ. Some of the latter may even believe that a war in the Middle East could perhaps hasten this event.
[9] Trump realizes that winning the war against Iran is absolutely essential if the US is to retain global hegemony.
The US has been the holder of the world’s reserve currency since immediately after World War II. It was chosen for this role because it was the most trusted and dominant country in the world. International trade took place almost exclusively in US dollars, creating a high demand for US government debt. This allowed the US to import more goods and services than it exported, year after year. This advantage tended to raise the standard of living of US residents.
At one time, Saudi Arabia insisted that all oil purchases be made in US dollars. This requirement has recently expired, but, as a practical matter, the majority of purchases have continued to be through trades in US dollars.
One of the main ways that the US has maintained its hegemony is by building military bases around the world. With these bases, the US can claim to protect countries against aggressors. However, recent events have shown that Iran is able to take down the radar systems at these bases. Without radar, the bases are virtually useless. If the US is to maintain the illusion that it is truly at the top of the pecking order with its sophisticated weaponry, it must show that, together with Israel, it can prevail against Iran.
A disadvantage of the role of being the chief hegemon is ever-rising US government debt and the need to pay interest on that debt. This growing debt and the interest on the debt has become an increasing burden.
If the US should lose its hegemony role, the advantage the US has had over other countries in trade is likely to disappear. Repaying debt with interest is likely to become an even worse problem. If this should happen, Trump will no longer be able to think about making America great again.
[10] Conclusion
The world is now facing a problem that most people never considered possible: Oil and LNG prices can fall so low that production becomes unprofitable for major oil and LNG exporters. Until now, the trend among world leaders, including President Trump, has been to try to hold prices down for consumers, so that food and fuel for vehicles would remain affordable. However, this has created a problem in that prices have become too low for countries whose primary industry is being an oil exporter.
At this point, the world economy needs to make a major transition in order to deal with the inadequate level of fuels available for long-distance transportation. These same fuels are heavily used for farming and for many for commercial endeavors, such as building homes and roads. It is therefore necessary to find ways to use these fuels more sparingly. One way to achieve this is by reducing the length of most supply lines, as shown on Figure 1. Shorter supply lines will also be needed elsewhere in the world.
It is ironic that the world economy cannot make a change such as this without a war to focus our attention in this direction. Other changes will also be needed. Governments will probably have to become smaller and provide fewer services. Vacation travel will become the exception rather than the rule. “Working from home” will become the norm, whenever possible. I expect that the world’s population will need to fall, albeit in a fairly subtle way. I expect this will mostly be the result of shorter life expectancies.
We are fortunate that economies are self-organizing. If resources are available, even after a major schism such as the loss of the war against Iran, the self-organizing nature of the economic system will try to knit together pieces that can productively provide goods and services. This cannot happen instantly, but this feature means that there are likely to be some jobs and some goods and services available. Past cycles of the type illustrated in Figure 3 have eventually led to new beginnings.
If the US and Israel lose the current war against Iran, I expect President Trump to be blamed for this loss. However, I believe that this outcome would be best for the world as a whole.
I think way too many ppl are delusional about this idea of letting Iran control the SoH, having the US pull out, and just letting Iran set up a toll booth.
Where does Saudi’s power actually come from? It’s not just because they’re rich. Their entire influence comes from being the world’s only swing Producer. We need oil, and Saudi controls that market.
If Iran takes over the SoH, they become the most powerful, one of a kind Global Swing Producer in history.
If they don’t like the oil price? They can just “adjust” the traffic in a strait that handles ~20mb/d to swing prices however they want.
If the UAE gets on Iran’s bad side? “No passage for UAE tankers.” If Kuwait tries to build a bypass? “Fine, the SoH is closed starting today. Let’s see if you can finish that bypass—which takes years—without making a single dime.”
By letting Iran control that flow, the US is effectively making Iran the ultimate energy gatekeeper. The entire regional hegemony shifts to Iran. Saudi and the UAE lose everything.
Think about it—if you were MBS, would you let this happen? Let’s say the US pulls out this week. The US started this mess, and now the GCC has to just sit there and watch their power handed over to Iran?
Let me give you a reality check for Americans: Imagine Mexico now controls the North American continent.
“Want to fly to the UK? Get Mexico’s permission. Want to import jet fuel from Asia? Pay Mexico a toll and take the route they tell you to.
Did you dare to criticize Mexico? Now, no container ships can enter your waters. You can’t say a word against the great President of Mexico.”
It sounds like a fantasy, but that’s the reality for the GCC. If the US tries to run away? If I were the GCC, I wouldn’t let them leave. I’d grab them by the hair and drag them back to clean up the mess they made.
I’ve said before that this is an existential issue for Iran and Israel. Well, Iranian control of the SoH is an existential issue for every other GCC nation.
And the GCC has leverage. They have massive wealth invested in the West, huge U.S. asset holdings, decades of lobbying networks, and they are the biggest donors for Trump’s terms.
And of course they have oil. Do you really think Brent would stay below $100/bbl if the GCC teamed up and cut just 3mb/d for six months?
Even the most optimistic guy knows the answer is zero chance. They don’t even need a fancy excuse: “Oh, since the US gave up on us and Iran owns the SoH, it’s not safe. We have to cut production. Sorry!”
Within months, the US would be begging to come back. It’s just pushing the Middle East into an even bigger pit of fire.
Thanks for listening to my TED Talk 🙂
https://x.com/CRUDEOIL231/status/2039787252113612944
Wartime fuel shortages spawn panic, robberies and killings in Asia
Painful fuel shortages are beginning to drive violence and instability in parts of Asia, adding to the cascade of repercussions from the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran.
In Bangladesh, illegal syndicates are stealing fuel in the middle of the night and raiding transport vehicles to stockpile supplies, according to a trade association for gas station owners. Gas pump workers in Bangladesh as well as in neighboring India and nearby Pakistan have been killed in fuel thefts or rage-driven assaults over the lack of supplies, authorities said. And in the Philippines last week, thousands of transportation workers went on strike to protest soaring diesel prices.
“This is a madness. This is intolerable,” Rashed Al Mahmud Titumir, an adviser to Bangladesh’s prime minister, said in an interview Monday, his voice rising in exasperation. “Where is the global conscience to solve this crisis?”
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/world/2026/04/02/wartime-fuel-shortages-spawn-panic-robberies-killings-asia/89432773007/
1) Yes, the economy changes usable energy to non usable energy. (dissipative)
2)And yes, current estimates of oil and nat gas is about 50 years and coal is about 120 odd years. But this is at todays technology. (“The “years left” estimates (reserves-to-production or R/P ratios) for oil, natural gas, and coal have remained remarkably stable—or even increased—over the past 20, 50, and 75 years, despite massive growth in global consumption and production.”-grok.)
This means the technology is slightly out pacing the growing usage.
3) The world’s growing energy usage is slowing. ( footnote-global energy usage (total primary energy demand) is not expected to accelerate in the coming decades. In fact, the opposite is true in nearly all major forecasts: the annual growth rate is projected to slow compared to the past 10–20 years, due to rapid gains in energy efficiency, widespread electrification (which cuts waste heat losses from burning fuels), and a shift toward renewables. Demand for energy services (heating, cooling, mobility, data/AI, etc.) will keep rising strongly — especially in emerging economies like India, Southeast Asia, and Africa — but we’ll need less raw energy input to deliver it.-grok)
4) But the technology to increase usable energy is accelerating (footnote-Yes — technology for increasing “usable” energy resources (primarily proven reserves and recovery rates for oil, natural gas, and to a lesser extent coal) is accelerating in 2025–2026, driven by a new wave of AI, digitalization, and advanced enhanced oil recovery (EOR). This is not the same explosive “shale revolution” pace of the 2005–2015 era, but it represents a fresh acceleration in efficiency and reserve additions from existing fields and maturing plays. Industry reports describe it as a “holistic technology acceleration” or “breakneck pace,” with AI alone potentially unlocking hundreds of billions to over a trillion extra barrels of oil without major new discoveries.
woodmac.com)
5) is the technology feasible, yes. (footnote-Yes — the technology to increase “usable” energy resources (AI-driven optimization, advanced enhanced oil recovery/EOR, digital twins, and related tools for oil, natural gas, and coal) is not only feasible but already proven, deployed at scale, and delivering measurable real-world results as of 2026. It is moving well beyond pilots into industrial application by major operators, with documented gains in recovery rates, cost reductions, and reserve additions. This directly builds on the acceleration we discussed earlier.
woodmac.com +1)
Conclusion, there is, and will continue to be, more than enough energy to power the economies of the future. The only thing to keep the energy going into the economical sufficient to sustain itself is human innovation. This is what the late great J Simon showed and the data still backs him-https://humanprogress.org/simonproject/
interesting.
ask grok about diminishing returns on all resources.
even with brief gains in efficiencies lately, all metals and minerals resources are needing ever more energy to maintain the same level of production.
the diminishing returns on energy resources are especially problematic.
5 decades ago, the Energy Cost of Energy was about 2%, so for every 100 gross units of produced energy, 98 units were available to use anywhere else in the economy besides just in energy extraction.
now ECoE is about 11% and rising by about 0.5% per year.
https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/
the available surplus energy is only 89% and falling.
degrowth is inevitable and imminent and irreversible.
and too bad that the ME war has shut in so much energy resources which will never fully recover and have totally overwhelmed any minor AI gains.
degrowth is here, IC cannot last, it MUST end someday, probably late in this century.
it’s nothing to worry about.
🙈
Date Brent hits USD141.
People/media/alternative media keeps on saying “we are at the brink of energy catastrophe”.
No, we are not at the brink. We are already in it. It is just that everyone refuse to acknowledge it. The last oil tanker has reached its destination.
You can ignore reality but you cannot ignore the consequence of ignoring reality… Rand
So, in this present situation, we have answered the question that is bugging people : “Why did the Easter Islander not notice their forest is gone when the person chopped down the last tree?”
Good luck and all the best to us
This has the potential to get far worse.
“No, we are not at the brink. We are already in it.”
sorry that seenile retardedTrump has caused this for you people in Asia.
but it’s not “we” all over the world, it’s mostly you Asians.
Europe looks to be next with a few weeks delay.
I hope this small regional war will end this week, and then by later this year or sometime next year, life in Asia will get better.
There is no higher power in the universe than physics. Physics is the highest power.
No air defense in Israel as Iranian strikes intensify (video).
https://www.rt.com/news/636981-iran-war-us-israel-trump/
“Remember the Deagle list that showed large population drops?
I had aI compare it to the oil situation and there’s something there-
Strong overlap
Japan: Deagel projected a sizable drop, and Japan is one of the most oil-exposed countries in the current shock.
South Korea: Deagel projected a large drop, and current reporting puts South Korea among Asian countries ramping up dirtier fuels to cover shortfalls.
UK / France / parts of Europe: Deagel projected big drops for several Western European countries, and Europe is now dealing with major fuel-price and supply pressure.
Australia / New Zealand: Deagel projected large declines, and current global reporting says even wealthier countries like Australia are being hit by fuel theft, protests, and emergency responses.
https://x.com/TheKanehB/status/2039846080071008621
Deagel’s timing was a little early, however.
Thank you, Gail, for this rational and logical explanation of our energy predicament. Unfortunately predicaments have outcomes, not solutions, so we’re going to have to manage our downward energy descent.
Your comment: “I expect that the world’s population will need to fall, albeit in a fairly subtle way. I expect this will mostly be the result of shorter life expectancies.”
– a little chilling.
People seem to somehow adjust to changing situations. For example, populations in which a substantial share a babies die before their first birthday sometimes don’t name their baby until the first birthday.
If things are getting worse, in general, taking care out our own health would seem to be the first priority. Also, enjoying each day as it comes. People won’t need to save up money for the future because the money likely won’t buy as much in the future, since fewer goods will be available to purchase.
Your conclusion on this post, immediately bought to mind your recommendation at the onset of the Covid scamdemic, was not to vaccinate, quarantine, or shut down the economy, rather to just let it and natural immunity run its course.
I suspect this Iran war will be the hard start of the decline in the global economy with the paradox of lower prices leading the way to demand destruction.
The question is, do you believe in a green chicken?
OIl prices tend to spike and collapse. I wouldn’t be surprised if they fall again. They fell very low in 2008; the fell very low in 2020. Both of these were after big price spikes.
The years 2011 through 2013 were supported by lots of growth in debt and low interest rates. Also, it was before the big growth in production from the Permian that helped lower oil prices.
again… the difference now and last time – the taps were not smashed last time
Good point
India: Mock drill announced in delhi at 8 PM today for preparedness for emergency situation
*Sirens will be heard
*Lights will be blacked out
https://x.com/Goreunit/status/2039669034221002808
Is any kind of shelter available? If not, what is the point of the drill?
perhaps warm up for when the energy crisis explodes
I think it is a bit presumptuous for the US to rule all of South America. Maybe just to the oil of Venezuela.
hopefully the US working with the VZ oil industry will actually be a benefit to VZ.
Operation Epstein Fury will go down as the greatest strategic blunder in U.S.
military history. I am astonished to witness in real time the classical end
of empire roughly described by several authors, for example Arnold Toynbee,
Paul Kennedy, and Peter Turchin.
There are two important aspects about military conflict which are not often
covered in the movies: propaganda and logistics.
Propaganda is important because governments that go to war have to convince
the population to pay the economic and human costs of war as well keep up
troop moral. In any war, governments lie through their teeth. The standard
procedure is to vilify the enemy (to justify killing them), to downplay
the costs of the war, and to claim they are wining. For example in WWII the
U.S. incurred 200,000 casualties while inflicting 65,000 on the enemy. These
statistics were of course vastly distorted by the U.S. government until
after the war.
Logistics are important because without food and munitions soldiers are
ineffective.
Winning a war means attaining strategic objectives using military force. By
this definition USrael is losing. Though the USrael strategic goals were
very poorly articulated after attacking Iran, it is clear from the way the
war has played out that the USrael strategic objective was either regime
change to some sort of puppet regime controlled by USrael similar to what the
US did in Venezuala or creating a failed state, that is to say a state in
which rival factions fight for control so that the state has no cohesive
government capable of any significant foreign policy. This is basically what
USrael attained in Lebanon, Libya, Iraq, Syria, etc. By this definition,
USrael is clearly losing Operation Epstein Fury.
There are currently 3 countries with hypersonic missiles: Russia, China, and
Iran. Hypersonic missiles and drones dramatically increase the home court
advantage in a war because they impose great logistical complications for an
attacking military. Many successful 20th century attacking strategies fail
because of drones. For example M1 tank battalions were hugely successful in
attacking Iraq in 2003. Attacking with tanks has been abandoned in Ukraine
because of drones. The Russians preferred attack vehicle is a motorcycle.
Hezbollah has recently destroyed dozens of Israeli Merkava tanks in just a
few days. In the 20th century having forward US bases enhanced logistics.
These bases cannot be defended from drones and hypersonic missiles. The US
has relocated most military personnel off of its bases. Iran accuses the US
of using civilian shields because much of its military personnel is in
hotels. Aircraft carriers cannot be defended against 21st century anti-ship
missiles and drones. They are obliged to loiter out of range considerably
complicating logistics.
The Trump administration thought they were playing chess when they started
Epstein Fury. They thought if they killed the king, they would win the war
during the weekend. That failed and there was obviously had no plan B. There
are no historic precedents to achieving regime change with only an air
campaign. The number of strategic errors made by Trump administration is
mind boggling. Examples:
1. Making a sneak attack while feigning to negotiate twice in 6 months.
This closes many diplomatic off ramps to the war in case it doesn’t go as
expected (as did the 12 day war in June 2025). It also simplifies Iranian
propaganda.
2. Killing over 150 school girls without taking responsibility and assuring
it would not happen again. If you want to unite the country you are
attacking against you, you can’t do better. USrael has hit numerous
civilian targets decreasing moral of soldiers and complicating USrael
propaganda while simplifying Iranian propaganda.
3. Assassinating Ayatollah Khamenei the (moderate) spiritual leader of Shia
Muslims. This is like assassinating the pope. There are Shia Muslims
throughout the Gulf. This results in blowback. For example Shia militias
in Iraq forced the US out of its Iraqi base (with the help of Iranian
missiles and drones).
4. Hegseth’s rhetoric proves his incompetence for his job. He is destroying
troop moral and facilitating Iranian propaganda. The number of U.S.
soldiers registering as conscientious objectors is far greater than any
period in the last 25 years.
5. The Trump administration’s propaganda is bad. The reason for the war was
poorly articulated and contradictory. President Trump himself seems to be
poorly informed about the war and makes statements which are obviously
false or uninformed giving the impression he is poorly informed and
desperate. Example: initially Trump offered to escort vessels through the Straight
of Hormuz with U.S. warships. Iran’s response: “Any ship accompanied by a
U.S. warship will be allowed free passage through the Straight”. U.S.
warships are carefully staying out of range of Iranian anti-ship missiles
and drones which cover the entire Persian Gulf.
As long as the Strait of Hormuz remains filtered, USrael is losing the war
and the dollar based world economy is in decline. In order to go through
the Strait Iran extracts a toll of the equivalent of $2 million in, I
believe, some cryptocurrency and if the cargo is oil it must not be paid for
in dollars.
I note also that people were convicted to be hung at Nuremberg for crimes
that Trump and Secretary of War Crimes Hegseth freely admit to.
“won” and “lost” are mere words that will be tossed around a lot after this small regional war ends hopefully in a week or two.
“As long as the Strait of Hormuz remains filtered, USrael is losing the war
and the dollar based world economy is in decline. In order to go through
the Strait Iran extracts a toll of the equivalent of $2 million in, I
believe, some cryptocurrency and if the cargo is oil it must not be paid for
in dollars.”
no big deal, that’s about $1 per barrel for a supertanker.
if retardedTrump desttroys much of Iran’s electric power plants and FF industry in these next 2 weeks, will Iran have “won”?
time will tell.
Thanks for your summary. I am afraid it is mostly or entirely correct.
I never wanted to die fighting for foreign nations. I never wanted my children to die fighting for foreign nations. If Trump has true;y destroyed America paying for and dying for foreigners he will have been a great president.
for better or worse he is somewhat reshaping the world.
Cuba next?
I see that we no longer worry about Iran getting a nuclear warhead and being able to blow up New York. Not everything is about energy.
I don’t think Iran’s missiles go as far as New York. London is as far as I have heard mentioned.
It is a fission bomb at most it could damage the bottom 20% of Manhattan. As to delivery, ship it a container, no need for overhead.
Iran has stated very clearly that the Soviet Union had many nuclear warheads and delivery systems, yet they faded from history. What would happen to Iran’s 6000 year civilization is they were stupid enough to nuke New York? Iran has the highest average IQ in the world. They do not need nukes to destroy, completely, the US. I am Canadian, not pro Iran, hope peace breaks out, pray for the innocent on both sides.
really good article.
“One chart showing data through the end of 2023 indicates that the Middle East is home to 4,863 desalination plants, or about 42% of the world’s total. This region is acutely stressed for fresh water.”
Figure 5 the ME population doubling to 300 million.
hopefully this war will end soon with most of those desalination plants intact.
of course those plants are temporary and FF powered, and that high ME population is temporary also.
Pingback: Never Mind the Price, What About the Supply? | A Glimpse of Reality
Except for the shit talk about Canada near the end of the video, this is a fantastic breakdown of the current situation in the middle east. As much as I don’t agree with a lot of what Carlson thinks in general with respect to religion and our “God given rights to bear arms” – he gives a great breakdown of the current situation in Iran. Smart dude – bit of a dick…
This video is also talking about the possibility of a compromise in which the United States is left with the leadership of the Americas and Eurasia is separate under the influence of China, perhaps after Trump visits with Xi. China would get Taiwan.
—–
Regarding what the video says:
The war is represents a change in power. (In my post, America losing its hegemony.)
The country that controls the world is the one that opens the Straight of Hormuz. Geography is why Iran is powerful. It can stops boats leaving the Persian Gulf, damaging the world economy. It is extremely easy to prevent commerce but it difficult to keep it open.
At 12;37, Carson says, “The nation that restores order is the one with power.”
13:32 February 28th was the day when the rest of world discovered that America was unable to restore order. That was a shock. America really no longer had power.
14:15 The countries around the Gulf found out the hard way when Iran started attacking them. . . The destruction has been profound.
15:30 these countries have been the largest investors in the United States, literally trillions.
. . .The loss of this infrastructure is a huge loss for these countries.
18.23 The President said last night that when this war is over, Iran will still be in charge.
18:32 He said the straight is going to reopen because Iran will need the money from oil sales.
18:41 That’s another way of saying some kind of Iranian regime that we didn’t choose is going to be in power when this is all over.
18:50 So that that statement alone is hugely significant for the rest of the world. The president of the United States
18:57 just said we’re not going to be in charge of who runs Iran when this war ends.
[Who can restore order?]
23:40 Well, practically speaking, there’s really only one country on earth with the power, not necessarily the military power, but maybe the power to open the
23:49 Gulf, to open the straight at the eastern end of the Gulf, let all that oil and gas out. And that of course is China.
23:59 China is who the president is speaking to. And by the way, the US president was supposed to be in China this month,
24:06 April, meeting with the Chinese president, Xi, and that’s been delayed until next month and we’ll see if that
24:14 actually happens. But at the center of the conversation will be this question.
24:18 So how exactly would China open the straight of Hormuz? Well, probably not with aircraft carriers.
24:50 But it’s not its military that gives China the power to do this. It’s its economic relationships of course.
24:59 So, China is the largest trading partner with every Gulf country
25:06 and with Iran. In fact, China is one of the only countries that has any kind of
25:14 meaningful relationship with Iran at this point. China and Russia, but particularly China. So, China could conceivably bankrupt Iran if it wanted,
The question though is when. So from the Chinese perspective, what’s the hurry?
26:38 China will be hurt economically by the closure if it continues, but so will the United States, but maybe more
26:46 critically, so will American allies in Asia. So if you’re China, you’re very
26:53 focused on the countries right around you that aren’t fully under your control. Why wouldn’t you be? Every great power is concerned first and
27:02 foremost about its region. Can I control the countries right around me? And in China’s case, you have Taiwan, you also
27:10 have Japan, you have South Korea, and you have Philippines.
27:14 So you’ve got four big countries that are not directly controlled by China,
27:182 but they’re in Asia, and they were all to one extent or another closely allied with the United States and benefit from
27:26 some kind of defense guarantee, mostly implied. And so if you weaken those countries,
27:35 all of whom are totally dependent on Middle Eastern energy and you weaken the United States by refusing to come to its aid,
27:46 the Gulf stays closed.
27:50 But from a Chinese
28:37 perspective which is longitudinal tend to think in terms of like years not just quarterly reporting periods.
28:56 Taiwan, the one every think tank in Washington is always telling us is coming any minute, when you could just
29:03 send a really clear message to the Taiwanese government that reunification with China is inevitable. And let’s do this the easy way, the non- messy way.
29:13 Let’s do here what we did in Hong Kong.
29:15 Let’s just bring all the provinces home without having to kill anybody.
29:20 And by the way, you have no choice because the country you thought was going to protect you clearly isn’t. Can’t even protect Qatar.
31:10 But at some point it will become clear that the United States couldn’t do the thing that great powers do which is keep commerce going.
31:18 And so it doesn’t mean the United States is not a great power. It just means it’s not as great as maybe some people imagined it was. It’s not as powerful as our leaders told us it was and in some cases actually thought it was.
31:293 And what that really means is the unipolar moment is over.
32:25 but it’s definitely going to be a global reshuffleling.
32:30 And it revolves around the question of resources.
32:35 It revolves around what President Trump to his credit understands, which is ultimately power derives from prosperity. Rich countries are powerful.
32:46 Rich countries get to build powerful militaries to express and in rare occasions exert their power.
32:54 But wealth comes from resources.
36:32
So actually if the world cleaves in two, if
36:39 China fully controls the east or mostly controls the east and we mostly control
36:47 the west, probably something we could live with. probably not a terrible thing for the United States, but it would
36:56 require a totally different way of thinking. It would require the US government, the
37:05 Pentagon, the State Department, the the White House,
37:09 all the academics that feeded information and deep thoughts about what the empire should be. would require all of them to change the way they think
37:18 about the United States and its place in the world.
For a long time, Gail Tverberg has written from a point of view that seems to cherish disaster for America and the world. This is very clear in this blog posting where she wants to lay blame upon President Trump while calling for declining standards of living, reduced populations, and general energy insecurity-driven hardship as the “winning case” on what to do.
Achieving energy security has been a dominate theme of human civilization for thousands of years. Nothing new in that sense, so the fundamental focus of this blog on worldwide energy security is nothing new. Yet, civilization has persisted and improved across those thousands of years, an accomplishment that did not arise from a defeatist attitude such as is being touted here.
I agree that we are in a period of transition but we are also in a period of rapidly advancing technological capabilities that will enable this transition to be “weathered”, emerging with a global permanent energy security based on practicable sources of sustainable energy. It is apparent that Ms. Tverberg does not have any answers in this regard—only more doom and gloom.
“… emerging with a global permanent energy security based on practicable sources of sustainable energy.”
you obviously have very little understanding of surplus energy, so I suggest you read and study https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/ for a looooooooooooooong time and get yourself up to speed.
Industrial Civilization requires massive daily flows of surplus energy, and this flow comes almost entirely from FF.
any “renewable” gadgets are all manufactured every step of the way by the energy within FF, and these gadgets must be replaced as they wear out.
there is no such thing as enough “sustainable energy” to run IC.
with the irreversible decline of surplus energy beginning this decade, there MUST be irreversible degrowth of the world economy.
degrowth is here, IC cannot last, it must end, probably late this century.
it’s nothing to worry about.
you are obviously a maganut…
with that fact established, may i offer you a little reality? (you are welvome here btw—we need opposing views and flat earthers)
For 000s of years humankind, as you say used forms of ‘technology’ for advancement, unfortunately almost all of that ‘technology’ relied on the speed of tree growth, with a little iron added here and there whenever possible….
civilisation was static until then—we did not improve at all, the common man lived in utter squalor…..
we did not progress beyond this until iron became cheap and plentiful….
with cheap iron we dug deep oilwells and coalmines…
with cheap oil and coal, technology could progress….
and here we touch on the kind of reality that is anathema to maganuts.
Cheap surplus energy allows you to have sophisticated technology—
unfortunately this does NOT work in reverse…. no form of technology can deliver cheap energy…..EVER.
It can deliver MORE energy, yes, but that energy resource is finite….it is not the same thing….
Do you ever take notice of Donnie’s actions?—every business he’s started has crashed.
Now he’s taking the world down with him to satisfy he superinflated ego.
if you care to hang arounf OFW, you might learn to think for yourself, and stop following the herd just because theyve got red hats on……
“The outcome outlined in Figure 1 implies that Donald Trump and the US-Israel coalition will lose the war against Iran. It appears that the physics of the situation (or perhaps the Higher Power behind the physics of the situation) has chosen the flawed personality of Donald Trump to accomplish the required result.”
Youch!
“17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:”
That Pharaoh Trump, that dishonourable pot, hardened, and fitted unto destruction: that physical, dissipative dynamics might be demonstrated through his defeat in the illegal war against Iran.
“20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?”
Trump needs to shut his mouth for once in his life: he is no more than a puffed up patsy for the laws of physics.
Great comment Mirror!
hard to say with obviously seenile retardedTrump, but to me it appears probable that he will have the USevilEmpire do some more very severe atttacks within the next couple of weeks.
after that, hopefully this small regional war will be over.
for sure retardedTrump will be gone within less than 3 swift years.
UK and the rest of Europe might possibly get through these years without collapsing.
IC will continue on with its inevitable irreversible degrowth.
Looking like you’re back to your old self again davidina. Good deal.
Interesting, but eventually meaningless question. I remember comparisons from the days of Peak Oil (what, from ~15 years ago or even earlier than that?), showing rail transport being the cheapest by at least 10x (after initial infrastructure investment).
Look into electrified light rail – efficient public transportation technology that many smaller US cities utilized before late 1950s, when automobile/oil mafia lured Boomer’s parents into “happy motoring” and wasteful suburbian living. Light rail must had been very economic, if almost everybody was running it.
Soviets heavily relied on fully electrified light rail (“tramways”) in their largest cities (even those with proper Metro/Subway systems), working in parallel with regular trains and having both types of stations near each other for easy connectivity (still widely available and used in Eastern Europe, for example).
ICE (and even diesel engines – in the absence of diesel fuel) are ridiculously wasteful (what, ~30% efficiency with electronic guidance from overexpensive and soon simply unavailable onboard computers?), individual automobiles upkeep is unbearably uneconomic, and the biggest – those well-paved asphalt roads of the Developed World. Asphalt roads are expensive to maintain and they are readily/easily damaged by lack of regular upkeep, elements (in temperate climate zones) and heavy machinery (military and/or agricultural one). Concrete is out of the question as well, I think – too energy-intense and otherwise expensive to lay.
Some kind of rails are the future, in worst case – human-powered kind 💪
Small, well inter-connected tribes (Dunbar?) or blood-related family based “National Socialist” agricultural farms will be coming too – poor (in every possible sense of the word) inhabitants/slaves will be on the notice for the upcoming (or lost) pre-planned harvest and will be summarily taken (by the same railway) to the showers in the case of lost/self-consumed harvest. Remaining kids/babies will be promptly “redistributed” to the nearby, readily rail-connected, but still populated and functioning “family owned farms”. No any long-distance travel in HOV lanes on well-paved highways will be necessary/allowed. There will be no highways – but only (as well as physically possible) kept railways, like those leading to/from Auschwitz-Birkenau free-will agricultural settlement.
by mid century wherever there remains IC there will be more rail.
meanwhile, ocean shipping is by far cheapest per mile, so there are probably decades of ocean shipping ahead even as IC proceeds with irreversible degrowth.
Yes, thanks for sort of re-opening the topic.
It was more concerned with the existing regional train services going out of / among / around cities, the usual model is a real train set ( heavier than city tram ) of ~120 passenger capacity and powered by ~600-800kWp diesel.. I was just wondering about the ticket price comparison all around the world before further diesel price volatility spike. And as Re-ante kindly answered, the Oregon (US / PCFNW) pricing for such services is roughly the same, i.e. ten+ bucks per ~100km/55mi.. distance.
Then I just briefly contrasted the price vs ” HOV ” like ICE car say w. 3-5x people on board, and obviously it’s way cheaper ( at the consumer point / no the whole infrastructure chain ) .. Such arrangement for several people commuting regularly towards same general vector via single car is not uncommon, sharing the petrol expense..
It depends on the locale, as we know, especially those dense Asian metro areas are way overcrowded on such trains vs. low-ish occupancy in EUR/US .. for the moment. As usually the same area is serviced both by highways / roads as well as trains ( up to this moment).
In terms of the outlook into the future it depends on the collapse profile / timing, the batt chem for TSLA trucks and similar is already there – rolling then for decades ( not fantasy ), so it could be deployed and avoid a lot of diesel consumption.
Very well said Gail. I have been thinking, although not nearly as systematically along the same lines, while also thinking about the serious dislocation and hardship and readjustment that will result from the end of US economic hegemony. It is truly ironic that Trump appears ready to bring about the end of the US’s conventional “greatness” while accidentally contributing toward a possible much healthier and more peaceful global culture of many geographical centers.
I’m glad you like this analysis. It is quite different from what others are saying.
Thanks for the new post.
It might be better for the world, but not for USA and Israel.
I don’t know too much about Israel to comment on it, but USA will look like Germany in 1919 after Woody Wilson cheated it the victory it had won.
The loss of Dollar as the reserve currency means Americans cannot enjoy the lower prices possible because of the dollar being the reserve currency.
Americans will have to adapt the lifestyle of the Europeans.
As of now, the price of gasoline in London is about 172 pences/liter. For ease of calculation I will say a gallon is 4 liters; that is about $9/gallon.
At Paris it is 2.04 euro/liter, or about $10/gallon. Frankfurt, and other European capitals, should be similar.
At USA, in general, it is $4.08/gallon.
Go figure.
Plus, the loss of prestige and power will make US outfits, many of them multinational and can ditch USA any time , to have a harder time doing business.
Any horror in USA will quickly spread into at least Canada and Mexico, destabilizing these countries as well.
Given the stranglehold of USA on the world, it might not be as great as some people might imagine.
Can you compare average/routine driving distances in USA and London or Paris?
Not to pollute the board (as MG frequently does with his irrelevant and incoherent Rromanian nonsense), in another recent post of yours here your seem to claim for Soviets took and occupied Helsinki during the Winter War – I believe that statement to be completely false. Any comments? Thanks for your regular posts – I read and follow them attentively, almost as much as I read and absorb the original posts by the Blog Owner here.
During the Finnish civik war pro Soviet reds took Helsinki and Viipuri
Viipuri was later taken by USSR in 1944, which still holds it
I did not say USSR tool Helsinki
Momentarily US will either blend into ( then if not feasible just sell int. ) that newly ” acquired – liberated ” VEZ oils..
In terms of US gas prices, yes for their liking NOT nice price at all, BUT given cont. hybridizing fleet and less diesel among %personal carz – it’s still bearable..
VZ oils are just drops in a bucket
Higher gas proce means higher price for everythinh
Your title is brave!
In reality USA will look like Russia during the Revolution
The commies did take control of Petrograd and Moscow, the two major cities, rather quickly and since a large proportion of Russian population and industry were there it was much favorable for them to win against the Whites who were disorganized and did not hold large population centers.
That is not possible in USA. The so-called MAGA regions control the industry, and the major cities are too diverse and too divided. Somewhat like the Finnish civil war when the reds controlled the capital Helsinki and the second city Viipuri (which was taken by Soviets after WW2) but the whites controlled the rest.
Different states will go their own way, Texas will declare independence again, and so forth.
I first wrote my thoughts, in a fairly disorganized form, down in a draft post, which I called, “A Different View of the Iran war.”
I gave the rough draft to Claude AI, along with some prior posts of mine.
I asked if Claude had an idea for a better title.
It came up with a list of 9 titles. I chose this one. Perhaps it is too brave, but it can be difficult to get attention. I look at my old posts, and the titles seem pretty much like one another.
After I chose this title, Claude had ideas of what did or did not belong in the introduction. It came up with the first sentence in the introduction, as well.
So, with Claude’s help, I started moving things around. It asked questions I hadn’t thought about? For example, why didn’t I give equal weight to oil and LNG. I decided maybe I needed to explain a bit about that. It suggested I not spend too much space on LNG, if it was much smaller.
Claude also had ideas regarding which of my thoughts belonged in the conclusion.
I ended up moving text and exhibits around. It corrected my errors in numbering in the text.
So Claude didn’t write any of this. I mostly suggested ways to better organize what I wrote. It seemed not to care too much if my language was sort of colloquial, and there were places where what I said didn’t quite make sense.
Real life editors helped a great deal, after Claude was done with its part.
Zerohedge is reporting
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/moscow-asks-us-ceasefire-bushehr-nuclear-plant-get-remaining-russian-staff-out
Russia is seeking approval from the US and Israel for a ceasefire for the Bushehr nuclear power plant in Iran, RIA news agency reported Thursday. Airstrikes across the country have reportedly been on the uptick in the past some 48 hours.
Well over 500 Russian personnel were at the site prior to the US launching Operation Epic Fury, and the Bushehr complex has been hit at least three times by airstrikes, putting the complex and area at severe risk.
If a nuclear power plant in Iran is in bad shape, it would seem like that would put Israel’s nuclear infrastructure more at risk.
The Chinese are also getting involved trying to broker a peace deal. The underlying problem for the US is that China is trying to become the influential superpower taking over the reins from the US. The US politicians don’t have a clue that once China becomes the influential peace broker the World will turn to China and the US empire will become irrelevant as time goes on.
The world will move away form a Unipolar world dominated by the US and enter a new world order that will include multiple nations doing business with one another.
As a result the US empire will collapse and fragment because the empire gets its funding from the $USD. Xi Jinping earlier this year said he wants to replace the US dollar with the Renminbi as the world’s reserve currency.
The spent fuel pool is in the auxiliary building. Dry cask storage is also onsite. It’s a set-up.
I guess this is the standard procedure in most of the world’s civil-ian NPP sites. Basically, the freshly taken out spent fuel is stored next to the power plant in such a dedicated bldg. to cool it down a bit, only then in few yrs time it is moved to more temporary warehouse.. Apart from radioactive incident it’s likely connected to the basic physical mechanics of it as the bit cooled down pellets are then way easier / safer to be stored and hauled away vs. the ” swollen up ” fresh out of the reactor chamber..
Yes apparently Bushehr is on a grid-powered 8-year pool cooling regime and then moved to medium-term dry cask storage onsite. Talk of long-term storage in nearby mountain but no action. Simar to everywhere everywhere else.
Gail, thanks for the new article.
In terms of Bushehr the extent of damage is not clear, but most certainly it was pretty minimal and non-systemic ( threatening ) chiefly on the outskirts – otherwise the msm would pick it up. Apparently that industrial – complex is a vast gigantic areal – so that doesn’t mean the npp itself is in bad shape at all.. Obviously, the risk and danger into the future are real hence the effort to move RU-staffers out as soon as possible..
The nasty stuff is no doubt perfectly fine… for now. But my money is on it popping off before the Russians get out. Because it’s a set-up.
Interesting price/supply discussion. However your conclusion that life will be better if the US loses the war is unsupported by your expertise, or your asserted logic chain. It also fails to recognize the benefit of stabilizing the region by eliminating nuclear capabilities. Equally important, the suggestion that we need higher oil prices (a tax on everyone not invested in oil profits), instead of eliminating this diversion of assets, in unpersuasive. Unfortunately this looks like an academic attempt to tell the world it’s better off without Trump, which is contradicted by the many peace deals, and the ideal of a nuclear free world docussed on building economies instead of diverting money to war and oil profits.
There’s a lot of confusion out there, including with Trump, that the US has lots of oil to sell to the world.
We do not. We’re a net importer of crude (~+3 Mb/d). The EIA reports that fact in great detail every week.
The confusion stems from using the term “petroleum exports” which includes the bodacious amounts of natural gas liquids (NGL) that come from our wet gas plays. That stuff isn’t “oil” and it is exported because it’s wildly overproduced compared to our needs.
Yes, the US is a net exporter of “petroleum,” but it’s also a net IMPORTER of crude oil. In other words, the US has none to sell.
There’s more complexity to why we export 3M b/d of crude (it’s the wrong kind for our refineries) and also import 6.4 M b/d of crude (which is the right kind).
https://x.com/chrismartenson/status/2039523704061772239/photo/1
Good points!
By the way, I think I cut off comments on my previous post, to reduce confusion.
hey x-, here’s another Inverted Perestroika echo of the original Perestroika. Gabbard topped out at Lieutenant Colonel. Putin topped out at Lieutenant Colonel. Gabbard ‘skipped steps’ all the way up to DNI. Putin ‘skipped steps’ all the way up to becoming the head of the FSB. The rest is history.
My take is that Bondi was just fired because The Trump admin has caught wind of a faction on the move that’s centered around the DNI office and Bondi got thrown under the bus because she over saw the Trump-related Epstein files suppression. Last week I perused the available photo and video evidence of the last Cabinet meeting and did not see Gabbard present. AI could not confirm nor deny. Perhaps that tipped off the administration, who knows. It also just came out in in the MSM today that Trump has been polling staffers on whether to fire Gabbard….
If there is going to be a coup then the wheels must be turning already because time-wise I feel like we must be more than halfway through the Big Nuclear Scare by now.
Appreciate your analogies/references. I’m not political and do not follow politics, but if TG and those pulling her strings can rebuild/reorganize the local NA economy (I do not count MX and CA as separate entities for convenience…) for (much) better efficiency and sustainability (in a good, not the crazy-ecohead sense), then I’m all for it. Never trusted Bondi, but she seemed to me like doing devoted, dedicated job suppressing what she was told to supress…
I also hope, that/if your predictions are true, that this epochal political transition (here in the USA) will be as smooth and bloodless, as that one of Yeltsin->Putin back in 1999/2000.
Well, that’s shocking analogy there Re-ante, I’ve not looked at that before.. interesting.
But you also have to consider the prequel for these comparative histories, if I recall it correctly, Vlad was for yrs dispatched-stationed inside DDR (1980s) and was before-then trained as focused specialist on the German realm agenda.. Also, there was that important influence of the various proto – oligarchs of the early post Soviet mid 1990s which supported the anti Yeltsin coup ( for $angle ). And as we learned later several rounds of fights between various oligarchic networks / clans took place there – while the FSB nationalist angle kept strengthening bit by bit and then at some point took over govs ~completely (mid early 2000s ?)..
While I don’t see similar longer path dependency with Tulsi – but perhaps it doesn’t matter for the US setting that much.. as the whole process could be understandably way different in steps and players involved .. and also delayed in timing ( next moves ahead ) ..
Just thumbnail sketches on my part but relevant I think. Seems to me that having ready in waiting useful oligarchs help get Russia back on its feet and then subsuming the oligarchs ASAP is a highly rational and efficient way to go about transitioning a highly industrialized country from collapsed communism to integrated capitalism. The (inverse) mirror of that is the American ‘oligarchy’ that everyone talks about right now. Oligarchy being industrial feudalism and industrial feudalism being both pre- consumer capitalism and post- consumer capitalism unstable transitional swing states.
Thanks Ravi.
It is a battle between — bits & bytes vs atoms and molecules . So far the atoms and molecules are winning .
DATED BRENT OIL PRICE SOARS TO $141 A BARREL, HIGHEST SINCE 2008 .
https://x.com/JavierBlas/status/2039745455139999799
Please read the comments section to understand what dated Brent means .
Time Is short. We are super fucked
According to Grok,
Dated Brent is the benchmark price for physical (spot) cargoes of North Sea crude oil—mainly Brent, Forties, Oseberg, Ekofisk, and Troll blends.
Unlike futures, it’s for oil with an assigned loading date (usually 10-25 days ahead), making it the key reference for real-world trading and global oil pricing.
Dated Brent is the price of an oil contract with a tanker and a near-term shipping date attached to it. The claim on the oil can still be bought and sold up until it becomes impractical to do so. Obviously dated Brent is getting bid up today because businesses with deep pockets see TEOTWAWKI following Trump’s catastrophic speech that unofficially represents the point of no return. Ditto WTI. Looking forward to seeing WTI test my $125 for 72hrs call. That’s three business days! Not feeling terribly confident lol.