Cal88 said:
oski003 said:
Cal88 said:
oski003 said:
Cal88 said:
oski003 said:
Cal88 said:
oski003 said:
Cal88 said:
oski003 said:
Cal88 said:
oski003 said:
Tedhead94 the II said:
oski003 said:
bearister said:
"Oil's top players are building their way around the Strait of Hormuz instead of waiting for the fight to end, Axios' Emily Peck writes.
Why it matters: Countries and companies are racing to move oil and gas out of the region without passing through the strait, the world's most important and vulnerable energy chokepoint.
Zoom in: Goldman Sachs analysts identified seven pipeline and infrastructure projects (under construction, planned or deemed feasible) that would allow oil to bypass the strait entirely.
The analysts found that new pipelines under construction or in the works could carry enough oil to replace more than 45% of what Gulf producers used to ship through the strait by the end of next year.
By the end of 2028, the number rises to more than 60%.
Between the lines: These projects could come together fast. Goldman found that similar pipelines have historically taken a median of 2 years to build and even quicker when built in response to a supply crisis."
Axios
That's great news. The current tension appears that international commercial ships are hugging the Oman coast to avoid paying Iran. Iran has tantrum and then attacks them. US responds by firing missiles at Iran. Iran responds by firing missiles at local US allies.
This will totally work. No way a pipeline wouldnt be a drone target but a ship would be.
Wait, we make peace, finish pipelines, and then the terrorist Iran regime and its proxies attack the pipelines? You must think Iran is one of the biggest, terrorist, war-mongering states in the world if they would blow up peaceful pipelines. Then again they are blowing up international commercial ships right now, so you may be right.
It's our oil, just like in Venezuela and Iraq.
Seriously though, they would bomb the ships and terminals in the Arabian and Red seas rather than the pipelines, which are very easy to fix,
The oil is actually owned by either the seller or the buyer of it, depending on the terms of their contracts. Iran is committing war crime and attacking international commercial ships carrying oil and other goods.
Technically, they are attacking the commercial interests of GCC countries that are part of the coalition attacking their country. It's not like they are bombing girl schools and hospitals.
Since that is apparently okay, shouldn't the US be entitled to actually start purposely bombing their bridges, power plants, and other infrastructure. It looks like we have been showing restraint here.
The restraint shown here is mostly because Iran can destroy the GCC energy infrastructure and push the world economy to the brink, ruining the midterm elections and making Trump look like a combination of Hoover and Carter.
So, because they are a crying baby throwing tantrums who is willing to attack all their neighbors' civilian infrastructure, we need to placate them?
All their neighbors have US bases that have been enforcing economic sanctions on them, and we started bombing them first after Trump scrapped a perfectly good JCPOA out of personal vanity and servitude to his main funders.
We also need to placate them because they hold the cards and geography favors them (see the Dardanelles episode in 1915).
They are attacking our allies commercial vessels during a cease fire with them. Even if you disagree with our reasons for attacking them, their continued destruction of civilian infrastructure should be condemned. The pipelines will be easier to defend (and repair) than slow tanker ships because they won't be right next to Iran's coast.
All the oil and gas fields in the area are around the Persian Gulf, within easy bombing range of Iran.
Also I don't get the impression that the Iranians have been striking unprovoked, for all the stereotypes, they are a fairly rational party. I think the problem here is that Trump painted himself in a corner with this MoU and is seeking to renegotiate the terms through force.
Quote:
There weren't tolls. There were only Iran backed Houthis pirating and destroying ships and Iran backed Hezbollah firing rockets at Israel and Iran backed Israel murdering Israeli citizens.
Hezbollah targets Israeli soldiers who have invaded their country, that's actually how they started, with the first Israeli invasion in 1982, they don't target Israeli civilians, the press or first aid and healthcare workers, unlike the Israelis, who have targeted and killed more journalists than in any other war in history.
Israel has killed over 4000 Lebanese, mostly civilians, and destroyed over 50 villages. Your lack of concern for non Israeli civilians is incredibly callous.
Iran destroys these civilian ships "provoked" the same way that the Mafia was provoked when local stores were destroyed because the store owners didn't give them enough of the cut for "protection."
The Israel situation is sad. Israel's neighbors attack our ally Israel. Israel defends themselves, wins, and then takes territory as a "buffer.". In turn, Iran backed Hezbollah and Hamas attack them. Israel fires back. Hamas kidnaps and kills a bunch of Israeli citizens. Israel gets aggressive. Hezbollah fires rockets at Israel. Iran directly attacks Israel. The US attacks Iran.
We've been in the local "protection" business in that area since the 1940s, and in earnest in Iran since we coup'd their government in '53 and took over their oil.
Israel is the only country in the world that doesn't define its borders, because they are an expansionist settler-colonial project that view the entire Levant region as their God-given right. Lebanon and southern Syria are on their menu now, with the blessing of the bought out Trump administration.
The only people who still buy the "Israel is defending itself" narrative are Fox Boomers and zionists, the majority of Americans and Europeans understand that Israel is not an ally but a pariah state committing genocide.
Israel is not the only country without universally agreed-upon or codified borders. While its boundaries with Egypt and Jordan are formalized in peace treaties, its borders with Syria and Lebanon are armistice lines, and its boundaries with the West Bank and Gaza are heavily disputed and subject to ongoing political conflict.
Many other countries and regions operate with undefined, shifting, or heavily disputed boundaries due to ongoing geopolitical conflicts, territorial claims, or cartographic ambiguity:Palestine: Its borders are contested and fundamentally entangled with Israel's, as both lay claims to the same territories.
India and China: The exact Line of Actual Control (LAC) is not formally delineated, leading to frequent standoffs in regions like Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh.
Armenia and Azerbaijan: Portions of their boundaries, particularly in enclaves, remain heavily militarized and undelimited following decades of conflict.
Canada: While having a well-defined southern border with the United States, Canada's exact northern border stretching into the Arctic Ocean and the geographic North Pole has complex and disputed claims.Cartographic platforms like Google Maps notoriously avoid drawing definite borders around over 30 countries and regions with active border disputes.
Because "defining borders" involves mutual recognition between sovereign states, international law considers the definition of a border to be fluid and contingent on bilateral or multilateral treaties rather than a static characteristic unique to a single nation.
