In other words, Washington now faces three difficult paths: end the conflict under conditions that may allow Iran to claim a strategic victory; continue the current campaign and risk prolonged instability and rising global energy prices; or expand the war and trigger a major regional escalation.
Time is not neutral in this equation. Each passing day hardens Tehran’s perception that it can withstand the pressure and emerge from the crisis with the upper hand.
(part of a longer tweet on where the US now stands strategically)
What remains astonishing is that this was blindingly obvious in advance to anyone who spent a couple of minutes thinking about how this was likely to develop. Just brainless.
So, where do we go from here? I think Hormuz will be impassable without Iranian permission for months unless the US invades and secures the opposite bank. This will bring US forces within range for a lot more of Iran's arsenal. Casualties will be 20 or more to 1 given US air and missile power but my guess is that Iran can much more easily absorb 100k-500k casualties than Trump can endure 5-25k. This is a country that sustained up to 1m casualties in their war with Saddam.
Trying to capture and then hold a country of more than 90m would take far more troops than the US has. They can destroy a lot of the country, they can impose Gaza style carnage but it is really not obvious how they actually win. There may come a point when Trump wants to talk about Epstein instead.
It is the Tories and Reform's mission to hang the blame for this situation where it belongs - a catastrophic energy policy whereby British deomstic energy was already some of the world's most expensive, and our industrial energy was already the world's most expensive. We cannot control what happens in the world. We can (and should) ensure we have a robust mixed energy system whereby we are a net exporter of energy, and the domestic hydrocarbon industry is a huge part of that. PM has neither the balls nor the brains to change energy policy or get rid of the economy destroyer out of the energy department, so there's nothing he can do except take it.
Iranian decision makers indicate that the Americans appear to be failing to understand that, for Iran, this is an existential war. In such a context, nothing is considered too precious to sacrifice.
With the approval of the new leader, Sayyed Mojataba Khamenei, it was agreed that if the US strikes or lands on any Iranian installations, Tehran is prepared to escalate dramatically.
Possible approved responses include: 1. Closure of Bab el Mandeb and attacks on Red Sea ports exporting oil, expanding the war to a vital global shipping route. 2. Total destruction of any island used by US forces as a staging ground, even if it means destroying Iranian installations worth billions of dollars and oil depots containing millions of barrels. 3. Complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its declaration as a war theatre, turning the world’s most critical energy chokepoint into an active battlefield. 4. All US locations in the Middle East are considered legitimate targets
Other plans have also been approved for different scenarios.
Can Iran defeat the rest of the world? That seems unlikely. Trying to blockade the Red Sea, Suez Canal, and permanently closing the Straits means they’re bringing Egypt and Saudi Arabia into the war against them, perhaps Turkey and China, too.
I'm sure if the alternative is to be sodomized by a bayonet the Ayatollahs, IRGC, Basji and Hizbollah would be willing to try.
Truthfully the fact we are even talking about this as a remote possibility shows how mahoosively Trump has fucked up here.
Not Netanyahu so much, because it will vindicate his claims about Iran. But for Trump, this could ironically become existential.
It makes sense to offer authoritarian rulers the option of a comfortable retirement.
The days of offering dictators a comfortable retirement abroad with a big sack of cash are gone. The international lawyer types are too keen on justice.
That 34% ethical is interesting in so much as it mirrors the Labour vote in 2024.
I don't believe the question "is Starmer unethical or ethical" is the best question. "Does Starmer appear ethical or unethical" would generate a much sharper divergence
I'd like him to fall on his sword, the level of hatred against the man is off the scale and a distraction for functional government. Some of that contempt is well deserved (he is shockingly bad at politics) but a great deal has been confected by the media due to his demand for a second Referendum and his undermining poor Boris.
Speaking of hatred, Miliband's doing his bit to stir up a little against the evil private sector, who are clearly raising fuel prices for reasons unrelated to any real world events. Ahem. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626mdvn6d5o
Feel sorry for those working in petrol stations getting abuse because the green zealot's trying to blame the private sector ahead of a potential government hike in income tax because a moron in America didn't realise starting an unplanned, pointless war in the Middle East had the obvious consequence of a rise in oil prices.
We discussed this yesterday. Are the retailers price gouging? Some said yes, some said they are entitled to increase the retail price of their current stock in anticipation of the increased cost of the next delivery.
We did agree that those abusing minimum wage cashiers at petrol stations deserve their own place in idiot's corner/ Hell.
Besides- the free market selling price of everything is as much as the seller can get away with. Always has been, that's how the system is meant to work. The only question is what mechanisms stop that price being all but infinite.
(Same as the free market buying price of a thing is the lowest the seller can be persuaded/forced to swallow. Those two things don't have to overlap, but when they do, wonderful things can happen.)
Well yes, supply and demand enters the picture. One man's profiteering is another man's sound economics.
It's not quite as simple as that - it's long been known that competition in this sector is rather weak. There's considerable market power and the CMA has been investigating it for some time. In that case profiteering is sound economics.
This is one of those topics where PB is out of touch with public sentiment - just check out the comments on the BBC article. And blaming the government for abusive behaviour from some motorists to retail staff is just...mad.
That is mostly because the public are dumb and ill informed. Moreover they have no interest in informing themselves of reality. Ask them how much the retailer makes on a litre of petrol and very few would go anywhere near as low as 8%.
For reference the retailer mark up on most high street non food products is between 25% and 30%. Books as high as 40%. Amazon generally ask for up to 60%.
With the Government taking 52% I would suggest the public anger is very much misdirected.
You're right - but a tax cut here means a rise elsewhere, all else held equal. Indeed duties are likely to fall during this crisis because they are fixed in absolute terms.
Fuel duty is typically assessed one of the "better" taxes because it's unavoidable, doesn't distort the market too much, and is pretty inelastic (at least before EVs came in). It's also something of a price moderator because it's a fixed, rather than a percentage like VAT. With the exception of VAT and income tax, I can't think of better way to raise revenue tbh.
When a tax forms the majority of the cost of an item that is so fundemental to almost every other aspect of our economy then you really need to question whther it is a wise tax policy choice. The Government will happily blame increase in fuel costs when inflation sky rockets but will quietly forget that they have it within their power to mitigate those cost increases.
Any rumour that Katie has been in talks with Reform about joining them is categorically untrue. Katie is not going anywhere and fully backs Kemi who is doing a great job both as Leader and of demolishing this disastrous Labour government."
I'm not going anywhere. Kemi is doing a fantastic job. I'm more convinced than ever that the solutions to the country's problems are Conservative solutions, and the Conservative Party will implement them.
The messaging from Israel seems to suggest they've settled on a get-out clause: it's now up to the people of Iran to rise up and overthrow the regime; if they fail to do that then - oh well - you can't say we didn't provide them with an opportunity.
Iranian decision makers indicate that the Americans appear to be failing to understand that, for Iran, this is an existential war. In such a context, nothing is considered too precious to sacrifice.
With the approval of the new leader, Sayyed Mojataba Khamenei, it was agreed that if the US strikes or lands on any Iranian installations, Tehran is prepared to escalate dramatically.
Possible approved responses include: 1. Closure of Bab el Mandeb and attacks on Red Sea ports exporting oil, expanding the war to a vital global shipping route. 2. Total destruction of any island used by US forces as a staging ground, even if it means destroying Iranian installations worth billions of dollars and oil depots containing millions of barrels. 3. Complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its declaration as a war theatre, turning the world’s most critical energy chokepoint into an active battlefield. 4. All US locations in the Middle East are considered legitimate targets
Other plans have also been approved for different scenarios.
Possibly true but the issue for the rest of us is that the US Administration doesn't appear to care.
Trump might even see it as good for business (and a great deal of insider trading opportunities), given the US position as the world's largest oil producer. It's not as though he gives a damn for the world economy.
That is the paradox. High oil prices are bad for American consumers (and voters) but excellent news for American squillionaires who rub shoulders with the president and bankroll Republicans.
That 34% ethical is interesting in so much as it mirrors the Labour vote in 2024.
I don't believe the question "is Starmer unethical or ethical" is the best question. "Does Starmer appear ethical or unethical" would generate a much sharper divergence
I'd like him to fall on his sword, the level of hatred against the man is off the scale and a distraction for functional government. Some of that contempt is well deserved (he is shockingly bad at politics) but a great deal has been confected by the media due to his demand for a second Referendum and his undermining poor Boris.
Speaking of hatred, Miliband's doing his bit to stir up a little against the evil private sector, who are clearly raising fuel prices for reasons unrelated to any real world events. Ahem. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626mdvn6d5o
Feel sorry for those working in petrol stations getting abuse because the green zealot's trying to blame the private sector ahead of a potential government hike in income tax because a moron in America didn't realise starting an unplanned, pointless war in the Middle East had the obvious consequence of a rise in oil prices.
We discussed this yesterday. Are the retailers price gouging? Some said yes, some said they are entitled to increase the retail price of their current stock in anticipation of the increased cost of the next delivery.
We did agree that those abusing minimum wage cashiers at petrol stations deserve their own place in idiot's corner/ Hell.
Besides- the free market selling price of everything is as much as the seller can get away with. Always has been, that's how the system is meant to work. The only question is what mechanisms stop that price being all but infinite.
(Same as the free market buying price of a thing is the lowest the seller can be persuaded/forced to swallow. Those two things don't have to overlap, but when they do, wonderful things can happen.)
Well yes, supply and demand enters the picture. One man's profiteering is another man's sound economics.
It's not quite as simple as that - it's long been known that competition in this sector is rather weak. There's considerable market power and the CMA has been investigating it for some time. In that case profiteering is sound economics.
This is one of those topics where PB is out of touch with public sentiment - just check out the comments on the BBC article. And blaming the government for abusive behaviour from some motorists to retail staff is just...mad.
Public sentiment is they dont like high energy prices.
Milibands policy of raining prices will bite Labour in the arse.
Miliband is the reason British forces didn't take part in the initial strike on Iran which has caused this mess in the first place. He's also advocating the kind of energy that isn't vulnerable to whims of the Iranian regime of Vladimir Putin. In the battle of political narratives, I think he's in a reasonably strong position.
(Though I must say I've been disappointed the government isn't pushing that point more forcefully).
Yep. Labour should definitely pin the UK energy situation on Miliband. Incredibly high and rising prices being down to him is just the ticket.
I expect Reeves will give in on North Sea licences as economic reality kicks in
What in the last eighteen months makes you think that Reeves has any connection to, or even awareness of, economic reality?
O&G only represents about 1% of the UK economy. Issuing some new licenses isn't going to boost that to any significant degree, and won't have a material effect for several years, and it's trending downwards anyway. Long term decisions aren't going to be made on a oil/gas price that we hope is only temporarily inflated.
Those suggesting this will solve our economic and fiscal woes in the face of an energy crisis are those with no connection to economic reality. #everylittlehelps though, I guess.
Who exactly has ever suggested that?
Quotation required.
Otherwise that's not even a strawman.
BigG. He seems to think opening up licences will solve this.
The whole response from those instinctively opposed to Net Zero, renewables etc has been risible - we're currently living through our second hydrocarbons crisis in four years and people are still clinging to the idea that our green energy policy is to blame for high prices.
There is a great deal of our green energy policy that is responsible for high prices. It’s just he “policy” but not the “green energy” bit.
Loading the cost of transition onto retail bills or pegging pricing to natural gas prices being two examples.
Though the first of those is about to be undone by the government. (Which of their predecessors introduced it, and why?)
And the second should be about to resolve itself, shouldn't it? The next few tranches of solar and wind, together with battery storage, ought to create meaningful periods of time where gas isn't setting the price. We got close last year, but not quite.
Don't talk sense or renewable fact to these zealots. They have oil in their swimming pools so that they can worship it
Why is linking the price of wind energy to gas so vital? There are arguments for it and against it.
Ultimately, we need to get away from the belief that higher energy prices help the transition to Net Zero. This was predicated, in the past, on the idea that all the alternatives were more expensive.
But we have solar being much cheaper than other generation methods and still falling. Solar + battery storage is going to get there soon. Electric cars are crossing over to be cheaper than ICE.
In which case, strangling economic output with high energy prices reduces growth in the economy. The growth which pays for things like investment - and newer equipment and vehicles are nearly universally better for the environment than their predecessors. See the long, slow standards improvements in so many areas.
That 34% ethical is interesting in so much as it mirrors the Labour vote in 2024.
I don't believe the question "is Starmer unethical or ethical" is the best question. "Does Starmer appear ethical or unethical" would generate a much sharper divergence
I'd like him to fall on his sword, the level of hatred against the man is off the scale and a distraction for functional government. Some of that contempt is well deserved (he is shockingly bad at politics) but a great deal has been confected by the media due to his demand for a second Referendum and his undermining poor Boris.
Speaking of hatred, Miliband's doing his bit to stir up a little against the evil private sector, who are clearly raising fuel prices for reasons unrelated to any real world events. Ahem. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626mdvn6d5o
Feel sorry for those working in petrol stations getting abuse because the green zealot's trying to blame the private sector ahead of a potential government hike in income tax because a moron in America didn't realise starting an unplanned, pointless war in the Middle East had the obvious consequence of a rise in oil prices.
We discussed this yesterday. Are the retailers price gouging? Some said yes, some said they are entitled to increase the retail price of their current stock in anticipation of the increased cost of the next delivery.
We did agree that those abusing minimum wage cashiers at petrol stations deserve their own place in idiot's corner/ Hell.
Besides- the free market selling price of everything is as much as the seller can get away with. Always has been, that's how the system is meant to work. The only question is what mechanisms stop that price being all but infinite.
(Same as the free market buying price of a thing is the lowest the seller can be persuaded/forced to swallow. Those two things don't have to overlap, but when they do, wonderful things can happen.)
Well yes, supply and demand enters the picture. One man's profiteering is another man's sound economics.
It's not quite as simple as that - it's long been known that competition in this sector is rather weak. There's considerable market power and the CMA has been investigating it for some time. In that case profiteering is sound economics.
This is one of those topics where PB is out of touch with public sentiment - just check out the comments on the BBC article. And blaming the government for abusive behaviour from some motorists to retail staff is just...mad.
Public sentiment is they dont like high energy prices.
Milibands policy of raining prices will bite Labour in the arse.
Miliband is the reason British forces didn't take part in the initial strike on Iran which has caused this mess in the first place. He's also advocating the kind of energy that isn't vulnerable to whims of the Iranian regime of Vladimir Putin. In the battle of political narratives, I think he's in a reasonably strong position.
(Though I must say I've been disappointed the government isn't pushing that point more forcefully).
Yep. Labour should definitely pin the UK energy situation on Miliband. Incredibly high and rising prices being down to him is just the ticket.
I expect Reeves will give in on North Sea licences as economic reality kicks in
What in the last eighteen months makes you think that Reeves has any connection to, or even awareness of, economic reality?
O&G only represents about 1% of the UK economy. Issuing some new licenses isn't going to boost that to any significant degree, and won't have a material effect for several years, and it's trending downwards anyway. Long term decisions aren't going to be made on a oil/gas price that we hope is only temporarily inflated.
Those suggesting this will solve our economic and fiscal woes in the face of an energy crisis are those with no connection to economic reality. #everylittlehelps though, I guess.
Who exactly has ever suggested that?
Quotation required.
Otherwise that's not even a strawman.
BigG. He seems to think opening up licences will solve this.
The whole response from those instinctively opposed to Net Zero, renewables etc has been risible - we're currently living through our second hydrocarbons crisis in four years and people are still clinging to the idea that our green energy policy is to blame for high prices.
There is a great deal of our green energy policy that is responsible for high prices. It’s just he “policy” but not the “green energy” bit.
Loading the cost of transition onto retail bills or pegging pricing to natural gas prices being two examples.
Though the first of those is about to be undone by the government. (Which of their predecessors introduced it, and why?)
And the second should be about to resolve itself, shouldn't it? The next few tranches of solar and wind, together with battery storage, ought to create meaningful periods of time where gas isn't setting the price. We got close last year, but not quite.
(As an aside I have zero truck with the “a big bad boy did it and ran away” argument. They’ve been in government 2 years. If they haven’t changed the policy or set out plans to change it then they own it.
That 34% ethical is interesting in so much as it mirrors the Labour vote in 2024.
I don't believe the question "is Starmer unethical or ethical" is the best question. "Does Starmer appear ethical or unethical" would generate a much sharper divergence
I'd like him to fall on his sword, the level of hatred against the man is off the scale and a distraction for functional government. Some of that contempt is well deserved (he is shockingly bad at politics) but a great deal has been confected by the media due to his demand for a second Referendum and his undermining poor Boris.
Speaking of hatred, Miliband's doing his bit to stir up a little against the evil private sector, who are clearly raising fuel prices for reasons unrelated to any real world events. Ahem. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626mdvn6d5o
Feel sorry for those working in petrol stations getting abuse because the green zealot's trying to blame the private sector ahead of a potential government hike in income tax because a moron in America didn't realise starting an unplanned, pointless war in the Middle East had the obvious consequence of a rise in oil prices.
We discussed this yesterday. Are the retailers price gouging? Some said yes, some said they are entitled to increase the retail price of their current stock in anticipation of the increased cost of the next delivery.
We did agree that those abusing minimum wage cashiers at petrol stations deserve their own place in idiot's corner/ Hell.
Besides- the free market selling price of everything is as much as the seller can get away with. Always has been, that's how the system is meant to work. The only question is what mechanisms stop that price being all but infinite.
(Same as the free market buying price of a thing is the lowest the seller can be persuaded/forced to swallow. Those two things don't have to overlap, but when they do, wonderful things can happen.)
Well yes, supply and demand enters the picture. One man's profiteering is another man's sound economics.
It's not quite as simple as that - it's long been known that competition in this sector is rather weak. There's considerable market power and the CMA has been investigating it for some time. In that case profiteering is sound economics.
This is one of those topics where PB is out of touch with public sentiment - just check out the comments on the BBC article. And blaming the government for abusive behaviour from some motorists to retail staff is just...mad.
Public sentiment is they dont like high energy prices.
Milibands policy of raining prices will bite Labour in the arse.
Miliband is the reason British forces didn't take part in the initial strike on Iran which has caused this mess in the first place. He's also advocating the kind of energy that isn't vulnerable to whims of the Iranian regime of Vladimir Putin. In the battle of political narratives, I think he's in a reasonably strong position.
(Though I must say I've been disappointed the government isn't pushing that point more forcefully).
Yep. Labour should definitely pin the UK energy situation on Miliband. Incredibly high and rising prices being down to him is just the ticket.
I expect Reeves will give in on North Sea licences as economic reality kicks in
What in the last eighteen months makes you think that Reeves has any connection to, or even awareness of, economic reality?
O&G only represents about 1% of the UK economy. Issuing some new licenses isn't going to boost that to any significant degree, and won't have a material effect for several years, and it's trending downwards anyway. Long term decisions aren't going to be made on a oil/gas price that we hope is only temporarily inflated.
Those suggesting this will solve our economic and fiscal woes in the face of an energy crisis are those with no connection to economic reality. #everylittlehelps though, I guess.
Who exactly has ever suggested that?
Quotation required.
Otherwise that's not even a strawman.
BigG. He seems to think opening up licences will solve this.
The whole response from those instinctively opposed to Net Zero, renewables etc has been risible - we're currently living through our second hydrocarbons crisis in four years and people are still clinging to the idea that our green energy policy is to blame for high prices.
There is a great deal of our green energy policy that is responsible for high prices. It’s just he “policy” but not the “green energy” bit.
Loading the cost of transition onto retail bills or pegging pricing to natural gas prices being two examples.
Though the first of those is about to be undone by the government. (Which of their predecessors introduced it, and why?)
And the second should be about to resolve itself, shouldn't it? The next few tranches of solar and wind, together with battery storage, ought to create meaningful periods of time where gas isn't setting the price. We got close last year, but not quite.
Don't talk sense or renewable fact to these zealots. They have oil in their swimming pools so that they can worship it
Why is linking the price of wind energy to gas so vital? There are arguments for it and against it.
Ultimately, we need to get away from the belief that higher energy prices help the transition to Net Zero. This was predicated, in the past, on the idea that all the alternatives were more expensive.
But we have solar being much cheaper than other generation methods and still falling. Solar + battery storage is going to get there soon. Electric cars are crossing over to be cheaper than ICE.
In which case, strangling economic output with high energy prices reduces growth in the economy. The growth which pays for things like investment - and newer equipment and vehicles are nearly universally better for the environment than their predecessors. See the long, slow standards improvements in so many areas.
So economic growth is key to net zero.
I find there is no real point arguing these things with Brixian. As we saw yesterday he positively wallows in his own ignorance over such matters and has little interest in facts when they contradict his perception.
That 34% ethical is interesting in so much as it mirrors the Labour vote in 2024.
I don't believe the question "is Starmer unethical or ethical" is the best question. "Does Starmer appear ethical or unethical" would generate a much sharper divergence
I'd like him to fall on his sword, the level of hatred against the man is off the scale and a distraction for functional government. Some of that contempt is well deserved (he is shockingly bad at politics) but a great deal has been confected by the media due to his demand for a second Referendum and his undermining poor Boris.
Speaking of hatred, Miliband's doing his bit to stir up a little against the evil private sector, who are clearly raising fuel prices for reasons unrelated to any real world events. Ahem. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626mdvn6d5o
Feel sorry for those working in petrol stations getting abuse because the green zealot's trying to blame the private sector ahead of a potential government hike in income tax because a moron in America didn't realise starting an unplanned, pointless war in the Middle East had the obvious consequence of a rise in oil prices.
We discussed this yesterday. Are the retailers price gouging? Some said yes, some said they are entitled to increase the retail price of their current stock in anticipation of the increased cost of the next delivery.
We did agree that those abusing minimum wage cashiers at petrol stations deserve their own place in idiot's corner/ Hell.
Besides- the free market selling price of everything is as much as the seller can get away with. Always has been, that's how the system is meant to work. The only question is what mechanisms stop that price being all but infinite.
(Same as the free market buying price of a thing is the lowest the seller can be persuaded/forced to swallow. Those two things don't have to overlap, but when they do, wonderful things can happen.)
Well yes, supply and demand enters the picture. One man's profiteering is another man's sound economics.
It's not quite as simple as that - it's long been known that competition in this sector is rather weak. There's considerable market power and the CMA has been investigating it for some time. In that case profiteering is sound economics.
This is one of those topics where PB is out of touch with public sentiment - just check out the comments on the BBC article. And blaming the government for abusive behaviour from some motorists to retail staff is just...mad.
Public sentiment is they dont like high energy prices.
Milibands policy of raining prices will bite Labour in the arse.
Miliband is the reason British forces didn't take part in the initial strike on Iran which has caused this mess in the first place. He's also advocating the kind of energy that isn't vulnerable to whims of the Iranian regime of Vladimir Putin. In the battle of political narratives, I think he's in a reasonably strong position.
(Though I must say I've been disappointed the government isn't pushing that point more forcefully).
Yep. Labour should definitely pin the UK energy situation on Miliband. Incredibly high and rising prices being down to him is just the ticket.
I expect Reeves will give in on North Sea licences as economic reality kicks in
What in the last eighteen months makes you think that Reeves has any connection to, or even awareness of, economic reality?
O&G only represents about 1% of the UK economy. Issuing some new licenses isn't going to boost that to any significant degree, and won't have a material effect for several years, and it's trending downwards anyway. Long term decisions aren't going to be made on a oil/gas price that we hope is only temporarily inflated.
Those suggesting this will solve our economic and fiscal woes in the face of an energy crisis are those with no connection to economic reality. #everylittlehelps though, I guess.
Who exactly has ever suggested that?
Quotation required.
Otherwise that's not even a strawman.
BigG. He seems to think opening up licences will solve this.
The whole response from those instinctively opposed to Net Zero, renewables etc has been risible - we're currently living through our second hydrocarbons crisis in four years and people are still clinging to the idea that our green energy policy is to blame for high prices.
There is a great deal of our green energy policy that is responsible for high prices. It’s just he “policy” but not the “green energy” bit.
Loading the cost of transition onto retail bills or pegging pricing to natural gas prices being two examples.
I’ve seen social media suggestions that at some point soon independent garages are going to start breaking down petrol prices.
Why don't they already ? (The first two items of course would blur the truth quite a bit.)
Well there’s definitely a law that says the actual sale price must be advertised at a petrol station, and there’s definitely a law that says you can’t be misleading in your advertising.
I’d take a guess that trying to break down prices isn’t allowed at the point of sale itself, but an indy garage might want to do it and look to gain publicity from the resulting court case.
If they displayed the amount of tax paid alongside the headline price that would breach neither law, since it moves exactly in line with the retail price.
Only partially. Some of it is duty (fixed per litre) and some of it is VAT (percentage based)
Iranian decision makers indicate that the Americans appear to be failing to understand that, for Iran, this is an existential war. In such a context, nothing is considered too precious to sacrifice.
With the approval of the new leader, Sayyed Mojataba Khamenei, it was agreed that if the US strikes or lands on any Iranian installations, Tehran is prepared to escalate dramatically.
Possible approved responses include: 1. Closure of Bab el Mandeb and attacks on Red Sea ports exporting oil, expanding the war to a vital global shipping route. 2. Total destruction of any island used by US forces as a staging ground, even if it means destroying Iranian installations worth billions of dollars and oil depots containing millions of barrels. 3. Complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its declaration as a war theatre, turning the world’s most critical energy chokepoint into an active battlefield. 4. All US locations in the Middle East are considered legitimate targets
Other plans have also been approved for different scenarios.
Possibly true but the issue for the rest of us is that the US Administration doesn't appear to care.
Trump might even see it as good for business (and a great deal of insider trading opportunities), given the US position as the world's largest oil producer. It's not as though he gives a damn for the world economy.
That is the paradox. High oil prices are bad for American consumers (and voters) but excellent news for American squillionaires who rub shoulders with the president and bankroll Republicans.
As I may have said before, watch out for the export restrictions on American O&G. They’re now pretty much self-sufficient, and can probably hold ‘gas’ (petrol) prices down ahead of the mid terms.
It is the Tories and Reform's mission to hang the blame for this situation where it belongs - a catastrophic energy policy whereby British deomstic energy was already some of the world's most expensive, and our industrial energy was already the world's most expensive. We cannot control what happens in the world. We can (and should) ensure we have a robust mixed energy system whereby we are a net exporter of energy, and the domestic hydrocarbon industry is a huge part of that. PM has neither the balls nor the brains to change energy policy or get rid of the economy destroyer out of the energy department, so there's nothing he can do except take it.
A domestic hydrocarbon industry doesn’t protect you against high oil prices. What does is a decarbonised energy industry.
Any rumour that Katie has been in talks with Reform about joining them is categorically untrue. Katie is not going anywhere and fully backs Kemi who is doing a great job both as Leader and of demolishing this disastrous Labour government."
I'm not going anywhere. Kemi is doing a fantastic job. I'm more convinced than ever that the solutions to the country's problems are Conservative solutions, and the Conservative Party will implement them.
Any rumour that Katie has been in talks with Reform about joining them is categorically untrue. Katie is not going anywhere and fully backs Kemi who is doing a great job both as Leader and of demolishing this disastrous Labour government."
I'm not going anywhere. Kemi is doing a fantastic job. I'm more convinced than ever that the solutions to the country's problems are Conservative solutions, and the Conservative Party will implement them.
Iranian decision makers indicate that the Americans appear to be failing to understand that, for Iran, this is an existential war. In such a context, nothing is considered too precious to sacrifice.
With the approval of the new leader, Sayyed Mojataba Khamenei, it was agreed that if the US strikes or lands on any Iranian installations, Tehran is prepared to escalate dramatically.
Possible approved responses include: 1. Closure of Bab el Mandeb and attacks on Red Sea ports exporting oil, expanding the war to a vital global shipping route. 2. Total destruction of any island used by US forces as a staging ground, even if it means destroying Iranian installations worth billions of dollars and oil depots containing millions of barrels. 3. Complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its declaration as a war theatre, turning the world’s most critical energy chokepoint into an active battlefield. 4. All US locations in the Middle East are considered legitimate targets
Other plans have also been approved for different scenarios.
It may be an existential war for the Ayatollahs and IRGC but whether the Iranian people, especially the non-Persians among them them agree is a different matter.
As Ayatollah Khomeini said when Iran faced economic hardship back in the 1980s, we did not fight this revolution for watermelons. For religious hardliners, austerity is a lesser concern than the need for cheap fruit for the populace.
The Iranian people cannot do much while the regime has all the guns, as we saw when 30,000 were slaughtered just weeks ago when they wrongly thought America had their backs.
Any rumour that Katie has been in talks with Reform about joining them is categorically untrue. Katie is not going anywhere and fully backs Kemi who is doing a great job both as Leader and of demolishing this disastrous Labour government."
I'm not going anywhere. Kemi is doing a fantastic job. I'm more convinced than ever that the solutions to the country's problems are Conservative solutions, and the Conservative Party will implement them.
Anecdata: my Dubai moles report only occasional noise nuisance from the neighbouring war zone but are worried about the long term consequences for investment into the emirate. Meanwhile, horseracing continues even as Formula 1 exits the Middle East.
Iranian decision makers indicate that the Americans appear to be failing to understand that, for Iran, this is an existential war. In such a context, nothing is considered too precious to sacrifice.
With the approval of the new leader, Sayyed Mojataba Khamenei, it was agreed that if the US strikes or lands on any Iranian installations, Tehran is prepared to escalate dramatically.
Possible approved responses include: 1. Closure of Bab el Mandeb and attacks on Red Sea ports exporting oil, expanding the war to a vital global shipping route. 2. Total destruction of any island used by US forces as a staging ground, even if it means destroying Iranian installations worth billions of dollars and oil depots containing millions of barrels. 3. Complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its declaration as a war theatre, turning the world’s most critical energy chokepoint into an active battlefield. 4. All US locations in the Middle East are considered legitimate targets
Other plans have also been approved for different scenarios.
Possibly true but the issue for the rest of us is that the US Administration doesn't appear to care.
Trump might even see it as good for business (and a great deal of insider trading opportunities), given the US position as the world's largest oil producer. It's not as though he gives a damn for the world economy.
That is the paradox. High oil prices are bad for American consumers (and voters) but excellent news for American squillionaires who rub shoulders with the president and bankroll Republicans.
As I may have said before, watch out for the export restrictions on American O&G. They’re now pretty much self-sufficient, and can probably hold ‘gas’ (petrol) prices down ahead of the mid terms.
To do that would mean US O&G companies losing out on lots of money. When push comes to shove, Trump usually sides with the big companies over the public, particularly if the big companies make some… um… donations to a new ballroom or the Board of Peace.
That 34% ethical is interesting in so much as it mirrors the Labour vote in 2024.
I don't believe the question "is Starmer unethical or ethical" is the best question. "Does Starmer appear ethical or unethical" would generate a much sharper divergence
I'd like him to fall on his sword, the level of hatred against the man is off the scale and a distraction for functional government. Some of that contempt is well deserved (he is shockingly bad at politics) but a great deal has been confected by the media due to his demand for a second Referendum and his undermining poor Boris.
Speaking of hatred, Miliband's doing his bit to stir up a little against the evil private sector, who are clearly raising fuel prices for reasons unrelated to any real world events. Ahem. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626mdvn6d5o
Feel sorry for those working in petrol stations getting abuse because the green zealot's trying to blame the private sector ahead of a potential government hike in income tax because a moron in America didn't realise starting an unplanned, pointless war in the Middle East had the obvious consequence of a rise in oil prices.
We discussed this yesterday. Are the retailers price gouging? Some said yes, some said they are entitled to increase the retail price of their current stock in anticipation of the increased cost of the next delivery.
We did agree that those abusing minimum wage cashiers at petrol stations deserve their own place in idiot's corner/ Hell.
Besides- the free market selling price of everything is as much as the seller can get away with. Always has been, that's how the system is meant to work. The only question is what mechanisms stop that price being all but infinite.
(Same as the free market buying price of a thing is the lowest the seller can be persuaded/forced to swallow. Those two things don't have to overlap, but when they do, wonderful things can happen.)
Well yes, supply and demand enters the picture. One man's profiteering is another man's sound economics.
It's not quite as simple as that - it's long been known that competition in this sector is rather weak. There's considerable market power and the CMA has been investigating it for some time. In that case profiteering is sound economics.
This is one of those topics where PB is out of touch with public sentiment - just check out the comments on the BBC article. And blaming the government for abusive behaviour from some motorists to retail staff is just...mad.
Public sentiment is they dont like high energy prices.
Milibands policy of raining prices will bite Labour in the arse.
Miliband is the reason British forces didn't take part in the initial strike on Iran which has caused this mess in the first place. He's also advocating the kind of energy that isn't vulnerable to whims of the Iranian regime of Vladimir Putin. In the battle of political narratives, I think he's in a reasonably strong position.
(Though I must say I've been disappointed the government isn't pushing that point more forcefully).
Yep. Labour should definitely pin the UK energy situation on Miliband. Incredibly high and rising prices being down to him is just the ticket.
I expect Reeves will give in on North Sea licences as economic reality kicks in
What in the last eighteen months makes you think that Reeves has any connection to, or even awareness of, economic reality?
O&G only represents about 1% of the UK economy. Issuing some new licenses isn't going to boost that to any significant degree, and won't have a material effect for several years, and it's trending downwards anyway. Long term decisions aren't going to be made on a oil/gas price that we hope is only temporarily inflated.
Those suggesting this will solve our economic and fiscal woes in the face of an energy crisis are those with no connection to economic reality. #everylittlehelps though, I guess.
Who exactly has ever suggested that?
Quotation required.
Otherwise that's not even a strawman.
BigG. He seems to think opening up licences will solve this.
The whole response from those instinctively opposed to Net Zero, renewables etc has been risible - we're currently living through our second hydrocarbons crisis in four years and people are still clinging to the idea that our green energy policy is to blame for high prices.
There is a great deal of our green energy policy that is responsible for high prices. It’s just he “policy” but not the “green energy” bit.
Loading the cost of transition onto retail bills or pegging pricing to natural gas prices being two examples.
I’ve seen social media suggestions that at some point soon independent garages are going to start breaking down petrol prices.
Why don't they already ? (The first two items of course would blur the truth quite a bit.)
Well there’s definitely a law that says the actual sale price must be advertised at a petrol station, and there’s definitely a law that says you can’t be misleading in your advertising.
I’d take a guess that trying to break down prices isn’t allowed at the point of sale itself, but an indy garage might want to do it and look to gain publicity from the resulting court case.
If they displayed the amount of tax paid alongside the headline price that would breach neither law, since it moves exactly in line with the retail price.
Only partially. Some of it is duty (fixed per litre) and some of it is VAT (percentage based)
Surely Vat is already quoted separately anyway. So quoting duty separately as well should be easy.
The fictitious bit is the price of fuel. At the moment the cost of the fuel in the tanks is much less than the open market price. So quoting it wouldn't help their case.
And of course BP is selling itself fuel at the inflated price, so will be making excess profits further down the line.
Of course in capitalism, companies should be able to make excess profits, but only if they are also allowed to make excess losses when they f*** up.
What economic recovery? Even before Iran war, growth was being revised down and predicted piss poor 1-1.5% every year until the GE...Such low growth combined with ever higher taxes, nobody is going to be claiming geez Starmer / Reeves have put rocket boosters in economic recovery.
I think it helps to think about two parallel wars. US & Israel waging a highly effective war of attrition against Iranian military & naval capabilities. Iran waging a highly effective war to spike oil price and destabilise global energy markets. Neither running out of steam.
That 34% ethical is interesting in so much as it mirrors the Labour vote in 2024.
I don't believe the question "is Starmer unethical or ethical" is the best question. "Does Starmer appear ethical or unethical" would generate a much sharper divergence
I'd like him to fall on his sword, the level of hatred against the man is off the scale and a distraction for functional government. Some of that contempt is well deserved (he is shockingly bad at politics) but a great deal has been confected by the media due to his demand for a second Referendum and his undermining poor Boris.
Speaking of hatred, Miliband's doing his bit to stir up a little against the evil private sector, who are clearly raising fuel prices for reasons unrelated to any real world events. Ahem. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626mdvn6d5o
Feel sorry for those working in petrol stations getting abuse because the green zealot's trying to blame the private sector ahead of a potential government hike in income tax because a moron in America didn't realise starting an unplanned, pointless war in the Middle East had the obvious consequence of a rise in oil prices.
We discussed this yesterday. Are the retailers price gouging? Some said yes, some said they are entitled to increase the retail price of their current stock in anticipation of the increased cost of the next delivery.
We did agree that those abusing minimum wage cashiers at petrol stations deserve their own place in idiot's corner/ Hell.
Besides- the free market selling price of everything is as much as the seller can get away with. Always has been, that's how the system is meant to work. The only question is what mechanisms stop that price being all but infinite.
(Same as the free market buying price of a thing is the lowest the seller can be persuaded/forced to swallow. Those two things don't have to overlap, but when they do, wonderful things can happen.)
Well yes, supply and demand enters the picture. One man's profiteering is another man's sound economics.
It's not quite as simple as that - it's long been known that competition in this sector is rather weak. There's considerable market power and the CMA has been investigating it for some time. In that case profiteering is sound economics.
This is one of those topics where PB is out of touch with public sentiment - just check out the comments on the BBC article. And blaming the government for abusive behaviour from some motorists to retail staff is just...mad.
Public sentiment is they dont like high energy prices.
Milibands policy of raining prices will bite Labour in the arse.
Miliband is the reason British forces didn't take part in the initial strike on Iran which has caused this mess in the first place. He's also advocating the kind of energy that isn't vulnerable to whims of the Iranian regime of Vladimir Putin. In the battle of political narratives, I think he's in a reasonably strong position.
(Though I must say I've been disappointed the government isn't pushing that point more forcefully).
Yep. Labour should definitely pin the UK energy situation on Miliband. Incredibly high and rising prices being down to him is just the ticket.
I expect Reeves will give in on North Sea licences as economic reality kicks in
What in the last eighteen months makes you think that Reeves has any connection to, or even awareness of, economic reality?
O&G only represents about 1% of the UK economy. Issuing some new licenses isn't going to boost that to any significant degree, and won't have a material effect for several years, and it's trending downwards anyway. Long term decisions aren't going to be made on a oil/gas price that we hope is only temporarily inflated.
Those suggesting this will solve our economic and fiscal woes in the face of an energy crisis are those with no connection to economic reality. #everylittlehelps though, I guess.
Who exactly has ever suggested that?
Quotation required.
Otherwise that's not even a strawman.
BigG. He seems to think opening up licences will solve this.
The whole response from those instinctively opposed to Net Zero, renewables etc has been risible - we're currently living through our second hydrocarbons crisis in four years and people are still clinging to the idea that our green energy policy is to blame for high prices.
There is a great deal of our green energy policy that is responsible for high prices. It’s just he “policy” but not the “green energy” bit.
Loading the cost of transition onto retail bills or pegging pricing to natural gas prices being two examples.
I’ve seen social media suggestions that at some point soon independent garages are going to start breaking down petrol prices.
Why don't they already ? (The first two items of course would blur the truth quite a bit.)
Well there’s definitely a law that says the actual sale price must be advertised at a petrol station, and there’s definitely a law that says you can’t be misleading in your advertising.
I’d take a guess that trying to break down prices isn’t allowed at the point of sale itself, but an indy garage might want to do it and look to gain publicity from the resulting court case.
If they displayed the amount of tax paid alongside the headline price that would breach neither law, since it moves exactly in line with the retail price.
See above - I worked with someone who tried to introduce a petrol pump in the UK that clearly showed price and tax. It was blocked from being used.
They need not show it on the pump; put it on a big display over the forecourt. A publicise massively any attempt to block that.
Any rumour that Katie has been in talks with Reform about joining them is categorically untrue. Katie is not going anywhere and fully backs Kemi who is doing a great job both as Leader and of demolishing this disastrous Labour government."
I'm not going anywhere. Kemi is doing a fantastic job. I'm more convinced than ever that the solutions to the country's problems are Conservative solutions, and the Conservative Party will implement them.
Any rumour that Katie has been in talks with Reform about joining them is categorically untrue. Katie is not going anywhere and fully backs Kemi who is doing a great job both as Leader and of demolishing this disastrous Labour government."
I'm not going anywhere. Kemi is doing a fantastic job. I'm more convinced than ever that the solutions to the country's problems are Conservative solutions, and the Conservative Party will implement them.
The United States struck more than 90 military targets on Iran’s vital Kharg Island in a large-scale precision strike overnight. The strike destroyed naval mine storage facilities, missile storage bunkers and multiple other military sites.
That 34% ethical is interesting in so much as it mirrors the Labour vote in 2024.
I don't believe the question "is Starmer unethical or ethical" is the best question. "Does Starmer appear ethical or unethical" would generate a much sharper divergence
I'd like him to fall on his sword, the level of hatred against the man is off the scale and a distraction for functional government. Some of that contempt is well deserved (he is shockingly bad at politics) but a great deal has been confected by the media due to his demand for a second Referendum and his undermining poor Boris.
Speaking of hatred, Miliband's doing his bit to stir up a little against the evil private sector, who are clearly raising fuel prices for reasons unrelated to any real world events. Ahem. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626mdvn6d5o
Feel sorry for those working in petrol stations getting abuse because the green zealot's trying to blame the private sector ahead of a potential government hike in income tax because a moron in America didn't realise starting an unplanned, pointless war in the Middle East had the obvious consequence of a rise in oil prices.
We discussed this yesterday. Are the retailers price gouging? Some said yes, some said they are entitled to increase the retail price of their current stock in anticipation of the increased cost of the next delivery.
We did agree that those abusing minimum wage cashiers at petrol stations deserve their own place in idiot's corner/ Hell.
Besides- the free market selling price of everything is as much as the seller can get away with. Always has been, that's how the system is meant to work. The only question is what mechanisms stop that price being all but infinite.
(Same as the free market buying price of a thing is the lowest the seller can be persuaded/forced to swallow. Those two things don't have to overlap, but when they do, wonderful things can happen.)
Well yes, supply and demand enters the picture. One man's profiteering is another man's sound economics.
It's not quite as simple as that - it's long been known that competition in this sector is rather weak. There's considerable market power and the CMA has been investigating it for some time. In that case profiteering is sound economics.
This is one of those topics where PB is out of touch with public sentiment - just check out the comments on the BBC article. And blaming the government for abusive behaviour from some motorists to retail staff is just...mad.
Public sentiment is they dont like high energy prices.
Milibands policy of raining prices will bite Labour in the arse.
Miliband is the reason British forces didn't take part in the initial strike on Iran which has caused this mess in the first place. He's also advocating the kind of energy that isn't vulnerable to whims of the Iranian regime of Vladimir Putin. In the battle of political narratives, I think he's in a reasonably strong position.
(Though I must say I've been disappointed the government isn't pushing that point more forcefully).
Yep. Labour should definitely pin the UK energy situation on Miliband. Incredibly high and rising prices being down to him is just the ticket.
I expect Reeves will give in on North Sea licences as economic reality kicks in
What in the last eighteen months makes you think that Reeves has any connection to, or even awareness of, economic reality?
O&G only represents about 1% of the UK economy. Issuing some new licenses isn't going to boost that to any significant degree, and won't have a material effect for several years, and it's trending downwards anyway. Long term decisions aren't going to be made on a oil/gas price that we hope is only temporarily inflated.
Those suggesting this will solve our economic and fiscal woes in the face of an energy crisis are those with no connection to economic reality. #everylittlehelps though, I guess.
Who exactly has ever suggested that?
Quotation required.
Otherwise that's not even a strawman.
BigG. He seems to think opening up licences will solve this.
The whole response from those instinctively opposed to Net Zero, renewables etc has been risible - we're currently living through our second hydrocarbons crisis in four years and people are still clinging to the idea that our green energy policy is to blame for high prices.
There is a great deal of our green energy policy that is responsible for high prices. It’s just he “policy” but not the “green energy” bit.
Loading the cost of transition onto retail bills or pegging pricing to natural gas prices being two examples.
Though the first of those is about to be undone by the government. (Which of their predecessors introduced it, and why?)
And the second should be about to resolve itself, shouldn't it? The next few tranches of solar and wind, together with battery storage, ought to create meaningful periods of time where gas isn't setting the price. We got close last year, but not quite.
Don't talk sense or renewable fact to these zealots. They have oil in their swimming pools so that they can worship it
Why is linking the price of wind energy to gas so vital? There are arguments for it and against it.
Ultimately, we need to get away from the belief that higher energy prices help the transition to Net Zero. This was predicated, in the past, on the idea that all the alternatives were more expensive.
But we have solar being much cheaper than other generation methods and still falling. Solar + battery storage is going to get there soon. Electric cars are crossing over to be cheaper than ICE.
In which case, strangling economic output with high energy prices reduces growth in the economy. The growth which pays for things like investment - and newer equipment and vehicles are nearly universally better for the environment than their predecessors. See the long, slow standards improvements in so many areas.
So economic growth is key to net zero.
Milliband seems not to get that at all. He's not stupid, just an ideologue.
That 34% ethical is interesting in so much as it mirrors the Labour vote in 2024.
I don't believe the question "is Starmer unethical or ethical" is the best question. "Does Starmer appear ethical or unethical" would generate a much sharper divergence
I'd like him to fall on his sword, the level of hatred against the man is off the scale and a distraction for functional government. Some of that contempt is well deserved (he is shockingly bad at politics) but a great deal has been confected by the media due to his demand for a second Referendum and his undermining poor Boris.
Speaking of hatred, Miliband's doing his bit to stir up a little against the evil private sector, who are clearly raising fuel prices for reasons unrelated to any real world events. Ahem. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626mdvn6d5o
Feel sorry for those working in petrol stations getting abuse because the green zealot's trying to blame the private sector ahead of a potential government hike in income tax because a moron in America didn't realise starting an unplanned, pointless war in the Middle East had the obvious consequence of a rise in oil prices.
We discussed this yesterday. Are the retailers price gouging? Some said yes, some said they are entitled to increase the retail price of their current stock in anticipation of the increased cost of the next delivery.
We did agree that those abusing minimum wage cashiers at petrol stations deserve their own place in idiot's corner/ Hell.
Besides- the free market selling price of everything is as much as the seller can get away with. Always has been, that's how the system is meant to work. The only question is what mechanisms stop that price being all but infinite.
(Same as the free market buying price of a thing is the lowest the seller can be persuaded/forced to swallow. Those two things don't have to overlap, but when they do, wonderful things can happen.)
Well yes, supply and demand enters the picture. One man's profiteering is another man's sound economics.
It's not quite as simple as that - it's long been known that competition in this sector is rather weak. There's considerable market power and the CMA has been investigating it for some time. In that case profiteering is sound economics.
This is one of those topics where PB is out of touch with public sentiment - just check out the comments on the BBC article. And blaming the government for abusive behaviour from some motorists to retail staff is just...mad.
Public sentiment is they dont like high energy prices.
Milibands policy of raining prices will bite Labour in the arse.
Miliband is the reason British forces didn't take part in the initial strike on Iran which has caused this mess in the first place. He's also advocating the kind of energy that isn't vulnerable to whims of the Iranian regime of Vladimir Putin. In the battle of political narratives, I think he's in a reasonably strong position.
(Though I must say I've been disappointed the government isn't pushing that point more forcefully).
Yep. Labour should definitely pin the UK energy situation on Miliband. Incredibly high and rising prices being down to him is just the ticket.
I expect Reeves will give in on North Sea licences as economic reality kicks in
What in the last eighteen months makes you think that Reeves has any connection to, or even awareness of, economic reality?
O&G only represents about 1% of the UK economy. Issuing some new licenses isn't going to boost that to any significant degree, and won't have a material effect for several years, and it's trending downwards anyway. Long term decisions aren't going to be made on a oil/gas price that we hope is only temporarily inflated.
Those suggesting this will solve our economic and fiscal woes in the face of an energy crisis are those with no connection to economic reality. #everylittlehelps though, I guess.
Who exactly has ever suggested that?
Quotation required.
Otherwise that's not even a strawman.
BigG. He seems to think opening up licences will solve this.
The whole response from those instinctively opposed to Net Zero, renewables etc has been risible - we're currently living through our second hydrocarbons crisis in four years and people are still clinging to the idea that our green energy policy is to blame for high prices.
There is a great deal of our green energy policy that is responsible for high prices. It’s just he “policy” but not the “green energy” bit.
Loading the cost of transition onto retail bills or pegging pricing to natural gas prices being two examples.
I’ve seen social media suggestions that at some point soon independent garages are going to start breaking down petrol prices.
Why don't they already ? (The first two items of course would blur the truth quite a bit.)
Well there’s definitely a law that says the actual sale price must be advertised at a petrol station, and there’s definitely a law that says you can’t be misleading in your advertising.
I’d take a guess that trying to break down prices isn’t allowed at the point of sale itself, but an indy garage might want to do it and look to gain publicity from the resulting court case.
If they displayed the amount of tax paid alongside the headline price that would breach neither law, since it moves exactly in line with the retail price.
See above - I worked with someone who tried to introduce a petrol pump in the UK that clearly showed price and tax. It was blocked from being used.
They need not show it on the pump; put it on a big display over the forecourt. A publicise massively any attempt to block that.
I don’t think you understand how the oil & gas industry works with the government. They are very closely tied in.
Going to war with the government like that would be considered insane.
Any rumour that Katie has been in talks with Reform about joining them is categorically untrue. Katie is not going anywhere and fully backs Kemi who is doing a great job both as Leader and of demolishing this disastrous Labour government."
I'm not going anywhere. Kemi is doing a fantastic job. I'm more convinced than ever that the solutions to the country's problems are Conservative solutions, and the Conservative Party will implement them.
Anecdata: my Dubai moles report only occasional noise nuisance from the neighbouring war zone but are worried about the long term consequences for investment into the emirate. Meanwhile, horseracing continues even as Formula 1 exits the Middle East.
Yep, Meydan racing happened last night, two weeks until the World Cup.
The likely F1 cancellations are down to insurance reasons for competitors and tens of thousands of visitors, as much as what’s happening on the ground.
That 34% ethical is interesting in so much as it mirrors the Labour vote in 2024.
I don't believe the question "is Starmer unethical or ethical" is the best question. "Does Starmer appear ethical or unethical" would generate a much sharper divergence
I'd like him to fall on his sword, the level of hatred against the man is off the scale and a distraction for functional government. Some of that contempt is well deserved (he is shockingly bad at politics) but a great deal has been confected by the media due to his demand for a second Referendum and his undermining poor Boris.
Speaking of hatred, Miliband's doing his bit to stir up a little against the evil private sector, who are clearly raising fuel prices for reasons unrelated to any real world events. Ahem. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626mdvn6d5o
Feel sorry for those working in petrol stations getting abuse because the green zealot's trying to blame the private sector ahead of a potential government hike in income tax because a moron in America didn't realise starting an unplanned, pointless war in the Middle East had the obvious consequence of a rise in oil prices.
We discussed this yesterday. Are the retailers price gouging? Some said yes, some said they are entitled to increase the retail price of their current stock in anticipation of the increased cost of the next delivery.
We did agree that those abusing minimum wage cashiers at petrol stations deserve their own place in idiot's corner/ Hell.
Besides- the free market selling price of everything is as much as the seller can get away with. Always has been, that's how the system is meant to work. The only question is what mechanisms stop that price being all but infinite.
(Same as the free market buying price of a thing is the lowest the seller can be persuaded/forced to swallow. Those two things don't have to overlap, but when they do, wonderful things can happen.)
Well yes, supply and demand enters the picture. One man's profiteering is another man's sound economics.
It's not quite as simple as that - it's long been known that competition in this sector is rather weak. There's considerable market power and the CMA has been investigating it for some time. In that case profiteering is sound economics.
This is one of those topics where PB is out of touch with public sentiment - just check out the comments on the BBC article. And blaming the government for abusive behaviour from some motorists to retail staff is just...mad.
Public sentiment is they dont like high energy prices.
Milibands policy of raining prices will bite Labour in the arse.
Miliband is the reason British forces didn't take part in the initial strike on Iran which has caused this mess in the first place. He's also advocating the kind of energy that isn't vulnerable to whims of the Iranian regime of Vladimir Putin. In the battle of political narratives, I think he's in a reasonably strong position.
(Though I must say I've been disappointed the government isn't pushing that point more forcefully).
Yep. Labour should definitely pin the UK energy situation on Miliband. Incredibly high and rising prices being down to him is just the ticket.
I expect Reeves will give in on North Sea licences as economic reality kicks in
What in the last eighteen months makes you think that Reeves has any connection to, or even awareness of, economic reality?
O&G only represents about 1% of the UK economy. Issuing some new licenses isn't going to boost that to any significant degree, and won't have a material effect for several years, and it's trending downwards anyway. Long term decisions aren't going to be made on a oil/gas price that we hope is only temporarily inflated.
Those suggesting this will solve our economic and fiscal woes in the face of an energy crisis are those with no connection to economic reality. #everylittlehelps though, I guess.
Who exactly has ever suggested that?
Quotation required.
Otherwise that's not even a strawman.
BigG. He seems to think opening up licences will solve this.
The whole response from those instinctively opposed to Net Zero, renewables etc has been risible - we're currently living through our second hydrocarbons crisis in four years and people are still clinging to the idea that our green energy policy is to blame for high prices.
There is a great deal of our green energy policy that is responsible for high prices. It’s just he “policy” but not the “green energy” bit.
Loading the cost of transition onto retail bills or pegging pricing to natural gas prices being two examples.
I’ve seen social media suggestions that at some point soon independent garages are going to start breaking down petrol prices.
Why don't they already ? (The first two items of course would blur the truth quite a bit.)
Well there’s definitely a law that says the actual sale price must be advertised at a petrol station, and there’s definitely a law that says you can’t be misleading in your advertising.
I’d take a guess that trying to break down prices isn’t allowed at the point of sale itself, but an indy garage might want to do it and look to gain publicity from the resulting court case.
If they displayed the amount of tax paid alongside the headline price that would breach neither law, since it moves exactly in line with the retail price.
Only partially. Some of it is duty (fixed per litre) and some of it is VAT (percentage based)
Surely Vat is already quoted separately anyway. So quoting duty separately as well should be easy.
The fictitious bit is the price of fuel. At the moment the cost of the fuel in the tanks is much less than the open market price. So quoting it wouldn't help their case.
And of course BP is selling itself fuel at the inflated price, so will be making excess profits further down the line.
Of course in capitalism, companies should be able to make excess profits, but only if they are also allowed to make excess losses when they f*** up.
And we are back to “stock profits”. Which don’t exist.
Because they need to buy tanker loads of oil to refill the tanks at the refineries. Daily.
Which is why the price has spiked now and will get worse.
It is the Tories and Reform's mission to hang the blame for this situation where it belongs - a catastrophic energy policy whereby British deomstic energy was already some of the world's most expensive, and our industrial energy was already the world's most expensive. We cannot control what happens in the world. We can (and should) ensure we have a robust mixed energy system whereby we are a net exporter of energy, and the domestic hydrocarbon industry is a huge part of that. PM has neither the balls nor the brains to change energy policy or get rid of the economy destroyer out of the energy department, so there's nothing he can do except take it.
A domestic hydrocarbon industry doesn’t protect you against high oil prices. What does is a decarbonised energy industry.
It does help your balance payments and tax receipts of course.
The United States struck more than 90 military targets on Iran’s vital Kharg Island in a large-scale precision strike overnight. The strike destroyed naval mine storage facilities, missile storage bunkers and multiple other military sites.
The pictures of these bunkerbusting bombs look damn scary. They appear to be able to drop tens of tonnes of payload to milimetre accuracy, having already taken out pretty much the entirety of Iranian air defences.
Iranian decision makers indicate that the Americans appear to be failing to understand that, for Iran, this is an existential war. In such a context, nothing is considered too precious to sacrifice.
With the approval of the new leader, Sayyed Mojataba Khamenei, it was agreed that if the US strikes or lands on any Iranian installations, Tehran is prepared to escalate dramatically.
Possible approved responses include: 1. Closure of Bab el Mandeb and attacks on Red Sea ports exporting oil, expanding the war to a vital global shipping route. 2. Total destruction of any island used by US forces as a staging ground, even if it means destroying Iranian installations worth billions of dollars and oil depots containing millions of barrels. 3. Complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its declaration as a war theatre, turning the world’s most critical energy chokepoint into an active battlefield. 4. All US locations in the Middle East are considered legitimate targets
Other plans have also been approved for different scenarios.
Possibly true but the issue for the rest of us is that the US Administration doesn't appear to care.
Trump might even see it as good for business (and a great deal of insider trading opportunities), given the US position as the world's largest oil producer. It's not as though he gives a damn for the world economy.
That is the paradox. High oil prices are bad for American consumers (and voters) but excellent news for American squillionaires who rub shoulders with the president and bankroll Republicans.
As I may have said before, watch out for the export restrictions on American O&G. They’re now pretty much self-sufficient, and can probably hold ‘gas’ (petrol) prices down ahead of the mid terms.
To do that would mean US O&G companies losing out on lots of money. When push comes to shove, Trump usually sides with the big companies over the public, particularly if the big companies make some… um… donations to a new ballroom or the Board of Peace.
Also, as Robert pointed out, the US produces the wrong sort of oil. Its refining capacity is focused on heavier oils that it needs to import, not the light oils it produces and generally exports. But here we are making the assumption that the White House is even vaguely rational again.
That 34% ethical is interesting in so much as it mirrors the Labour vote in 2024.
I don't believe the question "is Starmer unethical or ethical" is the best question. "Does Starmer appear ethical or unethical" would generate a much sharper divergence
I'd like him to fall on his sword, the level of hatred against the man is off the scale and a distraction for functional government. Some of that contempt is well deserved (he is shockingly bad at politics) but a great deal has been confected by the media due to his demand for a second Referendum and his undermining poor Boris.
Speaking of hatred, Miliband's doing his bit to stir up a little against the evil private sector, who are clearly raising fuel prices for reasons unrelated to any real world events. Ahem. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626mdvn6d5o
Feel sorry for those working in petrol stations getting abuse because the green zealot's trying to blame the private sector ahead of a potential government hike in income tax because a moron in America didn't realise starting an unplanned, pointless war in the Middle East had the obvious consequence of a rise in oil prices.
We discussed this yesterday. Are the retailers price gouging? Some said yes, some said they are entitled to increase the retail price of their current stock in anticipation of the increased cost of the next delivery.
We did agree that those abusing minimum wage cashiers at petrol stations deserve their own place in idiot's corner/ Hell.
Besides- the free market selling price of everything is as much as the seller can get away with. Always has been, that's how the system is meant to work. The only question is what mechanisms stop that price being all but infinite.
(Same as the free market buying price of a thing is the lowest the seller can be persuaded/forced to swallow. Those two things don't have to overlap, but when they do, wonderful things can happen.)
Well yes, supply and demand enters the picture. One man's profiteering is another man's sound economics.
It's not quite as simple as that - it's long been known that competition in this sector is rather weak. There's considerable market power and the CMA has been investigating it for some time. In that case profiteering is sound economics.
This is one of those topics where PB is out of touch with public sentiment - just check out the comments on the BBC article. And blaming the government for abusive behaviour from some motorists to retail staff is just...mad.
Public sentiment is they dont like high energy prices.
Milibands policy of raining prices will bite Labour in the arse.
Miliband is the reason British forces didn't take part in the initial strike on Iran which has caused this mess in the first place. He's also advocating the kind of energy that isn't vulnerable to whims of the Iranian regime of Vladimir Putin. In the battle of political narratives, I think he's in a reasonably strong position.
(Though I must say I've been disappointed the government isn't pushing that point more forcefully).
Yep. Labour should definitely pin the UK energy situation on Miliband. Incredibly high and rising prices being down to him is just the ticket.
I expect Reeves will give in on North Sea licences as economic reality kicks in
What in the last eighteen months makes you think that Reeves has any connection to, or even awareness of, economic reality?
O&G only represents about 1% of the UK economy. Issuing some new licenses isn't going to boost that to any significant degree, and won't have a material effect for several years, and it's trending downwards anyway. Long term decisions aren't going to be made on a oil/gas price that we hope is only temporarily inflated.
Those suggesting this will solve our economic and fiscal woes in the face of an energy crisis are those with no connection to economic reality. #everylittlehelps though, I guess.
Who exactly has ever suggested that?
Quotation required.
Otherwise that's not even a strawman.
BigG. He seems to think opening up licences will solve this.
The whole response from those instinctively opposed to Net Zero, renewables etc has been risible - we're currently living through our second hydrocarbons crisis in four years and people are still clinging to the idea that our green energy policy is to blame for high prices.
There is a great deal of our green energy policy that is responsible for high prices. It’s just he “policy” but not the “green energy” bit.
Loading the cost of transition onto retail bills or pegging pricing to natural gas prices being two examples.
Though the first of those is about to be undone by the government. (Which of their predecessors introduced it, and why?)
And the second should be about to resolve itself, shouldn't it? The next few tranches of solar and wind, together with battery storage, ought to create meaningful periods of time where gas isn't setting the price. We got close last year, but not quite.
Don't talk sense or renewable fact to these zealots. They have oil in their swimming pools so that they can worship it
Why is linking the price of wind energy to gas so vital? There are arguments for it and against it.
Ultimately, we need to get away from the belief that higher energy prices help the transition to Net Zero. This was predicated, in the past, on the idea that all the alternatives were more expensive.
But we have solar being much cheaper than other generation methods and still falling. Solar + battery storage is going to get there soon. Electric cars are crossing over to be cheaper than ICE.
In which case, strangling economic output with high energy prices reduces growth in the economy. The growth which pays for things like investment - and newer equipment and vehicles are nearly universally better for the environment than their predecessors. See the long, slow standards improvements in so many areas.
So economic growth is key to net zero.
Milliband seems not to get that at all. He's not stupid, just an ideologue.
I have a certain sympathy for his view, actually.
That unless there is a hard, simple wall against hydrocarbon development in the U.K., there will be a whole vested interest inside and outside government in expanding it.
So you’d get Treasury civil servants briefing the PM over Millibands head that “the interest of the economy” means long term fossil fuel usage. And then same from oil companies.
Sadly, we don’t have the stature of politicians required to hold a nuanced line.
‘You are all worse than each other’: anti-regime Iranians turn on Trump Mood among some in Iran shifts from hope of being rescued to dismay at destruction of infrastructure, culture and lives
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/14/anti-regime-iranians-turn-on-trump-us ...The turning point for Amir was the Israeli strikes on fuel depots in Tehran last week, with one attack on the Shahran oil depot overshadowing the capital with black smoke. A rain shower later covered trees, homes and cars with layers of toxic oil.
“I genuinely believe now they [the US and Israel] didn’t have a plan. I was still hoping I was wrong, but the Shahran attack changed the way I look at this war right now,” he said. “If the regime is what you want to hit, even if you think these depots were used by the regime, where do you draw the line? What about us, the ordinary Iranians? We rely on this civil infrastructure. Why take away our ability to govern in the future? Who can rebuild utter ruins?”
Amir said he now had constant anxiety about Iran “turning into another Iraq”, a country the US invaded in 2003, promising freedom but delivering a civil war. Israeli leaders have also previously called on Palestinians in Gaza and the Lebanese people to rise up against oppression, only to later kill them in large numbers.
“My heart is so heavy,” said Amir. “I don’t even have tears left. Only anger and more anger. At this regime, and them,” he added, referring to the US and Israel.
Others who spoke to the Guardian this week also had a shift in their attitudes towards the war, especially after the attack on oil depots, but also after seeing images of the country’s heritage sites damaged...
Iranian decision makers indicate that the Americans appear to be failing to understand that, for Iran, this is an existential war. In such a context, nothing is considered too precious to sacrifice.
With the approval of the new leader, Sayyed Mojataba Khamenei, it was agreed that if the US strikes or lands on any Iranian installations, Tehran is prepared to escalate dramatically.
Possible approved responses include: 1. Closure of Bab el Mandeb and attacks on Red Sea ports exporting oil, expanding the war to a vital global shipping route. 2. Total destruction of any island used by US forces as a staging ground, even if it means destroying Iranian installations worth billions of dollars and oil depots containing millions of barrels. 3. Complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its declaration as a war theatre, turning the world’s most critical energy chokepoint into an active battlefield. 4. All US locations in the Middle East are considered legitimate targets
Other plans have also been approved for different scenarios.
Possibly true but the issue for the rest of us is that the US Administration doesn't appear to care.
Trump might even see it as good for business (and a great deal of insider trading opportunities), given the US position as the world's largest oil producer. It's not as though he gives a damn for the world economy.
That is the paradox. High oil prices are bad for American consumers (and voters) but excellent news for American squillionaires who rub shoulders with the president and bankroll Republicans.
One of the biggest factors in Trump’s reelection was the (yes risible but nevertheless genuine) perception that he'd be smart on the economy and cared about people struggling to pay the bills. There can't be too many other than his most cultish supporters who still believe that.
Iran threatens Ukraine with strikes, claiming Kyiv’s alleged support for Israel — including drone assistance — makes the entire territory of Ukraine a “legitimate target,” said Ibrahim Azizi, head of Iran’s parliamentary commission on national security.
It is the Tories and Reform's mission to hang the blame for this situation where it belongs - a catastrophic energy policy whereby British deomstic energy was already some of the world's most expensive, and our industrial energy was already the world's most expensive. We cannot control what happens in the world. We can (and should) ensure we have a robust mixed energy system whereby we are a net exporter of energy, and the domestic hydrocarbon industry is a huge part of that. PM has neither the balls nor the brains to change energy policy or get rid of the economy destroyer out of the energy department, so there's nothing he can do except take it.
A domestic hydrocarbon industry doesn’t protect you against high oil prices. What does is a decarbonised energy industry.
Depends what you mean by "protect". If we had been maximising the production of the North Sea instead of aiming repeated rounds at our own feet we would be producing much closer to the equivalent of what we consume.
Now, that production would still be subject to international market prices and it would not solve the problem that what we produced would not exactly match our needs but, and this is the important part, UK plc would have a windfall from those higher prices roughly equivalent to the loss sustained by those higher prices. This means that the economic impact would be far less severe than a scenario where we are importing so much of our demand. It would give us the option, for example, of using that windfall to offset the cost to the public by reducing duty rates.
And you are ignoring the fact that through the interconnectors we increasingly have an international market in electrical energy. If you can sell electrical output to the continent at X why would you sell it to the domestic consumer at (X-Y)?
Iran threatens Ukraine with strikes, claiming Kyiv’s alleged support for Israel — including drone assistance — makes the entire territory of Ukraine a “legitimate target,” said Ibrahim Azizi, head of Iran’s parliamentary commission on national security.
As if Iranian drones haven’t been falling on Ukraine every night for the past four years.
That 34% ethical is interesting in so much as it mirrors the Labour vote in 2024.
I don't believe the question "is Starmer unethical or ethical" is the best question. "Does Starmer appear ethical or unethical" would generate a much sharper divergence
I'd like him to fall on his sword, the level of hatred against the man is off the scale and a distraction for functional government. Some of that contempt is well deserved (he is shockingly bad at politics) but a great deal has been confected by the media due to his demand for a second Referendum and his undermining poor Boris.
Speaking of hatred, Miliband's doing his bit to stir up a little against the evil private sector, who are clearly raising fuel prices for reasons unrelated to any real world events. Ahem. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626mdvn6d5o
Feel sorry for those working in petrol stations getting abuse because the green zealot's trying to blame the private sector ahead of a potential government hike in income tax because a moron in America didn't realise starting an unplanned, pointless war in the Middle East had the obvious consequence of a rise in oil prices.
We discussed this yesterday. Are the retailers price gouging? Some said yes, some said they are entitled to increase the retail price of their current stock in anticipation of the increased cost of the next delivery.
We did agree that those abusing minimum wage cashiers at petrol stations deserve their own place in idiot's corner/ Hell.
Besides- the free market selling price of everything is as much as the seller can get away with. Always has been, that's how the system is meant to work. The only question is what mechanisms stop that price being all but infinite.
(Same as the free market buying price of a thing is the lowest the seller can be persuaded/forced to swallow. Those two things don't have to overlap, but when they do, wonderful things can happen.)
Well yes, supply and demand enters the picture. One man's profiteering is another man's sound economics.
It's not quite as simple as that - it's long been known that competition in this sector is rather weak. There's considerable market power and the CMA has been investigating it for some time. In that case profiteering is sound economics.
This is one of those topics where PB is out of touch with public sentiment - just check out the comments on the BBC article. And blaming the government for abusive behaviour from some motorists to retail staff is just...mad.
That is mostly because the public are dumb and ill informed. Moreover they have no interest in informing themselves of reality. Ask them how much the retailer makes on a litre of petrol and very few would go anywhere near as low as 8%.
For reference the retailer mark up on most high street non food products is between 25% and 30%. Books as high as 40%. Amazon generally ask for up to 60%.
With the Government taking 52% I would suggest the public anger is very much misdirected.
You're right - but a tax cut here means a rise elsewhere, all else held equal. Indeed duties are likely to fall during this crisis because they are fixed in absolute terms.
Fuel duty is typically assessed one of the "better" taxes because it's unavoidable, doesn't distort the market too much, and is pretty inelastic (at least before EVs came in). It's also something of a price moderator because it's a fixed, rather than a percentage like VAT. With the exception of VAT and income tax, I can't think of better way to raise revenue tbh.
When a tax forms the majority of the cost of an item that is so fundemental to almost every other aspect of our economy then you really need to question whther it is a wise tax policy choice. The Government will happily blame increase in fuel costs when inflation sky rockets but will quietly forget that they have it within their power to mitigate those cost increases.
Don't disagree. I just think you need to accept 1) tax rises elsewhere 2) Some sort of way to incentivise the switch to EVs given the relative cut in costs for ICE. I think we'd all agree that in the long term that needs to happen.
Anyway, now commences 8 hours of supporting my local pub and getting confused by rugby permutations.
If the US wanted to destroy the whole of Kharg island they could so it seems like a game of chicken here .
Destroying the islands oil infrastructure will stop nearly all exports from Iran , this surely would cause a further oil spike .
Iran could retaliate with trying to cause further damage to the Gulf states oil refineries .
The sensible thing for the US to do is capture Kharg Island, and hold it hostage against the enriched uranium Iran possesses and free flow of oil through the Straights of Hormuz.
Meanwhile, the UAE is reminding Iran that most of the regime’s banking is done in Dubai. There’s a lot of Iranian money all over the GCC.
When they FINALLY get their ducks in a row, the US is in a very strong negotiating position.
Their planning should have got them there sooner.
If that was the plan, why did they try bombing Tehran instead of seizing Kharg Island in the first hour?
The plan was bomb stuff, Iran surrenders.
There should have been somebody older than eight in the room.
The United States struck more than 90 military targets on Iran’s vital Kharg Island in a large-scale precision strike overnight. The strike destroyed naval mine storage facilities, missile storage bunkers and multiple other military sites.
The pictures of these bunkerbusting bombs look damn scary. They appear to be able to drop tens of tonnes of payload to milimetre accuracy, having already taken out pretty much the entirety of Iranian air defences.
Yes, but they still need to find targets that are worth even a small fraction of the munition used to destroy them. If you believe for a moment that there are 90 such targets on Kharg Island then fair enough. I have my doubts.
If the US wanted to destroy the whole of Kharg island they could so it seems like a game of chicken here .
Destroying the islands oil infrastructure will stop nearly all exports from Iran , this surely would cause a further oil spike .
Iran could retaliate with trying to cause further damage to the Gulf states oil refineries .
The sensible thing for the US to do is capture Kharg Island, and hold it hostage against the enriched uranium Iran possesses and free flow of oil through the Straights of Hormuz.
Meanwhile, the UAE is reminding Iran that most of the regime’s banking is done in Dubai. There’s a lot of Iranian money all over the GCC.
When they FINALLY get their ducks in a row, the US is in a very strong negotiating position.
Their planning should have got them there sooner.
If that was the plan, why did they try bombing Tehran instead of seizing Kharg Island in the first hour?
The plan was bomb stuff, Iran surrenders.
There should have been somebody older than eight in the room.
Somebody with a mental age of more than 24 hours would have been useful.
The United States struck more than 90 military targets on Iran’s vital Kharg Island in a large-scale precision strike overnight. The strike destroyed naval mine storage facilities, missile storage bunkers and multiple other military sites.
The pictures of these bunkerbusting bombs look damn scary. They appear to be able to drop tens of tonnes of payload to milimetre accuracy, having already taken out pretty much the entirety of Iranian air defences.
Yes, but they still need to find targets that are worth even a small fraction of the munition used to destroy them. If you believe for a moment that there are 90 such targets on Kharg Island then fair enough. I have my doubts.
The Iranians have been fortifying it for years. There will be no shortage of military targets there.
Almost as if they had… what’s word? Planned. Yes that’s it - planned for an attack on them.
It is the Tories and Reform's mission to hang the blame for this situation where it belongs - a catastrophic energy policy whereby British deomstic energy was already some of the world's most expensive, and our industrial energy was already the world's most expensive. We cannot control what happens in the world. We can (and should) ensure we have a robust mixed energy system whereby we are a net exporter of energy, and the domestic hydrocarbon industry is a huge part of that. PM has neither the balls nor the brains to change energy policy or get rid of the economy destroyer out of the energy department, so there's nothing he can do except take it.
A domestic hydrocarbon industry doesn’t protect you against high oil prices. What does is a decarbonised energy industry.
Depends what you mean by "protect". If we had been maximising the production of the North Sea instead of aiming repeated rounds at our own feet we would be producing much closer to the equivalent of what we consume.
Now, that production would still be subject to international market prices and it would not solve the problem that what we produced would not exactly match our needs but, and this is the important part, UK plc would have a windfall from those higher prices roughly equivalent to the loss sustained by those higher prices. This means that the economic impact would be far less severe than a scenario where we are importing so much of our demand. It would give us the option, for example, of using that windfall to offset the cost to the public by reducing duty rates.
And you are ignoring the fact that through the interconnectors we increasingly have an international market in electrical energy. If you can sell electrical output to the continent at X why would you sell it to the domestic consumer at (X-Y)?
Much closer? Not sure about that. Even taking the industry lobby at face value it's only about 10-15ppt difference. I agree with the economic arguments but we have to be careful not to overstate it, particularly from a security standpoint.
Iranian decision makers indicate that the Americans appear to be failing to understand that, for Iran, this is an existential war. In such a context, nothing is considered too precious to sacrifice.
With the approval of the new leader, Sayyed Mojataba Khamenei, it was agreed that if the US strikes or lands on any Iranian installations, Tehran is prepared to escalate dramatically.
Possible approved responses include: 1. Closure of Bab el Mandeb and attacks on Red Sea ports exporting oil, expanding the war to a vital global shipping route. 2. Total destruction of any island used by US forces as a staging ground, even if it means destroying Iranian installations worth billions of dollars and oil depots containing millions of barrels. 3. Complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its declaration as a war theatre, turning the world’s most critical energy chokepoint into an active battlefield. 4. All US locations in the Middle East are considered legitimate targets
Other plans have also been approved for different scenarios.
Possibly true but the issue for the rest of us is that the US Administration doesn't appear to care.
Trump might even see it as good for business (and a great deal of insider trading opportunities), given the US position as the world's largest oil producer. It's not as though he gives a damn for the world economy.
That is the paradox. High oil prices are bad for American consumers (and voters) but excellent news for American squillionaires who rub shoulders with the president and bankroll Republicans.
One of the biggest factors in Trump’s reelection was the (yes risible but nevertheless genuine) perception that he'd be smart on the economy and cared about people struggling to pay the bills. There can't be too many other than his most cultish supporters who still believe that.
I am off to the US and Canada shortly, I haven't been for a few years but am readying myself for the sticker shock of food prices (plus the out of control tipping + taxes + other unspecificed fees added to everything). I already had to be sitting down when booking accomodation, £200-300 a night for chain hotels excluding breakfast (another $20-30 plus tiip on top).....For £100-150 in China, 5* with all the amentities and amazing breakfast included.
Iranian decision makers indicate that the Americans appear to be failing to understand that, for Iran, this is an existential war. In such a context, nothing is considered too precious to sacrifice.
With the approval of the new leader, Sayyed Mojataba Khamenei, it was agreed that if the US strikes or lands on any Iranian installations, Tehran is prepared to escalate dramatically.
Possible approved responses include: 1. Closure of Bab el Mandeb and attacks on Red Sea ports exporting oil, expanding the war to a vital global shipping route. 2. Total destruction of any island used by US forces as a staging ground, even if it means destroying Iranian installations worth billions of dollars and oil depots containing millions of barrels. 3. Complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its declaration as a war theatre, turning the world’s most critical energy chokepoint into an active battlefield. 4. All US locations in the Middle East are considered legitimate targets
Other plans have also been approved for different scenarios.
Possibly true but the issue for the rest of us is that the US Administration doesn't appear to care.
Trump might even see it as good for business (and a great deal of insider trading opportunities), given the US position as the world's largest oil producer. It's not as though he gives a damn for the world economy.
That is the paradox. High oil prices are bad for American consumers (and voters) but excellent news for American squillionaires who rub shoulders with the president and bankroll Republicans.
As I may have said before, watch out for the export restrictions on American O&G. They’re now pretty much self-sufficient, and can probably hold ‘gas’ (petrol) prices down ahead of the mid terms.
To do that would mean US O&G companies losing out on lots of money. When push comes to shove, Trump usually sides with the big companies over the public, particularly if the big companies make some… um… donations to a new ballroom or the Board of Peace.
Also, as Robert pointed out, the US produces the wrong sort of oil. Its refining capacity is focused on heavier oils that it needs to import, not the light oils it produces and generally exports. But here we are making the assumption that the White House is even vaguely rational again.
Venezeulan oil is heavy.
Just sayin'...they might know what they are doing after all.
‘You are all worse than each other’: anti-regime Iranians turn on Trump Mood among some in Iran shifts from hope of being rescued to dismay at destruction of infrastructure, culture and lives
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/14/anti-regime-iranians-turn-on-trump-us ...The turning point for Amir was the Israeli strikes on fuel depots in Tehran last week, with one attack on the Shahran oil depot overshadowing the capital with black smoke. A rain shower later covered trees, homes and cars with layers of toxic oil.
“I genuinely believe now they [the US and Israel] didn’t have a plan. I was still hoping I was wrong, but the Shahran attack changed the way I look at this war right now,” he said. “If the regime is what you want to hit, even if you think these depots were used by the regime, where do you draw the line? What about us, the ordinary Iranians? We rely on this civil infrastructure. Why take away our ability to govern in the future? Who can rebuild utter ruins?”
Amir said he now had constant anxiety about Iran “turning into another Iraq”, a country the US invaded in 2003, promising freedom but delivering a civil war. Israeli leaders have also previously called on Palestinians in Gaza and the Lebanese people to rise up against oppression, only to later kill them in large numbers.
“My heart is so heavy,” said Amir. “I don’t even have tears left. Only anger and more anger. At this regime, and them,” he added, referring to the US and Israel.
Others who spoke to the Guardian this week also had a shift in their attitudes towards the war, especially after the attack on oil depots, but also after seeing images of the country’s heritage sites damaged...
Iran threatens Ukraine with strikes, claiming Kyiv’s alleged support for Israel — including drone assistance — makes the entire territory of Ukraine a “legitimate target,” said Ibrahim Azizi, head of Iran’s parliamentary commission on national security.
An empty gesture. They've been supplying drones in the tens of thousands to Russia for a long, long time.
It is the Tories and Reform's mission to hang the blame for this situation where it belongs - a catastrophic energy policy whereby British deomstic energy was already some of the world's most expensive, and our industrial energy was already the world's most expensive. We cannot control what happens in the world. We can (and should) ensure we have a robust mixed energy system whereby we are a net exporter of energy, and the domestic hydrocarbon industry is a huge part of that. PM has neither the balls nor the brains to change energy policy or get rid of the economy destroyer out of the energy department, so there's nothing he can do except take it.
A domestic hydrocarbon industry doesn’t protect you against high oil prices. What does is a decarbonised energy industry.
But a domestic hydrocarbon industry can offset the local gas price. It can also balance the economical impact of high oil prices worldwide by making the local energy industry more profitable and by extension, tax revenues higher.
A bit like Taiwan having been planning for a Chinese attack forever, I am sure Iran's leadership have spent rather a large amount of time considering that one day Israel with the help of the US might try and come for them hard.
In other words, Washington now faces three difficult paths: end the conflict under conditions that may allow Iran to claim a strategic victory; continue the current campaign and risk prolonged instability and rising global energy prices; or expand the war and trigger a major regional escalation.
Time is not neutral in this equation. Each passing day hardens Tehran’s perception that it can withstand the pressure and emerge from the crisis with the upper hand.
(part of a longer tweet on where the US now stands strategically)
What remains astonishing is that this was blindingly obvious in advance to anyone who spent a couple of minutes thinking about how this was likely to develop. Just brainless.
So, where do we go from here? I think Hormuz will be impassable without Iranian permission for months unless the US invades and secures the opposite bank. This will bring US forces within range for a lot more of Iran's arsenal. Casualties will be 20 or more to 1 given US air and missile power but my guess is that Iran can much more easily absorb 100k-500k casualties than Trump can endure 5-25k. This is a country that sustained up to 1m casualties in their war with Saddam.
Trying to capture and then hold a country of more than 90m would take far more troops than the US has. They can destroy a lot of the country, they can impose Gaza style carnage but it is really not obvious how they actually win. There may come a point when Trump wants to talk about Epstein instead.
Again, this is why I genuinely fear it could gio nuclear. That may be the only way for Trump to convincingly defeat the Tehran regime, which clearly - and rightly - sees this war as existential for the Mullahs and the IRGC
How might it work? Perhaps two or three smaller "tactical" nukes on military sites, at first, with the clear implication that Trump is willing to flatten Tehran if needs be
They would surrender. But the world would be hurled into hideous turmoil....
Iran threatens Ukraine with strikes, claiming Kyiv’s alleged support for Israel — including drone assistance — makes the entire territory of Ukraine a “legitimate target,” said Ibrahim Azizi, head of Iran’s parliamentary commission on national security.
An empty gesture. They've been supplying drones in the tens of thousands to Russia for a long, long time.
Ukraine can start supplying Dubai with Flamingos next. Very very cheap, very very destructive.
Any rumour that Katie has been in talks with Reform about joining them is categorically untrue. Katie is not going anywhere and fully backs Kemi who is doing a great job both as Leader and of demolishing this disastrous Labour government."
I'm not going anywhere. Kemi is doing a fantastic job. I'm more convinced than ever that the solutions to the country's problems are Conservative solutions, and the Conservative Party will implement them.
Iran threatens Ukraine with strikes, claiming Kyiv’s alleged support for Israel — including drone assistance — makes the entire territory of Ukraine a “legitimate target,” said Ibrahim Azizi, head of Iran’s parliamentary commission on national security.
An empty gesture. They've been supplying drones in the tens of thousands to Russia for a long, long time.
Ukraine can start supplying Dubai with Flamingos next. Very very cheap, very very destructive.
Iranian decision makers indicate that the Americans appear to be failing to understand that, for Iran, this is an existential war. In such a context, nothing is considered too precious to sacrifice.
With the approval of the new leader, Sayyed Mojataba Khamenei, it was agreed that if the US strikes or lands on any Iranian installations, Tehran is prepared to escalate dramatically.
Possible approved responses include: 1. Closure of Bab el Mandeb and attacks on Red Sea ports exporting oil, expanding the war to a vital global shipping route. 2. Total destruction of any island used by US forces as a staging ground, even if it means destroying Iranian installations worth billions of dollars and oil depots containing millions of barrels. 3. Complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its declaration as a war theatre, turning the world’s most critical energy chokepoint into an active battlefield. 4. All US locations in the Middle East are considered legitimate targets
Other plans have also been approved for different scenarios.
Possibly true but the issue for the rest of us is that the US Administration doesn't appear to care.
Trump might even see it as good for business (and a great deal of insider trading opportunities), given the US position as the world's largest oil producer. It's not as though he gives a damn for the world economy.
That is the paradox. High oil prices are bad for American consumers (and voters) but excellent news for American squillionaires who rub shoulders with the president and bankroll Republicans.
As I may have said before, watch out for the export restrictions on American O&G. They’re now pretty much self-sufficient, and can probably hold ‘gas’ (petrol) prices down ahead of the mid terms.
To do that would mean US O&G companies losing out on lots of money. When push comes to shove, Trump usually sides with the big companies over the public, particularly if the big companies make some… um… donations to a new ballroom or the Board of Peace.
Also, as Robert pointed out, the US produces the wrong sort of oil. Its refining capacity is focused on heavier oils that it needs to import, not the light oils it produces and generally exports. But here we are making the assumption that the White House is even vaguely rational again.
Venezeulan oil is heavy.
Just sayin'...they might know what they are doing after all.
Crude oil is more complicated than just hewsvy or light.
The US refineries that specialised in Venezuelan types of heavy oil have been converted to other things or shut.
It would take billions and years to change them back/start new ones
Iran threatens Ukraine with strikes, claiming Kyiv’s alleged support for Israel — including drone assistance — makes the entire territory of Ukraine a “legitimate target,” said Ibrahim Azizi, head of Iran’s parliamentary commission on national security.
An empty gesture. They've been supplying drones in the tens of thousands to Russia for a long, long time.
Ukraine can start supplying Dubai with Flamingos next. Very very cheap, very very destructive.
UAE should buy shares in the company making them, and invest billions into Ukraine in the process.
One suspects that the GCC States are looking at a lot of Ukranian military startups at the moment.
In other words, Washington now faces three difficult paths: end the conflict under conditions that may allow Iran to claim a strategic victory; continue the current campaign and risk prolonged instability and rising global energy prices; or expand the war and trigger a major regional escalation.
Time is not neutral in this equation. Each passing day hardens Tehran’s perception that it can withstand the pressure and emerge from the crisis with the upper hand.
(part of a longer tweet on where the US now stands strategically)
What remains astonishing is that this was blindingly obvious in advance to anyone who spent a couple of minutes thinking about how this was likely to develop. Just brainless.
So, where do we go from here? I think Hormuz will be impassable without Iranian permission for months unless the US invades and secures the opposite bank. This will bring US forces within range for a lot more of Iran's arsenal. Casualties will be 20 or more to 1 given US air and missile power but my guess is that Iran can much more easily absorb 100k-500k casualties than Trump can endure 5-25k. This is a country that sustained up to 1m casualties in their war with Saddam.
Trying to capture and then hold a country of more than 90m would take far more troops than the US has. They can destroy a lot of the country, they can impose Gaza style carnage but it is really not obvious how they actually win. There may come a point when Trump wants to talk about Epstein instead.
Again, this is why I genuinely fear it could gio nuclear. That may be the only way for Trump to convincingly defeat the Tehran regime, which clearly - and rightly - sees this war as existential for the Mullahs and the IRGC
How might it work? Perhaps two or three smaller "tactical" nukes on military sites, at first, with the clear implication that Trump is willing to flatten Tehran if needs be
They would surrender. But the world would be hurled into hideous turmoil....
I would imagine there are a few things just short of nuclear that could be done.
‘You are all worse than each other’: anti-regime Iranians turn on Trump Mood among some in Iran shifts from hope of being rescued to dismay at destruction of infrastructure, culture and lives
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/14/anti-regime-iranians-turn-on-trump-us ...The turning point for Amir was the Israeli strikes on fuel depots in Tehran last week, with one attack on the Shahran oil depot overshadowing the capital with black smoke. A rain shower later covered trees, homes and cars with layers of toxic oil.
“I genuinely believe now they [the US and Israel] didn’t have a plan. I was still hoping I was wrong, but the Shahran attack changed the way I look at this war right now,” he said. “If the regime is what you want to hit, even if you think these depots were used by the regime, where do you draw the line? What about us, the ordinary Iranians? We rely on this civil infrastructure. Why take away our ability to govern in the future? Who can rebuild utter ruins?”
Amir said he now had constant anxiety about Iran “turning into another Iraq”, a country the US invaded in 2003, promising freedom but delivering a civil war. Israeli leaders have also previously called on Palestinians in Gaza and the Lebanese people to rise up against oppression, only to later kill them in large numbers.
“My heart is so heavy,” said Amir. “I don’t even have tears left. Only anger and more anger. At this regime, and them,” he added, referring to the US and Israel.
Others who spoke to the Guardian this week also had a shift in their attitudes towards the war, especially after the attack on oil depots, but also after seeing images of the country’s heritage sites damaged...
The USA may not have a plan, but Israel does. Destroy Iran, using American troops and weaponry if possible.
‘You are all worse than each other’: anti-regime Iranians turn on Trump Mood among some in Iran shifts from hope of being rescued to dismay at destruction of infrastructure, culture and lives
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/14/anti-regime-iranians-turn-on-trump-us ...The turning point for Amir was the Israeli strikes on fuel depots in Tehran last week, with one attack on the Shahran oil depot overshadowing the capital with black smoke. A rain shower later covered trees, homes and cars with layers of toxic oil.
“I genuinely believe now they [the US and Israel] didn’t have a plan. I was still hoping I was wrong, but the Shahran attack changed the way I look at this war right now,” he said. “If the regime is what you want to hit, even if you think these depots were used by the regime, where do you draw the line? What about us, the ordinary Iranians? We rely on this civil infrastructure. Why take away our ability to govern in the future? Who can rebuild utter ruins?”
Amir said he now had constant anxiety about Iran “turning into another Iraq”, a country the US invaded in 2003, promising freedom but delivering a civil war. Israeli leaders have also previously called on Palestinians in Gaza and the Lebanese people to rise up against oppression, only to later kill them in large numbers.
“My heart is so heavy,” said Amir. “I don’t even have tears left. Only anger and more anger. At this regime, and them,” he added, referring to the US and Israel.
Others who spoke to the Guardian this week also had a shift in their attitudes towards the war, especially after the attack on oil depots, but also after seeing images of the country’s heritage sites damaged...
Sigh. All so utterly predictable.
Last Friday I went to get the Barnet notched and my Barber is Iranian.
He was delighted with Trump and Bibi and felt real progress was being made.
He’s hardcore anti regime. Organises demos at the Grey monument, he went to Paris and Munich, but not New York and London, to protest against the regime,
I go again in a few weeks.
Be interested in his thoughts then.
I did think he should not expect too much from them.
If the US wanted to destroy the whole of Kharg island they could so it seems like a game of chicken here .
Destroying the islands oil infrastructure will stop nearly all exports from Iran , this surely would cause a further oil spike .
Iran could retaliate with trying to cause further damage to the Gulf states oil refineries .
The sensible thing for the US to do is capture Kharg Island, and hold it hostage against the enriched uranium Iran possesses and free flow of oil through the Straights of Hormuz.
Meanwhile, the UAE is reminding Iran that most of the regime’s banking is done in Dubai. There’s a lot of Iranian money all over the GCC.
When they FINALLY get their ducks in a row, the US is in a very strong negotiating position.
Their planning should have got them there sooner.
If that was the plan, why did they try bombing Tehran instead of seizing Kharg Island in the first hour?
The plan was bomb stuff, Iran surrenders.
There should have been somebody older than eight in the room.
Iran threatens Ukraine with strikes, claiming Kyiv’s alleged support for Israel — including drone assistance — makes the entire territory of Ukraine a “legitimate target,” said Ibrahim Azizi, head of Iran’s parliamentary commission on national security.
An empty gesture. They've been supplying drones in the tens of thousands to Russia for a long, long time.
Although potentially could open a new vector of attack requiring Ukraine to reposition defences?
Iranian decision makers indicate that the Americans appear to be failing to understand that, for Iran, this is an existential war. In such a context, nothing is considered too precious to sacrifice.
With the approval of the new leader, Sayyed Mojataba Khamenei, it was agreed that if the US strikes or lands on any Iranian installations, Tehran is prepared to escalate dramatically.
Possible approved responses include: 1. Closure of Bab el Mandeb and attacks on Red Sea ports exporting oil, expanding the war to a vital global shipping route. 2. Total destruction of any island used by US forces as a staging ground, even if it means destroying Iranian installations worth billions of dollars and oil depots containing millions of barrels. 3. Complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its declaration as a war theatre, turning the world’s most critical energy chokepoint into an active battlefield. 4. All US locations in the Middle East are considered legitimate targets
Other plans have also been approved for different scenarios.
Can Iran defeat the rest of the world? That seems unlikely. Trying to blockade the Red Sea, Suez Canal, and permanently closing the Straits means they’re bringing Egypt and Saudi Arabia into the war against them, perhaps Turkey and China, too.
I'm sure if the alternative is to be sodomized by a bayonet the Ayatollahs, IRGC, Basji and Hizbollah would be willing to try.
Truthfully the fact we are even talking about this as a remote possibility shows how mahoosively Trump has fucked up here.
Not Netanyahu so much, because it will vindicate his claims about Iran. But for Trump, this could ironically become existential.
It makes sense to offer authoritarian rulers the option of a comfortable retirement.
‘You are all worse than each other’: anti-regime Iranians turn on Trump Mood among some in Iran shifts from hope of being rescued to dismay at destruction of infrastructure, culture and lives
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/14/anti-regime-iranians-turn-on-trump-us ...The turning point for Amir was the Israeli strikes on fuel depots in Tehran last week, with one attack on the Shahran oil depot overshadowing the capital with black smoke. A rain shower later covered trees, homes and cars with layers of toxic oil.
“I genuinely believe now they [the US and Israel] didn’t have a plan. I was still hoping I was wrong, but the Shahran attack changed the way I look at this war right now,” he said. “If the regime is what you want to hit, even if you think these depots were used by the regime, where do you draw the line? What about us, the ordinary Iranians? We rely on this civil infrastructure. Why take away our ability to govern in the future? Who can rebuild utter ruins?”
Amir said he now had constant anxiety about Iran “turning into another Iraq”, a country the US invaded in 2003, promising freedom but delivering a civil war. Israeli leaders have also previously called on Palestinians in Gaza and the Lebanese people to rise up against oppression, only to later kill them in large numbers.
“My heart is so heavy,” said Amir. “I don’t even have tears left. Only anger and more anger. At this regime, and them,” he added, referring to the US and Israel.
Others who spoke to the Guardian this week also had a shift in their attitudes towards the war, especially after the attack on oil depots, but also after seeing images of the country’s heritage sites damaged...
Sigh. All so utterly predictable.
Last Friday I went to get the Barnet notched and my Barber is Iranian.
He was delighted with Trump and Bibi and felt real progress was being made.
He’s hardcore anti regime. Organises demos at the Grey monument, he went to Paris and Munich, but not New York and London, to protest against the regime,
I go again in a few weeks.
Be interested in his thoughts then.
I did think he should not expect too much from them.
I do wonder whether the people of Iran could just go on general strike. It is a much more passive form of resistance than taking to the streets to get shot up. No idea whether it would be feasible or effective.
‘You are all worse than each other’: anti-regime Iranians turn on Trump Mood among some in Iran shifts from hope of being rescued to dismay at destruction of infrastructure, culture and lives
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/14/anti-regime-iranians-turn-on-trump-us ...The turning point for Amir was the Israeli strikes on fuel depots in Tehran last week, with one attack on the Shahran oil depot overshadowing the capital with black smoke. A rain shower later covered trees, homes and cars with layers of toxic oil.
“I genuinely believe now they [the US and Israel] didn’t have a plan. I was still hoping I was wrong, but the Shahran attack changed the way I look at this war right now,” he said. “If the regime is what you want to hit, even if you think these depots were used by the regime, where do you draw the line? What about us, the ordinary Iranians? We rely on this civil infrastructure. Why take away our ability to govern in the future? Who can rebuild utter ruins?”
Amir said he now had constant anxiety about Iran “turning into another Iraq”, a country the US invaded in 2003, promising freedom but delivering a civil war. Israeli leaders have also previously called on Palestinians in Gaza and the Lebanese people to rise up against oppression, only to later kill them in large numbers.
“My heart is so heavy,” said Amir. “I don’t even have tears left. Only anger and more anger. At this regime, and them,” he added, referring to the US and Israel.
Others who spoke to the Guardian this week also had a shift in their attitudes towards the war, especially after the attack on oil depots, but also after seeing images of the country’s heritage sites damaged...
You just know Iran will build stuff under heritage sites. Yes, America and Israel will bomb them. But in doing so, they will - prdicatably - lose hearts and minds.
Iranian decision makers indicate that the Americans appear to be failing to understand that, for Iran, this is an existential war. In such a context, nothing is considered too precious to sacrifice.
With the approval of the new leader, Sayyed Mojataba Khamenei, it was agreed that if the US strikes or lands on any Iranian installations, Tehran is prepared to escalate dramatically.
Possible approved responses include: 1. Closure of Bab el Mandeb and attacks on Red Sea ports exporting oil, expanding the war to a vital global shipping route. 2. Total destruction of any island used by US forces as a staging ground, even if it means destroying Iranian installations worth billions of dollars and oil depots containing millions of barrels. 3. Complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its declaration as a war theatre, turning the world’s most critical energy chokepoint into an active battlefield. 4. All US locations in the Middle East are considered legitimate targets
Other plans have also been approved for different scenarios.
Possibly true but the issue for the rest of us is that the US Administration doesn't appear to care.
Trump might even see it as good for business (and a great deal of insider trading opportunities), given the US position as the world's largest oil producer. It's not as though he gives a damn for the world economy.
That is the paradox. High oil prices are bad for American consumers (and voters) but excellent news for American squillionaires who rub shoulders with the president and bankroll Republicans.
As I may have said before, watch out for the export restrictions on American O&G. They’re now pretty much self-sufficient, and can probably hold ‘gas’ (petrol) prices down ahead of the mid terms.
To do that would mean US O&G companies losing out on lots of money. When push comes to shove, Trump usually sides with the big companies over the public, particularly if the big companies make some… um… donations to a new ballroom or the Board of Peace.
Also, as Robert pointed out, the US produces the wrong sort of oil. Its refining capacity is focused on heavier oils that it needs to import, not the light oils it produces and generally exports. But here we are making the assumption that the White House is even vaguely rational again.
Venezeulan oil is heavy.
Just sayin'...they might know what they are doing after all.
Crude oil is more complicated than just hewsvy or light.
The US refineries that specialised in Venezuelan types of heavy oil have been converted to other things or shut.
It would take billions and years to change them back/start new ones
Not sure that is correct:
"Nearly 70 percent of US refining capacity is designed for heavier crude, according to the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, a relic of heavy investment made before the more recent boom in shale drilling.
“You need what is referred to as a ‘complex’ refinery with deep conversion capacities. The Gulf Coast has multiple refineries like that,” Denton Cinquegrana, chief oil analyst at Oil Price Information Service, told Al Jazeera."
In other words, Washington now faces three difficult paths: end the conflict under conditions that may allow Iran to claim a strategic victory; continue the current campaign and risk prolonged instability and rising global energy prices; or expand the war and trigger a major regional escalation.
Time is not neutral in this equation. Each passing day hardens Tehran’s perception that it can withstand the pressure and emerge from the crisis with the upper hand.
(part of a longer tweet on where the US now stands strategically)
What remains astonishing is that this was blindingly obvious in advance to anyone who spent a couple of minutes thinking about how this was likely to develop. Just brainless.
So, where do we go from here? I think Hormuz will be impassable without Iranian permission for months unless the US invades and secures the opposite bank. This will bring US forces within range for a lot more of Iran's arsenal. Casualties will be 20 or more to 1 given US air and missile power but my guess is that Iran can much more easily absorb 100k-500k casualties than Trump can endure 5-25k. This is a country that sustained up to 1m casualties in their war with Saddam.
Trying to capture and then hold a country of more than 90m would take far more troops than the US has. They can destroy a lot of the country, they can impose Gaza style carnage but it is really not obvious how they actually win. There may come a point when Trump wants to talk about Epstein instead.
Again, this is why I genuinely fear it could gio nuclear. That may be the only way for Trump to convincingly defeat the Tehran regime, which clearly - and rightly - sees this war as existential for the Mullahs and the IRGC
How might it work? Perhaps two or three smaller "tactical" nukes on military sites, at first, with the clear implication that Trump is willing to flatten Tehran if needs be
They would surrender. But the world would be hurled into hideous turmoil....
I would imagine there are a few things just short of nuclear that could be done.
They will find it fun getting a job after a few convictions for theft.
Look out for the whining pieces in the Guardian about how unfair it is they can’t pass a background check and have got booted from work.
You think these people work? Aren't they all retired or living off the bank of Mum and Dad / claiming not in a position to work due to anxiety (over situation in the Middle East)?
Iran threatens Ukraine with strikes, claiming Kyiv’s alleged support for Israel — including drone assistance — makes the entire territory of Ukraine a “legitimate target,” said Ibrahim Azizi, head of Iran’s parliamentary commission on national security.
An empty gesture. They've been supplying drones in the tens of thousands to Russia for a long, long time.
I didn't think they'd been supplying many drones to Russia since Russia started manufacturing them.
In other words, Washington now faces three difficult paths: end the conflict under conditions that may allow Iran to claim a strategic victory; continue the current campaign and risk prolonged instability and rising global energy prices; or expand the war and trigger a major regional escalation.
Time is not neutral in this equation. Each passing day hardens Tehran’s perception that it can withstand the pressure and emerge from the crisis with the upper hand.
(part of a longer tweet on where the US now stands strategically)
What remains astonishing is that this was blindingly obvious in advance to anyone who spent a couple of minutes thinking about how this was likely to develop. Just brainless.
So, where do we go from here? I think Hormuz will be impassable without Iranian permission for months unless the US invades and secures the opposite bank. This will bring US forces within range for a lot more of Iran's arsenal. Casualties will be 20 or more to 1 given US air and missile power but my guess is that Iran can much more easily absorb 100k-500k casualties than Trump can endure 5-25k. This is a country that sustained up to 1m casualties in their war with Saddam.
Trying to capture and then hold a country of more than 90m would take far more troops than the US has. They can destroy a lot of the country, they can impose Gaza style carnage but it is really not obvious how they actually win. There may come a point when Trump wants to talk about Epstein instead.
Again, this is why I genuinely fear it could gio nuclear. That may be the only way for Trump to convincingly defeat the Tehran regime, which clearly - and rightly - sees this war as existential for the Mullahs and the IRGC
How might it work? Perhaps two or three smaller "tactical" nukes on military sites, at first, with the clear implication that Trump is willing to flatten Tehran if needs be
They would surrender. But the world would be hurled into hideous turmoil....
Trump and his coterie are stark raving mad and utterly immoral. Who knows what they might do in extremis? Interesting times.
‘You are all worse than each other’: anti-regime Iranians turn on Trump Mood among some in Iran shifts from hope of being rescued to dismay at destruction of infrastructure, culture and lives
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/14/anti-regime-iranians-turn-on-trump-us ...The turning point for Amir was the Israeli strikes on fuel depots in Tehran last week, with one attack on the Shahran oil depot overshadowing the capital with black smoke. A rain shower later covered trees, homes and cars with layers of toxic oil.
“I genuinely believe now they [the US and Israel] didn’t have a plan. I was still hoping I was wrong, but the Shahran attack changed the way I look at this war right now,” he said. “If the regime is what you want to hit, even if you think these depots were used by the regime, where do you draw the line? What about us, the ordinary Iranians? We rely on this civil infrastructure. Why take away our ability to govern in the future? Who can rebuild utter ruins?”
Amir said he now had constant anxiety about Iran “turning into another Iraq”, a country the US invaded in 2003, promising freedom but delivering a civil war. Israeli leaders have also previously called on Palestinians in Gaza and the Lebanese people to rise up against oppression, only to later kill them in large numbers.
“My heart is so heavy,” said Amir. “I don’t even have tears left. Only anger and more anger. At this regime, and them,” he added, referring to the US and Israel.
Others who spoke to the Guardian this week also had a shift in their attitudes towards the war, especially after the attack on oil depots, but also after seeing images of the country’s heritage sites damaged...
Sigh. All so utterly predictable.
Last Friday I went to get the Barnet notched and my Barber is Iranian.
He was delighted with Trump and Bibi and felt real progress was being made.
He’s hardcore anti regime. Organises demos at the Grey monument, he went to Paris and Munich, but not New York and London, to protest against the regime,
I go again in a few weeks.
Be interested in his thoughts then.
I did think he should not expect too much from them.
FWIW, The Speccie has a piece by Freddie Grey this weekend about US and Iran and says the US military planners etc were absolutely boiling angry when Netanyahu bombed all those oil depots. Sounds like he went off-piste.
Also, apparently the Iranian have code named their planned fightback as 'Operation Madman'.
Any rumour that Katie has been in talks with Reform about joining them is categorically untrue. Katie is not going anywhere and fully backs Kemi who is doing a great job both as Leader and of demolishing this disastrous Labour government."
I'm not going anywhere. Kemi is doing a fantastic job. I'm more convinced than ever that the solutions to the country's problems are Conservative solutions, and the Conservative Party will implement them.
In other words, Washington now faces three difficult paths: end the conflict under conditions that may allow Iran to claim a strategic victory; continue the current campaign and risk prolonged instability and rising global energy prices; or expand the war and trigger a major regional escalation.
Time is not neutral in this equation. Each passing day hardens Tehran’s perception that it can withstand the pressure and emerge from the crisis with the upper hand.
(part of a longer tweet on where the US now stands strategically)
What remains astonishing is that this was blindingly obvious in advance to anyone who spent a couple of minutes thinking about how this was likely to develop. Just brainless.
So, where do we go from here? I think Hormuz will be impassable without Iranian permission for months unless the US invades and secures the opposite bank. This will bring US forces within range for a lot more of Iran's arsenal. Casualties will be 20 or more to 1 given US air and missile power but my guess is that Iran can much more easily absorb 100k-500k casualties than Trump can endure 5-25k. This is a country that sustained up to 1m casualties in their war with Saddam.
Trying to capture and then hold a country of more than 90m would take far more troops than the US has. They can destroy a lot of the country, they can impose Gaza style carnage but it is really not obvious how they actually win. There may come a point when Trump wants to talk about Epstein instead.
Again, this is why I genuinely fear it could gio nuclear. That may be the only way for Trump to convincingly defeat the Tehran regime, which clearly - and rightly - sees this war as existential for the Mullahs and the IRGC
How might it work? Perhaps two or three smaller "tactical" nukes on military sites, at first, with the clear implication that Trump is willing to flatten Tehran if needs be
They would surrender. But the world would be hurled into hideous turmoil....
I would imagine there are a few things just short of nuclear that could be done.
Share with the class.
You just KNOW that playing with nukes will give Hegseth a Hadron collider.
In other words, Washington now faces three difficult paths: end the conflict under conditions that may allow Iran to claim a strategic victory; continue the current campaign and risk prolonged instability and rising global energy prices; or expand the war and trigger a major regional escalation.
Time is not neutral in this equation. Each passing day hardens Tehran’s perception that it can withstand the pressure and emerge from the crisis with the upper hand.
(part of a longer tweet on where the US now stands strategically)
What remains astonishing is that this was blindingly obvious in advance to anyone who spent a couple of minutes thinking about how this was likely to develop. Just brainless.
So, where do we go from here? I think Hormuz will be impassable without Iranian permission for months unless the US invades and secures the opposite bank. This will bring US forces within range for a lot more of Iran's arsenal. Casualties will be 20 or more to 1 given US air and missile power but my guess is that Iran can much more easily absorb 100k-500k casualties than Trump can endure 5-25k. This is a country that sustained up to 1m casualties in their war with Saddam.
Trying to capture and then hold a country of more than 90m would take far more troops than the US has. They can destroy a lot of the country, they can impose Gaza style carnage but it is really not obvious how they actually win. There may come a point when Trump wants to talk about Epstein instead.
Again, this is why I genuinely fear it could gio nuclear. That may be the only way for Trump to convincingly defeat the Tehran regime, which clearly - and rightly - sees this war as existential for the Mullahs and the IRGC
How might it work? Perhaps two or three smaller "tactical" nukes on military sites, at first, with the clear implication that Trump is willing to flatten Tehran if needs be
They would surrender. But the world would be hurled into hideous turmoil....
I would imagine there are a few things just short of nuclear that could be done.
What like?
Fuckoff big conventional bomb?
Because I've watched Goldeneye recently, I also looked up EMP weapons:
Yes, the United States has developed and deployed non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse (NNEMP) weapons, primarily for tactical, precision strikes. The most advanced example is the Counter-Electronics High Power Microwave Advanced Missile Project (CHAMP), a cruise missile developed by the U.S. Air Force and Boeing. CHAMP uses high-power microwaves to disable electronic systems without causing physical destruction, and it has been successfully tested and is now operational.
Something with a bit of flash and bang, shock and awe, ideally very effective with minimal loss of life.
Iran threatens Ukraine with strikes, claiming Kyiv’s alleged support for Israel — including drone assistance — makes the entire territory of Ukraine a “legitimate target,” said Ibrahim Azizi, head of Iran’s parliamentary commission on national security.
An empty gesture. They've been supplying drones in the tens of thousands to Russia for a long, long time.
Ukraine can start supplying Dubai with Flamingos next. Very very cheap, very very destructive.
No point; Israel and the US are doing far more damage. What Dubai needs is air defence, which I think they're already helping with.
In other words, Washington now faces three difficult paths: end the conflict under conditions that may allow Iran to claim a strategic victory; continue the current campaign and risk prolonged instability and rising global energy prices; or expand the war and trigger a major regional escalation.
Time is not neutral in this equation. Each passing day hardens Tehran’s perception that it can withstand the pressure and emerge from the crisis with the upper hand.
(part of a longer tweet on where the US now stands strategically)
What remains astonishing is that this was blindingly obvious in advance to anyone who spent a couple of minutes thinking about how this was likely to develop. Just brainless.
So, where do we go from here? I think Hormuz will be impassable without Iranian permission for months unless the US invades and secures the opposite bank. This will bring US forces within range for a lot more of Iran's arsenal. Casualties will be 20 or more to 1 given US air and missile power but my guess is that Iran can much more easily absorb 100k-500k casualties than Trump can endure 5-25k. This is a country that sustained up to 1m casualties in their war with Saddam.
Trying to capture and then hold a country of more than 90m would take far more troops than the US has. They can destroy a lot of the country, they can impose Gaza style carnage but it is really not obvious how they actually win. There may come a point when Trump wants to talk about Epstein instead.
Again, this is why I genuinely fear it could gio nuclear. That may be the only way for Trump to convincingly defeat the Tehran regime, which clearly - and rightly - sees this war as existential for the Mullahs and the IRGC
How might it work? Perhaps two or three smaller "tactical" nukes on military sites, at first, with the clear implication that Trump is willing to flatten Tehran if needs be
They would surrender. But the world would be hurled into hideous turmoil....
I would imagine there are a few things just short of nuclear that could be done.
Like what? No way America is gonna do a ground invasion. They'd quite possibly lose, for a start
Japan 1945 shows you can defeat a totally hostile, entirely committed, fight-to-the-death enemy, and you can do it from the air. If you use nukes
Iran threatens Ukraine with strikes, claiming Kyiv’s alleged support for Israel — including drone assistance — makes the entire territory of Ukraine a “legitimate target,” said Ibrahim Azizi, head of Iran’s parliamentary commission on national security.
An empty gesture. They've been supplying drones in the tens of thousands to Russia for a long, long time.
Although potentially could open a new vector of attack requiring Ukraine to reposition defences?
Can they even hit Ukraine? Other than local embassies and/or terrorism?
In other words, Washington now faces three difficult paths: end the conflict under conditions that may allow Iran to claim a strategic victory; continue the current campaign and risk prolonged instability and rising global energy prices; or expand the war and trigger a major regional escalation.
Time is not neutral in this equation. Each passing day hardens Tehran’s perception that it can withstand the pressure and emerge from the crisis with the upper hand.
(part of a longer tweet on where the US now stands strategically)
What remains astonishing is that this was blindingly obvious in advance to anyone who spent a couple of minutes thinking about how this was likely to develop. Just brainless.
So, where do we go from here? I think Hormuz will be impassable without Iranian permission for months unless the US invades and secures the opposite bank. This will bring US forces within range for a lot more of Iran's arsenal. Casualties will be 20 or more to 1 given US air and missile power but my guess is that Iran can much more easily absorb 100k-500k casualties than Trump can endure 5-25k. This is a country that sustained up to 1m casualties in their war with Saddam.
Trying to capture and then hold a country of more than 90m would take far more troops than the US has. They can destroy a lot of the country, they can impose Gaza style carnage but it is really not obvious how they actually win. There may come a point when Trump wants to talk about Epstein instead.
Again, this is why I genuinely fear it could gio nuclear. That may be the only way for Trump to convincingly defeat the Tehran regime, which clearly - and rightly - sees this war as existential for the Mullahs and the IRGC
How might it work? Perhaps two or three smaller "tactical" nukes on military sites, at first, with the clear implication that Trump is willing to flatten Tehran if needs be
They would surrender. But the world would be hurled into hideous turmoil....
Trump and his coterie are stark raving mad and utterly immoral. Who knows what they might do in extremis? Interesting times.
If America used tactical nukes, the Arab world would say it was Israel.
And have the cover to evict the US bases.
I do wonder whether evicting the US bases is the way this ultimately plays out.
And the Saudis determinedly getting their own nukes, with Pakistani assistance. Not that Iran's own nuclear ambitions will be ended.
I fully expect the net outcome of this war will be nuclear proliferation.
Any rumour that Katie has been in talks with Reform about joining them is categorically untrue. Katie is not going anywhere and fully backs Kemi who is doing a great job both as Leader and of demolishing this disastrous Labour government."
I'm not going anywhere. Kemi is doing a fantastic job. I'm more convinced than ever that the solutions to the country's problems are Conservative solutions, and the Conservative Party will implement them.
In other words, Washington now faces three difficult paths: end the conflict under conditions that may allow Iran to claim a strategic victory; continue the current campaign and risk prolonged instability and rising global energy prices; or expand the war and trigger a major regional escalation.
Time is not neutral in this equation. Each passing day hardens Tehran’s perception that it can withstand the pressure and emerge from the crisis with the upper hand.
(part of a longer tweet on where the US now stands strategically)
What remains astonishing is that this was blindingly obvious in advance to anyone who spent a couple of minutes thinking about how this was likely to develop. Just brainless.
So, where do we go from here? I think Hormuz will be impassable without Iranian permission for months unless the US invades and secures the opposite bank. This will bring US forces within range for a lot more of Iran's arsenal. Casualties will be 20 or more to 1 given US air and missile power but my guess is that Iran can much more easily absorb 100k-500k casualties than Trump can endure 5-25k. This is a country that sustained up to 1m casualties in their war with Saddam.
Trying to capture and then hold a country of more than 90m would take far more troops than the US has. They can destroy a lot of the country, they can impose Gaza style carnage but it is really not obvious how they actually win. There may come a point when Trump wants to talk about Epstein instead.
Again, this is why I genuinely fear it could gio nuclear. That may be the only way for Trump to convincingly defeat the Tehran regime, which clearly - and rightly - sees this war as existential for the Mullahs and the IRGC
How might it work? Perhaps two or three smaller "tactical" nukes on military sites, at first, with the clear implication that Trump is willing to flatten Tehran if needs be
They would surrender. But the world would be hurled into hideous turmoil....
I would imagine there are a few things just short of nuclear that could be done.
What like?
Fuckoff big conventional bomb?
Because I've watched Goldeneye recently, I also looked up EMP weapons:
Yes, the United States has developed and deployed non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse (NNEMP) weapons, primarily for tactical, precision strikes. The most advanced example is the Counter-Electronics High Power Microwave Advanced Missile Project (CHAMP), a cruise missile developed by the U.S. Air Force and Boeing. CHAMP uses high-power microwaves to disable electronic systems without causing physical destruction, and it has been successfully tested and is now operational.
Something with a bit of flash and bang, shock and awe, ideally very effective with minimal loss of life.
To end the war the US needs to achieve one of two things. 1. Topple the regime (which is proving harder than anticipated). 2. Offer the Iranians a deal that is preferable to continuing the war.
The main difficulty with (2) is that the US may also feel that it has to walk away with something to justify launching the war in the first place, and it's not obvious what the US can demand of the Iranians that the Iranians will give up, now that the Iranians can see that they can hurt the Americans in return.
I don't see how a flash-bang weapon helps create that leverage, if it's short of regime toppling power. One thing that might change the calculus of the Iranian regime would be if their resistance were to become futile - i.e. if the US was able to keep the Straits of Hormuz open, and defend oil infrastructure across the Middle East from drones. But that seems unlikely.
‘You are all worse than each other’: anti-regime Iranians turn on Trump Mood among some in Iran shifts from hope of being rescued to dismay at destruction of infrastructure, culture and lives
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/14/anti-regime-iranians-turn-on-trump-us ...The turning point for Amir was the Israeli strikes on fuel depots in Tehran last week, with one attack on the Shahran oil depot overshadowing the capital with black smoke. A rain shower later covered trees, homes and cars with layers of toxic oil.
“I genuinely believe now they [the US and Israel] didn’t have a plan. I was still hoping I was wrong, but the Shahran attack changed the way I look at this war right now,” he said. “If the regime is what you want to hit, even if you think these depots were used by the regime, where do you draw the line? What about us, the ordinary Iranians? We rely on this civil infrastructure. Why take away our ability to govern in the future? Who can rebuild utter ruins?”
Amir said he now had constant anxiety about Iran “turning into another Iraq”, a country the US invaded in 2003, promising freedom but delivering a civil war. Israeli leaders have also previously called on Palestinians in Gaza and the Lebanese people to rise up against oppression, only to later kill them in large numbers.
“My heart is so heavy,” said Amir. “I don’t even have tears left. Only anger and more anger. At this regime, and them,” he added, referring to the US and Israel.
Others who spoke to the Guardian this week also had a shift in their attitudes towards the war, especially after the attack on oil depots, but also after seeing images of the country’s heritage sites damaged...
You just know Iran will build stuff under heritage sites. Yes, America and Israel will bomb them. But in doing so, they will - prdicatably - lose hearts and minds.
Iranian decision makers indicate that the Americans appear to be failing to understand that, for Iran, this is an existential war. In such a context, nothing is considered too precious to sacrifice.
With the approval of the new leader, Sayyed Mojataba Khamenei, it was agreed that if the US strikes or lands on any Iranian installations, Tehran is prepared to escalate dramatically.
Possible approved responses include: 1. Closure of Bab el Mandeb and attacks on Red Sea ports exporting oil, expanding the war to a vital global shipping route. 2. Total destruction of any island used by US forces as a staging ground, even if it means destroying Iranian installations worth billions of dollars and oil depots containing millions of barrels. 3. Complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its declaration as a war theatre, turning the world’s most critical energy chokepoint into an active battlefield. 4. All US locations in the Middle East are considered legitimate targets
Other plans have also been approved for different scenarios.
Possibly true but the issue for the rest of us is that the US Administration doesn't appear to care.
Trump might even see it as good for business (and a great deal of insider trading opportunities), given the US position as the world's largest oil producer. It's not as though he gives a damn for the world economy.
That is the paradox. High oil prices are bad for American consumers (and voters) but excellent news for American squillionaires who rub shoulders with the president and bankroll Republicans.
As I may have said before, watch out for the export restrictions on American O&G. They’re now pretty much self-sufficient, and can probably hold ‘gas’ (petrol) prices down ahead of the mid terms.
To do that would mean US O&G companies losing out on lots of money. When push comes to shove, Trump usually sides with the big companies over the public, particularly if the big companies make some… um… donations to a new ballroom or the Board of Peace.
Also, as Robert pointed out, the US produces the wrong sort of oil. Its refining capacity is focused on heavier oils that it needs to import, not the light oils it produces and generally exports. But here we are making the assumption that the White House is even vaguely rational again.
Venezeulan oil is heavy.
Just sayin'...they might know what they are doing after all.
Crude oil is more complicated than just hewsvy or light.
The US refineries that specialised in Venezuelan types of heavy oil have been converted to other things or shut.
It would take billions and years to change them back/start new ones
Not sure that is correct:
"Nearly 70 percent of US refining capacity is designed for heavier crude, according to the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, a relic of heavy investment made before the more recent boom in shale drilling.
“You need what is referred to as a ‘complex’ refinery with deep conversion capacities. The Gulf Coast has multiple refineries like that,” Denton Cinquegrana, chief oil analyst at Oil Price Information Service, told Al Jazeera."
As I said, one heavy crude isn’t the same as another.
Refineries are designed around varying types of crude - you can’t just switch. Your talking lots of work with expensive equipment and very skilled workers to switch.
The Venezuelan heavy stuff hasn’t been (much) on the international markets in years.
So, once they get back to producing (years), then someone has to rebuild the capability to refine it. Standard operations, but will take billions and years.
There is absolutely no sign of a surge in investment in Venezuelan oil production. This is because the regime has expropriated foreign interests multiple times. So foreigners won’t invest and there is no money domestically to do so.
In other words, Washington now faces three difficult paths: end the conflict under conditions that may allow Iran to claim a strategic victory; continue the current campaign and risk prolonged instability and rising global energy prices; or expand the war and trigger a major regional escalation.
Time is not neutral in this equation. Each passing day hardens Tehran’s perception that it can withstand the pressure and emerge from the crisis with the upper hand.
(part of a longer tweet on where the US now stands strategically)
What remains astonishing is that this was blindingly obvious in advance to anyone who spent a couple of minutes thinking about how this was likely to develop. Just brainless.
So, where do we go from here? I think Hormuz will be impassable without Iranian permission for months unless the US invades and secures the opposite bank. This will bring US forces within range for a lot more of Iran's arsenal. Casualties will be 20 or more to 1 given US air and missile power but my guess is that Iran can much more easily absorb 100k-500k casualties than Trump can endure 5-25k. This is a country that sustained up to 1m casualties in their war with Saddam.
Trying to capture and then hold a country of more than 90m would take far more troops than the US has. They can destroy a lot of the country, they can impose Gaza style carnage but it is really not obvious how they actually win. There may come a point when Trump wants to talk about Epstein instead.
Again, this is why I genuinely fear it could gio nuclear. That may be the only way for Trump to convincingly defeat the Tehran regime, which clearly - and rightly - sees this war as existential for the Mullahs and the IRGC
How might it work? Perhaps two or three smaller "tactical" nukes on military sites, at first, with the clear implication that Trump is willing to flatten Tehran if needs be
They would surrender. But the world would be hurled into hideous turmoil....
I would imagine there are a few things just short of nuclear that could be done.
What like?
Fuckoff big conventional bomb?
Because I've watched Goldeneye recently, I also looked up EMP weapons:
Yes, the United States has developed and deployed non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse (NNEMP) weapons, primarily for tactical, precision strikes. The most advanced example is the Counter-Electronics High Power Microwave Advanced Missile Project (CHAMP), a cruise missile developed by the U.S. Air Force and Boeing. CHAMP uses high-power microwaves to disable electronic systems without causing physical destruction, and it has been successfully tested and is now operational.
Something with a bit of flash and bang, shock and awe, ideally very effective with minimal loss of life.
To end the war the US needs to achieve one of two things. 1. Topple the regime (which is proving harder than anticipated). 2. Offer the Iranians a deal that is preferable to continuing the war.
The main difficulty with (2) is that the US may also feel that it has to walk away with something to justify launching the war in the first place, and it's not obvious what the US can demand of the Iranians that the Iranians will give up, now that the Iranians can see that they can hurt the Americans in return.
I don't see how a flash-bang weapon helps create that leverage, if it's short of regime toppling power. One thing that might change the calculus of the Iranian regime would be if their resistance were to become futile - i.e. if the US was able to keep the Straits of Hormuz open, and defend oil infrastructure across the Middle East from drones. But that seems unlikely.
I agree with most of what you say. I think the successful deployment of a flash bang weapon potentially gives a pretext for the regime to come to the negotiating table - assuming that they already want to, but at present they don't have sufficient justification.
"Phil Woolas, former Labour minister, dies of brain cancer aged 66 Former Oldham East and Saddleworth MP remained in Westminster for New Labour’s entire 13 years in power"
"Phil Woolas, former Labour minister, dies of brain cancer aged 66 Former Oldham East and Saddleworth MP remained in Westminster for New Labour’s entire 13 years in power"
So greetings from the W Hotel, Palm Jumeirah, Dubai.
It’s usually around £400-£500 a night here, plus food and drinks, but today it’s £250 a night and all-inclusive. We have a 6pm checkout tomorrow, so a whole weekend on the piss at a five star resort. Rooftop bar appears to be full of ‘beautiful people’…
Can’t complain so far, maybe living in a war zone is fun after all?
In other words, Washington now faces three difficult paths: end the conflict under conditions that may allow Iran to claim a strategic victory; continue the current campaign and risk prolonged instability and rising global energy prices; or expand the war and trigger a major regional escalation.
Time is not neutral in this equation. Each passing day hardens Tehran’s perception that it can withstand the pressure and emerge from the crisis with the upper hand.
(part of a longer tweet on where the US now stands strategically)
What remains astonishing is that this was blindingly obvious in advance to anyone who spent a couple of minutes thinking about how this was likely to develop. Just brainless.
So, where do we go from here? I think Hormuz will be impassable without Iranian permission for months unless the US invades and secures the opposite bank. This will bring US forces within range for a lot more of Iran's arsenal. Casualties will be 20 or more to 1 given US air and missile power but my guess is that Iran can much more easily absorb 100k-500k casualties than Trump can endure 5-25k. This is a country that sustained up to 1m casualties in their war with Saddam.
Trying to capture and then hold a country of more than 90m would take far more troops than the US has. They can destroy a lot of the country, they can impose Gaza style carnage but it is really not obvious how they actually win. There may come a point when Trump wants to talk about Epstein instead.
Again, this is why I genuinely fear it could gio nuclear. That may be the only way for Trump to convincingly defeat the Tehran regime, which clearly - and rightly - sees this war as existential for the Mullahs and the IRGC
How might it work? Perhaps two or three smaller "tactical" nukes on military sites, at first, with the clear implication that Trump is willing to flatten Tehran if needs be
They would surrender. But the world would be hurled into hideous turmoil....
Trump and his coterie are stark raving mad and utterly immoral. Who knows what they might do in extremis? Interesting times.
If America used tactical nukes, the Arab world would say it was Israel.
And have the cover to evict the US bases.
I do wonder whether evicting the US bases is the way this ultimately plays out.
And the Saudis determinedly getting their own nukes, with Pakistani assistance. Not that Iran's own nuclear ambitions will be ended.
I fully expect the net outcome of this war will be nuclear proliferation.
To me this is the rational response of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Would Russia have contemplated such a move if Ukraine had not given up its nuclear deterrent? Would the world put up with the idiocy of North Korea if it didn't have a nuclear capacity? Tom Lehrer's "Who's next" is coming back into vogue. And the more there are the more risk that they end up being used.
Comments
So, where do we go from here? I think Hormuz will be impassable without Iranian permission for months unless the US invades and secures the opposite bank. This will bring US forces within range for a lot more of Iran's arsenal. Casualties will be 20 or more to 1 given US air and missile power but my guess is that Iran can much more easily absorb 100k-500k casualties than Trump can endure 5-25k. This is a country that sustained up to 1m casualties in their war with Saddam.
Trying to capture and then hold a country of more than 90m would take far more troops than the US has. They can destroy a lot of the country, they can impose Gaza style carnage but it is really not obvious how they actually win. There may come a point when Trump wants to talk about Epstein instead.
Unfortunately they can’t really attack Trump as that would cause a further fracture with the WH .
https://x.com/charliesimpsona/status/2032768577124663537?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Katie Lam's aide has said the following to me:
Any rumour that Katie has been in talks with Reform about joining them is categorically untrue. Katie is not going anywhere and fully backs Kemi who is doing a great job both as Leader and of demolishing this disastrous Labour government."
https://x.com/charliesimpsona/status/2032788314340601966?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Thanks for correcting.
I'm not going anywhere. Kemi is doing a fantastic job. I'm more convinced than ever that the solutions to the country's problems are Conservative solutions, and the Conservative Party will implement them.
https://x.com/katie_lam_mp/status/2032800018629853374?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Ultimately, we need to get away from the belief that higher energy prices help the transition to Net Zero. This was predicated, in the past, on the idea that all the alternatives were more expensive.
But we have solar being much cheaper than other generation methods and still falling. Solar + battery storage is going to get there soon. Electric cars are crossing over to be cheaper than ICE.
In which case, strangling economic output with high energy prices reduces growth in the economy. The growth which pays for things like investment - and newer equipment and vehicles are nearly universally better for the environment than their predecessors. See the long, slow standards improvements in so many areas.
So economic growth is key to net zero.
(As an aside I have zero truck with the “a big bad boy did it and ran away” argument. They’ve been in government 2 years. If they haven’t changed the policy or set out plans to change it then they own it.
Edit - and Jack Rankin
British fruit and vegetable growers warn of empty supermarket shelves due to Iran war
Supermarket shelves could soon be empty due to soaring energy and transportation costs, fruit and vegetable growers have warned
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/fruit-vegetables-supermarket-iran-war-b2938475.html
The fictitious bit is the price of fuel. At the moment the cost of the fuel in the tanks is much less than the open market price. So quoting it wouldn't help their case.
And of course BP is selling itself fuel at the inflated price, so will be making excess profits further down the line.
Of course in capitalism, companies should be able to make excess profits, but only if they are also allowed to make excess losses when they f*** up.
@shashj
I think it helps to think about two parallel wars. US & Israel waging a highly effective war of attrition against Iranian military & naval capabilities. Iran waging a highly effective war to spike oil price and destabilise global energy markets. Neither running out of steam.
https://x.com/shashj/status/2032730602537951626
A publicise massively any attempt to block that.
He's not stupid, just an ideologue.
Going to war with the government like that would be considered insane.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVhZa0DaOuc last night’s meeting in full.
The likely F1 cancellations are down to insurance reasons for competitors and tens of thousands of visitors, as much as what’s happening on the ground.
Because they need to buy tanker loads of oil to refill the tanks at the refineries. Daily.
Which is why the price has spiked now and will get worse.
That unless there is a hard, simple wall against hydrocarbon development in the U.K., there will be a whole vested interest inside and outside government in expanding it.
So you’d get Treasury civil servants briefing the PM over Millibands head that “the interest of the economy” means long term fossil fuel usage. And then same from oil companies.
Sadly, we don’t have the stature of politicians required to hold a nuanced line.
Mood among some in Iran shifts from hope of being rescued to dismay at destruction of infrastructure, culture and lives
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/14/anti-regime-iranians-turn-on-trump-us
...The turning point for Amir was the Israeli strikes on fuel depots in Tehran last week, with one attack on the Shahran oil depot overshadowing the capital with black smoke. A rain shower later covered trees, homes and cars with layers of toxic oil.
“I genuinely believe now they [the US and Israel] didn’t have a plan. I was still hoping I was wrong, but the Shahran attack changed the way I look at this war right now,” he said. “If the regime is what you want to hit, even if you think these depots were used by the regime, where do you draw the line? What about us, the ordinary Iranians? We rely on this civil infrastructure. Why take away our ability to govern in the future? Who can rebuild utter ruins?”
Amir said he now had constant anxiety about Iran “turning into another Iraq”, a country the US invaded in 2003, promising freedom but delivering a civil war. Israeli leaders have also previously called on Palestinians in Gaza and the Lebanese people to rise up against oppression, only to later kill them in large numbers.
“My heart is so heavy,” said Amir. “I don’t even have tears left. Only anger and more anger. At this regime, and them,” he added, referring to the US and Israel.
Others who spoke to the Guardian this week also had a shift in their attitudes towards the war, especially after the attack on oil depots, but also after seeing images of the country’s heritage sites damaged...
Iran threatens Ukraine with strikes, claiming Kyiv’s alleged support for Israel — including drone assistance — makes the entire territory of Ukraine a “legitimate target,” said Ibrahim Azizi, head of Iran’s parliamentary commission on national security.
Now, that production would still be subject to international market prices and it would not solve the problem that what we produced would not exactly match our needs but, and this is the important part, UK plc would have a windfall from those higher prices roughly equivalent to the loss sustained by those higher prices. This means that the economic impact would be far less severe than a scenario where we are importing so much of our demand. It would give us the option, for example, of using that windfall to offset the cost to the public by reducing duty rates.
And you are ignoring the fact that through the interconnectors we increasingly have an international market in electrical energy. If you can sell electrical output to the continent at X why would you sell it to the domestic consumer at (X-Y)?
Anyway, now commences 8 hours of supporting my local pub and getting confused by rugby permutations.
Almost as if they had… what’s word? Planned. Yes that’s it - planned for an attack on them.
Just sayin'...they might know what they are doing after all.
They've been supplying drones in the tens of thousands to Russia for a long, long time.
Going all-in with an 8-high is...bold.
It appears the Iranians know how to play high stakes poker.
How might it work? Perhaps two or three smaller "tactical" nukes on military sites, at first, with the clear implication that Trump is willing to flatten Tehran if needs be
They would surrender. But the world would be hurled into hideous turmoil....
If she were in another constituency, it might be game on, but that's moot.
I hope all the people outraged when Roadmen and druggies Nick stuff from shops are equally damning about these people.
https://x.com/sabrisun_miller/status/2032776761675563111?s=61
The US refineries that specialised in Venezuelan types of heavy oil have been converted to other things or shut.
It would take billions and years to change them back/start new ones
One suspects that the GCC States are looking at a lot of Ukranian military startups at the moment.
Look out for the whining pieces in the Guardian about how unfair it is they can’t pass a background check and have got booted from work.
He was delighted with Trump and Bibi and felt real progress was being made.
He’s hardcore anti regime. Organises demos at the Grey monument, he went to Paris and Munich, but not New York and London, to protest against the regime,
I go again in a few weeks.
Be interested in his thoughts then.
I did think he should not expect too much from them.
"Nearly 70 percent of US refining capacity is designed for heavier crude, according to the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, a relic of heavy investment made before the more recent boom in shale drilling.
“You need what is referred to as a ‘complex’ refinery with deep conversion capacities. The Gulf Coast has multiple refineries like that,” Denton Cinquegrana, chief oil analyst at Oil Price Information Service, told Al Jazeera."
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/16/why-access-to-venezuelas-heavy-oil-is-tremendous-news-for-us-refiners
Also, apparently the Iranian have code named their planned fightback as 'Operation Madman'.
You just KNOW that playing with nukes will give Hegseth a Hadron collider.
Because I've watched Goldeneye recently, I also looked up EMP weapons:
Something with a bit of flash and bang, shock and awe, ideally very effective with minimal loss of life.
Japan 1945 shows you can defeat a totally hostile, entirely committed, fight-to-the-death enemy, and you can do it from the air. If you use nukes
And have the cover to evict the US bases.
I do wonder whether evicting the US bases is the way this ultimately plays out.
And the Saudis determinedly getting their own nukes, with Pakistani assistance. Not that Iran's own nuclear ambitions will be ended.
I fully expect the net outcome of this war will be nuclear proliferation.
1. Topple the regime (which is proving harder than anticipated).
2. Offer the Iranians a deal that is preferable to continuing the war.
The main difficulty with (2) is that the US may also feel that it has to walk away with something to justify launching the war in the first place, and it's not obvious what the US can demand of the Iranians that the Iranians will give up, now that the Iranians can see that they can hurt the Americans in return.
I don't see how a flash-bang weapon helps create that leverage, if it's short of regime toppling power. One thing that might change the calculus of the Iranian regime would be if their resistance were to become futile - i.e. if the US was able to keep the Straits of Hormuz open, and defend oil infrastructure across the Middle East from drones. But that seems unlikely.
Refineries are designed around varying types of crude - you can’t just switch. Your talking lots of work with expensive equipment and very skilled workers to switch.
The Venezuelan heavy stuff hasn’t been (much) on the international markets in years.
So, once they get back to producing (years), then someone has to rebuild the capability to refine it. Standard operations, but will take billions and years.
There is absolutely no sign of a surge in investment in Venezuelan oil production. This is because the regime has expropriated foreign interests multiple times. So foreigners won’t invest and there is no money domestically to do so.
The world would fast become a very dark place.
Or worse, a very light one.
NATO (other than the US) is fiercely opposed to this as well. The US is running out of allies and Trump doesn't seem to care.
Former Oldham East and Saddleworth MP remained in Westminster for New Labour’s entire 13 years in power"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/mar/14/phil-woolas-labour-mp-dies-brain-cancer
So greetings from the W Hotel, Palm Jumeirah, Dubai.
It’s usually around £400-£500 a night here, plus food and drinks, but today it’s £250 a night and all-inclusive. We have a 6pm checkout tomorrow, so a whole weekend on the piss at a five star resort. Rooftop bar appears to be full of ‘beautiful people’…
Can’t complain so far, maybe living in a war zone is fun after all?