[Synaesthesia]

The big loser in this war is Europe and other roil importing nations.

The US is a major oil and has producer. It's benefiting from this war of aggression and not even taking any damage.

Oil companies and arms manufacturers are having a bonanza.

After the violence wracked 20th century I was hopeful the 21st century would be a bit more enlightened ...

[cogman10]

> The US is a major oil and has producer. It's benefiting from this war of aggression and not even taking any damage.

Oil companies are benefiting, everything else in the US suffers. Money isn't going to trickle out of these oil companies to spur economic activity.

Nations that benefit from the war do so because of nationalized oil production. Any nation without that is going to ultimately suffer because that added oil revenue doesn't make it's way back to the public.

All nations are going to look at increased food costs and potentially even shortages next year due to increased fertilizer and transport costs.

[measurablefunc]

It's not that simple. Production costs have gone up for everyone, inflation is going to get worse so the simple logic of "higher prices, higher profits" doesn't really work in this case.

[cogman10]

There will be a short term long term thing with this. I agree with you that ultimately everyone loses long term. Short term the higher prices will result in higher profits which will enrich whoever owns the oil.

We aren't at the end of the inflation, though, that's going to hit. This is only the beginning. Next year will be when things really go south. At this point it's not a question of if, but rather how bad.

[measurablefunc]

I agree.

[cm2187]

The US consumer will still pay more at the petrol station. Doesn't matter to them that some big oil companies are making a killing somewhere else in the US. US consumers vote.

[oefrha]

Hey, everyone benefits from the rise in GDP per capita due to oil companies and MIC making a killing. /s

[thatcat]

Pretty sure the big losers are US missile intercept systems manufactures since they've basically been outed as useless so I'm not sure who would want to buy them now. And Israel, of course, who is getting struck as a result of their over reliance on these systems. US bases are being wrecked, all the radar systems are gone, several carriers damaged - not sure that is no damage.

[JumpCrisscross]

> losers are US missile intercept systems manufactures since they've basically been outed as useless

What? How? Why do you think their order books are swelling?

[thatcat]

Lockheed martin PAC3 manufacturer is down 11% this month.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Lockheed martin PAC3 manufacturer is down 11% this month

Seriously? Lockheed Martin makes lots of stuff. They're blaming labor shortages for their woes. But demand for Patriots is growing. Your conclusion that they've been embarassed is countered by the dominant analysis in like every source, from Chinese and Indian (English and local language) to German, American, Israeli and Taiwanese.

Patriot works. It's been shooting down Russia's "hypersonic" missiles. It's been intercepting everything Iran throws at it. Its problem is it's expensive, and Iran's munitions cheap; we need something that isn't built to take down stealth fighter jets and advanced missiles.

[thatcat]

I mean even a cursory analysis will show that it's physically impossible for it to work against multiple vehicles/decoys. They also make the "stealth" f35, their contracts for this stuff is from Jan - probably will still make money from US/Saudi, but good luck selling to Germany or Japan.

[urikaduri]

Over the past 2 years, Elbit stock is up 329%

[froggy]

Which missile intercept systems do you refer to? Surely not the Patriot which has proven to be most effective in Ukraine. Due to poor planning, it sounds like the Patriot stocks have been blown thru so now things are exposed.

[thatcat]

Iran copied oreshnik system, added decoys and other stuff, patriot is not effective against hypersonic, multiple vehicle missiles or decoys (which would require 1 patriot per vehicle) and is dependent on 2 radar systems functioning in the correct locations and the correct angle of attack from firing location. See Ted Postol's coverage https://www.youtube.com/live/Q2yQ3kBAQIk?si=JLvN2mVleKv64YDs. Even patriot is <5-10% effective in footage review from early Iran conflict before they started using hypersonic multiple vehicle missiles.

[JumpCrisscross]

> patriot is not effective against hypersonic, multiple vehicle missiles or decoys (which would require 1 patriot per vehicle) and is dependent on 2 radar systems functioning in the correct locations and the correct angle of attack from firing location

This is mostly accurate. Patriot is effective against every "hypersonic" it's been fielded against, though that's mostly because Russia doesn't actually have a hypersonic missile. Iran, fortunately, doesn't have hypersonics–where did you get the idea they do?

Decoys are an issue. Two radar systems not really an issue.

> patriot is <5-10% effective in footage review from early Iran conflict before they started using hypersonic multiple vehicle missiles

Patriot has been about 33% effective. Becasue we fire 3 missiles at each target as standard course. Which means close to 100% intercept rate when targeted. "When targeted" may contain some bullshit, but it's a hell of a better bet than anything Postol is peddling without ample fact checking. (His record has been spotty for a while, particularly when it comes to OSINT.)

Put it another way: Iran has hit...tens of meaningful targets? In America and Israel? Do you think their missiles are just that terrible that they fire hundreds to thousands and a vanishing percentage go where they're meant to? (I'm ignoring that many of the high-value hits were with drones. Not missiles.)

[thatcat]

How would you know how many vehicles there are when it separates late? Some Iranian munitions have 80 vehicles. Maybe they don't have the fastest hypersonics or large payloads in them, but it seems like the combination of high speed + multiple vehicles + late separation poses an extreme challenge to these systems. I'm sure he's exaggerating or has biased sample data, but the missile intercept marketing team seems to be exaggerating quite a bit as well. There are many videos that seem to show them squirming around in the sky like lost sperm and then blowing up without hitting the missile and falling to the ground.

[dlubarov]

We need to have realistic expectations though - air defense is an inherently asymmetric problem. The US broadly has the best air defense, but it's explicitly not focused on Russia or China, because it acknowledges that deterrence is the only plausible defense there.

While Iran isn't a superpower, they have hypersonic weapons that no system can intercept very reliably, and a sizeable assortment of ballistic missiles. Even if all other militaries joined forces, they probably couldn't intercept every single projectile coming out of Iran, at least not without depleting their interceptors to unacceptable levels.

[vrganj]

Longer term Europe is positioned to come out of this looking pretty good.

Renewables already surpass fossil fuel in the energy mix [0], this will only accelerate the shift to energy independence.

It's countries that actively resisted diversifying their energy mix like the US that will feel the long term pain.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jan/22/wind-and...

[JumpCrisscross]

I like your optimism. But I don't see the plan. The short-term impact is going to be nasty–regardless of trend, Europe depends on imported oil and gas. The same Europe that is currently financing an expensive military buildup.

The answer is to strike a deal with China. Unfortunately, that requires compromising on some values.

> countries that actively resisted diversifying their energy mix

Rhetoric aside, America continues to add renewable capacity [1].

[1] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=67367

[vrganj]

I have long been advocating striking a deal with China.

The US has been trying to sell out Europe to Russians in a misguided quest to win them over against the Chinese.

The only reasonable reaction is a Metternichian rebalancing of powers.

[metalman]

China is cutting two deals, one with themselves, and another with everybody else. They have one overriding rule which applys internaly and externaly, dont mess with the brand, ever ,or it will cost you more than you can pay. Also if you dig into things you will find that China has certain trade practises that they have been in place for 3000 years without a pause, and therein lies the only "deal" they will make. Another also is the recognition by China of modern Iran, bieng another "elder civilisation" that they have comonalities with but never had issue with.

[JumpCrisscross]

> only reasonable reaction is a Metternichian rebalancing of powers

It's rational, but it comes at costs. (And with costs.) China would have to put a stop to Putin's revanchism. Otherwise, Europe is just financing its burial and subjugation. And the EU would have to sign off on China's human-right records, and, in all likelihood, Taiwan policy. That, in turn, sets up a clash with the rest of Asia.

[vrganj]

That is pretty much my opinion as well.

[laffOr]

I was extremely surprised by this figure, so I checked the article and it's not "Renewables already surpass fossil fuel in the energy mix" but "Renewables already surpass fossil fuel in the electricity production" right? This is a massive difference. According to Wikipedia, fossil fuels were about 75% of the energy mix in the UK (to take on example) as late as 2024.

[orwin]

Crude oil isn't as commoditized as LNG. Europe refineries (at least France, but probably most of Western Europe) are made to refine oil from Africa and the north sea, and wouldn't know what to do with ME oil anyway. Algeria or Libya can't suddenly sell their crude to asia or the US, because the refineries able to transform it are in europe. This will hit european countries that depends on LNG, but the impact on crude oil price in both the Texas index and the north sea index will be felt way less than in Asia.

If you are talking about the refined product: it will hurt everyone the same, except the executives from big oil, and again, not that sure, because increased transportation/transformation costs decrease productivity, and we can enter a credit crunch that will harm debt-fueled economies pretty hard..

[Ostrogoth]

The problem is European countries have been on a path towards reducing local refineries, and replaced with imports from Gulf States. ~50% of jet fuel, and up to ~25% of diesel was sourced from the Gulf States, which is now blockaded by the war or offline.

Agree with you that refined products shortage will have the most economic impacts. Gulf States were also the global swing supplier of refined products, with ~20% of waterborne cargos. With Asian refineries (China/Japan/South Korea) also dependent on heavy/medium crude feedstock stuck in the Gulf, fuel production is getting hammered right now from both sides. Countries with local refining capacity will temporarily weather the storm a bit better, but with how interconnected global trade is, short fuel supply will impact everyone, even if its indirectly through higher costs of shipping/transportation/manufacturing/fertilizer, etc.

[pzo]

> The big loser in this war is Europe and other roil importing nations. > The US is a major oil and has producer.

US citizens are loosers as well since cost of oil increased for them as well. This will also have inflation impact on other products from them as well on top of previous tariffs.

[comrade1234]

It's "losers"

[mmooss]

> violence wracked 20th century

After WWII, I believe it was one of the most peaceful times in human history. For one thing, the post-war order - the UN, EU, international law, etc. - effectively stopped international war (with a few exceptions).

> 21st century

Even more peaceful, though the prohibition against international war has been violated with the intent of returning to the pre-WWII world.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Europe and other roil importing nations

Europe and Asia have been royally screwed by this war. Ironically, the winners are Russia, in absolute terms, and China, relative to its neighbors.

[gib444]

> Ironically, the winners are Russia

Where's the irony if that was the plan?

[vrganj]

Almost as if the US president was primarily pursuing Russian interests...

[JumpCrisscross]

> as if the US president was primarily pursuing Russian interests

Comforting to imagine someone is in charge. But given the President's inability to even pursue his own interests coherently, I'm going with Putin got lucky on this dice roll.

[vrganj]

I don't think Putin is in charge, but he sure is happy his patsy made it big.

[bestouff]

US oil producers will win yes, because the prices are going up and they can provide. But the US consumers will feel it badly.

[graemep]

The big loser is Asia. Heavily dependent on oil going through Hormuz.

> After the violence wracked 20th century I was hopeful the 21st century would be a bit more enlightened

People hope for that every century.

[JumpCrisscross]

> People hope for that every century

And statistically speaking, we may have achieved it. At least since 1950, possibly since the Industrial Revolution, speculatively for millenia, war has become less lethal [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Natur...

[graemep]

It is an interesting point, but I am not entirely convinced.

In absolute numbers the last 100 years have been peak genocide. Of course given the much bigger global population it might well be better per capita. Even if you exclude the contested ones in this list its still a lot: https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=47580348&goto=threads%... It also illustrates the capacity we have for mass murder.

The long peace/new peace looks like a bit of historical luck, and increasingly so. The new peace came at time when, post cold war, the world was relatively stable under western dominance, and the west was less inclined to violence as a result of prosperity, the the lessons of the holocaust and WW2, etc. The rise of China (and other Asian powers over time) will make the world look very different.

There were plenty smaller wars even during the "peace" period.

[enaaem]

If the new status quo is that Iran will control the strait then te rest of the world will just pay toll to Iran.

[chinathrow]

Time to get off if oil, like yesterday.

[twodave]

"Enlightenment" is for civilizations with enough might to enforce it.

[dlev_pika]

> After the violence wracked 20th century I was hopeful the 21st century would be a bit more enlightened

The Trump presidency feels like the dying tremors of imperialist, oligarchic, patriarchal IXX century leadership that resists to disappear.

Like the other two septuagenarian boomer leaders blowing up shit across of the world - Putin and Bibi