[jayd16]

I'm no fan of this administration but another way to look at things is that the US can essentially destabilize a region while facing mild commodity price increases. Actually it shows that the US could eliminate the leadership at its leisure even if it can't hand select the replacements. I'm also not sure the powers that be in the ME hate the rising oil prices.

Again, not a fan of the situation and while I think it is the US's loss I do not really see how it is a win for Iran.

[fatbird]

$2MM per tanker for safe passage is an extra $100 billion a year in revenue, which is peanuts next to the world's de facto acknowledgement that Iran now has sovereign control of the Strait of Hormuz and can charge whatever it wants. The ceasefire also includes lifting all sanctions on Iran, and notably says nothing about its nuclear program, which becomes de facto acceptance of its right to continue it to its logical endpoint of Iran becoming a nuclear power.

Before this started, it was impossible to imagine that Iran could achieve all this. It's hard to how this isn't a massive win for Iran.

[blitzar]

> to the world's de facto acknowledgement that Iran now has sovereign control of the Strait of Hormuz

That people thought the sovereign waters of a nation were not their sovereign waters absolutely blows my mind. Is it poor schooling, some kind of warped world view?

[sekai]

> That people thought the sovereign waters of a nation were not their sovereign waters absolutely blows my mind. Is it poor schooling, some kind of warped world view?

Because they are not? Oman clearly shares a part of it.

[KaiserPro]

its also the sovereign waters of oman as well, its just oman outsources its military to the USA, who didn't have the ability to enforce its sovereignty.

But this was a know risk, and there are at least 20 years of plans, thoughts risk assessments for the Strait of Hormuz. Had the state department not fired everyone, or the DoD not fired all its strategic advisors, they'd have been able to tell the exec all of these problems.

[roncesvalles]

1. $2MM is their initial demand, expect it to be negotiated down.

2. There is a lot of missing details. Most ships transiting the Hormuz are Asian. Will Iran also charge China, their ally, or will they get a discount? And countries like Pakistan and India who have been neutral to slightly Iran-leaning? Can the US even "sign" such an agreement on behalf of the world? As far as non-parties to the conflict are concerned, Iran's toll is literal highway robbery.

3. "Lifting all sanctions" is again Iran's initial negotiating position. Most likely, the final agreement will keep some sanctions.

[henrikschroder]

> As far as non-parties to the conflict are concerned, Iran's toll is literal highway robbery.

Yes.

But before the US started this stupid war, everyone knew that Iran had strategic control over the strait, and Iran reasoned that if they were to impose a toll on ships passing the strait, the rest of the world would gang up and bomb the shit out of them, removing their strategic control of the strait. So it was kept open.

But now the US went in and bombed the shit out of them anyway, whereupon Iran discovered that despite that, the US wasn't able to secure the strait. What they previously feared turned out to be manageable. They can close the strait, and the cost of stopping them is much, much higher than the US, or any other country wants to bear.

So the rest of the world is choosing between joining the US' illegal fiasco of a war in Iran to help open the strait, or simply paying the comparably tiny toll the Iranians are asking for, in return for oil shipments resuming immediately. So far, everyone is choosing #2.

As a bonus, Iran has also discovered that they can break through the defences of the other gulf states and legitimately threaten their oil facilities, desalination plants, and other infrastructure. Previously, the mostly US-supplied missile defences they had was assumed to be 100% effective, but by testing it, Iran now knows that they're not.

And all of this because the US, in its hubris and arrogance, assumed Iran was as defenceless and vulnerable as Venezuela, and that it would work out splendidly like that time. Idiocy.

[iugtmkbdfil834]

<< And all of this because the US, in its hubris and arrogance, assumed Iran was as defenceless and vulnerable as Venezuela, and that it would work out splendidly like that time. Idiocy.

This. It is hard to express the level of exasperation past few week brought. The move left US in a notably worse strategic position than when it began.

[roncesvalles]

Just because there are no worthwhile violent means by which to stop Iran from putting a toll booth in international waters doesn't mean that it can do it at no cost.

Doing this is going to make Iran a global pariah and piss off its only ally, China, who has to pay 70% of the toll (ostensibly, unless they cut a deal).

[fatbird]

$2m is the current toll that Iran has already successfully charged any ships it allows. It amounts to an extra $1/barrel, so it's a trivial tax in comparison to what the supply shock is causing in fluctuations. China has already paid, and will happily pay going forward if it stabilizes the supply chain.

Expect it to go higher as negotiations cement Iran's highway robbery. Which, yes, it is highway robbery, but it's robbery no one is able to stop without invading and occupying Iran to execute proper regime change... which no one, least of all the US, is stepping up to do.

The U.S. has lost all negotiating leverage. It's been demonstrated that they're unable to militarily impose their will on Iran, and they're far more sensitive to economic disruption than Iranians are--who are, as I type this, forming human shield rings around vital bridges and facilities, ready to die if the U.S. bombs them. Negotiations are, at this point, about the U.S. coming away with some face-saving outcomes.

[roncesvalles]

They're happily paying it because it is a wartime toll.

Consider also the renewed impetus for pipelines on the Arabian peninsula to bypass the strait.

Consider that China has now recognized this as a point of weakness and will be finding ways to reduce or eliminate their exposure.

There is only one permanent solution to blackmail. Shelling out the extortion money is only a temporary one. Blockading international waters is super illegal.

[seanmcdirmid]

> Consider that China has now recognized this as a point of weakness and will be finding ways to reduce or eliminate their exposure.

China has always seen its need to import oil as a weakness and has been working on solutions to that, solutions it is now very happy to export to other countries that now recognize the threat as well. This war is a huge boon to China which probably helped it avert a recession that was otherwise going to happen this year or next.

The only real shocker is that the USA (well, the MAGA crowd) refuse to see this as a weakness. We have a way to literally make the Middle East irrelevant, and yet we’ve decided to pull back on our anemic (in comparison to China) efforts in moving in that direction.

[Gud]

Willing or not, the Hormuz toll will be paid for many years to come.

Thanks, Donald. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_Dues

[fakedang]

There are already pipelines in the Arabian Peninsula. None of those help - on the contrary, they are more vulnerable than tankers. The Houthis have already targeted the Saudi pipelines in the past.

The only possible solution would be underground pipelines but a.) sunk costs into existing pipelines, b.) capex needed is much higher, c.) you can't transport all of the oil and gas, or even a significant fraction of it through standard sized pipelines.

Saudi Arabia will invest into a port on the Jeddah side, that's for certain.

[ifwinterco]

China has understood their dependency on seaborne oil for years and been actively working to mitigate it with EVs etc. Their electricity mix is coal, renewables and nuclear with not a lot of natural gas.

International law doesn't really exist and if it did, the US and particularly Israel have committed far worse violations (including the most taboo one of all, genocide). Redrawing some borders on a nautical chart by force is minor in comparison

[felixgallo]

So is declaring that you won't abide by the Geneva Conventions, targeting civilian infrastructure and double tapping a girls' school, but here we are at the logical conclusion of the dumbest war in centuries.

[bambax]

Another question is, how is Iran going to enforce this?

It doesn't seem Iran still has a navy that could board ships and force them to stop without actual violence.

What happens if a tanker decides to not pay and chance it? Will Iran sink it? That would constitute an act of war (a reprise of the war). Hard to pull off politically (even if it's easy to do technically).

[refurb]

Now imagine how the international community feels about the toll - “sure would be nice if Iran’s leadership was replaced so we don’t have to pay a toll for an international waterway”.

The whole situation further isolates Iran globally (they were already isolated before the war).

[ElProlactin]

Now imagine how the international community feels about the US starting a war of aggression against Iran without even consulting with its allies and trading partners beforehand.

The whole situation further isolates the US globally (they were already isolated before the war due to threats of taking Greenland, making Canada the 51st state, leaving NATO, etc.).

[refurb]

How do you know allies and trading partners weren’t consulted? Of course they were! The US had to get overflight permission the first day.

Iran had long been a thorn in the side of Europe and the Middle East countries. There is no love lost if the US decides to attack Iran. Most US allies would welcome deposing the current Iranian regime.

The US is anything but isolated. Notice how happy Europe is now that the US is bankrolling the Ukraine war?

Don’t confuse public statements intended for local consumption with what’s happening behind the scenes. Countries will happily talk tough to keep their own people happy all the while partnering behind the scenes.

[ElProlactin]

> How do you know allies and trading partners weren’t consulted? Of course they were! The US had to get overflight permission the first day.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/gulf-allies-disappointed-...

https://www.newsweek.com/nato-nations-defy-trump-refuse-to-h...

https://lavocedinewyork.com/en/news/2026/03/19/nato-trump-in...

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/31/trump-america-first-policy-t...

[yakshaving_jgt]

> Notice how happy Europe is now that the US is bankrolling the Ukraine war?

The US is not currently bankrolling Ukraine in the way it was in 2022–2024. Under Donald Trump, no new large aid packages have been approved, and support now largely consists of delivering previously authorised funds and equipment.

[refurb]

That’s a funny way of saying the US is still bankrolling the Ukraine war.

[M95D]

> so we don’t have to pay a toll for an international waterway

I don't think it was international. I think it was 50% Iran's and 50% Oman's.

[prox]

Looking at the map, wouldn’t a suez canal type construction be viable somewhere on that peninsula?

[myvoiceismypass]

If you consider the topology, it is way less viable.

If you go through UAE (the narrow part) you are attempting to build a canal through mountains and desert.

Any other route (the non narrow parts) would just be 3-4x the length of the Suez Canal but through a desert, but since its not sea level the whole way, with locks (which means more water... again, desert), and at the end forces you through an even narrower strait at the end (Bab-el-Mandeb). The Houthis in Yemen have blasted Israeli-affiilated ships in that strait before, and they are Iran-backed.

[xg15]

Also, even if any of that were done: As ACOUP pointed out, the problem is not just the strait itself. Iran controls the entire eastern coast of the gulf and could harass ships from any location there. Even if ships could somehow bypass the strait, they'd still be in danger as long as they are in the gulf.

Essentially, Iran showed it can control most of the gulf if it wants to.

https://acoup.blog/2026/03/25/miscellanea-the-war-in-iran/

[littlestymaar]

You can't cross the Arabian peninsula to the Red Sea either as there's also a mountain range on the west of it.

The only viable passage would be through the center of Oman (no mountain here) but that would be a gigantic canal. And that wouldn't really solve the issue, as the Iranians could easily block the canal as long as it is within reach of their drones and ballistic missile: you just need to hit one ship in the canal to effectively block it.

[littlestymaar]

Look at a topographic map instead, this is a mountain range that goes up to 1934m.

Ships aren't going up there in this century.

[kijin]

Why dig a whole canal when you could just set up a pipeline for much less money?

[frm88]

Or you could, like China did, build a massive railway from China directly to Teheran, thereby bypassing most of the maritime sanctions and maybe even transport oil directly to China:the 5 nations railway corridor https://fountainbridge.substack.com/p/china-iran-rail-corrid...

[mrtksn]

That's not a US specific strength though, anybody with the ability to strike someone with shorter range than theirs can do that. I.e. Netherland can destabilize South America through attacking Panama and its very unlikely that Netherlands will be bombed.

Sure, when US Brazil etc. are pissed off enough, Netherland can just TACO like the US did.

China and Russia can do the exactly same thing to Iran too and Iran won't be bombing Moscow or Beijing either.

It might demonstrate madness though, which in same cases can be useful.

[midtake]

This is an insane take. Why would Netherlands do this when America exists? And even if they didn't rest on their laurels and let America do it, they would not be able to establish a kill chain the way USA can, and so they would need American support. And even if they forewent the support, they would be denounced on the global stage and suffer massively economically. You are massively underestimating just how much liberty USA has to say YOLO and do whatever it wants.

Russia has established that it cannot in fact do this! That is why the two week special operation has gone on for so long.

China? It remains to be seen.

For now the best assumption is that USA is in a league of its own when it comes to imposing its will on other nations.

[mrtksn]

> Why would Netherlands do this

Maybe the Dutch are willing to risk it all to annoy the libs so they will elect and transfer all the power to a complete clown and attempt to make some money on the stock market and betting sites in the process.

[iugtmkbdfil834]

I don't think parent is arguing that is a wise or prudent thing to do, but merely that violence is very much accessible to the state as an option. Just because it is not exercised with reckless abandon like, especially more recently, in the case of US, does not mean it suddenly does not exist.

<< For now the best assumption is that USA is in a league of its own when it comes to imposing its will on other nations.

You are wrong in general on this point. European countries in general have a long and exciting history of imposing its will upon others ( unilaterally and not ).

[watwut]

> For now the best assumption is that USA is in a league of its own when it comes to imposing its will on other nations.

It literally lost and wasted huge amount of resources in the process. Everyone else politely nodded until insulted too much, but otherwise ignored what USA wanted. When insulted, they exchanged some words while continuing to practically ignore what USA wants.

[KaiserPro]

> For now the best assumption is that USA is in a league of its own when it comes to imposing its will on other nations.

I don't think that is a correct take away.

assuming that this ceasefire holds (big fucking if) it proves that the US is unable to defend it's self and allies against sustained drone attack.

Part of the reason why the middle east's US allies are allied is the implicit deal that they won't fuck with the oil supply, and the US will protect them against their enemies.

In the 90s, the USA would park a few carriers in the gulf and project complete air superiority. They can't do that anymore, and now needs land bases controlled by allies who the USA openly despises.

China doesn't need to bomb places to make its will felt. It's slowly and subtly built out bases over the south sea, effectively fortifying areas that are not chinas. They have also pretty much compromised most of the telecommunications infra through the various typhoons. (I've also heard rumours that intelligence agencies are leaking like a sieve as well.)

Part of the reason that WWI happened was because a massive military power tried to crush a "primitive" opponent, they fucked it up and demanded help from its allies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cer this then dragged everyone into a massive fuckup.

[jauco]

It’s not the ME countries who are profiting, because they can’t export. So it’s a net loss. (Saudi and oman win a bit, but in no comparison to the iraq kuwait loss)

The winners are mostly: Russia, Iran itself and (margibally) the US. But mostly Russia.

[thelastgallon]

The biggest winner is China. Countries/people who have any common sense will switch to solar, induction stoves (replacing LPG/LNG), batteries, electric vehicles (of all kinds). China is the only supplier of solar, batteries, EVs and all things electric with everyone else being a rounding error.

[igor47]

I've been waiting for people to have common sense in this domain for decades. The short term always wins

[omnimus]

But that's what has changed. Even short term solar is becoming the obvious solution. Look at countries like Pakistan and their solar hyper growth.

Everybody thought it has to be western countries (mostly europe) switching to solar first. But west might actually be last to get off fossil because they can afford it and populist politics will force fossil. It's like burning fossil for nostalgia.

[seanmcdirmid]

Ya, look at what happened in Nepal, poor access to oil via India, who imports it themselves, but lots of hydro potential. China being next door with an actual rail and truck connection, and cheap EVs.

The developing world has the potential to achieve developed living standards for a much cheaper price, while the west rots away catering to vested interests.

[helsinkiandrew]

China also benefits that demonstrated its influence (by persuading Iran to negotiate) and from its supply of cheap Iranian oil:

https://x.com/shanaka86/status/2041682779948380317

[throwaway_5633]

Russia has banned the export of gasoline starting April 1st, because hits on infrastructure by Ukraine are causing internal shortages. They may be profiting in some other way but it’s unlikely through major exports.

https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/world-news/ru...

[gambutin]

Over the past few months their oil facilities have been heavily attacked. It’s hard to believe they’re actually making a big profit from this in the short term.

[hdgvhicv]

The US isn’t winning. The owners of us oil companies may have won a little. Commodity gamblers won a lot by knowing what Trump would say and betting before he said it.

The US government and population have lost a lot of wealth.

[prabubio]

US, in the past (eg - iraq) has shown that it can destabilize a region without any effects to the US, not even a mild price increase domestically. So this one is a big degradation from that earlier stance.

[hdgvhicv]

And that’s before you compare to the damage bin laden did with 20 people and a million dollars

American has been getting weaker and weaker for 25 years.

[myvoiceismypass]

The $2m toll per strait crossing, at 120 ships a day, is going to pay dividends in perpetuity for them. Their economic situation is now actually better than it was pre-war.

[pixelesque]

$2 split between Iran and Oman...

[darkoob12]

The Islamic regem lost all its legitimacy in Jan. Even some loyalist where angry at them but they gain support of part of the people and found a reason to exist as the defender of the country.

They will survive and become stronger particularly if they get an economic lifeline out of this peace deal.

[ElProlactin]

> I'm no fan of this administration but another way to look at things is that the US can essentially destabilize a region while facing mild commodity price increases.

Oil spiked over 40% at its peak and US gas prices are up 25-35%, and that's before things got to the point where there were "real" supply issues. I don't know how you can reasonably consider this "mild".

> Actually it shows that the US could eliminate the leadership at its leisure even if it can't hand select the replacements.

Everyone and their brother has known that the US can assassinate virtually any world leader if it really wants to. The question you haven't answered is: to what end?

> I'm also not sure the powers that be in the ME hate the rising oil prices.

Notwithstanding the fact that this situation only increases the attractiveness of oil alternatives, you're missing a few points, including:

1. If oil prices rise too much, too fast, it leads to demand destruction. Nobody captures the higher profits for long because the global economy falls into recession if oil stays above a certain price point.

2. Price stability is just as important as price.

3. Significant long-term damage was done to oil infrastructure and Iran demonstrated how easily infrastructure can be effectively targeted despite all of the advantages its neighbors have in terms of American support, American defense technology, etc.

Your comment also doesn't consider the geopolitical costs of this "excursion". The administration's actions have further alienated America's strongest allies (except for Israel) and added fuel to the "America is undependable" fire. This is good news for China:

https://en.sedaily.com/international/2026/04/05/china-overta...

> China surpassed the United States in global leadership approval ratings last year, as Donald Trump's second administration began its term in earnest, according to a new Gallup survey.

> The polling firm reported Thursday that the median global approval rating for Chinese leadership stood at 36% in its 2025 world survey, exceeding the 31% recorded for U.S. leadership. It marked the first time in 20 years that China's approval rating topped that of the United States by more than 5 percentage points.

[jayd16]

Not really in disagreement with any of this. I'm just pushing back on "this is a win for Iran".

[ElProlactin]

If we're being honest, there are no winners in war but since we live in a world that likes to have winners and losers, a loss for the US is a victory for Iran.

Not only has Iran managed to survive being battered by the most powerful military in history, it has:

1. Created a global energy and economic crisis.

2. Effectively demonstrated that it can control the Strait of Hormuz even without much naval and air firepower. In doing so, it showed that the US Navy is not capable of controlling the seas anywhere and anytime.

3. Caused the US and its allies to spend billions of dollars worth of advanced weapons systems (many of which were already in short supply) to defend against much cheaper drones and missiles.

4. Incited Trump to lash out at the European countries that have historically been America's biggest allies, accelerating the trend of America's now possibly irreparably damaged relationships with these countries.

5. Baited Trump into publicly and belligerently positioning the US as a hostile state willing to threaten war crimes/genocide to get its way.

[ifwinterco]

Can also add: made it clear that hosting US air bases on your territory is a liability, not an asset

[seanmcdirmid]

A lot of Iran’s victory simply revolves around Trump being so incompetent. But then again any president with half a brain wouldn’t touch a war with Iran given our negative experience in the region fighting much weaker countries.

[iugtmkbdfil834]

I think I broadly agree with you. Even if we accept the premise that it is not a win for anyone in a war ( there are counters here, but lets say that we accept it ), the reputational damage to US is hard to be overstated. I am not entirely certain some of it will be salvaged. That is how bad it is.

I am not a fan of Trump, but I was mostly ambivalent about most of his escapades. He clearly got really lucky with Venezuela and it went to his head.

[wesleywt]

The US have been removing leaders for decades.

[locknitpicker]

> (...) another way to look at things is that the US can essentially destabilize a region while facing mild commodity price increases.

I'm afraid you are yet to experience the real impact of this war. The actual effect of closing the strait hasn't hit your wallet yet. It's a repeat of the same old tariff bullshit.

Also, Iran did inflicted heavy damage on some of the infrastructure of US's allies. You will start to feel that in a few months.

The only party that clearly stood to benefit from this event was Putin's regime. Orban is not the only vassal at his command.

[datsci_est_2015]

“Mild commodity price increases” - I’ll try to remember the OP’s comment in July.

Inflation tends to be a ratchet, not a wave. But that’s too complicated for the below-average voter…

[abdelhousni]

You weren't paying attention because that's what the US does since decades... Just now it impacts Western countries directly (Ukraine and Iran come to mind)