[spwa4]

If Iran gets to tax the strait of Hormuz, it's the entire world that will be doing the "FO" part. The EU, maybe China. For the US, consequences will be relatively minimal.

Obviously Iran will be using their newfound leverage to force policy changes in the EU first. That will be very, very bad.

(and if I can say something really unpopular: this is why Trump wants and asks for EU and other allies to support the US in this war. Not because it's just or fair ... nothing to do with it. More like "deal with Trump or deal with mullahs", expecting any sane person to choose Trump, rather than deal with the consequences of Iran either taxing Hormuz or acquiring nuclear weapons)

[maxglute]

Iran extracting Hormuz tax rounding error on prewar $60 barrels vs current $100 war premium. Paying Iran what they ask is pocket change.

The geopolitical reality is US gets disproportionately fucked if OPEC+ doesn't have to care about US regional US security umbrella leverage... forced to cooperate with Iran, GCC countries and Iran can price US shale out of export market while saving 100s of billions per year on not buying US services/hardware (which potentially drops their fiscal breakeven per barrel below US shale). Iran can increase toll 500%, i.e. $50 barrel + $5 Iran tip and every sane global actor would still choose MENA oil who can push prices and supplies that bankrupt US+VZ+CA oil network, if only out of cathartic lulz.

This is the real strategic dilemma, US protection racket leverage is what incentivizes GCC producers to price barrels that allow US shale to survive, and recycle 100s of billions of petro dollar into US hardware and services. If US unable protect i.e. US doesn't have capabilities to prevent Iran from glass GCC infra and US doesn't have capacities to survive forward basing as security provider, then that leverage gone. Now obviously US won't let shale go bankrupt, but CONUS energy would simply become another subsidy/burden item.

[kivle]

It doesn't take much for somebody to seem like a more reliable party to make a deal with than Trump. Trump has already made direct threats of military action against Europe. Making a deal together with China might be the better option.

Also, Trump asking the EU and other allies to contribute seems much more to be about shifting blame and cost. Participating in the quagmire he created, with such an unreliable partner seems like a terrible idea.

[spwa4]

Except ... look at the map. If Iran wins they (and 10 other parties) control Bab-El-Mandeb and Hormuz. Indonesia has already announced they'll close Malacca if Iran wins.

That means that for Europe to trade with Asia, it has to either pay tax to 10 different countries ... or to the US.

In other words, it gives the US the ability to apply import tariffs the way the UK famously did: if France or any EU country wants to trade with China, or any Asian country they'll have to pay tariffs ... to the US. The American revolution coming full circle.

Obviously words cannot describe what a disaster this would be for the EU.

[seanmcdirmid]

Indonesia did not announce they would close down the strait of Malacca. Someone made an offhand comment that they would consider tolls if Iran could get away with it, and then the government announced as a response they would never do that.

[kivle]

Unless China makes a deal. They definitely want their trade with Europe. Europe is currently a much more reliable trading partner to them than the US.

[spwa4]

Why don't you ask the EU how well making deals with Iran went so far? Hell, why not ask Israel? (they've been making deals with Iran for 47 years and saved their bacon, espeically in the Iran-Iraq war, multiple times. The sad truth is that half the Iranian regime, both the regime itself and the individuals involved owe Israel their lives. Most owe both the Mossad and the IDF their lives)

Here's how politico describes the EU's relation with the Iranian regime in one article: "Iran continues to hold and execute European Union citizens, using capital punishment for accused spies or dissidents, leading to severe diplomatic tension and EU condemnation of 'hostage diplomacy'"

You think Trump is untrustworthy? When is the last time Trump invited someone for diplomacy ... then had that person executed?

I mean, I get why people make the point that Trump is the worst US president ever to deal with. That's politics, and there's an election coming up... what I don't understand is why people get confused about that still making him 1000x better than a lot of other parties.

[judahmeek]

> When is the last time Trump invited someone for diplomacy ... then had that person executed?

When Trump approved Israel's strike on the Hamas negotiators...

[grebc]

>I mean, I get why people make the point that Trump is the worst US president ever to deal with. That's politics, and there's an election coming up... what I don't understand is why people get confused about that still making him 1000x better than a lot of other parties.

You answered your own question - that’s politics. It doesn’t need to make sense to you.