Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, burnt beanz said:

 

I'm glad we're all back to wanting journalists to be adversarial. I wish that were always the case. Seems to be cyclical though.

Who has expressed a different opinion?

Posted

Pure speculation on my part, but I’d think the Israelis didn’t go into this without a plan for dealing with Fordow themselves, knowing that predicting Trump’s decision is about as reliable as a 247 crystal ball pick on a junior a year away from signing day. Given how meticulously they’ve planned all the rest of it, I’d be surprised if they were going to do the equivalent of relying upon the FBI to cut the power at Nakatomi Tower that would override the emergency locks on the vault. 
 

I’d also expect they have eyes on Fordow from the outside (and maybe the inside) and if they detect large movements of material out of it, they will hit the trucks with their JDAMS. 

Again, all speculation. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
2 hours ago, Duane Moore said:

At ease. WW3 won’t start for another 2 weeks. 

 

IMG_9790.gif.077ffe5a73621631b2ad2148f0256f5a.gif

We’re going to drop infrastructure week on Fordow.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 5
  • Drool 1
Posted
2 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Told you all - as I said, if we are evacuating Americans out of Israel, if multiple Republican Senators extremely loyal to Trump are making the rounds with the talking heads to sell us on war, and if Fox News is selling its viewers on war, we are going to war.

 

So it's starting tomorrow?  Makes sense, it's a Friday.

full

  • Haha 2
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Duane Moore said:

Pure speculation on my part, but I’d think the Israelis didn’t go into this without a plan for dealing with Fordow themselves, knowing that predicting Trump’s decision is about as reliable as a 247 crystal ball pick on a junior a year away from signing day. Given how meticulously they’ve planned all the rest of it, I’d be surprised if they were going to do the equivalent of relying upon the FBI to cut the power at Nakatomi Tower that would override the emergency locks on the vault. 
 

I’d also expect they have eyes on Fordow from the outside (and maybe the inside) and if they detect large movements of material out of it, they will hit the trucks with their JDAMS. 

Again, all speculation. 

Bibi has said from the jump there was a 2 week plan. There was and remains a very specific plan in Israel. It goes back to something I said a page or 2 back. 2 weeks is also time line the OG power would allow for as anything longer becomes too disruptive and at that point they won't remain away from the table.

I'm just suprised nobody has picked up on the similarities between Bibi's call at the start and Trump's 2 weeks. I think trying to predict what Trump will do is always an exercise in blind darts, other than he starts heavy, backs off to see what he is offered and how the wind blows. Then, makes a call. I speculate his 2 week talk is a short term stall to get OG power in the region to negotiating table. At the end of the day, lets be clear, ME OG power and OG speculations determine the time frame of this war. 

I think it gives Putin and Iran some sabre rattling rope. They'll both get mouthy, that's guaranteed. Between their shit talk, Israeli plans and OG pressure, not to mention just smart operational, logistic and military planning, Trump's hand may be forced. All of this, of course, will occur behind closes doors. We all know who will claim to have been running the show the entire time regardless of the ultimate outcome.

Then again, as I said before, predictions of Trump is a game of blind darts. So, maybe he "Brokers Peace" tomorrow.

Edited by BurntEyes
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted (edited)

IAEA chief identifies Isfahan as Iran's planned uranium enrichment site

VIENNA - U.N. nuclear watchdog chief Rafael Grossi on Thursday identified Isfahan, home to one of Iran's biggest nuclear facilities, as the location of a uranium enrichment plant that Iran said it would soon open in retaliation for a diplomatic push against it.

The day before Israel launched its military strikes against Iranian targets including nuclear facilities last Friday, Iran announced it had built a new uranium enrichment facility, which it would soon equip and bring online. Tehran did not provide details such as the plant's location.

Spoiler

Iran's announcement was part of its retaliation against a resolution passed by the International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-nation Board of Governors declaring Tehran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations over issues including its failure to credibly explain uranium traces found at undeclared sites.

Had it gone online, the new enrichment plant would have been the fourth in operation in Iran. But Israel's attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities destroyed one of those plants and put another out of action by killing its power supply, the IAEA has said."

There was an announcement, quite coincidentally, on the eve of the start of the military operation by Israel of a new enrichment facility in Isfahan, precisely, that we were going to be inspecting immediately, but this inspection had to be postponed, we hope, because of the start of the military operation," Grossi said.

The IAEA has previously reported that Israeli military strikes on Friday damaged four buildings at Isfahan, including the Uranium Conversion Facility that transforms "yellowcake" uranium into the uranium hexafluoride feedstock for centrifuges so that it can be enriched.

Grossi told the BBC on Monday that the "underground spaces" at Isfahan did not seem to have been affected. Officials say those spaces are also where much of Iran's most highly enriched uranium stock has been stored.

The IAEA has not, however, been able to carry out any inspections since the strikes.

Reuters Link

Edited by BurntEyes
Posted
1 hour ago, Duane Moore said:

Pure speculation on my part, but I’d think the Israelis didn’t go into this without a plan for dealing with Fordow themselves, knowing that predicting Trump’s decision is about as reliable as a 247 crystal ball pick on a junior a year away from signing day. Given how meticulously they’ve planned all the rest of it, I’d be surprised if they were going to do the equivalent of relying upon the FBI to cut the power at Nakatomi Tower that would override the emergency locks on the vault. 
 

I’d also expect they have eyes on Fordow from the outside (and maybe the inside) and if they detect large movements of material out of it, they will hit the trucks with their JDAMS. 

Again, all speculation. 

Not just your speculation, but a common one in the diplomatic space. Rumors abound that Bibi has a weapon capable now after literal decades of development and that we wouldn't be where we are today if there wasn't at least a plan to see it through to the end (complete disembodient of Iran's programming). No half measures.

The other side of the rumor mill is that Bibi & Trump/U.S. brokered a partnership to see it through-- Israel doing 90% of the work and American putting in the finishing touches with the GBU-57's. 

Or Bibi could be calculating that he could see his 90% through and then cajole and sell Trump on finishing them off and sharing the credit or something.

We don't know what we don't know, lots of informed speculation at this pointm though.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
53 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

I think it gives Putin and Iran some sabre rattling rope.

Take a look at this analysis of Russia’s reaction. I guess Marjorie Taylor Greene’s vaunted BRICS defense pact isn’t coming to the rescue. 
 

If anyone has the full NYT article, I’d love to read it. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Haha 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

Not just your speculation, but a common one in the diplomatic space. Rumors abound that Bibi has a weapon capable now after literal decades of development and that we wouldn't be where we are today if there wasn't at least a plan to see it through to the end (complete disembodient of Iran's programming). No half measures.

The other side of the rumor mill is that Bibi & Trump/U.S. brokered a partnership to see it through-- Israel doing 90% of the work and American putting in the finishing touches with the GBU-57's. 

Or Bibi could be calculating that he could see his 90% through and then cajole and sell Trump on finishing them off and sharing the credit or something.

We don't know what we don't know, lots of informed speculation at this pointm though.

Yeah.. I think the last 2 are most likely, but given the scary level of Mosad so far, I think 1 plus a check off with US and OG is certainly possible.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, Duane Moore said:

Take a look at this analysis of Russia’s reaction. I guess Marjorie Taylor Greene’s vaunted BRICS defense pact isn’t coming to the rescue. 
 

If anyone has the full NYT article, I’d love to read it. 

What do you mean Putin gave nothing. He's offered to mediate peace! What a mensch.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Duane Moore said:

Take a look at this analysis of Russia’s reaction. I guess Marjorie Taylor Greene’s vaunted BRICS defense pact isn’t coming to the rescue. 
 

If anyone has the full NYT article, I’d love to read it. 

I don't think Russia will HELP Iran at all. I should have been clear. By rope I meant reasons for both Iran and Russia to talk shit. The 2nd biggest narcissist (1st, 3rd ? You pick em) in global politics isn't just going to keep his mouth shut and that could be the nudge that closes the door on Iran.

5 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

What do you mean Putin gave nothing. He's offered to mediate peace! What a mensch.

Not if Trump gets there first! 

The two global Peace Kings.

Edited by BurntEyes
Posted
10 hours ago, chainsaw said:

Iran's on the 1 yard line? If that were true why would Tulsi and everyone else in the global intelligence community have hidden that fact?

I mean she put out that fucked up propaganda piece like a week ago talking about how scared of nuclear annihilation we should be. At the time, we all assumed it was her shilling for Putin. 

Posted

 

The following is a long, pretty comprehensive piece on factors prior to Isreal attack through today. I tried to highlight dates and important aspects with bold for critical points.

How Trump, a self-proclaimed 'peacemaker,' embraced Israel's campaign against Iran

Spoiler

WASHINGTON - Roughly one month ago, from the stage at an investment forum in Saudi Arabia, U.S. President Donald Trump issued a warning to Iran that would prove prophetic.

"We'll never allow America and its allies to be threatened with terrorism or nuclear attack," Trump told the crowd, sending a message to the leadership in Tehran.

"The time is right now for them to choose. Right now. We don't have a lot of time to wait. Things are happening at a very fast pace."

That May 13 ultimatum received little attention at the time.

By mid-May, the Pentagon had begun drawing up detailed contingency plans to aid Israel if it followed through on its long-held ambition to strike Iran's nuclear program, the officials said. And the U.S. had already diverted thousands of defensive weapons away from war-torn Ukraine toward the Middle East in preparation for potential conflict, according to a Western source familiar with the matter and a Ukrainian source.

The Pentagon declined to comment for this story

This account of the weeks and days leading up to Trump's decision to throw his support behind Israel's bombing campaign is based on interviews with over a dozen administration officials, foreign diplomats and Trump confidantes, most of whom spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.

The picture that emerges is that of a long, secretive preparation process and a president who for weeks found himself torn between diplomacy and supporting military action - and was ultimately persuaded in part by an ally whose actions he did not fully control.

While Trump has long described himself as a peacemaker - dispatching Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff to the region several times to try to seal a diplomatic accord - he had several trusted political allies pushing him to back an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

And U.S. intelligence had indicated a unilateral Israeli strike was possible, even likely, even if Trump wanted to wait, according to two U.S. officials.

While it is unclear if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or Trump's more hawkish allies ever got him to a "yes" to Israel's plans, by the days leading up the strike he was at least not a "no," according to two senior U.S. officials and a senior Israeli source.

That stance, people familiar with the dynamics said, helped tip Israel into action.

Seven days into the Israel-Iran conflict, Trump is left with a dilemma, said Aaron David Miller, a veteran diplomat who has advised six secretaries of state on Middle East policy.

He can try again to pursue a diplomatic resolution with Iran, allow Iran and Israel "to fight it out," or he can enter the war with U.S. airstrikes on the deeply buried Fordow enrichment plant, a step that would have unknown consequences for the region.

Trump "let it (the Israeli attack) happen," said Miller, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace policy institute. "He got on the tiger and he's riding it."

The White House on Thursday said that Trump will make a decision on whether the U.S. will get involved in the conflict in the next two weeks.

The White House, the Israeli prime minister's office and Iran's delegation to the United Nations did not respond to a request for comment. Tehran has consistently said its nuclear program is designed for peaceful purposes only, a conclusion Washington has rejected.

One of the first hints that Trump might sign off on an Israeli bombing campaign came in April.

During a closed-door meeting on April 17, Saudi Arabia's defense minister delivered a blunt message to Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian: Take Trump's offer to negotiate an agreement seriously because it presents a way to avoid the risk of war with Israel.

Reuters could not determine whether the message was sent at Washington's behest, nor whether Iran's leaders took that message seriously

The Israel Defense Forces and the head of U.S. Central Command, General Michael "Erik" Kurilla, were discussing detailed intelligence about Iran's missile buildup and nuclear program and steps that could be required to defend U.S. troops and Israel itself in any conflict with Iran, according to a U.S. official and senior Israeli official.

Meanwhile, the U.S. was funneling weapons to Israel that would be useful for an air war with Iran. In one instance in early May, a large shipment of defensive missiles originally meant for Ukraine was diverted to Israel instead, according to the Western source and the Ukrainian source.

The diverted shipment caused consternation in Kyiv and sparked continued fears that additional weapons needed to defend against Moscow will instead be used to defend U.S. interests elsewhere, the Ukrainian source said.

In the opening months of Trump's term, Israel had already proposed to Washington a series of options to attack Iran's facilities, according to sources.

While Trump had rebuffed those ideas, saying he preferred diplomacy for the time being, several people close to him said he was never dead-set against using military force against Iran.

He had done so before. In 2020, despite a foreign policy during his first term that was otherwise marked by restraint, Trump ordered a drone strike that killed major general Qassem Soleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' division responsible for its international operations.

The Iranian government has since sought to murder Trump in revenge, U.S. prosecutors have said, an allegation Tehran denies.

Behind the scenes, Trump had been pulled in multiple directions on the Iran issue since before he even took office.

On one side, many supporters - including conservative media personality Tucker Carlson - and administration officials saw Trump's Make America Great Again movement as an antidote to decades of foreign wars that cost thousands of American lives without significantly advancing American interests.

On the other, several close Trump allies - from conservative commentator Mark Levin to Republican Senator Lindsey Graham - were portraying a nuclear Iran as an existential threat that must be removed at any cost.

Trump himself took pride in being a broker of peace.

"My proudest legacy," he said during his inauguration address, "will be that of a peacemaker and unifier."

Ultimately, no U.S. official, Trump confidante or diplomat Reuters talked to identified an epiphany that tipped the scales for the president.

One senior administration official said that after months of sitting on the fence a lack of diplomatic progress, a push from the Israelis and appeals by hawkish allies likely wore him down.

Trump aides and allies have noted that Israel's attack unfolded just after the expiry of a 60-day deadline the Trump administration had set for a diplomatic breakthrough with Iran.

The senior U.S. official said another dynamic was at play: As U.S. intelligence consistently showed Israel might go ahead with an attack with or without U.S. support, the administration could look caught off guard if they did not get behind it. Worse, it could appear that the U.S. was opposing a longtime ally.

Although Trump had appeared to some to snub Netanyahu as he pushed for a peaceful solution to the crisis, privately, Israel understood that Washington would stand by it, said a separate official.

By the time Trump talked to Netanyahu on Monday, June 9 - one of many phone calls in recent days - his stance was one of tacit, if not explicit approval, according to one U.S. and one Israeli official.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump had said he would like more time to see diplomacy play out. But the U.S. official said that he did not explicitly veto Israel's plans.

By Wednesday, June 11, it was clear to Washington that Israel's plans were a go.

The next day, June 12, Washington sent a formal diplomatic note to several regional allies, warning them that an attack was imminent.

Trump and some key cabinet members watched the events live from the wood-paneled "JFK room," part of the White House Situation Room. Other officials watched the events nearby.

The initial attack appeared to be a success, with several close advisers to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei killed and key nuclear sites seriously damaged. Over the weekend, the Israelis considered killing Khamenei himself, but were waved off by Trump, according to two U.S. officials.

Almost immediately, a political civil war erupted in Trump's Republican Party, with several high-profile conservatives, including members of Congress, accusing his administration of fanning the flames of war

Seven days on, the U.S. intelligence community believes the strikes have set Iran's nuclear ambitions back by only months, according to a source familiar with U.S. intelligence reports, confirming a CNN report.

A significant blow to Iran's nuclear ambitions, most analysts say, will require dropping bunker-busting bombs on the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, the crown jewel of Iran's nuclear program. Only the U.S. has that capability.

Trump has said he is considering such a strike, which would represent a major escalation for the United States.

Link

Posted
4 hours ago, Captainant said:

Hey know what will be really fun? When the Strait of Hormuz is closed or made unsafe to transit

Yeah, but higher oil prices will be good for people in Texas.  Well, some of them.

Posted
8 hours ago, Captainant said:

Hey know what will be really fun? When the Strait of Hormuz is closed or made unsafe to transit

I wonder how China, world’s largest importer of oil, nearly half of which comes through the straits, will react to that?

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
Posted

The U.S. lost its “spies on the ground capability” many many years ago. It was due primarily to our country’s inability to keep a secret (spies kept getting uncovered), too many traitors sharing information, the lack of trusted people who are educated in other cultures and can speak the language, and most importantly by far the need to shift massive amounts of budget funds into SigInt. I doubt the Country ever gets the capability back. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
8 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

Has China ever sent any type of military force out into the world?

No - which is why this notion that they could attack, invade, and occupy Taiwan is problematic on so many levels.  

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
2 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

Has China ever sent any type of military force out into the world?

I suppose it kind of depends on how far you go back, but in short, yes, but not very frequently. Invasion of Vietnam in 1979 was the last time.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
9 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

Has China ever sent any type of military force out into the world?

Does crossing the Yalu River into North Korea count as “into the world?”

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
2 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

I suppose it kind of depends on how far you go back, but in short, yes, but not very frequently. Invasion of Vietnam in 1979 was the last time.

Didn't last very long.  They occupied a few cities, but the outnumbered Vietnamese fought things to a standstill.  No naval or air power was used.  China's aggression in Vietnam and in Korea was limited to large amounts of infantry thrown into the meat-grinder.  What China has shown no capability to do is combined military operations.  I'm sure they train on it, but they have no history of efficacy.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, BabaYaga said:

Didn't last very long.  They occupied a few cities, but the outnumbered Vietnamese fought things to a standstill.  No naval or air power was used.  China's aggression in Vietnam and in Korea was limited to large amounts of infantry thrown into the meat-grinder.  What China has shown no capability to do is combined military operations.  I'm sure they train on it, but they have no history of efficacy.  

The military historian Edward Luttwak has made this point many times - “the Han don’t fight” as he says it.  Fair enough, but they seem to be building up their entire military with the purpose of taking Taiwan, an island that is very close to them and very far from us. With the PLA having more than 2 million people and their shipbuilding far outstripping every other country on earth, at some point quantity becomes a quality of its own. 
 

Hope we don’t ever have to find out. 

Posted
1 minute ago, Duane Moore said:

The military historian Edward Luttwak has made this point many times - “the Han don’t fight” as he says it.  Fair enough, but they seem to be building up their entire military with the purpose of taking Taiwan, an island that is very close to them and very far from us. With the PLA having more than 2 million people and their shipbuilding far outstripping every other country on earth, at some point quantity becomes a quality of its own. 
 

Hope we don’t ever have to find out. 

For the longest time Russia had the most ships.  They were shit ships, but they had more of them.  Further, China doesn't have the "right" ships to take Taiwan.  Taiwan is over a 100 miles away and the straight between them is supposedly very treacherous water.  They don't have a way to transport enough troops, get them over the barrier reefs, and into the handful of ports that can sustain such numbers.  They don't really have any amphibious capability that can make that 100+ mile straight intact - all the while Taiwanese defenses have been prepping for them for decades.  Then if they do, Taiwan just blows up the prize - the chip plants that need to stay intact to support global demand.  

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
6 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

For the longest time Russia had the most ships.  They were shit ships, but they had more of them.  Further, China doesn't have the "right" ships to take Taiwan.  Taiwan is over a 100 miles away and the straight between them is supposedly very treacherous water.  They don't have a way to transport enough troops, get them over the barrier reefs, and into the handful of ports that can sustain such numbers.  They don't really have any amphibious capability that can make that 100+ mile straight intact - all the while Taiwanese defenses have been prepping for them for decades.  Then if they do, Taiwan just blows up the prize - the chip plants that need to stay intact to support global demand.  

Uhhhhhhhbout that, they don't seem to be planning for taking ports 

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/01/china-suddenly-building-fleet-of-special-barges-suitable-for-taiwan-landings/

copyImage.webp.66234d3d6b2489b851e318541af32c67.webp

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
38 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

The U.S. lost its “spies on the ground capability” many many years ago. It was due primarily to our country’s inability to keep a secret (spies kept getting uncovered), too many traitors sharing information, the lack of trusted people who are educated in other cultures and can speak the language, and most importantly by far the need to shift massive amounts of budget funds into SigInt. I doubt the Country ever gets the capability back. 

I've been with the company for twenty-four years. I was posted in Greece for fifteen. I've advised and armed the Hellenic Army. I've neutralized champions of communism. I've spent the past three years... learning —Finnish! Which would come in handy here in Virginia, and I'm never ever sick at sea. So I wanna know why... I'm not gonna be your Helsinki station chief.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 6
Posted
18 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

I've been with the company for twenty-four years. I was posted in Greece for fifteen. I've advised and armed the Hellenic Army. I've neutralized champions of communism. I've spent the past three years... learning —Finnish! Which would come in handy here in Virginia, and I'm never ever sick at sea. So I wanna know why... I'm not gonna be your Helsinki station chief.

You're coarse

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
39 minutes ago, Duane Moore said:

The military historian Edward Luttwak has made this point many times - “the Han don’t fight” as he says it.  Fair enough, but they seem to be building up their entire military with the purpose of taking Taiwan, an island that is very close to them and very far from us. With the PLA having more than 2 million people and their shipbuilding far outstripping every other country on earth, at some point quantity becomes a quality of its own. 
 

Hope we don’t ever have to find out. 

And I hope Kyo & Deiko don’t either….

 

IMG_9061.jpeg

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Drool 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Duane Moore said:

Does crossing the Yalu River into North Korea count as “into the world?”

And their short war vs. Vietnam. 

But I don't think you can compare those PLA's to this PLA. Modern PLA has never fought and their systems are unproven. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Kharg Island is Iran's main export terminal.  Iran/China really want to FAFO, that island is an easy, easy target. 

Then the entirety of the ME OG would send as much money as they felt needed to achieve goals they felt needed achieving to partners they felt capable of achieving it.

Iran/China could succeed but... China might see a pretty big increase in oil cost, Iran would absolutely cease to exist under current leadership and Russia wouldn't get any help from them as they're a little busy plus Russia is a really shitty partner. China is crazy, but they aren't stupid. Don't bite a hand that feeds you.

Edited by BurntEyes
Posted
1 hour ago, Dbeasy said:

The U.S. lost its “spies on the ground capability” many many years ago. It was due primarily to our country’s inability to keep a secret (spies kept getting uncovered), too many traitors sharing information, the lack of trusted people who are educated in other cultures and can speak the language, and most importantly by far the need to shift massive amounts of budget funds into SigInt. I doubt the Country ever gets the capability back. 

And our reliance on Tech. That was a main one. You can gather all the messages in the world, but ya still gotta analyze them. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

And our reliance on Tech. That was a main one. You can gather all the messages in the world, but ya still gotta analyze them. 

Time to reinvest in old fashioned humint

e4c36b85-cbc8-496f-b3e3-a76093ce5e49_tex

  • Haha 3
Posted
1 hour ago, Dbeasy said:

The U.S. lost its “spies on the ground capability” many many years ago. It was due primarily to our country’s inability to keep a secret (spies kept getting uncovered), too many traitors sharing information, the lack of trusted people who are educated in other cultures and can speak the language, and most importantly by far the need to shift massive amounts of budget funds into SigInt. I doubt the Country ever gets the capability back. 

I bet Surly has some informants among us.  Lotsa degens here, devoid of any ethics.

  • Haha 2
Posted
6 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Yeah, but higher oil prices will be good for people in Texas.  Well, some of them.

Once we learn how to make drilling pipe domestically out of nonmetal substances that don’t require massive tariffs, it’s drill baby drill time!

  • Haha 1
Posted

Iran says no nuclear talks under fire, UN atomic watchdog urges maximum restraint | Reuters

Quote

DUBAI/JERUSALEM, June 20 (Reuters) - Iran said on Friday it would not discuss the future of its nuclear programme while under attack by Israel, as Europe tried to coax Tehran back into negotiations and the United States considers whether to get involved in the conflict.

Quote

He spoke a day after an Israeli military official said it had been "a mistake" for a military spokesperson to have said Israel had struck Bushehr, Iran's only nuclear power plant. He said he could neither confirm nor deny that Russian-built Bushehr, located on the Gulf coast, had been hit.

I really hope it was actually a mistake and they didn't bomb Bushehr. There is no reason to hit that plant.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
36 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Cliffs? It’s behind a paywall. 

Free link: https://archive.is/Hsgl7 

China’s bet on Iranian oil and Middle East influence turns sour

President Xi is likely to double down on energy independence drive as Strait of Hormuz risks rise

Spoiler

Edward White in Shanghai

Published9 minutes ago

Israel’s attacks on Iran threaten to cut China off from critical oil trading partners, highlighting its need for greater energy independence and disrupting Beijing’s hopes for a bigger role in the region. 

For years, China has used its relationship with Iran to expand its influence in the Middle East, while making cheap Iranian crude, and Gulf supplies more broadly, a bedrock of the energy mix for the world’s biggest buyer of oil.

Chinese President Xi Jinping said this week that all parties to the conflict between Israel and Iran should work “as soon as possible to prevent further escalation of tensions”. China has said the US should not interfere with its “normal trade” with Iran and has opposed US-led sanctions.

“Of course, China is worried [by the latest attacks],” said Gedaliah Afterman, an expert on China and the Middle East at the Abba Eban Institute for Diplomacy and Foreign Relations in Israel. 

“If this situation continues to escalate, then they lose quite a bit, both in terms of their energy security and Iran as a strategic card that China holds.”

Since US-led sanctions on Iran’s nuclear programme were stepped up in late 2018, Beijing and Tehran have strengthened ties.

Beijing has become Tehran’s most important economic lifeline, buying the vast majority of Iranian oil shipments and supplying the country with electronics, vehicles and machinery, and nuclear power equipment. 

Last year, Iranian oil accounted for as much as 15 per cent of the crude shipped to the world’s second-biggest economy. Overall, China last year imported about 11.1mn barrels of oil a day, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

Chinese purchases of Iranian crude edged higher through most of 2023 and 2024 but started to ease late last year as the threat of new US sanctions increased, according to data from cargo tracking research group Kpler and Bernstein.

Iran exported 2.4mn barrels of crude a day in September 2024, with China accounting for 1.6mn barrels. By April, Iranian shipments had fallen to 2.1mn barrels a day, of which China accounted for 740,000 barrels. Malaysia is also an important exporter to China as cargoes shipped from Iran are relabelled or transferred to avoid sanctions, analysts said.

Analysts from Fitch Ratings this week said that, “even in the unlikely event that all Iranian exports are lost”, they could be replaced by spare capacity from Opec-plus producers.

Other, more severe, energy disruptions could emerge. The war, which is at risk of spilling over into a broader regional conflict, has already sparked threats from Iran that it could block the Strait of Hormuz.

Hundreds of billions of dollars in oil and gas are shipped through the waterway to China from nearby Gulf States each year, including Saudi Arabia, China’s biggest supplier of crude outside Russia.

A view of a ship on fire in the area of reported collision between two oil tankers near the Strait of Hormuz © European Union/Copernicus Sentinel-2/Reuters

China does not officially publish the volumes of its strategic petroleum reserves. But Michal Meidan, head of China research at the Oxford Institute of Energy Studies, estimates that across all storage types there is around 90-100 days of cover in the event that flows into the country are restricted.

Beyond a growing reliance on Saudi oil, S&P Global analysts have noted that more than 25 per cent of China’s liquefied natural gas imports last year came from Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. While China holds 15 LNG supply contracts with these two Gulf states, importers could be forced to purchase from the spot market at higher prices, S&P analysts said.

For China, the Israel-Iran crisis war comes amid a tectonic shift in the country’s energy mix. The country has for decades been the world’s biggest oil user. Under Xi, China is racing to boost its energy independence, a transition that ultimately requires a massive increase in renewable energy and the electrification of the country’s transport and manufacturing base.

A boom in solar and wind has taken renewables’ share of electricity power plant capacity to 56 per cent last year, up from around one-third a decade ago.

The “key takeaway” for Xi’s administration from the crisis, according to Neil Beveridge, head of Asia-Pacific research at Bernstein, will be to double down on its self-sufficiency drive.

“If it wasn’t happening fast enough before, it will be happening even faster now,” he said.

Storage facilities for petrochemical resources and products in Longkou in east China’s Shandong province © Tang Ke/Future Publishing/Getty Images

Analysts said China might benefit in the short term as Washington’s attention is more focused on the Middle East, rather than tensions with Beijing.

However, longer term a weakened Iran threatens to undermine China’s diplomatic influence in the region and potentially disrupts its desire to portray itself, at least domestically, as a credible mediator in global conflicts.

In 2021, Beijing signed a 25-year co-operation programme with Tehran. Iran also joined the China-led Shanghai Cooperation Organisation in 2023, part of China’s efforts to position itself as a responsible power and offer developing economies an alternative to US-led global institutions.

In 2023, Beijing touted its role mediating a Saudi-Iran deal and released a 12-point peace proposal for the Russia-Ukraine war.

Recommended

News in-depthMiddle East war

Fuel and fury: energy becomes a Middle East battlefield

Despite these moves, Beijing appears likely to remain on the sidelines in the Iran-Israel conflict, as was the case with the fall last year of ally Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, highlighting the limits of China’s foreign policy influence.

Jingdong Yuan, director of the China and Asia security programme at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, said that while China rhetorically supports countries “seen as receiving unfair treatment or coercion from the west”, in reality Beijing’s approach to regional conflicts was “always cautious”.

Beijing will be concerned about the impact on other allies in the region, such as Saudi Arabia. “The demise or the collapse of the Iranian system or the Iranian power as we knew it is not good news for China,” said Yun Sun, an expert on Chinese foreign policy with the Stimson Center, a US think-tank. “That indirectly means that American influence has expanded.”

Additional reporting by Wenjie Ding in Beijing

 

  • Hook 'Em 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...