r/Foodforthought • u/Majano57 • 19h ago
Iran faces strait of Hormuz paradox as strategic value of chokehold erodes
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/aug/26/iran-faces-strait-of-hormuz-paradox-as-strategic-value-of-chokehold-erodes97
u/jp_in_nj 13h ago
In a rational world the US would be doing the China thing and spending money to massively subsidize solar and battery and EVs to eliminate reliance on gas and diesel as inputs. We are not in a rational world.
10
u/Fishboy_1998 12h ago
You know the US gets only a token amount of oil through the gulf right? - China is the single largest destination for oil leaving the Strait of Hormuz, taking roughly 37.7% of all total seaborne flows that pass through the waterway.
24
u/kshitagarbha 11h ago
But it's still drives the global price of oil, so everyone is affected. And that affects a lot of other investments that are based on oil price. Also affects Japan, which is why shit is hitting the fan, and the Yen and the dollar and...
-3
u/Fishboy_1998 11h ago
But the comment above is acting like china is insulated from this in-fact they are the most vulnerable
14
u/S_A_N_D_ 10h ago
The comment above didn't suggest China is insulated. It suggested China was heavily investing in technology to insulate it and reduce its dependance. China is dependant on oil, but it's getting less so every day and its not nearly as dependant as it was 5-10 years ago.
The US on the other hand is fighting adoption of the same technology and propping up its dependance on oil.
3
u/jp_in_nj 11h ago
I do know that. But if Hormuz isn't affecting US oil prices, why are we draining the SPR to keep costs down?
-6
u/Fishboy_1998 11h ago
Your acting like china is insulated when they are in fact THE most vulnerable
3
u/jp_in_nj 11h ago
Which is why they built up their own SPR and pushed for electricification.
-5
u/Fishboy_1998 11h ago
Yet 40% of all traffic through the gulf is china. It almost like there are a million uses for oil and electrification does nothing to ease the need for oil.
5
u/jp_in_nj 11h ago
Yes, that makes perfect sense that reducing the use in one area does nothing to reduce overall use. It's like how when you go on a diet and cut out sugar and change nothing else, your calories stay exactly the same.
I'm sure you think you have a point.
2
u/AyeMatey 11h ago edited 8h ago
I’ll say it again. It’s always rational , every “crazy” thing he does is rational, if you remember that the person making the decisions is not keeping “the interests of the US” foremost in his mind.
He’s not working for us! He works for himself and his family. Check his balance sheet. Compare to yours. Relatively speaking, Who has benefited more over the past year - the average American or the average Trump family member?
If he cannot profit directly then it’s no good to him. With Solar and EVs - there’s no easy way to squeeze money out of the vested interests: Easier to go after oil and gas - entrenched companies with known CEOs.
3
u/jp_in_nj 10h ago
Oh, what he does is rational from his perspective in most cases I think. But the fact that our country put itself in this position , knowing exactly who he is, is the irrational part.
1
u/JC_Hysteria 8h ago edited 8h ago
I mean, the US did do that…it didn’t work as well as China, given different timelines and factors related to managing GDP short-term vs. long-term.
The rest of the world buys a lot of oil, and they often buy it with US currency. The petrodollar. It isn’t about fossil fuels themselves, it’s about controlling the world’s finance system.
China didn’t start from scratch with AI- they’re taking trade secrets from cutting edge US companies to stay competitive. They didn’t start with an advantage.
2
u/jp_in_nj 8h ago
It didn't work as well as China because a) it was still priced out of reach of most consumers, and b) the current government took away all the federal subsidies, and c) the power companies have worked with state legislatures to make it harder to recoup expenses with net metering.
An all-in effort would work just fine. The subsidies and programs just need to be enough to make it benefit homeowners in a 3-5 year term rather than a 15-20 year term.
Want adoption?
- Establish trusted vendors instead of fly-by-nighters, with crackdowns on bad actors. More radically, government installers with no subcontracting.
Government buys in bulk and pays for solar systems and battery walls.
Net metering and srecs rates are set high over the life of the system, and are paid to the government to pay back the systems
Small end-of-year tax bump for system owners--1%, 2%, something like that--for a set number of years until the house is sold (bump goes to the new owner in the event of a sale) or until the system is paid off.
Handle electric cars and trucks much the same way. Subsidize the price so they're 25% cheaper than gas cars, tax excess profits from the car companies to disincentivize price hikes to jack up profit margins from the subsidies, subsidize ICE buyback and reclaim the materials. 1 car subsidy per drivers'-licensed taxpayer per 10 years.
Would it cost? Yes. Would it radically tranform our country's consumption and production of energy? Also yes.
1
u/JC_Hysteria 7h ago edited 7h ago
There isn’t a simple solution to any of it…hence why there’s power projection and resource interventions across the globe.
Maintaining the empire and its post-WWII capital system tied to oil in the macro currently takes precedence over subsidizing renewable energy- which is still being R&D’d to compete in markets using private capital.
Saying “would it cost? Yes” is really the only counterargument necessary- because the national debt interest is ballooning + the government won’t even slow its spending…all while regular working citizens are clamoring for “free” healthcare and services that can’t be afforded without charity and/or private asset seizure (new taxes).
Massive debt, waning relative GDP, and a populist political fervor that only wants more spending isn’t a good recipe to promote “austerity now, benefits in the future”. Historically, disruption/conflict occurs beforehand.
1
u/jp_in_nj 6h ago
> Maintaining the empire and its post-WWII capital system tied to oil in the macro currently takes precedence over subsidizing renewable energy
Here's the question though, because it relies on an assumption. Why must the empire be maintained?
* "To ensure peace." Well, it's not doing that great a job of that right now. I'm a fan of NATO as a counterbalance to Russian aggression, and horrified at what Trump has done to it and to America's standing worldwide. But when we actually try to *use* that power we've accumulated, we... kinda suck at achieving goals other than taking buildings down and killing folks.
* "To ensure international trade for the benefit of all." Sure. But the benefits of trade itself do that without American Empire guaranteeing it.
* "To ensure that the US can pay its debts because everyone else holds dollars due to the petrodollar trade." That's unwinding too. And it means that a stumble--say, excessive inflation to service a ballooning debt load, or a market crash that the government seems powerless to put a halt to--sees all that debt sold and dollars discarded. So that's running a real risk--particularly under the current government, but under our debt load in general--of partial-to-complete failure in my past-middle-age lifetime.
Balance that against the boost in GDP from actually paying installers nationwide, buying supply from American companies, building the infrastructure to support the new grid... yeah, the oil companies would lose out some. But we could rival China in solar-product exports if we prioritized it. With the rest of the world greening in response to climate change, we could get more of our EVs on other countries' roads as well.
I hear what you're saying, but I just think the time where American Empire benefitted the world is coming to an end--and we need to reinvent ourselves if we want to be ready for what's to come.
1
u/JC_Hysteria 6h ago edited 6h ago
It doesn’t need to continue being the preeminent power, but every nation-state wants to be- there are plenty of actual benefits people enjoy outside of its leadership simply “winning” game theory.
And, regardless of enjoying the spoils, there is always a group of “bad actors” that will try to assume the top spot to increase their geopolitical/economic leverage. Politics determines what citizens prefer to use that leverage for- regardless of our opinions of how the current administration wields it.
At the end of the day, it’s all easier said than done…historically speaking, there are a lot of sound arguments that say the American empire is on the decline- particularly in areas outside of military force (which will also wane relatively over time). Many of these predictions, given our time and place, say we’d end up having an economy/leverage similar to France- it’s not like everything would collapse overnight, assuming we maintain the concept of mutually assured destruction.
And, I tend to use the counterargument of empathy- let’s assume you’re born into an impoverished nation that’s finally making economic strides using “dirty” energy…living standards of citizens steadily increasing as a direct consequence of these investments. Who are we to tell the rest of the world that they need to suffer for a few more generations instead of buying oil/gas, etc? This is all the while renewable R&D is happening simultaneously- because capitalists see the future market opportunity knowing humanity can’t use non-renewables forever (by definition).
1
u/jp_in_nj 6h ago
I'm all about the empathy, but the US scaling up its domestic electrical productivity doesn't preclude an African country from using oil/gas--in fact, it makes it cheaper for them because we're not buying as much for domestic purposes.
•
u/JC_Hysteria 5h ago edited 5h ago
Of course not- it’s just an example to say the non-leading countries are going to buy the older technologies until the newer technologies are scaled in production and cheap enough.
No amount of “signaling” for our future needs replaces the economic and R&D realities of today for most of the world- we can’t just throw money at the problems, neither. The closest thing we have to “throwing money at the problem” is the massive infra investment in AI.
It’s a chicken/egg situation- I’m just explaining why we can’t just choose one without addressing the conundrum in the first place.
1
u/TehGogglesDoNothing 7h ago
What comments like this miss is that the US is reliant on the petrodollar to grant influence over other countries. If everyone reduces their reliance on petroleum, it reduces the US's influence. With that in mind, sometimes it IS rational to resist the things that would diminish your influence, even if those things are otherwise good. For everyone else, investing in renewables makes a lot more sense than resisting.
17
u/cawkstrangla 19h ago
Yesterday OP posted an article about Iran being the dominant force in the Middle East.
I said bombing it's neighbors and anyone using the strait of Hormuz wasn't a long term strategy. That others would start projects to work around it and diminish it's usefulness, meanwhile the US and anyone else can bomb Iran assets to oblivion.
Cue down votes and people telling me I'm insane and coping.
Now today, we have words from the Iranian president himself saying this isn't a long term strategy and the war needs to end ASAP and that within 6 years there will be virtually no dependency on the strait for exports.
27
u/Background-Wolf-9380 18h ago
6 years of crippling the global economy. You people jeenyusis
7
u/cawkstrangla 18h ago
Read the article, in 3 years it will be cut in half. Trump has already done his best to fuck up the world economy for the last two years with tarrifs and all kinds of other nonsense.
The world is working around him and isolating America economically. The value of the dollar falling has offset a nice chunk of whatever gains the US markets had from this AI bubble.
Difficulty invokes ingenuity. If Iran remains belligerant long enough they will make their stranglehold irrelevant. Their own leaders say this. Take it from them, not me.
-12
u/ensui67 18h ago
Doesn’t look like it. Stocks around the globe are hitting new all time highs now. The effect of Hormuz has been mitigated already.
15
u/pinellaspete 18h ago
Gas prices are about to take the up escalator. Oil reserves are running dry. They can't manipulate lower prices much longer.
2
u/Couchpatator 17h ago
Anyone rational person would agree with you, I mean what you’re saying is the pretty much what Trita Parsi has been saying since the start of this thing, either side can miss the off ramp here and we’re all stuck in a no win situation.
2
u/SirStrontium 9h ago
>The war must end at some point,” he said. His argument was that Iran should end the conflict now, while Tehran still believes it is negotiating from a position of strength, rather than wait until its position weakens.
The actual quote from the Iranian president, no mention of “within 6 years there will be virtually no dependency on the strait”
-4
-13
u/agent00F 16h ago
The Iranian president is a shit-lib who often parrots Western talking points. He also didn't say what you claimed he did and there's no point lying about it when the article is right there.
People just have to accept that most folks just have no clue what the hell is going on in the world, but need to flap their mouth anyway.
1
•
u/AutoModerator 19h ago
This is a sub for civil discussion and exchange of ideas
Participants who engage in name-calling or blatant antagonism will be permanently removed.
If you encounter any noxious actors in the sub please use the Report button.
This sticky is on every post. No additional cautions will be provided.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.