Iran War Update

[Reagan]

20 minutes ago, Boyz N Da Hood said:

Sounds like a big win to me! Sarcasm

The bots are all giddy inside 😂

Wait, you must be giddy then, because you are the bot!  

[Porter]

1 hour ago, Reagan said:

Wait, you must be giddy then, because you are the bot!  

😂 

 

[Boyz N Da Hood]

8 hours ago, Porter said:

😂

 

MAGA and bots 😂

Real conservatives and the rest of the world shaking their heads

I honestly feel bad for Reagan, biggest man crush on sleepy Donald that I've ever seen.. dude foams at the mouth daily to talk about him.. he/she has that defend by all means mantra lol

[baddog]

1 hour ago, Boyz N Da Hood said:

MAGA and bots 😂

Real conservatives and the rest of the world shaking their heads

I honestly feel bad for Reagan, biggest man crush on sleepy Donald that I've ever seen.. dude foams at the mouth daily to talk about him.. he/she has that defend by all means mantra lol

And you’re the one who cried about personal attacks. That’s all you do. Smoaky would be proud. You’re just part of the hypocrite cult. Got it.

[Porter]

 

[OlDawg]

Still to early to decide if this effort was a success or failure. That won't be known until the formal agreement is signed at least a couple months from now. If there really are snap inspections and full access by IAEA, and IAEA supervises dilution of current material, it could be deemed successful from the nuclear threat aspect.

I also still say, the Strait--thus Iran--has lost it's bargaining power for the future. Supply chains will no longer rely so much on passage through the Strait for the bulk of their needs. This is an outcome that wasn't discussed as a goal. It's an unintended consequence. But, it's a definite positive for the U.S.

The Administration lucked out, and backed into this one.

[Porter]

Trump trying to take his exit from the Iran War. Lol

 

[DCT]

5 hours ago, OlDawg said:

Still to early to decide if this effort was a success or failure. That won't be known until the formal agreement is signed at least a couple months from now. If there really are snap inspections and full access by IAEA, and IAEA supervises dilution of current material, it could be deemed successful from the nuclear threat aspect.

I also still say, the Strait--thus Iran--has lost it's bargaining power for the future. Supply chains will no longer rely so much on passage through the Strait for the bulk of their needs. This is an outcome that wasn't discussed as a goal. It's an unintended consequence. But, it's a definite positive for the U.S.

The Administration lucked out, and backed into this one.

No different then the Obama deal. 

[OlDawg]

49 minutes ago, DCT said:

No different then the Obama deal. 

Wrong. JCPOA didn't have snap inspections of any sites, or destruction of existing enriched nuclear material. In fact, it included terms that required giving notice to Iran about upcoming inspections, and even allowed them to self report enrichment.

JCPOA was a big, fat nothingburger. It's yet to be seen what this will turn into.

[DCT]

1 hour ago, OlDawg said:

Wrong. JCPOA didn't have snap inspections of any sites, or destruction of existing enriched nuclear material. In fact, it included terms that required giving notice to Iran about upcoming inspections, and even allowed them to self report enrichment.

JCPOA was a big, fat nothingburger. It's yet to be seen what this will turn into.

So are you saying this MOU is a better deal?

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[Boyz N Da Hood]

 

[OlDawg]

16 hours ago, DCT said:

So are you saying this MOU is a better deal?

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

I'm saying the MOU isn't an agreement that's binding in any fashion. It's nothing more than a 'pinkie promise.'

[UT alum]

On 6/18/2026 at 8:53 AM, OlDawg said:

Still to early to decide if this effort was a success or failure. That won't be known until the formal agreement is signed at least a couple months from now. If there really are snap inspections and full access by IAEA, and IAEA supervises dilution of current material, it could be deemed successful from the nuclear threat aspect.

I also still say, the Strait--thus Iran--has lost it's bargaining power for the future. Supply chains will no longer rely so much on passage through the Strait for the bulk of their needs. This is an outcome that wasn't discussed as a goal. It's an unintended consequence. But, it's a definite positive for the U.S.

The Administration lucked out, and backed into this one.

What  will alternate supply routes look like?  If they already exist, why the bottleneck? If they don’t currently exist, how long to build them out?

[DCT]

4 hours ago, OlDawg said:

I'm saying the MOU isn't an agreement that's binding in any fashion. It's nothing more than a 'pinkie promise.'

With Isreal being defiant the MOU is just paper weight.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[OlDawg]

31 minutes ago, UT alum said:

What  will alternate supply routes look like?  If they already exist, why the bottleneck? If they don’t currently exist, how long to build them out?

There are 4 different pipelines that can handle about 50% of the current loads through Hormuz as they’re built out right now. (Don’t quote me on the 50%. But, I think that’s close.) These can be expanded. But, they’ll still be easy targets for disruption in a volatile region, and the ME politics always makes a kink in usage/transport deals between the States & countries. They’re being used now, and are part of the reason oil hasn’t jumped as much as people thought.

There was talk of rail between Saudi, Israel, and up north after the Abraham Accords. But, I don’t know how the relations are between Israel & Saudi right now after Gaza. I don’t think they’re great.

Land bridges are already being used to a small extent by MSC (the shipping magnate). They could be expanded, and MSC & others are looking at that. I believe only 10% or so ships via land right now. Building anything between areas in this region is tough. So, I couldn’t give you a timeframe. But, since Iran has shown their hand, I’d expect any build to be quicker than in the past. Let’s say 2-3 years-ish per bridge for the ENC part of it. Bridges aren’t that difficult, and there are very talented people in that region as well. They’re not uneducated dummies like some think.

Other water routes are pretty shallow and dangerous for the supertankers.

The major benefactor is the Americas. Our routes are safe, easily insurable, and dependable without stressing over constant conflicts. The distance is a little longer. But, this can be scheduled around. Another benefit is that our light, sweet WTI is the cheapest product to refine.

America, Venezuela, Canada, and other producers will be the big winners.

[OlDawg]

12 minutes ago, DCT said:

With Isreal being defiant the MOU is just paper weight.

Israel has every right to be defiant. They’re not our puppet. They’re a sovereign state.

Iran is merely trying to drive a wedge. They’ve been trying for decades. It’s the only way they can eliminate Israel—their goal.

Our people need to be smarter, and recognize that. Bring Pompeo back if you need to as an advisor. He knows whats going on.

[baddog]

16 minutes ago, OlDawg said:

There are 4 different pipelines that can handle about 50% of the current loads through Hormuz as they’re built out right now. (Don’t quote me on the 50%. But, I think that’s close.) These can be expanded. But, they’ll still be easy targets for disruption in a volatile region, and the ME politics always makes a kink in usage/transport deals between the States & countries. They’re being used now, and are part of the reason oil hasn’t jumped as much as people thought.

There was talk of rail between Saudi, Israel, and up north after the Abraham Accords. But, I don’t know how the relations are between Israel & Saudi right now after Gaza. I don’t think they’re great.

Land bridges are already being used to a small extent by MSC (the shipping magnate). They could be expanded.

Other water routes are pretty shallow and dangerous for the supertankers.

The major benefactor is the Americas. Our routes are safe, easily insurable, and dependable without stressing over constant conflicts. The distance is a little longer. But, this can be scheduled around. Another benefit is that our light, sweet WTI is the cheapest product to refine.

America, Venezuela, Canada, and other producers will be the big winners.

Out of curiosity, I looked this up with a Google search. I had heard about Libya’s sweet crude but not the others. Interesting:

Crude oil is classified as "sweet" if it contains very low levels of sulfur (typically below 0.5%). While several countries produce high-quality, sweet crude, the highest-ranking oils based on extreme purity and low sulfur include: 

Kimray +4

 

• Malaysia: Produces Tapis crude, which is frequently ranked as the cleanest crude in the world. It boasts remarkably low sulfur levels (as low as 0.03%) and a high API gravity, making it incredibly pure. 
  Wikipedia +2
   
• Algeria: Produces Saharan Blend, which is world-renowned for having almost zero sulfur content. 
  Quora +2
   
• Nigeria: Known for Bonny Light, a premium crude prized by refineries globally for its exceptionally low sulfur and high yields of high-value petroleum products. 
  Quora +1
   
• Libya: The country's crudes, such as Es Sider and Sharara, are exceptionally light and sweet, making them highly sought after in European refineries. 
  Quora +1
   

Key Benchmarks:
If you look at the largest volume and most widely traded sweet crudes, the United States (producing West Texas Intermediate) and the North Sea (producing Brent Crude) are the most famous global benchmarks for light, sweet crude