|
Originally Posted by N39E002
(Post 4014194)
I think that Iran could probably shut down The Red Sea
|
Originally Posted by OpieTaylor
(Post 4014343)
I read his letter, it didn’t say there would be a day in the future where attacking Iran would be easier with less consequences.
All it said was since we fumbled prior conflicts we should stay out. We did not attack Afghanistan and Iraq because a 47 year opportunity presented itself. The “regime” doesn’t have to change the new leader will scrap the nuke program like we scrapped the space shuttle program and the uniforms will say IRG to protect their pride. He doesn’t care how close they are or aren’t, they have to stop pursuing interest in nukes, give up the enriched material, to make the bombs stop. They had weeks of negotiations to give up the material knowing their centrifuges were destroyed, when enough leaders have died someone will give it up. https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...s-within-reach |
Originally Posted by N39E002
(Post 4014194)
I think that Iran could probably shut down The Red Sea. I think they could probably reduce the world's fertilizer supply by a third, greatly increasing the risk of inflation for food and reducing the food supply. I think Iran could successfully attack desalinization plants in the Middle East potentially making large areas of the Middle East uninhabitable.
The Houthis are laying very low right now... their ability to project power beyond the city limits of Sanaa is severely curtailed now that their IR masters are cowering in their bunkers. Hint: proxy terrorist groups do not have the means to buy or build their own ASMCs. If the Houthis use up what they may still have, then they have nothing left for a rainy day, and no prospect of getting more. |
Originally Posted by vaxedtothemax
(Post 4014425)
you mean the war that occurred during the last admin, and they didn’t do any of the above mentioned bombings either? But did give Ukraine $300+billion? How many meetings did AutoPen attend trying to bring Putin and Zalinsky(sp?)together to try to resolve the issue?
”Don’t” was the initial response that didn’t work too well did it? I’m almost shocked “107 days” wasn’t able to exert enough pressure to stop Putin! Btw, the correct answer was “because they have nukes and ICBMs. So we couldn’t give them the Iran treatment.” If Iran had zero intentions of pursuing a nuclear program for weaponry, they are going to be 100% committed now. |
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
(Post 4014429)
Btw, the correct answer was “because they have nukes and ICBMs. So we couldn’t give them the Iran treatment.”
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
(Post 4014429)
If Iran had zero intentions of pursuing a nuclear program for weaponry, they are going to be 100% committed now.
1. Regime change is still possible. 2. Even if the current regime continues in spirit, they may temper their ambitions for survival reasons. Or economic/domestic political reasons. 3. Assuming we get after enough of their nuclear-related infrastructure, they would be set back decades. Also they'll still be subject to sanctions, which would limit their access to technology, hardware, and money. There's absolutely no way they just bounce right back from this, the damage is done. Now if they give up the nuclear (weapons) program there will likely be treats for good behavior... better economic prospects and it's also likley that we would allow them to rebuild their *conventional* military forces just for self-defense and regional stability. It's a rough neighborhood, and IR was not the aggressor in every past regional conflict. It's actually in our interest too for there not be a regional power imbalance. In the mid-term though all of the regional actors look stable, I don't see Iraq doing a repeat of 1980 any time soon. |
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
(Post 4014429)
If Iran had zero intentions of pursuing a nuclear program for weaponry, they are going to be 100% committed now. Perhaps the best we can do is to deny them the ABILITY to have nuclear weapons. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 4014428)
They no longer have the capacity to do that, and what capacity they still have is dwindling rapidly.
The Houthis are laying very low right now... their ability to project power beyond the city limits of Sanaa is severely curtailed now that their IR masters are cowering in their bunkers. Hint: proxy terrorist groups do not have the means to buy or build their own ASMCs. The houthis are laying very low right now? As opposed to? Please share what the big bad wolf known as the houthis did to the U.S. or Israel, when compared to the atrocities of the Putin regime and their war of the past 3 years? rickair, I know you’re intelligent (or at least I hope you are), so please answer this: Do you seriously believe Iran was imminent to attack the United States? Do you actually believe US citizens would die here on our homeland? |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 4014432)
Bat$hit crazy religious zealots have never lacked for commitment - as shown by their willingness to put suicide vests on even themselves, their wives, and their kids to drive home their point. That’s real commitment in anyone’s book.
Perhaps the best we can do is to deny them the ABILITY to have nuclear weapons. And what Iranian put a vest on their wives or kids? |
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
(Post 4014433)
The houthis are laying very low right now? As opposed to? Please share what the big bad wolf known as the houthis did to the U.S. or Israel, when compared to the atrocities of the Putin regime and their war of the past 3 years?
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
(Post 4014433)
rickair, I know you’re intelligent (or at least I hope you are), so please answer this: Do you seriously believe Iran was imminent to attack the United States? Do you actually believe US citizens would die here on our homeland?
But IR was objectively killing Americans overseas, and a threat to the global (oil) economy which ultimately needed to be dealt with. The question was how, and to what degree the US needed to be involved. I was good with the first strikes against the IR nuke facilities, IL was 100% going to do that anyway and kick up the hornet's nest. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 4014420)
We'll only know the "facts" when the midnight sun rises, at which point it's too late.
You can reasonably infer their likely future behavior from the past behavior and circumstances. Their neighbors have attacked them multiple times over the decades. Although their neighbor states are neutral or friendly in 2026, the issue is proxies which is to say Iran. But the US president and a couple others would actually know in advance... extremely unlikely that IL would use nukes without at least a courtesy call, and a final opportunity to discuss. As I've said this may happened in the past, I'm confident that it did at least once although that might have a bluff on the part of IL to encourage our behavior in a certain direction. With the current administration, Israel has been given far fewer red lights and is predictably doing what it feels is in its best interests. SOME of those interests align with ours, but certainly not all & even Trump appears to be frustrated with the extent of Israeli strikes so far in this war. Personally, I believe it was beyond foolish to cut the head off the snake & expect anything but equally venomous fangs to grow back. We are paying a very heavy price in lives lost, lives forever changed, military capability being attritted (we lost seven tankers in a week, expending a metric f@%k ton of very expensive ordinance, and apparently F-35s are being shot up by Iranian air defenses that we were assured were zapped in the first days of the war). For what? When is it over? Hint: Middle East forever war hasn’t been over since 1990, & it won’t be over whenever we finally call this one “mission accomplished” which could be next week or ten years down the road. In the meantime, the guys and gals that replaced me in mil cockpits will continue to waste half their lives in conex quarters that were built to last months, but will house troops for decades, we will continue to use up valuable equipment and countless taxpayer dollars (all while screaming about the national debt mind you), and China and other potential adversaries will continue to capitalize on our folly while building up military force and soft power in places we SAY are strategically important to us. This isn’t that hard folks. We’ve all seen this movie multiple times. |
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
(Post 4014434)
I absolutely agree with the bolded first 4 words of your post. So speaking of batpoop crazy religious zealots, let’s start with the U.S. and Israel.
And what Iranian put a vest on their wives or kids? Yes, there are Evangelicals in the USA that feel that Israel must be defended at all costs because of biblical interpretation. Catholics do not share that viewpoint as they differentiate the “people of Israel” vs the modern 1947 State of borders and country. Let’s remember it’s not called Iran. It’s the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Islamic Republic has funded IEDs, vests, vehicle borne delivery, etc. They may not have done vests directly, but definitely by proxy. You cannot by default sidestep the religious context that Iran operates under. Persia was not this way. |
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
(Post 4014429)
If Iran had zero intentions of pursuing a nuclear program for weaponry, they are going to be 100% committed now.
The Israeli PM is a legendary warrior. Just as Putin was a KGB master spy, assassin. Both are not without significant minority opposition at home. Consider the Gaza solution. Any reluctance Knesset has to preemptively strike on suspicion the Islamic Republic Iran has obtained an H bomb, by whatever means, will in no way stop a boomer strike on the nexus of extremist Shia rule. For certain. Go ahead and sail through the strait then. |
Originally Posted by at6d
(Post 4014442)
Just checking—you feel the United States is full of religious zealots? And these zealots are conducting this war? You think Israel is fighting because of religion?Keep in mind there are Arab citizens in Israel as well, including Christians and other faiths. Which religion are they fighting under? Is Israel not responsible for defending all of its citizens from being annihilated (which Iran openly supports)?
Let’s remember it’s not called Iran. It’s the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Islamic Republic has funded IEDs, vests, vehicle borne delivery, etc. They may not have done vests directly, but definitely by proxy. You cannot by default sidestep the religious context that Iran operates under. Persia was not this way. Well we can’t go partisan here on the forum. But Im simply going by the openly Christian Bible quotes and commentary by the SecDef Hegseth during war updates, press briefings. This is not normal. As for Bibi, absolutely a religious zealot. Religion is a driver for the problems in the ME, yes. That and land. It’s why you’ll never see a 2 state solution. Those hopes died with Rabin. |
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
(Post 4014434)
I absolutely agree with the bolded first 4 words of your post. So speaking of batpoop crazy religious zealots, let’s start with the U.S. and Israel.
And what Iranian put a vest on their wives or kids? You’re just arguing your own personal threshold wasn’t reached and that is ok. There is an elected congress that can shut it all down if they want to and they haven’t. No one is drafting HS kids to go die in a jungle. If LBJ hadn’t created so much war fatigue this problem would have been solved before the revolution started. No reason to kick the can down the road for our kids to solve. |
Originally Posted by OpieTaylor
(Post 4014449)
You’re just arguing your own personal threshold wasn’t reached and that is ok.
No reason to kick the can down the road for our kids to solve. |
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
(Post 4014446)
Well we can’t go partisan here on the forum. But Im simply going by the openly Christian Bible quotes and commentary by the SecDef Hegseth during war updates, press briefings. This is not normal. As for Bibi, absolutely a religious zealot.
Religion is a driver for the problems in the ME, yes. That and land. It’s why you’ll never see a 2 state solution. Those hopes died with Rabin. |
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
(Post 4014454)
Nor was ours. Fact, according to our US intelligence agency.
Of all the issues we could possibly “solve,” bombing yet another ME country would be at the extreme bottom of my list. We have tons of issues at home here we could spend $$$ billions to fix first. Joe Kent wasn’t voted for by the people and his opinion does not govern. Your fight attendant is your eyes and ears in the cabin, does their opinion govern over yours, because they say you are blind and deaf without them and they’ll quit if you don’t do what they say? Rising taxes, filling in pot holes, or handing more welfare isn’t in the middle of a 47 years historic opportunity. There is a reason Tel Aviv isn’t sitting right under a chlorine cloud, Assad is gone, and now was the time. Iran let their foreign defense strategy fall into the crapper. |
Originally Posted by Lowslung
(Post 4014441)
Most likely explanation is that Israel knows it has a limited window to act vis a vis the Trump admin. They’ve likely calculated that chances are good the midterms in the U.S. will seriously constrain the administration’s ability to act & they want to accomplish as much kinetic effect as possible until that point.
With the current administration, Israel has been given far fewer red lights and is predictably doing what it feels is in its best interests. SOME of those interests align with ours, but certainly not all & even Trump appears to be frustrated with the extent of Israeli strikes so far in this war. Personally, I believe it was beyond foolish to cut the head off the snake & expect anything but equally venomous fangs to grow back. We are paying a very heavy price in lives lost, lives forever changed, military capability being attritted (we lost seven tankers in a week, expending a metric f@%k ton of very expensive ordinance, and apparently F-35s are being shot up by Iranian air defenses that we were assured were zapped in the first days of the war). For what? When is it over? Hint: Middle East forever war hasn’t been over since 1990, & it won’t be over whenever we finally call this one “mission accomplished” which could be next week or ten years down the road. In the meantime, the guys and gals that replaced me in mil cockpits will continue to waste half their lives in conex quarters that were built to last months, but will house troops for decades, we will continue to use up valuable equipment and countless taxpayer dollars (all while screaming about the national debt mind you), and China and other potential adversaries will continue to capitalize on our folly while building up military force and soft power in places we SAY are strategically important to us. This isn’t that hard folks. We’ve all seen this movie multiple times. One of the greatest things we gained from the Russian/Ukraine conflict was precisely how unprepared they were. If I were Russia and China, I'd be watching this conflict with a microscope. While there's definitely concern about the amount of munitions being expended on a relatively nothing threat, that isn't even the biggest threat to our economy and national security. This weird bipolar stance of isolationism/regime change is going to make developed economies reconsider the US dollar as the primary reserve currency. |
Originally Posted by OpieTaylor
(Post 4014458)
Joe Kent wasn’t voted for by the people and his opinion does not govern.
Your fight attendant is your eyes and ears in the cabin, does their opinion govern over yours, because they say you are blind and deaf without them and they’ll quit if you don’t do what they say? Rising taxes, filling in pot holes, or handing more welfare isn’t in the middle of a 47 years historic opportunity. There is a reason Tel Aviv isn’t sitting right under a chlorine cloud, Assad is gone, and now was the time. Iran let their foreign defense strategy fall into the crapper. |
Originally Posted by at6d
(Post 4014442)
Just checking—you feel the United States is full of religious zealots? And these zealots are conducting this war? You think Israel is fighting because of religion?Keep in mind there are Arab citizens in Israel as well, including Christians and other faiths. Which religion are they fighting under? Is Israel not responsible for defending all of its citizens from being annihilated (which Iran openly supports)?
Yes, there are Evangelicals in the USA that feel that Israel must be defended at all costs because of biblical interpretation. Catholics do not share that viewpoint as they differentiate the “people of Israel” vs the modern 1947 State of borders and country. Let’s remember it’s not called Iran. It’s the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Islamic Republic has funded IEDs, vests, vehicle borne delivery, etc. They may not have done vests directly, but definitely by proxy. You cannot by default sidestep the religious context that Iran operates under. Persia was not this way. https://www.barakabooks.com/catalogu...in-101-quotes/ All you need to do is accept what has come out of the mouth of these religious zealots for the last 150 years. They don't hide their beliefs or intentions. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 4014437)
The houthis shot a lot of missiles after the beginning of this war, which was Oct 7. They are in a position to use IR supplied ASCMs and drones against shipping in the Bab and Red Sea. They also attempted to shoot US naval vessels, including a CVN.
Of course not, how many times do I have to say I was not in favor of this action. But IR was objectively killing Americans overseas, and a threat to the global (oil) economy which ultimately needed to be dealt with. The question was how, and to what degree the US needed to be involved. I was good with the first strikes against the IR nuke facilities, IL was 100% going to do that anyway and kick up the hornet's nest. If all of that what they had claimed is true then why are the straits closed and Iran shooting and hitting high value targets daily. I don’t believe we have won. Don’t believe anything that is said from the administration at the point as the lies to truth ratio has been exceeded on a “scale never seen before” to borrow a favorite phrase. At the end of the day our economy, our retirement accounts and our jobs hang in the balance from the decisions of the past three weeks. I personally have very little optimism based on the facts. |
Originally Posted by Midsomer
(Post 4014476)
Unfortunately to accept a lot of the arguments you make you have to believe what is being said by Hedgspeth and Trump. These are the same people that claimed the war was over, we have already won, the Iranian military is “obliterated” and that the strait is open expect for the shooting.
If all of that what they had claimed is true then why are the straits closed and Iran shooting and hitting high value targets daily. I don’t believe we have won. Don’t believe anything that is said from the administration at the point as the lies to truth ratio has been exceeded on a “scale never seen before” to borrow a favorite phrase. At the end of the day our economy, our retirement accounts and our jobs hang in the balance from the decisions of the past three weeks. I personally have very little optimism based on the facts. Example, Trump just announced "No Boots on Ground". I fully expected that because a significant % of his base does not care for foreign entanglements. Also possible that he's actually gearing up for raids and might be hoping to lull IR into complacency on that threat vector. He's done that kind of thing. I'm not optimistic about profit sharing for 2026. But there's a decent chance this whole thing will be a net positive long-term, I'm intimately familiar with the strategic and tactical capabilities of IR, and our plan to delete most of them. The region will probably be more stable, with less proxy-induced disruption after the dust settles. There's just no way that doesn't math out... capabilities gone, economic prospects severely impaired. They simply cannot reconstitute to their previous position on anything short of a very long-term timeline. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 4014490)
Absolutely nothing I said was based on anything those two said. I rarely bother to listen to them (or their counterparts on the other side) because I already know what they're going to say anyhow.
Example, Trump just announced "No Boots on Ground". I fully expected that because a significant % of his base does not care for foreign entanglements. Also possible that he's actually gearing up for raids and might be hoping to lull IR into complacency on that threat vector. He's done that kind of thing. Integrity is a virtue for both the speaker AND listener. This is well on track to put the world into a recession but the war was won in the first hour. It’s a very interesting case study with regards to sociology but also sad as well. |
Originally Posted by SampsonSimpson
(Post 4014505)
It doesn’t really matter if a significant percentage of his base is against foreign engagements. They will change their mindset based on what the administration said/did last. It doesn’t matter what is said or steps actually taken. An example is your “boots on the ground” comment. He said that straight up but you are already willing to look past it. Not trying to pick on you, just making the point because you’re smart enough to know that this will lead to ground troops in the theater.
I'm extremely opposed to any OIF/OEF style BoG. As is any rational person with an understanding of the nature of this problem set. SOF and raids is somewhere between likely and inevitable due to again the nature of the problem set. I'll be surprised if none of that happens |
Dont worry everyone! The self appointed chairman of the Board of Peace will bring stability back to the region through strategic..erm... excursions
|
The Pentagon is asking for an additional $200 billion for the war. I thought it was announced that we already won this thing after the first few days? Also where is this money coming from? The first year of this administration was all about cutting spending and cutting programs, departments and increasing efficiency. Now we're okay just spending more on foreign wars?
(This is not a partisan statement, this is a direct question from an upset American who is again seeing his tax dollars burned on a Middle East conflict while so much is needed here at home). We were promised no new conflicts, what gives? |
Originally Posted by CBreezy
(Post 4014462)
I'm sure you full-throated defended Joe because he was voted on by "the people.". I'm sure you never chose to listen to police or military or Intel experts over an elected representative
ATF trying to take guns, OSHA enforcing COVID mask, EPA trying to govern carbon. They love for the swamp to have all the authority then they run the swamp as they see fit. Then claim it’s authentic and not politics. Joe gets no defense for always hiding behind some alphabet. |
Originally Posted by OpieTaylor
(Post 4014532)
Well the left overly uses the swap already. So there is no need to defend Joe. If Joe were putting his name on it I’d have more respect but they always hide, and Trump isn’t hiding.
ATF trying to take guns, OSHA enforcing COVID mask, EPA trying to govern carbon. They love for the swamp to have all the authority then they run the swamp as they see fit. Then claim it’s authentic and not politics. Joe gets no defense for always hiding behind some alphabet. |
Originally Posted by Midsomer
(Post 4014476)
I don’t believe we have won. Don’t believe anything that is said from the administration at the point as the lies to truth ratio has been exceeded on a “scale never seen before” to borrow a favorite phrase.
At the end of the day our economy, our retirement accounts and our jobs hang in the balance from the decisions of the past three weeks. I personally have very little optimism based on the facts. Otoh, sub torping a frigate. Can you imagine the look on their faces as the shoot order was received. A thing like that, wow. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 4014490)
Absolutely nothing I said was based on anything those two said. I rarely bother to listen to them (or their counterparts on the other side) because I already know what they're going to say anyhow.
Example, Trump just announced "No Boots on Ground". |
Originally Posted by AYLflyer
(Post 4014521)
The Pentagon is asking for an additional $200 billion for the war. I thought it was announced that we already won this thing after the first few days? Also where is this money coming from? The first year of this administration was all about cutting spending and cutting programs, departments and increasing efficiency. Now we're okay just spending more on foreign wars?
(This is not a partisan statement, this is a direct question from an upset American who is again seeing his tax dollars burned on a Middle East conflict while so much is needed here at home). We were promised no new conflicts, what gives? https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/19/netanyahu-trump-us-israel-iran-ground-component.html “I know what America is, America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won’t get in the way.” - Benjamin Netanyahu |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 4014518)
I also do not have TDS, so I can analyze the administration's behavior based on the merits.
I, along with other reasonable people, reject that notion. |
Originally Posted by Hubcapped
(Post 4012691)
So we are asking the Chinese to help us in iran now? Is this real life or a Saturday night live skit?
Even better. We're asking Iran to help US in Iran now. Secretary of the Treasury babbling about how we'll "unsanction" Iranian oil if it becomes necessary. Jack Handy level statecraft thinking here. |
Originally Posted by N39E002
(Post 4014567)
The ground invasion isn't going to pay for itself, and Israel certainly isn't going to be cutting us a check either.
Donald Rumseld, probably. |
All beside the point bs. War on 2 fronts, global energy markets in chaos, government workers left unpaid, DHS sec shagging her boyfriend/bagman while jerking the boss. Truth stranger than fiction.
|
Italy, Belgium set to lose gas supply after world’s biggest LNG plant bombedDamage to a major gas production facility could take five years to repair, QatarEnergy’s CEO told Reuters.MARCH 19, 2026 4:55 PM CET BY BEN MAKUCH, ELENA GIORDANO, FREDERIKE HOLEWIK, NICHOLAS EARL AND BEN MUNSTERBRUSSELS — Europe's insistence that it doesn't face an energy supply crisis took a blow Thursday when Qatar warned it would have to scrap contracts with Italy and Belgium following a massive Iranian attack. QatarEnergy CEO Saad al-Kaabi told Reuters on Thursday it would have to cancel long-term liquefied natural gas supply contracts for up to five years after an Iranian ballistic missile knocked out a significant share of its production capacity in the Persian Gulf. The state-owned company, which produces a fifth of the world's LNG, said the damage could impact deliveries to Italy, Belgium, South Korea and China"These are long-term contracts that we have to declare force majeure," al-Kaabi said. On Wednesday Iran bombed the Ras Laffan gas plant in Qatar. The ballistic missile attack, which followed an Israeli attack on Iran’s South Pars gas field, caused "sizeable fires and extensive further damage," QatarEnergy said in a post on X. The strikes damaged two of Qatar’s 14 liquefied natural gas trains and one gas-to-liquids facility, QatarEnergy said Thursday. The outages will remove around 12.8 million tons of LNG annually from the market, roughly 17 percent of Qatar’s total export capacity and around 3 percent of global supply, for an estimated three to five years. The strikes mark a major escalation in regional tensions. Qatar’s LNG plant had already been offline following a previous drone strike, but the latest damage is expected to significantly prolong the disruption. Gas markets reacted sharply on Thursday, with European futures jumping as much as 35 percent to more than double pre-conflict levels, underscoring the risk of a prolonged supply shock. The outage leaves major buyers in Europe and Asia scrambling to replace lost volumes, raising concerns over energy security and the potential for sustained price pressure as competition for alternative LNG cargoes intensifies. Nothing to see hereEarlier on Thursday German Energy Minister Katherina Reiche had downplayed the impact of the war, saying: “What we in Europe don't have is a physical bottleneck." She insisted the EU’s gas supplies are still flowing from Norway, the U.S., Kazakhstan and other countries.But Reiche said while she doesn't believe the current situation is as serious as the 2022 shock following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, “the current situation is also causing us concern,” and that it's critical for Europe to continue to “monitor this crisis and make careful decisions.” Her comments came as EU leaders met for high-level talks in Brussels on Thursday, with energy one of the top issues. In 2022 Germany depended on Russia for more than half of its gas, but now relies on Norway and the Netherlands for the majority, importing some LNG from the U.S. It is not dependent on Qatari LNG. Other EU countries including Poland, Italy and Belgium depend on the Middle East country for a larger percentages of their LNG. Poland said Thursday its gas supplies "are secured," adding Qatari LNG only accounts for 10 percent of the country's total gas supply. "[T]his volume can be gradually supplemented with supplies from other sources, if necessary," said Grzegorz Łaguna, a spokesperson for Poland's Ministry of Energy."Deliveries for March are being made, and there is currently no information indicating any significant risks to meeting current demand for natural gas, including the continued restrictions on supplies from Qatar," he added. The U.K. government and regulators also played down fears of a supply shock. "The U.K. has very strong energy supplies from a diverse range of sources," said Energy Minister Michael Shanks on Tuesday. But the country has just two days’ worth of gas supplies currently in storage, according to reports based on National Gas data. U.K. Green Party leader Zack Polanski has demanded the government freeze bills in July, when the cap is set to jump hundreds of pounds. Chancellor Rachel Reeves insists support should be “targeted” only at the poorest families, wanting to avoid a rerun of the eye-watering sums spent by the last government to protect all households and businesses after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. India and China’s reliance on disrupted Middle East gas supplies has already caused price hikes and questions about European gas reserves. “Geopolitics continue shaping gas and LNG markets, and despite the industry's large scale, it lacks flexibility to absorb major disruptions, creating market volatility,” said Kristy Kramer, head of LNG strategy and market development at Wood Mackenzie. “How the industry responds to this event will vary, but we expect buyers to prioritise LNG supply security with a renewed focus on diversity.” https://www.politico.eu/article/ital...-plant-bombed/ |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 4014673)
Italy, Belgium set to lose gas supply after world’s biggest LNG plant bombedDamage to a major gas production facility could take five years to repair, QatarEnergy’s CEO told Reuters.$200b war just to start, $1T annual deficit, all asset classes falling except energy, and America quickly losing its post-war reputation as the world leader. #CantStopWinning |
Originally Posted by Name User
(Post 4014677)
It's almost comical how bad this is, and how rapidly it's deteriorating.
$200b war just to start, $1T annual deficit, all asset classes falling except energy, and America quickly losing its post-war reputation as the world leader. #CantStopWinning |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 4014678)
So, in your considered opinion, is what this is heading for better or worse than prewar Iran getting working ICBMs with nuclear warheads?
|
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
(Post 4014681)
That was nowhere close to imminent. Literally not even close. So yes, it’s now worse today.
And do you seriously believe after 47 years of chanting “Death to America!” they were going to suddenly mellow out in the non-imminent time you believe we still had? So what would you assume would have been the advanyage of letting that day get even closer? |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:00 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands