Oil is a globally traded commodity so the US definitely does care. The US also does consume oil from the gulf.
That said this term is not going to be acceptable to anyone so it's likely not going to happen. It remains to be seen where we'll be after the two week ceasefire that Iran declared it would never accept (no ceasefire, only end of war). Iran certainly has some leverage but so does the US.
I don't think you understand how commodity markets work, in particular oil, which is easy to ship relative to extraction costs.
It literally doesn't matter where the oil comes from, it only matters how much gets shipped! Only an utter fool could say something like "closing off the strait of Hormuz doesn't matter because our oil doesn't come from there." One merely has to look at current US gas prices to see how utterly silly that notion is!
> One merely has to look at current US gas prices to see how utterly silly that notion is!
We could probably slash gas prices by banning oil exports, thus removing domestic oil supply from global market pricing (barring smuggling). The oil industry would probably hate that, though, for obvious reasons.
Ultimately, though, this is yet another wakeup call for why an economy and society built around lighting a finite resource on fire is a bad idea, and hopefully this time around that wakeup call sticks.
> We could probably slash gas prices by banning oil exports, thus removing domestic oil supply from global market pricing (barring smuggling).
To my understanding, you couldn't do this, no. The US is a net oil exporter, but many of its refineries are tuned for processing oil with a chemical composition that isn't found in the US, or not found in sufficient quantity. So the US has to both import and export oil, it can't just replace imports with exports.
> but many of its refineries are tuned for processing oil with a chemical composition that isn't found in the US, or not found in sufficient quantity
How difficult would it be to retune those refineries to process domestic oil instead? In a world where a heavy-handed extreme like “banning oil exports” is on the table, surely doubling down on the heavy-handedness wouldn't be out of the question.
All oil is global commodity and the US refineries can’t take the oil that the US produces. So they mix it with heavy sours from Canada so the refineries can handle them. So a lot of the oil in the US is dependent on foreign oil as you said.
Uh no. It is empirically not egg on the face of the people who believed it was not possible to improve the Iran situation militarily. The US's failure just proved them correct.
Yes, I agree this is bad. In fact it's worse than it was a few weeks ago.
Your post makes a lot of bold claims (lack of support post-attacks, current missile production numbers, large portion of internal security folks killed). From where did you get that info?
> I'm not sure that we are worse than a few weeks ago
By every measure I can find, we are worse off: everything costs more, I am at greater risk of attack at home and abroad; the theocracy in Iran has moved to consolidate power similarly to the theocracy in israel; more Iranians support the regime since they're all being attacked together; the global standing and trust of the USA is further diminished; allies have been shunned and insulted; war crimes are now OK according to the USA; billions have been wasted; stocks of interceptor missiles and other weapons are dangerously depleted; the USA and israel look like losers on the world stage now. Oh yeah, and a bunch of innocent people (including lots of children) were killed in the bombing. And that's all right now, no "wait and see".
Are there any measures which indicate we're better off? Even if we assume the ones you listed were true, they are outweighed by all the damage listed above, and aren't particularly valuable to the USA, which generally did not suffer from random Iranian missile strikes or invading Iranian internal security forces prior to this war.
This is a very shortsighted and naive way of looking at things. We are better off because Iran has been weakened. The short term issues you mention are real but pale in comparison to what an Iran with nuclear weapons and a much larger missile stock would do. Iran doesn't just want to be left along and live their lives the way they want to. Iran wants to change the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exporting_the_Islamic_Revoluti...
"They are producing, by some estimates, over 100 of these missiles a month. Compare that to the six or seven interceptors that can be built a month. They can build a hundred of these a month, not to mention the thousands of one-way attack drones that they also have. They’ve been doing this for a very long time. And by the way, they’ve been doing it under sanction. You see the attacks they’re conducting right now. They’re attacking airports. They’re attacking hotels. They are hitting, not just military bases; they’re attacking our embassies directly. They’re attacking facilities that have nothing to do with war or with military."
"But he doubts that Iran is still able to produce bigger, longer-range ballistic missiles because the U.S. and Israel have destroyed or disabled known production facilities."
EDIT: I will also add that the reason we're paying a higher price now is the debt we've acquired by not dealing with Iran sooner. This higher price includes the war in Ukraine where Iran's support to Russia is material and possibly even China's current posture. We can also add the situation in Yemen to that long list. You're arguing we should just wait and do nothing because the cost is too high. Just imagine what the cost is going to be down the road.
Israel is mostly secular and is by no means governed by Halakha; it’s not any more of a theocracy than the US is. Netanyahu is not religious at all, and though some members of his coalition are, they’re not the majority partners.
This isn’t a pro-Israel comment (I’m generally not a fan of Israel), it’s just factual. When Israel describes itself as “the Jewish state” it understands “Jewish” as referring to something that could variously be described as a culture, ethnicity or “nation”, not to the religion of Judaism.
Is that your whole takeaway after reading my post?
'yes we are worse off in every measure you listed, but I personally disagree with your use of this negative adjective to describe israel in one of the bullet points about how much worse off we are and also this isn't a pro-israel comment and my opinions are facts'?
I agree with most of your comment; I'm certainly not in favor of the war and think it was both morally dubious as well as a strategic disaster for the US. I'm just saying that Israel isn't a theocracy, which is true.
Also, there were no opinions in my comment; indeed, there were only facts.
yeah, that's why the biggest single problem facing Trump right now is the price of gas at US pumps, which is weird because based on your understanding of global trade it hasn't gone up at all...
