Iran War?

[OttoVonBismarck]

Yeah--Trump even back in the 1980s didn't understand the concept of a fungible commodity like oil and the global market affecting the price for Americans. A lot of his thinking has always been influenced very clearly by what he is watching on TV or etc, my guess is he either saw something on TV in the 1980s or heard from a friend etc the idea about Kharg Island.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Iran is saying now the war will not end until they have been given reparations for the damage they've suffered and given ironclad guarantees of their future safety.

Like I said earlier--people thinking Trump can just end this himself with TACO-ing out are probably being overly optimistic.

[The Brain]

The US can declare victory and go home. Straits closed, US "friends" fucked. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

[The Minsky Moment]

Trump can always be counted on to be mesmerized by the prospect of more beachfront property, even in the unlikeliest of places - from Wonsan, NK to Gaza to Nuuk to Kharg Island.

There's nothing on Kharg other than some likely mostly empty storage tanks, port facilities and some blown up barracks. It's a great place if you want to tape a "kick me here" sign on the posteriors of a few thousand marines.  Not so useful otherwise. It will hamper Iran's own ability to send their oil out but there's nothing constructive for the US there.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Considering we can already hamper Iran's ability to ship oil from the air, occupying Kharg is pointless symbolism that will likely backfire badly.

[viper37]

You should always assume the best of people in life.

I did, long ago.  I defended the US intentions of going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Both times we have been betrayed.  By Republicans incompetence.

[crazy canuck]

However, I underestimated the degree to which Trump would be stupid--something I usually don't underestimate, but sometimes even he can surprise me by showing previous low bars were not, in fact, the floor.

Don't count yourself short.

This thread if filled with comments by you underestimating Trump's stupidity.  His whole admin is you underestimating his and his Congress followers stupidity.

You should always assume the best of people in life.

I agree entirely. But there is a second sentence that is required.  Until they prove otherwise.

[viper37]

BREAKING: Trump accused of demanding trillions from Gulf allies to continue or end Iran war, BBC Arabic reports 

The administration of President Donald Trump is facing explosive allegations that it is pressuring Gulf allies for trillions of dollars in exchange for either continuing or ending the ongoing war with Iran — a claim that, if true, would mark one of the most controversial chapters of his presidency.

The accusations surfaced after Omani journalist and international affairs analyst Salem al-Juhouri stated during a BBC Arabic broadcast that "leaks" suggest the U.S. is demanding massive financial contributions from Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) nations. According to his remarks, the figures being discussed are staggering: approximately $5 trillion if Gulf states want the war to continue, and $2.5 trillion if they want it to stop.

While no official confirmation has been issued by Washington or Gulf governments, the claims have intensified scrutiny over Trump's handling of the conflict and his broader foreign policy approach.

The allegations come as the region faces rapid escalation following a joint U.S.–Israel offensive launched earlier this year. The conflict has already resulted in significant casualties and widespread instability, with Iran retaliating through drone and missile strikes targeting not only Israel but also neighboring countries hosting U.S. military assets.

These strikes have reportedly hit oil and gas infrastructure across the Gulf, forcing production cuts and triggering economic losses throughout the region. Global markets have felt the shock, with energy prices rising and key shipping routes — including the Strait of Hormuz — facing disruption.

At the same time, Gulf nations have publicly maintained that they oppose the war and deny providing operational support. However, reports of U.S. military activity originating from Gulf territory have raised questions about the extent of their involvement.

According to Juhouri's statements, the U.S. is not only seeking military alignment but also applying financial pressure on Gulf states to support the war effort. He described the alleged demands as part of a broader strategy to secure both economic and strategic backing during the conflict.

Critics argue that such a move — tying war outcomes to financial contributions — would represent a dramatic shift from traditional diplomacy into what they describe as transactional coercion.

The scale of the reported figures has also raised alarm. Trillions of dollars in potential payments would far exceed typical defense or aid agreements, fueling concerns that economic leverage is being used in unprecedented ways.
The controversy is unfolding alongside growing economic tensions between the United States and Gulf nations. Reports indicate that Gulf states are reassessing major investment commitments, including hundreds of billions — and potentially over a trillion dollars — previously pledged to the U.S. economy.

Analysts suggest this shift may be driven by both economic self-preservation and political signaling, as regional governments attempt to shield their economies from further instability while responding to U.S. pressure.

The broader impact has extended beyond the Gulf. Rising energy prices, disrupted supply chains, and market volatility have begun affecting economies worldwide, adding to domestic pressure within the United States.
The allegations — even without official confirmation — are already shaping the narrative around Trump's second term. Critics say the situation reinforces a pattern in which foreign policy is conducted through financial leverage and high-stakes bargaining rather than traditional alliances and diplomacy. Supporters, however, argue that Trump's approach reflects a hard-nosed strategy aimed at ensuring allies share the burden of regional conflicts.

What remains clear is that the stakes are escalating rapidly. With military tensions rising, economic fallout spreading, and trust between allies under strain, the war with Iran is no longer just a regional conflict — it is becoming a global flashpoint.
And now, with claims of trillion-dollar demands entering the conversation, the question facing Washington is no longer just how the war will end — but what it is ultimately costing, and who is being asked to pay.

There are obviously ideological differences with Iran. To put it midly.

But at this point, what's to stop these countries from turning to China to mediate the conflict with Iran? Stop selling oil and gaz to American and Israeli companies, turn to Asian market?

Might explain why Europe and Canada was shifty and dancing with the prospect of helping end the conflict over there, NATO answering the call of allies.

[Valmy]

I did, long ago.  I defended the US intentions of going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Both times we have been betrayed.  By Republicans incompetence.

That was one of my main take aways from both of those wars. We made the US skeptical countries look like geniuses and made our friends look like idiotic suckers. Poland? Humiliated. France? Vindicated.

And the political fallout from that in the US was exactly zero. Nobody gave a shit we did such serious damage to our willing allies. In fact it increased anti-foreign contempt even more.

Foreigners can move here, be worked like a slave in unregulated industries with no worker protections, pay a shit ton of taxes, get zero in return and be hated by everyone and be locked in a cage and deported to a concentration camp. Foreigners can die in some pointless war fought entirely on our behalf and be despised as a freeloader who takes advantage of us. We are an incredibly ungracious and xenophobic country.

[HisMajestyBOB]

BREAKING: Trump accused of demanding trillions from Gulf allies to continue or end Iran war, BBC Arabic reports

The administration of President Donald Trump is facing explosive allegations that it is pressuring Gulf allies for trillions of dollars in exchange for either continuing or ending the ongoing war with Iran — a claim that, if true, would mark one of the most controversial chapters of his presidency.

The accusations surfaced after Omani journalist and international affairs analyst Salem al-Juhouri stated during a BBC Arabic broadcast that "leaks" suggest the U.S. is demanding massive financial contributions from Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) nations. According to his remarks, the figures being discussed are staggering: approximately $5 trillion if Gulf states want the war to continue, and $2.5 trillion if they want it to stop.

While no official confirmation has been issued by Washington or Gulf governments, the claims have intensified scrutiny over Trump's handling of the conflict and his broader foreign policy approach.

The allegations come as the region faces rapid escalation following a joint U.S.–Israel offensive launched earlier this year. The conflict has already resulted in significant casualties and widespread instability, with Iran retaliating through drone and missile strikes targeting not only Israel but also neighboring countries hosting U.S. military assets.

These strikes have reportedly hit oil and gas infrastructure across the Gulf, forcing production cuts and triggering economic losses throughout the region. Global markets have felt the shock, with energy prices rising and key shipping routes — including the Strait of Hormuz — facing disruption.

At the same time, Gulf nations have publicly maintained that they oppose the war and deny providing operational support. However, reports of U.S. military activity originating from Gulf territory have raised questions about the extent of their involvement.

According to Juhouri's statements, the U.S. is not only seeking military alignment but also applying financial pressure on Gulf states to support the war effort. He described the alleged demands as part of a broader strategy to secure both economic and strategic backing during the conflict.

Critics argue that such a move — tying war outcomes to financial contributions — would represent a dramatic shift from traditional diplomacy into what they describe as transactional coercion.

The scale of the reported figures has also raised alarm. Trillions of dollars in potential payments would far exceed typical defense or aid agreements, fueling concerns that economic leverage is being used in unprecedented ways.
The controversy is unfolding alongside growing economic tensions between the United States and Gulf nations. Reports indicate that Gulf states are reassessing major investment commitments, including hundreds of billions — and potentially over a trillion dollars — previously pledged to the U.S. economy.

Analysts suggest this shift may be driven by both economic self-preservation and political signaling, as regional governments attempt to shield their economies from further instability while responding to U.S. pressure.

The broader impact has extended beyond the Gulf. Rising energy prices, disrupted supply chains, and market volatility have begun affecting economies worldwide, adding to domestic pressure within the United States.
The allegations — even without official confirmation — are already shaping the narrative around Trump's second term. Critics say the situation reinforces a pattern in which foreign policy is conducted through financial leverage and high-stakes bargaining rather than traditional alliances and diplomacy. Supporters, however, argue that Trump's approach reflects a hard-nosed strategy aimed at ensuring allies share the burden of regional conflicts.

What remains clear is that the stakes are escalating rapidly. With military tensions rising, economic fallout spreading, and trust between allies under strain, the war with Iran is no longer just a regional conflict — it is becoming a global flashpoint.
And now, with claims of trillion-dollar demands entering the conversation, the question facing Washington is no longer just how the war will end — but what it is ultimately costing, and who is being asked to pay.

There are obviously ideological differences with Iran. To put it midly.

But at this point, what's to stop these countries from turning to China to mediate the conflict with Iran? Stop selling oil and gaz to American and Israeli companies, turn to Asian market?

Might explain why Europe and Canada was shifty and dancing with the prospect of helping end the conflict over there, NATO answering the call of allies.

Why do you think those countries won't bribe Trump? They and everyone else seem allto ready to roll over for him no matter how absurd his demands.

[crazy canuck]

BREAKING: Trump accused of demanding trillions from Gulf allies to continue or end Iran war, BBC Arabic reports

The administration of President Donald Trump is facing explosive allegations that it is pressuring Gulf allies for trillions of dollars in exchange for either continuing or ending the ongoing war with Iran — a claim that, if true, would mark one of the most controversial chapters of his presidency.

The accusations surfaced after Omani journalist and international affairs analyst Salem al-Juhouri stated during a BBC Arabic broadcast that "leaks" suggest the U.S. is demanding massive financial contributions from Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) nations. According to his remarks, the figures being discussed are staggering: approximately $5 trillion if Gulf states want the war to continue, and $2.5 trillion if they want it to stop.

While no official confirmation has been issued by Washington or Gulf governments, the claims have intensified scrutiny over Trump's handling of the conflict and his broader foreign policy approach.

The allegations come as the region faces rapid escalation following a joint U.S.–Israel offensive launched earlier this year. The conflict has already resulted in significant casualties and widespread instability, with Iran retaliating through drone and missile strikes targeting not only Israel but also neighboring countries hosting U.S. military assets.

These strikes have reportedly hit oil and gas infrastructure across the Gulf, forcing production cuts and triggering economic losses throughout the region. Global markets have felt the shock, with energy prices rising and key shipping routes — including the Strait of Hormuz — facing disruption.

At the same time, Gulf nations have publicly maintained that they oppose the war and deny providing operational support. However, reports of U.S. military activity originating from Gulf territory have raised questions about the extent of their involvement.

According to Juhouri's statements, the U.S. is not only seeking military alignment but also applying financial pressure on Gulf states to support the war effort. He described the alleged demands as part of a broader strategy to secure both economic and strategic backing during the conflict.

Critics argue that such a move — tying war outcomes to financial contributions — would represent a dramatic shift from traditional diplomacy into what they describe as transactional coercion.

The scale of the reported figures has also raised alarm. Trillions of dollars in potential payments would far exceed typical defense or aid agreements, fueling concerns that economic leverage is being used in unprecedented ways.
The controversy is unfolding alongside growing economic tensions between the United States and Gulf nations. Reports indicate that Gulf states are reassessing major investment commitments, including hundreds of billions — and potentially over a trillion dollars — previously pledged to the U.S. economy.

Analysts suggest this shift may be driven by both economic self-preservation and political signaling, as regional governments attempt to shield their economies from further instability while responding to U.S. pressure.

The broader impact has extended beyond the Gulf. Rising energy prices, disrupted supply chains, and market volatility have begun affecting economies worldwide, adding to domestic pressure within the United States.
The allegations — even without official confirmation — are already shaping the narrative around Trump's second term. Critics say the situation reinforces a pattern in which foreign policy is conducted through financial leverage and high-stakes bargaining rather than traditional alliances and diplomacy. Supporters, however, argue that Trump's approach reflects a hard-nosed strategy aimed at ensuring allies share the burden of regional conflicts.

What remains clear is that the stakes are escalating rapidly. With military tensions rising, economic fallout spreading, and trust between allies under strain, the war with Iran is no longer just a regional conflict — it is becoming a global flashpoint.
And now, with claims of trillion-dollar demands entering the conversation, the question facing Washington is no longer just how the war will end — but what it is ultimately costing, and who is being asked to pay.

There are obviously ideological differences with Iran. To put it midly.

But at this point, what's to stop these countries from turning to China to mediate the conflict with Iran? Stop selling oil and gaz to American and Israeli companies, turn to Asian market?

Might explain why Europe and Canada was shifty and dancing with the prospect of helping end the conflict over there, NATO answering the call of allies.

Why do you think those countries won't bribe Trump? They and everyone else seem allto ready to roll over for him no matter how absurd his demands.

Trump: that's a nice shipping channel you've got there. Shame if something happened to it.