War with...Iran?

[Macam]

Random post on reddit so I can't speak to the reliability but this is more or less consistent with what I've seen mentioned elsewhere.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers/comments/3g78nj/are_aluminium_smelters_switching_to_daytime/

Aluminium smelter cells rely on running 24/7, max shut down time is around 4-6 hours before you have to rebuild the cells. Each cell is around 300k for a rebuild, there are typically several hundred at a site. Rebuild usually takes 6-9 months for the cells to get back to production after you have been down over 12 hours.​

That’s correct and in line with what The Economist had reported last week (paywalled).

Some of the infrastructure that is being targeted/affected, like the aluminum smelters or the liquefied LNG terminals, cannot be easily repaired and restarted right off the bat.

 

[karolus]

Although the reaction's been a bit delayed, the financial markets are beginning to process the fallout from these events. Which will most likely leave Trump without either a decisive military victory nor a good economy.

Bondi's quote "The Dow is over 50,000 right now" is aging about as well as a fruit fly.

 

[Crolis]

Although the reaction's been a bit delayed, the financial markets are beginning to process the fallout from these events. Which will most likely leave Trump without either a decisive military victory nor a good economy.

Bondi's quote "The Dow is over 50,000 right now" is aging about as well as a fruit fly.

Yeah I was just about to post how at least the dow is over……45k? As the crow flies!

 

[Klinn]

To kind of link up two "War with..." threads, back when the war with Venezuela was concluded, Trump wanted US oil companies to get in there and start building production back up. If I'm remembering correctly, they were rather reluctant to invest given the demand current at that time.

So the question is, with the war with Iran cutting oil supplies from the M.E, has there been any sign that US producers are now more willing to fix up Venezuela's oil infrastructure? If so, is this an unstated war objective for Trump's team?

 

[Crolis]

To kind of link up two "War with..." threads, back when the war with Venezuela was concluded, Trump wanted US oil companies to get in there and start building production back up. If I'm remembering correctly, they were rather reluctant to invest given the demand current at that time.

So the question is, with the war with Iran cutting oil supplies from the M.E, has there been any sign that US producers are now more willing to fix up Venezuela's oil infrastructure? If so, is this an unstated war objective for Trump's team?

I work in the oil and gas industry (midstream) and have for nearly 12 years and if there is one thing that has been reiterated to me through ups and downs in the market (I started in 2014 when oil prices tanked) is that these oil and gas companies work on decades level timelines. Building refineries or whatever to process Venezuela crude would take a long time and none of them are going to put significant investment with things so volatile.

 

[Lt_Storm]

It's interesting how the "fake news" worldview has spread from the right to the left in America, with both certain that they would be absolutely dominant if only the news "told it like it was."

The reality of the situation is that we live in a world of myriad biases and incentives.

The same news orgs that dutifully reported Biden's assertions that there we were giving Israel defensive weapons for Gaza that were absolutely not used for crimes against humanity are the news orgs dutifully reporting Trump's bluster about Iran negotiations and tanker favors.

I don't think that "fake news" is a particularly apt description of the problem that many on the left have with the news media. The issue isn't that the news is fake, it's that it is poorly framed. It's possible to tell an entirely factual story which, none the less, leads people to incorrect conclusions. See also said new media reporting on Biden and Trump's relative mental acuity, both then and now. The facts are accurate, but the narrative is misleading.

So the question is, with the war with Iran cutting oil supplies from the M.E, has there been any sign that US producers are now more willing to fix up Venezuela's oil infrastructure? If so, is this an unstated war objective for Trump's team?

I think that the issue there was related to both timescale and risk. I don't see how the Iran war affects those parts of the equation.

 

[NoReallyJustSaying]

Should the US fight Nazi Germany in World War 2?

Morally, yes -- Nazi Germany was the unequivocal aggressor in that conflict. None of this is complicated. And again, the moral equivalent would be to invade Israel and effect regime change for their horrific actions in Iran and Lebanon.

Should the US go to war with Afghanistan?

After 9/11? No, because the reasons given for that war (terrorist attacks) were utter bullshit.

If anything, the US should have gone to war with Saudi Arabia, because that's where the terrorists came from and that's from where the terrorists were founded.

I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish in this forum, we know better.

 

[karolus]

I don't think that "fake news" is a particularly apt description of the problem that many on the left have with the news media. The issue isn't that the news is fake, it's that it is poorly framed. It's possible to tell an entirely factual story which, none the less, leads people to incorrect conclusions. See also said new media reporting on Biden and Trump's relative mental acuity, both then and now. The facts are accurate, but the narrative is misleading.

At a high level, there has been a definite drop in quality. It's been the result of well-reported cuts in staff at even major outlets. Discerning readers have been complaining about this issue for years—and it creates a vicious cycle. Readers get fed up, move on looking for better sources, leaving news organizations even more starved for income and reputation.

The Iran War is but one example of the search for better information sources, something that has also been seen in the Ukraine conflict.

 

[TheColinous]

A tip, a better news source than CNN or CBS or (ugh) OANN are the English speaking outposts of the national public service broadcasters in Europe. They're not subject to the same commercial pressures. F.eg. France24 is on youtube, and often has excellent coverage of the middle east and north africa. Deutche Welle (English) too. And, obviously, there's the BBC World Service.

 

[NoReallyJustSaying]

At a high level, there has been a definite drop in quality.

At this point, I don't really think there are proper primary sources left. When I have to cast a leery eye at Al-Jazeera to try to figure out what is actually happening, we've already lost.

 

[Lt_Storm]

At a high level, there has been a definite drop in quality. It's been the result of well-reported cuts in staff at even major outlets. Discerning readers have been complaining about this issue for years—and it creates a vicious cycle. Readers get fed up, move on looking for better sources, leaving news organizations even more starved for income and reputation.

The Iran War is but one example of the search for better information sources, something that has also been seen in the Ukraine conflict.

I think the problem ultimately predates that. Really, I think it's a side effect of Fox News being outright propaganda and the desire to seem unbiased. That means reporting on what Fox News say, which means Fox News gets to frame just about everything. Eventually other media outlets learn to guess what Fox News's framing will be and report on it preemptively and that leads to a long term degradation in the media's ability to frame things sensibly.

 

[bjn]

"Quantity is a quality of its own." -Unknown

Karl Marx. Das Kapital.

 

[slowtech]

I've found a lot of good reporting at France 24 (English version):

https://www.france24.com/en/

They also have a YouTube channel.

 

[NoReallyJustSaying]

I think the problem ultimately predates that. Really, I think it's a side effect of Fox News being outright propaganda and the desire to seem unbiased. That means reporting on what Fox News say, which means Fox News gets to frame just about everything. Eventually other media outlets learn to guess what Fox News's framing will be and report on it preemptively and that leads to a long term degradation in the media's ability to frame things sensibly.

Outrage sells, and comfort sells. I've tried to get people to watch actual news (the now long-standing War On Peace report), but it is abjectly depressing to sit through. People want a giggling puppy at the end, they just do. It's what gets them through the day.

Edit: comfort

 

[NewNinetyNine]

I don't think that "fake news" is a particularly apt description of the problem that many on the left have with the news media. The issue isn't that the news is fake, it's that it is poorly framed. It's possible to tell an entirely factual story which, none the less, leads people to incorrect conclusions. See also said new media reporting on Biden and Trump's relative mental acuity, both then and now. The facts are accurate, but the narrative is misleading.

I didn't mean "literally fake news" but could not resist using the dominant phrase.

(Not getting into the specific Biden/Trump examples in detail, as that would be wildly off-topic and likely derail.)

My intuition is that the framing of the news is just as good/bad as always, but that the population is steeped in online echo chambers, be they algorithmic curation, subreddits, forums, etc. So the disconnect between how they are fed the world and median media feels jarring and offensive.

This isn't to say that traditional reporting is perfect - it clearly reflects organizational and professional biases - but everyday citizens are losing touch with dissonance and now react with a hair-trigger when they're forced to experience it.

 

[karolus]

I think the problem ultimately predates that. Really, I think it's a side effect of Fox News being outright propaganda and the desire to seem unbiased. That means reporting on what Fox News say, which means Fox News gets to frame just about everything. Eventually other media outlets learn to guess what Fox News's framing will be and report on it preemptively and that leads to a long term degradation in the media's ability to frame things sensibly.

Fox may have been influential in certain circles (as we Arsians well know), but wasn't all encompassing. For one, they don't even pretend to uphold traditional editorial standards.

A greater effect may have been the rise of the internet. This had a drastic effect on the revenue models of traditional news organizations, particularly newspapers. Most didn't know know to approach this change from a business perspective—since it was a new territory, and advertising (the bulk of revenue) is calculated far differently than for print. Due to this change, many organizations couldn't financially adapt, and this resulted in consolidations and downsizing, and the expected decline in quality.

The War in Iran will be yet another test on the field's ability to deliver their core product and remain afloat financially.

 

[Macam]

I work in the oil and gas industry (midstream) and have for nearly 12 years and if there is one thing that has been reiterated to me through ups and downs in the market (I started in 2014 when oil prices tanked) is that these oil and gas companies work on decades level timelines. Building refineries or whatever to process Venezuela crude would take a long time and none of them are going to put significant investment with things so volatile.

What @Crolis said. Venezuelan crude is also more difficult to process IIRC, which adds to the complexity of any efforts to increase production. That's on top of the decades long timelines and on top of the lack of any meaningful changes to domestic law that would provide the necessary legal protections and assurances to even begin the preliminary assessments.

 

[redtomato]

Iran is claiming Israel struck several steel production facilities, and is signaling retaliation against similar facilities.

This might be a good time to note that ever since Trump hit Canada with tariffs on aluminum the US has become quite dependent on smelters in the mid east.

I don’t think this signifies much. Trump put tariffs on Canadian aluminium for no good reason, he can easily remove them.

The only thing preventing him is that one obstacle he has never been able to surmount; the fact that doing so would be wise and a good idea.

 

[Megalodon]

I don’t think this signifies much. Trump put tariffs on Canadian aluminium for no good reason, he can easily remove them.

You don't automatically restore the old deal when you remove the tariff. Not privy to the details, but what if there's contracts with new customers? And signing a new contract now with shortages looking likely will be much more expensive.

 

[Kyuu]

Channel it through the bones of 30,000+ dead Iranian civilians.

Ah yes, so when is the U.S. going to invade Sudan to deal with the RSF who is responsible for a genocide that has resulted in the death of over half a million people (and counting)? Or is it that the deaths of the protestors in Iran doesn't actually have anything at all to do with this?

 

[dio82]

A tip, a better news source than CNN or CBS or (ugh) OANN are the English speaking outposts of the national public service broadcasters in Europe. They're not subject to the same commercial pressures. F.eg. France24 is on youtube, and often has excellent coverage of the middle east and north africa. Deutche Welle (English) too. And, obviously, there's the BBC World Service.

Times Radio ist also absolutely excellent on YouTube. The Times (broadsheet), on the other hand, not so much. Guardian is also unequivocally a very good news source.

 

[slowtech]

Times Radio ist also absolutely excellent on YouTube. The Times (broadsheet), on the other hand, not so much. Guardian is also unequivocally a very good news source.

For domestic politics, The Bulwark is interesting. Seems to be mostly Republicans who have left the party and are dedicated to the end of the Trump regime, but a lot of sharp, young people. They are getting a lot of attention. Alternative take, but not crazy cult lunatics like Fox. Also Democracy Now! has very good coverage of a lot of things you don't see on MSM.

The Guardian, of course, is excellent.

 

[Welcome to Darwin]

Or is it that the deaths of the protestors in Iran doesn't actually have anything at all to do with this?

We have a winner! But this is American politics we're talking about so I'm sure the prize is stunningly stupid.

 

[Megalodon]

Very true, and an astute observer might start asking questions like, what are the objectives, how will those objectives be attained, is that proposal realistic, what will happen if something doesn't work as expected, and so on. Unfortunately, as you may already be aware, Trump.

Rubio indicating at G7 that the US expects Iran to set up a tolling system in the strait after the US winds down their operation. In other words, the US will not have achieved any of their high level objectives. Not toppling the regime, not limiting their ability to strike in at least some capacity, and not securing freedom of navigation in the strait. You could argue the US has achieved tactical victories in some sense, but this is a strategic defeat, and probably means Iran will be more determined than ever to pursue nuclear weapons, as well as probably respond to any further attempts by Israel to "mow the grass" by further restricting travel through the strait.

 

[Shavano]

Rubio indicating at G7 that the US expects Iran to set up a tolling system in the strait after the US winds down their operation. In other words, the US will not have achieved any of their high level objectives. Not toppling the regime, not limiting their ability to strike in at least some capacity, and not securing freedom of navigation in the strait. You could argue the US has achieved tactical victories in some sense, but this is a strategic defeat, and probably means Iran will be more determined than ever to pursue nuclear weapons, as well as probably respond to any further attempts by Israel to "mow the grass" by further restricting travel through the strait.

Those Iranians they keep interviewing to tell us how the Iranian public supports the war are going to be really disappointed.

(but wealthier?)

 

[Megalodon]

Not clear Iran will stop attacking their neighbors. I think for that to happen Israel would have to stop attacking them, which they probably won't.

 

[Shavano]

Not clear Iran will stop attacking their neighbors. I think for that to happen Israel would have to stop attacking them, which they probably won't.

I think the neighbors can make it stop by expelling the Americans and Israelis.

 

[Auguste_Fivaz]

Times Radio ist also absolutely excellent on YouTube. The Times (broadsheet), on the other hand, not so much. Guardian is also unequivocally a very good news source.

The Guardian also runs EU, UK, US, AUS, and INT editions of their web product.

 

[Macam]

Link

This would also apply to the Markets thread, but since it's directly related to the Israeli/American war, figured it was worth raising here as well.

We also have more American injuries



Anyway, expect some shenanigans this weekend with the market closed and protests scheduled for tomorrow.

 

[Camacan]

Rubio indicating at G7 that the US expects Iran to set up a tolling system in the strait after the US winds down their operation. In other words, the US will not have achieved any of their high level objectives. Not toppling the regime, not limiting their ability to strike in at least some capacity, and not securing freedom of navigation in the strait. You could argue the US has achieved tactical victories in some sense, but this is a strategic defeat, and probably means Iran will be more determined than ever to pursue nuclear weapons, as well as probably respond to any further attempts by Israel to "mow the grass" by further restricting travel through the strait.

A link to The Guardian post would be better than just a screenshot: allows confirmation of the source, folks might also be interested in other posts in that timeline, etc.

Reporting from Australia's Sydney Morning Herald.

In a joint statement, the G7 ministers called for an end to attacks on civilians and reiterated the “absolute necessity to permanently restore safe and toll-free freedom of navigation” in the Strait of Hormuz.

If that's a joint statement, how does that square with US/Israeli attacks?

 

[flipside]

Rubio indicating at G7 that the US expects Iran to set up a tolling system in the strait after the US winds down their operation. In other words, the US will not have achieved any of their high level objectives. Not toppling the regime, not limiting their ability to strike in at least some capacity, and not securing freedom of navigation in the strait. You could argue the US has achieved tactical victories in some sense, but this is a strategic defeat, and probably means Iran will be more determined than ever to pursue nuclear weapons, as well as probably respond to any further attempts by Israel to "mow the grass" by further restricting travel through the strait.

It‘s a much bigger mess waiting to happen. If things continue down this road from all out war in the region to Israeli nukes everything is possible. Signs of a failing empire. Sick man on the Potomac.

 

[Sajuuk]

A link to The Guardian post would be better than just a screenshot: allows confirmation of the source, folks might also be interested in other posts in that timeline, etc.

Reporting from Australia's Sydney Morning Herald.

If that's a joint statement, how does that square with US/Israeli attacks?

Same way the international rules based order has always been squared: western powers have the agency to use violence in any way they see fit, and you have the agency to roll over and die. Perfectly cromulent and orderly.

 

[Gary Patterson]

Channel it through the bones of 30,000+ dead Iranian civilians.

Who have absolutely nothing to do with the US decision to go to war, as evidenced by the total disinterest in regime change.

 

[Cadarnfel]

Rubio indicating at G7 that the US expects Iran to set up a tolling system in the strait after the US winds down their operation.

Rubio also said it's up to the rest of the world to make sure that this doesn't happen.

The United States has warned allies to ready a postwar coalition to secure the Strait of Hormuz, saying the US-Israeli war on Iran could conclude within weeks.

Speaking ahead of his departure from a meeting with G7 leaders in France, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters the US was "on the verge" of achieving its military objectives, and that the war would conclude "in a matter of weeks not months".

One of the immediate challenges the world will face after US military operations end is the possibility of Iran establishing a permanent tolling system for ships that pass through the Strait of Hormuz, he said.

"Not only is this illegal, it's unacceptable and it's dangerous to the world … It's important the world has a plan to confront it," Mr Rubio told reporters.

Rubio's statement there, that it's important for the world to have a plan, is a little out of place, seeing as the US never had a plan for any of this.

 

[wco81]

Rubio also said it's up to the rest of the world to make sure that this doesn't happen.



Rubio's statement there, that it's important for the world to have a plan, is a little out of place, seeing as the US never had a plan for any of this.

Sorry we fucked it up. You guys got to really fix this.

 

[unregister]

A wild thought while watching Deutsche Welle's roundtable on the Hormuz straitjacket:

To work around the dependency on the passage through Hormuz, why don't the Gulf states pull together to dig a grand canal through the peninsula encompassing UAE and Omani territories that form the southern bank of the Strait, pulling in worldwide expertise and resources as necessary? A look on the map, at about half height of the peninsula, the canal would be about the same length as the Suez or the Panama Canal. Given the terrain, there wouldn't be as much engineering challenge as the Panama was, I imagine. Since it's the Emigrates and Oman, the Emirs and the Omani monarch shouldn't have as much trouble with NIMBYism and the requisition of land as seen say, in the US, for public projects.

Such a canal would seem to relieve one of the main pain points this unnecessary war against Iran have brought to the forefront of the world. Those who wish to transit Hormuz in peace time could still do so; the canal would stand to load-balance, or serve as an alternative to Hormuz during times such as this. The US should pour financial resources into backing such an initiative, rather than trying to figure out how to bomb Iran out of its control over the Hormuz. Iran would have little justification to attack commercial shipping transitting the canal because it'd be entirely within UAE/Omani territory.

Das ist eine sehr gute Idee. Ja?

 

[unregister]

Yeah, well, about that thought that this "little excursion" against Iran is somehow 4-D chess to put a strategic choke-hold on China's energy supplies and severing the "belt-n-road" through the ME:

View: https://x.com/tphuang/status/2036781313609322894

Apparently Chinese shipping are getting turned away too, possibly due to failure to pay the (2,000,000 USD per? as the Japanese gov. had reportedly paid for each of their two tankers) "toll" demanded by IRGC?

 

[concernUrsus]

A wild thought while watching Deutsche Welle's roundtable on the Hormuz straitjacket:

To work around the dependency on the passage through Hormuz, why don't the Gulf states pull together to dig a grand canal through the peninsula encompassing UAE and Omani territories that form the southern bank of the Strait, pulling in worldwide expertise and resources as necessary? A look on the map, at about half height of the peninsula, the canal would be about the same length as the Suez or the Panama Canal. Given the terrain, there wouldn't be as much engineering challenge as the Panama was, I imagine. Since it's the Emigrates and Oman, the Emirs and the Omani monarch shouldn't have as much trouble with NIMBYism and the requisition of land as seen say, in the US, for public projects.

Such a canal would seem to relieve one of the main pain points this unnecessary war against Iran have brought to the forefront of the world. Those who wish to transit Hormuz in peace time could still do so; the canal would stand to load-balance, or serve as an alternative to Hormuz during times such as this. The US should pour financial resources into backing such an initiative, rather than trying to figure out how to bomb Iran out of its control over the Hormuz. Iran would have little justification to attack commercial shipping transitting the canal because it'd be entirely within UAE/Omani territory.

Das ist eine sehr gute Idee. Ja?

They do not even need canals. All they really need are oil pipelines. There were pipelines through Syria and Turkiye previously, but I think a lot of them were damaged. Economically, The Hormuz is always going cheaper, so it was the path of least resistance. Eventually, pipelines will be built but that takes time. Also, all the oil fields and pipelines are still within the range of Iran's weapons.

This applied to Iran as well. There are currently no direct pipeline from Iran to China. However, it is built something through Turkmenistan, but that will take time.

 

[unregister]

They do not even need canals. All they really need are oil pipelines. There were pipelines through Syria and Turkiye previously, but I think a lot of them were damaged. Economically, The Hormuz is always going cheaper, so it was the path of least resistance. Eventually, pipelines will be built but that takes time. Also, all the oil fields and pipelines are still within the range of Iran's weapons.

This applied to Iran as well. There are currently no direct pipeline from Iran to China. However, it is built something through Turkmenistan, but that will take time.

I read the problem with pipelines is their collective capacities are a tiny fraction of commercial sea shipping. So in the infinite pursuit to maximize profits / cut down costs, shipping always wins. Pipelines could serve as auxuillary or emergency stand-ins, but nowhere nearly as "economical" (profitable) as the workhorse choice.

 

[Megalodon]

They do not even need canals. All they really need are oil pipelines.

And natural gas pipelines. And helium pipelines. And urea pipelines. And aluminum pipelines. Sounds like a plan.

The logistics of replacing the strait are a multi-decade project.