AgDev01 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

This is so freaking based.

Europe and ME: Leave Iran Alone.

Iran: If you want us to leave the SoH alone, you are going to have to pay a toll.

Trump: Hey EU and ME, I'll leave them alone, but you are going to have to pay the US and Iran a toll to use the SoH. If you don't like that, bomb the **** out of Iran.

---

Partnering with terrorists while Americans pay for the results with higher prices doesn't seem like a good thing to me.

---

All of the terrorists are dead.

With the US providing Iran with permission to charge a toll, the US threat of Iranian terrorism declines sharply.

The higher gas prices will be offset by more money from the US oil industry. That's just business.

It's not our job to keep the SoH open. So, if we are going to allow Iran to charge a toll, we might as well get in on the action to pay for all of the bombs we dropped on Iran.

I don't see how you can see this as anything less than America First.

If Europe doesn't like it, they can step up to the plate and do something about it. I don't think we will intervene.

Higher prices for WTI benefits domestic O&G in the short run but causes much more harm to the overall US economy
I say short run because projects that are started because oil is at $120 work less well if oil goes back to $80

I am old enough to remember the oil boom of the 70's and how Jimmy Carter was regarded as one of the worst presidents ever because of inflation largely due to OPEC

I also remember the Carnage in the oilfield when OPEC lost control and the price cashed back down in 80's

Most of the rest of the world can better absorb price increases than Rural America I think you are dramatically overestimating how many people hold XOM stock or work in the Patch

Woods Ag said:

---

All of Trumps advisors were to some degree against this.

Iran's ability to hold the straight doesn't take much. It's not a terribly difficult task. The mere threat of missiles, mines, drone, and pirate attacks is enough to keep insurers away. Iran doesn't need to go on the offensive. They just need to dig in and live and that alone affects the entire world and weakens us. The longer this goes on the more the rest of the world will turn on us.

This was a mishaps. Trump trusted Bibi instead of the head of the CIA and Rubio and now we're in a mess and I don't think there is an off ramp that allows us to save face to anyone other than the staunchest Trump supporter. What does he do? Bomb their power plants? He'll unite the entire Iranian populace along with many in the world screaming war crimes.

****ing utter disaster. A backhand to all of us that voted for him.

---

How about an offramp where the US oil industry gets stronger, the threat of Iranian terrorism to US targets goes down to almost zero, and the US gets to charge ships that go through the SoH a toll.

That seems like a pretty favorable off-ramp for the US to me.

Much better than a pretend genocide.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

All of the terrorists are dead.

---

not sure if serious

---

I mean, most of their leaders are.

And we are paying the leaders that are left to leave us alone with Europe's toll tags.

Sq 17 said:

---

Higher prices for WTI benefits domestic O&G in the short run but causes much more harm to the overall US economy
I say short run because projects that are started because oil is at $120 work less well if oil goes back to $80

I am old enough to remember the oil boom of the 70's and how Jimmy Carter was regarded as one of the worst presidents ever because of inflation largely due to OPEC

I also remember the Carnage in the oilfield when OPEC lost control and the price cashed back down in 80's

Most of the rest of the world can better absorb price increases than Rural America I think you are dramatically overestimating how many people hold XOM stock or work in the Patch

---

The solution here is simple.

Drill, baby, drill.

I don't see anyone complaining about Google Ads sucking up something like 25% of most young companies' profits nation-wide.

Supply - Demand will find an equilibrium.

Or, would you rather we invade Iran with troops?

"but we are winning!!"

No drilling our way out of this one, SoH is the prize and the Mullahs know it, no company is going to send anything thru it unless its 100% safe.

Equilibrium is whateverSaudi and a few other countries say it is

If Drill Baby Drill worked then there would never be a. Bust cycle

Sq 17 said:

---

Equilibrium is whateverSaudi and a few other countries say it is

If Drill Baby Drill worked then there would never be a. Bust cycle

---

There is no drilling out of this. That's correct. The United States already, and has for basically the last decade, been the largest oil producer in the world by a wide margin, and here we are.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

How about an offramp where the US oil industry gets stronger, the threat of Iranian terrorism to US targets goes down to almost zero, and the US gets to charge ships that go through the SoH a toll.

That seems like a pretty favorable off-ramp for the US to me.

Much better than a pretend genocide.

---

The amount of money Iran will make off of some toll scheme in the Strait of Hormuz would quickly make the Obama payments in 2016 look totally inconsequential to Iran's ability to fund (real) genocide.

---

Not our problem, and not our money.

Poor Europe and Asia.

BusterAg said:

---

Sq 17 said:

---

---

Or, would you rather we invade Iran with troops?

---

Maybe one of the All Time F 16 False Equivalent / Strawman hypothesis EVER

To answer the questioned I would have preferred if Trump had not allowed Bibi to start a new wave of attacks

The bombings that completely destroyed their nuclear capabilities last year should have been the end to this campaign
Trump and BIbi got greedy , SoH is closed which was an entirely foreseeable possible outcome

The list of options to get out of the crisis are not good

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Sq 17 said:

---

Equilibrium is whateverSaudi and a few other countries say it is

If Drill Baby Drill worked then there would never be a. Bust cycle

---

There is no drilling out of this. That's correct. The United States already, and has for basically the last decade, been the largest oil producer in the world by a wide margin, and here we are.

---

We are not at maximum capacity. We can drill more.

BusterAg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Sq 17 said:

---

Equilibrium is whateverSaudi and a few other countries say it is

If Drill Baby Drill worked then there would never be a. Bust cycle

---

There is no drilling out of this. That's correct. The United States already, and has for basically the last decade, been the largest oil producer in the world by a wide margin, and here we are.

---

We are not at maximum capacity. We can drill more.

---

That does not contradict what I (and others) said, to the extent your comment is even true (we are, currently, at 95%+ of what anyone has reasonably predicted is sustainable maximum oil production.)

BusterAg said:

---

Sq 17 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Or, would you rather we invade Iran with troops?

---

Maybe one of the All Time F 16 False Equivalent / Strawman hypothesis EVER

To answer the questioned I would have preferred if Trump had not allowed Bibi to start a new wave of attacks

The bombings that completely destroyed their nuclear capabilities last year should have been the end to this campaign
Trump and BIbi got greedy , SoH is closed which was an entirely foreseeable possible outcome

The list of options to get out of the crisis are not good

---

Here was Iran's long-term strategy:

1) Build 100,000 ballistic missiles
2) Use those missiles to hold the ME hostage while they build a nuke
3) Detonate the nuke in the US to bring about the Armageddon that the mullahs so desperately desire.

When and where do you recommend that the US get involved?

Trump decided to get involved in step 1.

---

Ah. But you also just said Iran making billions off tolls to fund efforts to commit genocide (i.e. hold the Middle East hostage) was not our problem.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Sq 17 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Or, would you rather we invade Iran with troops?

---

Maybe one of the All Time F 16 False Equivalent / Strawman hypothesis EVER

To answer the questioned I would have preferred if Trump had not allowed Bibi to start a new wave of attacks

The bombings that completely destroyed their nuclear capabilities last year should have been the end to this campaign
Trump and BIbi got greedy , SoH is closed which was an entirely foreseeable possible outcome

The list of options to get out of the crisis are not good

---

Here was Iran's long-term strategy:

1) Build 100,000 ballistic missiles
2) Use those missiles to hold the ME hostage while they build a nuke
3) Detonate the nuke in the US to bring about the Armageddon that the mullahs so desperately desire.

When and where do you recommend that the US get involved?

Trump decided to get involved in step 1.

---

Ah. But you also just said Iran making billions off tolls to fund efforts to commit genocide (i.e. hold the Middle East hostage) was not our problem.

---

If Europe is worried about European genocide maybe they should do something about that instead of complaining about the US taking care of the US.

Part of the deal is that Iran can't build any more missiles, and won't try to build a nuke.

Can they still cause a lot of headache in the ME with the toll money? Maybe. But, if we tell them no nukes, and they start to build nukes, we will take them out.

[You can debate an issue without being disrespectful to others -- Staff]

Look, the key here is that the US has drawn a line in the sand between The West and the USA.

The SoH charge is a problem for the West, much more so than it is a problem for the USA.

Iran making a lot of money, as long as they don't make any nukes, is a problem for the ME and The West, but really isn't a problem for the USA.

Our deal with Iran is built around them not being able to build nukes in the future, or hold the world hostage while they build nukes. That is a good deal for the USA.

You guys are all just concerned because, if this thing goes through, this is not going to be a problem for the USA by, say October.

However, I don't think that Europe is going to let this stand. I think they are going to step up and tell Iran that they can't hold the SoH hostage. I think that if Europe decides to do that, we will probably help. But, we aren't going to take on that problem by ourself. The deal that we worked out with Iran will be just fine and dandy for the USA for quite a while. When / if Iran starts to rattle their sabers again in the future, we can:

1) Threaten to take away their cash cow; and
2) Bomb the crap out of them yet again.

IMO the best thing would be for us to take out Iran's oil industry. This forces Iran into charging for passage...which then forces other players like the EU and China to put pressure on Iran or assist in getting a new government in place there. Otherwise its simply us vs them. And Trump won't be able to keep this up for long without getting domestic pushpack.

Part of your problem is (1) the Strait of Hormuz is clearly a USA problem as evidenced every time you drive by a gas station and (2) you are trying to parse some difference between Iran's ability to commit violence against "Europe/Asia" from Iran's ability to "build 100,000 missiles and "hold the world hostage."

If an actual, real deal is reached, we will see what it says and hope for the best. But the point here is any deal that results in Iran collecting tolls to transit the Strait of Hormuz (which was previously FREE) and therefore pumping money into their coffers in perpetuity is, at best, a huge risk that a clearly ill-intentioned country will use that money to do "stuff" that's not in our best interest.

Quote:

---

1) Threaten to take away their cash cow; and
2) Bomb the crap out of them yet again.

---

1) The Strait of Hormuz was not a cash cow before this.
2) If "bomb the crap out of you" is sufficient deterrence and/or sufficient action, we would not be trying to make some elaborate deal with them after "bombing the crap out of them" and we could just say that and be done.

Point being, we obviously can't dictate Iran's behavior in the way some maybe thought we could...see point above about agreeing to pump billions into their coffers.

Iran did such a great job in the war ....

that the Israeli Chief of Staff of the IDF is WALKING AROUND LEBANON right now!

IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir toured the outskirts of Bint Jbeil in southern Lebanon earlier today, where the military has been battling Hezbollah operatives.

"Our main combat arena is here in Lebanon. The objective defined for you is the removal of the direct threat to… pic.twitter.com/YMy50DlVJQ

— Emanuel (Mannie) Fabian (@manniefabian) April 9, 2026

A town like 5km from the border? And he's on the "outskirts"?

Don't we need dark and heavy, not the light and sweet we produce?

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Part of your problem is (1) the Strait of Hormuz is clearly a USA problem as evidenced every time you drive by a gas station and (2) you are trying to parse some difference between Iran's ability to commit violence against "Europe/Asia" from Iran's ability to "build 100,000 missiles and "hold the world hostage."

If an actual, real deal is reached, we will see what it says and hope for the best. But the point here is any deal that results in Iran collecting tolls to transit the Strait of Hormuz (which was previously FREE) and therefore pumping money into their coffers in perpetuity is, at best, a huge risk that a clearly ill-intentioned country will use that money to do "stuff" that's not in our best interest.

Quote:

---

1) Threaten to take away their cash cow; and
2) Bomb the crap out of them yet again.

---

1) The Strait of Hormuz was not a cash cow before this.
2) If "bomb the crap out of you" is sufficient deterrence and/or sufficient action, we would not be trying to make some elaborate deal with them after "bombing the crap out of them" and we could just say that and be done.

Point being, we obviously can't dictate Iran's behavior in the way some maybe thought we could...see point above about agreeing to pump billions into their coffers.

---

Lots of spear throwing, very few alternatives provided.

What is/was the better plan?

Let Iran build 100,000 ballistic missiles?

AxelFoley85 said:

---

Don't we need dark and heavy, not the light and sweet we produce?

---

I am under the impression that we have the ability to make product out of both light sweet and sour crude at different capacities for each.

So, I don't understand your point.

BusterAg said:

---

AxelFoley85 said:

---

Don't we need dark and heavy, not the light and sweet we produce?

---

I am under the impression that we have the ability to make product out of both light sweet and sour crude at different capacities for each.

So, I don't understand your point.

---

Not true. Our refineries are set up for sour heavy. It's also not something that's easily switched over without massive investment. It's also why the proposed South Texas refinery is such a huge deal, it'd be specifically set up to handle domestic oil. We currently don't refine the oil we produce here to any large amount at our domestic refineries.

https://www.fuelstreamservices.com/why-the-u-s-cant-use-the-oil-it-produces/

Quote:

---

The United States is often seen as one of the world's largest oil producers. Despite the large output (around 13.2 million barrels of crude oil a day)the U.S. skews heavily toward light sweet crude, which is easier and cheaper to refine. This is great for certain products like gasoline and diesel, but the issue is that U.S. refineries were built decades ago to process a much heavier, sourer crude oil.

---

BusterAg said:

---

AxelFoley85 said:

---

Don't we need dark and heavy, not the light and sweet we produce?

---

I am under the impression that we have the ability to make product out of both light sweet and sour crude at different capacities for each.

So, I don't understand your point.

---

You're impressions are wrong. And I scan upward at those other posts and your solutions and opinions are elementary.

BusterAg said:

---

Lots of spear throwing, very few alternatives provided.

What is/was the better plan?

Let Iran build 100,000 ballistic missiles?

---

Perhaps it will turn out that the better plan "was" to not get involved or prosecute this war if our best end game was for Iran to earn billions of $$$. You seem to be asserting that's not a bad result or "our problem." My point has been that Iran getting to run a toll booth in the Strait of Hormuz is a pretty inane and highly unpalatable policy result that in the mid- to long-term will almost certainly make it more difficult to constrain Iran compared to the pre-war status quo.

Who capitulated? Was it the Islamic Regime that we defeated and destroyed?

Queso1 said:

---

Who capitulated? Was it the Islamic Regime that we defeated and destroyed?

---

Are you saying the IRGC is out of power?

Thought that was one of our goals. I mean we won the war, after all.