The Collective said:

---

I'm more shocked by the mere fact that we gave them money. And then, we spent money blowing up the stuff that they procured or created with our money. lol, we are so dumb given our swinging strategy from election to election.

---

As I recall, the original money was from an undelivered Shah weapons order, it was frozen after the revolution, then 30+ years of interest thrown in.

fixer said:

---

It is obvious to me at least that Iran is trying to get the US into a ground based war.

---

If that's to happen, the sooner the better.

No Spin Ag said:

---

EFR said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

A free Iranian people and no uranium in Iran. Anything less is unacceptable.

Carry on, rant(?) over.

---

That is going to be hard as they mine it there.

---

And? Id like to think Trump and his people would have taken that into consideration before the first bomb dropped. Something W and his idiots didn't do, and I'm sure Trump and his people did to ensure true and lasting success, but slogans and feels like with W.

---

We started dropping bombs because Israel was going to start dropping bombs. And the threat wasn't Iran's nuclear ambitions but their missile and drone capabilities becoming more than Israel was sure it could handle.

DTP02 said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

EFR said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

A free Iranian people and no uranium in Iran. Anything less is unacceptable.

Carry on, rant(?) over.

---

That is going to be hard as they mine it there.

---

And? Id like to think Trump and his people would have taken that into consideration before the first bomb dropped. Something W and his idiots didn't do, and I'm sure Trump and his people did to ensure true and lasting success, but slogans and feels like with W.

---

We started dropping bombs because Israel was going to start dropping bombs. And the threat wasn't Iran's nuclear ambitions but their missile and drone capabilities becoming more than Israel was sure it could handle.

---

If that actually is true, and not just what is touted by people either against the war or the Israeli government, then I'll be pissed about it. We shouldn't be anyone's, especially Israel's, errand boy.

That being said, now that we're in it, we better finish it.

No Spin Ag said:

---

fixer said:

---

It is obvious to me at least that Iran is trying to get the US into a ground based war.

---

If that's to happen, the sooner the better.

---

Agreed 100% and it also better be prosecuted with overwhelming aggression to keep it short as possible and lowest casualties for our side.

B-1 83 said:

---

The Collective said:

---

I'm more shocked by the mere fact that we gave them money. And then, we spent money blowing up the stuff that they procured or created with our money. lol, we are so dumb given our swinging strategy from election to election.

---

As I recall, the original money was from an undelivered Shah weapons order, it was frozen after the revolution, then 30+ years of interest thrown in.

---

Yep, and we gave it to them in cash. And what did they do with it? Bought more weapons and paid more terrorists so that they could be a pain in the ass to the region.

exit strategy:

bomb and destroy 50% of Kharg Island on the way out the door

maybe 75%

DTP02 said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

EFR said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

A free Iranian people and no uranium in Iran. Anything less is unacceptable.

Carry on, rant(?) over.

---

That is going to be hard as they mine it there.

---

And? Id like to think Trump and his people would have taken that into consideration before the first bomb dropped. Something W and his idiots didn't do, and I'm sure Trump and his people did to ensure true and lasting success, but slogans and feels like with W.

---

We started dropping bombs because Israel was going to start dropping bombs. And the threat wasn't Iran's nuclear ambitions but their missile and drone capabilities becoming more than Israel was sure it could handle.

---

If that actually is true, and not just what is touted by people either against the war or the Israeli government, then I'll be pissed about it. We shouldn't be anyone's, especially Israel's, errand boy.

That being said, now that we're in it, we better finish it.

---

Prepare to be ticked off then. Rubio came out and said this explicitly, as have others. This isn't even in question. See https://perma.cc/8GL2-ARY8 for just one example in Rubio's own words.

You can argue whether it was something we should have done regardless, or whether we should have leaned heavily on Israel not to do it, but it's absolutely clear that we knew Israel was planning to bomb, and that we believed it would result in Iranian counterattacks across the region, and that we jumped on board the already moving Israeli train.

If that feels a little too "tail wagging the dog" for your taste, it does for me as well. The only party getting exactly what they want from this is Israel, and it all fits with a plan Bibi adopted more than 20 years ago ("Clean Break", a proposal written by Jewish US neocons) to remove threats to Israeli borders by systematically eliminating Syria, Iraq and Iran as threats. And here we are ~20 years later, pushing over the last domino of the three.

But you're correct that we're in it now. Weve made a massive commitment of military resources, to the point that we're compromising our munitions stores and posture in other regions. We've essentially broken the SOH and are indirectly responsible for Iran's attacks on regional partners, so the question now is what do we do from here?

---

Thanks for the info. I'm more pissed than I wanted to be on a Monday, but it is what it is.

As for what to do, that's for Trump to figure out. Now to see what he does next because so far we're going from the waters being still and we don't want the ugliness of waters that become stagnant.

The Collective said:

---

I don't really get the impatience at this very moment - is it merely fuel prices that we are freaking out about?

---

Fuel availability (not just price) and fertilizer.

Our challenge is that even a 90% degraded Iran can blow up a bunch of crap that pushes the world economy into a recession and creates a humanitarian crisis (starvation). And if we wait too long, disaster is the default because of the above mentioned fuel and fertilizer shortages.

Iran's challenge is that if they sit on this too long in an attempt to maximize pain and by extension leverage, the entire world is going to harden against them and support expanded military action. Unaligned countries aren't going to let millions of their people starve because Iran is trying to show the USA it's tough. The world will pry the strait open if this goes on long enough.

Both parties have to thread a needle timing wise. I think we'll get there because the consequences of not doing so are too awful for all involved.

It probably won't be a home run for the USA, but even a decent deal combined with our bombings in 2025 and 2026 (which did a shot ton of damage) is a solid outcome. We have set them back years and years.

Interesting speculation herein. I do not know the exit strategy.

I think the only real question is: How best to keep the Iranians from building nuclear weapons. If you see chaos today, consider the geopolitical implications of the Islamic Republic with nukes and delivery systems. The regime that killed an estimated 30,000 of their own countrymen would dominate the Middle East which exports about 30% of the world's oil.

Diplomacy has failed for decades. Unfortunately, kinetic action may be required periodically. In the meantime, world opinion is the IRGC's biggest hope.

Rockdoc said:

---

This board is also filled with TDS, who like nothing more than to see a Trump loss or apparent loss. Why don't we wait until it's finally over and see where the chips lie. I believe those in charge of our effort know more than we do.

---

I don't think we should just assume that the people in charge are brilliant strategists, and I say this as somebody who thinks there's a path out of this.

Plus, If anybody should understand that the people in charge don't always have a plan or know what they're doing, it's A&M fans. How many 6-6 putzes have the pumpers defended because we need to let the season play out :-D

Rockdoc said:

---

This board is also filled with TDS, who like nothing more than to see a Trump loss or apparent loss. Why don't we wait until it's finally over and see where the chips lie. I believe those in charge of our effort know more than we do.

---

I agree the TDS crowd is always cheering for a Trump loss so they can rush here to troll.

But this is different, even Iran hawks are a bit confused by what our approach has been and how we let ourselves get to where we are today. I have no doubt that Trump will declare victory at some point, we watched W do it in Iraq and Biden do it for Afghanistan despite our eyes telling us a different story. But I can't shake the feeling that this campaign has highlighted the shortcomings of an air and sea based approach to military conflict. "Where the chips lie" right now is that a bunch of weak Mullahs hiding in tunnels and bunkers are going to wait us out and emerge ready to resume their malign behavior in the region. Nothing we've done guarantees they don't try and race for a nuclear weapon on the back side and we've now used our most powerful bargaining chip up by bombing the crap out of them. We don't have much else we can threaten them with now, and they know they can wait us out and hide again if necessary. Once a guy learns how to take a punch, the fear of getting in a fight subsides significantly. Iran now knows they can take our best shot, and that's not a good thing.

If this goes hot again, you can bet the Israelis have a bunch of those Mullahs bracketed and we'll find some other targets that go "boom!" in a big way.

Bondag said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Why would anyone here have information on the administration's strategy?

---

We used to have a Secretary of Defense post on here from time to time.

---

About football.

Not War strategy

Burdizzo said:

---

Iran knows their best bet is the long game because Trump won't be president in three years, and the American public doesn't have the long term commitment. Three years to them is the blink of an eye. Their populace is largely at the mercy of the IRGC. They are still executing dissent. The masses are unhappy, but they have no weapons. Unless we put boots in country (I see that as a longshot), the Mullahs and Ayatollahs just wait us out.

---

Trump won't wait 3 years to finish the job he may give them 12 months again so that the Moussad can gather more information then we will come at them again . Just my 2 cents from the peanut gallery

B-1 83 said:

---

If this goes hot again, you can bet the Israelis have a bunch of those Mullahs bracketed and we'll find some other targets that go "boom!" in a big way.

---

To be fair, they probably will do that even if we try and stay cold.

Wearer of the Ring said:

---

Patience, Grasshoppers. The blockade is an ever tightening vice. The "exit Strategy" as it's being called here, is that at some point Iran's government (whatever and whomever that is) is gonna snap. Right now no one, except a few islamic sailors, is getting blown up. I'd say that's a good thing. Meanwhile the ratchet is inexorably turning turning turning. Why get anyone hurt when all you have to do is wait.

---

This reveals the astounding short-sightedness of the Mainstream Media, the democrats, and many people posting on this very board.

For some reason, we must have resolution NOW. And because this wasn't an immediate victory for the administration, many now appear to advocate for... what? Trump admiting defeat and Dems enjoying a "victory" over Trump's failure?

My question to those who are so opposed to this action continuing is this: Is it really worth the United States taking the "L" against Iran if it means Trump is completely neutered? Is it worth the shot in the arm to the Islamist militants in being proved right that the U.S. no longer has the stomach for any sort of sustained conflict? That we cannot even allow the pressure from a blockade to mature long enough to have any lasting effect?

I agree that taking on Iran at this point involved risks, and was not the politically expedient course to take. But conflict was definitely brewing. Iran - immediately after having it's nuclear capability severely hindered in 2025 - went right back to a hostile war footing against the U.S.

But whether you agree with that or not, we're in it now. The only people truly howling about U.S. daily actions are America's enemies and half of our own people who hate Trump. We're not seeing the hordes of caskets that many were predicting, and Iran is feeling pressure from its neighbors and many of them are not-so-secretly supporting the U.S actions.

Blockades and sieges are not used anymore, but they are effective. All they need is time. The question remains whether that is something that the got-to-have-resolution-now crowd is willing to give.

Deputy Travis Junior said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

This board is also filled with TDS, who like nothing more than to see a Trump loss or apparent loss. Why don't we wait until it's finally over and see where the chips lie. I believe those in charge of our effort know more than we do.

---

I don't think we should just assume that the people in charge are brilliant strategists, and I say this as somebody who thinks there's a path out of this.

Plus, If anybody should understand that the people in charge don't always have a plan or know what they're doing, it's A&M fans. How many 6-6 putzes have the pumpers defended because we need to let the season play out :-D

---

But I assume they DO know more than we do, so I'm not gonna sit here and advise them on what to do and blame them on what they do. I'd rather root for the home team. Not bolster up the enemy.

jrdaustin said:

---

Wearer of the Ring said:

---

Patience, Grasshoppers. The blockade is an ever tightening vice. The "exit Strategy" as it's being called here, is that at some point Iran's government (whatever and whomever that is) is gonna snap. Right now no one, except a few islamic sailors, is getting blown up. I'd say that's a good thing. Meanwhile the ratchet is inexorably turning turning turning. Why get anyone hurt when all you have to do is wait.

---

This reveals the astounding short-sightedness of the Mainstream Media, the democrats, and many people posting on this very board.

For some reason, we must have resolution NOW. And because this wasn't an immediate victory for the administration, many now appear to advocate for... what? Trump admiting defeat and Dems enjoying a "victory" over Trump's failure?

My question to those who are so opposed to this action continuing is this: Is it really worth the United States taking the "L" against Iran if it means Trump is completely neutered? Is it worth the shot in the arm to the Islamist militants in being proved right that the U.S. no longer has the stomach for any sort of sustained conflict? That we cannot even allow the pressure from a blockade to mature long enough to have any lasting effect?

I agree that taking on Iran at this point involved risks, and was not the politically expedient course to take. But conflict was definitely brewing. Iran - immediately after having it's nuclear capability severely hindered in 2025 - went right back to a hostile war footing against the U.S.

But whether you agree with that or not, we're in it now. The only people truly howling about U.S. daily actions are America's enemies and half of our own people who hate Trump. We're not seeing the hordes of caskets that many were predicting, and Iran is feeling pressure from its neighbors and many of them are not-so-secretly supporting the U.S actions.

Blockades and sieges are not used anymore, but they are effective. All they need is time. The question remains whether that is something that the got-to-have-resolution-now crowd is willing to give.

---

Short sightedness? Brother, we have been doing Middle East Forever War for MULTIPLE Presidential tenures now (spanning multiple decades).

Burdizzo said:

---

Iran knows their best bet is the long game because Trump won't be president in three years, and the American public doesn't have the long term commitment. Three years to them is the blink of an eye. Their populace is largely at the mercy of the IRGC. They are still executing dissent. The masses are unhappy, but they have no weapons. Unless we put boots in country (I see that as a longshot), the Mullahs and Ayatollahs just wait us out.

---

This should be a major objective, to get them armed. Should have been doing it from day one. If our intel can identify and liquidate their leadership were should also be able to identify arm arm those that want to resist. Just flood the country, especially Kurdish areas, with cheap easy to use AK's. It basically what Russia did to us when they armed the Vietcong.

Apparently we already tried that and it didn't go well

Keyno said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Wearer of the Ring said:

---

Patience, Grasshoppers. The blockade is an ever tightening vice. The "exit Strategy" as it's being called here, is that at some point Iran's government (whatever and whomever that is) is gonna snap. Right now no one, except a few islamic sailors, is getting blown up. I'd say that's a good thing. Meanwhile the ratchet is inexorably turning turning turning. Why get anyone hurt when all you have to do is wait.

---

This reveals the astounding short-sightedness of the Mainstream Media, the democrats, and many people posting on this very board.

For some reason, we must have resolution NOW. And because this wasn't an immediate victory for the administration, many now appear to advocate for... what? Trump admiting defeat and Dems enjoying a "victory" over Trump's failure?

My question to those who are so opposed to this action continuing is this: Is it really worth the United States taking the "L" against Iran if it means Trump is completely neutered? Is it worth the shot in the arm to the Islamist militants in being proved right that the U.S. no longer has the stomach for any sort of sustained conflict? That we cannot even allow the pressure from a blockade to mature long enough to have any lasting effect?

I agree that taking on Iran at this point involved risks, and was not the politically expedient course to take. But conflict was definitely brewing. Iran - immediately after having it's nuclear capability severely hindered in 2025 - went right back to a hostile war footing against the U.S.

But whether you agree with that or not, we're in it now. The only people truly howling about U.S. daily actions are America's enemies and half of our own people who hate Trump. We're not seeing the hordes of caskets that many were predicting, and Iran is feeling pressure from its neighbors and many of them are not-so-secretly supporting the U.S actions.

Blockades and sieges are not used anymore, but they are effective. All they need is time. The question remains whether that is something that the got-to-have-resolution-now crowd is willing to give.

---

Short sightedness? Brother, we have been doing Middle East Forever War for MULTIPLE Presidential tenures now (spanning multiple decades).

---

Seriously? Other than periodically bringing those caskets home, and alternating between dropping bombs and sending over pallets of cash in order to try to bribe compliance out of them, what exactly have we been doing?

Is that the status quo you would like to perpetuallly see?

DTP02 said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

EFR said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

A free Iranian people and no uranium in Iran. Anything less is unacceptable.

Carry on, rant(?) over.

---

That is going to be hard as they mine it there.

---

And? Id like to think Trump and his people would have taken that into consideration before the first bomb dropped. Something W and his idiots didn't do, and I'm sure Trump and his people did to ensure true and lasting success, but slogans and feels like with W.

---

We started dropping bombs because Israel was going to start dropping bombs. And the threat wasn't Iran's nuclear ambitions but their missile and drone capabilities becoming more than Israel was sure it could handle.

---

If that actually is true, and not just what is touted by people either against the war or the Israeli government, then I'll be pissed about it. We shouldn't be anyone's, especially Israel's, errand boy.

That being said, now that we're in it, we better finish it.

---

Prepare to be ticked off then. Rubio came out and said this explicitly, as have others. This isn't even in question. See https://perma.cc/8GL2-ARY8 for just one example in Rubio's own words.

You can argue whether it was something we should have done regardless, or whether we should have leaned heavily on Israel not to do it, but it's absolutely clear that we knew Israel was planning to bomb, and that we believed it would result in Iranian counterattacks across the region, and that we jumped on board the already moving Israeli train.

If that feels a little too "tail wagging the dog" for your taste, it does for me as well. The only party getting exactly what they want from this is Israel, and it all fits with a plan Bibi adopted more than 20 years ago ("Clean Break", a proposal written by Jewish US neocons) to remove threats to Israeli borders by systematically eliminating Syria, Iraq and Iran as threats. And here we are ~20 years later, pushing over the last domino of the three.

But you're correct that we're in it now. We've made a massive commitment of military resources, to the point that we're compromising our munitions stores and posture in other regions. There is also an enormous amount of political capital riding on this for Trump and Republicans. The SOH is now broken and we are the proximate cause and are also indirectly responsible for Iran's attacks on regional partners, so the question now is what do we do from here?

---

What we do from here is only have allies that we control fully. If you don't do exactly what we say, you're no longer an ally, and you definitely get none of our money.

I imagine that's how we treat most of our other allies behind closed doors.

Then cut our military spending by 90% and get all of our troops back in the USA, stop sending money to other Countries and neuter the military industrial complex.

America would have a financial renissance.

fullback44 said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

Iran knows their best bet is the long game because Trump won't be president in three years, and the American public doesn't have the long term commitment. Three years to them is the blink of an eye. Their populace is largely at the mercy of the IRGC. They are still executing dissent. The masses are unhappy, but they have no weapons. Unless we put boots in country (I see that as a longshot), the Mullahs and Ayatollahs just wait us out.

---

Trump won't wait 3 years to finish the job he may give them 12 months again so that the Moussad can gather more information then we will come at them again . Just my 2 cents from the peanut gallery

---

There should be no, "we need to more anything"

Everything that was needed to start and finish a war should've been known long before the green light was given. To have less due diligence is careless, reckless, and no different, again, than Iraq. Save, well, that we were forced into it (can't believe America was forced because of Israel, but whatever) this, but even then, that's no excuse.

I can tell you with 100% confidence that our military planners were not preparing for siege and blockade warfare. Our doctrine calls for overwhelming force application to immediately break the will of the enemy.

Sieges and blockades can be effective but they also run the risk of creating humanitarian crises, and while I'm no bleeding heart, it's not a good look for the US which goes to war in the name of freedom and justice to starve people until they give up.

The flawed assumption from the beginning was that icing the Ayatollah was going to prompt regime change and accommodation with the West. That hasn't happened and it seems like there is not a number of guys we can kill to make that happen.

AggieEP said:

---

I can tell you with 100% confidence that our military planners were not preparing for siege and blockade warfare. Our doctrine calls for overwhelming force application to immediately break the will of the enemy.

Sieges and blockades can be effective but they also run the risk of creating humanitarian crises, and while I'm no bleeding heart, it's not a good look for the US which goes to war in the name of freedom and justice to starve people until they give up.

The flawed assumption from the beginning was that icing the Ayatollah was going to prompt regime change and accommodation with the West. That hasn't happened and it seems like there is not a number of guys we can kill to make that happen.

---

The hard truth is that we ended up like Russia in 2022. We expected to roll in and slap around a few holdouts and declare victory and we all wave American flags. Instead, Iran decided to say nah and fight back. Who knew the enemy gets a say in a military campaign? Now we are stuck with our dicks in the wind scrambling for some sense of something we can slap a "WE DID IT!" sticker on and move on.

Iran zigged when we expected them to zag and we were arrogant enough to not have any real strategies or logistics setup for this eventuality. That last part is not even debatable.

So will we win? Undoubtedly. The question is just a matter of where we settle and whether that "win" will actually be worth a damn in the mid to long term future.

AggieEP said:

---

I can tell you with 100% confidence that our military planners were not preparing for siege and blockade warfare. Our doctrine calls for overwhelming force application to immediately break the will of the enemy.

Sieges and blockades can be effective but they also run the risk of creating humanitarian crises, and while I'm no bleeding heart, it's not a good look for the US which goes to war in the name of freedom and justice to starve people until they give up.

The flawed assumption from the beginning was that icing the Ayatollah was going to prompt regime change and accommodation with the West. That hasn't happened and it seems like there is not a number of guys we can kill to make that happen.

---

I cannot disagree with anything you said. But the intent of the blockade is not to starve Iranian people. It is to allow the Strait to continue as a world transit bottleneck without undue Iranian influence. It was also to keep Iran from allowing allied ships to transit while blocking all other transits. If Iran backs away from the strait, the blockade goes away.

Just throwing a wild idea out there...

What if we were to put boots on the ground, but only for, say, the first 25 miles in from the shores of SOH. The IRG is left with nothing more than a rowboat and a fishing pole here and there. Clear out the Iranians affecting the Strait, then turn over that sliver of land to the Saudis and UAE to manage. The only question is whether the Saudis and UAE would be on board with that strategy and would they be willing to keep control of the Strait.

Iran would then be in a quandary, as they would have to wage full war against their 'brothers' in order to regain control of that last sliver of land. Or, they could agree to not interfere with future transit, and agree to sunset their nuclear program. Then, the land goes back to them, and they can continue persecuting at will their own citizens within their borders.

I think that is the best outcome we could ever hope for, short of glassing Tehran. And nobody wants that.

No Spin Ag said:

---

fullback44 said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

Iran knows their best bet is the long game because Trump won't be president in three years, and the American public doesn't have the long term commitment. Three years to them is the blink of an eye. Their populace is largely at the mercy of the IRGC. They are still executing dissent. The masses are unhappy, but they have no weapons. Unless we put boots in country (I see that as a longshot), the Mullahs and Ayatollahs just wait us out.

---

Trump won't wait 3 years to finish the job he may give them 12 months again so that the Moussad can gather more information then we will come at them again . Just my 2 cents from the peanut gallery

---

There should be no, "we need to more anything"

Everything that was needed to start and finish a war should've been known long before the green light was given. To have less due diligence is careless, reckless, and no different, again, than Iraq. Save, well, that we were forced into it (can't believe America was forced because of Israel, but whatever) this, but even then, that's no excuse.

---

Hey that's my 2 cents …. I may be right you never know. This may be there strategy…. Back off and wait too see who is still pushing the old regime and then take them out. I know one thing, the media has zero clue as to what's really going on behind the scenes…. They throw crap at the wall daily that doesn't come to fruition… myself, I'll wait and see how this plays out. I doubt 1 person on this board has any real clue or knows the US playbook on this.

Vehemently disagree. We spent 8.5 years in Iraq fighting an insurgency, AFTER the shock and awe! We spent 20 YEARS IN Afghanistan. And those were countries where we were "in control" and had boots on the ground.

Except for Iran lashing out at the Arab countries, we knew exactly what was going to happen here.

Persians throughout history have always been formidable at psychological warfare. And I imagine no one studies the American Media more than they do. A blatant lie that they hit an American warship still plants the seed of doubt and fear in the minds of peoples around the world.

Color me an ignorant simpleton, but the one thing that the Trump administration has touted the most is that there can be no Iranian nuclear bomb and delivery system. If the Israeli and/or US intelligence learned that they were too close, then no matter the political fallout, a strong leader decides he has to take some kind of action (relying on military expertise in the process).

Bottom line: annihilation or near annihilation of Israel, or an EMP successfully (and luckily) exploding over part of the USA that would stop almost everything electronic (affecting food, water, fuel, travel, heat/AC, etc. for an unknown amount of time possibly leading to chaos, starvation and death) --or even the plausible threat of either... well, then we look up and see an entirely different world. The radicals in Iran aren't as pragmatic as Russia or China.

Iran must not have a nuclear bomb.

Thank God Jesus Christ controls history!

5Amp said:

---

Last week was a record week in oil sales in the USA as we continue to load very large vessels of Texas crude out and ship overseas to Asia and Europe.

Hope this stays close for another few months if not 2026 thru 2028.

This is really great for the red producing states like TEXAS

Grok
Approximately 6.44 million barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil for the most recently reported week (ending April 24, 2026).
This is according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) weekly data released on April 29, 2026. It was a record high, up sharply from 4.798 million bpd the prior week (an increase of about 1.64 million bpd).
Key Context:
Crude oil exports (not including petroleum products): 6.438 million bpd.
Total petroleum exports (crude + products like gasoline, distillates, etc.): Hit a record 14.18 million bpd that same week.
This surge contributed to the U.S. becoming a net crude exporter on a weekly basis for the first time on record, amid global supply disruptions (e.g., related to events in the Middle East).

---

How is this better for Texas? Sounds great, but as an average Texan, how does this help me? Is someone paying the state a tariff? Is the State taxing it? Loading fees to the Port of Houston possibly?

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Deny oil exports, collapse the economy, arm the populace to overthrow the Guard.

---

Yeah, but what are they trying to do to Iran?