This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

What Closing The Straits Of Hormuz Will Mean In 3 Simple Charts

Tyler Durden's picture





 

While WTI hovers around $105.5 (slightly underperforming USD strength), Brent has notably outperformed with the Brent-WTI spread now edging towards $20 (from under $15 two weeks ago). Given the increasing tension, we thought it useful to get a grasp of just what an oil-supply shock means. BNP points out that in all but one of the historical oil price shocks of the last 40 years, equities have notably underperformed oil (understandably) but the higher the oil price rise, the higher the chance of negative absolute returns for stocks. We also note that oil prices tend to rise in anticipation of the crisis and then explode (so arguing that we are discounting an event is proved moot) and the impact (in lost supply) from closing the Straits of Hormuz is an order of magnitude larger than the next five largest events. Regionally, positioning favors the middle-eastern oil producers obviously with Asian EM nations set to suffer dramatically worse than DMs.

 

Global Oil Supply Shocks...

According to the IEA, 24% of the Global oil consumption passes through that strait. If tensions in Iran increases and this possibility becomes a reality then that would lead to a big tail event.

A further spike of 20% in the oil price will be a serious threat to the global economy and we believe in that scenario the equity prices will quickly decouple from the oil prices as we show above in retrospect to the previous oil price shocks.

Oil Price Action During Periods Of Shock...

 

And how to position regionally: Oil Consumption Minus Production As % of GDP...

Crucially the stage is not yet completely set for demand crushing oil spike although current levels will already be sufficient to drive sector rotation.

Source: BNP Paribas

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 03/14/2012 - 16:01 | Link to Comment GeneMarchbanks
GeneMarchbanks's picture

Spigots: OFF

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 16:05 | Link to Comment TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture

Japan picked the wrong week to quit drinking AND to wean off of nuclear power.

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 16:09 | Link to Comment Pinto Currency
Pinto Currency's picture

 

Bomb Iran!  This is most excellent cover for our decades of monetary inflation, say the Fed's owners.

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 16:24 | Link to Comment redpill
redpill's picture

I don't understand the intellectual exercise here.  The US military has 2 carrier groups in theater and a third one on the way, they will never allow the straits to be closed.

 

To quote Herbert, "the spice must flow."

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 16:33 | Link to Comment john39
john39's picture

just because U.S. military may claim that the straight is open doesn't mean that transport co's or their insurers will allow ships to pas through...  you never know when a stray missle might get launched after all.

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 16:56 | Link to Comment Pinto Currency
Pinto Currency's picture

 

Even if Iran had a nuke weapons program there is still no legal reason to bomb them.

 

Israel developed nuclear weapons, putatively with stolen US uranium, and where was the international coalition?  Same with India and Pakistan.

 

http://nuclear-news.net/2011/12/05/israel-stole-weapons-grade-uranium-from-usa-reprocessing-plant/

 

What the coalition will do is destroy Iran's civilian infrastructure just as with Iraq and Libya.

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 17:57 | Link to Comment BigJim
BigJim's picture

Ah, but you see, Israel has not signed the NPT. And neither did India or Pakistan.

This isn't about getting nukes - this is about upholding the rule of law! The Unites States of Amerika is the world's policeman, and a policeman knows his duty!

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 22:32 | Link to Comment Chuck Walla
Chuck Walla's picture

"I wouldn't fight a dumb war"

~ Barack Obama 2008

Thu, 03/15/2012 - 03:09 | Link to Comment Pinto Currency
Pinto Currency's picture

 

 

“I’m LeBron, baby. I can play at this level. I got game.”

 

Barack Obama 2004

 

"And don’t try to convince me with his academic credentials. Because nobody has seen them. Not you, not me, not the press. Nobody. (Do you even wonder why not?) Editor of the Harvard Law Review? Yet not a single article written by him. Not a single scholarly paper. On anything."

 

http://urbangrounds.com/2011/08/obama-not-smart/

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 18:05 | Link to Comment Quantum Nucleonics
Quantum Nucleonics's picture

Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  Isreal is not.  That's the key difference in legality.  Iran could withdraw from the NNPT, and no longer be subjet to the enforcement provisions of the NNPT via the IAEA and the UN Security Council.  That's what North Korea did.

It's clear Iran intends to develop a nuclear weapon(s).  They'll need to withdraw from the NNPT at some point.  Presumably, when they have a working weapon and are ready to test.

Thu, 03/15/2012 - 03:01 | Link to Comment Pinto Currency
Pinto Currency's picture

 

And?

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 16:54 | Link to Comment mkkby
mkkby's picture

All they did was announce a missile test in the gulf a few months ago, and all shipping stopped on it's own.  Imagine if someone fires one missile a night at a ship.  That can't be easily stopped.  We couldn't pre empt random scuds, nor what Hizbola does virtually every day in southern Lebanon.

Try to pay attention in class kiddies.

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 17:07 | Link to Comment TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture

I wuzn't leerned in the fancy publik skoolz but I heard those straights are narrow n' stuff and that just one or two car wrecks could jam it all up.

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 18:12 | Link to Comment Coast Watcher
Coast Watcher's picture

A wreck or two alone wouldn't physically close the strait, but the insurance companies would immediately end coverage of any tanker passing through it, which  would have the same effect. During the "tanker war" in the 1980s Iran attacked a number of vessels with missiles, artillery, and aircraft. Oil importing countries led by the U.S. re-registered all the tankers under the U.S. flag and organized convoys to protect them.

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 17:30 | Link to Comment redpill
redpill's picture

The very second Iran started firing at merchant ships, the bombing would begin.  Judging by the rhetoric they're going to get bombed anyway, but if Iran actually shot so much as a homing pigeon at an oil tanker we would get immediate, what do they call it now?  Oh yeah, "kinetic military action."  And if they actually sunk something?  Let's just say Diego Garcia would become a very busy place.  Neocon wet dream.

Thu, 03/15/2012 - 00:55 | Link to Comment FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

Or so the Zionists hope. Maybe they can get Mossad to help?

Thu, 03/15/2012 - 01:29 | Link to Comment q99x2
q99x2's picture

Yes the NWO could use a little destabilation support at ths point.

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 18:15 | Link to Comment Quantum Nucleonics
Quantum Nucleonics's picture

Eh, Iran's  SS1-C Scud missiles are barely accurate enough to hit a city.  They have no chance of hitting a ship.  Iran does have various land launched anti-ship cruise missiles.  The moment they started using these the US would have the all clear to bomb the launch facilities, along with pretty much everything else in Iran.  That's why Iran won't pull the trigger.  They are smarter and more patient than that.  They know that any military confrontation needs to be initiated by the US in order to have strategic PR value to Iran in the Muslim world.  Also, Iran knows that if they attacked merchant shipping, it gives Saudi Arabia, et al a free pass to join the US in an attack.

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 20:09 | Link to Comment Jack Burton
Jack Burton's picture

Iranian anti shipping missiles are mobile. Most are mounted on launchers that are self mobile or on trailers that any average truck can pull. Along with decoys that are simple to make, Iran could present hundreds of fake launchers while keeping the real thing under cover and exposing them for a few minutes before launch. The record of US air power taking out mobile missiles is very poor. Gulf war witnessed a zero kill ratio for mobile scuds.

The Russian sunburn, Iran's most capable system, is supersonic and wave skimming. Plus it can take evasive action at any point and just before impact performs evasive action to avoid point defense systems and also can pop up before impact to hit the target from above.

The USN ships best defense against modern anti shipping missiles like sunburn will be electronic jamming. What no one knows is how capable sunburns are in this area. Being self contained and not needing any information tranfer after initial targeting, they may be immune from jamming. Just depends what type of electronic package the Russians have provided to the Iranians.

Still, I give US airpower little chance of taking out more than a handful of Iran's mobile anti ship missile launchers. Their subs may also be able to release missiles from the torpedo tubes at close range.

We will only know how effective USN counter measures are when the balloon goes up!

Thu, 03/15/2012 - 01:00 | Link to Comment FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

It's a numbers game. If Iran has 100X as many launchers as America has ships, she only needs to get 1% of them through. The navy know this too.

Thu, 03/15/2012 - 01:01 | Link to Comment FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

It's a numbers game. If Iran has 100X as many launchers as America has ships, she only needs to get 1% of them through. The navy know this too.

Thu, 03/15/2012 - 03:02 | Link to Comment Knobbius
Knobbius's picture

Remember, time and technology both march on.  You're talking about the tools and technologies of a war that is now 21 years gone, in which 1970's technology was still being used on both sides.  Our sensors, C2 systems, and countermeasures against missiles of all kinds are radically improved over what they were during the Gulf War.

Decoys are a problem, but we invented this field.  Generically, this subject is referred to as CCD (Camoflage, Concealment, and Deception).  Techniques for engaging in CCD and defeating adversaries' use of it are a big area of expertise and work in the DoD.  Remember, no decoy is a perfect replica of real equipment in all wavelengths and phenomenologies.

While our record against mobile launchers in 1991 was poor, it will not be that way this time around.  Any launcher that fires anything bigger than a paper airplane will be found, targeted, and blasted in about 2 minutes.

Also, you're not just dealing with the US Navy, or with any one defense.  Defenses against missiles are layered, and involve elements from all 3 services and a great deal of support from the intelligence community.  The integration of all of this is maybe the greatest improvement since 1991.  

The threat of Iranian subs is overblown.  Their locally-produced boats are junk; the only decent boats they have are imported Kilo-class diesel electrics.  But their crews are under-trained and their O&M practices are suspect.  They can cause trouble as part of a layered assymetric approach, but they'll be badly outclassed by Western naval forces.

So the Iranians will present an interesting challenge, but one that we can overcome.  Whether that will happen soon enough to bring back the tanker traffic is a different question.  The Iranian Navy, in a Hormuz-shutdown scenario, will likely have a short and exciting life.  Tactically they'll be obliterated.  But they may have more success in Strategic terms, by shutting down the shipping lanes for a few weeks.  Those few weeks could change the geopolitical dynamic very dramatically (think of Tet forcing Johnson to not seek re-election).

Thu, 03/15/2012 - 04:46 | Link to Comment Vlad Tepid
Vlad Tepid's picture

But the Iranians can afford to lose their entire Navy.  We can't afford to lose more than a handful of non-capital ships, if that.  

I think your confidence is swollen.  The Argentine Navy wreaked havoc on the British with mobile launchers and those were not easily found on the Falklands tundra - the coast of Iran is no tundra.  

As was said above, modren day missile warfare is merely a saturation game.  The layered, 3 service missile defense idea crumbles quite rapidly once the ignitions are lit.  Nothing, I am telling you NOTHING can stop a massive raid by Silkworm or Sunburns or their equivalent.  The ONLY factor that will determine whether US Navy ships sink or live to fight another day (if they're stupid enough to get caught in the Gulf) is the thickness and redundancy of their hulls and the skill of their damage control teams.

Also, Iranian sub, including the Kilos would be very unlikely to go after military ships.  They will sit in the Arabian Sea or the Gulf of Aden and wait for merchant (read, tankers) shipping that think they're in the clear as ost military assests are rushed to the Gulf.

Modern naval warfare is faberge eggs fighting with hammers and Nelson's warning was never more true - "A ship's a fool to fight a fort (or an entire national coastline acting as a short range missle battery.

Thu, 03/15/2012 - 04:36 | Link to Comment Vlad Tepid
Vlad Tepid's picture

What they mostly have are Silkworms and reverse engineered variants as well as better Russian stuff. These are SSMs.  No cruise missiles in the "Republic."  Those would be a long more dangerous and give Iran some serious stand off range.

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 17:28 | Link to Comment Börjesson
Börjesson's picture

All Iran has to do to close the straits is to announce that "Sorry folks, but from now on we will shoot at any tanker trying to go through". Maybe, if they're not believed at first, they'll have to actually fire at one tanker. After that, the straits are effectively closed. No tanker will try to run the gauntlet until the US has so completely flattened Iranian offensive capability, and so fully occupied the Iranian shore (nothing less than boots on the ground will do) that they can guarantee that not even a goat herder with a handheld rocket launcher will try anything. For all the US superiority, that could still take weeks if not months.

Of course, for all the turmoil this would cause the West, it would mean the complete destruction of the Iranian state. It's very doubtful that they would choose such a path - unless, of course, it becomes clear that their state will be destroyed anyway. In that case, they've got nothing to lose.

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 18:05 | Link to Comment JoeSexPack
JoeSexPack's picture

Stopping random Oniks missiles, or artillery rounds, either launched from mobile trucks, is a tall order.

 

Range of over 150 miles gives Revolutionary Guards plenty of places to hide. 1/week at Straight will close it.

 

Closing the Straight for 6+ months, due to high insurance rates, likely means a hyper-inflationary depression in the West.

 

That could bring down govt's & win this for Iran. Starnger things have happened.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-800_Oniks

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 23:16 | Link to Comment potlatch
potlatch's picture

The non-proliferation argument that can be raised is quite interesting however.  If the case can be made, and in large part made in the form of the miltary forces assembled there standing to battle stations, that, from here on out nuclear latency shall be no longer tolerated by unstable states (yes: this is a fiat decalration: hello military backed political might, ie, the West) that changes the calculation, because now a putative moral right is on the side of an aggressive Western military stance.  Any beligerence can be taken as a sign of a non-stable regime, and thus *any* centrifuges are now disallowed by Universal Edict.

 

Tricky, but you have no idea what NATO is planning here.  I draw attention to the fact Britain is sending its finest newst naval vessels -- anti missile ships I believe -- huge capital investments, to the Gulf.  When I hear tell of French Marines in Dubai, I shall then now to batten down the hatches.

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 23:42 | Link to Comment DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

closing the straights is exactly what the West wants them to do - a "true" false flag that justifies the move to "ensure it never happens again." 

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 18:16 | Link to Comment Cole Younger
Cole Younger's picture

Its not so much the carriers, its the subs, cruise missles, and JDAMs that will keep the straits open...

Thu, 03/15/2012 - 04:50 | Link to Comment Vlad Tepid
Vlad Tepid's picture

What?

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 19:09 | Link to Comment Jake88
Jake88's picture

If there is a war the US could very well have three aircraft carriers at the bottom of the Gulf.

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 19:24 | Link to Comment Citxmech
Citxmech's picture

Can't imagine that Qatar, Dubai, or Sudi Arabia would appreciate that very much.

Thu, 03/15/2012 - 10:36 | Link to Comment Amagnonx
Amagnonx's picture

Its possible that Iran has anti-carrier missles, the hyper velocity ones.  Carriers these days are pretty much going to get sunk by anyone with reasonable numbers of these missiles.  Carriers are for invading poorly armed 3rd world nations .. but even if Iran has the capability of sinking most of the US fleet in a few hours, Israel is likely to just go full retard and use nukes.

 

Attacking Iran is fairly dumb unless you simply don't care about any consequences - seems this may be the case.  The consequences that would be most useful would be assassination of people like, Rockerfeller, Bush, Cheyney etc .. if they could manage that, then Iran wouldnt be attacked.

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 20:03 | Link to Comment Buck Johnson
Buck Johnson's picture

Thats exactly what this is all for, we bomb them in order to cover for the implosiong of the economy.

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 16:20 | Link to Comment LongSoupLine
LongSoupLine's picture

Well, based upon the data in the 3rd chart, it looks like it's time to invade and "liberate" Mexico and Canada...(never trusted those shifty Canadians anyway.)

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 17:19 | Link to Comment msamour
msamour's picture

Hey watch out you, or we'll have to send in more geese, and beavers. You don't know it but all your wooden infrastructure is being eaten away by our beavers. Next the bears, and the wolverines will attack your oilfileds in the Dakotas. Then you will be at our merci! Bwahahahahahahaha (evil laugh).

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 17:59 | Link to Comment BigJim
BigJim's picture

We can handle all the beaver you can send, pal.

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 21:35 | Link to Comment krispkritter
krispkritter's picture

Eat Mor Beevr...

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 16:01 | Link to Comment slewie the pi-rat
slewie the pi-rat's picture

bilary--she don't care!

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 16:02 | Link to Comment NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

Well, at least the boss may let us telecommute occasionally.

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 16:04 | Link to Comment VulpisVulpis
VulpisVulpis's picture

Or in 3 words:

Everyone 

Is

Fucked

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 16:03 | Link to Comment battlestargalactica
battlestargalactica's picture

Got bicyclez, bitchez?

Got physizal preciouz metalz, bitchez?

Got prepz, bitchez?

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 16:05 | Link to Comment DionysusDevotee
DionysusDevotee's picture

Bicycles?  How about Biodiesel..

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 16:05 | Link to Comment ZeroIQ
ZeroIQ's picture

Why not a long brent CFD Bitchez?

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 16:49 | Link to Comment The Swedish Chef
The Swedish Chef's picture

Got bitchez, bitchez?

Thu, 03/15/2012 - 00:11 | Link to Comment natty light
natty light's picture

I'm buying a few extra 5 qt. Castrol GTX before it goes up another few dollars.

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 16:05 | Link to Comment CrashisOptimistic
CrashisOptimistic's picture

Fuck historical oil analysis.

This particular world has never existed before. There is nothing to be learned by these worshipers of "cycles".

This world has no cycles. This world has only a slope. Downward.

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 16:09 | Link to Comment VulpisVulpis
VulpisVulpis's picture

So you're bullish?

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 16:21 | Link to Comment CrashisOptimistic
CrashisOptimistic's picture

Oil spikes as demand for it outstrips available supply.  The businesses generating that demand can't get it and they fail outright.

This destroys demand and the price falls.

And then does it again, but with overall economic activity sloping downward over time.

So one is bullish sometimes, and not others, and all the time it doesn't matter because a lot of people have to die in this sequence.

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 23:19 | Link to Comment potlatch
potlatch's picture

that's a good one vulpis ;)

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 16:06 | Link to Comment DionysusDevotee
DionysusDevotee's picture

Glad I've been storing gasoline for the truck, and biodiesel for the Mercedes.  Bought the gasoline at 3.60 a gallon, wonder when I should open the drum?

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 16:13 | Link to Comment davood
davood's picture

You think you are smart?  That "investment" you bought begins to rot in 6 months or less.

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 16:25 | Link to Comment The Swedish Chef
The Swedish Chef's picture

Wrong. IF bought at winter, with low ethanol content, it will be good for at least a year. If bought last summer I´d start filling up the car with it now.

 

There are additives you can buy to extend the shelf life of gasoline. I suggest that they are used.

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 16:44 | Link to Comment johnQpublic
johnQpublic's picture

i have fuel in my generator from october of '06

 

fucker still starts on the first pull

special thanks to the makers of stabil...brought to you by carls junior

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 18:15 | Link to Comment flyingpigg
flyingpigg's picture

Yes, if it's ethanol free gasoline it will stay good for many years. I've stored some 98 octane ethanol free stuff for the generator. All the alkanes will stay good for a the rest of my life because they can't react. Think crude oil in the ground. It stayed there for millions of years. Maybe some of the aromatics and alkenes will deteriorate but octane should stay above the 95 I need. Why ethanol free? Because of water issues and gum forming if the container is not made of steel.

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 21:30 | Link to Comment krispkritter
krispkritter's picture

I use PRI-D and G.  I also buy NE(non-ethanol) for my small engines; chainsaws, ATV's, etc. It ain't cheap but all the headaches with ethanol I've had are gone. Can't wait until they go to 15%, dumbfucks.  I even filled up the truck with some once, drove like a whole different vehicle. http://pure-gas.org/index.jsp

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 16:48 | Link to Comment kurt
kurt's picture

There are fuel stabilizing products.

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 17:37 | Link to Comment DionysusDevotee
DionysusDevotee's picture

Thanks.  I'll think of how stupid I am when I'm filling my car for 3.60 a gallon while you're paying 6.00 

Cheers!

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 16:15 | Link to Comment LongSoupLine
LongSoupLine's picture

I don't know about opening the drum, but you better put it in a safe or hire security...hell, maybe both!

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 17:39 | Link to Comment DionysusDevotee
DionysusDevotee's picture

Doberman, mossberg and remote location FTW!

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 16:15 | Link to Comment bugs_
bugs_'s picture

Looks like we can count on Malaysian troops in our coalition of the pumping

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 16:18 | Link to Comment roadhazard
roadhazard's picture

Closing the Straits is really the only big weapon Iran can play. It will cost them everything but they can do it if they focus on one thing. I feel sorry for anybody on a ship out there. You can't stop it all.

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 16:22 | Link to Comment LongSoupLine
LongSoupLine's picture

I'm long man made artificial reefs in the strait...

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 16:28 | Link to Comment CrashisOptimistic
CrashisOptimistic's picture

Iran's oil exports are what they were before sanctions.  They are getting a lower price with respect to Brent for it, but Brent has risen so they are getting the same amount of money and frankly, all is well.

They are not desperate and don't need to attack anyone, and won't.

Obama's approval ratings, on the other hand . . . . .

As for closing the Straits of Hormuz, they are not desperate and have no need to do that.

A lot worse damage can be done to things by NOT closing the straits.  Rather, solicit some 3rd parties to bomb a few tankers with sabotage.  You don't have to sink them all.  You only have to sink one.  

Then insurance rates do the rest.

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 16:51 | Link to Comment chinaguy
chinaguy's picture

Closing the Straits would be in response to an invasion or a tac strike, not Iran just closing the Straits on a whim.

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 17:08 | Link to Comment CrashisOptimistic
CrashisOptimistic's picture

Still doesn't make sense.  If the attacker was the US, that doesn't retaliate.  The US doesn't get much oil from there.  We get ours from Venezuela, Canada, Mexico, Nigeria, and yes a little from Saudi Arabia, but a ramp up from Nigeria could handle that.

Iran just doesn't have a reason to do that.

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 18:02 | Link to Comment BigJim
BigJim's picture

Chum, it's a global market. It doesn't matter if we get our oil from there - if the price rises, it rises for us, too.

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 16:22 | Link to Comment redytogo
redytogo's picture

Petrodollars, what else matters anymore?

 

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 16:35 | Link to Comment John Wilmot
John Wilmot's picture

Notice that virtually all the buyers of US treasuries are in the "loser" camp in the event of oil supply shock.

Imagine: oil import costs suddenly rise for Japan, while exports to the US fall as American consumers cut back (just extending existing trends) - in one move the major rationale for funding US deficits (merchant financing) loses yet more of its luster, and the incentive to sell US treasuries (to raise dollars to buy oil) increases.

What might happen I wonder?

And the long-term consequence of a major (dollar denominated) oil price shock brought about by an American war might be...what? In light of the trend already in place whereby developing nations want to dump the dollar for bilateral arrangements...?

Camel, meet straw.

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 16:34 | Link to Comment bugs_
bugs_'s picture

another angle to consider is the impact of closing the straits on the world food supply.

now the in eschatology of the neo-hassasins this is to be desired but a lot of people are going to be impacted by the closing.  it isn't going to be just europe.  this is going to bite and bite hard.

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 16:41 | Link to Comment carbonmutant
carbonmutant's picture

Or they could take the MEK off the Terrorist lists...

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 16:47 | Link to Comment Tuco Benedicto ...
Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez's picture

'For a moment there I thought we were in trouble'  --Butch Cassidy

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 16:56 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Blah, blah, Hormuz... blah, blah... Zionists... blah, blah....

Setting up Iran to take the blame for the next leg down....

Thu, 03/15/2012 - 10:29 | Link to Comment DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

yup

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 17:36 | Link to Comment Irwin Fletcher
Irwin Fletcher's picture

It's bullish for the sale of "I'd rather be waterboarding" hats?

http://www.lapolicegear.com/tact-71086-hat.html

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 18:06 | Link to Comment BigJim
BigJim's picture

Says it all, really.

How long before they put one out with 'I'd rather be gassing libertarians' on it?

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 18:05 | Link to Comment earleflorida
earleflorida's picture

America's infallible leaders want a war -- AIPAC's money-changers want war -- the Israelite's don't want war, as do most U.S. citizens, contrary to what the MSM's  postures incessantly every evening.

This has kept me up at nights for months,... knowing the outcome could/would/should metastasize into WWIII and the reality of a Nuclear Holocaust. I'm serious,... we must do all in our power to find alternatives for a peaceful resolve -- if not, death from afar will surely reach our shores. jmo

thankyou tyler

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 18:45 | Link to Comment Quantum Nucleonics
Quantum Nucleonics's picture

Why there will be no closure of the Straits or any military confrontation, in 3 simple points...

1. Iran doesn't want a military confrontation.  They want to finish building some nuclear weapons.  They have no interest in provoking a confrontation they know they will lose.

2. Tension, but not war, allows Iran to keep its economy afloat with high oil prices.

3. Dear Leader Obama has no interest in a confrontation with Iran.  He doesn't care if they get nuclear weapons, as long as it is after his re-election.  He knows if he starts bombing, his left wing base will stay home on election day, and he would get crushed even if the GOP nominated Elmer Fudd.

 

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 19:24 | Link to Comment Max Hunter
Max Hunter's picture

I hope you're right.. But I don't think you are.. The rhetoric is up.. way up.. It's at a whole new level..

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 22:14 | Link to Comment John Wilmot
John Wilmot's picture

1 and 2 are correct - you're wrong on 3.

Obama doesn't decide jack shit, he's a puppet. If the PTB want him for another four years, then you're right, no Iran War before the elections. If they could give a shit about his reelection because puppets are a dime a dozen, then they'll start their fucking war whenever they fucking please...now bend over, Paul Wolfowitz wants to liberate you.

Thu, 03/15/2012 - 14:17 | Link to Comment earleflorida
earleflorida's picture

Ps. if obami loses - santorum or romney already have commited to going to war with iran --- no questions asked

as you said,... old, used puppet out, and polished refurbished puppet in

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 23:44 | Link to Comment potlatch
potlatch's picture

I think you are making a classic blunder: in matters military, taking domestic leades at face value.  Some thought Bush was a rather dull witted chap, borne forth merely by name.  Perhaps.  Some think Obama is staunchly agains t the war.  After all, did he not promise to bring the troops home?

Obama is merely a suave Nixon, in *my* specualtion.  And Bush was taking a fall by beta testing the invasion and occupation tactics.  Stress testing it.  Obama is no less cut-throat, no less ruthless, than any other American President ever has been or will be allowed to be. 

 

These military plans, and gear, represent capital investments.  They don't give the keys to noobs, either left or right.  that is my hunch.

 

And Obama is already signed aboard, imo.  Has been all along.  Hence the zero dismantling of the extrajudicial war apparatus for detainees: we have yet to get the real ones.

All Barack needs is a flagship called Bonhomme Richard, and we would be gtg.  Just sayin.  Military reality is not political reality.  Two diff things.  Every US President is a militarist now: especially since the 79 fiasco.

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 19:14 | Link to Comment Jake88
Jake88's picture

Our only hope to straighten this mess out is to invade Isreal before they attack.

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 19:26 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

.

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 20:35 | Link to Comment Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

Israel and the USA launch a joint strike on Iran.

Hezbollah and 10 other terrorist groups launch a joint strike on Israel.

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 21:33 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I'm going to launch a joint strike on my stash box in about 5 minutes....

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 21:39 | Link to Comment logicalman
logicalman's picture

I think the best (only?) reason that Iran would want a nuke is because of America's bullying stance.

If you have to deal with a bully, you sometimes have to use methods you are not really comfortable with.

 

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 23:49 | Link to Comment potlatch
potlatch's picture

Why are you presuming that we cannot simply decide who will acquire nukes from no on, at the regime level?  It is a very simple policy to design, and execute, since it involves the remarkably elegant formula: centrifuge + we think you are unstable = death.

 

I am not justifying such a fiat, but I am surprised it is not recognized, here of all places.  The military fiat is, in fact, the only sound currency we have, it seems to me.

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 23:01 | Link to Comment Vince Clortho
Vince Clortho's picture

Mines placed by small fast boats.

Thu, 03/15/2012 - 01:03 | Link to Comment OC Money Man
OC Money Man's picture

The military estimates are that Iran has 4500 fast boats.  Their strategy is to copy penguins and send massive waves.  Militarily this is very complicated to defend.

Thu, 03/15/2012 - 04:59 | Link to Comment Vlad Tepid
Vlad Tepid's picture

The mines (nowadays they are actually activated homing torpedos) are most likely already in place on the seafloor and just waiting for the signal to start homing in on their programmed targets.  Iran wouldn't waste time deploying them AFTER the shooting starts.

Wed, 03/14/2012 - 23:30 | Link to Comment jywhy999
jywhy999's picture

Promotional Products Top China Wholesaler-Buy Wholesale Promotional Gifts Promotional Products from China. Our main products are consumer electronics, gifts and souvenirs, health care products, beauty products, automobile parts, household items, plastic products, metal products, kitchen supplies, stationery, sports goods, toys, watches, leather products, etc. China Wholesale

Giveaway Material PortfolioPoncho Raincoat Ice Bottle Badge Reel Digital Money BankCar Mini Refrigerator Car Mini Refrigerator Wholesale Raincoat Bottle Opener KeychainWater Bottle Beach Towel Cake Towel Digital Spoon ScaleWholesale Memory Card Wholesale Calculator Pen Holder Magnetic Clip DispenserName Card Holder Frosty Beer Mug Wholesale Bangle Stapless StaplerMoney Clip Lady Beauty Care Wholesale Cooler Tire ToteWholesale Socks Pen Holder Wholesale Massager Foam MittPersonal Safety Products Hair Products Bottle Holder LED Flashing CapChina Wholesale Crystal Gifts Wholesale Fan Ring OpenerCorner Flag Wholesale Binoculars Wholesale Ruler Electric Heating MugWholesale Scissors Wholesale Frisbee Wholesale Hardware Tools Dog Training ClickerWholesale Compass Wholesale Lighter Wholesale Album Lunch BoxWholesale

Thu, 03/15/2012 - 01:35 | Link to Comment q99x2
q99x2's picture

Time to call your Drupal tech.

Thu, 03/15/2012 - 21:04 | Link to Comment Scrilla
Scrilla's picture

Is there a complete analysis/report from BNP from this?

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!