Election Year or Fear!

[Geoff Parkstone]

‘2 different UK news outlets’ who just happen to be Starmer’s leading critics, The Sun and The Daily Telegraph. Entirely coincidental of course.

I think on balance I am happy to see Starmer not following the warmnonger Blair's strategy in joining in with the offensive actions against Iran, but that doesnt seem to have stopped Iranian counter strikes on British installations in Cyprus. Now it seems he's agreed to allowing US to use our airbases in their actions, in common with many other European countries, notably Greece.

iIs a delicate balance to try to achieve, especially in view of our non EU status and the relatively new trade deals with US and Starmer is doing OK in my view in this respect, trying to walk the tightrope - but for how long I dont know. Seems the Chinese are lining up behind Iran (no surprise there as its all about Chinese aceess to Iranian oil) and this escalation will heap more pressure on NATO.

Am struggling to see a good ending here as IMO its not about Iranian regime change per se, its about the bigger battle for economic dominance between US and China and cutting off Chinese access to energy by destabilising their biggest supplier, having just taken tighter control over their second biggest supplier in Venezuela. Can see maybe the Chinese moving in on Taiwan whilst the other two major powers focus on their own battles, but they for sure cannot sit back and watch their oil suppliers get consumed in this way.

Much as I think regime change in Iran is a laudable objective, I really dont think its the main point here, and Starmer is right to stand back from this for now - something I have to say through gritted teeth :-)

[swaledale]

I think on balance I am happy to see Starmer not following the warmnonger Blair's strategy in joining in with the offensive actions against Iran, but that doesnt seem to have stopped Iranian counter strikes on British installations in Cyprus. Now it seems he's agreed to allowing US to use our airbases in their actions, in common with many other European countries, notably Greece.

iIs a delicate balance to try to achieve, especially in view of our non EU status and the relatively new trade deals with US and Starmer is doing OK in my view in this respect, trying to walk the tightrope - but for how long I dont know. Seems the Chinese are lining up behind Iran (no surprise there as its all about Chinese aceess to Iranian oil) and this escalation will heap more pressure on NATO.

Am struggling to see a good ending here as IMO its not about Iranian regime change per se, its about the bigger battle for economic dominance between US and China and cutting off Chinese access to energy by destabilising their biggest supplier, having just taken tighter control over their second biggest supplier in Venezuela. Can see maybe the Chinese moving in on Taiwan whilst the other two major powers focus on their own battles, but they for sure cannot sit back and watch their oil suppliers get consumed in this way.

Much as I think regime change in Iran is a laudable objective, I really dont think its the main point here, and Starmer is right to stand back from this for now - something I have to say through gritted teeth :-)

Its difficult to establish what the aim is, but undoubtedly the "hawks" who are now in Trump's administration have long wanted to attack Iran, plus the view that Trump listens to the last person who speaks to him, then yes there is a possibility that its a wider strategy against China, but equally possible that Trump is rather fond of being an imperialistic super power throwing its weight around and removing leaders he doesn't like.

The problem is as you have suggested, is that China will see this behaviour and use it as an excuse to attack Taiwan, becuase the US, though often on rather shaky ground re invading other countries and attemptng regime change, generally hasn't gone about it without a reasonable excuse.

There is unfortunately a dangerous precedent being set here and with an increasingly unhinged and impetuous Trump no knowing quite where it will all end.

[SithHappens]

Interesting when Trump was saying Obama would attack Iran, which he didn't, Farage was posting saying we should stay out of other people's wars and it was wrong to bomb Iran. Now hes all for it.

They call starmer flip-flop but Farage changes his mind about as often as he changes his pants.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Interesting when Trump was saying Obama would attack Iran, which he didn't, Farage was posting saying we should stay out of other people's wars and it was wrong to bomb Iran. Now hes all for it.

They call starmer flip-flop but Farage changes his mind about as often as he changes his pants.

I have no insight into the frequency of his pant changing or personal hygiene, but welcome to politics !!

[swaledale]

Interesting when Trump was saying Obama would attack Iran, which he didn't, Farage was posting saying we should stay out of other people's wars and it was wrong to bomb Iran. Now hes all for it.

They call starmer flip-flop but Farage changes his mind about as often as he changes his pants.

Ah but now its his "mate" doing it, Farage has to suck up to him!!

[swaledale]

Mm I was obviously confused by your claim that DEMAND WOULD SLUMP, when obviously its supply thats the problem! Maybe ensure your own posts are correct before adopting a superior tone?

Yes there is an issue in that ships can't acess loading facilties if they are the wrong side of the Strait of Hormuz, and if they are too large to traverse the Suez canal they won't be able to depart either.

So there is medium term disrupton, but there is an alternative route for the many, unless of course about 25% of the world's oil is sourced from here, maybe Trump's sequestration of Venezuelian oil has a point, apart from its low quality of course.

Hard to see how your pet theory about choking off China's oil is realistic if the US action has choked off the world's supply. In point of fact though, gas supply is probably going to be a bigger issue than oil.

[Geoff Parkstone]

For clarity therefore I was referring to the supply/demand dynamics for the tanker capacity, and frankly noone can really do anything but take an educated guess as to how those dynamics will move it such a volatile geopolitical environment. My logic was that if regime change is achieved and Iranian oil ceases to be sanctioned, then there wouls be an oversupply of tanker capacity in the market leading to feight rate pricing falling as there isnt enough demand for that surplus capacity.

Of course this depends on whether the conventional tanker markets and charterers accept the dark fleet back into the fold or not. If so there will be an oversupply, a drop in demand and freight rates will fall leading to probems for tanker owners funding expensive new buildings. Alternatively a lot of the dark fleet may be scrapped or owners ostracised. Insurance markets may not readmit former dark vessels into the clubs, but underwriters are always after new business regardless of history.

I have no idea how things may evolve otherwise I'd be buying or selling freight rate futures !! So youre just as likely right as I am, or more likely we are both wrong. But either way geopoltical twists and turns since Marinakis fundraise (which is where we started) have/will make him either seem a genius or a fool!

My understanding of the Chinese oil importing process is that they blended the heavier Venezuelan crude with the lighter Iranian crude in their large ship parks off Singapore before transhipping them to the teapots in Shandong, so it seems likely that they need a bit of both to make their processing work most effectively. that said iran produces both light and heavy so the desire for venezuelan crude may be price driven mainly.

[swaledale]

So, in launching a huge bombing campaign on Iran they apparently didn't plan for:

- Who takes over;
- Interceptor shortages from sustained drone retaliation;
- How to defend US bases in the region;
- Threats to ships in the Strait of Hormuz; and
- How to evacuate Americans with airspace closed.

Meanwhile the Daily Fail slags off Starmer for not whole heartedly backing Trump's illegal and badly planned war. FFS!

[Ram Pant]

So, Israel pulls the US into attacking Iran.
Russia condemns it as illegal.
The attack, quite likely, opens the door for China to invade Taiwan.
No country is condemning the attack as they don't want to be called antisemitic.
Neither Israel not the US expected Iran to bomd the entire Gulf.
I am of the opinion that, regardless of what happens in this "war", whether it goes wel or not for Israel/USA, they don't have an exit strategy.
It will all end in tears, for the 90% of the Iranians who have been terrorised by the RG, Army and Police for decades. That 90% don't have weapons but the RG etc do, and lots iof them. Protests will, yet again see mass killings.

[swaledale]

So, Israel pulls the US into attacking Iran.
Russia condemns it as illegal.
The attack, quite likely, opens the door for China to invade Taiwan.
No country is condemning the attack as they don't want to be called antisemitic.
Neither Israel not the US expected Iran to bomd the entire Gulf.
I am of the opinion that, regardless of what happens in this "war", whether it goes wel or not for Israel/USA, they don't have an exit strategy.
It will all end in tears, for the 90% of the Iranians who have been terrorised by the RG, Army and Police for decades. That 90% don't have weapons but the RG etc do, and lots iof them. Protests will, yet again see mass killings.

Now the US has torpedoed an Iranian Warship off the coast of Sri Lanka! TV personality turned Sec of War Hegseth thinks its a video game. This is getting dangerous.

Plus the view is beign expressed that Iran has more drones than there are interceptors and could continue the random launching of drones for a long time.

One would think that the myth of being able to win a war, primarily through bombing, would have been busted by history, but then I guess the US doesn't recognise any history where its been a failure! Rather like Trump and his business "acumen"!