Exactly, there is another suspect DS news cycle surrounding the Australian "tourists" that have been jailed for over 10 weeks. This story along with the Australian story smells like DS fuckery, Ausies would love to get their DS operatives out of Iran jail through publicly disguising these two citizens as innocent, highly empathetic individuals.
[–] 20607607? 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Ryan Lance, head of ConocoPhillips, said North American oil output could reach 15m b/d by 2020 and 25m b/d over the next quarter century, three times Saudi Arabia's current exports.
It does not hurt then to have Saudi Arabia a bit to the sidelines, does it. It will also provoke Iran to try a few fast ones. Let's see what happens. At any rate, Us is set for the coming 100 years. (Check the map in the article)
[–] 20604105? 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago (edited ago)
No. Everyone is fucked with this act. The whole thing is a M.A.D. Activation Probable.
The multi-system cascading collapse has just now begun. We have three options left: collapse a major system in the cascade path ourselves and direct it away from the rest of the planet; crawl into the biggest-deepest-toughest bunker possible; stick head between legs and kiss ass goodbye. Choose quickly.
[–] 20602976? 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
Our oil price is the global price! The net shortfall is global, not domestic. The USA can put additional volumes on the global market, so as to hold the available 'supply' steady.
There could be a 'where available' problem, east coast vs west coast.
[–] 20608899? ago (edited ago)
I've been trying to figure this out since I heard about it on the weekend. There are no coincidences, so what is the connection between the departure / ouster of John Bolton, and this "Iranian" attack on Saudi Arabia.
1. Bolton left after the debacle with the Taliban meeting at Camp David. Still don't understand the strategic decision to tweet out that the meeting had been planned. They could have kept it secret, so there must be a reason they let it be known. Distraction?
2. Rand Paul was happy about Bolton leaving. Paul is basically a pacifist, so his being happy about Bolton leaving would indicate that he figured Bolton was pushing Trump towards some kind of military strike / action against Iran.
3. Ted Cruz was disappointed that Bolton left, basically saying that it meant Trump was planning on easing up on sanctions.
4. 2 and 3 seem to make sense together ... that Bolton's departure indicated reduced pressure on Iran.
5. If 4 is true, why would Iran attack the Saudi oil fields and risk any good will that MAY have been being created with US?
6. Whether the attack came from Yemeni Houthis, or directly from Iran is irrelevant since Iran is supplying the Yemeni's anyway.
7. What other local actors other than Iran would be well served by trying to drag US into military intervention in that area? Trump seems to be steadfastly avoiding blatant military involvement, but this has the markings of someone trying to drag him in, possibly somewhat desperate after "their guy" Bolton the "warhawk" was removed from his position of influence.
Trump has made his career and fortune by negotiating, pressuring, and outsmarting his opponents / competition. The Persians invented the game of chess, so they're master strategists. Trump is clearly a master strategist himself, but I'm hoping he doesn't fall into the trap of underestimating his opponent, or wait too long to knock over the chess board. Maybe he can move a few pieces when the Iranians aren't watching?
[–] 20619155? ago
I think those pieces were already moved!
US is #1 oil producer now. That's likely to remain, even if SA rebuilds in 2-3 weeks like news today said. Another attack seems likely. And I wouldn't be surprised to learn that ... it's self-inflicted.
Xi and Kim seem to smile much more than they should. Seems a game's afoot, but what do I know? :)