A $2M fee to pass through Hormuz, shield from future strikes
Posted by BendicantMias@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 119 comments
Fyi prewar there were about 140 ships moving through the strait per day. That works out to $102 billion per year at $2 million per ship, or $51 billion annually if it's shared equally with Oman. Iran's GDP is about $375 billion. Their defense budget is about $9.2 billion.
Tangentkoala@reddit
Honestly this just shows the stupidity of Iran. They should have done this decades ago.
Now they'll be swimming in $$$$
In one year they could fund 5 nuclear programs single handedly with this toll.
This is also going to slap a big bandaid on there economic strains now. They were close to an "off with your head" moment. But now they can plug this money back into Iran as crumbs to stabilize the people.
Lol we've made them stronger than before, added an unpredictable leader, and strengthened nationalism all in a matter of one month.
AskAboutMySecret@reddit
well 1) they didn't have the tech to cheaply destroy ships 2) international opinion is at a point where states understand Irans actions, 10 years ago a NATO coalition would likely intervene 3) they did this in response to US and Israeli provocation, doing it off the cuff would gain the ire of the international community
Blackout38@reddit
Yes yes their shit got blown up so now they have the right to take from their smaller neighbors. Shocking.
Bourbon-Decay@reddit
Their neighbors don't pay it. The shipping companies, or countries the ships are flagged under will pay it. Then ultimately, we will pay it.
Blackout38@reddit
That means those countries pay for it ffs. Iran is making their oil more expensive and less competitive while keeping prices high. Econ 101.
Half the strait is literally Oman’s and they have to take it from them to roll it.
Bourbon-Decay@reddit
No, it doesn't ffs. This is a globalized market that will raise the price of oil globally. It is essentially a tariff. Go back to Econ 101.
Oman received no money previously, and will now be receiving half of the toll. $1 million > $0. It is the opposite of taking it from Oman. Basic math ffs.
Blackout38@reddit
No it’s not a tariff it’s a toll and econ 101 shows that tolls reduce traffic. Don’t get me wrong it’s a a massive win for the US if they leave Iran to toll the Middle East oil but it absolutely will impact the rest of the OPEC countries, their neighbors, in a lasting way. They’ve been fighting proxy wars against each other and this would only lead to direct war as any nation in a similar circumstance has before. So yes the cost is being extracted from their neighbors not the companies because those companies can just find a cheaper source.
Bourbon-Decay@reddit
Yes, vehicle traffic on roadways. It isn't apples to apples. If you think Econ 101 can explain world oil markets, you obviously don't understand either. The worst aspect of Econ 101 is that it gave Chads the false confidence to explain the world economy. At its most basic, oil markets are inelastic and this toll will have very little impact on demand. Ffs, gas prices didn't increase solely on Middle Eastern oil after the US and Israel attacked Iran. The cost of a barrel of oil increased across the board.
Why would Oman decline shared revenue generation? Iran has agreed to share the toll with Oman, they weren't forced to.
Why? There is nothing to indicate that this will happen. In fact, Iran's willingness to share the proceeds from the toll indicates the opposite. Iran and Oman have had friendly relations, and Iran has distanced itself from attacking Oman. Toll sharing is obviously Iran's attempt at restoring friendly relations. Your ignorance is astounding.
SA has been attacked because they are both a rival of Iran, and SA has friendly relations with both the US and Israel. SA has allowed for US military bases on its soil, which are an existential threat to Iran. Iran's oil fields and petrochemical infrastructure have been targeted several times. Destroying SA oil infrastructure is obviously both strategically important to Iran, and an obvious outcome for countries in the region that have given support to the US and Israel. Controlling the Strait of Hormuz had become imperative to Iran's survival and defense, any attempt to undermine that is obviously a threat to Iran and its future. The East-West pipeline was constructed 40 years ago precisely for that reason.
Blackout38@reddit
That’s a whole lot of text just to agree with me that Iran is going to make their neighbor’s its pay for it and no it’s not a perfect comparison but only because of how long the lag is. Yes this will reduce traffic and i can say that for a fact because the core tenet of the energy market is “the cure for high prices is high prices, the cure for low prices is low prices.” Iran making their neighbor’s less competitive to enrich themselves is that cost and you already see it with Iran attacking Saudi Arabia so the oil has to flow through the strait.
I know Iran will force Oma to cooperate with them because Oman doesn’t have a US military base or major presence yet Iran attacked them during this conflict so they could hurt the world’s oil markets. Not a US ally, no bases, was negotiating for Iran, still attacked.
And on the gas piece, oil tankers move at the speed of a bicycle, we haven’t felt the oil shocks as the ships haven’t gotten here yet just the speculators.
SpinningHead@reddit
Trump put a new tariff on oil globally
Bourbon-Decay@reddit
Essentially, yes. But it won't be the US that receives the proceeds of the tariff. Iran and Oman are the beneficiaries.
discographyA@reddit
You think the neighbors will be paying it? Lol.
Blackout38@reddit
Whose oil is flowing through that strait? Of course their neighbors pay it. That’s exactly why Bahrain ask the security council to make this a global issue to defend their rights. And half the strait is Oman’s so to toll it, Iran has to control their part too.
And last time i check Iran’s been engaged in proxy wars and terror actions for decades with Israel and the US. Neither deserves praise but by all means go on thinking you can score points defending a bully against another. Very big of you.
RealAbd121@reddit
ww1 naval mines could've done this lol
AskAboutMySecret@reddit
they wouldn't allow you to set up a toll
RealAbd121@reddit
yes they would, Iran's trick isn't some tech they invented, they literally just said everything except this lane under our countrol will be danger zone, btw passing here is voluntary you just need to pay us money.
The "danger zone" being drones doesn't change anything compared to had it been anything else. cheap naval mines or a world class navy. it's very mundane bandit behavior!
AskAboutMySecret@reddit
??
explain to me how mines allow you set up a toll
mines are static, eventually you just figure out where they are and where they're not
RealAbd121@reddit
Oh You don't understand how Iran closed the strait then, we need to start from 0 in this case.
Iran has attacked 0 cargo ships, that's now what causes the strait to close, what they did is threaten to do so, which instantly caused Insurance to become so expensive or outright not something you can even buy anymore, which meant no one would willingly pass the strait. Sailing without insurance you're breaking international law and no port will work with you and you'll be punished on top of the life risk, so commerical traffic voluntarliy stopped itself. Only few ships who are basically working on behalf of countries not a company passed and those states made exceptions for their own ships due to the emergency.
Iran could very easily go out every night and set new mines, unless you think the US will have 100% patrol uptime watching forever basically. But that's actually irrlevent, Iran doesn't have to actually make passing 100% deadly or even 20%, it only has to make it unisurable. This is how Houthis closed their own strait, and they're doing it by drones or whatever they're literally using speedboats like they're somalian pirates. all they did was take over one or two ships and everyone else stopped using that strait out of fear!
midgetyaz@reddit
I didn’t know any of that. Thank you for running through it.
SaulsAll@reddit
Honestly the smart thing would not be a toll but to start offering a subscription fee. With a nice long EULA that is subject to change...
pimmen89@reddit
No, they should definitely not have done this because it sets a chaotic precedent. Why can’t Denmark and Sweden charge millions of dollars to go through Öresund? Or whatever market rate they want? That would be a huge blow to Russian trade.
Why can’t Indonesia and Malaysia charge millions to go through the strait of Malacca? That would be a huge blow to world trade.
Trump has struck the worst deal in history of deals, maybe ever. It’s definitely not sustainable because of all the other countries that can do the same now, with even more profound effects on world trade.
Czart@reddit
Well you see, now you can! Spain/UK/Morocco in Gibraltar, Turkey in Bosporus too. What a clownshow.
Maelger@reddit
Of course you always could. Why did you think the Brits colonised Gibraltar?
Czart@reddit
You could but people were not very happy with that, because it's unsurprisingly bad for trade, so treaties were created in order to ensure that precisely this doesn't happen. Personally i see very little reason for Danes and Turks to not withdraw from those.
why_i_bother@reddit
The international law that was denigrated as useful by fascists had a reason to exist? Riveting.
amphibia__enjoyer@reddit
Denmark can't do much here, the Kiel canal exists for a reason. Their revenue has dropped drastically (the toll was a large part of their income), after the canal was finalized. The Bosporus is really the only example where one country can unilaterally charge a toll and there would not be a way to circumvent it, apart from the examples like Panama or Suez, which already ask for a toll lmao.
Czart@reddit
Kiel would only allow passage to some ships, it's smaller than what can cross the straits. And there is nothing stoping Germany from also charging tolls.
And artificial waterways like Panama and Suez are treated differently and they're not comparable here.
amphibia__enjoyer@reddit
The Öresund toll was around for longer than most modern countries, germany killed it via the Kiel canal. Germany and Austria just kicked in Denmark's teeth and took Sleswig and Holstein, then the canal was the death blow. Without those events, the toll might still be around.
esjb11@reddit
Not like Iran cares about those other straights. They are happy. If this holds they have won a war against the greatest current world power and gotten enormous compensation.
pimmen89@reddit
This is why the deal is so bad because everyone else has a causus belli for conflict now. We would apparently be in the right if we closed off the waterways around Sweden for Russia, because just having a shore against it apparently means you get to dictate terms of the international waterway.
If this deal stands it’s bound to have massive consequences.
esjb11@reddit
USA went to war. They lost. They surrendered Iran the right to toll the straight. (If this holds)
Now its either up to the rest of the world to solve their shit or Iran has a new sweet straight to toll.
Yes it does set a bad pretext but other countries still have to endure it, like they could have before. But yes its bad.
It is bad to lose a war.
discographyA@reddit
Even if the Strait was reopened without a toll or anything else it would cause everyone to start having a back up plan. As always this is a pain point due to being cheap and complacency of all the actors even though it was the most obvious move that was telegraphed from a million miles away as what would happen. The tolls will last for a couple years to help them rebuild their damaged infrastructure and Oman will get some financial boost as well and by that point there is likely to be some other devised way that they didn’t want to previously contend with because the Strait was the point of least friction until it wasn’t.
BendicantMias@reddit (OP)
Funny thing, there already IS a backup plan in the works. Has been for years. But Europe will HATE it lol - https://youtu.be/kokpJ8jxF6s?si=a5os6qMf9vdKFoL_
Not just a safer shipping route, but a cheaper and faster one too. But, well...
esjb11@reddit
You cant change the geography that much. Pipelines doesnt have even close to the same capaicty and can also be destroyed.
Alternative is to stop relying on the Arab states for oil which wouldnt be the point of least friction. It would instead be incredibly expensive. Tolls are cheaper.
BendicantMias@reddit (OP)
Just wait till the US starts a war with China, and threatens to block the Malacca Strait to avoid having to risk destroyed closer to China's coasts. That would be an open impingement on the nations surrounding that waterway. Perfect opportunity for the Malacca nations to decide to exert their control over that Straits' waters then, especially if that war also fails for the US.
StunningLetterhead23@reddit
Tbf, us southeast asians can't really properly control our waters. Just look at how China is encroaching into our borders.
That's why there's a US base in Singapore although it's not hosting a large standing army. That base is essential for US' first island chain strategy.
If there's anyone who's going to blockade the straits, it probably wouldn't be us, Indonesia and Thailand. Or even India. Most probably it'll be US and its allies (which would likely also include Malaysia).
BendicantMias@reddit (OP)
Wouldn't even work frankly. First off, narrow waterways are death traps for ships, so you likely can block it yourselves if you want, similar to how Iran did it. But also China can block shipping to Taiwan, and even Japan, in turn. Those are islands, unlike China, and utterly depend on shipping to sustain themselves. That would force the US to come close and fight them, or risk their allies starving long before China does. It would look incredibly cowardly if the US was so scared of fighting China that it even abandoned its allies just to avoid facing them. They'll never live that down.
StunningLetterhead23@reddit
Now I'm just speaking on the side of my country first, what I'm saying is that we're not exactly capable enough to both stop ships from passing AND withstand the external pressure.
And also, this is just a purely hypothetical scenario.
Say, Malaysia starts to block the route. Then it wouldn't take much effort for either of the superpowers to really cripple the country. Not really trying to talk bad about my country's military but we're not exactly prepared for intercepting missiles and such, at least as of now.
Our military's ain't that bad, really. We just don't go bombing other countries for no reason. The govt only sent some troops in those UN peacekeeping forces. Like, Scott Ridley forgot to put some Malaysian soldiers in Black Hawk Down. But compared to countries that not only spend a lot for their military and actually have ongoing wars like Iran, there's still a huge difference.
This is why the West bothered to "bestow" upon us the Five Powers Defence Agreement after the British left. A "bastion against communism", they say.
Again, not saying that a blockade would be impossible. But when Hu Jintao coined the term Malacca dilemma, it was an American or Indian blockade that he's preparing for.
BendicantMias@reddit (OP)
Iran didn't defeat the US air force militarily. It simply refused to give in and caused enough chaos that America had to back down or things got even worse. They aren't even the first to win like that. The US spent trillions in Afghanistan just to replace the Taliban - with the Taliban. Also see who won the Vietnam war. Etc. etc.
The US can't stick around forever, in fact their appetite for casualties is remarkably low. And just a small amount of chaos is enough for the insurance industry to do the rest of the work for you.
As for Hu, note that I didn't say China would waltz in and break the blockade easily. Rather I said they could simply blockade the US' allies - including the one it would be ostensibly fighting China for - in turn. Again, even just threats and a few demonstrations that you're serious will be enough for the shipping companies to shut everything in the region down. And unlike China, those nations are islands.
Lastly, a key piece of info to note is that China is the worlds' largest shipbuilder. The US barely exists in that industry. The only other significant players are Korea and Japan - both next to China and at least one of them a potential target. Most of those ships that are being blockaded, either in Malacca or off of Taiwan and Japan - China built them. And continues to. Without China, the global shipping industry itself - among many other things - would eventually grind to a halt.
Express_Spirit_3350@reddit
I feel like you mentionning the "first chain island strategy" should explain to you exactly why China is "encroaching on your borders".
You are not Iran, you are the UAE.
StunningLetterhead23@reddit
That's a very good analogy.
Best we can do is play both sides. Despite how closely intertwined the so-called bamboo network is with Malaysia's economy, we can't also deny the fact that US is our oldest investor out of all modern countries existing now.
Even for me, I'm employed by my home country to work in US.
Express_Spirit_3350@reddit
From what I can see, China has upped the diplomatic game in recent years. Honestly, SE Asia is the part of the world I'm less worried about. Of course, it always just takes 1 group ready for violence, but you guys seem to be the most level headed on the planet. I always keep going back to that exemple, but the demilitarized border between India and China says a lot about the region's maturity imo.
StunningLetterhead23@reddit
We're more worried about fighting inside the region rather than against "foreign aggressors" honestly. We've always been very cooperative against any external problems because we know we're only truly strong when we're united.
A funny example of how united we can be is a recent twitter beef between ASEAN and Korean K-pop fans over some concert thing iinm.
The reason we've mainly been very accommodating to both China and US other than any historical or cultural ties is because we also can't lose either one of them. There are things that both of them just can't replace one another yet.
Worth_Garbage_4471@reddit
Because the US blocks them from using the world financial system, which is the worst and most devastating sort of toll. If you went along with that, you don't get to object to this.
buster_de_beer@reddit
Denmark used to do that. They decided, under pressure, to change that after being payed a one time fee. Not sure what the outcome would've been if they hadn't done that, but the major powers of the day would've taken some action.
pimmen89@reddit
The major powers did take actiok, by backing Sweden in a lot wars against Denmark. The Netherlands often backed Sweden when it was profitable for them back in the 16th and 17th century, when it was a great power in its own right.
buster_de_beer@reddit
Fair enough, but it wasn't until 1857 that they formally stopped the toll.
Express_Spirit_3350@reddit
Why was the West not respecting the fredom of navigation in the first place? Because they were strong enough to impose their will. There is a new protocol in the Hormuz strait now.
Seizing "shadow fleet ships" is nothing else than piracy. International law doesnt require you get the "go-ahed" from the US or the UK or France to sail in international waters, yet they seize ship they sanction unilaterally.
Welcome to the "West has lost at its own game" chapter.
pimmen89@reddit
If you’re using false flags to evade sanctions you are breaking all kinds of naval laws, and enforcing them is not piracy. That’s why Russian shadowfleet ships are seized and it’s not piracy, otherwise Russia would take countries to court and argue that it’s piracy instead of unleashing armchair lawyers on Reddit spamming ”piracy”.
kapsama@reddit
Typical arrogance from a European. "these are out laws and you better follow them or its my right to steal your shit and claim the theft is legitimate".
Well Iran is making their own laws in the Hormuz.
pimmen89@reddit
Russia has not only signed the treaties outlining these laws but was a major force in bringing them about. These are not just Europe’s laws, these are laws endorsed and used by Russia too. Russian companies recognize and use the same laws all the time to argue cases in their favor.
Express_Spirit_3350@reddit
It is piracy, and Russia says it. Why do you pretend there is an enforcer for those laws?
If Russia used the seizing country's flag, or if the ships were actually of the nationality of the seizing country while flying another flag, it would be fine.
Its not the case, it is piracy.
pimmen89@reddit
There are maritime courts and trade courts for this, I’m not oretending at all. Shipping is a mulyi billion dollar industry, of course there’s courts and enforcement for this.
If a ship is flying a false flag to avoid sanctions it’s breaking the law. The companies operating the ships, whether they’re state owned or not, can argue piracy in coury but chooses not to since it’s not piracy and they would have to reveal more of their criminal actions in discovery.
Express_Spirit_3350@reddit
I gave you the conditions under which a country can seize a ship. The US, UK, France (do I remember a ship seized by Germany too) are engaging in piracy.
Caffeywasright@reddit
There is a reason why closing international shipping traffic is considered an act of war by the UN charters.
RagingBillionbear@reddit
They might in a year or two.
Johnny_C13@reddit
Honestly, the comment you replied to just shows the stupidity of the average redditor.
TheBannaMeister@reddit
The Art of the Deal: When both sides get fucked
Drewskeet@reddit
Struck the worst deals of deals so far. Don’t underestimate his Art of the deal. He’s still got 3 years left of his term.
freef49@reddit
3?!? Bloody hell. Can you yanks actually do something about it? We’d all like to stop living in such interesting times.
Chipay@reddit
If Iran unilateraly decided to close the strait without prior aggression you can bet your ass Europe would have joined the US into another Middle-Eastern war and support for a land invasion would have been way higher.
Global perception is that the US forced Iran to close the strait in self-defense, the optics have never been so favourable for the Iranian regime as it is now.
Kinperor@reddit
Hear hear.
You can say what you want about the Iranian government, but no one can deny they have been patient and tempered over the last few years. I don't think they could've walk away with this deal if they didn't show so much diplomatic discipline.
Worth_Garbage_4471@reddit
The demonization of Iran as a country by the US and Israel since the 1980s has been unbelievable. Europe has cravenly gone along. Hopefully they will stop now.
Kinperor@reddit
I agree, but let's not pretend the UK weren't as aggravated as USrael by their oil puppet being overthrown.
Worth_Garbage_4471@reddit
To be honest, I don't include the UK in Europe. They pioneered the mentality and tactics of the present US empire, and they will poodle to the end.
Illustrious-Run3591@reddit
What they said ^
Caffeywasright@reddit
There would be no way to enforce it without going to war with the entire world. Even know it’s still teetering.
MrCockingFinally@reddit
Had they done it decades ago, America would have bombed their navy and infrastructure to shit. The only reason that they are doing it now is that America has already bombed their infrastructure to shit for no reason.
Boris2509@reddit
I don't think such a blatant disregard for international law would've been viable for iran under anyone but trump. free flow of goods over seas is the founding tenet of the international order. no way any US president over the past decades would've let (especially after no longer being allied to the US) Iran charge a cent in toll.
BufferUnderpants@reddit
Other US Presidents were content with waging economic warfare on Iran, so they didn't find themselves in Trump's position: almost completely exhaust the US' options with legitimate bombing targets to no gain, leave no room to escalate that aren't outright invasion or genocide.
The whole thing of bombing negotiators as an intimidation tactic, and partly out of boredom, is Trump's personal brand, and it ensured this.
Boris2509@reddit
Thanks for the roundabout way of agreeing I guess? other presidents would've never let Iran break international law in ceasefire. There was a ceasefire before trump bommed Iran. There was also a nuclear deal signed by obama before trump blew it up. tensions with Iran were decreasing. the straight was open. then trump blew the deal up and now he's blowing up the world economy. Please explain how previous US presidents somehow forced his hand? over 10 years ago before he even became president all his war aims were already achieved. I agree that not a single US president has ever found themselves fighting a war they started themselves after their predecesors already achieved all their war goals before they started it.
BufferUnderpants@reddit
I thought you were saying that other US Presidents somehow wouldn't let Iran get away with this after starting a war.
They wouldn't because they'd have listened to their advisors, and wouldn't have started this thing.
The missing factor is the unstated war aims, Israel's, the only way it makes rational sense for them to goad the US into getting into this war were if they wanted Iran to be neutered as a regional power... and two millions per oil tanker doesn't look like the start of a whole civilizational decline.
Caffeywasright@reddit
Closing the straight pre attack would be a declaration of war. It’s that simple. How would you enforce it if say Italy was trying to sail through? If they didn’t pay you would blow up the ship? Then go to war with NATO? Good luck.
Maybe_this_time_fr@reddit
Honestly this just shows the stupidity of Tangentkoala. Iran couldn't just have done this decades ago without getting obliterated by the rest of the world.
happybaby00@reddit
Khamenei wanted a deterrent against Israel but didn't play his whole cards because of sanctions
furimmerkaiser@reddit
Don't blame the Iranians. They never had an awesome deal-maker like Trump and now thanks to Trump, Iran will be great again. I have to admit, Trump is the best deal maker.
BendicantMias@reddit (OP)
If they'd done this decades ago, there would have been war on them decades ago, using this as a pretext. They're being allowed to this now cos there has been war on them anyway, and an illegal one at that, which failed and now they can take this as their makeup prize. As it is, I'm not sure how long this ceasefire will stick in the first place. Trump probably never even read the terms before agreeing to them. When he realizes how embarassing they are...
If Trump isn't able to sell this pathetic embarassment as a "win" to his votebase, he'll probably torpedo it and try again. He needs to look like he won.
Andreas1120@reddit
Trump definitely handed Iran a lot more power. What an amazing miscalculation. And yet. There will be no backlash from his base. To a certain extent that's impressive. Very loyal even when gas goes up 25%
Morgn_Ladimore@reddit
I think there will be a backlash in the midterms. That's likely also the reason why Trump was so desperate for a ceasefire. This went on for much longer than he thought it would. He thought he could pull a Venezuela, but they severely underestimated Iran.
I think a lot of people who didn't vote in the last election will be motivated to vote now.
kapsama@reddit
I mean their choices are always a full flavored shit sandwich or a Shit Sandwich Light.
How long can you motivate a voter base with "if you vote for them they will destroy the country, if you vote for us we won't help you".
Morgn_Ladimore@reddit
Only objectively, the Democrats are better for the average American than Republicans. For example, Democrats don't mass cut social service programs because of dumb things like "critical race theory" or whatever, or massively cut international aid, or blow up a mutually beneficial agreement with Iran for no reason. They're not ideal and worst of all, they have shown they will happily support a genocide if it's done by an ally. But they're still miles and miles better than the Republicans, both for Americans and globally.
kapsama@reddit
They're not better to the degree that it motivates voters. Sure the depradations of the Trump regime might cause a temporary voter spike. But over the long term the same dynamics will return.
Morgn_Ladimore@reddit
They are in the sense that every so often, the voters have to feel the pain of what a Republican presidency is like. And then when things are relatively stable under the Democrats (which is still not great for many Americans) they start demanding change again. Which the Democrats won't be able to provide, because they're a neoliberal party and not a progressive one (see the previous election). And so a Republican wins the election.
The Democrats absolutely have their share of the blame for this mess. But the Republicans are so batshit insane and openly corrupt that the Democrats are still way better.
kapsama@reddit
We're in agreement pretty much. And unless the Neo-Liberal order is abandoned there will be no improvement.
Kori-Anders@reddit
"Democrats don't mass cut social service programs because of dumb things like "critical race theory" or whatever"
Joe Biden's administration is responsible for one of the largest cuts to social services programs thanks to him rescinding the pandemic aid. Nothing forced them to do that.
BendicantMias@reddit (OP)
Unfortunately, the campaign plank of 'vote for us cos the other side is worse' isn't a very effective strategy. The result is usually that people just get disgruntled and don't vote at all. People need to be actually inspired to vote, first to vote at all and only then to vote for you.
Andreas1120@reddit
I mean he is following his platform. I think what is real power is that he has redefined the relationship between what politicans can say at different times and what they do. Politicans used to think very hard about what to say. He just says everything, then later he picks that time and says he was right. I honestly think that he is not demented or stupid. He has Narcissistic Personality disorder, this kind of cognitive maneuvering is often a part of it. It's done to maintain his narcissistic supplies without any thought to present or past, truth and lie.
FudgeAtron@reddit
Does this mean $2 million to Iran and Oman for each ship? So each ship is paying a $4 million toll?
If that's the case I strongly doubt many ships can afford to pay that.
This is a huge loss for the Gulf States, they're basically being put under economic blockade by the Iranians.
PooEater5000@reddit
1.4 billion dollars of oil passed through the straight a day before the conflict. That’s about 20 million barrels at $70 a pop now they’re worth $90+. 138 ships a day went through Hormuz before the senile cheese flavoured corn chip kicked off his history books application, that’s still only 278 million for passage. And the gulf states won’t be wearing the cost, we will.
FudgeAtron@reddit
Of course they will, where do you think their food imports come from? The gulf imports everything except oil, so they're getting hit with a $4 million entry and exit fee for every ship. Their domestic prices are about to go up.
The gulf Monarchies might have to deal with their first massive bouts of inflation because they won't have oil revenues covering the import subsidies and thus will print more money to cover their asses.
PooEater5000@reddit
2 million every ship, and the price of import fees will go onto what they charge for oil exports.
FudgeAtron@reddit
Is it? As I understand it's $2 million to Iran $2 million to Oman, which makes it $4 million.
Which will increase the price of imports, because ship fuel will cost more. Apparently only 30 to 50% of the ships passing through the straits carry oil, that means oil prices will need to rise enough to cover their own cost plus another ship's cost, assuming 50% are carrying oil. So each ship carrying oil at the very best needs to account for an extra $8 million in tolls to account for both its own tolls plus at least another ship's.
PooEater5000@reddit
Are you a bot? Say potato
FudgeAtron@reddit
Potato.
Is maths not a core subject down in Oz? Cause nothing I've said is very complicated.
Now can you address my points.
PooEater5000@reddit
Respectfully I had more correct maths in my first comment than you’ve had altogether. Also I don’t think you’re in any situation to be calling out another country on how they educate.
FudgeAtron@reddit
source?
Aussies and being rude is great pair, remind me what you did to the tasmans?
imunfair@reddit
It's $2 million split from what I understand, not sure if its doubled by the in/out thing or not - I would imagine a formal agreement would make it a round trip fee.
FudgeAtron@reddit
The fact it's unclear is the problem. This is also why the world abolished these kind of tolls, because they're completely unworkable and will ultimately lead to Iran firing on neutral shipping to enforce the tolls.
alpha_berchermuesli@reddit
I am not entirely convinced that fee proposal is not in Iranian Rial.
That being said, the straight is less than 50km in it's narrowest part. Any European country with such a geographic feature that poses both invaluable to economy and an extreme constrain on nature (external costs) would add a tarif to cover costs and a price they pay.
As there are international laws to prevent having tolls on international water (which this is not), one might as well rewrite these laws to allow for a specific toll within a range based on something reasonable, with constrains as to for what the revenue may be used for (e.g. road/train infrastructure). Switzerland has a similar system for heavy road transport to cover for such costs. It just happens not to be a muslim country. That makes it more ok I guess.
Blarg_III@reddit
Denmark doesn't have the sound tolls any more.
pimmen89@reddit
And Denmark is a good reason why we don’t do that anymore. Denmark was able to use the sound dues to become very powerful in the Medieval and early Modern period. But every great power hated it so when the Age of Sail made so much more if trade naval based, they usually backed Sweden whenever Sweden went to war with Denmark, which is one of the reasons Sweden became a great power while Denmark remained a middle power and declined (which Sweden also did after the Great Northern War).
Locking an important strait down seems like a good idea and gives you a steady cash revenue, but it’s political suicide. Whoever promises to make it an international waterway now has the full backing of everyone else.
BendicantMias@reddit (OP)
So who's gonna promise to open it up here? We just had the world's current superpower wage war on them, fail to win and then demand they open it, and now it's come to this. Somehow I don't think Sweden or anyone else is going to be keen to offer to have its crack at the problem...
AskAboutMySecret@reddit
unless Iran includes the other gulf countries in this toll scheme, I imagine the UAE or Saudi Arabia will be looking at how to regain control of the strait
BendicantMias@reddit (OP)
Both of them were literally attacked by Iran during this war. No ambiguity, no denial, no pretense. Direct military attacks, not by proxies by the Iranian state. And - they did nothing. They knew Iran could hit back even harder, so they sat on their hands.
If this scheme actually lasts long term, which tbh I'm skeptical of to begin with simply because of how embarrassing it is for the US if Trumps' sheep ever realize that, then more likely their main response will be to look for ways to move their shipping to the other side of the Arabian peninsula i.e to the Red Sea. Albeit that'd take years, and Iran already threatened to block the other Strait i.e. Bab Al-Mandeb via the Houthis. Or they try to divert towards the south of the peninsula, but that again means fixing the Yemen situation i.e. the Houthi problem pops up again.
AskAboutMySecret@reddit
TBH little reason for the toll fee to be in Iranian Rial
They're sanctioned and the currency is weak and volatile, they're better off having it in Yuan since they trade so much with China
Magjee@reddit
Time for an Asian equivalent to the Euro
The Asshoe?
pimmen89@reddit
There’s tons of straits that have had tolls on them that are free international waterways now. The Öresund strait, strait of Gibraltar, strait of Malacca, Bosphorus strait, strait of Otranto, strait of Dover and many more couod all be put under toll now with this precedent, many of these are European too.
So, no, basically every European and major country in the world has all opened up geographic chokepoints as international waterways. It’s not ok for any country, Muslim or not, if it wakts to partake in the international system.
BendicantMias@reddit (OP)
That international system also has to stop and punish wars then, including ones by the US and Israel. So far neither has even been sanctioned, let alone any intervention to fight them off formed. There's no point calling something illegal if you're ignoring legality whenever convenient...
Bis_Eastwood@reddit
Pretty sure its not rial, the main reason behind the tolls is to pay for reconstruction of the shit that got blown up by us and the rabid dog.
fretnbel@reddit
We don't do it. The Channel is free to pass. Same as Gibraltar & Bosporus.
SageThunder@reddit
You think they’ll charge a dollar USD per ship?
QuotableMorceau@reddit
Strait of Malacca, Strait of Gibraltar, Bosphorus Strait ... they are all fair game now ...
Firecracker048@reddit
Your math is way off.
It would translate to roughly 35 to 45 billion per year, or roughly a 10% revenue increase
That is of course if everything stays the same and other countries don't go to alternative methods
BendicantMias@reddit (OP)
140 ships per day x $2 million per ship = $280 million per day
$280 million per day x 365 days = $102.2 billion per year
If half goes to Oman, that's $51.1 billion per year.
drink_with_me_to_day@reddit
3000+ ships pay for an oil duct on land, depending on the math people will stop using ships
aykcak@reddit
As a starting offer, it is ridiculous but can easily be negotiated. There is something workable other than yelling and threats which don't seem to achieve anything.
Oil prices would stabilize at a new high, countries would work towards reducing their oil dependency and we would have a future where we don't need Iran eventually anymore
pimmen89@reddit
If you’re using false flags to evade sanctions you are breaking all kinds of naval laws, and enforcing them is not piracy. That’s why Russian shadowfleet ships are seized and it’s not piracy, otherwise Russia would take countries to court and argue that it’s piracy instead of unleashing armchair lawyers on Reddit spamming ”piracy”.
Trollimperator@reddit
Freedom of navigation was yesterday. At this time the american voter has to think, if he needs enemies with presidents like this. This military failure was started to distract from the failures at home, for the epstein files, from ICE, from the inflation and the down trend of the economy.
Trump truely has shown what he is capable of. And what he is not.
notarobat@reddit
100 school children were murdered for America's idiotic ideas.