Recent Items

Iran War: Israel Makes Massive Bomb Blast in Southern Lebanon, Threatens Imminent Attack on Iran; Iran Refuses Meeting with US on Strait of Hormuz as Assembly of Experts Statement Assures Already Likely Death of MOU; Strait of Hormuz Transits Increasing as Iran and Oman Not on Same Page

Posted on by

[Today’s Iran war update launched before complete. Please return at 8:00 AM EDT or refresh this page then for a final version]

As the US (and Gulf states) and Iran are in a staredown over control over the Strait of Hormuz, Israel is, even more than usual, in its “ever be escalating” mode. Israel detonated a very heavy bomb on an underground Hezbollah weapons storage site, creating such a massive blast that settlers in northern Israel felt it. The deranged Israel defense minister Katz is also now saying that an attack on Iran is coming soon. He also makes clear that Israel has capabilities it has not used. That is consistent with our speculation when the US over-retaliated against the drone strike on the Oman-side transiting Ever Lovely, that the reaction indicated either yet more Trump lunacy or a belief that the US and Israel had some new clever means to bring Iran to heel.

We’ll soon turn to the very tough statement by Iran’s Assembly of Experts on the negotiations, which appears to have governing clout in Iran. The short version is they are Not Happy and insist that Iran make no concessions. That is not surprising since, as we surmised yesterday, it appears Iran has not yet gotten the $6 billion of frozen funds from Qatar that Iran president Pezeshkian said Iran “expected” to get. From Aljazeera’s landing page:1

Recall that the Twittersphere and YouTuber take was that meant Iran had gotten those monies, when the use of the word “expected” said the opposite. Oh, and that $6 billion of the $12 billion held by Qatar was supposed to have been returned to Iran in the Biden era.

To underscore that Iran is engaging with the US only narrowly:

On the Strait of Hormuz front, it is disappointing to see anti-globalists on YouTube on a widespread basis take up the line that shipping has more or less stopped after the last set of exchanges between the US and Iran. It has in fact rebounded and includes two-way transits and ones on the Oman side of the Strait of Hormuz. Note these are nearly all fuel vessels of various types when you would normally expect cargo ships to be a significant part of the mix. So the US and Gulf states look to be assigning priority to getting oil to the market as their highest value shipment as well as presumably to try to blunt Iran’s leverage.

But the level is still well below the old normal but may prove sufficiently high if maintained (big if) to push out the arrival of the oil cliff a bit further. Keep in mind that the world ex China, which is now getting a high level of new shipments from Iran, is still operating at deficit levels that are being filled only by drawing on inventories. There is a lot of sloppiness (as well as genuine uncertainties) that we will address.

On the Israel blast in Lebanon, from YNet in Powerful blast heard across northern Israel as IDF destroys Hezbollah’s ‘drone fortress’ in Lebanon

The IDF destroyed a fortified underground Hezbollah tunnel network in the southern Lebanese village of Majdal Zoun on Sunday night, in what the military described as one of the terror group’s major preparedness sites in the western sector.

The underground compound, built more than 25 meters below ground and stretching over 200 meters, was used to store weapons, including drones, warheads and explosives. The powerful blast was heard across northern Israel on Sunday evening.

Please, no ad hom on the account cited:

Brandon Weichert discusses the enormous blast with Mario Nawfal:

From Weichert in a lightly cleaned-up machine transcript:

They [Hezbollah] they were developing octagen which is HMX, a highly explosive fuel for long range precision guided munitions. This was part of what was known as the precision project in 2016. The IRGC was overseeing it. Hezbollah was building these systems. The idea was they were going to mass-produce long range ballistic missiles with the idea that if war came again they would be able to target very reliably the very critical civilian infrastructure of Israel. And now the Israelis spent the last 10 years trying to blow up the depots where the HMX was stored and where the precision guided munitions are. But, you know, they, the Hezbollah, has quite a robust arsenal and I don’t believe the Israelis have gotten anywhere near the full number that they think they’ve gotten.

On Israel’s new threats against Iran:

Erm, does he mean Kurds? They popular view earlier in the war was they were not dumb enough to sign up for this mission, which would put them not only in the cross-hairs of Iran but also Turkiye, who no way, no how wants the Kurds to get any bigger in their britches. I can’t vouch for whether these individuals are rabid or clued-in (not mutually exclusive):

The IRGC is already on the case:

We posted a report from Twitter a couple of days ago of what was reported to be a massive air lift to the Middle East:

Larry Johnson said, based on a call with one contact, that it was in fact troops being moves out. Daniel Davis gave a weaker refutation, saying he had heard of forces in theater getting redeployment orders.

The issue is if Sprinter is right (big if) it looks as if the operation is out of scale to what it would take to return servicemembers and assets from the Iran environs back home. The US deployed nearly 500,000 troops in the Iraq invasion. We have moved only a fraction of that near Iran. Again, this open question will likely be resolved soon.

Again from the Weichert talk with Nawfal:

I am convinced that this war is not coming to an end anytime soon. And I actually think that we are once again ridiculously arming the Kurds of northern Iraq. And we are preparing to send them, I think, into Iran to try to do some insane stupid cockamamie Bay of Pigs style prefailed [snorts] mission into Iran as a prelude to eventually I think trying to insanely stupidly land US Marines somewhere along the coastline of Iran.

Having said all that, the big thing that argues against the nefarious Kurdish plot is that Katz is being so loud about it. So is it actually planned to fail to justify some other Israel escalatory move or to force the timing of US action?

The Fourth of July is a long holiday weekend in the US and would make for a good window for kinetic action from the Trump perspective.

On the statement of Iran’s Assembly of Experts, it’s very bloodyminded, as you can see from its full text (hat tip SafetyFirst).2

1963Macro gives a good overview of its implications in The Assembly of Experts Have Killed the MOU:

The Assembly of Experts is Iran’s highest clerical body, made up of 88 senior clerics. It is constitutionally empowered to select, supervise, and (in theory) remove the Supreme Leader. In practice, it serves as a key institutional check that reinforces the Supreme Leader’s authority, especially during periods of internal or external pressure.

Specifically, these three points from The Experts renders the MOU inoperable (points listed in order from Assembly of Experts statement):

  1. Any breach of the MoU must be responded to immediately. Therefore, considering the continuation of ceasefire breaches by the Zionist regime in Lebanon, and the failure to withdraw from the occupied territories, the opening of the Strait of Hormuz is contrary to the obligations of the officials and is considered a major strategic mistake, and will only embolden the enemy to continue its breach of the agreement.
  2. We remind you again that according to the obligatory guidance of the Supreme Leader, the country’s nuclear rights should not be discussed nor disputed, and should be completely excluded from the negotiations.
  3. Establishing management over the Strait of Hormuz, receiving compensation for war damages, the release of frozen assets, lifting all sanctions, and the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the region are inviolable demands of the Supreme Leader and the people, and they must be pursued. Any negligence in this regard will be met with a fierce reaction of the nation.

The statement specifically reinforces Iranian red lines on Strait control and nuclear enrichment. The practical impact is these points cannot be negotiated away in a manner that meets U.S. terms. These positions are backed by the Supreme Leader, the Experts, and IRGC leadership. These parties remain the functional levers of power in Iran and would control implementation of any deal.

Taken together, the comments suggest the MOU delivering a palatable outcome for the U.S. is effectively zero. The internal Iranian power dynamic has been at the foundation of this analytical series. Until the IRGC and the senior clerical establishment signal willingness to concede on core issues, a strong diplomatic outcome has always been low-probability. That remains true today and is reinforced at the highest levels of Iranian leadership.

As a result, we are faced with some uncomfortable observations:

  • Iran retains coercive control of the Strait, with multiple levers to pull that could materially damage the global economy.
  • The Strait is likely to be contested for the foreseeable future, with normalization far from imminent.
  • There typically is not an easy off-ramp to stop escalating conflict born out of recently failed diplomacy.
  • A path that avoids further escalation likely cedes control of the Strait to Iran, which is a dangerous precedent for international maritime chokepoints.
  • U.S. escalation likely results in a closed Strait, proxy activation, and, on the extreme end, attacks on G.C.C. energy infrastructure. Basically, it has the potential to deliver everything the U.S. doesn’t want.
  • The only means to return the Strait to freedom of navigation is the military option.

Safety First observed in comments that the statement seemed to leave the window for action open for now:

But then by the end the statement it kind of veers into – get this done within the 30- and 60-day time frames of the MoU, because afterwards the war will probably restart again (especially after the US midterms). And this dovetails with the earlier statement by Khamenei II himself, which boils down to “let the diplomats try”.

Sounds like there is a leash in place. I don’t know if it’s a leash tied to specific timelines, or a leash tied to specific actions. But it could very well be that whatever is happening with the talks, or whatever the language of the MoU is, etc., there is a specific future point where the leash is yanked on and the war restarts simply on that basis.

One reason for Iran not pulling the plug on the MOU process now or very soon (which the fierce words of the Assembly of Experts statement would otherwise seem to require) is the timing considerations on the Iran side for oil shipments. It is getting as much pumped and in transit as possible now, but it will soon hit limits as to how much its buyers can take.

From Brett Erickson on Twitter:

The primary concern that I see as it relates to the joint lifting of blockades between the United States and Iran is the disproportionate degree to which it can benefit Iran IF they intend to play this “dishonestly”.

Per the estimations of TankerTrackers four days ago, Iran had already exported ~40M barrels outside of the prior US blockade line since the MOU between the United States and Iran was signed. By now, that figure is almost certainly >50M barrels in 14 days. A rate of ~3.5M barrels per day being exported. Iran’s “normal” rate of export for context is ~1.7M/day.

Therefore Iran is exporting roughly double that amount they normally do since the MOU was signed. But this isn’t a terminal capability. For one, it is unclear how many available buyers there are for Iran outside of China for Iranian oil. There has been indications that Pakistan may have interest, but India is largely stocked up. Perhaps Japan?

But there is only “so much” that can be exported during this 60 day window where it disproportionately favors Iran. Tehran likely still has ~55M barrels in onshore oil storage that can be exported, and assuming they continue to do so at a rate of ~3.5Mbpd, that carries them favorably for ~16 more days.

After that, it not longer is advantageous for Iran to keep the blockades lifted. What happens then? What happens if, by July 15th, the United States still hasn’t released any of Iran’s frozen assets? What is Iran’s incentive to continue with the joint lifting of blockades?

At that point, it would almost certainly be strategically advantageous for Iran to re-close the Strait and return back to the status quo pre-MOU, but now with ~105M-120M barrels outside of the reach of the U.S. blockade.

No matter how I look at this, I just don’t see how the United States will be able to turn the table on Iran here…

As for the state of transits through the Strait of Hormuz, there’s a lot of “glass half full versus half empty” talk. Mind you, there is no question that the level is way below the pre-conflict level. However, a lot of YouTubers are depicting it as having dropped to close to nada after the exchange of strikes and staying there. It has in fact rebounded to what one might call a less bad level:

The chart embedded in this tweet is important:

These are of inbound transits and many are on the Oman side. This shows that the Oman side is still in use and Iran is not intervening. It also shows that some ship operators are confident enough of the odds they will get out to send tankers and crews in.

However, some Gulf states are pulling back from Gulf transits:

On the state of affairs between Iran and Oman regarding the future operation of the Strait of Hormuz, it is enormously frustrating to see YouTubers declare that the fifth paragraph of the MOU gave Iran control of the Strait of Hormuz and was therefore an Iran coup. It did not. Not only is the language regarding what happens in the next 60 days at best arguable, the MOU clearly commits Iran and Oman to operate the Strait (if they can agree, “conduct dialogue” is the operative term) in accordance with international law. That means UNCLOS. “…in line with the applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz” underscores that. Again, the full fifth paragraph:

5 — Upon the signing of this MOU, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge, for 60 days only, from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa. The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start, and considering the need for removing the technical and military obstacles, and demining by the Islamic Republic of Iran will be instated within 30 days. The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialog with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz in discussion with other Persian Gulf littoral states in line with the applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz.

We have repeatedly said this section is a poison pill for Iran given its intent to control traffic in the Strait of Hormuz…assuming it expects a deal to be consummated consistent with the MOU, which we have always seen as very unlikely. But as Professor Robert Papes and other have said, no way, no how will Iran cede control of the Strait of Hormuz. That would seem to leave them in an ongoing low-level war posture, which would keep traffic in the Strait of Hormuz depressed on a long-term basis, killing any fees they might collect and the global economy. Iran seems to believe the world will blink before that but I would not take that as a given.

Updates on the struggle over the status of the Strait of Hormuz, starting with Bloomberg:

From the body of story:

  • Iran reiterated its determination to maintain control over maritime traffic moving through the Strait of Hormuz.
  • Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said Iran wants to work out an agreement with Oman to oversee ships passing through Hormuz, but will move forward with its own plans if Oman is not interested.
  • The US has said talks with Iran are set to take place in Doha, Qatar, with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio saying any tolls or fees for ships passing through the strait would be unacceptable.

A top Iranian official reiterated the country’s determination to maintain control over maritime traffic moving through the Strait of Hormuz, raising the stakes ahead of fresh negotiations with the US on ending their war for good.

In remarks to Iranian state television, Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said Iran wants to work out an agreement with Oman, which controls the other side of the vital waterway, to oversee ships passing through Hormuz. But Iran will move forward with its own plans to control traffic “if for any reason Oman is not interested in doing so,” he said.

Oman supports only “voluntary” fees and does not support control of traffic.3 Note PressTV headline Oman backs Iran’s plan to charge Strait of Hormuz ‘service fees’ misrepresents Oman’s position as stated at the top of the article:

Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi has expressed support for Iran’s plan to impose “maritime service fees” on vessels crossing the Strait of Hormuz.

In an interview with Monte Carlo Doualiya, published by Oman’s Foreign Ministry on Monday, al-Busaidi reaffirmed Muscat’s commitment to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

He clarified that Oman opposes any tolls on transit passage itself. However, the minister drew a clear distinction between transit tolls and legitimate maritime, environmental, and navigational service fees, which can be discussed voluntarily with benefiting states and companies.

Note as we anticipated, Oman will hew to UNCLOS which requires that it provide for “transit passage” as in requires that it allows commercial ships to go through its waters to obtain access to littoral waters of states that have no other access to open seas, and allows for fees only for actual services rendered and then in limited circumstances.

And:

But again recall in the Bloomberg extract above that Iran will go ahead with its “control” whether Oman plays ball or not. But that means no MOU, no $300 billion fund (which we always saw as an undeliverable promise), no more additional returns of frozen assets, an end to US sanctions relief and perhaps a resumption of the costly and even-more-economy-killing US blockade. As we said before, it did not have to work very well to be sufficient to deter attack-and-capture averse ship operators.

France is also trying to stick its nose in where it does not belong:

And on the economy front, recall that we have sometimes (not enough) pointed out that the business and popular press have focused tightly on the effect of Strait of Hormuz traffic closure and traffic squeezing on oil prices, when supplies of many other critical products are also affected, from lubricants to pharmaceuticals to helium. Those shortfalls are biting even harder:L

Done for today! See you tomorrow!

______

1 We made clear yesterday that we doubted the Trump claim that Iran had agreed to meet in Doha to have a tea and cookies talk over the Strait of Hormuz, as reported only by the highly reliable (not) Axios and Reuters and not confirmed by any Iranian media sources. Iran has further made clear it is not meeting with the loathed Kushner-Witkoff tag team, who were reported to be going to Doha:

We signaled another element of the Trump overreach. Our headline stated that the (to be treated with skepticism) Axios reported the US and Iran had agreed to a ceasefire within a ceasefire due to Trump saying both sides had agreed to stop shooting in the Strait of Hormuz. That also proved to have been incorrect:

2 Point 2 on the need to pursue revenge against Trump and Netanyahu is a nice touch:

3 “Voluntary” is an odd choice of words. I suspect it refers to language in UNCLOS.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Subscribe to Post Comments
96 comments

      1. LeMon3

        Well, Kev, I think we’re just bloody lucky that the Septics have been dumb enough to sell us their diesel, without which we would be in the same boat as Sri Lanka…

        Reply ↓
      3. Lefty Godot

        “Switch-man sleeping, train hundred-and-two
        Is on the same track and heading for you…”

        Victor Pelevin’s “The Yellow Arrow” also comes to mind, with its passengers in a trance-like stupor.

        Reply ↓
    2. johnnyme

      Russia plans to buy gas abroad to stabilize domestic market, Kremlin says, in rare step since 1990s

      Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Tuesday that Russia plans to buy gas from abroad to stabilize the domestic market, a rare step for the country that imported big volumes of energy resources only in the 1990s after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

      Speaking at a press briefing in Moscow, Peskov said Moscow was holding talks on possible fuel imports with several countries.

      “If agreements are reached on imports at acceptable prices, then it will happen. This will be another step towards stabilizing the market and reducing the surge in demand,” he said.

      The official emphasized that a package of measures to stabilize the fuel market was being discussed by a government commission led by Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak following a meeting chaired by President Vladimir Putin on Sunday.

      He declined to comment on media reports that some Russian refineries had been allowed to produce fuel meeting Euro-5 specifications using Euro-3 standards, and that authorities were considering lowering fuel quality requirements further to Euro-2.

      Reply ↓
      1. James T.

        Yeah and Putin is ready to fight all of Nato and he is losing in drone warfare to Ukraine. Maybe wait until you can keep producing enough gas for your citizens and army. Also, maybe wait until your army can move for than a few meters per day because in a war with Nato it would take Russia 800 years to win :)

        Reply ↓
    3. farmboy

      explainer@ericnuttall

      The oil market is in a race against the clock. Global oil inventories continue to fall, with onshore storage now at its seasonally lowest point in recorded history. Strait inbounds remain far below necessary levels to allow the return of ~ 11MM Bbl/d of still shut-in Middle Eastern production. Iran is clearly in charge, and my best advisors continue to believe they will not relinquish control. The biggest unknown is Chinese imports, down ~4.7MM Bbl/d and the single biggest reason why we did not see the demand-reducing price spike…yet. Visible Chinese inventories have barely fallen yet their imports are down ~450MM Bbls = significant and unsustainable drop in invisible refined product and oil stocks. When does China come back? With only ~90MM Bbls of remaining barrels stuck in the Strait, the net balance once that is absorbed is outbound tankers vs. curtailed production vs. reduced inbound tankers (the one to watch) = continued inventory draws. With the crude curve below pre-war levels, the market is completely apathetic to the above, fully believing in every tweet declaring imminent peace. Yet, the clock continues to count down to operational lows and tank bottoms.

      Reply ↓
      1. The Rev Kev

        I wonder if it was like this back in 1929? People saying how the stock market was going great and both politicians and economists were talking up what a great future lay ahead. They had no clue what was about to hit them nor would they have believed it if told. I’ll tell you. I do wonder if it is a lot like our present situation.

        Reply ↓
        2. farmboy

          saturn/neptune conjunction and Kondratieff argue otherwise, but extreme dislocations are in the offing

          Reply ↓
      2. Diogenes

        “[T]he single biggest reason why we did not see the demand-reducing price spike” is because the crude futures market is manipulated by the US government.

        But not as transparently as the US manipulates the gold market: by shorting 30,000 contracts at 1:00 am EST.
        Maybe not, I’ll admit, but I haven’t seen this shorting argument made.

        Yet it explains the inexplicable price backwardation, notwithstanding farmboy’s interesting prior post on GCC over-production that traders are buying–and then shorting.

        Reply ↓
      1. Quantum Future

        Coal can be liquified into heating oil or diesel (for some engines). The US also manufactures bio-diesel. Granted ramp up time may not be fast enough to avoid the cliff and painful price increases. Here is the Google search result link:

        https://www.google.com/search?q=can+coal+be+used+to+make+heating+oil&client=ms-android-att-us-rvc3&hs=bwAq&sca_esv=44f81d52ff2b6cb4&source=android-home&source=hp&ei=WXtEarzqCfiGwbkPmZbgmAo&biw=360&bih=603&oq=can+coal+be+used+to+make+heqt&gs_lp=EhFtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1ocCIdY2FuIGNvYWwgYmUgdXNlZCB0byBtYWtlIGhlcXQqAggAMgcQIRigARgKMgcQIRigARgKMgcQIRigARgKMgcQIRigARgKMgQQIRgKMgUQIRifBTIFECEYnwUyBRAhGJ8FSOdSUIwIWOxHcAR4AJABAJgBlgKgAYMoqgEGMC4zMS4xuAEByAEA-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_XBAbIHBjAuMzEuMbgH2ynCBwgwLjYuMjkuMcgHuAGACAA&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-hp#lfId=ChxjMe

        Reply ↓
    5. Dingleberry

      Iran gets its oil out in 2 weeks as Yves said. If the US Empire does not play ball by then we’re back to closed straits and no oil. Squeeze the Empire and its EU vassals for midterms and the Winter. 🥶

      Reply ↓
      1. Hickory

        The assembly of experts message suggests that Iran isn’t playing that level of cleverness. if the assembly really is as important as yves thinks, and if Iran were playing the game you describe (move oil out and shut the straits again) then the assembly wouldn’t have made such a strong
        negative public statement about keeping the straits open.

        Reply ↓
    1. The Rev Kev

      All those China chickenhawks must be bitterly disappointed. For the past few years they have been talking up the US getting into a brawl with China in the Pacific and they sounded like they were looking forward to it. Just as soon as the war in the Ukraine was won and they were talking about as early s 2027. But now because of this war with Iran the US has been disarmed of the advanced weaponry that they would have needed to take on China. They could build more but first they would have to go to their supplier of exotic materials needed to build those weapons systems. That would be *checks note* China. Yeah, that’s not going to happen. So I guess that the war with China is off now.

      Reply ↓
      1. Juice

        Rich of you to believe the US would use its own troops to buy China, when it can use South Koreans, Philippines, the Japanese and the Indians to do it, using the industrial base of South Korea and Japan.

        US avoided head to head with Russia. Why would it suddenly become stupid enough to try it with China?

        Reply ↓
        1. John Wright

          The depopulation and devastation of USA proxy Ukraine might give South Koreans, Philippines, Japanese and Indians some concerns about being used by the USA against China.

          If the Ukrainian proxy effort stopped right now, one might suggest that Ukraine suffered far more, in percentage population lost and infrastructure destruction than Russia has.

          And Ukraine will have a far more difficult time cooperating with Russia in the future.

          Not a good recruiting poster image for future potential Asian proxy candidates.

          Buying proxy leadership is going to be far more expensive than Zelensky was.

          Reply ↓
      2. flora

        Guess what? The US/West used to mine/refine/develop these critical minerals. But, thanks to the neoliberal greed guiding US and the West’s politics since Reagan and Thatcher, these refinery processes were outsourced to China years ago. Refining is an environmentally dirty process that required a lot of expensive remediation in the US to conform to EPA rules. Solution? Outsource critical refining to China! Hey presto! But the minerals back from China at a lower cost than doing clean refining in the US would cost. Profit! Ok, ok, yes we’re letting a so-called enemy control a critical input to all modern military communication, weaponry, etc. But, profit!
        Nothing matters but greater and greater profits!
        National security? Pfft. Those foreign countries like China wouldn’t dare challenge the US economically. Right?
        Winning!

        Reply ↓
  5. ilsm

    Presently, ADS-B shows one USAF KC 135 sqwalking IFF showing neat “racetracks” refueling fighters east of the strait.

    Two USAF KC 135 tracks one over Jordan and one over Israel.

    Civil aviation traffic must be picking up, causing tankers to sqwalk.

    Reply ↓
  6. Mathman

    I’ve noticed the use of IRCG quite often, at first I thought it was just a typo but it happens daily. Is that a typo?

    Also wow the MoU was a Trump surrender on paper but it really just seems like they weren’t planning on doing any of it and just using the threat of normalization to force compliance back to status quo. It feels like that is even working.

    Reply ↓
  7. The Rev Kev

    ‘₦₳V𝚜𝚝é𝚟𝚊 🇷🇺 ᴢ
    @Navsteva
    Brig. Gen. (Ret.) Blaine Holt claims there is a revolt going on right now in Iran, and the Kurds are advancing toward Iran’s northern border – claims Trump is behind this attempt at regime change.’

    Had to check the timestamp on this video to see if it was new. Because all the stuff in there sure sounds like it was from four or five months ago. I do not know any of these people but found mention of that Susan Kokinda-

    ‘Susan Kokinda is a Washington Representative for the Lyndon LaRouche PAC’

    And that Tom Luongo is the publisher of the Gold Goats ‘n Guns Newsletter and blog. OK then. Brig. Gen. (Ret.) Blaine Holt talking has a long bio here-

    https://ndianewengland.org/index.php/keynote-speaker-brigadier-general-ret-blaine-holt/

    Reply ↓
  8. friar john

    I’ve noticed the use of “anti-globalist” keeps popping up in the Iran war coverage here.

    Is it to distinguish between anti-imperialist talking heads and mere reactionary anti-globalist rhetoric?

    Some insight into the editorial approach would be appreciated 😇

    Reply ↓
    1. Yves Smith Post author

      I am generally sympathetic with the anti-globalist viewpoint save for the lazy group-think many of them engage in plus in a lot of cases, hard-core libertarian views they advocate in parallel. You can’t always pick the belief cluster apart.

      And members of that cohort DO talk about “globalists” so this is not my invention. They are not just opposed to imperialism but some also depict vaccines, liberalized immigration, (and even in some cases anti-climate change measures) as WEF conspiracies.

      The anti-imperialist viewpoint is narrower and has more followers.

      Reply ↓
    2. JonnyJames

      I don’t use the loaded term:”globalist” for several reasons:

      The “globalists” are not global: the global majority/global south largely do not subscribe to this ideology
      The term has been used by and associated with charlatans and kooks like Alex Jones and his followers extensively for years now.
      The term is a bit ambiguous at the same time. It means different things to different people.

      We can use longer descriptions of the people we are trying to identify to be more accurate, sometimes one-word terms just don’t cut it. But everyone has a different idea about the term and use it in their own way.

      Personally, I prefer authoritarian imperialists (or chickenhawk warmongers, carpetbaggers, lawless totalitarians, corrupt kleptocrats…sorry, now I’m being silly, but we can have a bit of fun with it.)

      (Historically we also have the Anti Imperialist League of Mark Twain fame)
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Anti-Imperialist_League

      Reply ↓
      1. Yves Smith Post author

        Yes, I concede it is a loaded term but I am really annoyed with the sloppiness in a lot of commentary on YouTube in the last two weeks. A lot more tribalism, a lot less insight.

        Reply ↓
        1. amfortas

          i havent had the time in a long, long time, but something like a reincarnated C Wright Mills, or that Dommhoffer(sp-2) guy updated might be useful.
          the “power elite” are not monolithic, especially these days, after all these long years since those guys did their work. carol quigley was inneresting, too, but also dated…as is bertram gross(“friendly fascism”).
          some updated taxonomy would prolly be useful when talking about this(Davos Set is one faction, fer sho).
          i just dont have the bandwidth to pursue running it down….nor a big enough whiteboard/ball of multicolored yarn.
          Turchin and a few others i can remember(but cant currently call up) toy with it…unless theres deeper stuff behind a paywall, i suppose.
          that subject has always interested me, due to people and such i bumped into long ago…well down the ladder, of course.

          Reply ↓
  9. Tom Stone

    It’s always about the people, in this case Trump and Netanyahu.
    Netanyahu has shown that he will do anything to stay out of prison, he has no regard for the consequences of his actions beyond that.
    And Trump is deteriorating mentally and physically, which may explain why he started this War on behalf of Israel.
    He has an existential need to dominate every situation ( Or to be seen as doing so) and he is facing increasing pressure on a number of fronts.
    My guess is that the Zionists will sell Trump on a flashy, violent plan that is objectively stupid to the point of insanity.
    Hopefully not Nukes, however I have no doubt a sufficiently distressed Trump would go there.
    Trump is not a rational actor, he is a grandiose narcissist who is rapidly deteriorating both mentally and physically.
    No filters, no boundaries.
    It’s going to be a lively Summer.

    Reply ↓
  10. ISL

    Lots of planes are going to the Middle East, to Saudi Arabia or the UAE. One possible explanation is a Patriot system being moved from Asia to the theatre – a PAtriot system requires around 73 C-17 flights. Of course, it could be troops and missiles.

    Nice strategy discussion by Pape with R. Blevins

    “An escalation trap is where attacks have a tactical success but a strategic loss.”

    Also, how do you deal with a bully. You do not agree to any loss of power – give an inch and the bully tries to take a yard. (think childhood schoolyard)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb26rEIbYoE

    Reply ↓
    1. IMOR

      5,650 tons per Patriot system? (C-17 max payload approx 77 tons per Wikipedia) Had no idea. Thanks, I learn so many things reading the commentariat here.

      Reply ↓
      1. cfraenkel

        The limitation is volume, not weight. You can’t assume the flights are loaded to their max payload weight like that. They drive in the launch vehicle or radar and that’s it. They close the doors and take off. You’re not going to stack pallets of MREs or drums of diesel on top of the radar just to get the plane to it’s payload weight….

        Reply ↓
    2. Michaelmas

      ISL: One possible explanation is a Patriot system being moved from Asia to the theatre – a Patriot system requires around 73 C-17 flights.

      Interesting.

      Not that a Patriot system will help them much. But I guess if it’s what you’ve got, you field it.

      Reply ↓
    3. ACF

      If a Patriot system, I wonder where they took it from, and whether the former host country wishes it had it back.

      Reply ↓
  11. Socal Rhino

    Shortly after the signing of the MOU, Professor Marandi said that rather than being a strictly binary choice (strait open/closed) Iran would respond to US non-compliance by slowing transit in the strait with an emphasis on Iranian shipments getting through.

    This morning on Dialog works, he described traffic, on the highest volume days, as well below pre war levels. He noted that the Iranians are not naive and never expected the US to uphold MOU terms. This suggests to me that Iran has calculated that the current reduced volume flow benefits Iran more than the US. At least for now.

    Reply ↓
    1. Skip Intro

      If the estimates above are correct, Iran is benefitting from the traffic getting ‘stranded’ stocks out. I imagine they were under substantial pressure from allies and would-be allies to let some oil out. It would be interesting to see where those exports are headed. I assume mostly East Asia.

      Reply ↓
  12. Ann

    0704 PDT

    Uncertainty over Qatar diplomacy clouds prospects for US-Iran deal

    https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/uncertainty-over-qatar-diplomacy-clouds-prospects-us-iran-deal-2026-06-30/

    US envoys arrive in Qatar for meetings on Iran, with tensions high over Hormuz

    https://apnews.com/article/iran-us-war-strait-of-hormuz-june-30-2026-d6e6bc2e03564b6d0daffecd75baaef3

    China is a clear winner from Trump’s war in Middle East, report concludes

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jun/30/china-clear-winner-trump-war-middle-east-report-iran-strait-of-hormuz

    Japan and India to take step toward direct yen-rupee settlements

    https://asia.nikkei.com/business/markets/currencies/japan-and-india-to-take-step-toward-direct-yen-rupee-settlements

    Reply ↓
  13. Jason Boxman

    After U.S.-Iran War, Oman Said to Propose Hormuz Fee Plan (NY Times)

    The plot deepens?

    Iran and U.S.-allied Oman are moving forward with plans to collect payment for ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz, despite public American objections, according to an Iranian official and four diplomats with knowledge of the matter.

    If enacted, the plans would be a significant change from the prewar status in the strategic waterway, underscoring how the American-Israeli decision to attack Iran on Feb. 28 has changed the Middle East in far-reaching and unanticipated ways.

    Before the war, the Strait of Hormuz was an international shipping route between Iran and Oman that vessels sailed through free, carrying oil and gas from the Persian Gulf to the rest of the world. During the fighting, Iran effectively blockaded the waterway, an important choke point for global trade, sending energy prices skyrocketing.

    Since then, Iranian officials have repeatedly declared their intentions to monetize the strait.

    Oman recently delivered a formal proposal to the United States and other Western allies that outlined a plan in which shipping companies would pay service fees to use the strait, according to the Iranian official and a regional diplomat.

    A person familiar with the U.S. position confirmed that American negotiators had received the Omani proposal and said that they had concerns that they intended to discuss with Omani officials. The officials and diplomats cited in this article all spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomacy.

    Reply ↓
    1. KD

      The concern I have for Oman is straight out of the Melian dialogue in Thucydides. The Island of Milos was a small island kingdom that wanted to maintain neutrality in the war between Athens and Sparta. Athens gave them the option of joining Athens or basically face genocide. They declined Athens invitation, insisted on neutrality, so Athens sieged them, killed all the men, and sold the women and children into slavery. Oman is really unable to defend against either Iran or America, and neither power can actually defend Oman against the other power, and it is being pushed by both sides to take a stand which could easily result in its destruction no matter which side they come down on.

      Reply ↓
    2. Yves Smith Post author

      You need to wait for what Oman says. Omani officials have actually said Iran has misrepresented their position before. Oman is clear it will abide by UNCLOS. UNCLOS does not allow for restriction of transit and permits only limited fees for services actually rendered.

      And (not having read it yet) this has the feel of a planted story. Why would Iran plant a story in the NYT?!?!

      In addition, now that the hardliners are in charge, the truthfulness in Iran communications has fallen way off. Look in the post, how the PressTV headline seriously misrepresented what Oman had said. They aren’t yet as bad as the US or European mainstream press but are going fast and ferociously in that direction.

      Reply ↓
      1. Safety First

        Yesterday, the Middle East Spectator published the following. Note that I have not seen this reflected in either Pars Today or IRNA (official news agencies), so not sure where he got it from (Tasnim?).

        —–

        https://t.me/Middle_East_Spectator/33990

        Iran’s Foreign Ministry:

        ‘We are still in discussions with Oman regarding the future management of the Strait of Hormuz.

        If Oman is not interested in a joint mechanism for fees and services, we’ll simply manage the Strait ourselves.’

        —–

        IF this is true, then Iran appears to be getting ready for a power play for the Strait, the MoU language and various international laws notwithstanding. [Unless it’s all a gigantic bluff or something.] Which would match the more bellicose language coming out from the “Khamenei faction” in Iran, not to mention the IRGC. But I stress, Pars and IRNA, despite posting a bunch of quotes yesterday and today from Baghaei, the foreign ministry press guy, did NOT post this particular one, so I wonder about the sourcing a bit.

        And I cannot imagine the Chinese would be happy about such a power play, if it were to take place, but then, as Alexander Mercouris has repeatedly pointed out, Iran has previously burned at least a couple of bridges with both the Chinese and the Russians when this was not strictly or at all necessary to do.

        In general, I am beginning to think the fulcrum of the situation will not be US or Israeli actions, especially as both have now gone into Minsk 3.0 stalling mode, but rather Iran’s choices in the next few weeks. Specifically with respect to the Strait, and with respect to Lebanon (i.e. direct military action against Israel). If the Iranians bend, the US “wins” (notwithstanding prolonged energy-related problems), and the war restarts, say, after the midterms. If the Iranians force one or both issues, then the war restarts now (probably), we face a much deeper economic crisis (definitely), and at that point Iran cannot afford to stop until achieving full regional hegemony (but will it actually have the legs to go that far, especially if the Chinese get miffed?).

        Maybe they’re hoping the US and the Israelis pile up enough MoU violations for the Iranians to walk away without damaging their diplomatic credibility too much…

        Reply ↓
        1. Yves Smith Post author

          Your point about this being isolated sourcing is fair but Bloomberg reported something very similar.

          This is a very good general assessment. I too have been wondering where Iran thinks it is going.

          On paper, they do have all the leverage BUT….

          They have or should know the MOU will fail. The US can’t deliver the $300 billion, won’t get the Israelis to leave southern Lebanon, are set to get at most the $6 billion of frozen assets back as agreed in a Biden era deal w/o settling the nuclear file (the MOU says otherwise but is politically untenable in the US to release much in the absence of a nuclear “deal”), or even sanctions relief (see Macron on EU sanctions v. Iran). Basically all the US can do is pull the forces brought in to pummel Iran out.

          It is weird to see them insist that the MOU gives them control of the Strait of Hormuz when even if you accept their reading of the opening line (which I do not and others say it is at best ambiguous) when the later section, on what happens after the 60 days, invokes international law and other concepts that do not support Iranian control.

          Reply ↓
  14. KD

    A path that avoids further escalation likely cedes control of the Strait to Iran, which is a dangerous precedent for international maritime chokepoints.

    Without debating the merit of Grotius or “free navigation” of the seas, what has guaranteed “free navigation” since WWII and especially post-1991 has been American blue water naval supremacy. During the Third Taiwan Strait crisis in 1996, all Bill Clinton had to do in 1996 was sail a carrier strike group into the South China Sea to get the Chinese to back down. Now, a carrier strike group has to stay what, outside 1100 kilometers or more from Iran, not China, or it will get sunk. Now, the US navy cannot control either Bab Al-Mandab Strait or the Strait of Hormuz.

    International maritime chokepoints will be controlled, and shipping will pay fees, because the US is incapable of enforcing “free navigation” and China doesn’t have the capability or the willingness to intervene militarily outside their region. (Russia may be looking for a reverse precedent in the Baltics, we will see.) In theory, Iran gaining the Strait of Hormuz would be a “precedent” but it is more a reflection of the decline in American relative power and current reality more than some kind of ideological or legal change–the ideological/legal change is more of a lagging indicator.

    Reply ↓
      1. KD

        Better?

        The decline in US naval supremacy will place international maritime chokepoints under increasing pressure from ambitious nation-states with adjacent territorial waters seeking to impose fee-based regimes.

        (Although if/when NATO collapses, I would expect a real inter-European struggle for power, possibly affecting the status of the English Channel and Strait of Gibraltar.)

        Reply ↓
        1. JonnyJames

          And don’t forget China’s BRI. Halford Mackinder, Zbig B. and Henry K. are “rolling in their graves”.

          Reply ↓
    2. Ashburn

      Iran has been the victim of a near permanent state of war brought on by the twin nuclear-armed states of the US and Israel for decades: US support for Iraq durnig the devastating Iran-Iraq War, crushing direct and secondary economic sanctions, frozen assets, sabotage and assassinations campaigns by Israel, A US-breached JCPOA with a ‘maximum pressure’ campaign by Trump in his first administration (and kept in place by Biden) and now a massive bombing campaign against Iranian infrastructure. And all this abetted by Iran’s neighbors across the Gulf. Why wouldn’t Iran demand control of the Strait?

      Obviously the Assembly of Experts are not stupid enough to believe that the US is ever going to agree to sanctions relief or unfreezing of assets–because Israel. So, in wartime, and facing an existential threat from nuclear-armed foes, a country must do what it can to protect itself, even if this means ruffling a few feathers considering the UNCLOS, to which it is not even a signatory.

      If ever Iran is able to force the US into lifting the sanctions and unfreezing its assets, abandoning its threatening bases in the Gulf, and putting a choke-chain leash on its rabid attack dog, Israel, then I am sure Iran would welcome free passage in the Gulf with nominal fees paid to ensure the safety and security of this vital waterway. Until that time, when peace prevails, it’s a war for survival, and to hell with business as usual.

      Reply ↓
  15. Zach

    I don’t think this is right:

    That means UNCLOS. “…in line with the applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz” underscores that.

    Iran never signed on to UNCLOS and had specific disagreements with it. Iran wanted to keep the pre-UNCLOS agreement on things like straits. Unless UNCLOS was specifically referred to Iran is likely referring to their pre-UNCLOS stance.

    Reply ↓
    1. Yves Smith Post author

      Iran effectively agreed to UNCLOS when it signed the MOU. That is why I called it a poison pill.

      If Iran wants all the MOU goodies, it needs to accept UNCLOS (“applicable international law”).

      But the MOU is not binding so Iran can toss it in a bin.

      Reply ↓
      1. Zach

        I guess I don’t know if that is Iran’s interpretation, since UNCLOS was not specifically named. They may be seeing it as agreeing to status-quo-ante where they use the pre-UNCLOS understanding of the law. I agree it doesn’t give them control of the strait.

        Reply ↓
        1. hk

          UNCLOS applies because Oman is a signatory. As long as there is “peace,” Oman has to abide by it, unless it wants to land in diplomatic difficulties, which leaves Oman’s side of SoH outside Iranian jurisdiction. So Iran has to expand the conflict to keep SoH closed, which means aggression against Omani sovereignty, when Oman is practically the only semi friend it has in the region.

          I’m suspicious that Iranians were no more interested in the MoU than anyone else: it’s better that MoU gets tossed because “the other guys” acted in bad faith, which they knew was going to happen b/c Israel.

          Reply ↓
        2. Yves Smith Post author

          “Applicable international law” most assuredly is UNCLOS + other maritime law that takes you to the same place. The following clause ” the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz” is also a nod to UNCLOS.

          You may not have seen this message I received from an attorney and I posted earlier. He has worked with shipping companies:

          I have done a certain amount of maritime law and though I am no expert on UNCLOS my view here is actually even harsher that that of Lascaris and of your good self [Lascaris said it was a stretch but conceivable to get to Iran’s position].

          Legally speaking I don’t think the Iranians have a leg to stand on. I doubt that you could find a single maritime lawyer of any integrity or competence who would say that they do. Bear in mind that until 28th February 2026, when the US-Israeli attack began, they appeared to share the same view of the status of the Strait of Hormuz as everyone else.

          Reply ↓
          1. amfortas

            and thats the rub, innit?
            “international law” is an aspiration.
            no enforcement mechanism, aside from yelling in the general assembly and such.
            and what have us’ actions over the last…what? 80 years?…done to that whole set of ideas?
            especially us’ actions here lately?
            and thats to say nothing of israel.
            i like the idea of international law…i think it would be a fine thing, and we should try it(to channel Gandhi)…but the usa/israel chaos regime has made it a de facto non-thing, IMO.
            I understand that Iran(like Russia and china) want to be seen as the good guys, and more or less following the letter of said “laws”…and iran also has to live next door to Oman, and all the rest of them over there.
            after all this is over…but this is existential for them.
            they simply must control the strait, and inflict enough damage on the Usa, to pound it into our collective thick skulls that we have lost and have no business being over there….while also somehow not damaging the economies of ROW.
            its a tightrope.
            i do not envy Iran in the walking of it.
            only other option i see for iran, is getting a nuke or ten, along with the delivery…a la North Korea.
            that, of course, opens up a whole other mess…proliferation, etc.
            but my righty neighbors have been insisting forever that armed up neighbors are polite neighbors,lol.

            i hold out hope that all these frantic flights between everybody from egypt, turkey, pakistan, and so on…as well as the supposed separate peace that UAE may have made…bear fruit, and some regional cohesion obtains.
            after all, isnt that what usa has been trying to prevent for 50+ years?

            Reply ↓
      2. Aurelien

        I suppose it depends what you mean by “applicable.” It’s generally assumed, tautologically, to be the international law which applies in a given situation, so the law of armed conflict applies when there is an armed conflict in a given area etc. In cases where some states are signatories but not others, there’s a norms-based “customary international law” assumption that non-signatories should abide by the provisions of the law nonetheless. But this is a moral and political duty, not a legal one, so Iran is not obliged to respect UNCLOS provisions, whereas Oman is. The question for experts is whether the difference in status frees Iran of duties it would otherwise have under the Convention outside its territorial waters. I presume not, but I have no idea.

        Reply ↓
        1. JonnyJames

          It is ironic (if that is even the right term) that the US and vassals routinely ignore the law, norms, values, morality, agreements, treaties, UN Charter etc. and carry out atrocities of historical proportion in spectacular fashion. Yet Iran (like Russia) appears to adhere to legality and norms, much more than the US.

          Reply ↓
        2. Ignacio

          In this sense, with US (having been in this case the aggressor against Iran) warships escorting vessels in and out the straits provide Iran with a reason to attack US warships no matter in which waters they are navigating, or ports these are moored in. Innocent passage does not apply there. Casus belli might be extended by Iran to the vessels being escorted by US ships no matter if through Oman waters. If there were, for instance, French ships doing the same it would be more difficult for Iran to justify attacks on ships transiting the straits.

          Reply ↓
        3. Victor Sciamarelli

          @Aurelian: Regards UNCLOS, for the sake of this argument, I will concede that Oman is neutral. Thus, based on UNCLOS Iran has an obligation not to interfere with shipping in Oman’s territorial waters. Yet, under UNCLOS this means shipping transiting the Gulf to and from Oman, and only Oman. It doesn’t mean transiting Hormuz on the Omani side and continue in order to reach the UAE or Bahrain, for example.
          All the states around the Persian Gulf are belligerents with US bases. From Iran’s perspective, it’s possible ships entering Hormuz on the Omani side can easily bring supplies and other materials to reinforce their war effort.
          IMO, UNCLOS does not provide this kind of freedom during a war, however, I’m willing to agree that Iran should not interfere with shipping in and out of Oman but it has a right to blockade shipping with it’s enemies which is not much different than the US blockade of Iran.

          Reply ↓
      3. North Star

        My take on para 5 of the MOU, specifically the last sentence, only commits Iran to conduct a dialogue with Oman on objectives as listed on how to manage the SOH in the future, nothing else. So dialogue is underway, and could last for a significant period, and Iran likely believes it will convince Oman on its preferred SOH control plan. The ‘future’ is not defined but I would contend it is when all the other US obligations of the MOU are fulfilled, including a new security architecture for the ME.

        Reply ↓
    1. Oregon Lawhobbit

      Hm. That sounds like a somewhat liberal interpretation of the third paragraph of the Experts’ statement:

      2. We emphasize the need to pursue revenge for the martyrdom of our dear Leader, and that Trump and Netanyahu must face justice by any means necessary.

      That said, given that the established de facto – if not de jure – rules of engagement here include leaders and families being targets for hostilities…

      Reply ↓
    2. motorslug

      Wow, that sure is a neocon interpretation and clickbait. But I have noticed many western outlets saying the same thing, from MSN to Fox to Yahoo. You have to get several paragraphs down before they say “The language read like a religious edict but stopped short of a formal fatwa”
      Assassination is a key element of the zionist system, I wish Iran would do the same but they are not cowards.

      Damn oregon, beat me by 5 minutes!

      Reply ↓
      1. Aurelien

        The Iranians have plenty of form conducting assassinations (for example Shapur Bakhtiar, the interim Prime Minister after the Shah, murdered in Paris in 1991. But they generally only target dissidents and domestic opponents, and only after pronouncing formal “death sentences.”

        Reply ↓
        1. JonnyJames

          Yeah and Iranians don’t deliberately target scientists, journalists, doctors, nurses, churches, mosques, ambulances, schools, children, religious leaders etc. The genocides have been normalized in western popular discourse. After all, people who are not of European descent don’t matter, they are subhuman not even worthy of mention or acknowledgement. These are “Western Values” and examples of the triumph of Western Civilisation. Linear human progress? I guess that depends on definitions

          Reply ↓
        2. urdsama

          One concrete example is not “plenty of form”.

          In any case, the West has been far more antagonist towards Iran in the modern era than vice versa.

          Context matters.

          Reply ↓
        3. hk

          One might say that that is arguably “legal,” no, to the degree that the “targets” are plausibly subject to Iranian jurisdiction? There are issues where country X tries to enforce its laws in another country, but that’s not unheard of for countries of the West, even when the targets are not plausibly subject to country x’s jursidiction (Nicolas Maduro, anyone?)

          Reply ↓
          1. Aurelien

            It’s all right when America’s enemies do it!
            This would have to be a universal legal principle of course, which would give the US or any other state the same rights. Jurisdiction means what it says: the right to exercise legal powers of justice over your citizens, not declare in public that you are going to kill someone, which is what the Iranians have done many times. (I’m surprised, people aren’t familiar with dozens of cases of Iranian assassinations abroad: they haven’t exactly tried to hide the fact.)

            Reply ↓
  17. southern appalachian

    Kurdish forces ploy- I wonder if a tell will be a long form piece in the New York Times about how the Kurds have been fighting for democracy and freedom for years, now is their chance or something like that. Maybe the mysterious ‘they’ will test run messaging on talk shows or Sunday shows. Curious to see.

    Reply ↓
  18. 1963Macro

    Just a note to say thank you for including my work in your strong overview of current state. As a fully independent analyst in the macro space, this has made my day and I’m honored. Very motivating. Thank you!

    On topic, the day that was supposed to be about talks “Iran wanted” (false) is yielding what on the surface looks like further diplomatic and strategic failure from the U.S. We’ll likely get a barrage of positive spin, but that doesn’t change reality.

    Reply ↓
  19. JMH

    I believe nothing that emanates from the DC Bubble and Echo Chamber or from Donnie and the Boys, who might form a band, The Grifters.) There is much talk, much contradictory talk, speculative talk. The pieces on the board are moving but are the moves tactical, artful, aimless? Who can tell? I surely cannot. Iran should keep its finger on the trigger. Treachery is in the air.

    Reply ↓
    1. Thistlebreath

      Former Creem writer here: “Donny and the Grifters” would def have made it into print. Maybe the opening act would have been the Bezzle Brothers. S. Clay Wilson could have drawn an epic ‘toon.

      Reply ↓
  21. Cetzer

    “Ever Lovely”
    Strange name for a ship, that doen’t seem to be a yacht specialized on honeymoon trips and might be more honestly called: Ever Rusting. There are lots of websites, that list unusual/ridiculous boat names, even academically inspired ones: Pier Pressure…
    By the way I am still waiting for the first, resounding (of laughter) Hormuz Joke, actually the situation should have already produced hundreds.

    Reply ↓
    1. marym

      There’s a container shipping company called Evergreen that uses ship names starting with Ever. The ship that got stuck in the Suez Canal a few years ago was Ever Given.

      Reply ↓
  22. Verifyfirst

    I saw a point on Mr. Perera’s Substack, that the funeral for Iran’s Supreme Leader will take place July 4-9, and according to him, be huge, public, outdoors at least in part. He also seems to say the new leader is required to be there?

    How will that figure into all this, I wonder? Iran presumably not going to meet during that time, will other countries be “expected” to hold their fire and respect the mourning period? Will tanker traffic go up or down due to this? Hmmm

    Reply ↓
    1. John k

      I do. Thanks.
      Though I find it as clear and simple as whether the Cheshire Cat is there or not, and if there, whether alive or dead.

      Reply ↓
    1. Acacia

      ChatGPT knows data centers will get power before humans.

      It somehow recalls that old TOS episode “The Ultimate Computer” in which the plucky Captain and his chief engineer tried to cut off the electricity, and in response the computer just tapped directly into the engine power, vaporizing a red shirt with the beam.

      Reply ↓
  25. les online

    It’s looking like President Trump doesnt want the Hormuz Strait open…
    Wants to crash the world economy, then do a Zelensky at home…
    That’ll solve “The Mid-terms Problem”, and crushing of all dissent…
    The Emperor aint gonna go down without A Fight !!

    Reply ↓
  26. Stuart L

    I’m puzzled. Why should we read the Assembly of Experts’ comment about “management of the strait of Hormuz” as necessarily meaning that Iran must always in future charge fees for all transiting ships, in violation of UNCLOS? Couldn’t “management” as well be compatible with allowing ships to pass freely if their other demands are met (admittedly a big if), while ensuring that any future decision on closing the strait must remain in Iranian hands?

    I’m more than concerned about accepting Macro1963’s suggestion that the only means to return the Strait to freedom of navigation is the military option. How could a military option turn into a means to anything other than more death and destruction?

    Reply ↓
    1. Yves Smith Post author

      Because Iran officials have repeatedly and loudly said otherwise. See a clip with the remarks from a senior military adviser to the Supreme Leader in our post today as a fresh example confirming that position: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2026/07/iran-war-iran-disses-witkoff-and-kushner-in-doha-but-does-not-get-6-billion-in-frozen-assets-strait-of-hormuz-traffic-sub-par-but-continues-on-oman-side-as-talks-over-future-management-continue.html

      And Oman is CLEARLY being muscled by Iran to agree to fees.

      Reply ↓
  27. GeoObserver

    The geopolitical implications of the Strait of Hormuz escalation cannot be understated. If shipping lanes are disrupted further, we are looking at a massive global supply chain shock. Oman’s stance here is critical to watch.

    Reply ↓
    1. Yves Smith Post author

      “How many divisions does the Pope have?”

      Oman’s stance is not relevant. Iran has made clear it will control the Strait of Hormuz. The US and Gulf States lack the means to defeat Iran.

      Reply ↓
  28. HistoryBuff

    It is interesting to compare this with previous escalations in the region. The Assembly of Experts statement suggests a highly coordinated internal policy in Iran that leaves very little room for negotiations.

    Reply ↓

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *