by Brandon Smith, Alt Market:
In March I published an article titled “Global Energy Crisis Or Iranian Surrender In Five Weeks?” in which I outlined the “worst case” and “best case” scenarios for the war in Iran. In my best case scenario I argued in favor of a specific plan to end the conflict quickly: A US naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, flipping the tables on Iran by blocking or seizing any oil tankers or gas tankers which exit Iranian ports.
Two weeks later, the Trump Administration has implemented this exact strategy.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
The effectiveness of the blockade is already apparent; the propaganda bots on social media are scrambling to find a narrative to counter it, but they are failing. Why? Because Iran already tried to lock down the strait (which is an international waterway), and any government cheering (or secretly cheering) for Iran’s actions is now unable to make a rational argument against the US doing the same thing to Iran. As I noted in March:
“We constantly hear about international exposure to the Hormuz shutdown, but the media rarely mentions that Iran is the MOST exposed economy of all. For now, Iranian oil ships continue to pass through the strait and these vessels are Iran’s economic lifeline. Strategic estimates suggest that without the steady passage of these oil tankers, the Iranian economy would completely collapse within five weeks…”
I then summarized what I believed was the simplest solution to end the war:
“Iranian cargo ships can be targeted for seizure by a US blockade of the Persian Gulf well away from the narrow waters of the Hormuz. The ships could be destroyed, but I suspect the Department of Defense will try to avoid oil spills and ecological disasters. Instead, the best option is to capture Iran’s tankers and then redirect the oil to countries in danger of shortages.
Iran has the option of shutting off GPS tracking for their vessels (shadow fleet), but this would not help them maneuver past a comprehensive US blockade. In other words, I argue that the US could turn the tables on Iran and use their reliance on the Hormuz against them.
With Iran’s economy in shambles, they will no longer be able to purchase missiles or drones for resupply from Russia and China. They won’t be able to pay for logistic resources for their military and they won’t be able to contain public unrest. The Iranians would be forced to negotiate and the war would be over quickly with minimal risk to US troops.”
For now, the US is not seizing Iran’s tankers and is merely sending them back to where they came from. However, it would seem that the Trump Administration and their military advisers have come to the same basic conclusions I did.
For years I have expressed my concerns about a potential conflict in Iran, largely because of the precarious global economic risks associated with mass energy shortages caused by a closure of the Hormuz, which transits around 25% of the world’s energy exports. That said, I do not care about “picking sides” when it comes to Israel or Iran.
This debate is irrelevant and designed, I think, to divide US conservatives over ancient tribal vendettas that do not involve us. I don’t care about the Israeli government or “Zionism” and I certainly don’t care what happens to the theocratic and tyrannical Muslim regime in Iran. We have much more important things to think about.
What matters to me is how the US and the American people are affected by geopolitical events. There has been endless debate on what the war is really about, whether it be Iranian nukes, Israeli schemes, Saudi schemes, control of global oil markets, etc. (I think every action the Trump Administration has take so far from Venezuela to Iran has largely been designed to contain China). In any case, a long term closure of the Hormuz will eventually result in market cascades and a stagflationary crisis.
