Oil hits $100 a barrel despite deal to release record amount of reserves • Hacker News Board

Re: Oil hits $100 a barrel despite deal to release record amount of reserves

#71

Post by itake » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 6:22 AM UTC

zer00eyz wrote: post #41

itake wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1/ When authors use AI for editing, it reduces their credibility. 2/ As much as I don't like the current administration (and Israel leadership), there is absolutely no way the assumptions this article makes about them are false. There is no way the US/Israel didn't calculate that: - the straight would be closed - a new leader may represent similar idiologies of the past leader. Everything that has happened so far (in…

> There is no way the US/Israel didn't calculate that: ... the straight would be closed It has always had this potential, as it has happened before: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Earnest_Will (1987). But based on this history I would assume that many in the admin did not find the threat as credible as it was then. We dont seem to have a good grasp on how things have gone in the black sea. We clearly did…

If the US decided that stopping oil production in Iran was important (restricting global oil supply), what other options does the US have ease the impact on oil prices other than Russian sanction easement?

Yeah, it looks bad, but there just isn't really any other ways for the US to magically pump more oil out of the ground instantaneously to compensate for the war.

Re: Oil hits $100 a barrel despite deal to release record amount of reserves

#72

Post by mrtksn » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 6:49 AM UTC

YZF wrote: post #40

msy wrote: post #4

This theory of how the US loses in Iran is looking increasingly likely: https://kasperbenjamin.substack.com/p/why-the-us-will-lose-t... It's going to be incredibly difficult to stop Iran being able to kneecap both the global economy and in particular the gulf states, who are going to be motivated to put maximum pressure on the US to sue for peace. Incredible hubris and a lobotomised diplomatic and intelligence infras…

Wars are hard to predict and the economy is hard to predict. There's easy money in the making for those who are sure the oil price is going to continue way up. The blog you reference has inaccuracies. Drones are generally not shot by THAAD is a glaring one. It's very much not 2-3 million dollars to $50k. Helicopter gunships shoot down drones with bullets these days is very common and there are other economic means of…

> The blog you reference has inaccuracies. Drones are generally not shot by THAAD is a glaring one

It's obvious that the author doesn't mean THAAD but Patriot, which are indeed used against drones. You can tell that by the missle cost the author mentions, which is 1/10th of the THAAD missle. As the argument is a cost effectiveness argument the logic holds, just replace THAAD with Patriot.

Even though Ukraine offered their cost effective solution, they have a war to fight so any serious capacity increase will probably take months if not years and these things are not static and are quickly shaped on the battlefield so the Gulf states and Israel and USA will need to develop talent that is on the battlefield, like Russia and Ukraine did.

Re: Oil hits $100 a barrel despite deal to release record amount of reserves

#73

Post by beloch » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 7:14 AM UTC

itake wrote: post #68

beloch wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is reported to have recommended against further air strikes on Iran[1]. ---------- "Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Dan Caine, has warned that strikes against Iran could be risky, potentially drawing the US into a prolonged conflict, US media report. Caine has reportedly cautioned that a military action could have repercussions across the region, pote…

I agree that many people inside and outside the US gov didn't want this war for various reasons, but of the people that wanted this war, they must have calculated these very obvious risks. The article touches on this topic, but my guess is Iran isn't part of the USD/petrol trading. If the US can convince the new leadership in Iran to start trading in USD, then that would be very good for the USA (and bad for CN, RU,…

If the POTUS starts a war against the advice of the The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, he should have a plan beyond "wag the dog" to distract from the Epstein files. I'm not convinced Trump actually has a plan unfortunately.

Re: Oil hits $100 a barrel despite deal to release record amount of reserves

#74

Post by palmotea » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 7:26 AM UTC

mrtksn wrote: post #72

YZF wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wars are hard to predict and the economy is hard to predict. There's easy money in the making for those who are sure the oil price is going to continue way up. The blog you reference has inaccuracies. Drones are generally not shot by THAAD is a glaring one. It's very much not 2-3 million dollars to $50k. Helicopter gunships shoot down drones with bullets these days is very common and there are other economic means of…

> The blog you reference has inaccuracies. Drones are generally not shot by THAAD is a glaring one It's obvious that the author doesn't mean THAAD but Patriot, which are indeed used against drones. You can tell that by the missle cost the author mentions, which is 1/10th of the THAAD missle. As the argument is a cost effectiveness argument the logic holds, just replace THAAD with Patriot. Even though Ukraine offered…

> It's obvious that the author doesn't mean THAAD but Patriot

That's a bit sloppy.

Re: Oil hits $100 a barrel despite deal to release record amount of reserves

#75

Post by tpm » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 8:03 AM UTC

YZF wrote: post #46

shubhamjain wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might expect events like this to fundamentally change the global order or bring some sanity to U.S. policymaking. But nothing is going to change. It will be chaotic few years, but soon enough, everything will be conveniently forgotten. Iranian/Syrian/Afganian threat will reappear, the war-mongers and Israel-lobby will once more push for pre-emptive strikes, assassinations of leaders or generals. Rinse and repeat.…

The core of the problem is that the US stepped back under Obama from being the guarantor of global order. The world needs policing and deterrence is the sad reality otherwise everything goes to hell. Why did Russia attack Ukraine? Why is China threatening to attack Taiwan? Without the US (and the west more generally) Russia would retake half of Europe and China would have taken Taiwan. If you think there would be wor…

> The core of the problem is that the US stepped back under Obama from being the guarantor of global order.

That is not the core of the problem. We can go a bit further:

- Obama was a reaction to overstepping under Bush. As a 'guarantor of global order' the US created a lot of disorder with Iraq and Afganistan. That is actually more in line with what historically the US understands under 'the global order': the US does what it wants to do and calls it the global order.

- also the relative standing of the US since the end of the 90s is falling, because of the rise of other countries. That was widely expected and forecasted. What was also expected is that empires on their way out don't act rationally, because there is ample historical precendent to that. And so here we are.

Re: Oil hits $100 a barrel despite deal to release record amount of reserves

#76

Post by disgruntledphd2 » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 8:09 AM UTC

itake wrote: post #71

zer00eyz wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no way the US/Israel didn't calculate that: ... the straight would be closed It has always had this potential, as it has happened before: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Earnest_Will (1987). But based on this history I would assume that many in the admin did not find the threat as credible as it was then. We dont seem to have a good grasp on how things have gone in the black sea. We clearly did…

If the US decided that stopping oil production in Iran was important (restricting global oil supply), what other options does the US have ease the impact on oil prices other than Russian sanction easement? Yeah, it looks bad, but there just isn't really any other ways for the US to magically pump more oil out of the ground instantaneously to compensate for the war.

This is why starting a war with Iran right now was a bad idea.

Re: Oil hits $100 a barrel despite deal to release record amount of reserves

#77

Post by general1465 » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 8:11 AM UTC

yyyk wrote: post #34

Waterluvian wrote: post #7

I think it’s wild to me just how much my mainstream news doesn’t feel like it’s covering some of what’s really going on. I have to go to YouTube to see that Iran is successfully fighting back in many ways including hitting oil tankers and depots. Not that I’m claiming the CBC and such are doing something sinister here. Just that I no-longer get the full story vibe I recall getting back in previous U.S. wars.

"fighting back" == blowing 3rd party civilian installations.

It is similar to way how Russia / Ukraine war is fought. Both sides will show you when civilian area is hit and both sides will try to conceal actual hits on sensitive military targets.

So in the news you will see that Iranians are bombing hotels, but what you won't see is that Iranians were able to knock out for example THAAD and now USA needs to move one in Korea into the Middle East.

Re: Oil hits $100 a barrel despite deal to release record amount of reserves

#78

Post by TOMDM » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 8:34 AM UTC

mrtksn wrote: post #72

YZF wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wars are hard to predict and the economy is hard to predict. There's easy money in the making for those who are sure the oil price is going to continue way up. The blog you reference has inaccuracies. Drones are generally not shot by THAAD is a glaring one. It's very much not 2-3 million dollars to $50k. Helicopter gunships shoot down drones with bullets these days is very common and there are other economic means of…

> The blog you reference has inaccuracies. Drones are generally not shot by THAAD is a glaring one It's obvious that the author doesn't mean THAAD but Patriot, which are indeed used against drones. You can tell that by the missle cost the author mentions, which is 1/10th of the THAAD missle. As the argument is a cost effectiveness argument the logic holds, just replace THAAD with Patriot. Even though Ukraine offered…

We're likely to see Ukraine some of their own domestic anti drone capability for Gulf State Patriots.

Gulf States trading dollar for dollar with Ukraine on Patriots and anti drone capability is likely to leave both parties very happy.

Re: Oil hits $100 a barrel despite deal to release record amount of reserves

#79

Post by Waterluvian » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 11:50 AM UTC

yyyk wrote: post #34

Waterluvian wrote: post #7

I think it’s wild to me just how much my mainstream news doesn’t feel like it’s covering some of what’s really going on. I have to go to YouTube to see that Iran is successfully fighting back in many ways including hitting oil tankers and depots. Not that I’m claiming the CBC and such are doing something sinister here. Just that I no-longer get the full story vibe I recall getting back in previous U.S. wars.

"fighting back" == blowing 3rd party civilian installations.

That’s how it works when you’re fighting a county like America. Do you think if the U.S. invaded Canada that we wouldn’t do flavours of the same?

America prosecutes wars depending on political popularity. Making it incredibly unpopular to do so is a very real strategy.

Not that I’m suggesting it isn’t still ugly and horrible to bomb civilian targets like girls’ schools.

Re: Oil hits $100 a barrel despite deal to release record amount of reserves

#80

Post by _heimdall » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 12:14 PM UTC

YZF wrote: post #51

_heimdall wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump, the neo-cons, and much of the Republican party might as well hang up their hats if they put boots on the ground (beyond special forces which is often ignored for some reason). The US will be bogged down for years at a minimum if we entered Iran on the ground, or we would lose quickly and tuck tail. This isn't a fight to be won in a conventional war, the administration put every chip they had on a gamble that r…

Everyone says there's no historical examples but there is no exact parallel either. I wouldn't argue based on historical precedence here. The challenge is that regime is large and armed and they can hide and weather the storm. They'll hide in hospitals, and mosques, and schools and amongst civilians. Getting them and disrupting their organization to a point where a popular revolt can take over seems ... lessay hard.…

Historical precedent is important with regards to predictability. We have no idea if simply bombing them to hell will be enough for regime change, while we do know that there is some lower bound of military involvement on the ground that would have likely success with that goal.

Personally I don't see how an air campaign alone can lead to any regime change we'd actually want to see. We are all being told the Iranian public is a cohesive unit with a strong majority wanting to go back to 1978, I don't buy it.

The only likely outcomes I see, if the regime is changed at all, is a military coup with even worse people coming in, a very bloody civil war, or a faction in the country we never hear about taking over quickly by promising the world to the public. For the last one, I'd expect that to be a group more akin to the Nazis than some group that actually means well for Iranians.