Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Conflict in the Middle East
Original poster

(Lack of) US Iran Peace Agreement Part 5

295 replies

OnePeppyFatball · 14/09/2026 10:37

Part 5

OP posts:
Thread gallery
36
Newbutoldfather · 19/09/2026 07:48

@RedTagAlan ,

I don’t see that he has many other options.

The blocking of the sea lanes by Iraq and its proxies isn’t only hurting the U.S. It seems that Trump may get international backing and help finally.

https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/saudi-arabia-yemen-statement-spokesperson-latest-houthi-attacks-0_en

https://www.ynetnews.com/article/ryhhivwtfe

It’s kind of hard to believe Arab nations would cooperate with the U.S and Israel against Iran, but Iran can’t hurt the U.S without hurting the gulf states and EU as well.

I think the Chinese provocation (if that is what it was) is pretty minor. Yes, China may ramp up its presence and aggression, but I don’t think it is looking for anything more at the moment. If you are winning the peace, why risk a war?

Saudi Arabia-Yemen: Statement by the Spokesperson on the latest Houthi attacks

The European Union strongly condemns the latest Houthi attacks against Saudi Arabia, which targeted civilian and economic infrastructure in the south of the country and injured 73 civilians, including women and children. We express our full solidarity...

https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/saudi-arabia-yemen-statement-spokesperson-latest-houthi-attacks-0_en

RedTagAlan · 19/09/2026 06:19

Newbutoldfather · 18/09/2026 17:20

I think this kind of confirms my speculation earlier in this thread.

He has to go all in or effectively surrender. It is an unenviable choice and totally self inflicted.

He can't go all in can he.

And given how this is worldwide geopolitics, just as Xi is about to visit the US, the PRC reminds the US that other things are going on.

Chinese Embassy condemns US support for Philippine provocations near Xianbin Jiao - Global Times

No tin foil hat needed. From my understanding, it was the Chinese vessel that was weaving around behind the Phil vessel. And there was contact. And the US have a mutual defense deal with the phils. So here is a warning what will happen if the US pulls worldwide naval assets into the Gulf ?

Trump is an amateur when it comes to "Nice bar you have here, shame if something happens to it".

Bit of history needed here as well. When the Phils planted a WW2 era ship on a South China sea shoal, it coincided with the US bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in 1999. The CPC narrative is that the bombing was a deliberate distraction ploy between the US and the Phils.

Chinese Embassy condemns US support for Philippine provocations near Xianbin Jiao - Global Times

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202609/1370876.shtml

Newbutoldfather · 18/09/2026 17:20

I think this kind of confirms my speculation earlier in this thread.

He has to go all in or effectively surrender. It is an unenviable choice and totally self inflicted.

Original poster
OnePeppyFatball · 18/09/2026 17:17

Still, he’s consulting the Gulf States this time.

OP posts:
Original poster
OnePeppyFatball · 18/09/2026 17:16

And so we are back to this again. From the Telegraph:

“Donald Trump has once again threatened to “annihilate” the Iranian regime, saying he faces a major decision on how to proceed with the Iran war but will consult with his Gulf allies at the UN General Assembly next week first.
On today’s episode of Iran: the Latest, Roland Oliphant speaks to former Royal Navy commander Tom Sharpe about whether Trump will execute his strike threat given Washington appears to lack the risk appetite for further military escalation. They unpack how the US and Saudi Arabia are smuggling millions of barrels of oil out of the Strait of Hormuz to keep prices down, and what it says about the crippled Iranian military’s inability to police the narrow waterway. ”

Excerpt From
“Trump threatens to ‘annihilate’ Iran as he weighs major war decision”
Roland Oliphant, Tom Sharpe
The Telegraph
https://apple.news/AgJXt53xARYCQWvNi2AGtlg
This material may be protected by copyright.

Trump threatens to ‘annihilate’ Iran as he weighs major war decision — The Telegraph

Plus: China upgrades Djibouti military base and the US-Saudi dark route through the Strait of Hormuz

https://apple.news/AgJXt53xARYCQWvNi2AGtlg

OP posts:
RedTagAlan · 18/09/2026 15:33

OnePeppyFatball · 18/09/2026 14:18

The Telegraph:

“Listen to any US official with access to a microphone and chances are that you will be subjected to assurances about how the war in Iran is going according to plan.
Donald Trump insists the fighting will be over shortly after the midterm elections in November. Pete Hegseth, his defence secretary, is adamant that the US military possesses all the equipment, munitions and time it needs to force the Iranians into a humiliating surrender. Victory is surely around the corner.
Of course, the reality of the situation doesn’t match the rose-coloured glasses dangling in front of the Trump administration’s eyes. The war, in fact, isn’t going according to plan and hasn’t from the first week of combat operations.”
“If it were, Iran would have signed a deal by now, the Strait of Hormuz would be open to unfettered tanker traffic and Saudi Arabia’s major East-West pipeline would still be functioning. Even the Pentagon’s attempt to provide as little information as possible to the public can’t hide what we all see with our naked eyes.
Still, the extent of the war’s damage is getting clearer. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office reports this week that the war has cost US taxpayers $38bn (£28bn) so far and could eventually rise to as much as $3bn (£2.3bn) a month depending on the scope of the fighting.”
“The military cost is even more astronomical; the Pentagon’s inspector general assessed this week that “hundreds of buildings and structures” at US bases across the region have been either damaged or destroyed. This figure is higher than previous estimates but jives with the satellite imagery showing significant amounts of rubble in locations such as Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia and the US Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain”
“Even more important than the footage and extent of the material damage, however, is what the war has revealed about Washington’s traditional military force posture in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf in particular. In summary: the last 30 years of US military policy, and the assumptions underscoring that policy, have been blown out of the water in less than seven months.
Since the conclusion of the 1991 Gulf War, the United States has centred its strategy in the region on the concept of forward defence. By establishing a network of big bases and logistical facilities throughout the Gulf, deterrence against adversaries like Iran and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq would be strengthened, the logic went. Attacks on the Gulf States would ideally be prevented – and if attacks did occur, the US would swiftly retaliate to prevent future escalation.”
“The Gulf monarchies were highly supportive of this concept, viewing a large US troop presence as the best bulwark against a possible attack on their territory. Driven by that sentiment, Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates all signed defence agreements with Washington in the years after Iraqi troops were pushed out of Kuwait upon the expectation that revisionist states would think twice before engaging in another act of aggression.
But the nearly seven-month conflict in Iran has ripped these assumptions to shreds. In peacetime, a forward-deployed US posture was believed to deter attacks. But once those attacks happened, US bases turned into liabilities and perfect targets for Iran, a country that has devoted decades and billions of dollars to building up the Middle East’s biggest missile stockpile.”
“The same facilities US policymakers thought were fundamental to maintaining a favourable balance of power in the Middle East are now essentially sources of disorder as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps takes aim at them and forces Washington to expend critical precision air defence interceptors that will take years to replenish. Not even US bases in Jordan are immune to Iranian attacks.
Much will be written about the wisdom of waging a war in the Persian Gulf that nobody in the region bar Israel wanted. There will be years of debate, both inside Washington and out, about whether it’s fiscally responsible or strategically wise for the Pentagon to spend billions to rebuild its presence just as it was before the war started on Feb 28.”
“In Riyadh, Abu Dhabi and Doha, Arab leaders are undoubtedly having critical discussions of their own, including whether relying so heavily on a single power such as the United States for their security was a grave error of judgment.
By signing a defence accord with Pakistan and Turkey last month, the normally reserved Saudis are already leading the way in this regard, not cutting ties with the Americans wholesale but searching for more insurance against today’s security threats and those that may arise in the future.
Yet for Trump and his successors, the war has – or at least should – raise a much-needed reassessment about America’s strategic priorities in the Middle East, what limited interests Washington really has there and how best to achieve them.”
“The constellation of American military airfields, ports and barracks from Qatar to Israel are, if not sitting ducks to Tehran’s asymmetric war strategy, then at the very least points of vulnerability the Pentagon will have to guard against for as long as the Americans choose to retain a bloated force structure.
Back in 1979, US president Jimmy Carter declared what would be colloquially known as the Carter Doctrine. Any foreign aggression against Gulf energy supplies would be treated from there on out as a threat to US security.
Nearly 50 years later, another American president, Donald Trump, has effectively killed it.”

Excerpt From
“Opinion: Iran is proving it can push America out of the Middle East”
Daniel DePetris
The Telegraph
https://apple.news/ATsSNe816SRuGDXfP_n_bIQ
This material may be protected by copyright.

There are all the massive military costs as well that are not included. I just done a quick search for "us invests billions to expand patriot missile production", first hit

US Signs Deal to Boost Patriot and THAAD Missile Parts Production (usnews.com)

That's $3 billion. August 2026, And in that article is this -

"The deal, announced by the Pentagon and Northrop on Monday, follows last week's announcement of a contract for Lockheed worth up to $58.6 billion to produce Patriot interceptor missiles."

These contracts will be rock solid and welded in. What they produce will have to be bought by the next POTUS. And the next. Needed or not.

Aircraft airframe hours are being used up. Years of service life taken off ships. Extended maintenance. All these things have been blown apart because of Trumps war of choice. And they will have to be sorted to be prepared for a war not of choice.

Oh, I see Saudi Arabia are getting F35 now. So that likely means the next POTUS will be pushed for more money for Israel, because the deal there is that Israel has to be better kitted out than regional neighbours.

Trump is spending as if there is no tomorrow.

Original poster
OnePeppyFatball · 18/09/2026 14:18

The Telegraph:

“Listen to any US official with access to a microphone and chances are that you will be subjected to assurances about how the war in Iran is going according to plan.
Donald Trump insists the fighting will be over shortly after the midterm elections in November. Pete Hegseth, his defence secretary, is adamant that the US military possesses all the equipment, munitions and time it needs to force the Iranians into a humiliating surrender. Victory is surely around the corner.
Of course, the reality of the situation doesn’t match the rose-coloured glasses dangling in front of the Trump administration’s eyes. The war, in fact, isn’t going according to plan and hasn’t from the first week of combat operations.”
“If it were, Iran would have signed a deal by now, the Strait of Hormuz would be open to unfettered tanker traffic and Saudi Arabia’s major East-West pipeline would still be functioning. Even the Pentagon’s attempt to provide as little information as possible to the public can’t hide what we all see with our naked eyes.
Still, the extent of the war’s damage is getting clearer. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office reports this week that the war has cost US taxpayers $38bn (£28bn) so far and could eventually rise to as much as $3bn (£2.3bn) a month depending on the scope of the fighting.”
“The military cost is even more astronomical; the Pentagon’s inspector general assessed this week that “hundreds of buildings and structures” at US bases across the region have been either damaged or destroyed. This figure is higher than previous estimates but jives with the satellite imagery showing significant amounts of rubble in locations such as Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia and the US Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain”
“Even more important than the footage and extent of the material damage, however, is what the war has revealed about Washington’s traditional military force posture in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf in particular. In summary: the last 30 years of US military policy, and the assumptions underscoring that policy, have been blown out of the water in less than seven months.
Since the conclusion of the 1991 Gulf War, the United States has centred its strategy in the region on the concept of forward defence. By establishing a network of big bases and logistical facilities throughout the Gulf, deterrence against adversaries like Iran and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq would be strengthened, the logic went. Attacks on the Gulf States would ideally be prevented – and if attacks did occur, the US would swiftly retaliate to prevent future escalation.”
“The Gulf monarchies were highly supportive of this concept, viewing a large US troop presence as the best bulwark against a possible attack on their territory. Driven by that sentiment, Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates all signed defence agreements with Washington in the years after Iraqi troops were pushed out of Kuwait upon the expectation that revisionist states would think twice before engaging in another act of aggression.
But the nearly seven-month conflict in Iran has ripped these assumptions to shreds. In peacetime, a forward-deployed US posture was believed to deter attacks. But once those attacks happened, US bases turned into liabilities and perfect targets for Iran, a country that has devoted decades and billions of dollars to building up the Middle East’s biggest missile stockpile.”
“The same facilities US policymakers thought were fundamental to maintaining a favourable balance of power in the Middle East are now essentially sources of disorder as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps takes aim at them and forces Washington to expend critical precision air defence interceptors that will take years to replenish. Not even US bases in Jordan are immune to Iranian attacks.
Much will be written about the wisdom of waging a war in the Persian Gulf that nobody in the region bar Israel wanted. There will be years of debate, both inside Washington and out, about whether it’s fiscally responsible or strategically wise for the Pentagon to spend billions to rebuild its presence just as it was before the war started on Feb 28.”
“In Riyadh, Abu Dhabi and Doha, Arab leaders are undoubtedly having critical discussions of their own, including whether relying so heavily on a single power such as the United States for their security was a grave error of judgment.
By signing a defence accord with Pakistan and Turkey last month, the normally reserved Saudis are already leading the way in this regard, not cutting ties with the Americans wholesale but searching for more insurance against today’s security threats and those that may arise in the future.
Yet for Trump and his successors, the war has – or at least should – raise a much-needed reassessment about America’s strategic priorities in the Middle East, what limited interests Washington really has there and how best to achieve them.”
“The constellation of American military airfields, ports and barracks from Qatar to Israel are, if not sitting ducks to Tehran’s asymmetric war strategy, then at the very least points of vulnerability the Pentagon will have to guard against for as long as the Americans choose to retain a bloated force structure.
Back in 1979, US president Jimmy Carter declared what would be colloquially known as the Carter Doctrine. Any foreign aggression against Gulf energy supplies would be treated from there on out as a threat to US security.
Nearly 50 years later, another American president, Donald Trump, has effectively killed it.”

Excerpt From
“Opinion: Iran is proving it can push America out of the Middle East”
Daniel DePetris
The Telegraph
https://apple.news/ATsSNe816SRuGDXfP_n_bIQ
This material may be protected by copyright.

Opinion: Iran is proving it can push America out of the Middle East — The Telegraph

US bases meant to deter attack are now targets – forcing Gulf allies to rethink their reliance on Washington

https://apple.news/ATsSNe816SRuGDXfP_n_bIQ

OP posts:
RedTagAlan · 17/09/2026 19:05

trumpredcard · 17/09/2026 18:54

Any thoughts on why the US is planning to (re)supply Israel with munitions? Iran is allowed to be part of your answer.🤔

What happened to the 12k dumb bombs he sold Israel in the spring ? All gone ?

The US does have massive stocks of dumb bombs. The GPS kits that are strapped on to make them smart, they need congressional approval.

RedTagAlan · 17/09/2026 18:59

trumpredcard · 17/09/2026 18:33

Ah @RedTagAlan , pensions is only one part of the conundrum of how to nationalise the US O&G industry. And it will take more than a stable of stable geniuses to crack that one!

One rule for majors with clout and another for service companies with less, which now has me thinking along the lines of the Tik Tok sale. eg Slb (French, so TT route) vs Halliburton (US).

Forgive my idle wonderings, I enjoy hypotheticals.... now back to Iran where nothing much is happening.

The tiktok sale was a national level scam, perhaps the greatest ever.... and Trump fell for it hook, line and....

With other people's money.

Trump has created a top down system that Mao would be proud of. It was never confirmed, was it ? That they got the algorithms. That is what Trump wanted after all. And these people who paid for it, with planet sized brains and billions of $ to spend, why did they not just write their own ?

What next ? Will Trump try to get his palls to buy the Iranian "lego" propaganda company ? It would not surprise me.

trumpredcard · 17/09/2026 18:54

Any thoughts on why the US is planning to (re)supply Israel with munitions? Iran is allowed to be part of your answer.🤔

trumpredcard · 17/09/2026 18:40

😂Love it!

RedTagAlan · 17/09/2026 18:35

Just an observation. I think it's great that the "antiwar types" on these threads disagree with stuff. Because for anyone reading, it shows we are not some sort of homogenous mass. It kicks this whole binary " if you are against Trump then you are pro Iran regime" into touch. This is not an echo chamber.

I follow the other threads that pop up on these boards. The " they have a religion and way of life that is contrary to western values" sort. And they end up with " lefties are intolerant and want to shut us down". But they are the ones shutting it down. And they don't even know if the posters they disagree with are "lefties" Because beyond political soundbites, they have nothing to add. They shut it down by endlessly claiming they are being shut down.....

.... and reporting posts.

I don't report posts on these threads, and I promise not to start. Unless anyone tries to dox anyone.

So as we chew the cud waiting for Trump... I say oil should be nationalized.

trumpredcard · 17/09/2026 18:33

Ah @RedTagAlan , pensions is only one part of the conundrum of how to nationalise the US O&G industry. And it will take more than a stable of stable geniuses to crack that one!

One rule for majors with clout and another for service companies with less, which now has me thinking along the lines of the Tik Tok sale. eg Slb (French, so TT route) vs Halliburton (US).

Forgive my idle wonderings, I enjoy hypotheticals.... now back to Iran where nothing much is happening.

RedTagAlan · 17/09/2026 17:43

trumpredcard · 17/09/2026 16:22

But there's a difference between companies maximising profits/ROI to benefit the companies, who in turn answer to shareholders so they have to deliver shareholder value, and a gov't handing out subsidies that don't benefit the people much, but could benefit the gov't in power.
The latter type of corruption is globally rife.

Totally agree. But corruption can be legislated against... to an extent. Not so easy though when the system encourages it.

“I’m not proposing a third bloc in order to become a great power rival, only with better manners,” Carney told EU lawmakers in France.

“We do not seek power to dominate others. On the contrary, we are pursuing resilience so no one can control our open markets, impair our sovereignty, threaten territorial integrity or undermine our freedoms, our democracies, our rule of law.”

Mark Carney: Canada-EU alliance isn’t meant to be a US rival with ‘better manners’ | CNN Business

Trump is the danger here. More than Iran I would say. And look, I am not a communist or a socialist (dictionary definition I mean). I do live in a communist country though, a corrupt one. And the Party is like a beast that nobody can control. The survival of the Party is number one. And that overrides the rule of law. The Party protects itself, rule number one. It is the only real law.

Compare that to the US capitalist system. It needs law more, because that beast of capitalism is meaner and bigger. It is an ideology designed to chew up and spit out the weak and the poor. Where money is the God.

Likes of Carney, he knows this. Mixed economy capitalism beats communism, and pure capitalism, but only if it has the laws. The laws that Trump is trying to dismantle. Trump does not understand the beast he is trying to unshackle.

Nor do I by the way. Not totally. But I do understand the communist beast pretty well. The one that needs authoritarianism.

On thread now. Iran. A brutal authoritarian theocratic system. The people of Iran only really have one offer on the table. The Trump beast. The PRC stay quiet. And I honestly think it is because they know, deep down, the Carney vision (not him specifically) is better for the people. With lots of tweaks of course. There is no perfect system, and any new Iranian system will need a lot of religion integrated into it, for now anyway.

I know what system I see as the greatest threat to Humanity. And I think, if we can push that to the side, disenfranchise it with law, then we can tackle the Iranian clerics.

By the way. On privatization of oil. Saudi Arabia ? And that you posted earlier today that US oil can't be nationalized "cos pensions". To me that says the capitalist beast is already too big. And the bigger it gets, the hungrier it becomes.

Canada-EU alliance isn’t meant to be a US rival with ‘better manners,’ Carney says | CNN Business

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney took a veiled swipe at US President Donald Trump on Thursday, insisting that his proposal to deepen EU ties wasn’t aimed at creating a new, more polite geopolitical bloc.

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/09/17/business/mark-carney-canada-us-intl

trumpredcard · 17/09/2026 16:22

But there's a difference between companies maximising profits/ROI to benefit the companies, who in turn answer to shareholders so they have to deliver shareholder value, and a gov't handing out subsidies that don't benefit the people much, but could benefit the gov't in power.
The latter type of corruption is globally rife.

RedTagAlan · 17/09/2026 09:58

trumpredcard · 17/09/2026 09:38

So taxpayers subsidising big oil without any payback for consumers? I'm betting several of Trump's friends will be benefitting and that Donny jr's involved somewhere in the handouts. He's probably bought into the CC industry.

Show quote history

Been that way for decades. Because of the leverage the oil industry have by controlling a national security thing.

All US industry do it, because it is baked into US law.

" The company's management and its Board Of Directors have a fundamental, and often legally-backed, responsibility to make decisions that increase the value of your ownership stake. "

Shareholder Value: The Ultimate Guide to a Company's Core Duty (uslawexplained.com)

The Military Industrial Complex are masters at it. " Be a shame if we closed our factory in Maine in election year Senator. Now, about these tax breaks".

If I was a Senator, I would be replying," Hmm yes. My colleagues and I are discussing if we should nationalize key strategic industries."

:-)

Shareholder Value: The Ultimate Guide to a Company's Core Duty

Learn what shareholder value means, how it shapes your rights as an investor, and why the shareholder vs. stakeholder debate is redefining modern corporate law.

https://uslawexplained.com/shareholder_value

trumpredcard · 17/09/2026 09:38

RedTagAlan · 17/09/2026 09:27

The US does subsidize oil though. The industry.

Trumps One big Beautiful Bill Act gave them an additional $40 billion.

New Bill Boosts Fossil Fuel Subsidies by $40 Billion → Policy (sustainability-directory.com)

Corporate welfare on steroids. The US way.

Show quote history

So taxpayers subsidising big oil without any payback for consumers? I'm betting several of Trump's friends will be benefitting and that Donny jr's involved somewhere in the handouts. He's probably bought into the CC industry.

RedTagAlan · 17/09/2026 09:27

BelleHathor · 17/09/2026 08:35

Honestly he doesn't care about ordinary Americans.

Trump did drain America's reserves, which worked for a while to suppress prices, just not long enough to affect the midterms (hence the $5000 bribe!).

The truth is the donor/lobby class have a lot more power than Trump and Trump could threaten them but can't force them to do anything.

That said a lot his friends (and some of his family) are making a lot of money right now. This administration is staffed with people who have obvious conflicts of interest. For example Lutnick has doubled his net worth since joining :

https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2026/09/11/how-commerce-secretary-howard-lutnick-went-from-911-hero-to-most-hated-guy-on-wall-street/

And whose former company profited greatly from Trump’s tarriffs:
https://fortune.com/2026/03/07/winners-supreme-court-tariff-ruling-hedge-funds-creating-100-billion-secondary-market-refunds-brandon-howard-lutnick/

Ordinary Americans suffering can suck it up:
"So, for you to pay a tiny, little bit more for your gasoline, just remember, you're doing it so that a very evil country cannot have… a nuclear weapon," Trump said. "So, remember that, when you have to pay a little bit more, you're at $4, it's okay."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/trump-tells-americans-paying-4-204008508.html

Show quote history

The US does subsidize oil though. The industry.

Trumps One big Beautiful Bill Act gave them an additional $40 billion.

New Bill Boosts Fossil Fuel Subsidies by $40 Billion → Policy (sustainability-directory.com)

Corporate welfare on steroids. The US way.

A pale mushroom and a striking green mushroom with detailed gills are arranged amongst a collection of porous volcanic rocks and fragmented puzzle pieces. A single sewing needle pierces through the composition, adding an element of intricate constructi...

New Bill Boosts Fossil Fuel Subsidies by $40 Billion → Policy

A recent spending bill significantly increases federal financial support for the oil and gas industry, adding billions in new subsidies. → Policy

https://news.sustainability-directory.com/policy/new-bill-boosts-fossil-fuel-subsidies-by-40-billion/#:~:text=The%20%22One%20Big%20Beautiful%20Bill%20Act%2C%22%20passed%20this,gas%2C%20and%20coal%20industries%20over%20the%20next%20decade.

trumpredcard · 17/09/2026 08:43

Americans should at least be transitioning from monster trucks.
Agree.
I know I'm being disrespectful here, but rednecks (and Texans) be like 'No way, it's my identity!".
Disclaimer. I have a DN and a SIL who drive these.

BelleHathor · 17/09/2026 08:35

trumpredcard · 17/09/2026 07:53

It is an international market and even governments don’t want to sell oil at a loss.

But what many gov'ts with an O&G industry have done is subsidise the price to home consumers. Don't know why Trump has not considered doing this in the US. Too communist a move?

Honestly he doesn't care about ordinary Americans.

Trump did drain America's reserves, which worked for a while to suppress prices, just not long enough to affect the midterms (hence the $5000 bribe!).

The truth is the donor/lobby class have a lot more power than Trump and Trump could threaten them but can't force them to do anything.

That said a lot his friends (and some of his family) are making a lot of money right now. This administration is staffed with people who have obvious conflicts of interest. For example Lutnick has doubled his net worth since joining :

https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2026/09/11/how-commerce-secretary-howard-lutnick-went-from-911-hero-to-most-hated-guy-on-wall-street/

And whose former company profited greatly from Trump’s tarriffs:
https://fortune.com/2026/03/07/winners-supreme-court-tariff-ruling-hedge-funds-creating-100-billion-secondary-market-refunds-brandon-howard-lutnick/

Ordinary Americans suffering can suck it up:
"So, for you to pay a tiny, little bit more for your gasoline, just remember, you're doing it so that a very evil country cannot have… a nuclear weapon," Trump said. "So, remember that, when you have to pay a little bit more, you're at $4, it's okay."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/trump-tells-americans-paying-4-204008508.html

Trump Tells Americans Paying $4 for Gas to Suck It Up for His War

"I'll never apologize"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/trump-tells-americans-paying-4-204008508.html

Newbutoldfather · 17/09/2026 08:21

@trumpredcard ,

‘But what many gov'ts with an O&G industry have done is subsidise the price to home consumers. Don't know why Trump has not considered doing this in the US. Too communist a move?’

Yes, probably.

I think distorting markets isn’t normally a good thing. It can work short term to cushion people from spikes but, otherwise, it encourages inefficient decision making.

I think subsidising combustible hydrocarbons in an era of extreme climate change is probably not ideal either. Americans should at least be transitioning from monster trucks.

trumpredcard · 17/09/2026 07:53

It is an international market and even governments don’t want to sell oil at a loss.

But what many gov'ts with an O&G industry have done is subsidise the price to home consumers. Don't know why Trump has not considered doing this in the US. Too communist a move?

Newbutoldfather · 17/09/2026 07:47

@RedTagAlan ,

Given that Trump last night sent out, after the rate hike:

‘rates "should be 1%, or less, because we are the Best Credit in the World - BY FAR".’

I think it is unlikely he understands the chemical mixture of crude oil, the refining method or the pricing mechanism.

trumpredcard · 17/09/2026 07:47

Anyway, beyond this thread I think.
True.😆
This is the point where I explain that I used to work in O&G ... and the stories I could tell about bribery at the highest levels ...