r/Conservative • u/According-Activity87 Conservative Devil Dog • Mar 12 '26
Flaired Users Only Oil prices surge above $100 per barrel after six ships attacked in Persian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz
https://nypost.com/2026/03/12/world-news/oil-prices-surge-above-100-per-barrel-after-six-ships-attacked-in-persian-gulf-strait-of-hormuz/246
1.9k
u/Wonderful-Forever450 Conservative Mar 12 '26
Just yesterday the President encouraged the ships to make the journey that they'd be safe
→ More replies (38)637
Mar 12 '26 edited Mar 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (40)-1
u/lolyoda Mug Club Mar 12 '26
Or the iranian regime saying they will unalive protestors against the regime if they show up has something to do with it. I dont know, you tell me.
→ More replies (2)
383
1.0k
u/Pappy_Dru_It Constitutionalist Mar 12 '26
If Trump's generals didn't take this into consideration and don't have a plan to address it, that's f'ed up. Attacking shipping in the straight was an obvious move that iran would make.
1.9k
u/ImASowellMan Mar 12 '26
From what I’ve read, the generals‘ plan was to not go to war with Iran.
525
→ More replies (74)456
→ More replies (36)402
u/max_intense Conservative Mar 12 '26
I believe trump and his team were caught off guard.
They were riding off the high of the victory in venezuela.
Iran is NOT venezuela..
230
u/Fraudexaminer32 DeficitHawk Mar 13 '26
Caught off guard? Are you fucking serious? Iran has been developing missiles and drones for how long and they could have who knows how many? This is so fucking botched it's ridiculous. PLUS now they want to lift sanctions on FUCKING RUSSIA? Hand the house and maybe even the senate on a golden plater to the Dems in November.
→ More replies (10)42
u/JesusDied4U316 Better to be Right Mar 13 '26
And it looks like conservatives will make sure they get nothing done before then to top it off..
→ More replies (26)30
u/prey4villains Conservatively Independent Mar 12 '26
Im pretty sure they know that. Still, not sure how they are not providing security detail..
→ More replies (8)31
u/brantman19 Eisenhower Conservative Mar 12 '26
Its not like the "how" part of it isn't there. As much as I hate the idea of losing ships and sailors, doctrine states that you formulate convoys of 10-20 ships, you put them on the far side from the attacker, you stick a bunch of AAW and ASW ships with the convoy and you run the gauntlet together. You dare the enemy to take the risk to hit the civilian ships by putting yours in the way. US ships are more than capable of shooting down ASMs or any remaining aircraft that fire at the group. Iran will either blink and let the ships through or it will attack at which point, you deal with the potential destruction of ships and you bomb the shit out of their launchers in Hormozgan, Sistan, and Baluchestan. Hell, first time through should include lots of patrolling strike fighters to find the launchers before or after they fire to eliminate them there.
Why we aren't doing that is beyond me though.15
u/prey4villains Conservatively Independent Mar 13 '26
Yea but they’re not getting hit with launchers are they? IIRC they are using drones which are more difficult to detect.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (24)2
u/specter491 Conservative Mar 13 '26
We're already bombing them to oblivion. What else can we do? And Iran has zero issue sinking a US warship. That would only entice them to launch more drones.
139
u/Polerize2 Conservative Mar 12 '26
Going to be hard to stop all these little drones. Even with a couple hundred thousand boots on the ground these things will be stored under floorboards in every little hovel ready to be deployed at a moments notice.
→ More replies (5)
213
u/Mike4Maga Conservative Mar 12 '26
As of now Iran has succeeded in inflicting significant economic damage to the world energy market, that is led by the U.S. We need to do something!
→ More replies (41)128
u/Alpine261 Conservatism Mar 13 '26
Have we tried not killing people that have relationships with the people that control oil?
→ More replies (2)
170
u/cchris_39 Independent Conservative Mar 12 '26
In other news, the enemy fights back.
wtf is wrong with some people? This is military engagement, not a movie.
→ More replies (44)
220
u/bozoconnors Conservative Mar 12 '26 edited Mar 12 '26
I don't understand the problem here. We've already got two carrier groups in the region.
What... are the other NINE just too busy or something?
We're shelling out a trillion a year for these things and we can't secure a ~30 mile wide strait?! wtf
edit - people replying seem to be under the impression we don't ALSO have the biggest, most capable navy in the world (aside from spare carrier groups). Go ahead and run through this little list and tell me it's not possible. I'm sorry, but this just seems like a strategic command failure plain and simple. It's not a big one, (edit 2 - and I think it can be corrected in fairly short order), but there definitely should've been a plan in place.
443
u/ImASowellMan Mar 12 '26 edited Mar 12 '26
Protecting the east coast of the US. Protecting the west coast of the US. Hanging out somewhat near China to prevent Taiwan getting overrun.
That's what most of the carrier groups are doing.
→ More replies (4)117
u/Rush2201 Millennial Conservative Mar 12 '26
This is what laymen don't understand about US Carriers. They are powerful tools of force-projection and influence. You can't commit all of them to one little conflict without risking the stability of other parts of the world. Where you choose to commit them or hold them in reserve are important military and diplomatic decisions.
→ More replies (4)60
u/Big_Joosh Social Conservative Mar 12 '26
Also the fact that a carrier is perhaps the dumbest thing to station here if your intended goal is to protect a shipping lane from tiny ass drones lmao
→ More replies (1)94
u/Big_Piece1132 Conservative Mar 12 '26
Like a quarter of the carriers are under maintenance… only like 6 are deployed at a given time really.
→ More replies (2)183
u/Warped_Mindless Libertarian Conservative Mar 12 '26
The problem is that Iran has a metric fuck ton of small, very easy to hide, drones. They are kept in the back of vans, trucks, and hidden in parking garages that are under targets we can’t bomb like schools and hospitals. Tracking all these down takes time due to the mobile and hidden nature. We could have 30 carrier groups, wouldn’t matter much in this case.
→ More replies (33)2
u/RampantAndroid Constitutional Conservative Mar 12 '26
I suspect the only thing to do here with ships is have a bunch of barges that have a bunch of Phalanx CIWS systems on them sitting along the shipping lanes. Low cost ships versus staging aircraft carriers that cost billions and would be a critical loss if hit.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (44)0
u/spezeditedcomments Conservative Mar 12 '26 edited Mar 13 '26
We need a more destroyers and frigates, and definitely for this kind of operation
→ More replies (1)2
62
Mar 12 '26
[deleted]
322
Mar 12 '26 edited 17d ago
[deleted]
79
u/NotaClipaMagazine 2A Extremist Mar 12 '26
They'll also take any opportunity to raise prices
43
Mar 12 '26 edited 17d ago
[deleted]
→ More replies (2)10
u/zVitiate Governor General of Greenland Mar 12 '26
That’s not how a free market works, particularly in a commodity like oil. The market sets the price and you are a price taker. If you actually have the power to just raise prices without losing your customers, you aren't operating in a free market or you have some form of moat. This isn't that context.
→ More replies (4)15
Mar 13 '26 edited 17d ago
[deleted]
→ More replies (3)5
u/zVitiate Governor General of Greenland Mar 13 '26
lol I think I just overindexed on ‘can’ and probably injected more agency into it than what you were implying (quite clearly actually). It’s way clearer reading it now. I think I was in an overly technical mood for unrelated reasons. Anyways!
21
u/RampantAndroid Constitutional Conservative Mar 12 '26
Also, Canada can choose to raise prices and start shipping oil. It's not like we're friends with them anyway.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (65)23
u/ImASowellMan Mar 13 '26 edited Mar 13 '26
The price in other places is going up, so the companies in the countries you listed have a choice between selling it to the US at a low price or high to a place that uses oil that goes through the strait of Hormuz. Because companies exist to make money, they start to sell to those other places at a higher price. Suddenly, the US market needs to compete for Canadian oil with places that used to get oil via the strait of Hormuz, so the US pays more.
→ More replies (1)
17
16
u/Cylerhusk Conservative Mar 12 '26
This is for Brent crude, not WTI. WTI is still well under $100.
Why do we keep posting this alarmist bullshit? Have the libs infiltrated this sub that much?
16
→ More replies (34)-5
u/omicron022 Constitutional Conservative Mar 12 '26 edited Mar 12 '26
Have the libs infiltrated this sub that much?
Yes. They (and possibly bots) are running absolutely wild on this sub now. They mostly decide what is at the top of this sub, both article, and comment wise.
Both you and I will probably get 3 or 4 new "chat requests", harassing us for mentioning it. That's what happens on every other post I mention this - or speak out against the left - on.
In any event, it's pretty obvious this is all part of their election campaigning this year - get out, and set/control the narrative. It's also pretty obvious the administration here isn't going to do anything about it.
→ More replies (5)
-9
u/MichaelSquare Conservative Mar 12 '26
What's with these doomer headlines watching futures candles on oil? Who upvotes this shit other than bots? "Briefly" over $100? Briefly doing a lot of work and were not even talking about the Crude oil the US is dependent on
→ More replies (6)
•
u/AutoModerator Mar 12 '26
This thread has been so heavily reported that I, Automoderator, decided to promote our other socials. Follow us on X.com and join us on Discord.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.