Iran's Supreme National Security Council has outlined six conditions it says must be met before the Strait of Hormuz will be reopened to commercial shipping:
1. Cease all threats and insults toward Iran.
2. Permanently end what Iran describes as its "war of aggression" against… pic.twitter.com/DR9EJSwpKs

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) August 8, 2026

Iran's Supreme National Security Council has outlined six conditions it says must be met before the Strait of Hormuz will be reopened to commercial shipping:
1. Cease all threats and insults toward Iran.
2. Permanently end what Iran describes as its "war of aggression" against Iran and its allies in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, and Yemen.
3. Lift the naval blockade of Iran and withdraw all U.S. naval and air forces operating around the country.
4. Pay reparations for damage caused during the conflict.
5. Lift all sanctions imposed on Iran.
6. "Unconditionally" release all frozen Iranian assets.

The demands underscore the significant gap that remains between the two sides. Several of the conditions, including ending the U.S. military presence in the region, lifting sanctions, and paying reparations, would represent major shifts in longstanding U.S. policy, making a near term resolution to the Strait of Hormuz crisis appear unlikely.

JUST IN: JD Vance declares the U.S. remains “in the middle of the game” with Iran.

— Polymarket (@Polymarket) August 8, 2026

"We've destroyed their nuclear program. We've destroyed their conventional military."

VP @JDVance delivers a blunt assessment of Iran, saying the Trump administration is now watching to see whether Tehran is willing to make the "long-term changes" needed for a better… pic.twitter.com/YzSgs9rRz6

— Fox News (@FoxNews) August 8, 2026

Hormuz Miscalculation

Sec Bessent gets it.

Iran has mistaken a tactical threat for a durable advantage. By repeatedly signaling its willingness to disrupt the Strait of Hormuz, Tehran hasn’t strengthened its hand, it has accelerated the market’s exit.
Capital does not tolerate… https://t.co/ObF8rUd8nM

— James E. Thorne (@DrJStrategy) August 8, 2026

Hormuz Miscalculation

Sec Bessent gets it.

Iran has mistaken a tactical threat for a durable advantage. By repeatedly signaling its willingness to disrupt the Strait of Hormuz, Tehran hasn't strengthened its hand, it has accelerated the market's exit.
Capital does not tolerate chokepoints; it routes around them.

Saudi Arabia is expanding its East-West pipeline. The UAE has already built out Fujairah as a bypass. Iraq is revisiting overland export corridors. Every marginal dollar now flows toward redundancy, not reliance. What was once a geopolitical lever is being engineered into irrelevance. Bessent gets it: markets don't absorb coercion, they arbitrage it away
.
Energy markets are not static, and they are not sentimental. The shale revolution already diluted OPEC's grip. LNG has globalized gas. Now infrastructure is doing the same to maritime risk. Once these pipelines are built, they don't get unbuilt. Volume shifts become permanent. Pricing power follows.

Tehran's miscalculation is classic: overplay a scarce asset, and the world invests to make it abundant. The more Iran rattles Hormuz, the faster it erodes the very leverage it seeks to exploit.

In the end, this is not deterrence. Its substitution and substitution, once funded, is irreversible. Iran is underwriting its own marginalization.

The US is the big winner. China the big loser.

Welcome to the new great game.

Bessent understands economics better than most.

There's already a pipe line being built to bypass the Strait so yes, Bessent is right and of course, like always, Hamas Harry aka Sam Lousery is wrong lol

Also, knowing how volatile Iran is, business WILL move elsewhere...

boognish_bear said:

---

Hormuz Miscalculation

Sec Bessent gets it.

Iran has mistaken a tactical threat for a durable advantage. By repeatedly signaling its willingness to disrupt the Strait of Hormuz, Tehran hasn’t strengthened its hand, it has accelerated the market’s exit.
Capital does not tolerate… https://t.co/ObF8rUd8nM

— James E. Thorne (@DrJStrategy) August 8, 2026

Hormuz Miscalculation

Sec Bessent gets it.

Iran has mistaken a tactical threat for a durable advantage. By repeatedly signaling its willingness to disrupt the Strait of Hormuz, Tehran hasn't strengthened its hand, it has accelerated the market's exit.
Capital does not tolerate chokepoints; it routes around them.

Saudi Arabia is expanding its East-West pipeline. The UAE has already built out Fujairah as a bypass. Iraq is revisiting overland export corridors. Every marginal dollar now flows toward redundancy, not reliance. What was once a geopolitical lever is being engineered into irrelevance. Bessent gets it: markets don't absorb coercion, they arbitrage it away
.
Energy markets are not static, and they are not sentimental. The shale revolution already diluted OPEC's grip. LNG has globalized gas. Now infrastructure is doing the same to maritime risk. Once these pipelines are built, they don't get unbuilt. Volume shifts become permanent. Pricing power follows.

Tehran's miscalculation is classic: overplay a scarce asset, and the world invests to make it abundant. The more Iran rattles Hormuz, the faster it erodes the very leverage it seeks to exploit.

In the end, this is not deterrence. Its substitution and substitution, once funded, is irreversible. Iran is underwriting its own marginalization.

The US is the big winner. China the big loser.

Welcome to the new great game.

---

Funny, I agree with him.

The question I have, is how are tariff's different? Markets, and supply lines are not static either, if you can't trust a trade partner you look for replacements. If a trade partner is a bully, you pay lip service and create other markets. The great new game has multiple levels.

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Hormuz Miscalculation

Sec Bessent gets it.

Iran has mistaken a tactical threat for a durable advantage. By repeatedly signaling its willingness to disrupt the Strait of Hormuz, Tehran hasn’t strengthened its hand, it has accelerated the market’s exit.
Capital does not tolerate… https://t.co/ObF8rUd8nM

— James E. Thorne (@DrJStrategy) August 8, 2026

Hormuz Miscalculation

Sec Bessent gets it.

Iran has mistaken a tactical threat for a durable advantage. By repeatedly signaling its willingness to disrupt the Strait of Hormuz, Tehran hasn't strengthened its hand, it has accelerated the market's exit.
Capital does not tolerate chokepoints; it routes around them.

Saudi Arabia is expanding its East-West pipeline. The UAE has already built out Fujairah as a bypass. Iraq is revisiting overland export corridors. Every marginal dollar now flows toward redundancy, not reliance. What was once a geopolitical lever is being engineered into irrelevance. Bessent gets it: markets don't absorb coercion, they arbitrage it away
.
Energy markets are not static, and they are not sentimental. The shale revolution already diluted OPEC's grip. LNG has globalized gas. Now infrastructure is doing the same to maritime risk. Once these pipelines are built, they don't get unbuilt. Volume shifts become permanent. Pricing power follows.

Tehran's miscalculation is classic: overplay a scarce asset, and the world invests to make it abundant. The more Iran rattles Hormuz, the faster it erodes the very leverage it seeks to exploit.

In the end, this is not deterrence. Its substitution and substitution, once funded, is irreversible. Iran is underwriting its own marginalization.

The US is the big winner. China the big loser.

Welcome to the new great game.

---

Funny, I agree with him.

The question I have, is how are tariff's different? Markets, and supply lines are not static either, if you can't trust a trade partner you look for replacements. If a trade partner is a bully, you pay lip service and create other markets. The great new game has multiple levels.

---

It's the point of tariffs by those who use them (that's every country) to move the markets and supply to the country's advantage. If a country has a resource, and a tariff makes it more agreeable to the country's industry to use their own resources instead of another country's...

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Hormuz Miscalculation

Sec Bessent gets it.

Iran has mistaken a tactical threat for a durable advantage. By repeatedly signaling its willingness to disrupt the Strait of Hormuz, Tehran hasn’t strengthened its hand, it has accelerated the market’s exit.
Capital does not tolerate… https://t.co/ObF8rUd8nM

— James E. Thorne (@DrJStrategy) August 8, 2026

Hormuz Miscalculation

Sec Bessent gets it.

Iran has mistaken a tactical threat for a durable advantage. By repeatedly signaling its willingness to disrupt the Strait of Hormuz, Tehran hasn't strengthened its hand, it has accelerated the market's exit.
Capital does not tolerate chokepoints; it routes around them.

Saudi Arabia is expanding its East-West pipeline. The UAE has already built out Fujairah as a bypass. Iraq is revisiting overland export corridors. Every marginal dollar now flows toward redundancy, not reliance. What was once a geopolitical lever is being engineered into irrelevance. Bessent gets it: markets don't absorb coercion, they arbitrage it away
.
Energy markets are not static, and they are not sentimental. The shale revolution already diluted OPEC's grip. LNG has globalized gas. Now infrastructure is doing the same to maritime risk. Once these pipelines are built, they don't get unbuilt. Volume shifts become permanent. Pricing power follows.

Tehran's miscalculation is classic: overplay a scarce asset, and the world invests to make it abundant. The more Iran rattles Hormuz, the faster it erodes the very leverage it seeks to exploit.

In the end, this is not deterrence. Its substitution and substitution, once funded, is irreversible. Iran is underwriting its own marginalization.

The US is the big winner. China the big loser.

Welcome to the new great game.

---

Funny, I agree with him.

The question I have, is how are tariff's different? Markets, and supply lines are not static either, if you can't trust a trade partner you look for replacements. If a trade partner is a bully, you pay lip service and create other markets. The great new game has multiple levels.

---

It's the point of tariffs by those who use them (that's every country) to move the markets and supply to the country's advantage. If a country has a resource, and a tariff makes it more agreeable to the country's industry to use their own resources instead of another country's...

---

Yeah, except that's not really how Trump uses them. He doesn't know the difference between tariffs and sanctions.

Danielsjackson114 said:

---

There's already a pipe line being built to bypass the Strait so yes, Bessent is right and of course, like always, Hamas Harry aka Sam Lousery is wrong lol

Also, knowing how volatile Iran is, business WILL move elsewhere...

---

Those pipelines that "don't get unbuilt" once they're built? Iran can unbuild them at any time.

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

JUST IN: JD Vance declares the U.S. remains “in the middle of the game” with Iran.

— Polymarket (@Polymarket) August 8, 2026

"We've destroyed their nuclear program. We've destroyed their conventional military."

VP @JDVance delivers a blunt assessment of Iran, saying the Trump administration is now watching to see whether Tehran is willing to make the "long-term changes" needed for a better… pic.twitter.com/YzSgs9rRz6

— Fox News (@FoxNews) August 8, 2026

---

Keep bugling things that do not matter. The Straits, for the near future, matter. The rest does not, they never had a navy, air force or nuclear program that were significant.

---

Obviously your statement here is not truth.

https://www.frstrategie.org/en/publications/notes/irgc-navy-s-long-term-strategy-asymmetrical-warfare-2024

Iranian missiles dominate Iranian air forces and are still operating. They have over the last 5 years struck Israel, Pakistan, and other surrounding countries.

Nuclear program has been an issue for years as they hid their research and development and enrichment.


This doesn't include their support of proxies in multiple areas.

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

JUST IN: JD Vance declares the U.S. remains “in the middle of the game” with Iran.

— Polymarket (@Polymarket) August 8, 2026

"We've destroyed their nuclear program. We've destroyed their conventional military."

VP @JDVance delivers a blunt assessment of Iran, saying the Trump administration is now watching to see whether Tehran is willing to make the "long-term changes" needed for a better… pic.twitter.com/YzSgs9rRz6

— Fox News (@FoxNews) August 8, 2026

---

Keep bugling things that do not matter. The Straits, for the near future, matter. The rest does not, they never had a navy, air force or nuclear program that were significant.

---

Obviously your statement here is not truth.

https://www.frstrategie.org/en/publications/notes/irgc-navy-s-long-term-strategy-asymmetrical-warfare-2024

Iranian missiles dominate Iranian air forces and are still operating. They have over the last 5 years struck Israel, Pakistan, and other surrounding countries.

Nuclear program has been an issue for years as they hid their research and development and enrichment.


This doesn't include their support of proxies in multiple areas.

---

Supporting proxies is a definite deal-breaker. No way can you negotiate with a government that does that.

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Hormuz Miscalculation

Sec Bessent gets it.

Iran has mistaken a tactical threat for a durable advantage. By repeatedly signaling its willingness to disrupt the Strait of Hormuz, Tehran hasn’t strengthened its hand, it has accelerated the market’s exit.
Capital does not tolerate… https://t.co/ObF8rUd8nM

— James E. Thorne (@DrJStrategy) August 8, 2026

Hormuz Miscalculation

Sec Bessent gets it.

Iran has mistaken a tactical threat for a durable advantage. By repeatedly signaling its willingness to disrupt the Strait of Hormuz, Tehran hasn't strengthened its hand, it has accelerated the market's exit.
Capital does not tolerate chokepoints; it routes around them.

Saudi Arabia is expanding its East-West pipeline. The UAE has already built out Fujairah as a bypass. Iraq is revisiting overland export corridors. Every marginal dollar now flows toward redundancy, not reliance. What was once a geopolitical lever is being engineered into irrelevance. Bessent gets it: markets don't absorb coercion, they arbitrage it away
.
Energy markets are not static, and they are not sentimental. The shale revolution already diluted OPEC's grip. LNG has globalized gas. Now infrastructure is doing the same to maritime risk. Once these pipelines are built, they don't get unbuilt. Volume shifts become permanent. Pricing power follows.

Tehran's miscalculation is classic: overplay a scarce asset, and the world invests to make it abundant. The more Iran rattles Hormuz, the faster it erodes the very leverage it seeks to exploit.

In the end, this is not deterrence. Its substitution and substitution, once funded, is irreversible. Iran is underwriting its own marginalization.

The US is the big winner. China the big loser.

Welcome to the new great game.

---

Funny, I agree with him.

The question I have, is how are tariff's different? Markets, and supply lines are not static either, if you can't trust a trade partner you look for replacements. If a trade partner is a bully, you pay lip service and create other markets. The great new game has multiple levels.

---

It's the point of tariffs by those who use them (that's every country) to move the markets and supply to the country's advantage. If a country has a resource, and a tariff makes it more agreeable to the country's industry to use their own resources instead of another country's...

---

Yeah, except that's not really how Trump uses them. He doesn't know the difference between tariffs and sanctions.

---

I don't like all the ways he's used them. But the comment stands. And the administration did start with tariffs to accomplish moving markets and supply.
BTW, Tariffs affecting your allies are much better in practice and in optics than sanctions.I do wish there was some pull back on that with the Trump administration, however. Steady tariff policy would be longer lasting in good effect than chaotic.

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

JUST IN: JD Vance declares the U.S. remains “in the middle of the game” with Iran.

— Polymarket (@Polymarket) August 8, 2026

"We've destroyed their nuclear program. We've destroyed their conventional military."

VP @JDVance delivers a blunt assessment of Iran, saying the Trump administration is now watching to see whether Tehran is willing to make the "long-term changes" needed for a better… pic.twitter.com/YzSgs9rRz6

— Fox News (@FoxNews) August 8, 2026

---

Keep bugling things that do not matter. The Straits, for the near future, matter. The rest does not, they never had a navy, air force or nuclear program that were significant.

---

Obviously your statement here is not truth.

https://www.frstrategie.org/en/publications/notes/irgc-navy-s-long-term-strategy-asymmetrical-warfare-2024

Iranian missiles dominate Iranian air forces and are still operating. They have over the last 5 years struck Israel, Pakistan, and other surrounding countries.

Nuclear program has been an issue for years as they hid their research and development and enrichment.


This doesn't include their support of proxies in multiple areas.

---

Supporting proxies is a definite deal-breaker. No way can you negotiate with a government that does that.

---

We are talking the strength of Iranian military power, or did you miss that?

Take it easy on Flooneybear

His TDS is at an all time high

FLBear5630 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Hormuz Miscalculation

Sec Bessent gets it.

Iran has mistaken a tactical threat for a durable advantage. By repeatedly signaling its willingness to disrupt the Strait of Hormuz, Tehran hasn’t strengthened its hand, it has accelerated the market’s exit.
Capital does not tolerate… https://t.co/ObF8rUd8nM

— James E. Thorne (@DrJStrategy) August 8, 2026

Hormuz Miscalculation

Sec Bessent gets it.

Iran has mistaken a tactical threat for a durable advantage. By repeatedly signaling its willingness to disrupt the Strait of Hormuz, Tehran hasn't strengthened its hand, it has accelerated the market's exit.
Capital does not tolerate chokepoints; it routes around them.

Saudi Arabia is expanding its East-West pipeline. The UAE has already built out Fujairah as a bypass. Iraq is revisiting overland export corridors. Every marginal dollar now flows toward redundancy, not reliance. What was once a geopolitical lever is being engineered into irrelevance. Bessent gets it: markets don't absorb coercion, they arbitrage it away
.
Energy markets are not static, and they are not sentimental. The shale revolution already diluted OPEC's grip. LNG has globalized gas. Now infrastructure is doing the same to maritime risk. Once these pipelines are built, they don't get unbuilt. Volume shifts become permanent. Pricing power follows.

Tehran's miscalculation is classic: overplay a scarce asset, and the world invests to make it abundant. The more Iran rattles Hormuz, the faster it erodes the very leverage it seeks to exploit.

In the end, this is not deterrence. Its substitution and substitution, once funded, is irreversible. Iran is underwriting its own marginalization.

The US is the big winner. China the big loser.

Welcome to the new great game.

---

Funny, I agree with him.

The question I have, is how are tariff's different? Markets, and supply lines are not static either, if you can't trust a trade partner you look for replacements. If a trade partner is a bully, you pay lip service and create other markets. The great new game has multiple levels.

---

It's the point of tariffs by those who use them (that's every country) to move the markets and supply to the country's advantage. If a country has a resource, and a tariff makes it more agreeable to the country's industry to use their own resources instead of another country's...

---

What you describe are directed tariff's for specific industries, which I get and agree. Especially to protect historic industries, like chocolate in Switzerland. We did not do that, it was across the board on a whim.

---

Too much across the board - yes. On a whim - no.

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Hormuz Miscalculation

Sec Bessent gets it.

Iran has mistaken a tactical threat for a durable advantage. By repeatedly signaling its willingness to disrupt the Strait of Hormuz, Tehran hasn’t strengthened its hand, it has accelerated the market’s exit.
Capital does not tolerate… https://t.co/ObF8rUd8nM

— James E. Thorne (@DrJStrategy) August 8, 2026

Hormuz Miscalculation

Sec Bessent gets it.

Iran has mistaken a tactical threat for a durable advantage. By repeatedly signaling its willingness to disrupt the Strait of Hormuz, Tehran hasn't strengthened its hand, it has accelerated the market's exit.
Capital does not tolerate chokepoints; it routes around them.

Saudi Arabia is expanding its East-West pipeline. The UAE has already built out Fujairah as a bypass. Iraq is revisiting overland export corridors. Every marginal dollar now flows toward redundancy, not reliance. What was once a geopolitical lever is being engineered into irrelevance. Bessent gets it: markets don't absorb coercion, they arbitrage it away
.
Energy markets are not static, and they are not sentimental. The shale revolution already diluted OPEC's grip. LNG has globalized gas. Now infrastructure is doing the same to maritime risk. Once these pipelines are built, they don't get unbuilt. Volume shifts become permanent. Pricing power follows.

Tehran's miscalculation is classic: overplay a scarce asset, and the world invests to make it abundant. The more Iran rattles Hormuz, the faster it erodes the very leverage it seeks to exploit.

In the end, this is not deterrence. Its substitution and substitution, once funded, is irreversible. Iran is underwriting its own marginalization.

The US is the big winner. China the big loser.

Welcome to the new great game.

---

Funny, I agree with him.

The question I have, is how are tariff's different? Markets, and supply lines are not static either, if you can't trust a trade partner you look for replacements. If a trade partner is a bully, you pay lip service and create other markets. The great new game has multiple levels.

---

It's the point of tariffs by those who use them (that's every country) to move the markets and supply to the country's advantage. If a country has a resource, and a tariff makes it more agreeable to the country's industry to use their own resources instead of another country's...

---

Yeah, except that's not really how Trump uses them. He doesn't know the difference between tariffs and sanctions.

---

I don't like all the ways he's used them. But the comment stands. And the administration did start with tariffs to accomplish moving markets and supply.
BTW, Tariffs affecting your allies are much better in practice and in optics than sanctions.I do wish there was some pull back on that with the Trump administration, however. Steady tariff policy would be longer lasting in good effect than chaotic.

---

True, I'm not necessarily against tariffs as part of a coherent strategy.

Yeah I'm sure you are the first person to think about that.

It is strange how you ALWAYS take up for terrorist groups like Russia, Iran, and Hamas lol

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

JUST IN: JD Vance declares the U.S. remains “in the middle of the game” with Iran.

— Polymarket (@Polymarket) August 8, 2026

"We've destroyed their nuclear program. We've destroyed their conventional military."

VP @JDVance delivers a blunt assessment of Iran, saying the Trump administration is now watching to see whether Tehran is willing to make the "long-term changes" needed for a better… pic.twitter.com/YzSgs9rRz6

— Fox News (@FoxNews) August 8, 2026

---

Keep bugling things that do not matter. The Straits, for the near future, matter. The rest does not, they never had a navy, air force or nuclear program that were significant.

---

Obviously your statement here is not truth.

https://www.frstrategie.org/en/publications/notes/irgc-navy-s-long-term-strategy-asymmetrical-warfare-2024

Iranian missiles dominate Iranian air forces and are still operating. They have over the last 5 years struck Israel, Pakistan, and other surrounding countries.

Nuclear program has been an issue for years as they hid their research and development and enrichment.


This doesn't include their support of proxies in multiple areas.

---

Supporting proxies is a definite deal-breaker. No way can you negotiate with a government that does that.

---

We are talking the strength of Iranian military power, or did you miss that?

---

Iran never had significant air or naval power of the kind we're claiming to have destroyed. Dominant missile power and asymmetric naval power, sure, all of which remains.

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

JUST IN: JD Vance declares the U.S. remains “in the middle of the game” with Iran.

— Polymarket (@Polymarket) August 8, 2026

"We've destroyed their nuclear program. We've destroyed their conventional military."

VP @JDVance delivers a blunt assessment of Iran, saying the Trump administration is now watching to see whether Tehran is willing to make the "long-term changes" needed for a better… pic.twitter.com/YzSgs9rRz6

— Fox News (@FoxNews) August 8, 2026

---

Keep bugling things that do not matter. The Straits, for the near future, matter. The rest does not, they never had a navy, air force or nuclear program that were significant.

---

Obviously your statement here is not truth.

https://www.frstrategie.org/en/publications/notes/irgc-navy-s-long-term-strategy-asymmetrical-warfare-2024

Iranian missiles dominate Iranian air forces and are still operating. They have over the last 5 years struck Israel, Pakistan, and other surrounding countries.

Nuclear program has been an issue for years as they hid their research and development and enrichment.


This doesn't include their support of proxies in multiple areas.

---

Supporting proxies is a definite deal-breaker. No way can you negotiate with a government that does that.

---

We are talking the strength of Iranian military power, or did you miss that?

---

Iran never had significant air or naval power of the kind we're claiming to have destroyed. Dominant missile power and asymmetric naval power, sure, all of which remains.

---

Read above. You're wrong.

FLBear5630 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Hormuz Miscalculation

Sec Bessent gets it.

Iran has mistaken a tactical threat for a durable advantage. By repeatedly signaling its willingness to disrupt the Strait of Hormuz, Tehran hasn’t strengthened its hand, it has accelerated the market’s exit.
Capital does not tolerate… https://t.co/ObF8rUd8nM

— James E. Thorne (@DrJStrategy) August 8, 2026

Hormuz Miscalculation

Sec Bessent gets it.

Iran has mistaken a tactical threat for a durable advantage. By repeatedly signaling its willingness to disrupt the Strait of Hormuz, Tehran hasn't strengthened its hand, it has accelerated the market's exit.
Capital does not tolerate chokepoints; it routes around them.

Saudi Arabia is expanding its East-West pipeline. The UAE has already built out Fujairah as a bypass. Iraq is revisiting overland export corridors. Every marginal dollar now flows toward redundancy, not reliance. What was once a geopolitical lever is being engineered into irrelevance. Bessent gets it: markets don't absorb coercion, they arbitrage it away
.
Energy markets are not static, and they are not sentimental. The shale revolution already diluted OPEC's grip. LNG has globalized gas. Now infrastructure is doing the same to maritime risk. Once these pipelines are built, they don't get unbuilt. Volume shifts become permanent. Pricing power follows.

Tehran's miscalculation is classic: overplay a scarce asset, and the world invests to make it abundant. The more Iran rattles Hormuz, the faster it erodes the very leverage it seeks to exploit.

In the end, this is not deterrence. Its substitution and substitution, once funded, is irreversible. Iran is underwriting its own marginalization.

The US is the big winner. China the big loser.

Welcome to the new great game.

---

Funny, I agree with him.

The question I have, is how are tariff's different? Markets, and supply lines are not static either, if you can't trust a trade partner you look for replacements. If a trade partner is a bully, you pay lip service and create other markets. The great new game has multiple levels.

---

It's the point of tariffs by those who use them (that's every country) to move the markets and supply to the country's advantage. If a country has a resource, and a tariff makes it more agreeable to the country's industry to use their own resources instead of another country's...

---

What you describe are directed tariff's for specific industries, which I get and agree. Especially to protect historic industries, like chocolate in Switzerland. We did not do that, it was across the board on a whim.

---

Too much across the board - yes. On a whim - no.

---

Trump changes tariff rates by what people say, ask Canada. Whim is the exact word to describe how Trump handles it

---

The Trump plan seems to want some chaos, which I don't care for in this realm. On a whim? No.

The Pentagon is now giving defense contractors 21 days to come up with ways to dramatically accelerate weapons production as the Iran war continues to eat through U.S. stockpiles.

Deputy Defense Secretary Steve Feinberg directed industry to propose faster delivery schedules,… pic.twitter.com/rTNWrGgl9c

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) August 8, 2026

The Pentagon is now giving defense contractors 21 days to come up with ways to dramatically accelerate weapons production as the Iran war continues to eat through U.S. stockpiles.

Deputy Defense Secretary Steve Feinberg directed industry to propose faster delivery schedules, increased production and investments in new manufacturing capacity.

The scale of the depletion is significant. The Pentagon says the U.S. has expended more than 850 Tomahawks, 1,000 Patriot/THAAD interceptors and 1,300 tactical ballistic missiles in the early stages of the war.

A CSIS estimate cited by the Washington Post puts global Patriot inventories at under 827, down from roughly 2,200 before the war, while THAAD inventories have fallen from 452 to fewer than 278.

The Pentagon has announced framework agreements to expand production, including the recent effort to triple PAC-3 production and quadruple production of key THAAD components. But these agreements still require congressional funding.

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

JUST IN: JD Vance declares the U.S. remains “in the middle of the game” with Iran.

— Polymarket (@Polymarket) August 8, 2026

"We've destroyed their nuclear program. We've destroyed their conventional military."

VP @JDVance delivers a blunt assessment of Iran, saying the Trump administration is now watching to see whether Tehran is willing to make the "long-term changes" needed for a better… pic.twitter.com/YzSgs9rRz6

— Fox News (@FoxNews) August 8, 2026

---

Keep bugling things that do not matter. The Straits, for the near future, matter. The rest does not, they never had a navy, air force or nuclear program that were significant.

---

Obviously your statement here is not truth.

https://www.frstrategie.org/en/publications/notes/irgc-navy-s-long-term-strategy-asymmetrical-warfare-2024

Iranian missiles dominate Iranian air forces and are still operating. They have over the last 5 years struck Israel, Pakistan, and other surrounding countries.

Nuclear program has been an issue for years as they hid their research and development and enrichment.


This doesn't include their support of proxies in multiple areas.

---

Supporting proxies is a definite deal-breaker. No way can you negotiate with a government that does that.

---

We are talking the strength of Iranian military power, or did you miss that?

---

Iran never had significant air or naval power of the kind we're claiming to have destroyed. Dominant missile power and asymmetric naval power, sure, all of which remains.

---

Read above. You're wrong.

---

Your link is telling you the same thing I'm telling you. They rely primarily on asymmetrical defense with low-cost, small or medium-sized vessels.

When is he not

boognish_bear said:

---

The Pentagon has announced framework agreements to expand production, including the recent effort to triple PAC-3 production and quadruple production of key THAAD components. But these agreements still require congressional funding.

---

Not to mention Chinese minerals.

According to Israel’s Channel 13, the Israel Defense Force is preparing for the possibility of resuming independent strikes against Iran without the approval or support of the United States.

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) August 8, 2026

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

JUST IN: JD Vance declares the U.S. remains “in the middle of the game” with Iran.

— Polymarket (@Polymarket) August 8, 2026

"We've destroyed their nuclear program. We've destroyed their conventional military."

VP @JDVance delivers a blunt assessment of Iran, saying the Trump administration is now watching to see whether Tehran is willing to make the "long-term changes" needed for a better… pic.twitter.com/YzSgs9rRz6

— Fox News (@FoxNews) August 8, 2026

---

Keep bugling things that do not matter. The Straits, for the near future, matter. The rest does not, they never had a navy, air force or nuclear program that were significant.

---

Obviously your statement here is not truth.

https://www.frstrategie.org/en/publications/notes/irgc-navy-s-long-term-strategy-asymmetrical-warfare-2024

Iranian missiles dominate Iranian air forces and are still operating. They have over the last 5 years struck Israel, Pakistan, and other surrounding countries.

Nuclear program has been an issue for years as they hid their research and development and enrichment.


This doesn't include their support of proxies in multiple areas.

---

Supporting proxies is a definite deal-breaker. No way can you negotiate with a government that does that.

---

We are talking the strength of Iranian military power, or did you miss that?

---

Iran never had significant air or naval power of the kind we're claiming to have destroyed. Dominant missile power and asymmetric naval power, sure, all of which remains.

---

Read above. You're wrong.

---

Your link is telling you the same thing I'm telling you. They rely primarily on asymmetrical defense with low-cost, small or medium-sized vessels.

---

No. They prepared heavily where they could be most effective. You're not reading well.

boognish_bear said:

---

The Pentagon is now giving defense contractors 21 days to come up with ways to dramatically accelerate weapons production as the Iran war continues to eat through U.S. stockpiles.

Deputy Defense Secretary Steve Feinberg directed industry to propose faster delivery schedules,… pic.twitter.com/rTNWrGgl9c

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) August 8, 2026

The Pentagon is now giving defense contractors 21 days to come up with ways to dramatically accelerate weapons production as the Iran war continues to eat through U.S. stockpiles.

Deputy Defense Secretary Steve Feinberg directed industry to propose faster delivery schedules, increased production and investments in new manufacturing capacity.

The scale of the depletion is significant. The Pentagon says the U.S. has expended more than 850 Tomahawks, 1,000 Patriot/THAAD interceptors and 1,300 tactical ballistic missiles in the early stages of the war.

A CSIS estimate cited by the Washington Post puts global Patriot inventories at under 827, down from roughly 2,200 before the war, while THAAD inventories have fallen from 452 to fewer than 278.

The Pentagon has announced framework agreements to expand production, including the recent effort to triple PAC-3 production and quadruple production of key THAAD components. But these agreements still require congressional funding

---

you boys except for lil Twink (no experience or job). Massive amount of tax payer dollars for premium/expedited fees that will be astronomical.

The “send ground troops” wing of the GOP speaks 👇 https://t.co/Voa3zFvhMx

— Matt Gaetz (@mattgaetz) August 9, 2026