The Middle East conflict

[Altnashin]

Various members of The US government have wanted to attack Iran, remember “ bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”?
It is also worth going beck to what happened to Mohammad Mosaddegh, the last elected leader of Iran.

 

[contrex]

And Trump, not being a details man and with his lack of understanding and his lack of listening to and taking advice from experts, means that it's very likely he's been manipulated by Israel.

In a nutshell. Trump has been played by Netanyahu.

 

[The Ham]

Given the amount of infrastructure so far destroyed and the low likelihood of a peaceful resolution in the near term, I wonder how long it'll be before public transport staff become "key workers" once again? If we have car fuel rationing of any sort there will presumably be significant demand that will have to be somehow managed.

Many Asian countries have (as they are more impacted by more of their oil/gas coming from there) already implemented forms of rationing and encouraging WFH.

I suspect that this isn't quite the right time of year to do just yet in the UK (due to the potential of increasing fuel use to keep people warm at home), but probably very soon.

Having said that a number of people have already committed to solar (50% uplift in sales at Octopus Energy since the start of the war) to reduce their own personal energy use. Whilst the numbers are unknown, even if that uplifts from the 2022 values by 50% (and there's been growth since then) that has the potential to add 100,000 extra homes with solar panels over the next 12 months.

Add in the potential for plug in solar in the next few months and we could see our national gas use fall.

Whilst great pumps aren't for everyone, with standing charges sometimes being around £120 a year before using any gas, for those in energy efficient homes that's a fair amount of electricity they could use for heating without having to pay anything extra (especially if they also have solar which reduces their energy usage to run the heating/hot water during the day, which may mean a cooler house at the start of the day, but a more pleasant evening compared to how people typically heated their homes in the past).

 

[Annetts key]

Given the amount of infrastructure so far destroyed and the low likelihood of a peaceful resolution in the near term, I wonder how long it'll be before public transport staff become "key workers" once again? If we have car fuel rationing of any sort there will presumably be significant demand that will have to be somehow managed.

I strongly suspect that there will be an increase in electric and hybrid car sales.

Note that at the moment, in the U.K. we don't get very much oil, petrol or LNG from that part of the world. So, supplies have not yet been significantly affected for us. But going forward, the longer this war lasts and the more damage to oil and gas infrastructure that is caused, that will continue to cause prices to rise. At some point, the high prices will cause demand to level off at or near the available supply...

 

[Cowley]

I strongly suspect that there will be an increase in electric and hybrid car sales.

Note that at the moment, in the U.K. we don't get very much oil, petrol or LNG from that part of the world. So, supplies have not yet been significantly affected for us. But going forward, the longer this war lasts and the more damage to oil and gas infrastructure that is caused, that will continue to cause prices to rise. At some point, the high prices will cause demand to level off at or near the available supply...

It’s the knock on effects as well that are going to cause us and much of the world problems. The lack of fertiliser getting through the Strait, the high cost of fuel being passed onto us via higher shopping prices etc etc.

There’s potential for a global recession due to this shambles isn’t there?

 

[BAFRA77]

It’s the knock on effects as well that are going to cause us and much of the world problems. The lack of fertiliser getting through the Strait, the high cost of fuel being passed onto us via higher shopping prices etc etc.

There’s potential for a global recession due to this shambles isn’t there?

Yep - and no doubt Trumplestiltskin will do his usual “making America Great again” nonsense to deny reality when it happens

 

[The Ham]

Yep - and no doubt Trumplestiltskin will do his usual “making America Great again” nonsense to deny reality when it happens

Even though there's reports which imply that the Texas has seen fuel prices rises which are higher than the UK, even though it is a large producer of oil and gas and we are not.

 

[Cdd89]

In today's game of mixed messages, Rubio announces that:

The US expects to finish its operations in Iran "in the next couple of weeks"

At the same time as the Pentagon:

prepares for weeks of ground operations in Iran

I know strategic ambiguity is a valid military strategy, but this is taking it to an extreme. I'd say it's quite likely that the first statement will prove to be inaccurate, since this requires 1) the US to 'just leave', 2) a settlement with Iran, or 3) a decisive military victory.

Taking these in turn, the US simply won't leave while shipping is de facto blockaded by Iran – I feel this is as close to a certainty as anything can be in this conflict, but I'm interested if anyone else feels otherwise; in particular would Trump decide to abandon and say that Iran blockading the strait is the problem of the world and his 'ungrateful' allies? 2) is possible, but requires assuming that Iran are the ones lying about the promising negotiations. 3) seems most likely, given military movements and discussion upthread about the likelihood of escalation, but clearly won't take "weeks"; even years might be optimistic.

I guess I'm hoping for (2).

 

[Annetts key]

It’s the knock on effects as well that are going to cause us and much of the world problems. The lack of fertiliser getting through the Strait, the high cost of fuel being passed onto us via higher shopping prices etc etc.

There’s potential for a global recession due to this shambles isn’t there?

I would go further and say that a worldwide recession is almost inevitable if this war continues especially if it becomes a ground war.

 

[brad465]

In today's game of mixed messages, Rubio announces that:

At the same time as the Pentagon:

I know strategic ambiguity is a valid military strategy, but this is taking it to an extreme. I'd say it's quite likely that the first statement will prove to be inaccurate, since this requires 1) the US to 'just leave', 2) a settlement with Iran, or 3) a decisive military victory.

Taking these in turn, the US simply won't leave while shipping is de facto blockaded by Iran – I feel this is as close to a certainty as anything can be in this conflict, but I'm interested if anyone else feels otherwise; in particular would Trump decide to abandon and say that Iran blockading the strait is the problem of the world and his 'ungrateful' allies? 2) is possible, but requires assuming that Iran are the ones lying about the promising negotiations. 3) seems most likely, given military movements and discussion upthread about the likelihood of escalation, but clearly won't take "weeks"; even years might be optimistic.

I guess I'm hoping for (2).

Do we know how many troops are actually stationed in the area ready for a ground invasion? I'm almost certain the number there currently is not enough (most estimates are at most 50,000, and certainly under 100,000). Of course given who is in charge I can see a ground invasion being launched with nowhere near the number of troops required to even get off the beaches.

 

[edwin_m]

Even though there's reports which imply that the Texas has seen fuel prices rises which are higher than the UK, even though it is a large producer of oil and gas and we are not.

That may depend on what exactly is being reported, in particular if the price rise is quoted as a percent rather than an absolute figure.

About one third of the current UK petrol price is fuel duty which stays the same regardless of the international oil price. The equivalent fixed tax in the US is much lower at 18.4 cents per US gallon (3.78l), plus 20 cents state tax in Texas. Thus a given percent increase in world oil prices will have a proportionately greater impact in the USA than in Europe, but (and essentially because) the US price is and will remain lower. Drivers in high-tax countries may pay more but at least they have less uncertainty.

 

[Annetts key]

From AAA (link)

National Gas Average Jumps One Dollar in One Month​

March 26, 2026

WASHINGTON, DC (March 26, 2026) – The national average for a gallon of regular gasoline is up 10 cents from last week and one dollar since last month. The line graph below shows the steep rise from $2.98 on February 26 to $3.98 today. Crude oil prices remain high as the Iran conflict nears the 4-week mark. The national average could reach $4/gallon in the coming days for the first time since August 2022. Gasoline demand is also on the rise as spring break season continues, another factor in rising pump prices.
Today’s National Average: $3.981
One Week Ago: $3.884
One Month Ago: $2.983
One Year Ago: $3.150

UK Government petrol prices are in a spreadsheet on this page.

I can't find a nice table that I can copy here.

The RAC does have a grapth showing the rises here though.

 

[GusB]

In today's game of mixed messages, Rubio announces that:


At the same time as the Pentagon:



I know strategic ambiguity is a valid military strategy, but this is taking it to an extreme. I'd say it's quite likely that the first statement will prove to be inaccurate, since this requires 1) the US to 'just leave', 2) a settlement with Iran, or 3) a decisive military victory.

Taking these in turn, the US simply won't leave while shipping is de facto blockaded by Iran – I feel this is as close to a certainty as anything can be in this conflict, but I'm interested if anyone else feels otherwise; in particular would Trump decide to abandon and say that Iran blockading the strait is the problem of the world and his 'ungrateful' allies? 2) is possible, but requires assuming that Iran are the ones lying about the promising negotiations. 3) seems most likely, given military movements and discussion upthread about the likelihood of escalation, but clearly won't take "weeks"; even years might be optimistic.

I guess I'm hoping for (2).

I'm not so sure that a military victory will be that decisive. While Iran lacks the sophisticated military hardware, it vastly outnumbers the US in terms of ground forces. Even if the US does prevail, I think it will cost them many lives.

 

[Annetts key]

The other important point is that if the US was unprepared for drone attacks on it's bases in the nearby countries, do you think their army is ready for FPV drone attacks against their ground forces?

 

[Gloster]

I'm not so sure that a military victory will be that decisive. While Iran lacks the sophisticated military hardware, it vastly outnumbers the US in terms of ground forces. Even if the US does prevail, I think it will cost them many lives.

This is the root of the Second Rule of War, as mentioned in #283. For the Americans it may well be the Vietnam scenario: ’We’ve got the guns, but they’ve got the numbers’, and that didn’t end well for anyone.

I also feel that the US has come to believe that the return of the Pahlavis would be welcomed by the Iranians. Somehow, I doubt that: it could well be the factor that mobilises many in the country to fight US forces. They may not like the present government, but a US-imposed one could be seen as worse.

 

[edwin_m]

The other important point is that if the US was unprepared for drone attacks on it's bases in the nearby countries, do you think their army is ready for FPV drone attacks against their ground forces?

The Iranians haven't been involved in that side of the drone war as far as we know, so would probably have to have help from Russia. Iran may have withheld key components from the licensed production of Shaheds to give them some leverage over the Kremlin, but Russia would probably be more willing divert some of their Shahed production for Iran's own operators to use, than to divert drone operators from their own front line.

 

[The Ham]

I was watching a video which made an interesting potential point.

The summary is this:
The US has encouraged countries to seek out in dollars in exchange for protection, that ensures that noisy countries have to hold US$ reserves which is why the US can have such a large debt and it not be an issue.

That currently isn't going as well as it was at the start of the war, including people already buying oil in Chinese Yuan.

As such, if this pushes too far from the status quo, there's the potential it could be significantly harmful to the US.

As I said an interesting thought, what do people think, is it a viable thought and how far could things go badly if it gets out of hand?

Of anyone is interested in the full video they can watch it here:

TikTok - Make Your Day

It certainly could explains why Trump is keen for the EU, UK, etc. to not go green and why our right leaning parties have started to sift that way more than they were 5+ years ago.

 

[Annetts key]

The Iranians haven't been involved in that side of the drone war as far as we know, so would probably have to have help from Russia. Iran may have withheld key components from the licensed production of Shaheds to give them some leverage over the Kremlin, but Russia would probably be more willing divert some of their Shahed production for Iran's own operators to use, than to divert drone operators from their own front line.

Maybe, the thing is, we know that the Russians are providing some assistance. And some of the Shaheds used by the Russians have been modified to be able to be remotely controlled by an operator. It is certainly possible that Russia has supplied Iran with the knowledge on how to do this. And the parts may have come from Russia or China.

 

[brad465]

Interestingly, and related to another thread, the USA only has about a decade of oil left in the ground at current production rates. It’s not too far a stretch to say they will be net importing fairly soon, which will be interesting to see from a world economic order and petro-dollar perspective.

It’s follows that if the US does not pursue electrification of the economy and renewable energy at scale, it will be needing to secure future oil supplies in the very near future.

And in a remarkable coincidence, the countries occupying first and third place in terms of proven reserves in the ground are Venezuela and Iran.

And by an amazing coincidence, Trump has now said on record he wants to "take the oil in Iran":

https://www.ft.com/content/3bd9fb6c-2985-4d24-b86b-23b7884031f5

Donald Trump has said he wants to “take the oil in Iran” and could seize the export hub of Kharg Island, as the US sends thousands of troops to the Middle East.

The US president told the FT in an interview on Sunday that his “preference would be to take the oil”, comparing the potential move to Venezuela where the US intends to control the oil industry “indefinitely” following its capture of strongman leader Nicolás Maduro in January.

 

[najaB]

Interesting video from the Daily Mail (ugh) outlining how the Iranians may have done a lot more damage to US assets than publicly admitted:

In this episode of Photo Evidence, we break down that imagery to understand what was actually hit, and how effective these attacks really were.

From US air bases in Jordan and Saudi Arabia to radar sites in Qatar, naval headquarters in Bahrain, and a command post in Kuwait, the images reveal the scale and precision of Iran’s response.

By comparing before-and-after imagery, we assess what these strikes tell us about Iran’s strategy, and what they may reveal about the balance of power in the war so far

 

[Tetchytyke]

This is the root of the Second Rule of War, as mentioned in #283. For the Americans it may well be the Vietnam scenario: ’We’ve got the guns, but they’ve got the numbers’, and that didn’t end well for anyone.

I also feel that the US has come to believe that the return of the Pahlavis would be welcomed by the Iranians. Somehow, I doubt that: it could well be the factor that mobilises many in the country to fight US forces. They may not like the present government, but a US-imposed one could be seen as worse.

I think the warmongers in the US administration seem to think an invasion of Iran would be as straightforward as their invasion of Iraq. A brief look at a map shows this won't be the case. Tehran is 3,500 feet above sea level, for starters. Mountains are great for guerrillas.

As for the Pahlavis, Reza was a CIA and MI6 puppet. When he got too big for his boots and lost his CIA protection in retaliation for the OPEC oil crisis, he was quickly overthrown. The idea that the Iranians would have his son back is laughable.

 

[najaB]

I think the warmongers in the US administration seem to think an invasion of Iran would be as straightforward as their invasion of Iraq.

The invasion of Iraq was straightforward, yes. But then...

 

[BAFRA77]

I'll make the observation if no-one else has so far...

What a Pahlavi this all is...

 

[Tetchytyke]

The invasion of Iraq was straightforward, yes. But then...

The issue in Iraq was that they created a power vacuum which various factions tried to fill.

You just know that, this time, they won't do that. They'll just parachute a puppet in to carry on the brutality. A bit like how precisely nothing has changed in Venezuela.

 

[ainsworth74]

The invasion of Iraq was straightforward, yes. But then...

They also don't have the mass for an invasion of Iran. The invasion of Iraq had around half a million personnel in theater (including 50,000 from the UK, we'd probably struggle to put 5,000 out there now...) of which around 300,000 were ground forces. The latest I read was the US has 50,000 in theatre at the moment? Not all of whom are ground troops.

They don't have the mass for a 2003 style invasion. They probably do for some damn foolish thing involving Kharg Island (which I reckon is a nailed on certainty now). But an Iraq style invasion? Impossible without far more build-up of forces (and some sort of plan for how to get them all into Iran, not sure Iraq will be as cooperative jumping off point as Saudi and Kuwait were).

Well unless they're planning on getting a something like the 82nd Airborne gutted in some sort of bizarre landing in central Iran! Then again maybe they are. Get a few thousand troops killed (many by FPV drones to be turned into montages and set to music for social media by Iran*) to try and instill some Pearl Harbour "We will finish this no matter the price!" spirit?


*I do wonder if the American public are ready for that? It's going to happen sooner or later that we get to watch some terrified private get blown to bits by an Iranian FPV drone just as we have watched Russian's have it done to them.

 

[AlterEgo]

They also don't have the mass for an invasion of Iran. The invasion of Iraq had around half a million personnel in theater (including 50,000 from the UK, we'd probably struggle to put 5,000 out there now...) of which around 300,000 were ground forces. The latest I read was the US has 50,000 in theatre at the moment? Not all of whom are ground troops.

They don't have the mass for a 2003 style invasion. They probably do for some damn foolish thing involving Kharg Island (which I reckon is a nailed on certainty now). But an Iraq style invasion? Impossible without far more build-up of forces (and some sort of plan for how to get them all into Iran, not sure Iraq will be as cooperative jumping off point as Saudi and Kuwait were).

Well unless they're planning on getting a something like the 82nd Airborne gutted in some sort of bizarre landing in central Iran! Then again maybe they are. Get a few thousand troops killed (many by FPV drones to be turned into montages and set to music for social media by Iran*) to try and instill some Pearl Harbour "We will finish this no matter the price!" spirit?


*I do wonder if the American public are ready for that? It's going to happen sooner or later that we get to watch some terrified private get blown to bits by an Iranian FPV drone just as we have watched Russian's have it done to them.

Every word true.

Kharg will be a successful misadventure because controlling it will not actually open up the strait, but will be some sort of propaganda boost to see Americans on some Iranian soil. As it stands you can rule nothing out with America's thick as pig**** leadership. This has to be the least talented, least wise administration ever. An entirely optional crisis.

 

[3141]

I'm not so sure that a military victory will be that decisive. While Iran lacks the sophisticated military hardware, it vastly outnumbers the US in terms of ground forces. Even if the US does prevail, I think it will cost them many lives.

A long time ago I met a mathematician who discussed ways in which mathematics might illuminate other subjects.

The example that has stuck in my mind was a calculation to determine what level of advantage in technology on one side might be outweighed by greater manpower on the other.

He concluded that the balance lay between 4 times better technology and 16 times manpower. (He didn't explain precisely how you would assess one side's technology being X times better.)

No doubt the USA military are doing their own calculations about this. The risk is that if their superiority in military hardware is outmatched by Iran's advantage in manpower, Trump will be tempted to use nuclear weapons. I'm not at all confident that anyone would be able to restrain him.

 

[najaB]

They don't have the mass for a 2003 style invasion. They probably do for some damn foolish thing involving Kharg Island (which I reckon is a nailed on certainty now). But an Iraq style invasion? Impossible without far more build-up of forces (and some sort of plan for how to get them all into Iran, not sure Iraq will be as cooperative jumping off point as Saudi and Kuwait were).

The problem with invading Iran from Iraq is that it's around 500km from the closest point of the border to Tehran, a good 200km of which is very mountainous. Not the same as the mostly flat desert between Kuwait and Baghdad.

And take Kharg Island? Great, now you're holding an island some 15km from the coast of your enemy, 200km from your closest supply point.

 

[Dave61]

I'm not so sure that a military victory will be that decisive. While Iran lacks the sophisticated military hardware, it vastly outnumbers the US in terms of ground forces. Even if the US does prevail, I think it will cost them many lives.

I think the yardstick here is the Iraq - Iran war which also went well.

 

[dosxuk]

My big worry with Kharg, if I was planning to invade, is that the invasion has been signposted for so long now, it would be very easy to set up a significant amount of guerilla traps to cause damage to any invaders. Modern technology being what it is, it would be very easy to video said traps going off and create a lot of propaganda material. If Iran doesn't aim to keep the island, but to instead inflict maximum carnage on the invasion force, it could end up looking very bad for the Americans both at home and in Iran.

It would be very difficult for Donald to spin "we lost x thousand heroic troops and found the cowards had blown up all our oil infrastructure, but we now control the island" as a victory, but it's an outcome I can see being likely.