Two weeks? Vance is going to need some new hidey holes.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
The Middle East conflict
- Thread starter Killingworth
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
DarloRich
Veteran Member
all those cheerleading for this war have now got to retrofit thier views into the result achieved by the tango coloured strategic genius! Farage will be out shortly double reverse ferreting his position on Iran
He's going to be rotating so much that he'd form the new Reform policy for renewable energy generationall those cheerleading for this war have now got to retrofit thier views into the result achieved by the tango coloured strategic genius! Farage will be out shortly double reverse ferreting his position on Iran
Strathclyder
Established Member
Ones that aren't hollowed-out couches.
Delusional, quadruple-reverse ferreting garbage. Par of the course for the average Telegraph 'columnist'/opinion piece.
He's a sentient perpetual motion machine of self-aggrandizing, self-martyring BS. So a perfect source of renewable energy.
Gloster
Veteran Member
Oh, dear. What a pity that all those high-minded, idealistic, Nobel-winning hopes that the people of Iran would rise and bring about a new democratic, western-loving, consumer society have failed and turned to nothing but bodies. Weren’t they fortunate that the magnanimous man in the Whitehouse didn’t blow them all to smithereens. Still, a lot of oil futures and arms shares have been traded.
What a tragic post, and sadly very accurate.
Strathclyder
Established Member
Tragic, infuriating and completely accurate.
The Hegseth Press Conference just now was full of delusional comedy gold:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/l...trump-deadline-middle-east-crisis-latest-news
https://www.theguardian.com/world/l...trump-deadline-middle-east-crisis-latest-news
Uncle Buck
Member
It’s been very striking to me that the right-leaning media that I consume is millions of miles away from public opinion on this matter.
The Telegraph and Spectator are full of blustering blowhards jibbering about “the West” and “Trump’s strategic genius”, acting as though it’s a national scandal that we aren’t standing alongside “our American allies” and getting involved, and making cargo-cult references to Churchill and Thatcher (an awfully big assumption to think that either of them would have supported this war). And this was the initial reaction of both Badenoch and Farage.
Meanwhile out here in the real world something like 90% of the public oppose our involvement- which shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that knows anything about the British public. It’s nuts that people who aspire to lead this country understand it so little.
I can only suggest that either a) they live in a Twitter bubble, b) they are beholden to US money, or c) they secretly wish to be American. None of those things are good qualities in British leaders.
And by the way, I am very far from being a left-wing progressive!
I think it is very easy to argue against it. Think about the catastrophic impact for the global economy which relies on freedom of movement by sea as enshrined in international law. If the Straits of Hormuz are now chargeable, then so to are the Straits of Dover, Gibraltar, Malacca, Singapore, Bosphorus, Bab al-Mandab, the Danish Straits etc etc. It will literally kill the economy of any nation that relies on imports or exports via sea! It will improverish some nations and cause war across the globe.
Last edited:
I agree with @JamieL 's post, and would throw in that if Iran can charge to not bother ships in the strait then why not the UAE and Oman too.
However I would say there is a more fundamental reason why it won't stick, even if Trump let this point go (e.g. because he wants to leave Europe with a problem) – which is that a) other nations would build infrastructure to bypass the strait, and b) the world would eventually align against Iran.
Given how invaluable control over the strait has proved, and assuming Iran also takes a long view, I would argue that the threat of exerting this control is far more valuable than actually doing so, at which point they would ultimately lose both. There is a reason why Iran didn't do this years ago, and it is not because Iran is a benevolent nation that respects international law.
However I would say there is a more fundamental reason why it won't stick, even if Trump let this point go (e.g. because he wants to leave Europe with a problem) – which is that a) other nations would build infrastructure to bypass the strait, and b) the world would eventually align against Iran.
Given how invaluable control over the strait has proved, and assuming Iran also takes a long view, I would argue that the threat of exerting this control is far more valuable than actually doing so, at which point they would ultimately lose both. There is a reason why Iran didn't do this years ago, and it is not because Iran is a benevolent nation that respects international law.
Last edited:
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Saudi Arabia has a pipeline from the oilfields on the Gulf coast to Yanbu on the Red Sea, which can apparently carry about 40% of their production. But if the oil is going to Asia it then has to either risk the Houthis in the Bab al Mandeb or go via Suez and do a complete circuit of Africa.
The Saudis are planning a Landbridge railway linking Riyadh with the Red Sea (it is already linked to the Gulf) and have also started running containers trains on the existing line to the Jordan border for onward transfer by road. Jordan only has the remnants of the Hedjaz railway which can't do intermodals. There are aspirations for international rail links across the Middle East towards Europe, but the instability of the region must be a big barrier to anything happening. Also, a lot of trains are needed to replace a single ship.
What an insane take. No, tolls should be resisted for the reasons @JamieL gives, as well as the fact nobody asked these two idiots to duke it out for a month. Now it is okay with you that they're going to force everyone else to pay to fix their own mess?
Quite. Iran does tend to take the long term view. For all their myriad faults they are fine strategists.
Last edited:
edwin_m
Veteran Member
If the USA had control over one of the world's maritime pinch points, do you think Trump would pass up the opportunity to charge for passage?
Control over a chokepoint doesn’t equal a licence to charge tolls. International law flat‑out bans monetising straits used for global navigation, because doing so would collapse world trade. If any state could slap a fee on a maritime bottleneck, every major shipping lane would’ve turned into a cash register long ago.
It hasn’t happened - not because leaders lack the appetite, but because the system makes it impossible.
When the Barbary states tried charging “protection fees” for Mediterranean passage in the 18th–19th centuries, it wasn’t treated as reasonable cost‑recovery; it was piracy, and it ended by force.
You really aren’t very good at this - are you?
Oh, so the slightly pessimistic plan!
They are also taking with nations about allowing trade in oil passing through the straight in currencies other than the dollar.
If, for example, that allows the EU and other nations near to them to trade in Euros when buying their oil, fertiliser, aluminium and other things which pass through there (even if it's only a small amount of the total which heads towards Europe ec al) that's going to give them (probably us too) an advantage over the pre war situation (and could reduce the need for businesses and states to be tied to dollars).
It could even lead to others follow suit. Especially if the dollar trade agreement didn't get the wider middle east as much protection as they thought that they should have got from it and they are more sceptical of the US given just how close it's demonstrated just how willing it is to work with Israel.
Oman, who is much more willing to talk to everyone (especially those not in favour with the west; and is why they often broker political deals), might also be open to the idea (even if they aren't impacted by the straight as much as others), as that could help them with trade and talks with those who the US (but probably not by too many other countries) have applied sanctions on (this may include future sanctions).
Class73Electro
Member
Theoretically, is there a reason why the UAE couldn't just build a canal to just bypass the strait? Might save some problems in the future
How much money have you got?
SargeNpton
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Nov 2018
- Messages
- 1,740
The mountains may be an insurmountable problem.
Class73Electro
Member
I didn't think money was much of an issue over there!
Ooh, never appreciated it was mountainous! I always just thought of it being sandy!
Surely any such project would be vulnerable to sabotage and disruption. And take a decade
Killingworth
Established Member
The large locks on the Panama Canal need a lot of water. These mountains are a lot higher and would require a lot more locks.There is very little rain to provide significant water to fill such a massive undertaking.
A pipeline, maybe yes.
On the subject of canals they also only ever really get built where no alternative waterway exists. The alternative to the Suez Canal would be an entire trip around Africa, and the alternative to the Panama Canal would be an entire trip around South America (in which case I believe stormy southern waters pose a risk). Building one through Oman and the UAE would be redundant since until now the Strait of Hormuz was a relatively safe passage.
Not exactly unreasonable given most of the famous cities like Abu Dhabi and Dubai are located in the sandy plains. The Hajar Mountains are a very small part of the country and mostly an Omani landscape. Can't speak for how sandy they get during a dust storm.
Whilst the storms don't help the situation it's more about time and distance savings. It knocks thousands of miles of sailing and days off the journey. Even before the Suez Canal there was actually a trade in transhipping with cargo being dropped off at Suez and moved overland to the Mediterranean coast. Obviously very inefficient compared to ship however!
I'm also not convinced that cutting a route through Oman and the UAE actually solves the problem all that much. Iran could still strike at shipping using the new waterway if they wanted to and a ship that is incapacitated in the new canal closes it until the ship be removed (quite apart from the mountain issue!).
TravelDream
Member
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2016
- Messages
- 1,162
The UAE/ Oman border is incredibly mountainous and arid. Totally unsuitable for a canal. It was also be very vulnerable to attacks/ threats from Iran.
The best way would be a pipeline heading straight south through Saudi to a Saudi port away from Iran and Yemen. A railway for goods too.
But everything is at least somewhat vulnerable to sabotage.
To be honest, I struggle to see a good solution to this. It's clear the US went in with no real objectives or plan and Trump's massive swings in attitude (to put it lightly) and lack of knows with the Iranian regime make it totally unpredictable.
The is no realistic outcome that doesn't see Iran stronger today than it was before the war began.
It might also be end up being yet another way for the Gulf states to be among the biggest losers in this conflict. Not only were they not consulted or informed of this by their supposed ally but their global reputations as safe havens in a volatile region has been sullied with the Iranian airstrikes. They might welcome the fall of the Iranian regime but at the same time investor confidence and tourism (in Dubai's case) will have no doubt taken a hit.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
South from the UAE takes it into Yemen - Saudi has no coastline on the Indian Ocean. It would have to be more westerly to get to a Red Sea port such as Jeddah or Yanbu, but as I posted above those ports are still vulnerable to the Houthis.
Railwaycat
Member
Could have put this in now playing, but it's more relevant here (plus I'm trying not to play it!) It makes me so sad that this song perfectly sums up what's happening in the Middle East (and the world in general) today. I remember it so well, I was 11 at the time, when it reached number 3 in the charts.
61 years ago, and nothing's been learnt.
61 years ago, and nothing's been learnt.