UAE To Leave OPEC Amid Hormuz Oil Crisis (apnews.com) 110
fjo3 writes: The United Arab Emirates announced Tuesday that it would exit the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (source paywalled; alternative source), or OPEC, along with the wider group of partners known as OPEC+, effective May 1, in what could be a blow to control over prices by the group, long led in practice by Saudi Arabia. The move "reflects the UAE's long-term strategic and economic vision and evolving energy profile" read an official statement carried by a UAE state news agency, as disruptions "in the Strait of Hormuz continues to affect supply dynamics."
[...] The UAE is the second Persian Gulf country to leave the group after Qatar terminated its membership in 2019. The UAE has been a member of OPEC since 1971. The latest departure leaves in place 11 core members: Algeria, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.
[...] The UAE is the second Persian Gulf country to leave the group after Qatar terminated its membership in 2019. The UAE has been a member of OPEC since 1971. The latest departure leaves in place 11 core members: Algeria, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.
OPEC is really the Saudis (Score:5, Informative)
OPEC has just been a front for the Saudis for a very long time. Only they really have the ability to meaningfully meter output.
Algeria, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, and Venezuela all basically produce as much as they can regardless of OPEC. Their output is mostly determined by ability to attract investment, security (or lack thereof) and geopolitical obstacles (as in Iran). Kuwait and UAE have the ability to meter, but they are too small in total output to matter. Russia has informally worked with OPEC on quotas, but they have likely lost the ability to meter output now that Ukraine is attacking its export faculties.
Cartels usually fail ... (Score:1)
OPEC has just been a front for the Saudis for a very long time.
OPEC is a cartel. Cartels often have leaders. Cartels usually fail, loyalty/control eventual fades and self interest asserts itself.
Re: (Score:2)
OPEC has just been a front for the Saudis for a very long time. Only they really have the ability to meaningfully meter output.
Algeria, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, and Venezuela all basically produce as much as they can regardless of OPEC. Their output is mostly determined by ability to attract investment, security (or lack thereof) and geopolitical obstacles (as in Iran). Kuwait and UAE have the ability to meter, but they are too small in total output to matter. Russia has informally worked with OPEC on quotas, but they have likely lost the ability to meter output now that Ukraine is attacking its export faculties.
As soon as prices go up it becomes profitable to extract elsewhere diluting OPEC's market share. The difference between OPEC and other producers is the lag in response to market changes.
Re: (Score:3)
Qatar had left OPEC during its 2019 dispute w/ Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Emirates and Bahrein. Since then, they focused on LNG. Now, w/ the Emirates leaving it, OPEC is even more fractured. Countries that don't like OPEC cartel prices can deal w/ Emirates or Qatar, or even Russia or Iran, if they don't care about US trade relations
Once the islamic regime in Iran falls, Iranian oil will be back on the world oil markets, lowering their prices. If and when the Ukraine war ends, Russian oil too can return onli
Re: (Score:2)
Right now the only thing that's certain is that the US Navy is scared of entering the Straight of Hormuz. HTH.
Re: (Score:3)
Hopefully the move away from oil as fuel will have gained enough momentum by then that it never recovers.
It would be cheaper to just do that, than to deal with the inevitable next oil shock.
Re:Trump Iran Crisis (Score:5, Insightful)
It's an impressive accomplishment - nobody liked Iran, though it had allies. This unnecessary war is pissing everyone off enough they're more or less siding with Iran over the US.
That's the 'respect' Trump has brought to America.
We gave Iran the nuke (Score:5, Insightful)
Iran now has the power to crash the entire world economy. All thanks to the staggering incompetence of one senile old man and a bunch of sycophantic hangers on and a bunch of people who couldn't figure out that making a known rapist and pedophile president wasn't going to end well for them...
The thing is so far about 40% of the country here in America has been completely insulated from this mess. It won't last but it's looking like it may hold out for them until after the midterms and then they don't matter anymore.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Only it's the strait of Hormuz instead of an actual nuclear weapon. And it's way more effective than any nuclear weapon they could ever get their hands on. Iran now has the power to crash the entire world economy. All thanks to the staggering incompetence of one senile old man and a bunch of sycophantic hangers on and a bunch of people who couldn't figure out that making a known rapist and pedophile president wasn't going to end well for them... The thing is so far about 40% of the country here in America has been completely insulated from this mess. It won't last but it's looking like it may hold out for them until after the midterms and then they don't matter anymore.
Hey, they owned the libs. That's the important thing. They really owned the libs. They also owned themselves, and most of everybody else on the planet, but those lib tears man, they must make a glorious cocktail to make all the other damage worthwhile.
So far no consequences (Score:4, Insightful)
So you can keep that up until the midterms as long as gas doesn't get so expensive that it prevents them from paying rent or mortgages or buying food. That's the point where they have to abandon dear leader but we're not anywhere close to that yet for those people.
Owning the libs is part of it. My God they love yelling TDS. But it's also sunk cost fallacy.
Re: (Score:3)
Gas prices have gone up a bit but it's nothing they can't absorb. You can see that in Trump's poll numbers. They can keep telling themselves gas will come back down in 2 weeks.
It's the exact opposite. Sure, the MAGA base can ignore gas prices, but the non-MAGA republicans and the right-leaning independents are much more easily swayed by gas prices, and it's this third of voters that produces political tsunamis. Carville continues to be right - it's the economy, stupid. That continues to be true even if a third of voters are intransigent MAGA.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody cares? How about we poll the victims and ask them if they still care? Maybe it is okay for you to have rich folks preying on little girls with no repercussions but to families with little girls it is a very big deal. Allowing it to go unpunished just promotes the perps to do more of it and against any women, they have no worries with this alleged Justice Dept. and a serial female abuser in the WH.
Re:We gave Iran the nuke (Score:4, Interesting)
Only it's the strait of Hormuz instead of an actual nuclear weapon.
With some exceptions regional hydrocarbon extractors deliberately decided not to invest in bypassing the Hormuz choke-point. They likely presumed worst case US would intervene to open it by force. Nobody is going to make that mistake again.
And it's way more effective than any nuclear weapon they could ever get their hands on.
This nonsense is absurd on its face.
How is it absurd? (Score:2, Troll)
But the fact that Iran can close the straight is a fact. They can do it without freaking out the rest of the world and without the incredible expense of maintaining a large enough nuclear arsenal that nobody decides to chance it and see whether or not those nukes really work.
Iran could have a couple of actual nuclear missiles but they would have to not only prove that they could h
Re: (Score:2)
But all they need to do to close the straight is to drop a few mines and take some pot shots at some vessels. Pirates could do that let alone a functioning nation state.
The difference is between a threat that may or may not be able to be backed up and one that absolutely can be. That's why closing the straight is better than having a nuclear weapon.
As an added bonus it freaks people out less so if Iran can return things to some semblance of normality we will all just kind of forget about it.
I'm going to turn your country into a glass parking lot is neither equivalent to or more effective than I'm going to block ships from traveling through a waterway.
Blocking or meaningfully threatening to block a choke point results in capital expenditures on infrastructure to prevent the choke point from persisting. So no it isn't "way more effective than any nuclear weapon they could ever get their hands on." in any way shape or form.
This is further evidenced by the fact the US blockade persisted despite I
Re: (Score:2)
Iran is a fairly large country, about 2 and a half times as big as Texas, and their leadership is now decentralized, or located to other countries
Israel though, is quite small, with the majority of the population concentrated into a fraction of that area in the northwest. However, there are a lot of reasons it is doubtful Iran would actually use nuclear weapons for anything other than deterrence, including good old fashioned MAD.
That said, I certainly don't want Iran to get nuclear weapons in two weeks, just like they've been about to since the 90's.
You do know people are going to starve to death (Score:3)
Now the good news is there is plenty of oil for several hundred years. But just because we have enough to feed everybody doesn't mean we will.
That makes Iran's
Re:How is it absurd? (Score:4, Interesting)
> I'm going to turn your country into a glass parking lot is neither equivalent to or more effective than I'm going to block ships from traveling through a waterway.
Any attempt to turn a country the size of Iran or the United States into a glass parking lot would pretty much have repercussions the world over. Even with Iran on the other side of the world from the US, neither party would escape the results. The real reason no country has been insane enough to use nukes or show signs of meaningfully planning to use them outside of retaliation for a similar nuclear strike has been that it's over for everyone if you do. That's why the USSR and NATO never went at it. That's why India and Pakistan keep sabre-rattling but refuse to actually do it. That's why North Korea hasn't nuked South Korea.
So, in a million different ways, blocking a sizable chunk of the world's supply of oil (which is what you mean by "block ships from traveling through a waterway") is infinitely more effective than nuking a nation. Nuking a nation is, in fact, ineffective. Neither you nor they will be able to do a damned thing afterwards. But blocking oil
seems to be actually having an impact.
At the end of this, Iran will develop nukes, which it wouldn't have done had Trump not torn up Obama's peace deal. Nobody will even complain it did so, with the possible exception of Israel, given it legitimately has good reason now to get them after being attacked by the largest military on Earth. And the world will become a more dangerous place. What a fucking mess. Well done MAGA idiots. At least eggs finally came down in price, I guess? (Which they'd have done under Harris anyway)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obama's deal virtually guaranteed Iran could get nukes the instant the deal ran out.
It allowed Iran to stockpile enriched uranium.
Unlimited numbers of centrifuges ready to highly enrich it all the instant the deal ran out.
All the while doing nothing to stop Iran from building the ballistic missiles and working on making the actual warheads.
Removing the sanctions and allowing the unlimited sale of oil gave them the untold billions in funding to make it all happen.
While caps on aggregate volume of enriched uranium were temporary the monitoring regime and less than 4% enrichment level were permanent.
You are correct the JCPOA was only for nukes not missiles or other delivery vehicles.
They were still being sanctioned for the missiles and terrorism but they did receive relief from nuclear related sanctions in exchange. Sanctions relief I believe was the source of Israeli and US right wing opposition to JCPOA. It was obvious any lifting of any sanctions would mean more
Re: (Score:2)
So, in a million different ways, blocking a sizable chunk of the world's supply of oil is infinitely more effective than nuking a nation
This is still a ridiculous statement. The blocking of the straight can stop overnight, and it's gone. Done. Everything flows again immediately. It can be undone. A nuclear detonation cannot be undone. If the straight is blocked long enough then interventions will happen, and not just by the United States.
With the exception of the suffering of the Iranian citizens, and the world paying a little more to drive around in their cars, this is a GOOD thing. Countries in the middle east have been lazy and naive to
Re: (Score:2)
The comparison is obviously ridiculous.
An action's effectiveness depends on one's willingness to use it. Having a lever is pretty useless if you'll never pull it because the global consequences are unthinkable. I believe that's the point OP is making.
Yes, actually nuking Iran would be more effective at achieving whatever the stated objective over there is this week. But we aren't going to do it. Iran knows that, or at least outwardly operates as though that is the case. Of course we have the physical ability to nuke Iran, but (I hope) our lead
Re: How is it absurd? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
How many times have nuclear weapons been used?
Iran is crazy enough to use one. The moment they're able to nuke Washington D.C., they will. But only after nuking Israel.
Once they get one they could be justified to use it against people who keep attacking them over and over. It's interesting how you can prevent them from getting them and legitimize them needing them at the same time. We'll see how that works out in the long run.
Re: (Score:2)
This nonsense is absurd on its face.
America has the world's largest arsenal of nuclear weapons and it is effectively powerless against what is going on with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Having a nuclear weapon which you can't use (MAD / political consequence) is useless. It's absurd to think that choking the world economy isn't a far more effective global weapon.
Re: (Score:2)
America has the world's largest arsenal of nuclear weapons
No, Russia has the worlds largest nuclear arsenal.
and it is effectively powerless against what is going on with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
No, your assertion US is powerless is absurd. The US currently chooses not to commit assets to the Hormuz kill box to unblock it during current "ceasefire". I wouldn't either. Way better ATM to cure Iran's oil curse and let nature take its course. The regime is having trouble paying the foreign proxies currently occupying Iran it imported just a few weeks ago and shit is only getting worse for them.
Having a nuclear weapon which you can't use (MAD / political consequence) is useless.
It's absurd to think that choking the world economy isn't a far more effective global weapon.
Just to be clear you are saying nukes are useless so lit
Re: (Score:2)
Just to be clear you are saying nukes are useless so literally anything is more effective than a useless nuke?
Nukes are a deterrent against other nukes. That's it. We would have to be batshit insane to launch a nuke at Iran. So no, they aren't useless, they just serve a different purpose.
A handgun would for example be a more effective deterrent than a nuclear weapon?
Depends. What's the threat? A gun is a great deterrent against someone breaking into your house, or robbing you on the street. A nuke would be decidedly bad for that purpose. If someone is threatening nuclear war with you, I'd prefer to have nukes available.
Is it your position when people compare the effectiveness of nukes this is simply a rhetorical device given nukes are "useless"?
Unless we are willing to use them offensively to achieve some objecti
Re: (Score:2)
Nukes are a deterrent against other nukes. That's it. We would have to be batshit insane to launch a nuke at Iran. So no, they aren't useless, they just serve a different purpose.
I'm trying to understand what thegarbz was trying to say. The context here isn't nuking Iran or the US having nukes it is Iran having nukes vs Iran blocking a straight.
Unless we are willing to use them offensively to achieve some objective? Yes, they are rhetorical devices. Think about it. We could literally go park a nuclear submarine in the middle of the Strait and say "break the blockade or else". There are two responses: They capitulate, or call our bluff. My bet? They invite us to go flour our nuts. Even Trump isn't stupid enough to start a global nuclear war, and they know it.
I wish people would read the thread and if they want to reply reply in context to what is actually being discussed. What is the point of going off on these insane tangents about nuking Iran and parking nuclear submarines?
So yes, they are rhetorical devices for this situation.
Rhetorical devices have no objective value. If you believe this then the nuke characterizations are just a waste of ever
Re: (Score:2)
The context here isn't nuking Iran or the US having nukes it is Iran having nukes vs Iran blocking a straight.
I'm aware. The root of this discussion is around the "And [Iran's ability to shut down the strait at will] is way more effective than any nuclear weapon they could ever get their hands on." comment. You've been up and down this thread with the same theme: That idea is patently ridiculous, a nuke is far more effective than a naval blockade. I disagree with that premise.
What is the point of going off on these insane tangents about nuking Iran and parking nuclear submarines?
Hyperbole used to illustrate that nuclear weapons aren't the end-all be-all answer you argue they are. We have them, yet for all practical
Re: (Score:2)
And it's way more effective than any nuclear weapon they could ever get their hands on.
This nonsense is absurd on its face.
I don't think it's absurd at all. Yes, a nuke would be a deterrent - but if they ever used it they'd be pounded into dust for having done so and they know it. The entire world would be against them. So they'd tolerate a lot of shit before pulling that specific trigger.
But causing economic havoc with a rather minor military investment, when a large percentage of the world feels that their actions in the Strait of Hormuz are fully justified in the face of the crap that the
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it's absurd at all.
These comparisons of harassing ships in a waterway with nukes are not just absurd they are ridiculous absurd. This is evidenced by the simple fact everyone knew in advance the Iranians would fuck with transit through the straight but the US knowing that waged war against the IRGC anyway. This wouldn't have been the case if Iran had nukes.
but if they ever used it they'd be pounded into dust for having done so and they know it.
Like they care or ever even gave a fuck about Iran in the first place.
"We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let th
Re: (Score:2)
Considering the Don of the USA knew that they would close the strait, but believed he could make them bend the knee and kiss his pinky before they had time to do that, I wouldn't be so quick to assume he wouldn't do the same thing if Iran had nukes, believing the same thing about them using nukes.
The Don of the USA does not believe anything can harm him. Not closed straits, not tariffs, not seizing leaders of foreign powers, and not nukes. Iran having nukes would be at best very unlikely to stop him from at
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, indeed it can be, and a classic example is the Danegeld [wikipedia.org] which the Danes used to drain the English out of all the funds they might have used to pay soldiers and defend the realm so that when the Danes really invaded, the English were powerless to resist them in any meaningful or effective way. Not that I think that this was the Dane's intent, they were just interested in getting as much silver as possible without risking their lives in a
Re: (Score:1)
The strait of Hormuz can be captured/secured by the US with little difficulty. Look at a map .. most of the area next to it is desert. Two or three divisions could probably secure it. They'll have to expel all current residents in the area though.
Re: (Score:2)
Netanyahu doesn't care. He will throw us under the bus to get his Greater Israel.
With elections coming up in Israel, this is a dangerous time. Netanyahu needs to stay in power to avoid the consequences of his actions.
Re:We gave Iran the nuke (Score:5, Informative)
There are some mindless haters anywhere but a lot of people are thoughtful. And a lot of those thoughtful people really can't stand Trump. I mean the guy lies soooo much, even for a politician. Thoughtful people tend not to like that. Especially when it translates to action that is seen as harmful to so many people.
And when I say he lies, I mean that as an objective statement of fact. I'm not expressing my opinion. There are people who literally sit around all day and fact check him, and provide documented verifiable evidence of the lies. Some info on that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
But you must surely be aware of this?
Re:We gave Iran the nuke (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't feed the trolls (Score:4, Insightful)
But as for real world harm Trump has caused there's a little over 500,000 dead children. That is the number of deaths caused by cuts to usaid since Trump took office. There is absolutely no debate whether these numbers are accurate the only debate is whether or not we should care since they aren't American children.
Even if you don't care about children outside of America I would like to think people are smart enough to understand that it's cheaper to drop food than bombs. On the other hand some people just really really love dropping bombs
Re: (Score:2)
A +5 comment does not keep its parent comment visible. Each requires votes independently.
Re: (Score:2)
That means usaid was preventing 500,000 child deaths annually before the cuts? For how many years?
It is way more than that by now. Last estimate I heard months ago was 700k since the illegal destruction of USAID.
I don't remember hearing anyone credit Americans with that. But Americans are demons if they stop doing it for a while.
"As of November 5th, it estimated that U.S.A.I.D.'s dismantling has already caused the deaths of six hundred thousand people, two-thirds of them children."
https://www.newyorker.com/cult... [newyorker.com]
The way I see aid disruptions is akin to operating a bird feeder. If you start and make people depend on you then you are responsible for continuing. If you don't want to do it anymore there are responsible
Re:Don't feed the trolls (Score:4, Informative)
No, that's not what it means. What it means is, USAID built a system which ensured safety for people, especially children, which gave the US a lot of goodwill and immense amounts of soft power. This system was efficient and cheap due to economy of scale and good leadership, and thus displaced other systems who instead took their resources to other areas needing help.
Now that system was yanked out without a plan, and without any time to instate a replacement system. This means that all the people who depend on it to survive start suffering and dying. All to save a fraction of a percent of the US budget.
The end result is people suffering and dying in easily preventible ways, which could have been avoided by simply allowing a transition, or even asking others to pick up the tab, if the money actually was the issue. Instead the system was completely destroyed, meaning a new system has to be built from scratch. Something which takes time, which people living hand to mouth do not have. Instead they suffer, starve and die.
That you don't remember hearing anyone crediting the US with the immensely helpful and amazing work USAID did is on you. You've evidently never been in any of the countries receiving that aid. The praise the US got was always tempered by that USAID was also used as both a propaganda tool and an insurgency tool, but even that didn't stop it from receiving high praise. That's in the past though. The system has been destroyed, people are dead, and US soft power is gone. The belief that the US is part of the good guys team is no longer out there in the world.
Re: (Score:1)
Is this the kind of people who use this site? nothing but trump haters. Thats all I ever see here anymore, I don't come on here for that.
Unfortunately this is Slashdot. Most people here have a handicap that comes with functional braincells and as a result hate Trump. The man has literally something to hate for everyone. Anyone not aligned with him politically hates him (50% of America - ~174million people) . Anyone who voted for him has been backstabbed and screwed with broken promises so most people who supported him and actually see what's going on have a reason to hate him (probably a whole 5 people who voted for him). Everyone not in Ame
Re: (Score:2)
The man has literally something to hate for everyone.
That one made me chuckle. He is a man of many facets, that's for sure.
Re: (Score:2)
In what way is it stupid? Is some part of it not correct to the point where it's folly to even suggest it? Considering all of the included observations have been reported by media operating under lawful demand to not slander or outright lie, that doesn't follow.
Re:Trump Iran Crisis (Score:4, Interesting)
If you come across a republican that is supposedly fed up with the current administration ask them this simple question. Given the chance to vote for Trump a third time or a democrat, who would they choose?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm a Republican. I haven't voted for Trump or his particular sycophants. Although rare, it is possible to be a member of a political party but still vote for who you feel is going to do the best job in the respective office, regardless of party. If the party doesn't like how I vote, they should get better candidates.
Protest votes (Score:1)
I vote republican in the general election. My state didn't have a primary, so I didn't have the opportunity to vote against Trump, which I would have.
There is a thing called a protest vote. Once can vote libertarian for President, and party line for everything else.
Voting for the better candidate, regardless of party, or a protest vote if both unacceptable, is the only way the political parties will be reformed. Party loyalty just puts the insiders in control. Disloyalty would allow the voters to regain control from insiders and the radicals who have an oversized voice due to the primary process.
Losing an election is the only thing that can lead to
Re:Trump Iran Crisis (Score:4, Insightful)
It's an impressive accomplishment - nobody liked Iran, though it had allies.
Iran now has even fewer allies after lobbing missiles and drones at everyone in the region. The UAE was one of Iran's top targets. Now the fucking Israelis are sending Iron dome to UAE.
Re: (Score:3)
The UAE was never an ally of Iran, so nothing has changed there. Iran sent loitering munitions to attack UAE oil fields a few years back, as an example.
Israel are becoming more and more mercenary. They sell their tech to those who pay enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's an impressive accomplishment - nobody liked Iran, though it had allies. This unnecessary war is pissing everyone off enough they're more or less siding with Iran over the US.
That's the 'respect' Trump has brought to America.
Trump said, "I had to take this little excursion and do something that no other president had the courage to do." While those other presidents actually analyzed the situation and had enough good advisors, brains and patience to *not* do this. Iran blockading the Strait of Hormuz was always an option for them, but they had no really good justification to initiate this action unilaterally. Benjamin Netanyahu easily convinced Trump ('cause ego and, probably, dementia) that attacking Iran (for them, while g
Re: (Score:1)
It's an impressive accomplishment - nobody liked Iran, though it had allies. This unnecessary war is pissing everyone off enough they're more or less siding with Iran over the US.
That's the 'respect' Trump has brought to America.
If nobody liked Iran before and somehow can't remember or recall a single reason why they don't, then I have zero sympathy or respect for the idiots who choose to 'side' with Iran now.
Much like feminists choosing the bear, the only thing left to say to that delusion is good luck with that.
Re:Trump Iran Crisis (Score:5, Interesting)
The "liberal" media also uses careful wording. Headlines state the war in Iran instead of the war with Iran as to distance US involvement. This is entirely the US and Israel's doing. The story changes overnight when MAGA says so. Literally from "no new wars" to "we must stop Iran immediately".
Re: (Score:3)
Headlines state the war in Iran instead of the war with Iran as to distance US involvement.
That's not necessarily a political statement, it's journalistic standards. War hasn't been declared. Kind of like they call this week's DC shooter the "alleged" or "suspected" shooter. It's not because they think the feds swapped perps in some sort of conspiracy. It's because he hasn't been tried, so that's what you do.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not necessarily a political statement, it's journalistic standards. War hasn't been declared.
OK, so if the press dropped the word "war" altogether and instead used the phrase, "the United States and Israel's unprovoked attacks on Iran," would you be satisfied with that?
Re: (Score:2)
Good call! :)
Re: (Score:2)
Am I satisfied? I wasn't expressing a need or an opinion. I was just pointing out that if a journalist says "war in Iran" they might also not be expressing an opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
PCM2 was pointing out how the narrative around Israel's behaviour is carefully curated in western media. Every article is procedurally and consciously self-censored, from the top down. Anyone that steps out of line is out on the street, pronto.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they use careful wording. Not doing so means lying, and that is actually still punishable by law even in the US when done on the airways. That's why propaganda outlets like Fox News make sure not to fall under FCC jurisdiction, and those who do fall under FCC, or who want to be quoted by those who do, are very careful with their wording.
Re:Trump Iran Crisis (Score:5, Informative)
Epstein Files Oil Distraction Plan
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I remember when Reddit wasn't Reddit. When dialogue was often intended to reach understanding.
Re: (Score:2)
It already had a name, it's the Trump Iran Crisis. Now people are trying to whitewash it?
Literally no one has called it that. I'm not fan of the Orange Shitstain, but the official name was the 2026 Iran War, and the fuel shortage is the 2026 Strait of Hormuz Crisis.
Basically has been since week one of this moronic episode by our master negotiator.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you mean the Trump-Epstein Iran Crisis.
what's the government to do (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
This is already why the US went after Iran. Economic stability in disguise. Population growth is slowing to the point that Social Security and Medicare will collapse under its obligations unless we can just continue to inflate our way out of things. And inflation only works for the US because the dollar still has value outside of the US because people are trading with it and holding it.
Re: what's the government to do (Score:1)
Cracks in the price-fixing organization (Score:2)
That can't be a bad thing. Hopefully a race to the bottom for oil prices.
Raises hand - OPEC+ ? (Score:2)
UAE ... would exit ... OPEC, along with the wider group of partners known as OPEC+ ...
Is OPEC+ their streaming service? :-)
UAE leaves OPEC (Score:2)
Fair enough, since they are no longer in the business of exporting oil.
The Saudi's still export some, via their pipeline to the Red Sea.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough, since they are no longer in the business of exporting oil.
How do you figure that one? Oil and gas are about 30% of the UAE's GDP. They're something like the fourth-largest exporter worldwide. And leaving OPEC will allow them to increase production however they see fit, unrestrained by OPEC rules.
Re: (Score:2)
Then what is the other 70% of Emirates' GDP?
Re: (Score:2)
Then what is the other 70% of Emirates' GDP?
You could have just looked it up
The remaining 70–75% of the UAE's GDP (often referred to as the non-oil sector) is a highly diversified mix of industries led by trade, manufacturing, financial services, and construction. Recent data for 2024 and early 2025 indicates that the non-oil sector's contribution has hit historic highs, reaching approximately 77.3% of real GDP in the first quarter of 2025
Good (Score:4, Funny)
Fuck OPEC and fuck Saudi Arabia - bunch of useless cunts.
Re: (Score:2)
Better than that orange backwards idiot baby.