Thursday, March 12, 2026

Secondary Effects From Iran Strikes

‘Multi-domain’, that beloved catchphrase of the US military, applies not only to combat but also to results as noted below.
 
 
Oil
 
Here’s an aspect of the strikes against Iran that you may not be aware of.  One of the secondary effects from the strikes on Iran and the toppling of the Venezuela Maduro regime has been the impact on China’s oil imports.
 
Almost all of Iran’s exported oil, and more than half of Venezuela’s, went last year to China, which remained one of the only purchasers of goods from the two heavily sanctioned nations. The two countries combined represented some 17 percent of China’s overall oil purchases …[1]

17% is not an insignificant amount of oil to lose!
 
In addition, the steady crackdown on the so-called shadow fleet of tankers is further reducing oil supplies to China and Russia.
 
 
Hezbollah
 
Apparently Lebanon is growing tired of Iran’s influence on Hezbollah, brought to a head by the strikes on Iran and Hezbollah.  From Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, as reported by Redstate website,[2]
 
… Lebanon called for direct talks with Israel on “permanent arrangements for security and stability on our borders,” while accusing the Iranian-backed militant group Hezbollah of betraying the country.
 
But it is his criticism of Hezbollah that is significant. Calling the Shiite Muslim group “an armed faction … that places no value on Lebanon’s interest nor on the life of its people,” Aoun said Hezbollah “wanted to achieve the fall of the State of Lebanon, under aggression and chaos.” He accused the group of working “for the sake of the calculations of the Iranian regime.” [...]
 
Aoun called for a new initiative, backed by the international community, which would establish a truce between Israel and Lebanon while helping the Lebanese armed forces disarm Hezbollah and confiscate its weaponry. The initiative would put in a place a “complete truce” with a halt to Israeli attacks as the two countries begin “direct negotiations under international sponsorship” to achieve a “final cessation of hostile acts” and “permanent arrangements for security and stability on our borders.[2]

Well directed force does produce positive results.
 
 
_______________________________
 
[1]Politico website, “5 charts show China’s oil dilemma after US strikes”, Paroma Soni and Catherine Allen, 2-Mar-2026,
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/02/iran-us-strikes-china-oil-supply-charts-00806415
 
[2]Redstate, “Lebanon Drops Some Bad News on Those Anti-American Hezbollah Terrorists”, Nick Arama, 10-Mar-2026,
https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2026/03/10/lebanon-wants-talks-with-israel-n2200042


Posted by at
Labels: , ,

51 comments:

  1. AnonymousMarch 12, 2026 at 8:05 AM

    What about the other secondary effects?

    For example, the attacks on ships in the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz and the recent increase in gas prices.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsMarch 12, 2026 at 8:18 AM

      The half dozen or so attacks on ships (no sinkings and no serious damage as far as I know) are a direct response but, yes, oil prices are a secondary effect.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMarch 12, 2026 at 9:01 AM

      And it's not just the 2 mil+ bpd of oil that China loses, Russia loses a major supplier of drones.

      Lutefisk

      Delete
    3. ComNavOpsMarch 12, 2026 at 9:24 AM

      "Russia loses a major supplier of drones."

      Good one. I hadn't thought of that.

      Delete
  2. AnonymousMarch 12, 2026 at 11:35 AM

    Whatever one may think of this war, it's far too early to have any meaningful sense of what the eventual "balance sheet" of pros and cons associated with pursuing it will look like. One side or the other is probably "right" (I have my own opinions), but precisely because there are so many secondary effects, it will be years (likely a decade or more) before informed and measured assessment can supplant the preconcieved notions we all bring to the table right now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsMarch 12, 2026 at 12:01 PM

      You are correct that the ultimate balance sheet won't be written for some time to come but the trend is clear. Iran has lost its navy, air force, leadership, weapons production, nuclear potential, etc. to varying degrees. The population appears more agitated than ever. Former allies of Iran are changing their views. Most of the Middle East is now withdrawing any support they might have had for Iran. Their ability to export terrorism is badly damaged. And the list goes on. The only real unknown is the final extent of the changes and whether the population will replace the government. There's no good from this for the current Iranian regime.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMarch 12, 2026 at 12:12 PM

      That's one view, certainly. I could articulate another. You would say yours is fact-based and mine is not. I would disagree. At core, I think both our viewpoints will be dominated more by motivated reasoning than hard data at this early stage in events.

      Delete
    3. Chinese GordonMarch 12, 2026 at 4:23 PM

      Maybe the USN will put some serious effort into
      MCM ?
      How about more medium calibre vt capable
      cannon on USN ships.

      Delete
  3. AnonymousMarch 12, 2026 at 2:01 PM

    Recent reports that Iran continue selling oil to China.

    Venezuela's crude oils are mostly super heavy oils thus need dedicated refinery to deal with very high sulfur and metal content. Refineries targeted for other oils generally cannot refine Venezuela heavy oil. On the contrary, refineries targeted Venezuela oils can refine Canadian heavy oil with a little bit overkill (less cost effective than targeted Canadian heavy oil).

    Real danger is that Iran attacks Gulf nations' oil production facilities. They are close to Iran thus very vulnerable. Result is what Trump afraid to death - oil price shot up so does US INFLATION. This is why Trump was not happy Israel attack Iranian oil storage for fearing trigger a mutual destruction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsMarch 12, 2026 at 2:56 PM

      "Recent reports that Iran continue selling oil to China."

      As far as I know, little or no oil is moving from Iran to China. If you have information to the contrary, please share it.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMarch 12, 2026 at 3:27 PM

      It’s been widely reported that Iran’s main refineries and export terminal on Kharg Island are still operating as normal, and that close to 12 million tons of oil have been shipped since the was began, nearly all of it heading for China.
      Presumably these facilities haven’t been taken out because of the likely impact on oil prices.

      Delete
    3. ComNavOpsMarch 12, 2026 at 4:14 PM

      "Iran's main refineries"

      The situation is more complicated than stated. Yes, Kharg Island is functional, however, virtually all shipping through the strait has halted so, presumably, no oil is currently moving from Kharg to China. The reported 12M bbl DELIVERED to China were presumably already past the strait when hostilities began.

      Consider further ... even at a rate of 12M bbl per ten days, that would be 438M bbl for a year which would be a 16% drop from the 520M bbl Iran exported to China in 2025.

      So, it seems there is no current shipments of oil passing through the strait and the US is aggressively seizing the shadow fleet tankers, further cutting into oil shipments.

      We'll have to wait and see what's reported for oil shipments over the next ten day period.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousMarch 12, 2026 at 5:27 PM

      Yes, that makes more sense.

      Delete
    5. AnonymousMarch 12, 2026 at 8:28 PM

      The Straits are only closed to ships not approved by Iran.
      Theres stories that some vessels have their destination on the MCAS collision avoidance system changes to China and list their owners and crew as chinese. Others have approval but have gone dark
      https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/11/iran-ships-oil-china-strait-hormuz-closure-.html

      Delete
    6. AnonymousMarch 12, 2026 at 11:29 PM

      Given Trump desperately wants to visit China, US won't stop these shipments to China.

      Delete
    7. AnonymousMarch 13, 2026 at 12:29 PM

      Every thing I know and everyone I talk to in the region says that while shipping through Hormuz is far from normal, its also far from totally dead if you have approval from Iran--->China to ship through it.

      An interesting fact is that Jask is running, and its on the correct side of the Strait to access open water. The bad news is its old, little used and functions at 10-20% only of the capacity of Kharg Island which is a huge big deal if you are trying to supply someone with the appetite of China.

      Iran sends millions of oil barrels to China through Strait of Hormuz even as war chokes the waterway
      https://www.cnbc.com/video/2026/03/10/markets-have-not-priced-in-the-worst-case-scenario-with-iran-says-sofis-liz-thomas.html

      I think this quote is instructional, and links the wartime military issues into what we are seeing.

      "Iran is a military problem. “The only thing prohibiting transit in the straits is Iran shooting at shipping,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said at a briefing Friday.

      The U.S. wants the Strait of Hormuz open. Iran doesn’t. And 13 days into the war, despite the incredible firepower the U.S. and Israel are raining down on Iran, it isn’t clear when that might change.

      The U.S. Navy may be able to escort tankers through the strait, but at best that might start by the end of the month, Energy Secretary Christopher Wright told CNBC Thursday. Without military assistance, ship captains aren’t likely to budge, even if the U.S. government helps them find more insurance. Even then oil traffic probably won’t look like normal."

      Delete
    8. AnonymousMarch 13, 2026 at 10:24 PM

      Iran does indeed appear still to be loading and exporting oil through the Strait of Hormuz. A large tanker of Iranian crude has been permitted to transit on its way to India. Presumably the Navy is turning a blind eye to these shipments, but it’s not clear exactly why.

      Delete
    9. ComNavOpsMarch 14, 2026 at 7:10 AM

      On the surface, it is inexplicable why the US is allowing Iran to continue producing and shipping any quantity of oil. Presumably, it is an attempt by the US to calm the oil market, however, given that the vast majority of Iran's oil went to China, the cessation of Iran's oil production would have little impact on the part of the global oil market that we care about and what little actual effect there was could be easily offset by slightly increased production from other MidEast countries.

      I would also note that the oil production has been significantly reduced. The occasional odd tanker moving through the strait is not significant and when it's going to India (anyone other than China), all the better!

      Delete
    10. AnonymousMarch 15, 2026 at 12:45 AM

      I think there are likely four reasons for this.
      First, we don’t want to complicate life for ourselves by interdicting oil en route to China that has been purchased and is therefore owned by a state controlled Chinese importer. If the Chinese navy decided to provide escorts, this would potentially make life difficult.
      Second, if a limited amount of Iranian oil is allowed to pass through the Strait of Hormuz the Iranians are disincentivised to mine the Strait and make it impassable (as opposed to just saying they’ve mined it).
      Third, we probably don’t care that much, because although Iran is short of foreign currency, its leaders have more pressing concerns, such as not being killed.
      Fourth, as you correctly surmise, it keeps a lid on prices.
      I do view with concern threats today to take out Iranian oil production infrastructure, as an Iranian retaliation against SA and the Gulf States facilities could be very problematic.

      Delete
    11. AnonymousMarch 15, 2026 at 4:49 AM

      Iran desperately wants to sell more oil to China given most nations dare not buy and Russia itself is selling oil. Thanks to rare earth, Trump dare not add new sanctions on China to cripple US industry now.

      On the other hand, China has very good relations with Gulf nations. China purchases lots of oil from them thus doesn't want Iran to attack their oil facilities. In past decade, US sold far more weapons to Gulf nations than to Iran (actually, very few).

      BTW, Saudi's HQ-17AE is very suitable strike low fly target. Wonder if Saudi uses it in intercept Iranian cruise missiles and drones. It is a battle field SAM capable of firing while moving. Its range is short - maximum range only 15km.

      Delete
    12. AnonymousMarch 15, 2026 at 4:51 AM

      Correction of miss typing: In past decade, China sold far more weapons to Gulf nations than to Iran.

      Delete
    13. ComNavOpsMarch 15, 2026 at 6:24 PM

      "we don’t want to complicate life for ourselves by interdicting oil en route to China"

      That may not be a correct statement. The US has imposed many sanctions on Iran aimed at reducing or ending their flow of oil to China. For example, in Aug of last year, the State Dept issued this statement: "The Department of State is imposing sanctions on two China-based crude oil and petroleum products terminal and storage operators that have facilitated the import of millions of barrels of Iranian-origin oil onboard multiple U.S.-designated tankers. This action is the Department’s fourth round of sanctions targeting China-based terminal operators, which continue to play a vital role in the Iranian crude oil supply chain."

      In addition, the US has seized numerous 'shadow fleet' tankers, further reducing the flow oil from Iran.

      "If the Chinese navy decided to provide escorts, this would potentially make life difficult."

      President Trump has called on China to provide naval escort through the Strait of Hormuz.

      "Iranians are disincentivised to mine the Strait"

      Possibly true, however, I think Iran has largely lost the ability to mine the strait with more than just a few odd mines. Of course, just a few mines can have an outsized impact on shipping!

      "I do view with concern threats today to take out Iranian oil production infrastructure"

      Why? Apparently, 90%+ of Iranian oil exports went to China so who the impact on Western oil supply would be negligible. In fact, given that the vast majority went to China, the loss of Iran's oil production would be a good thing.

      Delete
    14. AnonymousMarch 15, 2026 at 11:18 PM

      The problem would be that if the Chinese were unable to purchase their oil from Iran (about 17% of their total imports from memory), they would buy it elsewhere, and crowd out or outbid other countries (eg the Philippines) whose pockets aren’t so deep.
      We’re already seeing this happening with uncontracted LNG shipments which are being diverted course mid-voyage away from Europe to higher paying Asian markets.

      Delete
    15. AnonymousMarch 16, 2026 at 2:22 AM

      Unlikely that the Navy would be welcoming assistance from the Chinese to help them with the mine cleanup.
      Not sure what message that would be sending to our Gulf State allies.

      Delete
    16. AnonymousMarch 16, 2026 at 5:35 AM

      "Possibly true, however, I think Iran has largely lost the ability to mine the strait with more than just a few odd mines. Of course, just a few mines can have an outsized impact on shipping!"

      Bairds Maritime says China laid about a dozen mines. As you say, its the perception rather than reality that is going to have the most effect.

      Delete
    17. ComNavOpsMarch 16, 2026 at 7:30 AM

      " they would buy it elsewhere, and crowd out or outbid other countries"

      Which is good for the free market (supply and demand). It also makes China more susceptible to economic and trade threats which we can use to our advantage just as they have done with rare earths. A definite positive.

      It also opens possibilities for us to step in and help any affected country thereby improving our relations and ultimate strategic position. Again, a definite positive.

      You seem to be picking and choosing short term, possible negatives and ignoring the larger picture. This is the Chicken Little view that is so predominant in today's world.

      Delete
    18. ComNavOpsMarch 16, 2026 at 7:37 AM

      "Unlikely that the Navy would be welcoming assistance from the Chinese to help them with the mine cleanup."

      1. What the Navy thinks or wants is irrelevant. The President conducts foreign affairs, not the Navy. If the Navy doesn't like the way it would look if China had to escort ships then the Navy should have had an appropriate force structure and be willing to take on the task.

      2. If China takes on an escort role, that hugely increases pressure on Iran not to attack shipping which is a positive for us.

      3. We can eliminate Iran's oil shipments to China without bothering with the strait issue, at all. We simply stop the tankers from loading!

      4. The message to the Gulf states would be, go ahead and resume your shipments with complete safety! How can that not be a win?

      5. Isn't peaceful cooperation with China exactly what most people clamor for?

      Delete
    19. ComNavOpsMarch 16, 2026 at 7:46 AM

      "says China laid about a dozen mines."

      I assume you meant Iran. I have seen no authoritative report that Iran has actually laid any mines. Even if they have, their mining capability is, essentially, gone. Traffic through the strait is reduced but not stopped and, from what I can glean, appears to be slowly resuming.

      Delete
    20. AnonymousMarch 16, 2026 at 11:56 AM

      Yes, brain-fade. Iran not China. This source sounds pretty reasonable.
      https://www.bairdmaritime.com/security/naval/iran-has-laid-about-a-dozen-mines-in-strait-of-hormuz-sources-say

      They can also lay mines with their Boghammar speed boats equipped with mine rails. They have a huge number of those available to facilitate laying one of the world's largest stock of mines. Its going to be interesting to see how the tactics develop in the Strait.

      Delete
    21. ComNavOpsMarch 16, 2026 at 2:08 PM

      "This source sounds pretty reasonable."

      Not really. The article relies on two unnamed sources with no identification, background, or level of authority cited. This is what we call a rumor. That doesn't mean it isn't true but it's as far from an authoritative source as you can get.

      As far as Iran's speedboats, I have no knowledge but I assume the US has destroyed the majority of Iran's boats and related facilities along with mine storage locations. It would be militarily negligent not to have.

      Delete
    22. ComNavOpsMarch 16, 2026 at 5:19 PM

      "will not be allowed to stand"

      Blatant stupidity will not be allowed to stand.

      Regarding video links. I'm not promoting other people's blogs. If there's a particular point you wish to make about a video feel free. Otherwise, I don't just promote other blogs, videos, and websites.

      Delete
  4. AnonymousMarch 12, 2026 at 2:40 PM

    Your recent post on the Navy’s lack of MCM skills and resources was very much to the point.
    Ditto - in light of the situation in the Strait of Hormuz - your posts about the requirement for a new class of battleships.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. G2milMarch 13, 2026 at 3:42 PM

      There was suppose to be a special LCS mine warfare version, but that never got that developed. They wanted to retire the old Avenger class, so just picked out some LCS the Navy didn't want and threw whatever mine warfare stuff they could aboard. LCS are idea for mine warfare since they are worthless and the Navy plans to retire the rest. So just use them to find mines with their hull!

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMarch 13, 2026 at 3:43 PM

      Isn't that the truth. I wonder what the local commander would do for some really serious mine countermeasure/mine clearance capability right now? Selling firstborn comes to mind. How on earth did we get into this situation?

      Instead we have LCS...

      Delete
    3. AnonymousMarch 13, 2026 at 3:45 PM

      "So just use them to find mines with their hull!"
      Might work, but a bit rough on the crew...

      Delete
    4. ComNavOpsMarch 13, 2026 at 4:15 PM

      The problem is they can only find and dispose of one mine that way!

      Delete
    5. Chinese GordonMarch 14, 2026 at 11:57 AM

      In the old Q Ship days, they packed the ships full of cork.
      Few few hundred cans of spray insulation foam and
      FlexSeal(tm), and they mighty LCS could sustain several
      mine hits.

      Delete
  5. ComNavOpsMarch 12, 2026 at 3:02 PM

    "strategic oil reserve"

    Comment deleted. This is not a Chinese propaganda site nor a political commentary site. That aside, you are incorrect about several aspects. You need to do some research and then come back and revise your comment. Here's a post to get you started: Strategic Petroleum Reserve

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousMarch 12, 2026 at 3:03 PM

    Don't fall into a trap that China allies with Iran - not at all. China has good relations with Israel, Gulf nations, and Iran. Other than saying something "noble", what China do now is to minimize its loss. China sold more weapons to Saudi in past 10 years. Saudi purchase a CH-4 drone production line from China. It also has Sky Saker cargo drones. Right before the war, Saudi displayed its WL-10B drone purchased from China. WL-10B, a high-end jet engine drone can perform many tasks. Saudi has no US made drones.

    On air defense, Saudi purchased laser weapons - Silent Hunter and Sky Shield from China and used in intercept Houthis drones in 2022. At that time, Saudi claimed high success rate. Saudi also purchased HQ-17AE which can fire while moving.

    Since Chinese drones' electronics are not compatible with US made weapons, data cannot directly transfer. Information may need verbally communicate to crews operating US weapons. For instance, WL-10B's data cannot transmitted to PAC 3. HQ-17AE is a very good battle field air defense system. "E" means export version. Again, it has to operate independently than work with US made weapons which Saudi has most.

    Iran's Chinese weapons are mostly outdated ones. Iran's recent weapon purchases were largely from Russia (see map, you would know why) but affected by the Ukraine War.

    A question is whether China will supply Saudi HQ-17A missiles during this time and spare parts of other weapons. China doesn't want to take side to affect its business in the region. Forget not, there is Huawei R&D center at Haifa, Israel.

    ReplyDelete
  7. AnonymousMarch 12, 2026 at 5:51 PM

    A mistake I'm seeing is the Administration's talk about easing oil sanctions on Russia in order to offset the rising oil prices due to the productuon and shipping disruptions in the Gulf.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMarch 12, 2026 at 5:54 PM

      I would submit that this is a mistake: it injects life into the Russian economy and keeps the war in Ukraine going.

      What we really should be doing is investing further into fracking in order to maintain and develop our syrategic oil supplies: we have a metric shitload of oil reserves thay aren't being developed by the oil and gas industy because they don't consider it economically viable.

      Delete
    2. ComNavOpsMarch 12, 2026 at 6:24 PM

      "investing further into fracking"

      I don't follow the oil industry so I can't comment on that. However, I do know we have massive oil reserves in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico, among other locations. We could be - and have been in the past - oil independent if we'd simply develop our resources.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousMarch 12, 2026 at 11:30 PM

      Basically we have a lot of oil deposits where the oil is essentially stuck in the rock, so we need to blast it into powder, mix it with water, then pump it out and refine it in order to get usable product - that's fracking.

      From the strategic standpoint, this would do a lot to increase our reserves, in addition to our reserves in Alaska and the Gulf and other locations.

      The problem is that it's just not as economically viable as drilling for crude oil, and every time we've gotten close to the oil prices being high enough to make fracking economically viable, OPEC depresses the price of oil, which causes our industry to abandon efforts in this direction.

      We really can't rely on industry to develop strategic assets because industry will always operate on the business sense. I'm reminded of how the British lost the ability to make rifles and artillery barrels, because they sold off their plants and fired their workers to improve the bottom line.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousMarch 13, 2026 at 4:09 PM

      I don't want to go too far down this rabbit hole as wrong blog, but that is not the first choice definition of fracking I would use.
      The problems with fracking as a technology means that you aren't going to be using a oil platform in the Gulf as you don't have enough drill slots to make it viable. Second, a lot of the easy to get stuff on the North Slope has already been got.
      Next, oil well life is 90 days to 2 years, so you are going to spend your life and budget drilling new wells, then pumping a metric giga-ton of water mixed with sand under very high pressure and great expense. The water causes fractures in the rock layers to form that let the oil flow, then the sand props the fracture open to let the oil flow to the well bore and into the pipe.
      So you have to have a certain minimum market selling price to make enough money to keep this cycle going. Its generally $65-80 per barrel depending on where you are.
      Anyway, enough of that. The Middle East in general has a very, very low cost of extraction. Saudi is around $10-15 per barrel, Iran is higher but not by much. So we have an issue that they can make buckets of money while the US oil business flounders. Oil and gas are priced globally so you can't wave a magic wand to alter prices. Of course, if you had total control over the really big producers you could disrupt this cycle and drive prices where you needed them to be to benefit your country and economy greatly. Not a bad deal if you can make it work. See current Iran war...
      One of my early introductions to oilfield life in the Middle East was the Pazanan 49 gas well fire in Iran in 1976. I know the country, region and people pretty well. Anyone that is familiar with the business will recognize that a wellhead pressure of 6000 psi with an incursion depth of only 6000' is a recipe for disaster. And so it was...

      Delete
  8. G2milMarch 14, 2026 at 8:22 AM

    I agree we don't want to blog about the oil business, but fracking is "fracturing" rocks. When a well begins to run dry, you put explosives or push high pressure fluid at the bottom to cause fractures that cause a lot more oil to flow into the well. The other poster is talking about "shale oil." We have lots of shale that has some oil in it, but it takes more energy to produce oil from shale rock than the oil is worth. People get confused because shale rock formations are great for fracking.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsMarch 14, 2026 at 9:04 AM

      Good clarification!

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMarch 14, 2026 at 9:29 AM

      You might remember "Project Gasbuggy" from the mid-60s. Nuclear explosives. Cool concept but nothing came of it. Modern fracking for shale oil never uses explosives, its actually called hydraulic fracturing and uses enormous amounts of pump horsepower with sand and water. 100,000hp is not abnormal and fracking 50 zones or more in a horizontal well is also pretty much a standard plan. The wells are fractured as part of the day-one completion process, not once they start to run dry. Once they do start to run dry, dig a new one, rinse and repeat the whole process.
      This link is to the number of fracturing "spreads" (need one per well to complete a shale well) at work in the US. The number has gone up a bit with the oil price increase as you would expect.
      https://www.aogr.com/web-exclusives/us-frac-spread-count/2026

      Delete
  9. NICOMarch 14, 2026 at 4:34 PM

    First heard it as a rumor but it would appear USS Nimitz might be slightly delayed retirement, reason I heard it was because JFK is late so USN might keep her around this year. Supposedly there's some kind of exercise (someone might know which one, spring or summer) and USN will send Nimitz instead of another carrier....wonder how much she has left in her....

    ReplyDelete
  10. NICOMarch 14, 2026 at 4:36 PM

    Looks like it's been confirmed:
    https://breakingdefense.com/2026/03/aircraft-carrier-nimitz-gets-service-life-extension-wont-be-decommissioned-until-2027/

    ReplyDelete
  11. AnonymousMarch 15, 2026 at 9:57 PM

    Both items you mentioned are too early to tell if positive. For hezbollah and Lebanon, for one is not necessarily a positive aspect by our own administration. There are reports that the President and the administration are not happy with Israel for opening the second front instead of focusing fully on Iran. This is a current item of disagreement, but is something not surprising as Israel has wanted to punch down on hezbollah any change they get ‘mowing the lawn’ there is nothing yet in the current Iran war to suggest that hezbollah will finally be disarmed as opposed to just beat down again.

    Similarly regarding the oil situation - I think it looks positive from a superficial level but the strategic higher picture is still a net negative for us. 17% drop in oil might seem big for China, but of any country in Asia they are the most insulated due to their investments in EVs and renewables. Despite the supply shock from the gulf, China impact is muted. On the contrary the countries hurting significantly now are Philippines, Vietnam with Korea and Japan affected more than China too, and those are putative US allies. It doesn’t make our strategic position in the Indo-pacific stronger and if this is a positive - I’d say the jury is still out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsMarch 16, 2026 at 7:25 AM

      "President and the administration are not happy with Israel"

      We have our agenda and Israel has theirs. Anything that diminishes Hezbollah is a positive, regardless of what our administration wants. Ultimately, the elimination of Hezbollah makes the entire region more stable. It's not really possible to argue with that.

      "countries hurting significantly now are Philippines, Vietnam with Korea and Japan"

      None of them are particularly affected by a reduction in Iranian oil. They may be affected by reduced tanker traffic through the strait but that's a very short term effect leading to long term gains in stability.

      So, yeah, both trends are definite positives.

      Delete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)