Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and other Related Conflicts in the Middle East (read the rules in the first post)

sheogorath

Major
Registered Member

Index

Senior Member
Registered Member
A global fossil fuel disruption stemming from a US-Iran war would be both a curse & a blessing for the PRC.

In the short term, it will definitely be highly disruptive to the PRC's oil supply, & therefore the PRC's economy. However, in the mid to long term, it's also a blessing, because:

1. Oil is a heavily globalized commodity, & a disruption negatively impacts everyone. The EU will be comparably impacted. Moreover, the US - despite its own natural abundance of shale oil - will be impacted too, since its oil companies will be structurally incentivized to export every barrel of oil possible to regions where it can fetch the highest price. This inevitably drives up US domestic oil prices, impacting the rest of the 90%+ of the US economy (while profits are limited to the less than 10% of the economy that makes up the US oil & gas industry). The only options the US would have is to either allow oil exports to the detriment of its own economy, or restrict/ban oil exports & allow its vassals in Europe (& East Asia) to wither.

2. The PRC is far better equipped to handle such a disruption than anyone else among the world's net consumers of oil. Its clean-energy transition, especially its transportation electrification efforts, would be turbo charged. The PRC leads or is globally competitive in just about every aspect of the world's alternative energy value chain - be it hydro, solar, wind, nuclear, UHV power grids, vehicular & utility-scale batteries, EVs, etc. When everyone in the world inevitably seeks alternatives to oil, the PRC stands to benefit the most as the market leader in all of the aforementioned fields. Also keep in mind that the PRC has significant shale oil & gas resources of its own, even though geographical constraints make the extraction thereof unprofitable (especially compared to cheap imports). However, if oil prices shoot through the roof & stays there, then large scale domestic extraction becomes commercially viable.

3. The PRC - compared to its strategic rivals - is better positioned to diversify oil suppliers. It can (& inevitably will) divert a greater portion of its demand to land-based suppliers of the former USSR, which it should anyway to mitigate its vulnerability to any future US blockade. By contrast, US vassals in Europe & Asia would be geopolitically or geographically hobbled by comparison.

4. A sharp rise in oil prices provides immense short-term benefits to US rivals - namely Russia & Venezuela - whose oil exports would be relatively undisrupted by a war in West Asia.

Bottom line - large scale disruption of the Gulf oil supply will be hugely negative for almost everyone, but the PRC is better positioned than all of its rivals in terms of the ability to mitigate the negatives, & take advantage of the ensuing opportunities.
No reason not to wait a few more years for the middle east rug pull then. By then, you'll have China mostly shifted to electric transportation and oil only used for commodities, which Russia/Iran/domestic oil easily covers. Meanwhile in US you'd probably have Trump, who is for some reason against any form of non-fossile fuel. Even more clear GGWP then

As I said before, Iran isn't going anywhere, it's US that will have to invade them sooner or later. Better to buy time for them to arm up, like the Minsk playbook. They'll work as an insanely good porcupine.
 

Petrolicious88

Senior Member
Registered Member
Actually yes, it's needed because the American use of Agent Orange and DU is well-documented both in and outside America. So, to exclaim Absolutely wrong without any explanation is totally moot a contention.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It’s agent orange. Highly toxic. Do we really need to derail the thread to explain why it’s wrong to use it??
 

Rank Amateur

Junior Member
Registered Member
It’s agent orange. Highly toxic. Do we really need to derail the thread to explain why it’s wrong to use it??

OK, I think I misunderstood your previous post #4,170 in this thread: Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and other Related Conflicts in the Middle East (read the rules in the first post).

If I'm interpreting your replies correctly, you agree that the U.S. use of Agent Orange in Vietnam and use of depleted-uranium munitions in Iraq were "absolutely wrong." You're *not* saying that my references to those episodes were "absolutely wrong." Nicht wahr?
 

Petrolicious88

Senior Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Houthis have agreed to a temporary truce to allow tugboats/rescue to reach the damaged oil tanker.

Loll. So they do care about the local environment. But want others to clean up their mess. Probably should think twice before you blow up an oil tanker.
 
Last edited:

Rank Amateur

Junior Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Houthis have agreed to a temporary truth to allow tugboats/rescue to reach the damaged oil tanker.

Loll. So they do care about the local environment. But want others to clean up their mess. Probably should think twice before you blow up an oil tanker.

Better than the U.S./NATO not caring *at all* about using Agent Orange/depleted-uranium munitions in Vietnam/Iraq/former Yugoslavia.
 

Rank Amateur

Junior Member
Registered Member
Let's talk about Agent Orange/Uranium in the Misc thread. Talk about the Houthis and Iran vs. America here. More entertaining topics.

You're the one who brought up environmental risks/issues in this thread. Furthermore, you did so only to criticize Houthi/Yemeni reactions to Israel's current campaign of genocide/ethnic cleansing. If you wish to continue the discussion, keep it here. We can then juxtapose whatever armchair criticisms you have of the Palestinians, Houthis/Yemenis, Iranians, etc. against the real-life actions of the U.S., Israel, etc.
 

sheogorath

Major
Registered Member
You're the one who brought up environmental risks/issues in this thread. Furthermore, you did so only to criticize Houthi/Yemeni reactions to Israel's current campaign of genocide/ethnic cleansing. If you wish to continue the discussion, keep it here. We can then juxtapose whatever armchair criticisms you have of the Palestinians, Houthis/Yemenis, Iranians, etc. against the real-life actions of the U.S., Israel, etc.
It's ironic when you consider the multitude of papers surrounding the environmental impact of DU usage on Iraq i'm 1991 alone, nevermind the following campaigns.

Now imagine if we included the environmental terrorism Israel inflicts not only on Palestinians but Jordanians as well
 
Top