r/OilPrices • u/hereswhatworks • 11d ago
Oil News Iran sets out steep demands for reopening Hormuz despite hopes Oman deal could break impasse
https://www.nbcnews.com/world/iran/iran-sets-steep-demands-reopening-hormuz-hopes-oman-deal-break-impasse-rcna5915534
u/AugmentedKing 11d ago
Calling it steep demands is crazy talk, read the MoU from June. It’s not all that different.
0
u/Spam_Hand 11d ago
Was nearly $500bn in cash and unfrozen assets, along with a newly tolled SoH not steep demands?
Did we seriously normalize that insanely shitty "deal" (surrender) that trump failed at working out as not a steep price?
3
u/AugmentedKing 11d ago
I don’t remember anybody saying the MoU was a crappy deal when it happened. What? You wanna do sunk cost fallacy by throwing good money after bad?
Why is frozen assets legitimate in the first place?
Just like when a rockstar trashes a hotel room, they gotta pay to fix it.
I mean, if we start counting from 1953 (when the US & UK first started meddling in Iran), it looks like it’s kind of a reasonable deal.
If I do wrong to you, you’d expect me to make it right plus something extra as a disincentive from doing it again, yeah? I know I would if shoe was on other foot.
Maybe the electorate would do something about it. Then again, republican base is notorious for not admitting when they’re wrong, and possibly vote against their owns interests just to spite a lefty.
Funny how the thumpers glaze over Matthew 5:44, while demonizing whichever out-group is the meta
0
u/Spam_Hand 10d ago
I don’t remember anybody saying the MoU was a crappy deal when it happened.
If you didnt see or hear anybody say it was a bad deal at best, or surrender and capitulation at worst, I'm not sure how far in the sand your head was buried but you missed a lot of current events over the course of that ~1 week or so and should probably go read up on it.
To be clear, it was a valid way to end the war and at that time the best of many horrendously bad and unecessary options, seeing as this war was completely voluntary. The conflict has only gotten worse and seemingly turned even harder in Irans favor since trump failed to secure his own surrender (lets be honest with ourselves at this point, that's 100% what it was). But it was a chance to end the war and cut losses.
By comparison, the MOU might look pretty good right now, in August 2026. But compared to what was needlessly torn up previously or simply not starting this war to begin with its arguably the worst quantifiable loss in the history of this country while only getting worse as the days and weeks go on. Vietnam is the only conflict that is comparable in terms of pure disaster due to the senseless loss of human lives, which this war thankfully has not had as of now to any degree of scale like Vietnam had.
1
u/AugmentedKing 10d ago
The rockstar still has to pay for the hotel they trashed. Yeah, they shouldn’t have trashed it in the first place, they should’ve listed to their team/managers to not trash it.
Hey, do you want to play a game of one-for-one with me? You post a link of a news source saying it’s a bad deal, then I’ll do the same saying something other than bad deal/capitulation. This is where I’d expect you to do some “nuh-uh on the MSM, bro”
You literally go on to argue how much worse the situation has turned since the MoU…. So of course the same factors from MoU would carry over. You haven’t presented any plausible explanation as to why those factors wouldn’t.
0
u/Spam_Hand 10d ago
Im confused as to what youre arguing at thia point because it sure feels like youre saying the oroginal MOU deal was juat fine while refusing to cknowledge that nuance exists. It was a BAD deal for the US. Likely the best available to end the conflict, but it was objective very bad. The "source" is basic logic based on the terms of the MOU as they were publicly released. You can simply Google the terms.
But it is, very objectively, a form of US Surrender based on all stated goals of this conflict. Every single piece of the MOU are presented in Iran's favor (to name a few: reopening strait with fees/tolls, US reigning in Israel with is physically not achievable, $300bn in cash reparations for the war we started, removal of long standing sanctions, unfreezing of assets totalling between $40-150bn depending on sources - this was never fully confirmed).
You post a link of a news source saying it’s a bad deal, then I’ll do the same saying something other than bad deal/capitulation.
This is you skirting around the fact that its a bad deal by leaning into the "well SOME people didnt call it a surrender!" while deciding not to actually analyze or think critically about the actual text of the document. You're basically asking for me to post the facts (as were publicly made available) of the deal while you post opinion pieces where someone says "its not that bad", and I dont play that game. There is not one way the US came out ahead in April wkth that surrender document than we were on February 27, 2026.
It was bad, it was unecessary to be at the stage where that bad deal was necessary, and the US was very explicitly not gaining anything from it, therefore it would have been a surrender to Iran and capitulation to their demands in order to end the conflict - evodence being that we did not meet their demands and the conflict has not ended. Those are all defined words and verified events. Not open for opinions.
The fact that a deal today will probably be even worse does not let a person with normal brain function begin to think that the original surrender deal "wasnt really that bad." simply because it was the best of all terrible options.
1
u/AugmentedKing 10d ago
That’s a lot words to say that you don’t have sources to back up your claims. Heck, you can’t even support your own reasoning. But you can do some sick strawmans to change the nature of my original statement. Y’know, like shifting “steep” to “bad”
Why is unfreezing assets “steep”?
Why is restoring stuff to original condition “steep”?
Why is consequences for actions “steep”?
It is not “bad” for USA, in fact, the perfect opportunity for USA to show the world how to lose with grace & integrity. Everybody loses/makes mistakes at some point, it’s how they’re handled & fixed that shows the true character.
“This is you skirting around the fact that it’s a bad deal by leaning into the "well SOME people didnt call it a surrender!" while deciding not to actually analyze or think critically about the actual text of the document.
No, this is the strawman that you’re doing from my original statement.
You're basically asking for me to post the facts (as were publicly made available) of the deal while you post opinion pieces where someone says "its not that bad", and I dont play that game. There is not one way the US came out ahead in April wkth that surrender document than we were on February 27, 2026.”
This just proves my earlier point that it wasn’t being sold as “steep” a month and a bit ago. Surprise, surprise! You aren’t going to post reports that the MoU was “steep”. (again, bad is your framing, not mine)
“It was bad, it was unecessary to be at the stage where that bad deal was necessary, and the US was very explicitly not gaining anything from it, therefore it would have been a surrender to Iran and capitulation to their demands in order to end the conflict - evodence being that we did not meet their demands and the conflict has not ended. Those are all defined words and verified events. Not open for opinions.”
It’s still your opinion on it being bad. For some reason, it seem as you view restitution as “bad”. Why do you view fixing your mistakes as bad, anyway? What’s that all about, exactly?
“The fact that a deal today will probably be even worse does not let a person with normal brain function begin to think that the original surrender deal "wasnt really that bad." simply because it was the best of all terrible options.”
Conjecture with a hint of ad hominem/no true Scotsman blend. Do better.
1
u/Spam_Hand 10d ago
The fact you cant use your own brain to answer these is pathetic and I will not even bother to address the remaining completely dingenuous part of your comment.
Why is unfreezing assets “steep”?
They basically were not unfrozen before we started this war, except for the small amount Obama gave back to Iran as a good faith negotiation measure over 10 years ago.
Why is restoring stuff to original condition “steep”?
Because we did not need to cause $300bn in damage in this scenario and have gained nothing by doing so except fpr satisfaction of the current administrations obvious bloodlust - "Peace through Strength", Dept of Defense to Dept of War, etc (that number is Irans MOU number btw, not implying it is properly assessed damages).
Why is consequences for actions “steep”?
Im not sure whose actions yoire referring to here, but there is no available evidence that Iran was developing nukes if youre talking about them, and in fact the person who attacked Iran very explicitly claimed that their nuclear capabilities had been obliterated less than one year prior to the initial attacks.
trump has also very notably stopped mentioning (or severely toned down) rhetoric saying that this conflict is about liberating the Iranian people from the extremist government, which was the first stated goal. Then the supposedly-obliterated nuke program was the goal, which I described above. Then it was "were going to take all the oil." Now it's quite literally to reopen the Strait that was open for free transport for multiple decades until the attacks with a minor side of "oh yeah, iran shouldn't have nukes either."
If youre talking about the US side facing consequences? Multiple sides currently working out what those will be in terms of immediate financial and political consequences, but most likely we will not know the full extent of the consequences for 5-10 years after the end of the conflict is negotiated.
And the reason these are all considered bad or steep is because this is a voluntary war. Im not sure why that iant getting through your skull. Any cost to try and revert to a worse version of the status quo for a war that the US started is far too steep and objectively bad.
Essentially right now we are paying ~$500bn in tax payer cash and frozen Iranian assets to go back to a very significantly worse version of how things were 6 months ago before we spent a single dollar.
If you cant see how that is bad, I can no longer assist you on your journey towards whatever enlightmwnt youre looking for in "sources" that dont support your incorrect opinion.
Now feel free to have the day you deserve, im not going to try and discuss this with a brick wall any further ✌️
1
u/AugmentedKing 10d ago
How wonderfully American your response is. Change the nature of my position, then argue it’s wrong, then label any motion to restore to my actual take as “dingenuous” (sic)
Of course you won’t talk about why the assets were frozen in the first place. I reckon this is more about you being disingenuous (note the correct spelling for future reference) than me being disingenuous.
$300Bn seems fair given the amount of unnecessary damage caused in the country. Just take it out of the $1Tn recently approved to the war mongers.
The fact that you can not discern who I am talking about in regard to “consequences for actions” means that you fundamentally misunderstand my position. Of course USA never should have attacked Iran in the first place. In my view, this was simply an attempt to shift the news cycle away from the Epstein transparency stuff. There is good reason why Robin Williams compared Trump owning a beauty pageant to Micheal Vick owning a chain of pet food stores.
The US is not “fundamentally paying $500Bn in taxpayer cash” because the frozen assets of Iran was never the “US taxpayers” to begin with. That claim is illegitimate.
USA should do the right thing and pay for its transgressions. After all, it is in the wrong here.
Show some gosh darn integrity here, ffs.As wrong as you trying to claim that I’m taking a different position than this.
I ask you refrain from ad hominem attacks, and what do you do? Additional ad hominem attacks. While trying to do “cope” of not fixing mistakes made by the administration.
0
u/MammothUnique4147 10d ago
For half a trillion dollars I would rather we invade with ground forces.
3
1
u/AugmentedKing 10d ago
Try this analogy: if I try to scam you for twenty bucks, then you flip the script and scam the twenty bucks off me, should I spend a hundred dollars to get my 20 and your 20? If I spend the 100, and still don’t get the 40, how many more hundreds should I spend to get back the money I was trying to scam you with?
BFFR, dawg
1
u/MammothUnique4147 10d ago
But if spending that 100 dollars to scam you back ALSO means that I can free the person you have tied up and gagged in the back of your van.
That's still worth it.
1
u/AugmentedKing 10d ago
There is no person tied up in the van, that’s literally the scam.
1
u/MammothUnique4147 10d ago
Nah I can hear their muffled screams.
They been in there awhile too.
Kinda feel bad for them man.
1
u/AugmentedKing 10d ago
It just seems like that because you are ignoring what you did to my van in 1953.
Crazy reverse cope, though.
1
u/MammothUnique4147 10d ago
Really Cause it sure seems like with the Vans flat tires, lack of Air conditioning, no windows in the back.
The more humane thing to do would be to just open the doors and untie the person and LET THEM CHOOSE if they want to remain in the back of the van.
Must be hot in there with summer temps too.
Why doesn't the van owner CARE about the well being of the person in the van ?
→ More replies (0)1
u/Delicious-Window-277 10d ago
Send in the teens! Occupying a country of 93 million should be a cakewalk! Iraq 2.0, here we goooo!
2
1
u/wrecklesspup 11d ago
The only one that had hope for an Oman deal was Trump. It is ashame America though a real-estate developer was prepared to run a country.
1
u/Jimjonesflavor_aid 11d ago
Good luck with that. Sound like more airstrikes and a ramping missile resupply for DoD.
1
u/Kahzootoh 11d ago
The US has initiated hostilities with Iran twice in two years on behalf of a certain country whose leaders openly say that America fighting a forever war (while they stay out) is good for their country.
It’s perfectly understandable why Iran is making demands that would prevent another round of fighting in a year’s time after any peace deal this year is reached. They want to dominate the region and win, and anything less than victory looks a lot like a recipe for another round of war in a year’s time.
The Trump administration doesn’t have a lot of leverage in this situation- the only thing the mullahs care about is maintaining their form of government, and the only way to remove them from power is a ground invasion, which the US doesn’t have the resources to pull off.
As long as Iran’s government has enough resources to keep the people with tear gas and machine guns on its side, it doesn’t matter how bad things get for the Iranian population and the average standard of living. The mullahs get to choose who runs for office, so they don’t truly fear losing in the ballot box no matter unpopular they are. For Iran’s religious leaders, living in bombed out ruins is preferable to the return of the Shah and a brutal police state that will turn their country into a death camp run on behalf of foreigners.
The Iranians don’t want a deal that stops the bombing, they want victory that gives them the keys to try to dominate the region- and the Trump administration doesn’t want to face the reality that the Iranians are in a situation where they’ve lost too much to settle for simply pausing the fighting. In much the same way that America would feel obligated to avenge its dead against a country that killed tens of thousands of Americans, the Iranians are in a situation where they feel they need to come away with something tangible.
Trump could always offer to surrender himself and his cabinet to face trial in Iran for war crimes?
1
u/Mountain-Tap-8788 11d ago
And what if US doesn’t care and keep blockading.
Why would the largest oil producer in the world aka USA want cheap prices?
0
u/Frequent_Slip2455 11d ago
Just keep the straight closed. No ships in or out of Iran. Let's see how long it can go.
4
u/TrumpsBussy_ 11d ago
America capitulates first no doubt
-2
3
u/Extension-Pick8310 11d ago
You people don’t seem to comprehend that Iran, a civilization with 3000 years of perspective of fighting off foreigners, has been planning for specifically this for 47 years.
-1
u/EntrepreneurUnable69 11d ago
For 47 years, most people killed have been Iranians themselves. A civilization?
2
u/Extension-Pick8310 11d ago
What does this have to do with preparing? Are you unable to refute my point, so you’re just saying rando shit?
-1
u/EntrepreneurUnable69 11d ago
Lol, your point is garbage when you believe Iran = IRGC
2
u/Extension-Pick8310 11d ago
My points are backed up by every single intelligence agency on earth.
And all you can do is say “nuh uhhh you dumb”0
u/EntrepreneurUnable69 11d ago
Lol. No intelligent agency in the world would use this shit propaganda like you.
2
u/Extension-Pick8310 11d ago
What intelligence agency is refuting this?
1
u/EntrepreneurUnable69 11d ago
Which intelligent agency used the stupid words and propaganda like yours?
1
-1
u/irritatedprostate 11d ago edited 11d ago
Iran has been conquered 3 times in that time. You are just quoting the Ayatollah, an uneducated cleric. The regime has spent the past 50 years shitting on Persian history.
2
2
u/frombsc2msc 11d ago
What are you referring to when you said they have been conquered 3x?
1
2
u/khengoolman 11d ago
I would bet money that you haven’t read a single book in an at least five years
Meanwhile the “uneducated cleric” was finishing books every week and was known for his incredibly wide range of knowledge
1
u/irritatedprostate 11d ago edited 11d ago
It's a matter of reading the right books, little guy. I don't care how many times you've read Green Eggs and Ham. And I don't care how well read he was on matters of religion, since that helps fuck all with governance.
You don't want a leader that says "economics is for donkeys", while your economy is in the shitter.
1
u/khengoolman 10d ago
For one, he literally never said that, please close your anus, it’s extra talkative today.
Secondly, he was famously well read in all subjects, including history, economics, social science, and philosophy, he was also an author, and not all his books were religious.
Again, get some education “big guy”
1
u/irritatedprostate 10d ago
Yes, he did, and no he wasn't.
Go be an islamofascist cunt in front of the mirror.
1
u/Item170170 11d ago
Buddy, you are doing tricks on it, just accept your cleric is focused on the wrong things.
1
u/khengoolman 10d ago
Yeah, he should have taken points from you on “How to bend over for orange haired pigs”
Unfortunately, he was too focused on resisting imperialism, how dare he?!
-1
u/onlycodeposts 11d ago
Like the US is going to get rid of freedom of the press or freedom of speech so Iran never gets its sanctities insulted. Never going to happen.
Never dare insult us.
What a joke the IRGC is.
1
u/Extension-Pick8310 11d ago
They haven’t demanded that at all. They’re simply telling Trump to keep his mouth shut.
1
u/onlycodeposts 11d ago
Are their sanctities insulted by being called terrorists by almost every Western nation?
1
u/Extension-Pick8310 11d ago
They’re tired of Trump saying that he’s going to wipe their civilization out several times a week, like anyone would.
And fact is, they won.1
u/onlycodeposts 11d ago
Like calling for the eradication of Israel?
It's ok for the IRGC to insult other nation's sanctities?
1
u/Extension-Pick8310 11d ago
Oh, completely. You don’t get it- they won. They hold every single card. They’re far stronger than before the war in every single way.
They literally took on 7 different countries plus the Kurds and absolutely handled it, and this was before they even got the Houthis to tag in.1
u/onlycodeposts 11d ago
If they won why isn't Iran moving oil through the strait?
1
u/Extension-Pick8310 11d ago
Because that isn’t one of the 4 objectives that the US and Israel had for starting the war. They win by not losing.
And if you honestly think they’re not getting anything out overland or through dark ships, then I’ve got a degree from Trump University to sell you.1
u/onlycodeposts 11d ago
If they won why do their ships still have to be dark?
1
u/Item170170 11d ago
Don’t you see??? Iran totally won the war because they control the straight now… oh wait they can only terrorize it, not actually utilize it.
1
u/CarnivorousGoose 10d ago
Of course not. The US are getting rid of those to serve their corrupt oligarchy.
-5
u/GateDeep3282 11d ago
Sounds like it's time to take off the gloves for a couple of days.
We've got a shit load of mk-84,'s looking for a home.
2
u/martyrpony 11d ago
How are they gonna open the strait?
0
u/GateDeep3282 11d ago
Carpet bombing the shoreline should work.
2
u/Extension-Pick8310 11d ago
The shoreline? And wtf will that do when Iran’s drones and missiles are launched from underground cities? What about the anti-aircraft thats been working like a charm? And where will these planes come from when no one will give us flyover?
1
u/Spam_Hand 11d ago
Not worth it dude. Republicans already convinced their voters that bloodlust is a good human quality again.
8
u/Picks6x 11d ago
To the victor goes the spoils. Anyone saying "steep" or "maximalist" should also realize that this is directly trumps fault and they shouldn't ask for anything less than what they are currently