Thanks to Trump, the Iranian Mullahs Are Going Bankrupt

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

U.S. MSM apparently doesn't want to report much about this news; the only newsworthy events as far as CNN is concerned are Orange Man Bad and Peach Mints and other silly fluff.

 

Anyway, Trump's stategy against Iran's absolute religious dictatorship government is working. 

(Similarly, Trump's strategic trade plans to level the playing field with China and EU are also working quite nicely, thank you very much. U S. MSM doesn't want to cover this news either.  Because Orange Man Peach Mints 24/7 news.)

 

Thanks to Trump, the Mullahs Are Going Bankrupt

• One of the reasons behind IMF's gloomy picture of Iran's economy is linked to the Trump administration's decision not to extend its waiver for Iran's eight biggest oil buyers; China, India, Greece, Italy, Taiwan, Japan, Turkey and South Korea.

• Iran's national currency, the rial, also continues to lose value: it dropped to historic lows. One US dollar, which equaled approximately 35,000 rials in November 2017, now buys you nearly 110,000 rials.

The critics of President Trump's Iran policy have been proven wrong: the US sanctions are imposing significant pressure on the ruling mullahs of Iran and the ability to fund their terror groups.

Before the US Department of Treasury leveled secondary sanctions against Iran's oil and gas sectors, Tehran was exporting over two million barrel a day of oil. Currently, Tehran's oil export has gone down to less than 200,000 barrel a day, which represents a decline of roughly 90% in Iran's oil exports.

Iran has the second-largest natural gas reserves and the fourth-largest proven crude oil reserves in the world, and the sale of these resources account for more than 80 percent of its export revenues. The Islamic Republic therefore historically depends heavily on oil revenues to fund its military adventurism in the region and sponsor militias and terror groups. Iran's presented budget in 2019 was nearly $41 billion, while the regime was expecting to generate approximately $21 billion of it from oil revenues. This means that approximately half of Iran's government revenue comes from exporting oil to other nations.

Even though Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, boasts about the country's self-sufficient economy, several of Iran's leaders recently admitted the dire economic situation that the government is facing. Speaking in the city of Kerman on November 12, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani acknowledged for the first time that "Iran is experiencing one of its hardest years since the 1979 Islamic revolution" and that "the country's situation is not normal." ...

 

... In addition, the Islamic Republic appears to be scrambling to compensate for the loss of revenues it is encountering. A few days ago, for example, Iran's leaders tripled the price of gasoline. It appears a sign of desperation to generate revenues in order to fund their military adventurism in the region and support their proxies and terror groups.

This increase immediately led people to rise up against the government. In the last few days, several Iranian cities have become the scenes of widespread protests and demonstrations.  ...

 

[Flemming Hoog + 28]

@Tom Kirkman OK, let’s just, for the fun of it, say that Orange Mans “plan” works and the Mullahs loses the control, then what?…any bright ideas? Or will Orange Man “secure” the oil like in Syria? Just asking, I mean you as an “forever Trumper” must know, right! 

Edited November 25, 2019 by Flemming Hoog

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

8 hours ago, Flemming Hoog said:

@Tom Kirkman OK, let’s just, for the fun of it, say that Orange Mans “plan” works and the Mullahs loses the control, then what?…any bright ideas? Or will Orange Man “secure” the oil like in Syria? Just asking, I mean you as an “forever Trumper” must know, right! 

Not sure of Trump's end game for Iranian government, except for the hardline religious dictators to relegate power.

Look at what happened with North Korea.  No more endless threats from North Korea to destroy the U.S. in a nuclear war.  North Korea's rhetoric got dialed down from 11 to maybe a 5 .... much more maneagable now, nuclear war averted.

 

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

4 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

In addition, the Islamic Republic appears to be scrambling to compensate for the loss of revenues it is encountering.

Not to be sarcastic, but so are the American oilmen in search of a profit from LTO. This isn't necessarily anyone's fault, except there is very little doubt that great harm has been done by losing so much momentum in transporting crude oil and LNG to the Chinese. I blame the trade war for that. Maybe the trade war was and is necessary--I'm no economist--but I doubt it. I take my coffee each week with a Nobel Prize winning economist--up in age--who tells me over and over that no one wins in a trade war, everybody loses. I'm in favor of the Iranian sanction, but just as a guy doesn't have to agree with everything his wife says or does, he doesn't have to agree with everything his commander-in-chief says or does--he just has to live with it in both cases.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Flemming Hoog said:

say that Orange Mans “plan” works and the Mullahs loses the control, then what?…any bright ideas?

Absolutely. Why bother right? 

[Flemming Hoog + 28]

1 hour ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Not sure of Trump's end game for Iranian government, except for the hardline religious dictators to relegate power.

Look at what happened with North Korea.  No more endless threats ftom North Korea to destroy the U.S. in a nuclear war.  North Korea's rhetoric got dialed down from 11 to maybe a 5 .... much more maneagable now, nuclear war averted.

 

C’mon Kirk, really?!, do you seriously believe that Kim would make a nuclear strike against the US, (that would be Guam in this case I presume) or Japan or maybe even South Korea. Ok little rocket man is a bit weird but not crazy. By the way, just because the rhetoric changed (softened) doesn’t mean that Trump turned Kim into his lapdog, no way.

 

Iran is a whole different story, it’s like with Saddam or Gaddafi, someone say “let’s get rid of the dictator” cool fine with me, problem is, that’s the easy part, the hard part is who takes over?… I mean look at Lybia…who takes over after Assad?…and that is the problem…IMHO.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Flemming Hoog said:

Ok little rocket man is a bit weird but not crazy.

Is this a serious comment?

Have you seen footage of NK at all? Footage that they don't want you to see on their tours?

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

2 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

Not to be sarcastic, but so are the American oilmen in search of a profit from LTO. This isn't necessarily anyone's fault, except there is very little doubt that great harm has been done by losing so much momentum in transporting crude oil and LNG to the Chinese. I blame the trade war for that. Maybe the trade war was and is necessary--I'm no economist--but I doubt it. I take my coffee each week with a Nobel Prize winning economist--up in age--who tells me over and over that no one wins in a trade war, everybody loses. I'm in favor of the Iranian sanction, but just as a guy doesn't have to agree with everything his wife says or does, he doesn't have to agree with everything his commander-in-chief says or does--he just has to live with it in both cases.

Trade war? With China? In a discussion titled: "Thanks to Trump, the Iranian mullahs are going bankrupt"?

There's profit in LTO if you produce it cheaply enough. And there's the rub. To somewhat bring this back to topic, culling Iranian (and Venezuelan) oil from the pool is giving everyone else that much breathing room. But the problem as I said back many posts, is oil demand has been increasing 1% per year, while US production went up, what 300% in a decade? 

As for your economist friend, would he agree that dumping precious US light tight oil for bargain basement prices is good long term for the US? Because I wouldn't agree. The best thing we could do is triple the size of the NPR and pass a law that xx% of every bbl gets sold to the USA govt. Our grandchildren will thank us. 

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

Haha, good points. And no, my economist friend, who still is on the board to pick out stocks for various ETF's, thinks that we are the craziest people he has ever seen--giving away the creme d' la creme of the oil field for prices that he says makes "Filene's Basement" look like an exorbitant place to shop. I "get" the irony: the title "Thanks to Trump, the Iranian mullahs are going bankrupt." But there's a major disconnect in declaring sanctions on Iran, who was and is trying to develop a nuclear bomb, and a trade war on China--which we can't and won't win. And yes there is profit in LTO is you produce it cheaply enough. I'm probably too emotionally invested in this, because I loved Aubrey McClendon and Tom Ward, the true pioneers in shale (after George Mitchell, who was also a great old man). I hate to see the pioneers get hammered while the newcomers--the Bigs--reap all the profits. Oh well, what the hell is the use? It is what it is. I will confess here and now: I'm a Republican--and not a RINO--but I truly dislike what Trump has done to oil and gas: namely, mix it in with coal (the devil fuel), tweet down OPEC oil prices by urging them to produce more, insisting on this stupid trade war with China (who will never in a million years changes their culture), and not developing an understanding that were it not for sweet spot shale oil we would be paying through the nose to the friggin' Saudis for oil. Maybe I should just keep my thoughts to myself, but I'm not like that. I mean, 200 companies that worked pretty damn hard in the tight oil and gas business have gone bankrupt this year. Another two hundred are going that way. Even Chesapeake, I fear. I don't think it's right to be hurrawing on the Saudis and kowtowing to the Russians while our homegrown men and women who generated so much cheap oil and gas for America are going broke. That's my beef. I realize i'm something of a throwback, an anachronism, but I'm a fossil fuel. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

5 hours ago, Flemming Hoog said:

C’mon Kirk, really?!, do you seriously believe that Kim would make a nuclear strike against the US, (that would be Guam in this case I presume) or Japan or maybe even South Korea. Ok little rocket man is a bit weird but not crazy. By the way, just because the rhetoric changed (softened) doesn’t mean that Trump turned Kim into his lapdog, no way.

 

Iran is a whole different story, it’s like with Saddam or Gaddafi, someone say “let’s get rid of the dictator” cool fine with me, problem is, that’s the easy part, the hard part is who takes over?… I mean look at Lybia…who takes over after Assad?…and that is the problem…IMHO.

You can call me Tom.

Seems we are unlikely to agree on much of anything related to the U.S. or Trump.  No problem.

My current opinion of the top 3 worst absolute dictatorships in the world are:

1. Iran

2. Saudi Arabia

3. North Korea

Good thing that North Korea doesn't have oil, otherwise the region would be even crazier.

Oil revenue has financed the Radical Islamic Dictatorships and the Radical Islamic Terrorism sponsored by brutal Absolute Islamic Dictatorships in much of the Middle East region.

These ^ simple facts need to be addressed openly and bluntly, instead of being swept under the carpet and ignored.

Trump is actually doing something about all 3 of these countries in my list above.  No, I do not agree with everything Trump does.  Saudi Arabia in particular is very bad news as far as sponsoring and exporting Radical Islamic Terrorism, in my opinion. 

 

===========================

/ Side notes:

a.  I no longer live in a Muslim Majority country, so I am finally free to say these opinions without fear of being arrested or deported.

b.  Maybe now you understand better why I ridicule the Saudi Aramco IPO so much - money from the Aramco IPO will simply sponsor more Radical Islamic Terrorism by Saudi Arabia.

==========================

 

Just my opinion; as always, you are free to disagree.

Back over to you; cheers.

 

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

45 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Oil revenue has financed the Radical Islamic Dictatorships and the Radical Islamic Terrorism sponsored by brutal Absolute Islamic Dictatorships in much of the Middle East region.

Right as rain!

And that is about to go down. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

P.S. getting used to the cold weather again here in the U.S.  Been a couple decades.  Wearing bright colors because it is deer hunting season, and I want hunters to be able to see me when I'm walking around.  My family shot 4 deer on opening day of deer season.  Going to be eating venison all winter.

I've been labelled locally as "borderline hyperactive" which sounds about right, except for the 'borderline' part.

Fun to be adventuring again, and totally enjoying the freedom to freely speak my mind again without the very real threat of being arrested or worse - just for saying words.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Maybe now you understand better why I ridicule the Saudi Aramco IPO so much - money from the Aramco IPO will simply sponsor more Radical Islamic Terrorism by Saudi Arabia.

I suspect, and have always suspected that it isn't the Saudi government per se that funds terrorism, but princes, who I agree are quasi government. I went to school with some of them, decades ago. Interesting folk. I love that the IPO is causing many of them to give a haircut to their bank accounts. Given the "deal" on the table, they can leverage their cash 2 to 1, so effectively buy twice as many shares. The REAL question will be if Aramco pays dividends. The other question is if MBS keeps the jackals from raiding the company coffers as they've been doing for over 50 years now. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

6 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

The other question is if MBS keeps the jackals from raiding the company coffers as they've been doing for over 50 years now. 

I've been reading Q since Dec 2017, and have always disagreed with the supposed white hat role that MBS is playing.  Al-Waleed is / was definitely a black hat, but I still fail to be convinced that MBS is a "good guy" simply because he is less evil than Al-Waleed.

I will acknowledge that strings have been cut in North Korea and Saudi Arabia (and soon in Iran) and MBS is a lesser evil than Al-Waleed, but so far, no one has been able to convince me that MBS is anywhere near being a "good guy" or a White Hat.  Less evil /= good.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

Holy war against Islam, ideological war against NK and China. At least people stop pretending any of this is good for the economy haha.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

8 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

Not to be sarcastic, but so are the American oilmen in search of a profit from LTO. This isn't necessarily anyone's fault, except there is very little doubt that great harm has been done by losing so much momentum in transporting crude oil and LNG to the Chinese. I blame the trade war for that. Maybe the trade war was and is necessary--I'm no economist--but I doubt it. I take my coffee each week with a Nobel Prize winning economist--up in age--who tells me over and over that no one wins in a trade war, everybody loses. I'm in favor of the Iranian sanction, but just as a guy doesn't have to agree with everything his wife says or does, he doesn't have to agree with everything his commander-in-chief says or does--he just has to live with it in both cases.

What do you think the oil price would be if Iran was in full production? We are playing hardball but that could have unforeseen consequences. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

7 hours ago, Flemming Hoog said:

C’mon Kirk, really?!, do you seriously believe that Kim would make a nuclear strike against the US, (that would be Guam in this case I presume) or Japan or maybe even South Korea. Ok little rocket man is a bit weird but not crazy. By the way, just because the rhetoric changed (softened) doesn’t mean that Trump turned Kim into his lapdog, no way.

 

Iran is a whole different story, it’s like with Saddam or Gaddafi, someone say “let’s get rid of the dictator” cool fine with me, problem is, that’s the easy part, the hard part is who takes over?… I mean look at Lybia…who takes over after Assad?…and that is the problem…IMHO.

Assad is the leader of Syria. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 hour ago, Enthalpic said:

Holy war against Islam, ideological war against NK and China. At least people stop pretending any of this is good for the economy haha.

It is funny how you can say that as our stock markets continue to soar and unemployment hits all time lows. Not funny ha ha. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 hour ago, Tom Kirkman said:

I've been reading Q since Dec 2017, and have always disagreed with the supposed white hat role that MBS is playing.  Al-Waleed is / was definitely a black hat, but I still fail to be convinced that MBS is a "good guy" simply because he is less evil than Al-Waleed.

I will acknowledge that strings have been cut in North Korea and Saudi Arabia (and soon in Iran) and MBS is a lesser evil than Al-Waleed, but so far, no one has been able to convince me that MBS is anywhere near being a "good guy" or a White Hat.  Less evil /= good.

Have you learned much from Q? I haven't seen anything that seemed important but I have spent little time trying to guess what he is trying to say. 

[Flemming Hoog + 28]

4 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Assad is the leader of Syria. 

WOW!……Really! … maybe I should look that up…nahhh I believe you … but hey ok…at least we all now know, thx for the tip.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

except for the 'borderline' part.

Digging the beard mate.

[Marcin + 519]

8 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

You can call me Tom.

Seems we are unlikely to agree on much of anything related to the U.S. or Trump.  No problem.

My current opinion of the top 3 worst absolute dictatorships in the world are:

1. Iran

2. Saudi Arabia

3. North Korea

 

If you rank only the 3 above my opinion is:

1. North Korea - totally brainwashed people, 1984 could be documentary about North Korea, totalitarian country, no elections, no middle class, hungry poor people,

2. Saudi Arabia - absolutistic monarchy, also totalitarian country but less than North Korea, no elections, no middle class, no intellectual elites in the sense we understand it; no women rights. Majority of population leaves on state give-aways. Supports sunni influence in Middle East.

3. Iran - mix of absolutistic theocracy and authocracy, real elections for President and parliament, although their role diminished in comparison to democracies, sophisticated society with urban middle class, good education and science. Supports shiite influence in Middle East.

The major mistake US media make is using derogatory slogans against countries that are strategic competitors of United States. I think it is counter effective.

For world at large, Iran is a dangerous country because of nuclear proliferation risk. For sunni majority Middle East countries Iran is ADDITIONALLY dangerous because is superior than all of these countries in population, education, technology, diversified economy. For United States Iran is ADDITIONALLY dangerous because it is the only oil rich Middle East country without US military presence (earlier also true for Syria, but fortunately this oil is already secured by US military as Trump confirmed)

[Marcin + 519]

I do not believe in regime change in Iran. Mullahs and Revolutionary Guards have too much grip on power. If there would be longer protests I think people would be just butchered by government, as in the past.

Iran is used to existence under sanctions, it is already 41 years of this situation.

Remember that Iran has 9,000 billion dollars of underground oil wealth, 7,000 billion dollars of crude oil for exports.

When the situation really deteriorates (not even close now) their major client China will help with some cash, small advance, say 20 billion dollars or 200 billion dollars.

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

Marcin I think you contradict yourself, or maybe I misunderstand.

43 minutes ago, Marcin said:

Iran - mix of absolutistic theocracy and authocracy, real elections for President and parliament

You surely don't believe their elections are "real"?? I agree with the first part of the sentence though.

32 minutes ago, Marcin said:

I do not believe in regime change in Iran. Mullahs and Revolutionary Guards have too much grip on power. If there would be longer protests I think people would be just butchered by government, as in the past.

As you say if there was by some miracle a "regime change" due to a "real" election I agree that the mullahs wouldn't allow it and there would be blood on the streets.

Regime change in Iran would be more of a disaster than Iraq IMO, its an ideology that the people rightly or wrongly believe in. The indoctrination that the US and its allies are "devils" has been going on for decades along with the US/UK ritual flag burning.

I can see no winner in a military regime change in Iran.

[Guest]

EVERYBODY HERE IS MISSING THE KEY ISSUE !!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trump has TWO scoops of ice cream.

Focus please.

Cheers.