What's the Endgame Here?

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Generally you go to war for a reason. So what's the reason? What is the US hoping to accomplish with further expenditures in the Middle East? 

[Meredith Poor + 883]

Generally the US assumes that a country is either neutral or friendly until said country declares that the US is an enemy. For various reasons Iran has made the US an 'enemy' since the fall of the Shah. This is based largely on politics internal to Iran. Therefore the US has been the target of various Iranian outrages, and the US has responded at various times with actions or policies that reciprocate or at least acknowledge the hostile relationship.

Iranians point to the British 'possession' of Iran (for all intents and purposes) for control of it's oil up until WW II, whereupon the US replaces British influence with American influence. This involved placing the Shah on the throne and directly or indirectly suppressing dissidents or alternative political factions. While the Shah was a 'friend', this was of little use to Iranian citizens on the street, who were subject to secret police terror.

The 'Islamic Republic' is focused on expanding it's influence in the region at the expense of competing powers, which includes the US but also includes other regional interests, such as Saudi Arabia and Israel. This has led to funding of various insurgent groups in Iraq, Africa, other tribes located in various parts of the Middle East, as well as trade and diplomatic relationships with Venezuela, North Korea, etc.

The 'end game' would be to shift the relationship to a friendlier basis. This would mean realigning interests with Western political interests, while would largely eliminate the existing political class in Iran - at least as we know it.  Therefore, most sides 'accentuate the negative' so that they can continue their low key battle in the court of public opinion.

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Shift it to a friendlier basis, like Iraq? The country that just voted for the US to leave? 

Also, if we want to shift it to a friendlier basis, then why are we bombing them? If someone gets bombed, wouldn't that make them even more "unfriendly?" 

Edited January 6, 2020 by Zhong Lu

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Also, didn't Trump run on the idea that "no I won't be stupid like George Bush and invade a Middle East country or start more wars there?"

Didn't he go out and say on multiple ocassions that George Bush was a moron for his invasion and expenditures in Iraq? 

[Papillon + 485]

Yes sir, he certainly made statements about bringing Americans home and ending these pointless wars, which are now obviously nothing but valid of course. I have little doubt this will be explained away or considered 'fake news' now. Just a hunch from my short time here. 

29 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

If someone gets bombed, wouldn't that make them even more "unfriendly?" 

Not at all sir as luckily bombs from the USA are a sign of peace. From other nations this is not so but the Americans have exclusivity in their morals and actions in general. 

Edited January 6, 2020 by Papillon

[remake it + 288]

1 hour ago, Zhong Lu said:

Generally you go to war for a reason. So what's the reason? What is the US hoping to accomplish with further expenditures in the Middle East? 

1. New golf resorts
2. Improved suntan
3. Expanded harem
4. Larger circle of friends
5. Revisionary biblical celebration of Facepalm Sunday
6. Can impress Melania with his CiC uniform (yes "fake news" but how would she know?)
7. International diplomacy skills
8. Peace at last

Or how about

1. Media diversion
2. Re-election

[remake it + 288]

52 minutes ago, Meredith Poor said:

The 'end game' would be to shift the relationship to a friendlier basis. This would mean realigning interests with Western political interests, while would largely eliminate the existing political class in Iran - at least as we know it. 

Killing people to become friends is an novel concept, while you seem to overlook the strength of "religions" in the middle east.

[Marcin + 519]

2 hours ago, Zhong Lu said:

Generally you go to war for a reason. So what's the reason? What is the US hoping to accomplish with further expenditures in the Middle East? 

If it is not rhetoric question I would give the answer:

PART 1 of answer:

US 2018 hydrocarbons consumption was: oil 919.7 + natural gas 702.6 = 1622 million tons

US hydrocarbon reserves:

Crude oil (most of this shale oil):

for 11 years of 2018 output (6 years of 2018 consumption if output only includes crude oil not much less required NGLs, or 8 years of 2018 consumption with NGLs). Output is mainly of sweat crude not good for some US refineries, and less required for refining sector around the world. In 2018 US still imported  about 450 million tons of crude oil to balance these unmatched output and demand ( and exported less required fractions). US net imports in 2018 were 250 million tons of crude oil (if we say NGLs are oil, they are not), or about 350 million tons of crude oil (if we stay with definition of crude oil).

Natural gas (most of this shale gas):

For 14 years of output and in 2017&2018 for the first time also consumption. Earlier US was net importer of natural gas.

 

Nature of shale oil and shale gas extraction is volatile with fast rates of depletion of wells.

No matter what we would think about discoveries in shale extraction, US needs and will need much more in the future of the Foreign, imported crude oil and natural gas. BINGO !

( I do not want to predict if in 5 or 10 or 15  years shale output will decrease to 80% or 30% of current levels. The thing is modern country, the strongest in the world, and  the most hungry of hydrocarbons on this planet, cannot risk lack of hydrocarbons)

END of PART 1 of answer

 

 

Edited January 6, 2020 by Marcin
typo

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Uh, no. The US has more then enough shale and natural gas.  I follow natural gas prices, and frankly, they suck.  This means an oversupply.

Currently the US is the leading oil and natural gas producer in the world, and we have plenty in reserve. Frackers are good at their jobs, at least in the task of extracting oil from the ground (they're not so good at creating shareholder value, but that's a different issue).  The shale revolution has made us a lot less dependent on oil from the Middle East.  This excuse (we're attacking them for their oil) might have worked for the Iraq war before the shale revolution.  It does not work now.  

So, again: why are we bombing them? 

Edited January 6, 2020 by Zhong Lu

[Marcin + 519]

8 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

Uh, no. The US has more then enough shale and natural gas.  I follow natural gas prices, and frankly, they suck.  This means an oversupply.

 

.Uh, no people say when forgot to do the laundry (no offence). Numbers, facts, data please.

b

Edited January 6, 2020 by Marcin
typo

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Price of oil is currently $60, $40 dollars less then before the second Iraq war.  And without the fear of disruption, most traders think there's an oversupply.  

I follow price, and from the price we can extract supply vs demand information and the price tells me we have more then enough supply.  Given oil's price, your argument does not make sense.  We've got plenty of oil on US soil, and Saudi Arabia, who is our ally, is more than happy to export to us what oil they have (they're choosing not to do so because if they did, it would drive the price of oil in the US down even more, which would hurt them).  

So again: why are we bombing Iranians? If anything such actions will disrupt oil supply and make it HARDER for the US to access oil.  

Edited January 6, 2020 by Zhong Lu

[Marcin + 519]

Oil not bread and butter, not renewable, it is also not a normal product, you ask very spot on questons, I would have more time on Wed or Thu and will give you answers.

[Zhong Lu + 845]

People have been saying "we're going to run out of oil" for the last 50 years.  Guess what: we currently have an oversupply of oil.

I don't care what numbers you provide.  Given the track record, I'm not going to believe what you write.  

We have more than enough oil.  Even the frackers can tell you that (since they're going bankrupt).  

Edited January 6, 2020 by Zhong Lu

[Marcin + 519]

One more, Trump got full insane, he threatens Iraq with „big sanctions” and to bomb Iranian cultural sites. 

I feel sympathy for US people that they elected him President.

Where is US soft power accumulated in 70 years, gone with every word coming out of big mouth of this insecure man.

 

[Marcin + 519]

Get used to Biden.

[Hotone + 412]

52 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

Uh, no. The US has more then enough shale and natural gas.  I follow natural gas prices, and frankly, they suck.  This means an oversupply.

Currently the US is the leading oil and natural gas producer in the world, and we have plenty in reserve. Frackers are good at their jobs, at least in the task of extracting oil from the ground (they're not so good at creating shareholder value, but that's a different issue).  The shale revolution has made us a lot less dependent on oil from the Middle East.  This excuse (we're attacking them for their oil) might have worked for the Iraq war before the shale revolution.  It does not work now.  

So, again: why are we bombing them? 

It's not just oil, you forgot about Israel.  Currently, the only 'frontline' state left standing that threatens Israel is Iran...

[0R0 + 6,251]

59 minutes ago, Marcin said:

If it is not rhetoric question I would give the answer:

PART 1 of answer:

US 2018 hydrocarbons consumption was: oil 919.7 + natural gas 702.6 = 1622 million tons

US hydrocarbon reserves:

Crude oil (most of this shale oil):

for 11 years of 2018 output (6 years of 2018 consumption if output only includes crude oil not much less required NGLs, or 8 years of 2018 consumption with NGLs). Output is mainly of sweat crude not good for some US refineries, and less required for refining sector around the world. In 2018 US still imported  about 450 million tons of crude oil to balance these unmatched output and demand ( and exported less required fractions). US net imports in 2018 were 250 million tons of crude oil (if we say NGLs are oil, they are not), or about 350 million tons of crude oil (if we stay with definition of crude oil).

Natural gas (most of this shale gas):

For 14 years of output and in 2017&2018 for the first time also consumption. Earlier US was net importer of natural gas.

 

Nature of shale oil and shale gas extraction is volatile with fast rates of depletion of wells.

No matter what we would think about discoveries in shale extraction, US needs and will need much more in the future of the Foreign, imported crude oil and natural gas. BINGO !

( I do not want to predict if in 5 or 10 or 15  years shale output will decrease to 80% or 30% of current levels. The thing is modern country, the strongest in the world, and  the most hungry of hydrocarbons on this planet, cannot risk lack of hydrocarbons)

END of PART 1 of answer

 

 

Marcin, you should look at total resource, not proven reserves. Because drilling in the shales is rather recent, most of the reserves are out beyond the official definition of "planned to be produced within 5 years" Beyond that, the figure is meaningless as the geology is less than 1/4 delineated - say above 50-60%, then the proven reserves figure is useful. The rest of the resource is just as likely to produce as the proven portion. But it can't be listed as proven till a specific production plan and geology report (a very expensive one) is produced. Indeed, the industry is lobying the FASB to allow classification of proven reserves as planned production 10 years out. Looking at the geological resource, the US has as much or more oil and gas as either Russia or Venezuela and more than any one in the middle east. There is a posting of a comparison chart on one of the oilprice forums, perhaps this one. 

So the US has decades worth of reserves (in the broader measure) not a decade's worth. But that does not mean we want Russia and China to control the oil shipping lanes and play "cop" for the gulf. They are very likely to play "Empire" and keep the energy resources out of reach of the global economy and use it exclusively for China's purposes and save it from going broke when its colossal credit bubble implodes. So the US interest in the ME oil is to keep it out of China's hands. If the manage to get the EU to take their heads out of each other's $$$ then they may actually build a large enough navy to be able to protect these resources that they do need, or to convince Russia to dedicate its resources to Europe rather than China. But the main goal is to keep Chinese hands off "The Prize". It is only AFTER China implodes that the ME can be left alone to have whomever wants to colonize it for themselves or to forma a global coalition to keep the oil safe without a substantial portion of the burden falling on the US. Trump believes the US should get out of the ME - if it can. The neo cons are telling him we can't, at least not yet. 

Trump believes the Peter Zeihan scenario.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDnlsjxqqCU

You can ignore what he says about US shale production costs. I came onto this site in part to gauge whether he is right about these figures and what they are actually backed up by. I don'b believe for a second that he is misinformed. I just don't know if these are cash costs without finance and lease payments or something else, and I would like to know a good source from which they can be derived. 

 

 

[Zhong Lu + 845]

This still doesn't make any sense.  If the goal is to keep "oil of out China's hands," then why are we attacking Iranians? 

[Papillon + 485]

27 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

This still doesn't make any sense.  If the goal is to keep "oil out of China's hands," then why are we attacking Iranians? 

Precisely sir, though we are discussing Mr Trump and military strategy so therefore I fear there may not be any sense involved. I am sure this time it's different and for a good reason though, like the last thirty years have been, and nothing to do with invented weapons, and certainly not about oil ...  /sarc

I am relieved that China has cropped up in a thread about the USA and Iran, and am sure that many will be happy now, while overcoming their withdrawal symptoms of not discussing the nation for a few days ...  /sarc

@DayTrader 

Edited January 6, 2020 by Papillon

[PE Scott + 563]

19 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

This still doesn't make any sense.  If the goal is to keep "oil of out China's hands," then why are we attacking Iranians? 

What if we just take it at face value. That is, assume the attack was in defense of U.S. interest from a perceived threat. Assume that the U.S. and POTUS specifically believe that Iran has been waging a proxy war, unchecked, for years. Assume that President Trump is under a tremendous amount of stress and just said "F*ok it. Enough is enough." ...bringing us here.

 

I'm sure there is more too it, but that's what it seems like on its face to me.

[Zhong Lu + 845]

If the Iranians were planning to attack the US, they certainly ARE planning to now.  So in that sense nothing has changed- if anything it's gotten worse.  Also, they said goodbye to what was left of the nuclear deal.  So I see centrifuges spinning, soon.  I wrote earlier, here, that Iranian hardliners were pushing for nukes ASAP.  That's what I would do if I was in their position because America simply cannot be trusted to not attack them.  Now that prediction's a guarantee.  Get nukes or America will invade/bomb/not respect you.  This is the lesson for Iran.  Why is the US being mean to Iran and nice to North Korea? Because North Korea has nukes and Iran doesn't.  

Solieman may have deserved to die, but in no way does this make things safer.  Saying "F U" to Iran may feel very cathartic, but in what way does it benefit security? 

Edited January 6, 2020 by Zhong Lu

[remake it + 288]

1 hour ago, Marcin said:

No matter what we would think about discoveries in shale extraction, US needs and will need much more in the future of the Foreign, imported crude oil and natural gas. BINGO !

That would be true if renewables were excluded from your scenario, but they cannot be, so during this decade demand destruction will be of a magnitude that will ensure America won't need to worry about its oil and gas reserves.

[PE Scott + 563]

2 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

If the Iranians were planning to attack the US, they certainly ARE planning to now.  So in that sense nothing has changed- if anything it's gotten worse.  Also, they said goodbye to what was left of the nuclear deal.  So I see centrifuges spinning, soon.  I wrote earlier, here, that Iranian hardliners were pushing for nukes ASAP.  That's what I would do if I was in their position.  Now that prediction's a guarantee.  

Solieman may have deserved to die, but in no way does this make things safer.  Saying "F U" to Iran may feel very cathartic, but in what way does it benefit security? 

I don't disagree one bit. Even if the outcome was justified, I don't think the means were. 

I'm not going to defend it. I just think the rationale may be that simple, unfortunately. I'm not sure there's much of an endgame in mind here.

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Then we have a problem don't we? It's the job of POTUS to think through ramifications of acts, before acting.

Does the top of the US government have a plan or an endgame to where this is going? What is the objective? 

Edited January 6, 2020 by Zhong Lu

[PE Scott + 563]

4 minutes ago, remake it said:

That would be true if renewables were excluded from your scenario, but they cannot be, so during this decade demand destruction will be of a magnitude that will ensure America won't need to worry about its oil and gas reserves.

I actually agree with you here. Furthermore, if the price of oil is inflated by a large degree, the incentive to push for alternative sources will only be greater.

Edited January 6, 2020 by PE Scott