Total Asia oil imports back near normal, China net product exports still running higher than last year despite low refinery runs. Meanwhile back to 0 loadings in the Persian gulf and US inventory draws tapering to 0 as the US nears operating minimums.

All this means continued… https://t.co/m9ibk5RmVb

— AllThingsVentured (@AllVentured) August 5, 2026

Goldman:

However, the physical oil market is tightening, with our global visible stocks counter drawing by 6.3mb/d over the last two weeks (Exhibit 7), likely driven by three key factors: 1) lower flows from the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea, 2) lower Russian oil exports, and 3)… pic.twitter.com/CkdQ9yXNUe

— HFI Research (@HFI_Research) August 5, 2026

HaroldShipmanAg said:

---

This what I don't get Trump is trying to get take care of an issue that previous POTUS have punted on or done a bad job in handling but it seems this thread and board are actively rooting against him to spike the football on him and his supporters...Really weird to see.

---

I completely disagree with your framing of the issue. Trump took a situation that has been managed diplomatically for the last four decades, escalated it , while doing the very thing he campaigned against.

No only did he escalate he completely miscalculated at every step of the way and has turned the situation into a quagmire making what was the status quo worse. Sure he killed a couple of folks but he also gave them the opportunity to show that they control the flow of oil through the strait, which is going to cost us more in concessions than any made in the past and empower them further in the future.

What you see as rooting against Trump is people recognizing he made a mistake and having the intellectual honesty to call it out rather than blindly defending the very actions he accused others of doing.

AgDev01 said:

---

HaroldShipmanAg said:

---

This what I don't get Trump is trying to get take care of an issue that previous POTUS have punted on or done a bad job in handling but it seems this thread and board are actively rooting against him to spike the football on him and his supporters...Really weird to see.

---

I completely disagree with your framing of the issue. Trump took a situation that has been managed diplomatically for the last four decades, escalated it , while doing the very thing he campaigned against.

No only did he escalate he completely miscalculated at every step of the way and has turned the situation into a quagmire making what was the status quo worse. Sure he killed a couple of folks but he also gave them the opportunity to show that they control the flow of oil through the strait, which is going to cost us more in concessions than any made in the past and empower them further in the future.

What you see as rooting against Trump is people recognizing he made a mistake and having the intellectual honesty to call it out rather than blindly defending the very actions he accused others of doing.

---

This is one of those things where you really cannot overstate how much of a blunder it was. Israel has been trying to get our Presidents to do war with Iran for decades (like you said). They all said no. Yes, even Reagan (everyone's favorite) and Bush (the OG ME warchief) said no. And this is why.

I think if we hadn't gotten bogged down in Iraq, Bush may have bit the bullet and gone after Iran.

But, on another note, I saw a headline that the treasury is starting to lift sanctions on Iran slowly. But before I could click on it my browser reloaded. And it went away. Haven't been able to find it elsewhere, other than us lifting sanctions on groups in Iraq affiliated with Iran.

ETA: saw this posted somewhere " We are in the fifth month of a four week war we 'won' in two days, over a weapons program that was 'obliterated' last year"

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

I think if we hadn't gotten bogged down in Iraq, Bush may have bit the bullet and gone after Iran.

But, on another note, I saw a headline that the treasury is starting to lift sanctions on Iran slowly. But before I could click on it my browser reloaded. And it went away. Haven't been able to find it elsewhere, other than us lifting sanctions on groups in Iraq affiliated with Iran.

---

When the US was gearing up the invade Iraq in the 2000s, Ariel Sharon was lobbying Bush to invade Iran first.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2007/08/29/israel-warned-us-not-invade-iraq-after-911

100% agree. You have now forced yourself into regime change because you have shown these guys how much control they actually can have on the world economically. Imagine Iran not spending money on funding terrorists groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and instead investing all their time and money on making the strait of Hormuz difficult to navigate. Trump has made them much stronger.

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

I think if we hadn't gotten bogged down in Iraq, Bush may have bit the bullet and gone after Iran.

But, on another note, I saw a headline that the treasury is starting to lift sanctions on Iran slowly. But before I could click on it my browser reloaded. And it went away. Haven't been able to find it elsewhere, other than us lifting sanctions on groups in Iraq affiliated with Iran.

---

Ha I dont think he would have (despite Netanyahu's requests). Iran has a legit military and the terrain is a fortress.

I haven't seen the sanctions relief thing. Nothing has been solved. Trump said the Strait would be open yesterday. It's not. There is no deal to reopen the Strait. Let me remind everyone- we are just trying to reopen the Strait right now. The nuclear talks are on hold.

At Fayetteville Regional Airport, a military casket arrived carrying 30-year-old Staff Sgt. Michael Swinton, killed in the Iran war, as his wife clung to it in tears. pic.twitter.com/qYliMoCKlW

— HatsOff (@HatsOffff) August 4, 2026

We must attack them so we can attack them later.

HaroldShipmanAg said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

HaroldShipmanAg said:

---

Funny how military service or lack thereof for POTUS only matters when Trump is in office....makes you think

---

Well, to be fair, he has been the only one to openly fantasize to the public about wearing the uniform while putting himself as an equal to two of our most celebrated military leaders in history. All while headlining one of the more intensely unpopular wars of his own making that has seen a number of old man empty threats and mishaps. Makes you think what an incredibly dumb thing to post, especially now of all times. Not even Biden did **** like this.

This is not a life or death thing of importance but still doesn't mean that there is any defending this. Unless China gets squirrelly soon, I think it very possible that Iran may come to define Trump's second term. Considering how it is going so far, not a great thing to be remembered for.

---

This what I don't get Trump is trying to get take care of an issue that previous POTUS have punted on or done a bad job in handling but it seems this thread and board are actively rooting against him to spike the football on him and his supporters...Really weird to see.

---

Trump by his own previous standards of measuring Presidents would call the handling of this a TOTAL DISASTER.

The people wanting to spike the ball? Really are you just now tuning in? Because ever since this has begun and anytime people including Trump THOUGHT this was ended it was spiking in the faces of anyone that has thought this has not been good. And on and on about how wrong everyone else is.
Only to find out usually the next couple of days it was premature to do so.

This was not what Trump campaigned on. So when it's not going "AHEAD OF SCHEDULE" he deserves the same scrutiny he has repeatedly applied to others.

Keyno said:

---

AgDev01 said:

---

HaroldShipmanAg said:

---

This what I don't get Trump is trying to get take care of an issue that previous POTUS have punted on or done a bad job in handling but it seems this thread and board are actively rooting against him to spike the football on him and his supporters...Really weird to see.

---

I completely disagree with your framing of the issue. Trump took a situation that has been managed diplomatically for the last four decades, escalated it , while doing the very thing he campaigned against.

No only did he escalate he completely miscalculated at every step of the way and has turned the situation into a quagmire making what was the status quo worse. Sure he killed a couple of folks but he also gave them the opportunity to show that they control the flow of oil through the strait, which is going to cost us more in concessions than any made in the past and empower them further in the future.

What you see as rooting against Trump is people recognizing he made a mistake and having the intellectual honesty to call it out rather than blindly defending the very actions he accused others of doing.

---

This is one of those things where you really cannot overstate how much of a blunder it was. Israel has been trying to get our Presidents to do war with Iran for decades (like you said). They all said no. Yes, even Reagan (everyone's favorite) and Bush (the OG ME warchief) said no. And this is why.

---

We didn't go to war because of Israel.

We went to war because Iran was getting too close to the ability to make a nuclear weapon AND a shield to prevent doing anything about it.

And that's because all those other Presidents kicked the can down the road.

But, accepting that means something you don't like...and we all know what that is...

[Mockery of other users arguments needs to go away when you get back. Thanks. -Staff]

Ag with kids said:

---

Keyno said:

---

AgDev01 said:

---

HaroldShipmanAg said:

---

This what I don't get Trump is trying to get take care of an issue that previous POTUS have punted on or done a bad job in handling but it seems this thread and board are actively rooting against him to spike the football on him and his supporters...Really weird to see.

---

I completely disagree with your framing of the issue. Trump took a situation that has been managed diplomatically for the last four decades, escalated it , while doing the very thing he campaigned against.

No only did he escalate he completely miscalculated at every step of the way and has turned the situation into a quagmire making what was the status quo worse. Sure he killed a couple of folks but he also gave them the opportunity to show that they control the flow of oil through the strait, which is going to cost us more in concessions than any made in the past and empower them further in the future.

What you see as rooting against Trump is people recognizing he made a mistake and having the intellectual honesty to call it out rather than blindly defending the very actions he accused others of doing.

---

This is one of those things where you really cannot overstate how much of a blunder it was. Israel has been trying to get our Presidents to do war with Iran for decades (like you said). They all said no. Yes, even Reagan (everyone's favorite) and Bush (the OG ME warchief) said no. And this is why.

---

We didn't go to war because of Israel.

We went to war because Iran was getting too close to the ability to make a nuclear weapon AND a shield to prevent doing anything about it.

And that's because all those other Presidents kicked the can down the road.

But, accepting that means something you don't like...and we all know what that is...

---

If we truly believed this, why didn't we do what we did in 2003? Take our evidence to the UN, build a coalition of countries, ramp up military pressure, and then go in with more than 2 countries attacking?

Surely if we wanted to win militarily, having a few allied Navy vessels there shooting down missiles and launching attacks alongside our forces would have been helpful.

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Keyno said:

---

AgDev01 said:

---

HaroldShipmanAg said:

---

This what I don't get Trump is trying to get take care of an issue that previous POTUS have punted on or done a bad job in handling but it seems this thread and board are actively rooting against him to spike the football on him and his supporters...Really weird to see.

---

I completely disagree with your framing of the issue. Trump took a situation that has been managed diplomatically for the last four decades, escalated it , while doing the very thing he campaigned against.

No only did he escalate he completely miscalculated at every step of the way and has turned the situation into a quagmire making what was the status quo worse. Sure he killed a couple of folks but he also gave them the opportunity to show that they control the flow of oil through the strait, which is going to cost us more in concessions than any made in the past and empower them further in the future.

What you see as rooting against Trump is people recognizing he made a mistake and having the intellectual honesty to call it out rather than blindly defending the very actions he accused others of doing.

---

This is one of those things where you really cannot overstate how much of a blunder it was. Israel has been trying to get our Presidents to do war with Iran for decades (like you said). They all said no. Yes, even Reagan (everyone's favorite) and Bush (the OG ME warchief) said no. And this is why.

---

We didn't go to war because of Israel.

We went to war because Iran was getting too close to the ability to make a nuclear weapon AND a shield to prevent doing anything about it.

And that's because all those other Presidents kicked the can down the road.

But, accepting that means something you don't like...and we all know what that is...

---

If we truly believed this, why didn't we do what we did in 2003? Take our evidence to the UN, build a coalition of countries, ramp up military pressure, and then go in with more than 2 countries attacking?

Surely if we wanted to win militarily, having a few allied Navy vessels there shooting down missiles and launching attacks alongside our forces would have been helpful.

---

Because we didn't want to send troops to be on the ground?

Thanks for the softball...

Ag with kids said:

---

We didn't go to war because of Israel.

We went to war because Iran was getting too close to the ability to make a nuclear weapon AND a shield to prevent doing anything about it.

And that's because all those other Presidents kicked the can down the road.

But, accepting that means something you don't like...and we all know what that is...

---

How do you reconcile your quote with this statement:

Quote:

---

"Our objective was the destruction of Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world's number one state sponsor of terror," Trump said in a speech from the White House.

"Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated."

---

- Donald Trump, June 2025.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/21/trump-us-nuclear-strikes-iran

They were either lying then or they're lying now.

I guess it was just one of those time you can't take the President says seriously, or whatever excuse MAGA uses to handwave away his statements. Must have just been trolling to own the libs or something.

I said nothing about ground forces. I specifically stated having a few allied naval vessels would be helpful in shooting down missiles and launching attacks. Perhaps if we had more anti-missile defenses we might have had fewer casualties. Or perhaps a larger allied coalition could have brought more pressure.

Also then we went begging to Europe to join before throwing a tantrum saying we don't need them, before saying we were going to leave and leave the whole thing their problem, before then deciding to stay and charge 20%, before saying never mind, but still staying.

AgDev01 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

We didn't go to war because of Israel.

We went to war because Iran was getting too close to the ability to make a nuclear weapon AND a shield to prevent doing anything about it.

And that's because all those other Presidents kicked the can down the road.

But, accepting that means something you don't like...and we all know what that is...

---

How do you reconcile your quote with this statement:

Quote:

---

"Our objective was the destruction of Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world's number one state sponsor of terror," Trump said in a speech from the White House.

"Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated."

---

- Donald Trump, June 2025.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/21/trump-us-nuclear-strikes-iran

---

He was wrong. He made the statement the day after the strikes, before any real assessment was done. He's known for exaggerating.

He also loves to bloviate about himself.


That doesn't negate my quote.

How do you really know he was wrong then? Do you have inside intel? You don't know anything about Iran's nuclear program other than what you're told…which a year ago was that it was obliterated.

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

I said nothing about ground forces. I specifically stated having a few allied naval vessels would be helpful in shooting down missiles and launching attacks. Perhaps if we had more anti-missile defenses we might have had fewer casualties. Or perhaps a larger allied coalition could have brought more pressure.

Also then we went begging to Europe to join before throwing a tantrum saying we don't need them, before saying we were going to leave and leave the whole thing their problem, before then deciding to stay and charge 20%, before saying never mind, but still staying.

---

Ok. So, we could have waited another 6 months to a year for the UN to get behind us, if they ever did, because ISRAEL supported it and the vast majority of the countries in the UN hate Israel more than the groypers here on TexAgs.

BTW, perhaps if we hadn't given any weapons to Ukraine, we'd have more ABMs too...and more ATACMs and PrSMs...


And, I think the NATO reaction to us doing this shows EXACTLY why didn't go suck up to the UN or NATO. Because they wouldn't have supported it anyways. They were fine kicking the can down the road again. Because, they knew that if the **** REALLY hit the fan, the US would have to come save their ass like we always do.


But, no one will ever convince the isolationists that the US has to defend US interests outside the US borders...

Ag with kids said:

---

He was wrong. He made the statement the day after the strikes, before any real assessment was done. He's known for exaggerating.

He also loves to bloviate about himself.


That doesn't negate my quote.

---

Can you provide a link to those statements where the administration has admitted they were wrong in thier assessment?

That is a pretty definitive statement to be that wrong. Quite frankly it would be right up there with "two weeks to slow the spread".

Queso1 said:

---

How do you really know he was wrong then? Do you have inside intel? You don't know anything about Iran's nuclear program other than what you're told…which a year ago was that it was obliterated.

---

Wait...So you're implying he was RIGHT? And that we DID obliterate it all?

And then we did this attack because...REASONS?

I believe Trump was manipulated into this war and now he's stuck. And, yes I think it was defense contractors, politicians, and the state of Israel.

Ag with kids said:

---

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

I said nothing about ground forces. I specifically stated having a few allied naval vessels would be helpful in shooting down missiles and launching attacks. Perhaps if we had more anti-missile defenses we might have had fewer casualties. Or perhaps a larger allied coalition could have brought more pressure.

Also then we went begging to Europe to join before throwing a tantrum saying we don't need them, before saying we were going to leave and leave the whole thing their problem, before then deciding to stay and charge 20%, before saying never mind, but still staying.

---

Ok. So, we could have waited another 6 months to a year for the UN to get behind us, if they ever did, because ISRAEL supported it and the vast majority of the countries in the UN hate Israel more than the groypers here on TexAgs.

BTW, perhaps if we hadn't given any weapons to Ukraine, we'd have more ABMs too...and more ATACMs and PrSMs...


And, I think the NATO reaction to us doing this shows EXACTLY why didn't go suck up to the UN or NATO. Because they wouldn't have supported it anyways. They were fine kicking the can down the road again. Because, they knew that if the **** REALLY hit the fan, the US would have to come save their ass like we always do.


But, no one will ever convince the isolationists that the US has to defend US interests outside the US borders...

---

It took a couple weeks to get a coalition, and a couple months to assemble all the forces needed to invade Iraq. Not 6 months. And Israel supported the invasion of Iraq as well. If I recall there's a video of Bibi in front of Congress saying that Iraq was a threat.

And we just happened to insult multiple NATO partners just weeks before launching this war, can't imagine that would make them excited to jump into a conflict on a whim after being left in the dark about it. Especially when there was even less evidence of WMDs.

A political analyses that is closer to accurate than not, imho;

In the middle of the war Islamic regime provoked with US and Israel, while the Iranian people are crushed under economic collapse and misery, the government suddenly sends an ”urgent” bill to parliament.

What could possibly be so urgent right now?

Selling off Iran’s remaining… pic.twitter.com/BKl2kSysF8

— Ida Turan 🇮🇷 ایده توران (@iranidaturan) August 7, 2026

The UK has not been our ally for a very long time, and notably again Jimmy Carter is the one who really deposed the Shah.

Redstate reports on 'evidence' Iran may be reaching the tipping point (economically/stagflation etc).

Quote:

---

But it hasn't had to deal with military action, a naval blockade preventing ships from getting in or out, its oil sales being cut off, its money being frozen and seized by an ever-vigilant Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and his team, currency collapse, and inflation through the roof - all at the same time - before 2026.

There's more evidence in the worsening situation that Iran is reaching a tipping point, with reports of Iranians stealing bread, cheese, meat, and other basic groceries.

Quote:

---

An investigation published Wednesday by the Iranian newspaper Jahan-e Sanat described supermarket workers encountering customers who allegedly concealed inexpensive food items or ate packaged products inside stores without paying. [....]

These are anecdotal, but they align with hard data," Miad Maleki, an associate fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Fox News Digital.

"Iran is already inside the tipping zone," Maleki said. "But a genuine 'tipping point' wouldn't be a single dramatic event. It would look like what's already unfolding in slow motion: currency collapse, World War II-level food inflation and now theft of staples, reaching a threshold where basic caloric/nutritional access breaks down for a large share of the population, not just the poorest."

---

The inflation numbers were bad.

Quote:

---

The Statistical Center of Iran data cited in separate reports showed point-to-point inflation of 113.8% for food and beverages and 112.5% for food items in March compared with the same month a year earlier. Bread and cereal prices increased 140%, while milk, cheese and egg prices rose 116.8%

---

---

I'll take good news wherever I can see it. Here's to hoping.

AgDev01 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

He was wrong. He made the statement the day after the strikes, before any real assessment was done. He's known for exaggerating.

He also loves to bloviate about himself.


That doesn't negate my quote.

---

Can you provide a link to those statements where the administration has admitted they were wrong in thier assessment?

That is a pretty definitive statement to be that wrong. Quite frankly it would be right up there with "two weeks to slow the spread".

---

Can you point to one time in Trump's entire political career when he has admitted he was wrong?

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Can you point to one time in Trump's entire political career when he has admitted he was wrong?

---

And you don't see that as a problem? this isn't something you can handwaive away and say it's just who he is, especially when the stakes are as great as what some on this board are claiming. According to them we are fighting this to prevent our playgrounds from being glassed.

if Trump is going to go in front of the American public and lie about something so grave, why are his supporters not holding him accountable?

AgDev01 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Can you point to one time in Trump's entire political career when he has admitted he was wrong?

---

And you don't see that as a problem? this isn't something you can handwaive away and say it's just who he is, especially when the stakes are as great as what some on this board are claiming. According to them we are fighting this to prevent our playgrounds from being glassed.

if Trump is going to go in front of the American public and lie about something so grave, why are his supporters not holding him accountable?

---

Of course it's a problem. I can't wait for Trump to be gone (hopefully with Rubio taking over) and his narcissism and refusal to admit he's wrong is just one of those reasons.

My point was that Trump not admitting he was wrong has nothing to do with whether or not he was actually wrong at the time. And I can dislike Trump but still step back and recognize that attempting to make sure Iran can't develop a nuke is still the right strategy.

AgDev01 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

He was wrong. He made the statement the day after the strikes, before any real assessment was done. He's known for exaggerating.

He also loves to bloviate about himself.


That doesn't negate my quote.

---

Can you provide a link to those statements where the administration has admitted they were wrong in thier assessment?

That is a pretty definitive statement to be that wrong. Quite frankly it would be right up there with "two weeks to slow the spread".

---

I didn't say that TRUMP admitted he was wrong.


I said he was wrong.

Apparently the Israeli's are not 'running out of' air defense interceptors, as IAI and Rafael will supply these to Greece within 36 months:

Quote:

---

Greece has approved the purchase of a multi-layer air defense system worth up to 3.5 billion ($4 billion) from Israel, several types of drones and Embraer's C-390 military transport aircraft, its defense minister said on Thursday.

The country's security council, KYSEA, gave its initial approval earlier this year and approved the procurement contracts on Thursday, Nikos Dendias told journalists.

Greece wants to build a multi-layer anti-ballistic, anti-aircraft and anti-drone system, called "Achilles Shield," with Israeli radars and missiles from Rafael and IAI defense companies forming the core of the system.

"It will be ready and fully operational within 35 months, starting from today," said Nikos Dendias, adding that companies in Greece will produce at least 25% of the system.

Greece, which currently uses U.S. Patriot and old Russian S-300 systems to protect its airspace, plans to spend about 28 billion by 2036 to modernize its armed forces.

This includes buying up to 40 new F-35 fighter jets from the United States and frigates from France and Italy.

Dendias said that KYSEA had also approved the purchase of three C-390 military transport aircraft, 10 British-built VICTA mini-submarines for special operations, U.S. V-BAT unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and Heron UAVs from Israel.

---

They make their own radars/guidance but the solid rocket motors etc. are largely made in the US from the same suppliers building Patrios/THAAD (Northrop, L3 and Boeing namely). This makes me think the political claims in DC that we are 'running out' of said weapons due to the conflict are entirely false.

[We cleaned up this thread from several derails away from the OP. This thread is about the political fallout in the U.S. of the Iranian military conflict. Israel's political influence and money-in-politics are relevant considerations in that dialogue, but when the thread gets hijacked to the point the discussion is no longer connected to the OP, then we're going to bring it back to this thread's purpose. You are welcome to explore any of those topics in depth in another thread -- Staff]

Their attackers will just aim for the heel.

[You continue derailing this thread and need to stop. After our very clear reminder, your post still didn't have anything to do with the political consequences of this conflict. If you want to explore other topics, take it to an existing thread or start a new one. Your timeouts will increase in length if you continue -- Staff]