Surely Trump supporters will be as angry at this as they were when Obama’s nuclear deal did the exact same thing , except that deal had infinitely more substance
Trump supporters won't get angry over details, they don't even remember what was in Obama's nuclear deal except that it's bad because Obama. They will defend it just to say something catchy like art of the deal.
I'm still not 100% certain what Republicans were so mad about with the deal and what they expected to be better. From my recollection, Iran accepted some conditions that were pretty onerous because they figured working together was better than rebelling. Then they got rug pulled by Trump and now this.
What they were mad about stems from the notion that you just can't trust a radical Islamic theocratic state that is seeking to export its revolution in the Middle East. Basically, the nuclear deal would allow the regime to put its nuclear program on the backburner in the short term, while giving it financial resources to bolster its military capabilities and proxy forces in the meantime, which could make military action against them in the future if they decide to back out or cheat on the deal unpalatable.
To be clear, I don't think this is really far-fetched. Iran would have had more money with a lightened sanctions burden that could have allowed it to provide even more funding to its proxies. Even with diminished wealth, it went down that route and continued to stand up Hamas, Hezbollah, and its various militias. Its support directly led to the October 7 attack which brought us to where we are today. If we had a nuclear deal, would Oct. 7 not have happened? I suppose thats possible if the deal actually reduced tensions between the parties. But if it didn't, we might be in the situation that exists now except that Iran would have had years to accumulate more military strength with greater resources.
I guess I meant more, what about the deal in specific was being complained about.
Because, sure, taking your framing here, I get it. Iran is a country that the US is just going to be opposed to on a great many issues by their nature as an Islamic country in the Middle East.
But as I remember, the chief concern was (and still is) that Iran would pursue nuclear arms. If that is the one thing the US and others agree is top priority to stop, then you are going to have to negotiate with Iran to stop them. And thus, the 2015 deal. Which had mechanisms for disputes that did not rely on trust, and were conditions that the US herself would never accept as part of a treaty if they were imposed on us.
Without the 2015 deal, Iran developed its nuclear program and funded it's proxies in the region. It just seems so short sighted to blow up the 2015 deal seemingly for the sole reason that it happened under Obama and on his watch, only to now end up in the worst of all worlds situation where we are now in an active war dealing with the fallout of that choice.
I think the critique from Republicans is that the nuclear deal gave them more money which just entrenched the regime when, ultimately, the problem is not the nukes or proxies or ballistics itself but ideology. It's not that Iran is Islamic; we work with many Islamic countries. But that it actually is revolutionary. And just like revolutionary France or the communist revolutionaries, those ideals get exported by arms. In their view, the only real option to contain the threat is military action or regime change, otherwise you're playing into the hands of the enemy.
They can't remember it because they never knew about it in the first place. They just parrot what they heard on Fox News that week and the next week its out with the old and in with the new.
For a week or however long it was in the news cycle, they knew Iran is bad and Obama is bad and Obamas Iran deal was super duper bad. That's all they knew. They didn't need to know anything more than that. They never do.
That's the pattern. Break something. Then claim to fix it when it's worse than what was broken. I mean he was the one that signed the trade deal with Canada and Mexico during his first term only to say they're ripping us off, blow up his own deal and slap on tariffs on them to claim he's fixing something.
We can broadcast it and it will pay for the cleanup. It would be glorious to just see Trump names taken down, demolished and destroyed. Just a little karma for the "burn it down" types that are "in charge" currently.
When Trump is gone it will be the Era of Good Feelings II.
It might genuinely be a wash. Iran's GDP was $400B+ in 2024 and their government budget is something like $100B. Between damages to infra, damages to their military, and lost oil revenue, I'm going to say this war has cost them considerably more than $20B.
And if we have to spend $1T to not really accomplish anything beyond killing a bunch of schoolchildren, I'm sure Republicans think that's a good trade.
I think Trump is right that the status quo hurts Iran more than it hurts Israel or the USA. We'll see what the deal looks like, and we'll see how long Israel can keep their hands to themselves and how Iran reacts to Israel's next bombing campaign. This war is bad for everyone, and all of the negotiators who are terrible people who would probably nuke half the world if they thought they could get away with it.
I remember the Republicans losing their minds over Obama's nuclear deal and the sanctions relief. Funny how a shittier deal and still giving them back their money is a great negotiation.
Wild thing was is Obama is only half black, they couldn't even handle that... It should have brought people together but even that was too much for them.
The end result of all this will be the Iranian regime in power in perpetuity (likely having nuclear weapons eventually) with control over global oil prices (now that they've shown the Strait can be closed).
Under Obama's deal, IRGC was restrained and there was even a nascent dissident movement that was emerging. Like... time and patience might have led to either regime collapse or more moderate replacement in leadership.
Now? LOL nope. We've signed on for Iran to be a massive problem for the global economy and global stability for a generation. Nice job!
Remember, Trump bombed Iran when its dissatisfied population was in the middle of revolting against an unpopular regime. This killed the revolt and cemented the autocrats into power, setting back any hope of democracy or a secular government in that country.
Of course, maybe this is what Trump's handlers wanted? (We have always been at war with Eurasia) The billions and billions the energy sector is raking in due to the blockade is also a nice bonus.
Not really. There’s nothing wrong with letting them have their money as long as they stop using it to supply terrorists and stop working on nuclear weapons.
Both deals are garbage. They’re not going to abide by any agreement and they’ll arm themselves clandestinely to the teeth while gladly accepting the money. This is just subsidizing further militarization and the Iranian people will see precisely zero of it.
$20 billion will buy a whole lot of drones and missiles and it is, I must insist on mentioning, much less than the US has spent bombing Iran.
We had a deal that avoided war years ago and these morons tore it up, started a war they couldn't actually win, spent more money and munitions than we could, all to go back to a deal with the younger, healthier, longer lasting Ayatollah.
This is what happens when you elect stupid and corrupt people.
Hahahaha fucking hell! So Trump's big negotiation is to.... Get back what was already on the table. Buddy just wants out and get this fuck up as far behind him as possible.
No it'll be worse than the deal Obama made with Iran and that trump tore up. I'm guessing Iran agrees to inspections, which Obama already had in place, and in return the US gives more money to Iran, which Obama was giving less. The still in place Iran regime may even get a UN seat out of this. All of the Republicans will crow about how great it is and how only trump could do such a thing.
Do you know anything about balancing a budget, or the interest rates exceeding GDP being the economic formula for a nation to swan song, insider trading, market manipulation,Israeli pedophile rings, 5 trillion tax cut for the rich when we run a 2 trillion deficit as it is.YOU PEOPLE are sycophants who support a regime that has done nothing but cannibalize/destroy our institutions for personal gain.
Like this has been occurring since the 70’s, but it’s out in the open now, and you cheer for it. It’s wild. Recession is on the docket and they’re predicting depression for 2030-2036. Remind me in 10 years.
What a fitting user name you have: a con artist, scammer, fraudster, or cheater.
So...the Strait of Hormuz reopened today, oil dropped 10%, and Wall Street rallied (if WS learned that we could cook eggs faster it'd rally at this point).
Reality? The market is pricing a benign resolution. It is worth examining what the market is not pricing, across three time horizons, because the gap between the headline and the structural economic picture is substantial.
To be clear, let's not even assess the reality that the ceasefire runs until April 22nd. Araghchi's own words: "for the remaining period of ceasefire." The market just priced in a resolution with a five-day shelf life.
The headline "Strait is open" is doing heavy lifting in today's market action, but the physical energy infrastructure does not recover with a ceasefire announcement. Iran's Foreign Minister specified that passage is "on the coordinated route as already announced by Ports and Maritime Organisation of the Islamic Republic of Iran." That is administered transit on a route set by Tehran, not a return to pre-war freedom of navigation. Marine liability cover was withdrawn by the International Group of P&I Clubs covering 90% of global tonnage in early March. Restoring that cover requires sustained demonstrated safety, not a single day's announcement. Until the insurance market reprices, the effective cost of Hormuz transit remains elevated regardless of whether the physical passage is open.
The energy infrastructure damage is structural. Iran's strike on Ras Laffan damaged 17% of Qatar's LNG production capacity, 12.8 million tonnes per year, with repairs requiring three to five years. This doesn't just return. That capacity does not return when the ceasefire holds. European gas storage entered this crisis at 30% capacity. The IEA chief warned Thursday that Europe has roughly six weeks of jet fuel remaining. European airlines are already cancelling flights and rationing fuel at multiple airports. Urea prices are up 50% since the war began, with over 30% of globally traded fertilizer normally transiting Hormuz. The fertilizer disruption flows directly into Northern Hemisphere planting season and into food prices over the next 12 to 18 months. The CPI energy pass-through that the March 3.3% headline captured is the first wave. The food price pass-through from fertilizer disruption is the second wave, and it has not yet appeared in the data.
Now on top of this, the administration is considering unfreezing $20 billion in Iranian assets in exchange for Iran turning over its enriched uranium stockpile. At the same time, the President posted this morning that "no money will exchange hands in any way, shape, or form." So, the President is correct - unfreezing assets is not technically a payment.
It is functionally a $20 billion transfer of economic value. If the US unfreezes $20 billion after Iran closed the Strait for six weeks, absorbed 900+ strikes, and emerged with its 10-point plan as the acknowledged negotiating basis, every sanctioned entity on earth recalibrates what resistance costs versus what capitulation costs. The sanctions architecture does not collapse from a single event. It erodes when the perceived cost-benefit ratio of resistance shifts in favor of resistance. Today's sequence shifts that ratio.
The fiscal cascade is the mechanism by which the war costs compound into existing structural stress. OMB Director Vought told Congress this week he cannot provide a ballpark for the total cost. The Pentagon initially requested $200 billion, now negotiated to $80-100 billion. Harvard's Bilmes estimates the full long-term cost at $1 trillion. The FY2027 budget calls for $1.5 trillion in defense spending, a 44% increase, with a 10% nondefense cut. Trump told NATO to "STAY AWAY" from the Strait, meaning the US bears its blockade cost unilaterally. These costs arrive into a fiscal position already under strain: $9 trillion in Treasury refinancing rolling through 2025-2027, a $2 trillion annual deficit, and a foreign buyer base that has reduced its share of US debt from 42% to 30%. Each additional hundred billion in war-related issuance enters a market where the marginal buyer is increasingly a domestic dealer bank rather than a foreign sovereign, and dealer absorption capacity is constrained by balance sheet limits.
Three developments today have long-horizon economic implications the short-term rally is not incorporating. First, Iran's administered transit framework establishes the precedent that Hormuz access is permissioned rather than guaranteed. Iran's 10-point plan proposes a $2 million toll per vessel. Trump floated the principle of Hormuz tolls on April 6. Whether or not the toll is formalized, the demonstrated reality that Iran can close and open the Strait at will, and that US military action could not override that closure, permanently reprices the risk premium for Hormuz transit. That repricing flows through the cost of every barrel and every LNG cargo transiting the waterway, roughly 20% of global supply, and it is permanent because the demonstrated capability is permanent.
Second, approximately 40 nations met in Paris without the United States to design a multilateral Maritime Freedom of Navigation Initiative. The institutional design question is whether this evolves toward a toll-funded self-sustaining authority or remains a temporary defense-budget mission. Every successful multilateral chokepoint authority in modern history evolved toward user-fee funding. If this initiative follows the same pattern, the cost of Hormuz transit acquires a permanent institutional layer operating on commercial logic independent of any single country's defense budget.
Third, the petrodollar structural erosion the war has accelerated. The petrodollar system requires dollar pricing of oil, US security guarantees for Gulf shipping, and dollar recycling through Treasuries. The war has visibly degraded the second. Iran's yuan-for-passage framework during the closure demonstrated an operational alternative to dollar settlement. Deutsche Bank put "the beginnings of the petroyuan" in a client note last month. The dollar's reserve share is at a 25-year low, roughly 57% down from 71% in 1999. None of this is dollar collapse. What is happening is directional erosion that accelerates under each event that undermines the security guarantee. The economic implication over 2-5 years is that the structural premium the US enjoys on borrowing costs, trade financing, and deficit capacity begins to compress. The compression is gradual but directional, and each event like today's accelerates it.
The market dropped oil 10% and rallied equities because the headline says the crisis is resolving. The physical supply chain says otherwise for months. The sanctions architecture has been structurally weakened. The fiscal position says war costs are compounding into a refinancing wave already under strain. The institutional developments in Paris say the long-term governance of the world's most important energy chokepoint is being redesigned without the country that previously controlled it. The efficient market prices the ceasefire. It does not price the institutional replacement of the framework under which the market became efficient.
TL;DR: Oil dropped 10% and equities rallied on "Strait is open." The structural picture across three time horizons suggests the market is pricing the headline and not the mechanism. Physical energy damage does not recover with a ceasefire. The sanctions architecture is weakened. The fiscal cascade is compounding. And the chokepoint's governance is being redesigned in Paris without the US. The gap between today's pricing and the structural picture is the gap between a headline and a mechanism.
Basically what anyone with some unbiased analysis or comprehension could conclude, he will get bored if it isn’t a quick win, try and salvage something to call a win and move on to the next thing.
Everyone thinks collapse happens immediately and suddenly ignoring the long slow run up before the inevitable momentum carries it faster and faster, in regard to the not so almighty dollar. And the next self inflicted crisis will cause another drop and another.
The market doesn't care, it figures there's no better place to park your money than on the hype train. Some day the bottom will drop out and the consequences of reality will kick in, but that's not today
The framing of the market doesn't care is understandable but I think it slightly misidentifies what is happening. The market is not ignoring the structural picture out of indifference. It is pricing within a framework that assumes the structural picture is stable enough to price against. Dollar dominance, Treasury liquidity, predictable energy costs, a reliable foreign buyer base for US debt, these are not things the market "cares about" or "doesn't care about." They are the architecture the market operates inside of. When the architecture is stable, the market can price risk efficiently and the hype train works because there is a floor underneath it. What today's developments are signaling, across the energy infrastructure, the sanctions credibility, the Paris summit, and the petrodollar erosion, is that the architecture itself is what is shifting. The market will continue to not care, right up until the framework it uses to define what it cares about no longer produces coherent pricing signals. That transition tends to be abrupt rather than gradual, because the market's efficiency depends on the framework, and the framework's degradation is the one thing the framework cannot efficiently price.
I’m sorry but gotta ask - did you use any prompts to get this detailed breakdown? The results are really good and I am curious to know the system and the environment
I wish I could use prompts. This is unfortunately just what happens when your day job requires you to be conversant in energy markets, fiscal policy, and institutional architecture simultaneously. The contours are just at the top of my head at this point. Appreciate the compliment.
I'd rather not know any of this stuff anymore tbh.
So no regime change regime will actually be a whole lot stronger they can go around and say they outlast the Americans, giving them 20 billion dollars and pinkie swear no nukes for a few years. Why did thirteen service members have to make the ultimate sacrifice and us the tax payer spent billions ( I would expect the price rage to be in the 100-250 billion range) on this .
I look forward to the political ads attacking Trump for giving Iran $20 billion. That’s been a common (false) theme in right-wing attack ads against Democrats since the Obama Administration.
I remember when Obama tried to unfreeze Iranian assets as part of a nuclear deal and Republicans flipped out in response.
Sending Iran a letter saying they would eventually destroy such a deal. Something that Trump eventually did.
So… they will do exactly what Obama proposed in a deal that Trump threw out. Only this time we spent $1 trillion dollars on a useless war that let Israel secure a bunch of Lebanese land.
I didn’t know the details of a future deal had been released to the public or news organizations. A few assumptions likely made when comparing the previous deal with any future deal. Would assume we would be negotiating from a much stronger position than the JCPOA…if this deal comes out worse, there will a ton of questions to answer.
So, his admin may finally clean up the mess he made when he breached the nuclear proliferation agreement that was put in place by President Obama? Good, it’s about time they fixed what they broke.
They seized assets, including bitcoin, and started distributing them, for example to the victims of those lawsuits they decided against Iran last year (different than the one involving Iranian bank). Are these different assets than the ones that are being discussed here?
“And then, very importantly, I terminated Barack Hussein Obama's Iran nuclear deal. A disaster. Obama gave them $1.7 billion in cash – green, green cash. Took it out of banks from Virginia, D.C. and Maryland. All the cash they had.”
You know damn right well they’re negotiating the same thing. The Obama administration did only the terms are gonna be more favorable to Iran this time.
He fallout over Obamas release of funds was way bigger than this even larger release of funds by the chump admin. MAGAts need to spare the faux outrage.
So... The strait was open before the worr... We tore up Obama's Iran deal, killed a bunch of kid, innocent civilians, and American military personnel, hurt the economy and spent billions in order to...
Re-implement Obama's Iran deal and reopen the strait.
On top of God knows how much corruption under the surface.
webesy | 9 hours ago
Surely Trump supporters will be as angry at this as they were when Obama’s nuclear deal did the exact same thing , except that deal had infinitely more substance
hansulu3 | 9 hours ago
Trump supporters won't get angry over details, they don't even remember what was in Obama's nuclear deal except that it's bad because Obama. They will defend it just to say something catchy like art of the deal.
Durian881 | 9 hours ago
This. They will see it as a win and Trump brought peace to Middle East with no boots on the ground (not minding how it all started).
Forsaken-Medium-2436 | 8 hours ago
From what Iran said it's only for the time of ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon, so 10 days before it's closed again
Pockydo | 8 hours ago
I half expect it to be hot again by Monday
Gotta tank the market for the next pump n dump
BurntNeurons | an hour ago
"The war don't start til I walk in...."
"We bring peace when we leave!"
LimpAd4924 | 8 hours ago
Trump supporters go off memes, vibes and whatever their oligarch media tells them. They will never look at data, studies and primary sources.
Cdub7791 | 8 hours ago
The "Obama gave Iran billions of dollars" is still a talking point among them. I saw it getting brought up by a supporter earlier this week.
NoWarForGod | 8 hours ago
They will conveniently forget, mark my words.
dnndrk | 8 hours ago
They also probably blame Obama for blocking the strait
crankypatriot | 8 hours ago
They blame Obama for 9/11 "happening under his watch."
sowhat4 | 8 hours ago
Hell, they accused him of being a draft dodger for the Vietnam War.
(He was 14 when it ended, but a real patriot would have enlisted at age 10)
dust4ngel | 8 hours ago
> except that it's bad because Obama
TheGreatDay | 7 hours ago
I'm still not 100% certain what Republicans were so mad about with the deal and what they expected to be better. From my recollection, Iran accepted some conditions that were pretty onerous because they figured working together was better than rebelling. Then they got rug pulled by Trump and now this.
BrokenManOfSamarkand | 5 hours ago
What they were mad about stems from the notion that you just can't trust a radical Islamic theocratic state that is seeking to export its revolution in the Middle East. Basically, the nuclear deal would allow the regime to put its nuclear program on the backburner in the short term, while giving it financial resources to bolster its military capabilities and proxy forces in the meantime, which could make military action against them in the future if they decide to back out or cheat on the deal unpalatable.
To be clear, I don't think this is really far-fetched. Iran would have had more money with a lightened sanctions burden that could have allowed it to provide even more funding to its proxies. Even with diminished wealth, it went down that route and continued to stand up Hamas, Hezbollah, and its various militias. Its support directly led to the October 7 attack which brought us to where we are today. If we had a nuclear deal, would Oct. 7 not have happened? I suppose thats possible if the deal actually reduced tensions between the parties. But if it didn't, we might be in the situation that exists now except that Iran would have had years to accumulate more military strength with greater resources.
TheGreatDay | 5 hours ago
I guess I meant more, what about the deal in specific was being complained about.
Because, sure, taking your framing here, I get it. Iran is a country that the US is just going to be opposed to on a great many issues by their nature as an Islamic country in the Middle East.
But as I remember, the chief concern was (and still is) that Iran would pursue nuclear arms. If that is the one thing the US and others agree is top priority to stop, then you are going to have to negotiate with Iran to stop them. And thus, the 2015 deal. Which had mechanisms for disputes that did not rely on trust, and were conditions that the US herself would never accept as part of a treaty if they were imposed on us.
Without the 2015 deal, Iran developed its nuclear program and funded it's proxies in the region. It just seems so short sighted to blow up the 2015 deal seemingly for the sole reason that it happened under Obama and on his watch, only to now end up in the worst of all worlds situation where we are now in an active war dealing with the fallout of that choice.
BrokenManOfSamarkand | 5 hours ago
I think the critique from Republicans is that the nuclear deal gave them more money which just entrenched the regime when, ultimately, the problem is not the nukes or proxies or ballistics itself but ideology. It's not that Iran is Islamic; we work with many Islamic countries. But that it actually is revolutionary. And just like revolutionary France or the communist revolutionaries, those ideals get exported by arms. In their view, the only real option to contain the threat is military action or regime change, otherwise you're playing into the hands of the enemy.
EndersGame | 6 hours ago
They can't remember it because they never knew about it in the first place. They just parrot what they heard on Fox News that week and the next week its out with the old and in with the new.
For a week or however long it was in the news cycle, they knew Iran is bad and Obama is bad and Obamas Iran deal was super duper bad. That's all they knew. They didn't need to know anything more than that. They never do.
June1994 | 49 minutes ago
They never knew what was in it in the first place lol.
fenderputty | 9 hours ago
It was also a much lower value. Like 1.2b IIRC.
Prohydration | 9 hours ago
Also, they said that Obama's deal was bad because Iran cant be trusted to follow a deal, while trump is trying to make a deal with Iran right now.
fenderputty | 9 hours ago
That's the pattern. Break something. Then claim to fix it when it's worse than what was broken. I mean he was the one that signed the trade deal with Canada and Mexico during his first term only to say they're ripping us off, blow up his own deal and slap on tariffs on them to claim he's fixing something.
drawkbox | 6 hours ago
In this case it is even worse.
Interestingly Trump ripped up the decade long well thought out deal that was working on Moscow Victory day in 2018. Just puppet things.
Getting a deal in place via a puppet is a Kremlin dream, lots of gaps.
You can tell how good the Obama nuclear deal was by how mad they got. No gaps.
Prohydration | 5 hours ago
The next democratic president should rip up whatever deal comes out of this war.
drawkbox | 5 hours ago
Every single action, overt renaming, and reference to Trump needs to be ejected and nuked from orbit.
Prohydration | 5 hours ago
And any progress on the ballroom and the arc should be demolished.
drawkbox | 5 hours ago
We can broadcast it and it will pay for the cleanup. It would be glorious to just see Trump names taken down, demolished and destroyed. Just a little karma for the "burn it down" types that are "in charge" currently.
When Trump is gone it will be the Era of Good Feelings II.
Prohydration | an hour ago
Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this arc!
FlyingBishop | 8 hours ago
It might genuinely be a wash. Iran's GDP was $400B+ in 2024 and their government budget is something like $100B. Between damages to infra, damages to their military, and lost oil revenue, I'm going to say this war has cost them considerably more than $20B.
And if we have to spend $1T to not really accomplish anything beyond killing a bunch of schoolchildren, I'm sure Republicans think that's a good trade.
Marcus_Aurelius71 | 7 hours ago
No way Iran will agree to a deal without sanctions being removed as well.
FlyingBishop | 6 hours ago
I think Trump is right that the status quo hurts Iran more than it hurts Israel or the USA. We'll see what the deal looks like, and we'll see how long Israel can keep their hands to themselves and how Iran reacts to Israel's next bombing campaign. This war is bad for everyone, and all of the negotiators who are terrible people who would probably nuke half the world if they thought they could get away with it.
fenderputty | 8 hours ago
Let’s see if there’s gonna be tolls lol
TatersTot | 9 hours ago
Yeah but did you adjust the 20 billion for inflation????
fenderputty | 9 hours ago
Yeah I think adjusted it would be like 1.8 lol
J0E_SpRaY | 7 hours ago
Yeah well thanks to trumps inflation
Ibuilds | 9 hours ago
I remember the Republicans losing their minds over Obama's nuclear deal and the sanctions relief. Funny how a shittier deal and still giving them back their money is a great negotiation.
PurpleReign123 | 7 hours ago
The Fart of the Deal, baby!
drawkbox | 6 hours ago
The Shart of the Deal!
allahsmithjr | 9 hours ago
They won’t.
But honestly, trump has bombed Iran a lot more than Obama
cheekytikiroom | 8 hours ago
True, because Obama never bombed Iran. And relied on digital warfare, sanctions, covert ops, and diplomacy to manage the nuclear threat.
The hard truth: it will be impossible to keep away 80+ year-old nuclear bomb technology from every country who wants one.
Also, “deals” with countries in the Middle East, and with Trump, are not exactly iron-clad. Comical to consider a “deal” will have lasting effect.
BotherResponsible378 | 8 hours ago
No, they will be thrilled.
Remember, Obama was black.
ballmermurland | 8 hours ago
Worse, he was an educated black man.
drawkbox | 6 hours ago
Wild thing was is Obama is only half black, they couldn't even handle that... It should have brought people together but even that was too much for them.
MC_Fap_Commander | 8 hours ago
The end result of all this will be the Iranian regime in power in perpetuity (likely having nuclear weapons eventually) with control over global oil prices (now that they've shown the Strait can be closed).
Under Obama's deal, IRGC was restrained and there was even a nascent dissident movement that was emerging. Like... time and patience might have led to either regime collapse or more moderate replacement in leadership.
Now? LOL nope. We've signed on for Iran to be a massive problem for the global economy and global stability for a generation. Nice job!
sowhat4 | 8 hours ago
Remember, Trump bombed Iran when its dissatisfied population was in the middle of revolting against an unpopular regime. This killed the revolt and cemented the autocrats into power, setting back any hope of democracy or a secular government in that country.
Of course, maybe this is what Trump's handlers wanted? (We have always been at war with Eurasia) The billions and billions the energy sector is raking in due to the blockade is also a nice bonus.
OrangeJr36 | 9 hours ago
They will simply accept whatever reality the TV and memes tell them to accept without question, as they have been conditioned and trained to do.
Wurm42 | 8 hours ago
MAGA will get mad at whatever the conservative media bubble tells them to get mad about.
If FOX and Sinclair tell them it's a good deal, they'll accept it, even if it's objectively worse than the Obama deal was for the US.
verstehenie | 9 hours ago
Presumably they will find his incompetence relatable.
copperblood | 9 hours ago
No they won't. The MAGA zombies don't have more than 2 working brain cells.
sowhat4 | 8 hours ago
And those are both vying for third place.
Preme2 | 8 hours ago
Why would Trump supporters be upset? He’s lying remember?
Why is this any different according to Reddit?
shwarma_heaven | 8 hours ago
And was going to release 1/10th the funds...
ScoffersGonnaScoff | 8 hours ago
They will feel EXACTLY how their propaganda sources (and algorithms) tell them the should feel. Keep an eye on FoxNewsMax if you wanna know.
schtickshift | 8 hours ago
Oh bummer!!!
MaddRamm | 7 hours ago
Not really. There’s nothing wrong with letting them have their money as long as they stop using it to supply terrorists and stop working on nuclear weapons.
drawkbox | 6 hours ago
Interestingly Trump ripped up the decade long well thought out deal that was working on Moscow Victory day in 2018. Just puppet things.
Getting a deal in place via a puppet is a Kremlin dream, lots of gaps.
You can tell how good the Obama nuclear deal was by how mad they got. No gaps.
ELB2001 | 4 hours ago
And those soldiers were still alive, they didn't waste billions, didn't ruin the world economy etc
ArgentoFox | 8 hours ago
Both deals are garbage. They’re not going to abide by any agreement and they’ll arm themselves clandestinely to the teeth while gladly accepting the money. This is just subsidizing further militarization and the Iranian people will see precisely zero of it.
ThePensiveE | 8 hours ago
$20 billion will buy a whole lot of drones and missiles and it is, I must insist on mentioning, much less than the US has spent bombing Iran.
We had a deal that avoided war years ago and these morons tore it up, started a war they couldn't actually win, spent more money and munitions than we could, all to go back to a deal with the younger, healthier, longer lasting Ayatollah.
This is what happens when you elect stupid and corrupt people.
SlapThatAce | 9 hours ago
Hahahaha fucking hell! So Trump's big negotiation is to.... Get back what was already on the table. Buddy just wants out and get this fuck up as far behind him as possible.
Alarming_Head_4263 | 8 hours ago
No it'll be worse than the deal Obama made with Iran and that trump tore up. I'm guessing Iran agrees to inspections, which Obama already had in place, and in return the US gives more money to Iran, which Obama was giving less. The still in place Iran regime may even get a UN seat out of this. All of the Republicans will crow about how great it is and how only trump could do such a thing.
ExpiredPilot | 9 hours ago
So…quite literally what Obama was doing during his nuclear deal?
We were never giving money to Iran, we were letting them have access to their own money that we froze
Ranew | 8 hours ago
Step 1: Remove or gut policy that a Dem implemented.
Step 2: Say you are fixing their mistakes and getting a better deal.
Step3: Reinstate the previous policy with your name on it and do a victory lap.
This playbook is getting tired.
ExpiredPilot | 8 hours ago
Like Trump literally putting his name on projects paid for by Biden’s manufacturing policies.
ScoffersGonnaScoff | 8 hours ago
Isn’t this racketeering?
ExpiredPilot | 7 hours ago
What do you think Kushner has been doing since before day 1
Alarming_Head_4263 | 8 hours ago
No this deal will be much worse.
moshennik | 8 hours ago
i'm not sure why this mantra is repeated over and over again..
We don't know exactly what the new Iran deal is going to look like
Trump redline was no uranium enrichment, while Obama allowed enrichment to specific levels
Obama sunset a lot of restrictions in 10-15 years, while Trump redline and permanent agreement
There are many more details that have not even come out
RNdreaming | 2 hours ago
You know his track record right? You people love to sink with the ship
moshennik | 2 hours ago
who are "you people"??
You people like to make statements not grounded in facts at all. Mostly because facts at this point are not known
RNdreaming | 2 hours ago
Do you know anything about balancing a budget, or the interest rates exceeding GDP being the economic formula for a nation to swan song, insider trading, market manipulation,Israeli pedophile rings, 5 trillion tax cut for the rich when we run a 2 trillion deficit as it is.YOU PEOPLE are sycophants who support a regime that has done nothing but cannibalize/destroy our institutions for personal gain.
Like this has been occurring since the 70’s, but it’s out in the open now, and you cheer for it. It’s wild. Recession is on the docket and they’re predicting depression for 2030-2036. Remind me in 10 years.
What a fitting user name you have: a con artist, scammer, fraudster, or cheater.
devliegende | an hour ago
Trump already offered a 20 year sunset
HistoryVibesCanJive | 8 hours ago
Many thoughts on this one...
So...the Strait of Hormuz reopened today, oil dropped 10%, and Wall Street rallied (if WS learned that we could cook eggs faster it'd rally at this point).
Reality? The market is pricing a benign resolution. It is worth examining what the market is not pricing, across three time horizons, because the gap between the headline and the structural economic picture is substantial.
To be clear, let's not even assess the reality that the ceasefire runs until April 22nd. Araghchi's own words: "for the remaining period of ceasefire." The market just priced in a resolution with a five-day shelf life.
The headline "Strait is open" is doing heavy lifting in today's market action, but the physical energy infrastructure does not recover with a ceasefire announcement. Iran's Foreign Minister specified that passage is "on the coordinated route as already announced by Ports and Maritime Organisation of the Islamic Republic of Iran." That is administered transit on a route set by Tehran, not a return to pre-war freedom of navigation. Marine liability cover was withdrawn by the International Group of P&I Clubs covering 90% of global tonnage in early March. Restoring that cover requires sustained demonstrated safety, not a single day's announcement. Until the insurance market reprices, the effective cost of Hormuz transit remains elevated regardless of whether the physical passage is open.
The energy infrastructure damage is structural. Iran's strike on Ras Laffan damaged 17% of Qatar's LNG production capacity, 12.8 million tonnes per year, with repairs requiring three to five years. This doesn't just return. That capacity does not return when the ceasefire holds. European gas storage entered this crisis at 30% capacity. The IEA chief warned Thursday that Europe has roughly six weeks of jet fuel remaining. European airlines are already cancelling flights and rationing fuel at multiple airports. Urea prices are up 50% since the war began, with over 30% of globally traded fertilizer normally transiting Hormuz. The fertilizer disruption flows directly into Northern Hemisphere planting season and into food prices over the next 12 to 18 months. The CPI energy pass-through that the March 3.3% headline captured is the first wave. The food price pass-through from fertilizer disruption is the second wave, and it has not yet appeared in the data.
Now on top of this, the administration is considering unfreezing $20 billion in Iranian assets in exchange for Iran turning over its enriched uranium stockpile. At the same time, the President posted this morning that "no money will exchange hands in any way, shape, or form." So, the President is correct - unfreezing assets is not technically a payment.
It is functionally a $20 billion transfer of economic value. If the US unfreezes $20 billion after Iran closed the Strait for six weeks, absorbed 900+ strikes, and emerged with its 10-point plan as the acknowledged negotiating basis, every sanctioned entity on earth recalibrates what resistance costs versus what capitulation costs. The sanctions architecture does not collapse from a single event. It erodes when the perceived cost-benefit ratio of resistance shifts in favor of resistance. Today's sequence shifts that ratio.
The fiscal cascade is the mechanism by which the war costs compound into existing structural stress. OMB Director Vought told Congress this week he cannot provide a ballpark for the total cost. The Pentagon initially requested $200 billion, now negotiated to $80-100 billion. Harvard's Bilmes estimates the full long-term cost at $1 trillion. The FY2027 budget calls for $1.5 trillion in defense spending, a 44% increase, with a 10% nondefense cut. Trump told NATO to "STAY AWAY" from the Strait, meaning the US bears its blockade cost unilaterally. These costs arrive into a fiscal position already under strain: $9 trillion in Treasury refinancing rolling through 2025-2027, a $2 trillion annual deficit, and a foreign buyer base that has reduced its share of US debt from 42% to 30%. Each additional hundred billion in war-related issuance enters a market where the marginal buyer is increasingly a domestic dealer bank rather than a foreign sovereign, and dealer absorption capacity is constrained by balance sheet limits.
Three developments today have long-horizon economic implications the short-term rally is not incorporating. First, Iran's administered transit framework establishes the precedent that Hormuz access is permissioned rather than guaranteed. Iran's 10-point plan proposes a $2 million toll per vessel. Trump floated the principle of Hormuz tolls on April 6. Whether or not the toll is formalized, the demonstrated reality that Iran can close and open the Strait at will, and that US military action could not override that closure, permanently reprices the risk premium for Hormuz transit. That repricing flows through the cost of every barrel and every LNG cargo transiting the waterway, roughly 20% of global supply, and it is permanent because the demonstrated capability is permanent.
Second, approximately 40 nations met in Paris without the United States to design a multilateral Maritime Freedom of Navigation Initiative. The institutional design question is whether this evolves toward a toll-funded self-sustaining authority or remains a temporary defense-budget mission. Every successful multilateral chokepoint authority in modern history evolved toward user-fee funding. If this initiative follows the same pattern, the cost of Hormuz transit acquires a permanent institutional layer operating on commercial logic independent of any single country's defense budget.
Third, the petrodollar structural erosion the war has accelerated. The petrodollar system requires dollar pricing of oil, US security guarantees for Gulf shipping, and dollar recycling through Treasuries. The war has visibly degraded the second. Iran's yuan-for-passage framework during the closure demonstrated an operational alternative to dollar settlement. Deutsche Bank put "the beginnings of the petroyuan" in a client note last month. The dollar's reserve share is at a 25-year low, roughly 57% down from 71% in 1999. None of this is dollar collapse. What is happening is directional erosion that accelerates under each event that undermines the security guarantee. The economic implication over 2-5 years is that the structural premium the US enjoys on borrowing costs, trade financing, and deficit capacity begins to compress. The compression is gradual but directional, and each event like today's accelerates it.
The market dropped oil 10% and rallied equities because the headline says the crisis is resolving. The physical supply chain says otherwise for months. The sanctions architecture has been structurally weakened. The fiscal position says war costs are compounding into a refinancing wave already under strain. The institutional developments in Paris say the long-term governance of the world's most important energy chokepoint is being redesigned without the country that previously controlled it. The efficient market prices the ceasefire. It does not price the institutional replacement of the framework under which the market became efficient.
TL;DR: Oil dropped 10% and equities rallied on "Strait is open." The structural picture across three time horizons suggests the market is pricing the headline and not the mechanism. Physical energy damage does not recover with a ceasefire. The sanctions architecture is weakened. The fiscal cascade is compounding. And the chokepoint's governance is being redesigned in Paris without the US. The gap between today's pricing and the structural picture is the gap between a headline and a mechanism.
We seriously need AI to workout. Seriously.
Elegant-Fisherman555 | 8 hours ago
A pleasure to read.
Well articulated and put together.
Basically what anyone with some unbiased analysis or comprehension could conclude, he will get bored if it isn’t a quick win, try and salvage something to call a win and move on to the next thing.
Everyone thinks collapse happens immediately and suddenly ignoring the long slow run up before the inevitable momentum carries it faster and faster, in regard to the not so almighty dollar. And the next self inflicted crisis will cause another drop and another.
thepopdog | 8 hours ago
The market doesn't care, it figures there's no better place to park your money than on the hype train. Some day the bottom will drop out and the consequences of reality will kick in, but that's not today
HistoryVibesCanJive | 8 hours ago
The framing of the market doesn't care is understandable but I think it slightly misidentifies what is happening. The market is not ignoring the structural picture out of indifference. It is pricing within a framework that assumes the structural picture is stable enough to price against. Dollar dominance, Treasury liquidity, predictable energy costs, a reliable foreign buyer base for US debt, these are not things the market "cares about" or "doesn't care about." They are the architecture the market operates inside of. When the architecture is stable, the market can price risk efficiently and the hype train works because there is a floor underneath it. What today's developments are signaling, across the energy infrastructure, the sanctions credibility, the Paris summit, and the petrodollar erosion, is that the architecture itself is what is shifting. The market will continue to not care, right up until the framework it uses to define what it cares about no longer produces coherent pricing signals. That transition tends to be abrupt rather than gradual, because the market's efficiency depends on the framework, and the framework's degradation is the one thing the framework cannot efficiently price.
Oryzae | 7 hours ago
I’m sorry but gotta ask - did you use any prompts to get this detailed breakdown? The results are really good and I am curious to know the system and the environment
Mangerine_ | 5 hours ago
Your accusation is an admission, but this reads like a finance bro correctly identifying and interpreting the broad narrative. Not AI.
HistoryVibesCanJive | 4 hours ago
I wish I could use prompts. This is unfortunately just what happens when your day job requires you to be conversant in energy markets, fiscal policy, and institutional architecture simultaneously. The contours are just at the top of my head at this point. Appreciate the compliment.
I'd rather not know any of this stuff anymore tbh.
Browns45750 | 8 hours ago
So no regime change regime will actually be a whole lot stronger they can go around and say they outlast the Americans, giving them 20 billion dollars and pinkie swear no nukes for a few years. Why did thirteen service members have to make the ultimate sacrifice and us the tax payer spent billions ( I would expect the price rage to be in the 100-250 billion range) on this .
sierragirl78 | 8 hours ago
It should be mentioned that Iran's entire stockpile of uranium is worth less than $300M! That's more than a $19.7B loss. What a negotiator!
houstonyoureaproblem | 8 hours ago
I look forward to the political ads attacking Trump for giving Iran $20 billion. That’s been a common (false) theme in right-wing attack ads against Democrats since the Obama Administration.
ballmermurland | 8 hours ago
Trump could personally invite the Ayatollah to take a shit on the South Lawn and Republicans will rally behind him.
bushido216 | 8 hours ago
>President Donald Trump has repeatedly excoriated former President Barack Obama over a 2016 arrangement that involved a $400 million cash delivery[.]
There isn't enough facepalm in the whole wide world.
FreedomsPower | 7 hours ago
I remember when Obama tried to unfreeze Iranian assets as part of a nuclear deal and Republicans flipped out in response.
Sending Iran a letter saying they would eventually destroy such a deal. Something that Trump eventually did.
J4jem | 4 hours ago
So… they will do exactly what Obama proposed in a deal that Trump threw out. Only this time we spent $1 trillion dollars on a useless war that let Israel secure a bunch of Lebanese land.
Gotcha, smart.
Jdam2020 | 7 hours ago
I didn’t know the details of a future deal had been released to the public or news organizations. A few assumptions likely made when comparing the previous deal with any future deal. Would assume we would be negotiating from a much stronger position than the JCPOA…if this deal comes out worse, there will a ton of questions to answer.
OddlyFactual1512 | 4 hours ago
Why isn't anyone asking how much of this goes to Kushner, Trump, or his family?
How many words and/or characters are necessary to prevent a comment from being deleted?
politics | 8 hours ago
So, his admin may finally clean up the mess he made when he breached the nuclear proliferation agreement that was put in place by President Obama? Good, it’s about time they fixed what they broke.
makemeking706 | 7 hours ago
They seized assets, including bitcoin, and started distributing them, for example to the victims of those lawsuits they decided against Iran last year (different than the one involving Iranian bank). Are these different assets than the ones that are being discussed here?
nissin00 | 7 hours ago
“And then, very importantly, I terminated Barack Hussein Obama's Iran nuclear deal. A disaster. Obama gave them $1.7 billion in cash – green, green cash. Took it out of banks from Virginia, D.C. and Maryland. All the cash they had.”
EasternPresence | 7 hours ago
You know damn right well they’re negotiating the same thing. The Obama administration did only the terms are gonna be more favorable to Iran this time.
tacs97 | 6 hours ago
He fallout over Obamas release of funds was way bigger than this even larger release of funds by the chump admin. MAGAts need to spare the faux outrage.
Ok_Addition_356 | 6 hours ago
So... The strait was open before the worr... We tore up Obama's Iran deal, killed a bunch of kid, innocent civilians, and American military personnel, hurt the economy and spent billions in order to...
Re-implement Obama's Iran deal and reopen the strait.
On top of God knows how much corruption under the surface.
Cool cool