DiabloWags said:

---

Haloski said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Haloski said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

We were war gaming the Iranians closing the straight of hormuz as lieutenants back in 2010.

You would be hard pressed to find a single officer in the entire US military that hasn't had a few conversations about this obvious tactic on the part of the Iranians.

It is the fakest… https://t.co/BWshFhU0JB

— 🐺 (@LeighWolf) March 13, 2026

---

I'm not saying that they didn't see it as a possibility (and neither is the piece that this guy's tweet is responding to), but "this can't be true" in response to the premise because of something they did when our current quarterback was 3 years old seems a bit stupid.

---

They have had contingencies for this for years, it's foolish to think that they only talked about it once 16 years ago

---

Agreed, but then again… nobody's saying that except for you. As usual, the truth is somewhere in between. Here's to them having a plan that addresses this in short order.

---

Make no mistake, this claim by the Administration and its supporters is yet another example of a straw man argument


CNN never said the Administration didn't PLAN for the Strait being closed. They said that the Administration UNDERESTIMATED that possibility.

Its shocking how bad the reading comprehension is of Pete Hegseth, Caroline Leavitt, and the typical Trumper.

---

CNN's Zachary Cohen said,

"Top Trump officials acknowledged to lawmakers during recent classified briefings that they did not plan for the possibility of Iran closing the strait in response to strikes, per 3 sources."

It's shocking how bad the reading comprehension is of DiabloWags. He is too busy insulting folks to actually read.

Sad, really.

The Dumbest President in my Lifetime.

And because IRAN is now controlling the narrative, Trump's hands were forced to release oil out of our SPR.
Something he didn't originally want to do.

Funny how Pete Hegseth keeps on saying that IRAN is desperate.
Sure sounds like the Trump Administration is getting desperate.

If this SPR "release" doesn't work, there are no other alternatives.
This is a one-shot deal that is only a drop in the bucket compared to what goes thru the Strait of Hormuz on a daily basis.



'

DiabloWags said:

---

The Dumbest President in my Lifetime.

And because IRAN is now controlling the narrative, Trump's hands were forced to release oil out of our SPR.
Something he didn't originally want to do.

Funny how Pete Hegseth keeps on saying that IRAN is desperate.
Sure sounds like the Trump Administration is getting desperate.

If this SPR "release" doesn't work, there are no other alternatives.
This is a one-shot deal that is only a drop in the bucket compared to what goes thru the Strait of Hormuz on a daily basis.



'

---

If you are going to reply to me, at least start with,

"Sorry Oski003, I was completely wrong here. You and others are correct about what CNN said. I deeply apologize for being so wrong and also for insulting posters I disagree with. I shouldn't call people stupid when I, myself, need to work on my reading comprehension. "

Thanks.

Better hope the Houthis don't shut down the Red Sea.
At Bab el Mandeb.

DiabloWags said:

---

Mark Montgomery, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a retired US Navy Rear Admiral, estimated that it could take 3 - 4 weeks from the start of Iran's retaliatory attacks on March 1st to reduce the risk of transiting the Strait to manageable levels.

"If the escort operations begin prematurely and American ships get hit, the political and operational cost of restarting is dramatically higher," Montgomery warned.

---

The earliest we can reduce risk to a safe level is 5 days from now. Got it.

DiabloWags said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Mark Montgomery, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a retired US Navy Rear Admiral, estimated that it could take 3 - 4 weeks from the start of Iran's retaliatory attacks on March 1st to reduce the risk of transiting the Strait to manageable levels.

"If the escort operations begin prematurely and American ships get hit, the political and operational cost of restarting is dramatically higher," Montgomery warned.

---

The earliest we can reduce risk to a safe level is 5 days from now. Got it.

---

Do you have any idea how many days the USS Tripoli and the USS Abraham Lincoln are from arriving to the theater?

That would have a lot to do with your estimate of 5 days awayfrom reducing risk to a safe level, would it not?

Trump's Energy Secretary says our military may not be able to focus on the task until the end of the month.

I look forward to your further insight.

---

I definitely have an idea. Thanks for asking! The USS Lincoln has been there for a while. The Tripoli will arrive, at the earliest, five days from now.

DiabloWags said:

---

Are you no longer advocating that ships be encouraged to move thru the Strait, in order to provide further insight?

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/126407/replies/2668821

And that it's best to wait 5 days before it becomes safe for passage?

Thanks.

---

I was never advocating that ships be encouraged to move thru the Strait, in order to provide further insight. Thanks for asking.

Reading portions of this thread, I'm struck by how many people are hoping that Trump's gambit fails. Even if you oppose Trump or have criticisms/concerns about the current military action, that shouldn't distract from the main point. We should all want to ensure that Iran does not get nukes and/or can't use ballistic weapons as a means to get nukes. We should all want our country to succeed, which means that Iran is completely defeated and oil deliveries resume.

Yet the tone here seems to be entirely focused on Trump. Not surprising for this board and very revealing. Also very sad.

David Boies (of all people) wrote about this "Trump is doing the right thing for the U.S., and we Democrats should judge the war on the merits."

" Every past president since Bill Clinton, Republican and Democrat alike, has declared that Iran couldn't be permitted to develop nuclear weapons. Not one acted to prevent it. Every president since Ronald Reagan has condemned Iran's role in terrorism against American citizens, interests and allies. Not one acted to stop it. Instead each president left his successor with a more dangerous Iran and a more complicated threat to address.

....

If we believe that Iran presents a serious threat, we need to support the president on this issue. There's plenty to disagree with him about, and we don't need to like or admire him. But on Iran we should be on common ground. Not primarily because we want to reduce partisanship in foreign affairsalthough that is conceivable. Not because the voters will reward us for a more measured responsealthough I hope they will. But because it is the right thing to do for our country, our children and the Democrat who will succeed Mr. Trump as president."

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/partisanship-on-iran-is-dangerous-for-america-c8b69387?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqdIRRQpZqCuc4jOpvQ5omvvgqE_jXHJeP3JeKgZG2kr8u1QUTk3kuqNTBLX0oM%3D&gaa_ts=69b71586&gaa_sig=y2rU-XxOCp9vbM1uC11z0DYuzrvuQ0KA2h1YVCLwIZOfXtPF9udVJ6qoVz9HbQ61BYnSjcJTNrPueJRurxU8Qg%3D%3D

The other remarkable part of the thread is how our liberal friends are suddenly very, very VERY concerned about gas prices. Many posts showing gas over $5 in California . . . of all places. The same people and/or the politicians they have supported have done everything possible to raise gas prices while subsidizing renewables. Before the current crisis, gas in California was $1.50-3.00+ more than most other parts of the country and that remains the case. Obama/Biden/California regulated the crap out of fossil fuels and California taxes them to the point that the state of CA makes far more on a gallon of gas than oil companies. Refineries are leaving CA. All of this was totally acceptable pre-Trump. Yet here you are decrying the temporary surge in gas prices, as if that temporary surge is more damaging that California's taxation and regulatory policy. True TDS.

DiabloWags said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Are you no longer advocating that ships be encouraged to move thru the Strait, in order to provide further insight?

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/126407/replies/2668821

And that it's best to wait 5 days before it becomes safe for passage?

Thanks.

---

I was never advocating that ships be encouraged to move thru the Strait, in order to provide further insight. Thanks for asking.

---

Then what were you specifically referring to . . . that could provide more insight?

---

???

Cal88 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

The United States can maintain gas prices under 4 dollars based strictly on Canadian and US reserves and refining

As a net exporter of petroleum products and crude oil, the U.S. overall makes more revenue when fossil fuel prices rise

The strategic reserve is about 58% full. This is up from historic lows of around 350 million barrels in 2022-2023 after major drawdowns

Careful who you listen to. Money is made by selling panic.

---

Yes, so no complaining allowed from American gasoline consumers. The American oil companies stand to get rich so everybody else needs to keep their mouth shut. Trump and the American oil companies are willing to accept your sacrifices.

---

Nothing makes more sense than making money off of the backs and lives of sacrificial Marines

and taking investment advice from someone who admittedly passes of the investment stuff to their partner and who's contribution to the Economy board is constituted primarily of memes from rando kool aid sunshine pumpers. That said, the WSJ has a lengthy article on those companies in the US that will benefit from this. One such sector is fertilizers that flow thru the strait. May signal more handouts for farmers. Oh, but the WSJ is "MMM" and off limits, forgot. Me, personally, I wouldn't stoop to such a base level.

---

And of course, as BearlySane88 claimed, "The United States can maintain gas prices under 4 dollars based strictly on Canadian and US reserves and refining." . . . because we all know that:

OIL COMPANIES WOULD NEVER PRICE GOUGE AND RIP OFF THE U.S. CONSUMER.

THEY WOULD NEVER DO THAT.

---

Haven't you heard Wags?? Short term pain for long term gain! That's the ticket.

"Short term pain for long term gain"

The Middle East wars cost $8–21 trillion, nearly a million lives, exploded the national debt, permanently expanded military spending & gas prices still went up.

What exactly was the long-term gain? pic.twitter.com/wYfAnJqhJK

— Jason Bassler (@JasonBassler1) March 10, 2026

BS88 will be cycling to work this Spring...

---

Already do. Great for the body and mind

DiabloWags said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Are you no longer advocating that ships be encouraged to move thru the Strait, in order to provide further insight?

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/126407/replies/2668821

And that it's best to wait 5 days before it becomes safe for passage?

Thanks.

---

I was never advocating that ships be encouraged to move thru the Strait, in order to provide further insight. Thanks for asking.

---

Then what were you specifically referring to . . . that could provide more insight?

---

???

---

Your post here.
Which I previously referenced in my post above.

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/126407/replies/2668823


"If our goal is to secure the Strait, this should give us more insight into how it should be done."

---

Oh yeah, if our goal is to secure the straight, having some ships go through would certainly give us further insight into how to secure it better. Thanks for the quote. I wish you'd realize that I didn't say what your biased, TDS mind thinks I said.

They are hypocrites and their minds work only on Trump hate. It has become an addiction or compulsion for them

What I find truly remarkable about your post is how easily you are able to succumb to turning this into a nice, neat, little box of partisan politics and Democrats vs Republicans, even using the TDS card.

For some puzzling reason, you conveniently ignore the FACT that Trump ran his election campaign primarily on an American First! doctrine and being the peace president with No New Wars.

I would imagine that there are a large number of those 77 million voters that voted for Trump in 2024 and believed his campaign promises . . . particularly America First! and No New Wars.

I would also imagine that many of them feel betrayed now.
But instead of mentioning this, you do nothing more than default to Dems vs Republicans.

Shocker.

DiabloWags said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Are you no longer advocating that ships be encouraged to move thru the Strait, in order to provide further insight?

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/126407/replies/2668821

And that it's best to wait 5 days before it becomes safe for passage?

Thanks.

---

I was never advocating that ships be encouraged to move thru the Strait, in order to provide further insight. Thanks for asking.

---

Then what were you specifically referring to . . . that could provide more insight?

---

???

---

Your post here.
Which I previously referenced in my post above.

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/126407/replies/2668823


"If our goal is to secure the Strait, this should give us more insight into how it should be done."

---

Oh yeah, if our goal is to secure the straight, having some ships go through would certainly give us further insight into how to secure it better. Thanks for the quote. I wish you'd realize that I didn't say what your biased, TDS mind thinks I said.

---

So the Strait of Hormuz is nowhere near secure or safe, no matter what Trump says about how it is in "great shape".
Clearly if it was safe, there would be movement in the Strait and insurance rates would not have gone up 6x.

And we have no idea how many mines are in the Strait.

But you thought that it wasn't a bad thing to encourage ships to go through.
Got it.

Probably not the smartest thing to advocate.
Doesn't sound like you've been paying attention to what's been happening there.

"Not sure encouraging the tankers is a bad thing." - - - oski003

---

I wasn't advocating anything. I was merely questioning your hate fueled black and white criticism and suggesting a reason why we might encourage ships to brave it. That is all. You can get back on your rocker.

oski003 said:

---

I wasn't advocating anything. I was merely questioning your hate fueled black and white criticism and suggesting a reason why we might encourage ships to brave it. That is all. You can get back on your rocker.

---

That's some amazing backpedaling.

DiabloWags said:

---

What I find truly remarkable about your post is how easily you are able to succumb to turning this into a nice, neat, little box of partisan politics and Democrats vs Republicans, even using the TDS card.

For some puzzling reason, you conveniently ignore the FACT that Trump ran his election campaign primarily on an American First! doctrine and being the peace president with No New Wars.

I would imagine that there are a large number of those 77 million voters that voted for Trump in 2024 and believed his campaign promises . . . particularly America First! and No New Wars.

I would also imagine that many of them feel betrayed now.
But instead of mentioning this, you do nothing more than default to Dems vs Republicans.

Shocker.

---

Furthermore, we use diplomacy because it is better than the alternatives. Which is why watching Trump make America less safe since he abandoned Obama's negotiations and continue on with this forever war of choice with unclear stated goals and even more unclear realistic goals is already past tedious.

BREAKING: President Trump plans to announce that multiple countries have agreed to form a coalition that will escort ships through the Strait of Hormuz, per WSJ.

1 hour until futures open.

— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) March 15, 2026

DiabloWags said:

---

oski003 said:

---

I wasn't advocating anything. I was merely questioning your hate fueled black and white criticism and suggesting a reason why we might encourage ships to brave it. That is all. You can get back on your rocker.

---

That's some amazing backpedaling.

---

There was no backpedaling. He clearly stated his points over and over. It's not our fault you have an agenda and can't think critically about what some says

Less safe how exactly? Illegal border crossings are down, murders are down.. sounds a lot safer to me

BearlySane88 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

oski003 said:

---

I wasn't advocating anything. I was merely questioning your hate fueled black and white criticism and suggesting a reason why we might encourage ships to brave it. That is all. You can get back on your rocker.

---

That's some amazing backpedaling.

---

There was no backpedaling. He clearly stated his points over and over. It's not our fault you have an agenda and can't think critically about what some says

---

Bingo. That is why I suggest elementary reading comprehension classes. It would do wonders.

BearlySane88 said:

---

Less safe how exactly? Illegal border crossings are down, murders are down.. sounds a lot safer to me

---

Nice goalpost shift. Dajo was clearly talking about diplomacy vs starting foreign wars.

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Less safe how exactly? Illegal border crossings are down, murders are down.. sounds a lot safer to me

---

Nice goalpost shift. Dajo was clearly talking about diplomacy vs starting foreign wars.

---

He made a broad statement about America being less safe. I asked how. Even in relation to diplomacy, how is America less safe?

democrats do nothing but hate everything Trump related, it's an easy and true connection to make

you weren't one of the 77 million Trump voters so stop assuming you know what they think and feel. nobody is surprised that Trump attacked Iran. he's been talking about it since the '80s