There is definitely war risk insurance. Sal Merconliano over at Whats Going on with Shipping has talked about this several times. It can be cancelled with 7 days notice, and maybe re-issued at a much higher premium. I remember him saying something about the cost of the insurance going from $50,000 for a large tanker to $500,000! Many ships are loaded, but stuck inside the strait.
sabotage
noun
- The deliberate destruction of property or obstruction of normal operations, as by civilians, enemy agents or combatants in a time of war.
- The deliberate attempt to damage, destroy, or hinder a cause or activity.
All Warring factions will use sabotage against each other to destroy the infrastructure of the ‘enemy side’; it’s part of the art of war.
Once again we see that the chronic interdependence that everyone assumed would run forever smoothly is not a sober long term policy. We all need to be more self-sufficient in key areas. But will anyone change their policies as a result? I doubt that will happen. The decision makers won’t have suffered enough.
“The US is not as independent as people seem to think.”
True, but the USA is more resilient than most and started ramping up a year ago.
“It also does not have the industrial capacity to back up global conflicts.”
Not true in many areas. It is true that inventory of certain weapons is depleting, not exhausted, there is an ongoing effort to ramp up production of those critical weapons.
That said, the USA cannot sustain an engagement using $1M weapons to take out $50K weapons. Other solutions are in the works that may offset that. We shall see.
“Your time is up…hence the convulsions.”
Nope. Time is not up. And the convulsions are due to emotional, knee jerk reactions in the stock market and futures market more than anything else.
Yes, yes. Thank you for the info, Eeyore. We’ll ponder that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVuPehcxfn8&t=44s
Your theme song: Always Look on the Dark Side of Life.
Spirit animal:
The average US citizen may pay slightly higher prices but most of the IRGC can’t pay anything 🙂
In some books, it is Israel.
In other perspectives, it is Ukraine due to battlefield experience and innovations.
Russia likes to think it is, but with their battlefield “successes” it would be a difficult exercise to prove that.
China has a very large, but mostly untested military. How good is their equipment?
Iran is waging global warfare through its “proxies.” It would be ill-advised to not include them as a candidate.
The UK has nukes, aircraft carriers, and overseas bases and territories. They’re part of NATO and have fifth-generation aircraft. I’m not saying that they’re second, or necessarily even close, but there are so many ways to measure total military strength. Is it spending? Technology? Sheer numbers? Geographic reach? Alliances? Number of nukes, spacecraft etc.?
Your conclusion on industrial capacity to back up global conflicts is as misinformed as I have ever seen. I spent 12+ years in the defense manufacturing industry and can tell you there is no concern with manufacturing capacity.
ITAR rules require everything that will find its way into a U.S. weapons system (down to the nuts and bolts) to be manufactured in the U.S. A few exceptions would include very close allies (Australia as an example) that purchase the weapons systems themselves.
I have heard the concerns about “running out of intercept missiles”. Silly. Purchase orders would have gone out months before this started. Expedite fees would refocus the plants attention. And, because only 25-30% of any tier two aerospace manufacturer is military, lead-times can easily be compressed.
Whoever is leading you to draw this conclusion has no respect for you because they are leading you astray.
Russia’s oil production peaked in 2018 at 11 mbd.
Russia’s crude oil production in February 2026 is 9,184 mbd.
Russia’s oil consumption in February 2026 is 3.9 mbd.
China’s import of Russian oil in February 2026 is 2.09 mbd.
India’s import of Russian oil in February 2026 is 1.2 mbd.
Iran’s crude oil production in February 2026 is 3.6 mbd.
The US can’t even support the poor in their own country.
U.S. [..] moral stance.
Morals have left the US when they voted for trump again. Or on J6. Either way there are none left.
The only (and reasonable) thing to happen is that countries will speed up their renewable and EV ecosystems – and then the oil warmongers can make like a russian warship and go f*ck themselves.
Reality is it is not playing out that way and you can tell that or no-one would care about the strait being closed.
Around 90 ships a day are now passing thru the strait because even Iran needs the money and even Al Jazeera is reporting it
https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2026/3/18/iran-allowing-more-ships-through-strait-of-hormuz-data-shows
It’s not the 130 per day that would normally transit but as the IRGC continues to get weakened it will only go up from there.
The so called dem party is basically a criminal organization that seeks power and money, Joke Biden belongs in prison. Harris is a moron. Millions of illegal aliens were allowed to break into the USA for the purpose of voting for the dems and being paid welfare in return. I would not want a dem as dog catcher. Trump is the best Prez since Washington.
The slobber is making it hard for you to type intelligently. Not that you have ever typed anything intelligent.
It was a local politician who pointed out that after a certain group of immigrants moved into a certain city, dogs started disappearing wholesale, he never said anything regarding what might be happening to said canines.
What form of reality were you getting your news feed does. The media covering for Trump and attacking Harris? Not in the country did anything like that happen.
EVs SUCK!!!
Loooooooooong refueling time
Loooooooonger refueling time in Winter (sub zero temperatures)
Pooooooooooor range when towing
Pooooooooorer range in winter (sub zero temperatures)
Extreeeeeeeeme wear on tires (4 times faster than ICVs from fuel tank weight)
Significantly Heavier than ICV equivalent (1100# fuel tank (battery pack))
impossible to extinguish, if immolating, with a simple fire extinguisher
(and can spontaneously reignite days later after the fire is out)
At least 20% higher initial price than ICV equivalent.
EV Fuel tank capacity decreases over time where ICV fuel tank capacity remains unchanged.
A few years back, I-95 in Virginia was closed for 26 hours due to snow.
Given the cold, an EV battery would be drained to power the battery heater.
You can not carry electricity in a jerry can.
26 hours in the cold, battery depleted, and no one can get to you.
Had those thousands been EVs, the casualty list would have been massive.
A couple of winters ago, in Chicago, it was too cold to charge EV batteries.
All of those car owners had to pay towing charges and thousands of bucks to get their batteries replaced.
I witnessed the same effect in the Calif. desert when the mercury was pushing 105°F+; an 18-wheeler carrying a huge lithium battery along Interstate 15 overturned and the battery caught fire. They closed the freeway and huge traffic jams developed on both I-15 and I-40. The Teslas and kin slowly became high-tech bricks as the people unfortunate enough to be using them inched along going nowhere, using the battery to keep the interior habitable.
Morals were defined centuries ago on stone tablets.
“Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” is pretty good advice too.
Maybe some day you will exit the political bubble that defines your being and you can have a spiritual existence too. “Be thy brothers keeper” is not a governmental directive.or duty. Until you realize that, lecturing others on what morals constitute is a waste of everyone’s time.
The bottom 20% in the U.S. purchase MORE than the 50% tier in most European countries except the UK and Germany, which can get to the 60 percentile tier (currency change held constant). The truly poor (roughly 3%) have plenty available to them if they choose to have it. Obviously, Donald Trump lives rent free in your head.
We are more generous than the media leads the rest of the world to believe. When catastrophe strikes we step in and help those devastated. Americans donated more to those devastated by the tsunami in Thailand years ago than most others. That’s what we do. Probably because we have had plenty of devastation ourselves. Hurricanes, forests fires, tornadoes, floods, earthquakes…all in a space that takes up 2% of the earths surface.
I can’t tell you how many went to Reliant Stadium in the aftermath of Katrina to help those that fled NOLA for Houston.
Sadly, those in government are trying to get younger generations to look to them first. And these next generations are nipping at the lure. It never works out well that way.
The poor in the US live better than do the upper middle class in most the rest of the world.
The biggest health problems US poor have, can all be traced to eating too much, not too little.
Funny how socialists actually believe that being moral means agreeing with whatever nonsense the party is pushing this week.
Morals left the US when the Biden Admin allowed kids to have their hormones depressed without parental consent.
Morals left the US when the Biden Admin allowed Trans Crossdressers to have access to impressionable children in schools.
Morals left the US when the Biden Admin allowed books about oral and anal $ex into school libraries where 3rd graders could access them.
Morals left the US when Black Lives Matter but Unborn Baby Lives don’t.
Morals left the US when the Democrats decided it’s OK to treat different classes of people … Differently.
You are watching, in real time, how a decade of climate-themed hostility to fossil fuels has hollowed out resilience.
You are watching in real time the US trying to establish control over the remaining oil resources by force. First Venezuela with the most oil reserves, now Iran with the third most.
As an added bonus, focus has shifted away from the Epstein files.
I did not realize we were at war with Saudi or Canada or any of the other oil producers
If you dont know the difference between Venezuela and Iran compared to Canada and Saudi Arabia, then you must truly live in a bubble.
nor have I seen any reports US invaded and took over the oil wells, etc.
Such is life in your world. Maybe you dont know about the reasons because you dont look and nobody tells you. Here is a piece on Venezuela’s oil for example.
You continue to exercise you Constitutional right
Fortunately WUWT allows all points of view. So I’m allowed to say it and people can agree or not and its up to them. If they’re not sure, they can do their own reasearch.
But there are a lot of angry people here who really have no clue and vote based on the poster rather than the post or the facts.
just watched/read transcript of that Venezuelan oil piece you linked. It appears that things are still in flux but hopeul as far as the people interviewed. But the thing that caught my attention was in the video description: Venezuela used to be one of the richest countries in the world, but decades of mismanagement damaged its oil industry and left most of the population living in poverty.
I completely agree, there has been so much corruption there that its devastated the country and broken the people. But Trump didn’t do it for the people, he did it to establish stability (both actual and economic) to the oil supply.
The West benefits but the question of whether its right to initiate war against a sovereign nation is far from clear cut because collateral damage happens and innocent people die at the hand of the West.
If the oil supply is stabilized in Venezuela, then it seems likely the people will benefit, much like it was before.
There was no war in Venezuela. Of course one can redefine any word any way one pleases.
“Innocent people die at the hand of the West.”
30,000 Iranian protestors were executed by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard and other security forces. Seems like that problem is not exclusive to the West. How many thousands of people are dead at the hands of Iran proxies? Russia? The list goes on and on.
Just a FYI, Iran committed an act of war against the USA in 1979. Care to guess what that was? Hint: Embassy.
There was no war in Venezuela. Of course one can redefine any word any way one pleases.
Lets ask ChatGPT for its opinion. This was the question with no preamble and asked as a new chat.
Was the US intervention in Venezuela a war on Venezuela?
And here is the answer
Short answer: it depends on what you mean by “war.” Most analysts would not formally call it a war, but many would say it looks like one in practice.
1. What actually happenedIn early 2026, the United States carried out a military operation inside Venezuela, including:
- Air and naval strikes and special forces activity
- The capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his removal to the U.S.
- Dozens of Venezuelan personnel killed in the operation
The U.S. also conducted earlier strikes on vessels and targets linked to alleged drug trafficking as part of a broader campaign.
2. Why the U.S. said it was not a warThe U.S. government explicitly framed the action as:
- A “law-enforcement” or counter-narcotics operation, not a war
- Based on criminal indictments against Maduro (e.g., “narco-terrorism”)
Also:
- No formal declaration of war was made
- The Venezuelan state itself was not fully occupied or replaced
3. Why many people do call it a war (or something very close)Critics—including governments, legal experts, and commentators—argue it meets the reality of war, because:
- It involved armed force on another country’s territory
- It caused combat deaths and destruction
- It was widely condemned as a violation of sovereignty or even a “crime of aggression”
- Some described it as the first direct U.S. military attack on a South American country in modern times
4. How to think about itThere are three common ways people categorize it:
- U.S. official view:
- → Not a war; a targeted enforcement/military operation
- Legal/international relations view:
- → Likely an unlawful use of force (possibly an “act of aggression”)
- Everyday/common-language view:
- → A limited or undeclared war, because it used military force against another state
Bottom line
- Formally: No, it wasn’t declared or universally recognized as a war.
- Substantively: It had many characteristics of war, so many observers describe it that way.
“Of course one can redefine any word any way one pleases.”
ChatGPT does not form an opinion. It searches the internet and responds based on the preponderance of the evidence. Media headlines are included. Talking head statements are included. It has no capability of independently validating what it puts out.
You use it at your own risk.
War, as I used it was in the Constitutional sense. It was not a war.
“You are watching in real time the US trying to establish control over the remaining oil resources by force.”
Seems Canada and Saudi Arabia are included in the “remaining oil resources” category.
Your interpretation of Venezuela is based on misconstrued media reports. No point. You do not wish to discuss, nor do you think about what you say.
“vote based on the poster rather than the post”
That is true. But in most cases it is because the poster is a flame warrior who is only trying to inflate his ego by inciting people to argue off topic.
Nice snippet of what I actually posted. Changes the context, which is likely your intent.
Seems Canada and Saudi Arabia are included in the “remaining oil resources” category.
You dont understand the point of the argument. Neither Canada or Saudi Arabi are hostile to the West so they dont need to be controlled.
Your interpretation of Venezuela is based on misconstrued media reports.
Which interpretation is that? Is it the one where the media report directly shows Trump in one of his interviews claiming the US would be sending in the oil companies?
“the US trying to establish control over the remaining oil resources by force”
You ignore your statement I was addressing. Therefore I can conclude that you don’t understand the point you were trying to make.
The Venezuela raid lasted under 2 1/2 hours. The oil companies are allowed to return to reclaim what was stolen from them.
There are more than one perspective to this, but yours is an absolute with no attempt to understand any of the nuances. Nor are you willing to accept that there are nuances.
Lefty? Here you go, Leon. An education of sorts.
Ad hominem (Latin for ‘to the person’), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself.
I dont want disruption to the oil supplies any more than you but I also recognise that reality is that people who dont like the West control much of what’s left and so taking control of it by force is dubious at best.
This is just plan silly. Incredibly misinformed. It’s actually embarrassing.
There is nothing in the Epstein files around Trump. Absolutely nothing. Dershowitz, Epstein’s lawyer, said, after Epstein died so lawyer-client privilege ended, that there was no one of importance in any of these files. Bill Clinton two weeks ago, under oath, said Trump had nothing to do with Epstein. The Biden Administration had the files for 4-years and did not release them. If there was something implicating Trump they would have put it out there creating the biggest “October Surprise” in history, securing a Democrat victory. Put the Epstein files aside. It’s a big nothing burger.
Venezuela had little to do about oil, and more to do with stopping the drug trade through Venezuela, and enriching Maduro. It was no different than Noriega and Panama in the 1980s. Any oil connection was an attempt to flood the market with cheap barrels so that India would stop buying Russian. Biden Administration indicted Maduro on drug charges and offered a $25M prize to the person who brought him to the U.S.
Iran was about nukes. The last 7 presidents (including the first Trump term) made the point, ad nauseam, that Iran cannot have a nuke. Well, Term 2 did something about it.
Iran produces 1 mmb/d. 1% of global consumption. And that oil does not come here. Canada is our largest importer and Mexico next. Nigeria after that.
You should see someone about your adoration for Trump because he clearly lives rent free in your head.
Oil reserves is not the same as oil production.
It is about the nuclear capabilities Iran is developing.
It is about the delivery systems Iran had and is developing.
It is about the Iranian global proxy wars
It is about 30,000+ Iranian protesters massacred merely for speaking up.
You just keep on living in your fantasy world. It will not be long before reality bites you in the ____.
Oil reserves is not the same as oil production.
No, and that’s why the US wants to control the oil in venezuela by sending in its very efficient and effective oil companies. To increase production to offset the reductions in production elsewhere in the world.
The Iranian families of the bombed girls school are seeing reality biting them in the arse. You and I? Not so much.
I agree that on balance the change might be good overall. But we’re not paying the price for it.
While it is likely the US oil companies will manage the oil in Venezuela, that is not the same as the US government controlling it. Nuance. Get it? Any development of Venezuelan oil will not be a near term offset for other disruptions. Reality. Get it?
I do not know enough of the school to resolve the issue other than Iran build a miliary target close to it. The school was hit, but it was not targeted.
We do agree on one point. Bad things happen when bombs drop. However, you totally ignore Iran deliberately targeting civilians in their “response” and using cluster bombs on civilians.
You also fail to mention the 30,000 Iranian civilians who were killed by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard for trying to lift up their voices. There were no US bombs or cruise missiles involved.
I note you sidestepped any discussion of nuclear/atomic/radiological weapons and delivery systems. Best you did stand back from that.
The demonstration of a multi-stage, solid fuel, hypersonic ballistic missile with a maneuverable hypersonic payload should make you quiver in your shoes.
Iran is making advances in space launch systems. A space launch vehicle is the twin sister of an ICBM. That should make you quiver in your shoes.
Iran has 440 kg of 60% enriched uranium and another 120 kg of 20% enriched, both of which are well beyond what is needed for power generating reactors (3% to 5% enrichment). There have been a few reports of a quantity of 80% enriched uranium as well, but verification of that is difficult. The quantity reported is sufficient for 11 warheads.
The ability to enrich to weapons grade from 60% is, if not days as reported, mere weeks. None the less, put the 20% in a high explosive warhead and it is a radiological weapon and that can happen in hours.
I have reached the point where further discussion in a public forum is prohibited;. I know what you do not know and you will just have to live in ignorance.
There are also internal US difficulties regarding supply of natural gas. New York State has steadfastly refused to allow a gas pipeline from Pennsylvania and points south and west to deliver gas to New England states. This leaves the northeast states in some difficult especially since all three US-built LNG carriers, built in the 1970’s, are out of service and the Jones Act prohibits foreign built ships from engaging in US state-to-state shipping. I once understood that the Constitution gives to the Federal Government the authority to deal with interstate trade, but New York’s refusal continues nonetheless. Perhaps a trade lawyer out there could explain?
‘I once understood that the Constitution gives to the Federal Government the authority to deal with interstate trade, but New York’s refusal continues nonetheless.’
Hard to get a ruling without a complaint. Have any of the states comprising ‘New England’ ever come forward to sue New York for refusing to allow the building of gas pipelines from PA (or anywhere else) to New England? Seems to me they’re all in cahoots against fossil fuels.
Barring building a canal from the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman (not a bad option to bypass the strait) another option would be to build a pipeline from a port in Ras Al-Khaimah and pump the oil to a port in Dibba Al-Fujairah then pump the oil from ship to ship completely bypassing the strait. Just need to make the pipe of sufficient size to pump a Tankers worth of oil in the same time it would take the tanker to traverse the same distance through the Strait…and of sufficient quantity to allow for several tankers to transfer at the same time.
The very fact that the big investment firms and the major banks have been pulling their support for green initiatives was a major signal for more development to be started for fossil fuel projects. Yet the environmentalists resisted this even though it was obvious renewables couldn’t make up any shortfalls. Now with the Iran crisis, it’s become more obvious than ever.
One could suggest the notion that Trump embarked on his Iranian crusade for the express purpose of diving home that point.
I deal in analysis of alternatives. I do not believe what I posted is true, but merely acknowledge it is a possibility and am surprised none of our loyal trolls have brought it up.
The crisis also showcases America’s capacity to support allies and the poor.
Unfortunately, at present, America seems intent on insulting its “allies”, and creating more poor.
Long‑term LNG contracts with Asian and European partners,
America has historically demonstrated its capacity for ignoring contracts and agreements if it feels like it. Other countries are now reciprocating, Malaysia, for example, reneging on a trade deal with the US. Will others follow?
It’s an interesting world.
Insulting allies.
Trump is not a Statesman, true.
Trump is not a politician, true.
The insults are deliberate and tactical, one of many negotiating tactics.
America is not the only country with a history of ignoring contracts and agreements.
It is an interesting world. True. And it is getting curiouser and curiouser by the minute.

Hormuz Choke Point Displays ‘Green’ Vulnerabilities and US Power
by Vijay Jayaraj
In the volatile waters of the Strait of Hormuz, maritime traffic has slowed to an agonizing crawl. Roughly a fifth of global oil trade passes through this narrow passage. Nearly half of the crude headed toward Asia must cross these waters.
As the Iran war escalated, insurance firms raised premiums sharply, ship operators slowed departures, and cargo owners started holding back shipments. The result is a choke point where the world’s energy arteries suddenly look sclerotic.
You are watching, in real time, how a decade of climate-themed hostility to fossil fuels has hollowed out resilience. Governments told you that restraining domestic drilling and pipeline construction in the name of “net zero” would make the world safer. The Strait of Hormuz today tells a different story.
Western nations spent the last two decades systematically crippling their own energy independence. Driven by climate alarmism, European leaders deliberately dismantled their domestic production capabilities. Germany shuttered its nuclear plants and coal facilities under green mandates, forcing a desperate reliance on liquefied natural gas (LNG) from distant suppliers.
The U.K. abandoned abundant North Sea oil and gas reserves, leaving billions of barrels in the ground to satisfy the demands of environmental activists. In Canada, regulatory hurdles have stalled critical infrastructure, such as the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion, which aimed to transport the ouput of Alberta’s vast oil sands to global markets. These decisions, rooted in a narrative that paints hydrocarbons as villains, have eroded self-sufficiency.
By artificially suppressing domestic exploration, developed nations engineered their own dependency on volatile foreign energy imports. They traded secure, homegrown energy for extremely vulnerable supply lines stretching across hostile regions. When Russian gas volumes collapsed after 2022, many European governments scrambled to charter LNG cargoes at eye‑watering prices and sign short‑term deals with Gulf and U.S. suppliers.
That experience should have triggered a sober reassessment. Instead, policymakers doubled down on net zero pledges and treated the crisis as an excuse to accelerate “transition,” not to rebuild baseload capacity or secure diversified long‑term supply. The current Hormuz disruption is a second wake‑up call and this time their contingency plans are little to nothing.
Southeast and Northeast Asia sit at the epicenter of this shock. Nearly half of all crude destined for Asia flows through Hormuz. South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and others have built world‑leading manufacturing economies on the assumption that Gulf oil and gas will remain both available and affordable.
South Korea’s industrial heartlands – Gyeonggi‑do’s factories, Ulsan’s refineries and shipyards – run on imported coal, oil and LNG. In 2024, fossil fuels provided 79% of the primary energy consumed. Japan’s refineries too feed a dense ecosystem of automobile, electronics and chemical plants that cannot substitute the intermittent energy of wind and sunshine for steady combustion.
The financial reckoning for this green delusion is brutal and immediate. On the morning of March 4, South Korea’s market cratered 12% and triggered a circuit breaker, plunging off a cliff in a matter of minutes. South Korean shares plummeted over 10%, erasing $430 billion in value and hitting a 17-year market low amid the escalating Middle East conflict.
To withstand geopolitical shocks like the current conflict, countries need more capacity in dispatchable generation, more storage and a genuinely diversified portfolio of suppliers. That means long‑term oil and LNG contracts with producers outside the Gulf, new receiving terminals and investments in coal where appropriate.
It also means treating natural gas as a core pillar and not a “bridge” to be dismantled on schedule. None of the region’s heavy industries can function on wind and solar alone. Pretending otherwise does not cut emissions; it just raises the odds of blackouts the next time tankers stall in a war zone.
Besides, the climate crisis narrative that drove this global vulnerability is finally collapsing under its own weight. The mask is falling off. Major investment firms, global airlines and giant commercial banks are quietly letting go of their net zero agendas. The financial returns on mandatory green investments proved disastrous.
The disruption at the Strait of Hormuz has exposed how a political campaign against fossil fuels, built on exaggerated climate claims and enforced through finance and regulation, has eroded the energy security of rich and poor countries alike. When insurers cancel coverage for tankers and markets in Seoul lose hundreds of billions of dollars in hours, you are witnessing the cost of building an economy on narratives rather than physics.
The crisis also showcases America’s capacity to support allies and the poor. Long‑term LNG contracts with Asian and European partners, coupled with support for reasonable financing of oil and gas projects in developing countries, can reduce dependence on chokepoints like Hormuz and on coercive suppliers. Energy sovereignty for India, Southeast Asia and Africa aligns with U.S. strategic interests and moral stance.
Originally published in Washington Examiner on March 16, 2026.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India. He served as a research associate with the Changing Oceans Research Unit at University of British Columbia, Canada
Share this:
Like this: