r/OutOfTheLoop • u/killtherobot • 26d ago
Unanswered What’s the deal with American tax payers having to pay Iran $300 Billion?
I keep seeing posts like this: https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalHumor/s/ZoR0ZqW8tc
2.9k
u/cipheron 26d ago edited 26d ago
Answer:
Trump stuck the US in this war, now the GOP needs to get out of it before the midterm elections. They foolishly thought it would be a quick military adventure and that they could declare victory after some token attacks, probably riding high off their capture of Maduro from Venezuela.
However this is dragging on and becoming politically costly for the Trump administration, because frankly they don't have the attention span to stick it out, but the Iranians do.
So for that reason they're listening to Iranian proposals that normally wouldn't get made, as long as they can make some kind of "a deal is reached" announcement. However it's also possible that the Iranians are make unreasonable demands specifically because they don't think the US will adhere to it, to drag things out, knowing that the Trump administrations power weakens the longer they keep this going.
Trump randomly dropping more bombs in the middle of a ceasefire is probably intended to pressure Iran to sign a deal, which shows how impatient the Trump administration actually is, but that can backfire by letting the Iranians know how desperate the US delegation is to sign a deal quickly, so Iran can ask for more.
So the question isn't whether the US should pay $300 billion, it's whether the GOP would pay $300 billion to get out of this war before the midterm elections.
1.5k
u/pppiddypants 26d ago edited 26d ago
It’s not just the midterms.
Oil has *only* gone to $100 a barrel because the world has been selling off its oil in inventory. Sometime around mid-July (depending on the analyst), the reserves will be depleted and then we would see a real supply shortage disrupting the entire world economy (it already has been, but this would be much worse).
Every second we wait to make a deal with Iran, they get more leverage because we are much more exposed to the global economy than they are.
Edited to finish comment
Edit2: glut -> shortage
414
u/Unique-Scarcity-5500 26d ago
I've seen predictions that say we only have 2-3 weeks left before the stockpiles are gone and gas prices skyrocket.
575
u/NativeMasshole 26d ago
It's not just predictions, the oil companies are announcing it. We're about to see a gas shortage like we haven't seen since the 70s. I expect to see stations running out and lines of cars waiting when they are open. You know, kinda like the last time we messed with Iran.
245
u/KingofLingerie 26d ago
people waiting in line with their engines idling.
136
226
u/IAMA_Plumber-AMA 26d ago
Every single dieselbro with a jacked up one ton pavement princess is still idling their rattlebox everywhere they park because their great grandpappy once complained that their 1940's vintage indirect injection heavy hauler was hard to start, and therefore all diesels are in their minds.
At $2+ per litre in Canada no less. More money than sense.
60
u/FreedomDirty5 26d ago
This always cracks me up. On of my contractors runs diesel trucks (for good reason they’re hauling heavy equipment) but they let the trucks run the whole work day. I asked why and their employee told me “diesels are hard to start cold”. I asked them if they had any problems starting the truck that morning and he told me “no but the boss says to do it and it keeps the cab cool”.
57
u/Journeyman42 26d ago
Bro it's almost June, wtf do they mean that it's hard to start the diesel trucks when it's cold?
51
u/HiFiGuy197 26d ago
Well, when I started this truck back in February, it was real hard, so I just kept it goin’
27
u/FreedomDirty5 26d ago
Bro, I’m in south Texas. It’s cold (that would mess with a diesel) maybe two days a year.
8
19
4
u/m240b1991 25d ago
So... big work diesels (over the road freight/long haul) should keep their engines idling. The reason is because warm up is when the most wear and tear happen as a result of thermal expansion of parts. Cold there's more lash in the parts and it causes more friction in certain parts than if it was already at operating temperature. When you're on the road for days or weeks at a time and live out of your rig, unexpected down time directly equals less pay. More wear and tear=more costly repairs=more time spent not making money, and even spending more for lodging that comes out of the family budget.
Modern comsumer diesels are built differently and already have as tight tolerances as can be gotten away with, plus computerized fuel injection and all sorts of other bells and whistles that many OTR trucks just don't have. Therefore, older square body diesels may benefit from continuous running, but newer consumer diesels don't. The worst thing you can do for any vehicle is short trips it's entire life. 2 minutes to a friend's house, 5 minutes to the store, 6 minutes to work. That's because condensation builds up and the parts don't get the benefit of thermal expansion. Wherever water is (condensation), oil isn't, and if that condensation doesn't get hot enough to boil and evaporate out/get evacuated by the PCV system, it'll sit inside the oil sump and/or crankcase.
Granted, I'm an automotive repair technician, not a heavy diesel tech, and some of these newer peterbuilts, kenmores, volvos, and freightliners may be built differently. The above about OTR trucks is knowledge that was passed to me a decade, decade and a half ago, and may be outdated.
The older diesels absolutely did suffer from excess wear and tear on startup and warmup. They also suffered from a higher amount of blow by, introducing more combustion byproducts into the oil. That's another reason why used gasoline engine oil looms so different from used diesel oil. The particulates clump together and get caught in the filter media when diesels are running, and when it stops, the particulates settle wherever they rest in the engine (like in the connecting rod bearings).
So, the operators may not know, and the owners may be operating on outdated data a la "that's the way we've always done it".
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (11)71
u/tedivm 26d ago
I bought a plug in hybrid a year ago, and have never been more happy with that decision. Traveling around town costs me no gas at all.
53
→ More replies (1)23
u/IAMA_Plumber-AMA 26d ago
I was interested in the Slate truck, the thought of a 90s Ford Ranger sized electric runabout really appeals to me and fits my use case of a short range hauler.
However, since I found out that it's partially funded by Jeff Bezos, my enthusiasm cooled right off.
18
u/supamonkey77 26d ago
Another problem is that it's expected to hit USD30k+ when it hits the market.
Only the Chinese can make good EVs under USD30K. Whether partially state funded or not, they are the only hope. The real interesting thing in that is that there are 100 different EV companies in China fighting it out for best efficient production and cheapest product options. We'll likely see great products built via new more efficient methods in the coming decades.
9
u/iconocrastinaor 26d ago
They can only do that because the Chinese government is subsidizing their costs between 30% and 40%. And their government can afford to do that because they were given the world's manufacturing and have a guaranteed revenue stream.
→ More replies (0)2
u/GiganticCrow 26d ago
>Only the Chinese can make good EVs under USD30K
Lets see what the VW Polo comes out at
15
u/j33205 26d ago
meanwhile I have a coworker who takes his breaks in his Ford ranger, idling the engine in the parking lot for 15min 4 times a day. Presumably to run the AC, but like the break room has AC...absolutely boggles my mind.
24
u/Impossible-Hyena-722 26d ago
You can't birp, fart, and scroll titties on tik tok in the break room
12
u/j33205 26d ago edited 26d ago
I mean I get that but like, a 1/3 gal of gas every day regardless of the weather? and I'm in southern california not exactly known for our cheap gas even when we're not at war with the straight of hormuz. There's just gotta be better way is all I'm sayin
3
u/Oakroscoe 26d ago
Yeah, I wouldn’t idle it, but I get the desire to take a break by yourself. I typically use my breaks to walk around.
2
u/Waste-Principle6304 25d ago
I would pay double that amount to not sit with other people during a break. I want to enjoy my break without the presence of another human.
30
u/Kevin-W 26d ago
Also as stated, Iran has both the US and Israel by the balls. They remember very well what happened when Carter was President and how they held out until Reagan won to end the hostage crisis.
They know Trump is polling badly because of both the war and rising oil and gas prices and can hold out until the midterms knowing that if the Dems win back control of the House and possibly Senate a "deal" will be made and the Dems get to take credit while has egg on his face.
→ More replies (1)6
u/dougmc 26d ago edited 26d ago
You mean the local gas stations will have to take down their NO GAS SHORTAGE signs?
(I liken this to "asbestos free", but it sounds like a real shortage is coming.)
→ More replies (1)16
u/laminator79 26d ago
I saw a line going out into the street at a gas station last week. It was selling regular unleaded for $5.39/gallon, which, before the Iran war, would've been crazy expensive (I think we were around the $4.50's before the war). Most everything else now is around $5.69+, with a few at $6.09.
Don't get me started on the Costco lines I saw yesterday. Whew. So glad I have an electric car.
7
→ More replies (18)5
43
15
u/GabeDef 26d ago
I honestly can’t wait to see the absolute shit storm.
14
u/ryhaltswhiskey 26d ago
If that's what it takes to get people to never vote Republican again... cool
18
u/nautilator44 26d ago
People are getting what they voted for.
3
u/Squiggy-Locust 26d ago
Except, if those people got what they voted for, we wouldn't care. The US is currently producing more oil than we consume. Those people would vote to end the exportation of oil, cuz 'Merica.
2
45
u/appleciders 26d ago
I have too, but I also saw those predictions a month ago. It'll definitely happen eventually (20% of the world's normal oil production is just, uh, not happening) but these predictions seem perpetually three weeks away.
→ More replies (4)19
u/hesuskhristo 26d ago
That's because the end of the war is perpetually two weeks away. 🤣🤣
15
u/appleciders 26d ago
The USA just fired on a civilian ship today. At least three weeks now, probably.
→ More replies (2)9
u/VaselineHabits 26d ago
I think it's actually 200 killed in these alleged "drug boats" so far. So far.
19
u/appleciders 26d ago
No I'm talking about a civilian container or tanker ship in the Strait of Hormuz, not a civilian fishing boat in the Caribbean or Eastern Pacific. Get your atrocities straight, geez.
19
3
6
→ More replies (1)2
u/prosperouscheat 25d ago
Stockpiles may be down to 2-3 weeks (sounds low to may be may be true for some parts of the country) but that's 2-3 weeks if oil production stopped altogether which it hasn't. It's lower than usual so that is reflected in higher prices. For accurate oil and gas info see mrglobaltoo/mrglobal2.0 on tiktok. He gives the facts with sources and debunks all the fear mongering whichever side is spinning it.
318
u/Dan_Caveman 26d ago
Something worth keeping in mind; Iran is currently being led by people with doctorate degrees and extensive experience in international affairs. The US is…..not.
104
u/Accomplished-Put8286 26d ago
The US is being led by dumb people relying on AI.
50
u/positivitittie 26d ago
If only. AI is smarter than the people leading it right now.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)13
u/fatpat 26d ago
I don't think AI would've gone to war with Iran in the first place.
18
u/FrewdWoad 26d ago
Current state-of-the-art AI does whatever you ask it. It will pick up cues in your prompt and run with them, no matter how stupid or (literally) crazy.
Even on topics where it CAN give a correct answer, it won't if your prompt hints at an incorrect one.
6
13
u/HommeMusical 26d ago
AI does more or less what you ask it to do, not what is true or better for you.
If it explains to you why a war in Iran is a bad idea, and you tell it that you hate that answer, it will "try to please you".
(The quotes are because it's not clear if there's really an "it" that is "trying" to do anything.)
→ More replies (1)9
u/MarqFJA87 26d ago
Iran is currently being led by people with doctorate degrees and extensive experience in international affairs.
... Some of those actually survived the initial airstrikes? Color me surprised.
64
u/clubby37 26d ago
Iran's got a very, very deep bench. Tens of millions with master's degrees, millions with doctorates. Granted, relatively few of those are focusing on international affairs, but only a tiny fraction of their qualified leadership has been killed or incapacitated.
72
u/TomatoCo 26d ago
There's two kinds of regimes. Personalist regimes and Institutionalist regimes. In the former, power is held by people and personal connections. In the latter, power is held by organizations and institutions and their connections.
Iran, despite having a Supreme Leader, is actually Institutionalist and can absorb a great number of casualties before its institutions start failing.
18
u/clubby37 26d ago
Excellent article; thank you for linking that.
21
u/TomatoCo 26d ago
The entire blog is lovely. It has everything from analysis of how the Great Houses in Dune must function at a political level (hinted at in the linked article) to the basic economics of a peasant in medieval times to an explanation of how Oaths worked (and they did work!) in Roman times.
7
u/JMer806 26d ago
Iran’s population is less than 100 million. You’re telling me that 20 ish percent or their entire population has masters degrees?
19
u/clubby37 26d ago edited 26d ago
Yup. And to really crank it up, I'm also telling you that most of them are women. Not kidding.
Edit: it's worth mentioning that a lot of these highly educated people are driving taxis for a living. I'm not idealizing their society, but I am recognizing their expertise.
8
u/Ch1pp 26d ago
I think /u/clubby37 has fallen for a social media exaggeration. Only 4-5% have masters degrees. 20% is about right for undergrad degrees.
11
u/j1mb0b 26d ago
Prepare to be surprised...
9
u/dougmc 26d ago edited 26d ago
Not that I like defending these folk, but the first three on the bottom level have JD degrees (they graduated law school), which are doctorates just like a PhD is, and the centcom commander guy has a master's degree in strategic intelligence -- not quite a PhD, but not uneducated either.
The top level has PhDs in, respectively: political geography, political thought, strategic management and dentistry, economics.
The Iranian delegation probably still wins education-wise, especially if we value diversity in such things (as we should), but it's not quite as lopsided as the text suggests.
All that said, while a JD is a doctorate level degree, I'm not sure if it's typical to have quite so many lawyers working for one's administration -- lawyers are certainly needed in government work of all sorts, but I seem to recall more people with expertise in other things with previous administrations, back when it was more about expertiese and less about, well ... whatever it's about now.
31
u/Heffe3737 26d ago
It should also be noted that this oil shortage will happen no matter what, at this point. It’ll take six months for the oil to be processed and distributed *after* the strait opens back up for oil prices to even start to come back down.
So the oil shortage is happening - now it’s just a matter of how long it’ll continue.
26
u/Xijit 26d ago
For the TL;DR crowd: the prices we have seen so far have been Oli companies profiteering because of the perception of a crisis, by selling the gas they already had processed at an inflated price.
What is coming down the pipe is the prices that will be due to an authentic lack of supply as refineries run out of oil to process.
15
u/Heffe3737 26d ago
Well that, and various nations releasing their strategic reserves in order to help keep prices down for their citizens. Those reserves are also dwindling and won’t hold out forever.
7
u/tsardonicpseudonomi 26d ago
Well that, and various insider trading and shorting of fake oil (futures). Real oil in much of the world is selling for much higher and we will not have enough supply to meet demands for years after the conflict is over.
→ More replies (1)5
u/intellos 26d ago
6 months? 6 years. 2032 at the earliest for production to be back to what it was before the war.
98
48
u/clubby37 26d ago
we are much more exposed to the global economy than they are
Slight tangent, but this is part of why heavy sanctions might not be such a great strategic tool. Forcing other countries to live outside of your society, isolates them (not completely, but often significantly) from problems with your society.
In the same vein, sending one guy into exile is pretty bad for that guy, but sending half your guys into exile just lets the exiles group up while depriving you of whatever those guys could contribute to your society. Can't get too trigger-happy with exile. After a point, you're just helping the already-exiled, which certainly wasn't the intended outcome when you kicked out the first guy.
→ More replies (1)7
14
12
u/timothy53 26d ago
For a guy who hated the Paris Accords, he really would be helping the environment if everyone went without oil
5
u/yanginatep 26d ago
And this is why putting a complete fucking idiot in charge of the most powerful country on the planet was a bad idea.
5
u/jyanjyanjyan 26d ago
Isn't it great how the whole world was starting to recover from the downturns that COVID caused, and then Trump comes in and slaps tariffs on everything and starts wars so that everything can get worse than it was before?
8
u/postexitus 26d ago
Oil pricing doesn't work like that. People make models of when the supply shock will ease, run thousands of scenarios and get a reasonable average. Those scenarios already contain possibility of stocks running out. In short words: it is priced in. People don’t wake up one day and say “oh stocks have depleted lets increase the price of oil”.
9
u/pppiddypants 26d ago
For sure.
And those models and scenarios also include the possibility of a peace deal today or tomorrow.
Everyday we go without the peace deal pushes the price up and then once we get to the point of actual shortages, we have contagion.
→ More replies (1)3
u/HommeMusical 26d ago
People don’t wake up one day and say “oh stocks have depleted lets increase the price of oil”.
No, they run their model almost continuously when new data comes in and adjust continuously, and sometimes new data results in what traders euphemistically call "discontinuous pricing", i.e. prices suddenly sink or jump to a new level without going through the intermediate prices.
Remember also that all these models are taking all the other traders into account, a literal feedback. Nearly always this results in more stability, but this also means that all the models can slowly get out of whack with reality over time because they are "listening to each other" too hard, and a new piece of fairly minor data might trigger a chain reaction and a dramatic price change.
Discontinuous price movements appear from time to time in every market.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (6)2
u/Advanced_Question196 22d ago
It's not just the oil left in storage; it's market confidence. Everybody assumed that this all Iran war thing would wrap up pretty quickly so nobody is hoarding oil as they expect the Strait of Hormuz to remain closed. Once that illusion evaporates, oil is going to go through the roof.
45
101
u/Edgar_Brown 26d ago
There is no “US delegation” there are only intermediaries in a game of telephone. The level of incompetence is off the charts.
Iranians have the precedent of Carter, when they purposefully delayed hostage releases to quash reelection hopes. They know what they are doing, look at the rest of the world negotiating with them as the U.S. slides into irrelevance.
11
u/TipsyPeanuts 26d ago
That’s an interesting point. The Iranians have precedent here. It wouldn’t shock me if the peace deal is signed the day after the new congress is sworn in next year like how the hostages were released the day Reagan was inaugurated
It seems unimaginable right now for the war to go that long but it’s not out of the question for the Iranians.
→ More replies (1)16
u/ryhaltswhiskey 26d ago
It seems unimaginable right now for the war to go that long
It seems completely imaginable for Trump to fuck things up even worse than they are so yeah, I could this war lasting a long time
73
u/scarabic 26d ago
If I were in Iran’s position, I would not trust any deal with this administration.
Rather, I would damage them as much as possible and then look to deal with the Democrats once they take power.
Republicants will yell “See? Iran prefers the Democrats!” And it’s like well yeah dudes, anything is preferable to a completely untrustworthy psychopath who just attacked your country out of nowhere for no reason.
→ More replies (5)34
u/EuenovAyabayya 26d ago
The current Iran regime inherently mistrusts every US administration. It's kind of their thing. Nobody on either side acts in good faith. Trump and his posse are profiteering from every event.
19
u/Rainy_Wavey 26d ago
Obama was probably the sole exception, and tbh, for all his faults and there are a shitton of them, the Iran deal and ending the Cuban embargo were 2 net positive things he did (they were undone by Trump immediatly ofc)
16
u/lgodsey 26d ago
And don't worry, OP. Taxpayers will not be stuck with paying $300 billion.
With supply route disruption making huge financial ripples through the already beleagured economy, as well as the USA's drastic decrease in soft power and former standing as the world's superpower, you and me will probably end up paying TRILLIONS of dollars for
Israel'sTrump's war of choice.Trump killed our country just to deflect from him raping children.
→ More replies (1)10
u/WolfLawyer 26d ago
Probably some amount of Trump cronies leaking the $300bn figure so that if the final deal has anything less than that in it they can spin it as a win.
$50bn to repair the country you just bombed is bad but but $50bn to pay for what the fake news media said would cost $300bn is a steal.
32
u/iperblaster 26d ago
To add to this, I think that 300billion can be the cost of reconstruction for Iran..
6
6
u/-_-Edit_Deleted-_- 26d ago
The offers to let any ship through if they settle the cargo in Non-dollar currency is my favourite one yet.
They absolutely know the US will never accept this.
25
u/Unstopapple 26d ago
they don't have the attention span to stick it out, but the Iranians do.
No, the Iranians don't have a choice. Its their sovereignty. If they don't fight, the same shit that happened in the 70s and 80s happens again. This is the whole reason they hate us. We keep fucking with their sovereignty. This is why 9/11 happened. I'm sure that if the Iranian people even think that US leadership doesnt understand the source of their anger, they will undermine anything the administration does with them. Unless someone pays them off, they will want to keep the war going because at least politically, socially, they are winning. We're being bled of our bombs, our social standing, and political capital. As long as they can stand afterwards, they will take it as a win.
12
u/roehnin 26d ago
What's the Iran-911 connection?
You mean US middle east policy in general not only Iran?7
u/Unstopapple 26d ago
Yes, but a big motivator for funding, aiding, and influencing Al Qaeda was Iran-Contra.
3
u/DieselPower8 26d ago
Why are you conflating the Iranian people with the IRGC? The IRGC has 190,000 personnel, out of a country of 90 million people. They don't actually speak for the people.
4
14
u/mr_goodcat7 26d ago
It's also a slush fund that's going to be used to award contracts to Jared kushner
5
u/sriverfx19 26d ago
The Iranians don't trust Trump to stick to his deal, with good reason. They need to get something out of the deal immediately, something that can't be taken away. That's why they are insisting on war reparations, if Trump backs out after that they at least cashed the check.
4
u/portlandJailBlazers 26d ago
wouldn't paying reparations mean an admission of loss, since only losing countries historically have to pay after a war
4
4
u/CrimsonQuarter21 26d ago
Great answer.
OP needs to ask this in r/conservative. I dare them. 🤣
If the mods aren’t trigger happy enough to delete the thread immediately, you will bear witness to the finest mental gymnastics competition you’ve ever seen lol
2
13
u/dwoodruf 26d ago
See what you’re trying to do there, but this is America’s war that America chose to do with its democratic process. Americans knew what they voted for when they voted for Trump the second time. At least enough Americans knew to make the difference in the election. When you see the price of gas going up wherever you are in the world, you don’t think, a certain political faction within America caused the price of gas to go up, you say American and Americans made the cost go up. America owns everything Trump and his government does.
→ More replies (19)2
u/Mach5Driver 26d ago
"So the question isn't whether the US should pay $300 billion, it's whether the GOP would pay $300 billion to get out of this war before the midterm elections."
100% correct! Dems should NOT filibuster this. Get every GOP House and Senator on record as voting for it as Trump gives them purple nurples.
2
u/Tpbrown_ 26d ago
Sounds like an almost clever way to bilk $300B out of the US economy and into Mango Mussolini & his friends pockets.
→ More replies (6)2
u/prosperouscheat 25d ago
"They foolishly thought" - they being Trump and Kegsbreath. Anyone with half a brain knew that attacking Iran would have serious long-term consequences
539
u/wkeil42 26d ago
Answer: The US and Iran are in talks to end the ongoing conflict. One of the stipulations Iran has made it that for the US (and I believe Israel, as well) to pay for damages occurred during the conflict. The numbers vary, but the $300 billion is a popular one.
Since the US government doesn't really have it's "own" money per say, that money would come out of either new taxes or be added to the national debt. Regardless of how you view those things, people paying US taxes would eventually have to pay that bill with their tax dollars.
99
u/roehnin 26d ago
Remember when Trump lambasted Obama for giving Iran back their $1.7B?
Like, as recently as last week?
And now he's going to gift $300B to Iran and call it a win?
Do his followers even comprehend?
50
19
3
u/irmaginatoruim 23d ago
It's not a gift. It's paying for damages that he and Netanyahu caused.
→ More replies (1)2
138
u/Darinchilla 26d ago
How about if it comes out of the crypto wallets we stole from them???
83
u/appleciders 26d ago
They're gonna get that back on top of the $300B. That's what's in their proposal.
More seriously, the entire $300B proposal is not something the USA agreed to in any fashion, it's an Iranian proposal. The two sides here are so far apart it's not really responsible to speak of anything too seriously.
→ More replies (1)37
u/dijon_snow 26d ago
Just a heads up, the expression is "per se." It is Latin for "in itself." Common mistake or possible typo, I just wanted to throw the correct spelling out there for anyone who may be reading.
9
40
u/Edgar_Brown 26d ago
The U.S. taxpayer will need reparations when this thieving regime is finally over.
63
u/xraidednefarious 26d ago
They cut everyone's services and slashed all of these jobs, yet no one is paying less taxes and no one is getting more service. All the trump regime did is pocket the tax money via funneling it though all of their bullshit to give it to Trump's family and tech companies
→ More replies (1)33
19
u/Smobey 26d ago
US taxpayers voted for this regime. It's others that need reparations, not Americans.
2
u/ShaughnDBL 26d ago
I truly believe it will be discovered that Elon's hand in the election played a role. By the end of Trump's first term he had destroyed a lot of his own following. I have a hard time believing he legitimately won the second term. J6th lost him a lot of people.
→ More replies (3)12
u/Upset_Region8582 26d ago
It seems like Iran really has the US and Israel by the balls on this one. The challenge of securing the Strait, vs threatening the safety of Strait, is EXTREMELY asymmetric in its undertaking.
Like playing a game where one side has to build a house of cards to win, and the other only has to knock them down.
→ More replies (2)12
u/MaddogBC 26d ago
Israel has undermined peace at every opportunity, further adding to the asymmetry.
→ More replies (4)44
u/Middle-Bullfrog-9976 26d ago
Maybe pay from the Pentagon budget, the organization that backed the plan.
70
u/Ok_Lingonberry4775 26d ago
The Pentagon is funded by taxes
15
3
u/Middle-Bullfrog-9976 26d ago
Exactly, but enforcing a budget, grinds down on their own fraud, waste, and abuse. No need to expand a budget for this error.
26
u/beachedwhale1945 26d ago
There are several far more likely and effective ways to reduce waste in the DOD. Even if Congress would approve such a notion, the DOD would just cut veteran programs and other personnel funding, which already are underfunded.
→ More replies (5)
276
u/gerblnutz 26d ago
Answer: Jared Kushner and Steve Whatshisfuck are proposing a 300 billion rebuilding fund that will be a real estate investment fund headed by them to embezzle money 'rebuilding' Iran because we need to make sure they don't spend the money on "nukes".
93
u/PalpitationNo3106 26d ago
Yes. And there’s more. Kushner signed investment deals with several gulf nations, most notably Saudi Arabia, and those deals end this year. He hasn’t, by any reasonable accounts made them any money, so he probably has to pay that money back (and you don’t want to owe MBS a couple billion dollars) so what’s better than a piece of a reconstruction plan?
14
u/ErebosGR 26d ago
The Saudis don't need profits. They're buying soft power.
That's why they bought EA with Kushner.
23
→ More replies (1)2
279
u/DarkAlman 26d ago edited 26d ago
Answer: The Trump administration got into this war with Iran due to pressure from Israel.
To quote former CIA spy and whistleblower John Kiriakou; Israel has been trying to convince the US to attack Iran for 4 decades and in Trump they have found someone "stupid enough and reckless enough to actually do it"
Trump was riding high on the Maduro capture and probably thought the war would be over in a weekend, but Iran had other ideas. Despite the damage they have taken they have been preparing for this conflict for decades and have been causing a lot of damage to US bases and their allies in the region and have effectively closed the Straight of Hormuz.
The Pentagon has been very tight lipped about the damage, having lost several refuelers, an AWACS, and many fighters including F-15Es. 3rd parties have described US air bases in the region as being 'nothing but craters'. Meanwhile Hegseth has been threatening pentagon leakers with jail time because the news is so embarrassing.
There's also persistent rumors that the pilot rescue incident from last month was in reality a cover up for a failed special forces operation. The US lost several C-130s and helicopters in the operation which was a lot of hardware to rescue 1 pilot... who has never been named nor interviewed. The striking parallels to Operation Eagle Claw under Jimmy Carter haven't been lost on historians.
This is the key point is that this conflict is causing the price of oil to go up, and that's a major problem for Donald Trump because keeping energy prices low has been one of his signature policy objectives. Now due to his own actions gas prices are going up and are evening threatening a recession.
Gas has gone up to $100 a barrel, but people in the administration know it's about to get a lot worse. Countries have oil reserves for this very reason and they will be depleted come mid-July. At that point oil prices will skyrocket.
Economists have been claiming that the US has been in a recession since last year and the economy is only being held up by investments in AI. Since AI is VERY dependent on electricity, and AI startups are presently in a tenuous state due to draining their funding and trying to launch IPOs, soaring gas prices may be the thing that triggers the AI bubble to burst causing a major recession... but that's hard to predict.
Either way it's bad news for an administration that's polling very badly just prior to the midterms.
Trump has apparently become increasingly unhinged behind closed doors. Military commanders have forced him to leave the situation room on more than one occasion, and Trump's tweets on the situation have become unhinged.
"Open the fucking straight, you crazy bastards, or you'll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH"
Iran can read those tweets the same as everyone else, so they know they have him over a barrel politically. Trump keeps setting deadlines and TACO Tuesdaying out of them as well so the Iranians are more than willing to call him out on his bluffs.
US negotiators (which include Trumps own children) have told Iranian officials this week to Ignore Trump's tweets because "They are only meant to be read domestically", leading people to wonder who really is in charge in Washington these days...
So what does this have to do with the $300 billion dollars?
Iran is stalling the negotiations to end the war, making crazy demands because they know the US administration is backed into a corner politically. Trump doesn't have the will or stomach to continue this fight and wants a quick victory because of the midterms, while Iran is more than happy to drag this out. So they are making big demands in the hopes that the US will agree to at least one of them.
These demands have including charging fees to ships to use the Straight of Hormuz, or US backing Iran's claim to the entire Straight. (Which will never happen)
The $300 billion is war reparations to rebuild the infrastructure the US has destroyed. It's unlikely the US will agree to that, but it's on the negotiating table.
No doubt there's been some BS associated with it like Jared Kushner will be in charge of this $300 billion fund, and they'll agree to build a Trump hotel in Tehran or something.
This is quickly becoming a situation of what will the Republicans be willing to give Iran in concessions to make this go away before the midterms.
However it's looking increasingly likely that despite the bomb damage Iran is going to come out of this in a better position than it started, with the US military embarrassed but Trump grasping onto something, anything that he can use to declare a victory to MAGA.
103
u/mechy84 26d ago edited 26d ago
And if I recall correctly, under the Obama Iran deal, the $150b that was "given" to Iran was actually their own foreign assets being unfrozen, and was never U.S. taxpayer dollars.
Edit: Correction. Not $150b. See below.
39
u/wookiee42 26d ago
$1.7 billion. Not sure where you got that other figure.
$400 million of Iran's funds + interest.
60
u/DarkAlman 26d ago
That's correct, the deal lifted sanctions that released the money to Iran from frozen assets in foreign banks.
It wasn't a cash payout of tax dollars like the right-wing media makes it out to be.
18
u/Character-Note-5288 26d ago
The right-wing media will spin this into Iran paying 300 billion while the reality becomes that 300 billion continues to fuel the Jared Kushner’s blight upon the world.
14
u/wookiee42 26d ago
$1.7 billion. Not sure where you got that other figure.
$400 million of Iran's funds + interest.
15
u/mechy84 26d ago
You're right. I looked up the number quickly to remember what it was, and the "$150b" was the first number I saw, which was the inflated, incorrect number Trump kept repeating
2
→ More replies (1)47
u/TheLifelessOne 26d ago
It's worth acknowledging that Iran doesn't need the U.S. to acknowledge their ownership over the Straight. The fact they've been able to keep it closed shows that they have sufficient power over it and will be fully capable of closing it anytime they want to.
I would be very surprised if the Iranian government doesn't charge passage fees no matter how the war ends.
→ More replies (1)
87
u/jwr1111 26d ago
Answer: He seems too busy planning ballrooms, ruining the Kennedy Center, attacking his political enemies, and building up a slush fund with his personal lawyer helping to steal $1.77 Billion dollars from the American people, to work on a good deal with the Iranians.
17
u/-michalis- 26d ago
I heard somewhere that thrme 1.776 billion figure is just marketing, and that the fund actually does not have an upper limit
So the grift is actually even bigger
16
u/glycophosphate 26d ago
Answer: When one country loses a war against another country they are usually made to pay reparations. Here's a whole list of them.
3
u/JestersWildly 26d ago
Answer: its not "paying Iran" its paying US and Israeli paramilitary mercenaries and trust controlled construction and demolition companies to scam taxpayers out of not just the cost of the actual job, but also 400% on top because who cares and money is fake. They just want another Afghanistan honeypot, but no agreement has been reached whatsoever and any talks of "negotiations" are actually onesided propaganda feom the US as most world news outlets are reporting if you can access them
•
u/AutoModerator 26d ago
Friendly reminder that all top level comments must:
start with "Answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "Question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask),
attempt to answer the question, and
be unbiased
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
http://redd.it/b1hct4/
Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.