You will always find a report that goes in the way of the narrative you want to push. The goal of these reports is to poke holes and build scenarios. It doesn't mean it's going to happen. This article elevates a niche bottleneck into a headline risk.
- Sulfur matters but we have many substitutes, stockpiles, and alternative supply chains.
- 20% of global oil passes through it, but the US doesn't depend on it, will hurt China disproportionally more. While oil is globally priced, it has different benchmarks.
- The "6% traceability" stat likely reflects formal mapping, not actual operational ignorance.
Meanwhile MENA oil continues to flow to PRC, so it doesn't hurt PRC more. High oil prices hurt US disproportionately more for the simple reason oil is higher % of US energy mix (~40% US vs 20% for PRC), and due to refinery mismatch, US not oil independent and needs to pay spot for imports, i.e. Canadian crude. It also it hurts US productive partners more by inflating input prices, which PRC circumvents with continued cheap RU energy and more significantly coal to petchem stacks that makes PRC coal much cheaper industrial input than oil after $70/80 barrels, lower than every oil benchmark. Like huge segments of PRC industry literally just gained 20-30% and growing discount on inputs vs essentially every other industrial power that relies on crude for inputs, i.e. basically everyone else without PRC's contingency coal stack got considerably more fucked than PRC.
Until even greater disruption that meaningful takes barrels from PRC to the point of degrading mainland, i.e. after SPR runs dry, PRC suffers significantly less than US while gaining more industrial competitiveness. But, at current level of disruption, i.e. still relatively lack of, PRC wins on essentially every domain.
> "knock-on effect of this war is that it may cost double or more than double to replace all these weapons because all the mineral demand is going to go way up
It's a lazy assumption that the motivation for war is profit, but in this case ...
How much would material prices have to increase that replacement cost doubles? The main factor in weapon prices is development cost and manufacturing, not the raw materials, right?
> The main factor in weapon prices is development cost and manufacturing
Close: the main factor in weapon costs is development. The main factor in prices depends on how many are manufactured, what sort of maintenance there will be (huge business), how much profit the defense contracting corporation wants to make, etc.
For example, now that the Patriot missile is already developed, each new one made and sold for millions will have a gross profit. If you can say "material prices increased (unsaid: "by 20%, etc") so we need to double the price", and the buyer is motivated (started a war and exhausted their previous supply), and also they are already locked into your ecosystem, then that is a win for you in even more ways.
If you are money-friends with the head of the military, and they are infamous for corruption, violating laws and regulations, not caring about the cost of things they spend government money on, and gifting government favors to their money-friends, then you are golden.
It's kind of funny how the US military, the largest single consumer of fossil fuels on the planet, didn't consider that disrupting the largest source of fossil fuels would impact them.
Countries reliant on oil coming through the strait will have to find other sources, pushing prices up, unless the USA implements price and export controls on producers in its own soil that will reflect in the USA's economy which is very reliant on oil.
the closure of the strait (i.e. a toll booth by Iran) will cause massive inflation, destroy the GCC, and eventually lead to a global recession and the end of a petrodollar, which is how Iran is retaliating.
And if the US attempts a ground invasion to keep the strait open, it will be a complete disaster for the US.
yes. they export oil/LNG and import most of their food. and they invest their proceeds into the US economy/treasuries, which they're going to stop if this continues.
by some estimates, Qatar and Kuwait could experience ~14% GDP contraction this year if this goes on.
> only 6% of US defense contractors have fully transparent supply chains
The Industrial-Military complex and the constant fight against Right-to-Repair is finally biting us in the ass. It remains to be seen if we will learn anything from this disaster.
Don't know how much sulfur the DOD and industry needs, but I have personally seen the "sulfur pits" pretty full at the Valero refinery in Corpus Christi . . .
> “We don’t know who their vendors are,” he said, adding that beyond a few steps in long chains of subcontractors, “nobody actually knows who’s providing these metals, these minerals, the parts. And it just becomes a maze.”
So how can you predict the impact on the US defense industry? How can you predict it will be strangled?
What the hell is this shitty article that doesn't use a single hard number? No graphs, no prediction based on previous wars, no investigative dig into the supply chains...
It's reasonable to assume that a fuller version exists in which Morgan D. Bazilian and Macdonald Amoah lay out the background data which Lt. Col. Jahara “Franky” Matisek et al have seen.
Morgan D. Bazilian is the director of the Payne Institute for Public Policy and professor at the Colorado School of Mines, with over thirty years of experience in global energy policy and investment. A former World Bank lead energy specialist and senior diplomat at the UN, he has held roles in the Irish government and advisory positions with the World Economic Forum and the International Energy Agency. A Fulbright fellow, he has published widely on energy security and international affairs.
Macdonald Amoah is an independent researcher with interests across critical mineral supply chains, advanced manufacturing gaps, the industrial base, and geopolitical risks in the mining sector.
Lt. Col. Jahara “Franky” Matisek (PhD) is a US Air Force command pilot, nonresident research fellow at the US Naval War College, and senior fellow at the Payne Institute for Public Policy, and a visiting scholar at Northwestern University. He is the most published active duty officer currently serving, with over 150 articles on industrial base issues, strategy, and warfare.
Those are some serious qualifications and the linked article shows quite a few examples, but I would still like to be shown data instead of a appeal to authority.
Maybe I'm just used to high quality reporting on the subjects I read like Irrational analysis or Chips and cheese where a minimum of 10 graphs are needed for any deep dive.
> but I would still like to be shown data instead of a appeal to authority.
Sure .. 18 years ago you could have logged into the W.Australian mineral intelligence company Interria and seen such data - that business was sold to Standard & Poor and portaled there (and updated) for 14 years or so - recently it's no longer visible .. but such several such databases do exist .. I guess you just need the contacts and an account for access.
You can ask S&P, Rio Tinto and other majors, the Colorado School of Mines, US Military, the Chinese companies that were leaching data all those decades, ROSATOM (Russian Uranium) peers that track other minerals, etc.
I’ve seen a lot of subreddits devolve into posting political rage bait articles plastered with ads and very little substance. I hope that doesn’t happen here.
> What the hell is this shitty article that doesn't use a single hard number? No graphs, no prediction based on previous wars, no investigative dig into the supply chains...
Everyone's an expert 19 days into a conflict that was absolutely foreseen in comprehensive United States military planning. People need to have some patience.
What's clear is it the way this is being executed is a complete reboot of how prior Middle East conflicts were executed which suggests major ownership of prior problems and learnings applied
Has anyone ever claimed that wars don't involve mistakes. That wars are not hell, that wars are somehow a good phenomenon associated with the human species? But has anyone not naive argued that wars are not sometimes necessary to achieve objectives?
I genuinely wonder what point you have here other than to remind us of these fundamental human truths. And if so thank you. But I would ask you what would you be doing if you were making the policy decision?
"That wars are not hell"... yeah, must be real hell sitting thousands of kilometers away and pressing buttons on your computer while looking at the monitor and then going home at five PM. Real hell. /s
Wow, seeing tech manager talk in war context is really something. Finding new and innovative way to kill millions of civilians everyday. I suppose there are real people who do actually do this.
Comprehensive military planning made it clear that a war with Iran was a bad idea. Trump just ignored advice and listened to Bibi.
Control of the SoH and the BaM requires seizing and holding large areas of inhospitable terrain, with long supply lines and complex human terrain, in contest with an adversary armed with masses of cheap but effective drones. A contested landing to take Bandar Abbas and Qeshm will cost thousands of lives and tens of billions in assets, then you have to hold it for decades while trying to topple a neighbouring regime of religious fanatics.
> absolutely foreseen in comprehensive United States military planning
[citation needed]
I don’t doubt there was a plan written up, they have plans for all kinds of scenarios. But we have no idea what that plan says. It could well say “avoid doing this if at all possible because of the enormous downsides”. It could also say “the only resolution is a ground invasion that will result in tremendous loss of life”.
The military are not magicians, they cannot make a get out of jail free plan for any given scenario. They can assess positives and negatives and prepare a report for civilian leaders. Who may then ignore it entirely.
> Everyone's an expert 19 days into a conflict that was absolutely foreseen in comprehensive United States military planning.
Military planners foreseeing things doesn't mean much if their commander-in-chief ignores them and substitutes his own uneducated, unplanned feelings for their analysis.
> What's clear is it the way this is being executed is a complete reboot of how prior Middle East conflicts were executed which suggests major ownership of prior problems and learnings applied
The problem is that what they are doing has resulted in failure to keep the strait open. Whether they learned the wrong thing, or applied the wrong lessons, or did not learn anything at all, is an exercise left to the reader.
> Everyone's an expert 19 days into a conflict that was absolutely foreseen in comprehensive United States military planning.
Sorry, what's the implication here? That no one else could've considered this all-but-inevitable conflict (inevitable given Republican geopolitical strategy) prior to yesterday? That some people can plan for things but everyone else is a neophyte because of... reasons? I don't understand how something can be "comprehensively planned" in your words, but also no one can possibly have an expertise because the conflict is too new. Which is it?
Minesweepers require comprehensive dominance of the littoral region with total suppression of firepower from the enemy before they can be applied. We are in the suppression phase before those assets can be brought into the region
How did the plan to eliminate littoral defenses and avoid or eliminate mining, before it disrupted shipping, go?
What's that? Some of the new Littoral Combat Ships, infamous for falling apart and needing frequent repairs, have been moved from their assigned middle eastern stations to an entirely different theater for maintenance because the CiC started a war that made their middle eastern ports unsafe [2]? Oh, those were specifically ones configured for minesweeping [2]? Great planning.
Here's some reading about how the head of the entire armed forces failed to plan for this:
> Before the U.S. went to war, Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told President Trump that an American attack could prompt Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz. [0]
> but Trump’s preference of leaning on a tight circle of close advisers in his national security decision making had the effect of sidelining interagency debate over the potential economic fallout if Iran were to respond to US-Israeli strikes by closing the strait. [1]
> He told his team that Tehran would likely capitulate before closing the strait—and even if Iran tried, the U.S. military could handle it. [0]
> “Planning around preventing this exact scenario — impossible as it has long seemed — has been a bedrock principle of US national security policy for decades,” a former US official who served in Republican and Democratic administrations said. “I’m dumbfounded.” [1]
You will always find a report that goes in the way of the narrative you want to push. The goal of these reports is to poke holes and build scenarios. It doesn't mean it's going to happen. This article elevates a niche bottleneck into a headline risk.
- Sulfur matters but we have many substitutes, stockpiles, and alternative supply chains.
- 20% of global oil passes through it, but the US doesn't depend on it, will hurt China disproportionally more. While oil is globally priced, it has different benchmarks.
- The "6% traceability" stat likely reflects formal mapping, not actual operational ignorance.
Meanwhile MENA oil continues to flow to PRC, so it doesn't hurt PRC more. High oil prices hurt US disproportionately more for the simple reason oil is higher % of US energy mix (~40% US vs 20% for PRC), and due to refinery mismatch, US not oil independent and needs to pay spot for imports, i.e. Canadian crude. It also it hurts US productive partners more by inflating input prices, which PRC circumvents with continued cheap RU energy and more significantly coal to petchem stacks that makes PRC coal much cheaper industrial input than oil after $70/80 barrels, lower than every oil benchmark. Like huge segments of PRC industry literally just gained 20-30% and growing discount on inputs vs essentially every other industrial power that relies on crude for inputs, i.e. basically everyone else without PRC's contingency coal stack got considerably more fucked than PRC.
Until even greater disruption that meaningful takes barrels from PRC to the point of degrading mainland, i.e. after SPR runs dry, PRC suffers significantly less than US while gaining more industrial competitiveness. But, at current level of disruption, i.e. still relatively lack of, PRC wins on essentially every domain.
> "knock-on effect of this war is that it may cost double or more than double to replace all these weapons because all the mineral demand is going to go way up
It's a lazy assumption that the motivation for war is profit, but in this case ...
How much would material prices have to increase that replacement cost doubles? The main factor in weapon prices is development cost and manufacturing, not the raw materials, right?
> The main factor in weapon prices is development cost and manufacturing
Close: the main factor in weapon costs is development. The main factor in prices depends on how many are manufactured, what sort of maintenance there will be (huge business), how much profit the defense contracting corporation wants to make, etc.
For example, now that the Patriot missile is already developed, each new one made and sold for millions will have a gross profit. If you can say "material prices increased (unsaid: "by 20%, etc") so we need to double the price", and the buyer is motivated (started a war and exhausted their previous supply), and also they are already locked into your ecosystem, then that is a win for you in even more ways.
If you are money-friends with the head of the military, and they are infamous for corruption, violating laws and regulations, not caring about the cost of things they spend government money on, and gifting government favors to their money-friends, then you are golden.
what other assumptions sound more reasonable?
It's kind of funny how the US military, the largest single consumer of fossil fuels on the planet, didn't consider that disrupting the largest source of fossil fuels would impact them.
They of course considered it. It’s the civilians at the top that did not.
Does it consume oil flowing through the strait?
Does it matter when oil is a global commodity?
Countries reliant on oil coming through the strait will have to find other sources, pushing prices up, unless the USA implements price and export controls on producers in its own soil that will reflect in the USA's economy which is very reliant on oil.
They demoted or fired all the people in the room who would raise a concern for being gay and woke.
the closure of the strait (i.e. a toll booth by Iran) will cause massive inflation, destroy the GCC, and eventually lead to a global recession and the end of a petrodollar, which is how Iran is retaliating.
And if the US attempts a ground invasion to keep the strait open, it will be a complete disaster for the US.
GCC == Gulf Cooperation Council?
I hope it is not the gnu compiler..
yes. they export oil/LNG and import most of their food. and they invest their proceeds into the US economy/treasuries, which they're going to stop if this continues.
by some estimates, Qatar and Kuwait could experience ~14% GDP contraction this year if this goes on.
> only 6% of US defense contractors have fully transparent supply chains
The Industrial-Military complex and the constant fight against Right-to-Repair is finally biting us in the ass. It remains to be seen if we will learn anything from this disaster.
Don't know how much sulfur the DOD and industry needs, but I have personally seen the "sulfur pits" pretty full at the Valero refinery in Corpus Christi . . .
> “We don’t know who their vendors are,” he said, adding that beyond a few steps in long chains of subcontractors, “nobody actually knows who’s providing these metals, these minerals, the parts. And it just becomes a maze.”
So how can you predict the impact on the US defense industry? How can you predict it will be strangled?
What the hell is this shitty article that doesn't use a single hard number? No graphs, no prediction based on previous wars, no investigative dig into the supply chains...
It's more or less a near direct do over of the original source from Westpoint Military Academy.
The Chokepoint We Missed: Sulfur, Hormuz, and the Threats to Military Readiness https://mwi.westpoint.edu/the-chokepoint-we-missed-sulfur-ho...
It's reasonable to assume that a fuller version exists in which Morgan D. Bazilian and Macdonald Amoah lay out the background data which Lt. Col. Jahara “Franky” Matisek et al have seen.
Those are some serious qualifications and the linked article shows quite a few examples, but I would still like to be shown data instead of a appeal to authority.
Maybe I'm just used to high quality reporting on the subjects I read like Irrational analysis or Chips and cheese where a minimum of 10 graphs are needed for any deep dive.
> but I would still like to be shown data instead of a appeal to authority.
Sure .. 18 years ago you could have logged into the W.Australian mineral intelligence company Interria and seen such data - that business was sold to Standard & Poor and portaled there (and updated) for 14 years or so - recently it's no longer visible .. but such several such databases do exist .. I guess you just need the contacts and an account for access.
You can ask S&P, Rio Tinto and other majors, the Colorado School of Mines, US Military, the Chinese companies that were leaching data all those decades, ROSATOM (Russian Uranium) peers that track other minerals, etc.
I’ve seen a lot of subreddits devolve into posting political rage bait articles plastered with ads and very little substance. I hope that doesn’t happen here.
> What the hell is this shitty article that doesn't use a single hard number? No graphs, no prediction based on previous wars, no investigative dig into the supply chains...
That's The Guardian for you, sir.
Everyone's an expert 19 days into a conflict that was absolutely foreseen in comprehensive United States military planning. People need to have some patience.
What's clear is it the way this is being executed is a complete reboot of how prior Middle East conflicts were executed which suggests major ownership of prior problems and learnings applied
Yes, especially murdering a school full of girls during the first days seems like a perfect example of extensive planning and preparation.
It should be investigated as a war crime.
Has anyone ever claimed that wars don't involve mistakes. That wars are not hell, that wars are somehow a good phenomenon associated with the human species? But has anyone not naive argued that wars are not sometimes necessary to achieve objectives?
I genuinely wonder what point you have here other than to remind us of these fundamental human truths. And if so thank you. But I would ask you what would you be doing if you were making the policy decision?
"That wars are not hell"... yeah, must be real hell sitting thousands of kilometers away and pressing buttons on your computer while looking at the monitor and then going home at five PM. Real hell. /s
Wow, seeing tech manager talk in war context is really something. Finding new and innovative way to kill millions of civilians everyday. I suppose there are real people who do actually do this.
Comprehensive military planning made it clear that a war with Iran was a bad idea. Trump just ignored advice and listened to Bibi.
Control of the SoH and the BaM requires seizing and holding large areas of inhospitable terrain, with long supply lines and complex human terrain, in contest with an adversary armed with masses of cheap but effective drones. A contested landing to take Bandar Abbas and Qeshm will cost thousands of lives and tens of billions in assets, then you have to hold it for decades while trying to topple a neighbouring regime of religious fanatics.
> absolutely foreseen in comprehensive United States military planning
[citation needed]
I don’t doubt there was a plan written up, they have plans for all kinds of scenarios. But we have no idea what that plan says. It could well say “avoid doing this if at all possible because of the enormous downsides”. It could also say “the only resolution is a ground invasion that will result in tremendous loss of life”.
The military are not magicians, they cannot make a get out of jail free plan for any given scenario. They can assess positives and negatives and prepare a report for civilian leaders. Who may then ignore it entirely.
I think the take away is that if the administration is inept with duplo blocks, they are not going to fare will with lego blocks.
> Everyone's an expert 19 days into a conflict that was absolutely foreseen in comprehensive United States military planning.
Military planners foreseeing things doesn't mean much if their commander-in-chief ignores them and substitutes his own uneducated, unplanned feelings for their analysis.
> What's clear is it the way this is being executed is a complete reboot of how prior Middle East conflicts were executed which suggests major ownership of prior problems and learnings applied
The problem is that what they are doing has resulted in failure to keep the strait open. Whether they learned the wrong thing, or applied the wrong lessons, or did not learn anything at all, is an exercise left to the reader.
> Everyone's an expert 19 days into a conflict that was absolutely foreseen in comprehensive United States military planning.
Sorry, what's the implication here? That no one else could've considered this all-but-inevitable conflict (inevitable given Republican geopolitical strategy) prior to yesterday? That some people can plan for things but everyone else is a neophyte because of... reasons? I don't understand how something can be "comprehensively planned" in your words, but also no one can possibly have an expertise because the conflict is too new. Which is it?
You dropped an /s
Tell us more about US minesweepers and the comprehensive United States military planning.
What, no minesweepers in the region? Need help from other allies that have been insulted and told they're not needed for five (non consecutive) years?
Great planning.
Minesweepers require comprehensive dominance of the littoral region with total suppression of firepower from the enemy before they can be applied. We are in the suppression phase before those assets can be brought into the region
How did the plan to eliminate littoral defenses and avoid or eliminate mining, before it disrupted shipping, go?
What's that? Some of the new Littoral Combat Ships, infamous for falling apart and needing frequent repairs, have been moved from their assigned middle eastern stations to an entirely different theater for maintenance because the CiC started a war that made their middle eastern ports unsafe [2]? Oh, those were specifically ones configured for minesweeping [2]? Great planning.
Here's some reading about how the head of the entire armed forces failed to plan for this:
> Before the U.S. went to war, Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told President Trump that an American attack could prompt Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz. [0]
> but Trump’s preference of leaning on a tight circle of close advisers in his national security decision making had the effect of sidelining interagency debate over the potential economic fallout if Iran were to respond to US-Israeli strikes by closing the strait. [1]
> He told his team that Tehran would likely capitulate before closing the strait—and even if Iran tried, the U.S. military could handle it. [0]
> “Planning around preventing this exact scenario — impossible as it has long seemed — has been a bedrock principle of US national security policy for decades,” a former US official who served in Republican and Democratic administrations said. “I’m dumbfounded.” [1]
0 – https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/iran-oil-horm...
1 – https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/12/politics/hormuz-trump-adminis...
2 – https://www.twz.com/sea/u-s-navy-minesweepers-assigned-to-mi...