I've always hesitated when hearing this argument because of the implications but increasingly it feels like this the US govt and power centers are captured by Israel. There is 0 reason to have started a war with Iran now of all times (WMD is not an imminent risk in Iran, they've been 'close' for 3-4 decades now)
Our interests in the middle east have been winding for years ever since the US achieved near energy independence via domestic production, and we can always get access to other types if oil from Canada and now Venezuela.
The only reason is because Israel and their lobby have captured the US govt. I never really bought into the cabal argument, but now there's just too much evidence stacked across too many decades. No matter who we elect in this country -- incl a President who promised to stay out of foreign wars -- the center of gravity always ties back to Israel
When an old pal of Trump, Kieran whispered into his ears, urging him to go to the Middle East- it was solely for one reason: Kieran couldn’t get a job at the Pizza shop right next to where he lives because he is mentally slow (due to his age), unlikable and generally lacks skills, so he wanted to drive up the energy prices so the other workers there who don’t live close by cannot afford to drive or take any form of transportation so the pizza shop owner will be forced to hire this really low-skilled, unlikable and slow him.
Of course for such nonsense, Trump disagreed with him so they opened fire. Then on Feb 28th, the very first casualty of the Middle East conflict appeared: Trump, shot to dead, by Kieran.
The dynamics of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, particularly regarding Iran, are deeply complex and influenced by a web of geopolitical, economic, and strategic factors. Based on the most helpful WSO content, here are some key points to consider:
U.S.-Israel Relationship: The U.S. has strong military, cultural, and political ties to Israel, which significantly influence its Middle Eastern policies. Israel views Iran as an existential threat, particularly due to concerns over nuclear capabilities and regional influence. This perspective often aligns with U.S. actions in the region, but it doesn't necessarily mean the U.S. is "captured" by Israel. Instead, it reflects a strategic partnership shaped by shared interests and mutual benefits.
Iran's Role and Alliances: Iran's alliance with Russia and its support for groups like Hezbollah complicate U.S. interests. The U.S. also perceives Iran as a destabilizing force in the region, engaging in proxy conflicts in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon. These factors contribute to the U.S.'s adversarial stance toward Iran, independent of Israeli influence.
Energy Independence and Strategic Interests: While the U.S. has achieved significant energy independence, the Middle East remains a critical region due to its vast oil reserves and geostrategic importance. The U.S. supports Saudi Arabia, despite its controversial ties to extremist ideologies, as part of a broader strategy to counterbalance Iran and maintain stability in global oil markets.
Historical Context: The U.S.'s involvement in the Middle East predates its close alliance with Israel. Factors like the Cold War, oil security, and counterterrorism have historically driven U.S. policies in the region.
While Israel's influence on U.S. policy is undeniable, attributing all actions to a single factor oversimplifies the broader geopolitical landscape. The interplay of alliances, economic interests, and regional stability concerns shapes U.S. decisions in the Middle East.
Sources: Macro Monday: The Middle East, Macro Monday: The Middle East
Well you got guys like Larry Ellison milking Anglo dominated USA teat (Pentagon Jedi contracts) as an ashkenazi jew, and then remitting proceeds to IDF in Israel. Sheldon Adelson. Redux. Bloomberg. Redux. Then there's all the Pro Israel policies by Senators. Meanwhile I have to spend money to rebend my rims on my lexus becaue San Diego has the worst roads in all of USA second to only New Jersey. so yes. id imagine. it is. Seeing. Is. reality.
You voted for a retarded bully and you got a retarded bully. Bullies start fights. Take some accountability instead of whining about Jews.
Nope, both things can be true. Trump has done a lot of excellent things, yes. But the machine is controlled by Israel and Jews too, and the machine is just too strong
Trump has bullied and gotten involved with all sorts of countries, most of which have nothing to do with Israel or Jews. Which will eventually get us involved in another expensive and wasteful quagmire, whether it's Venezuela, Cuba, Nigeria, Yemen, Greenland, Mexico the list goes on. He just happened to get unlucky with Iran.
If Trump was not the president, we would not be at war with Iran. Even the Bushes, the most neoconservative and pro Israel presidents, did not get us into wars with Iran.
So while Israel may want us to go to war with Iran, the main problem is shit leadership that will try and bomb any country that disagrees with him. You are copping out from your terrible choice of president by blaming Jews
The energy‑independence claim doesn’t line up with how the U.S. energy system actually works.
The U.S. produces a huge amount of oil, but it still brings in large volumes of crude because the type of oil coming out of domestic fields doesn’t match what most refineries are built to handle. Production and consumption don’t match in composition, and that mismatch is structural, not temporary.
A lot of U.S. refining capacity — especially on the Gulf Coast and in the Midwest — was designed around heavy, sour crude. That’s the kind of oil Canada and parts of Latin America produce. U.S. shale, by contrast, is mostly light, sweet crude. Refineries can’t simply switch feedstocks without major efficiency losses or equipment issues. The systems that process heavy crude required massive investment, and they were engineered for that specific chemistry.
This is why the U.S. exports a significant amount of its own light crude while importing heavy crude from Canada. It’s not a contradiction; it’s the only way to keep the refining system running at full capacity.
Canada’s role in this setup is enormous. Around 60% of U.S. crude imports come from there. Removing that supply would immediately raise fuel prices, reduce refinery output, and create shortages in diesel and jet fuel. There’s no quick substitute for that volume or that specific type of crude.
So no, USA is not energy independent.
If people in finance are making geopolitical arguments on the assumption that the U.S. is “basically energy independent,” it shows how far the discussion has drifted from the physical realities of the energy system. That level of misunderstanding is exactly why things feel so precarious and it's a clear answer to why we're fucked, no wonder we have clowns running this country.
I only made an account to respond because, if this isn’t just a rage post, I genuinely can’t wrap my head around the combination of confidence and how off‑base the underlying assumptions are.
Correct on the refining mismatch and the Canada point. The U.S. isn’t “independent” in a literal sense because the system is optimized around different crude types.
That said, the macro picture has changed a lot with shale. From a forex / external balance perspective, the U.S. is much better hedged than it used to be. When global oil prices rise, the value of U.S. production rises as well, which offsets a good part of the import bill. It’s not a perfect hedge, but it’s very different from the old pure importer dynamic.
Shale also responds faster to price signals than conventional supply, especially on the upside, so you do get some supply response during spikes. This means the US can slight soften some of the spike in oil prices by ramping up production of shale a bit faster than other types of oil can ramp up.
Consumers still take the hit though. Gas prices move with global markets, so higher oil still feeds straight into inflation and real income pressure.
The U.S. exports shale oil while importing heavier crude, mainly because its refineries are built for that mix. From a forex perspective it’s somewhat hedged, since when global oil prices go up, U.S. production becomes more valuable and the dollar doesn’t take as much of a hit (you export more expensive oil to compensate for the import of more expensive oil). But consumers still feel it because higher oil and gas prices feed straight into inflation and cost of living. So the U.S. still cares a lot about energy stability, and by extension the Middle East, since the region still drives a big part of global supply and sits on key chokepoints like Hormuz that move prices.
Israel is the U.S.’ key ally in the region and basically acts as a forward base. There’s a lot of intelligence sharing, military coordination, and tech cooperation, which is why the U.S. backs it so strongly. Iran is the main source of instability, between its proxies and the pressure it puts on shipping routes. And on top of that, U.S. allies like Europe and Japan still depend heavily on Middle Eastern energy, so instability there has broader knock-on effects.
In the short term this kind of conflict creates a lot of volatility. Longer term, if Iran’s regional influence is weakened (by destroying their arsenal for example), that could reduce one of the main sources of instability, although anything like regime change is obviously a much bigger and more uncertain scenario. To be honest though I do think they'll just rebuild their arsenal in 5-10 years after this. The only way to fix this problem permanently IMO is regime change but lol we don't have the stomach for that anymore let's face it. Too many body bags in the short term.
At the same time, Israel isn’t just a passive player. It has its own security priorities and is willing to act on them, even if it risks escalation. That can put the U.S. in a position where it has to step in and back its main ally to maintain credibility. So even if Washington didn’t initiate things, it can still get pulled in because of how important the relationship is.
At the end of the day it’s mostly about strategy and economic interests. The U.S. wants stable energy flows, secure trade routes, and to support its allies. You don’t really need more complicated explanations than that.
I don't understand this explanation. We are getting none of those by bombing Iran.
I don't know what the future holds but in theory if you manage to destroy Iran's ballistic and drone arsenal (and production capabilities) you could prevent their ability to create chaos and finance / support proxy groups that destabilize the region. It would be short term pain for longer term gain.
That is the the THEORY. But to be honest I think they can just rearm themselves in 5-10 years, hide all their missiles in new bunkers etc etc so I am not sure this is the right move either. They can also cause long term damage to energy and desalination infrastructure in the gulf on their way out which is terrible. So we shall see if this was a good or bad strategic move...
The real permanent solution would be a regime change but I don't think anyone has the stomach for that. Would mean boots on ground vs guerilla warfare and lots of body bags and probably 5-10 years of chaos before normalization.
I say all this but still think the Iranian regime is a terrible force in the region... If there were an easy way to remove them that would be great but there isn't.
The US has always had a strong relationship with Israel, as they are the only country in the middle east that shares our values. It is very unclear as to why we have attacked Iran and I do not buy the theory of imminent threat. I also do not believe we are doing it for Israel's benefit. My guess would be that there is some kind of financial motivation behind this war.
What values would that be exactly? The U.S. is a Christian state with secular liberalism and individual freedoms while Israel is a Jewish non-secular state whose politics are centered on dominating the Middle East. Christians have been persecuted in Israel, see Wikipedia - Violence against Christians in Israel.
They fall within the same western world order, basically that they're an ally (technically speaking). What values does India have with us other than we both have the same enemies?
Est autem velit quaerat atque accusantium voluptatem tenetur. Magni nihil qui voluptas accusamus excepturi quasi perspiciatis quasi. Et voluptatem est dicta libero maxime. Accusamus laudantium nulla ratione reiciendis totam suscipit perspiciatis.
Quos odit alias error quas. Cum corporis aspernatur dicta voluptatem et quia.
Quo beatae cum voluptate quis harum consequatur et. Voluptatum rerum neque est nostrum sed. Quis occaecati aut repellendus eius alias expedita recusandae. Omnis voluptates dolor exercitationem eius assumenda. Commodi natus voluptatem eius nesciunt eum ut alias. Eveniet deserunt illum autem vitae rem nostrum. Fugit minima voluptatibus voluptatem.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...