LiamApr 14
𝐿𝒶𝓃𝒶 "not yet begun to fight"

I want you to picture what immediately comes to mind when I say the phrase "the Strait of Hormuz is closed." Got that mental picture? Great. Because, if you're an American, odds are everything you're currently imagining is wrong.

You might be thinking that in order to "close the Strait", some amount of military presence is required. Some form of naval barricade. Ships with guns and mines and things. Or at the very very least, boats. And you would be wrong.

The Strait of Hormuz is not closed due to some physical barricade. It's closed because of paperwork. And, more specifically, insurance paperwork. And, even more specifically, American capitalist insurance paperwork. This sounds like the most boring subject ever - until you realize that it controls literally everything about the war, how the war ends, and how things ever get back to "normal". (Spoiler warning, they don't.)

On February 28, 2026, the same day Iran publicly announced that a peace deal was on the table in which America gets literally everything they ever wanted, America decided to set fire to Iran in the form of (deep sigh) "Operation Epic Fury". We live in the stupidest timeline. In less than an hour, American military forces bombed more than 1,000 civilian and military targets in Iran, and murdered more little Iranian girls attending elementary school than the Taliban ever did.

Ships going through the strait immediately saw their insurance rates rocket sky high. Why? Because war is one of the things that insurance covers, along with piracy, natural disasters, and foreign governments seizing your cargo. Before the bombing, ship cargo insurance ran about 0.02% of the value of the cargo they're hauling. On an average cargo ship carrying somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 million barrels of cargo worth approximately $100 million dollars, that's a rounding error. $20,000 per transit is nothing. Immediately following the bombing though, that insurance rate went up to 5% of the value of the haul. Or roughly FIVE MILLION DOLLARS per ship per transit. Put simply, that's like you waking up one day and finding out that because some idiot bombed the Toyota factory half a world away, your car insurance just went up to $50,000/ a month overnight.

And then, to make things worse, on March 2, the insurance companies just yanked everyone's insurance completely. They sent out letters saying that in 72 hours, all ships in the Strait of Hormuz would have their insurance cancelled. If you had infinite money, you couldn't buy insurance for your vessel. The actuarial tables took one look at the state of US involvement in Iran and just went FUCK NO. So, on March 5, 2026, every single vessel attempting passage through the Strait of Hormuz - an active war zone - quietly and completely lost all their insurance.

Now, what can ships do without insurance? Basically nothing. If you're an uninsured cargo vessel, no port is going to take you, your cargo won't make it through customs, your financing collapses, and your flag State pulls your registration. Basically the entire legal infrastructure underpinning global overseas trade says if you don't have insurance, you don't sail. So don't sail is exactly what everything and everybody did. America essentially cockblocked itself using capitalism.

Over the next few weeks Iran began allowing a few vessels through the Strait, from nations it considers non hostile. And by "allowed", what I mean is, the insurance companies decided that some non hostile nations such as China could buy insurance for their vessels. But there's a catch. They had to buy that insurance using Chinese yuan. Which, China was only too happy to do.

And then, THEN, something amazing happened. Something that hasn't ever happened before in the history of the world. Cargo ships started broadcasting their international country of origin AS CHINA. Japanese and Indian cargo ships started blasting the airwaves claiming "China owner" or "All crew and ship Chinese". They were hacking the embargo WITH BRANDING. And it worked! They bought insurance with Chinese yuan, and were allowed passage through the Strait. Problem solved! Everyone's happy!

Guess who isn't so happy about that, though. America. America, who is the largest exporter of petroleum and liquid natural gas in the world. Of course, Trump wants the Strait open. If America can't export its petroleum and petroleum based byproducts, because its ships, and its ships alone can't buy the insurance they need at literally any amount of American dollars, then American petroleum manufacturers start losing money. Which means Trump starts losing money.

So what does Trump do next? In his infinite wisdom, he decides to, in order:
- insult them
- insult their religion
- threaten them with annihilation
- send the Navy to physically blockade the Strait.

The Strait which was open before he bombed them, and is still open to everybody but him, and which he desperately needs to be open.

And I want you to just have a little think about what that "blockade" actually looks like. Because if you think the US Navy is just shooting down Japanese and Chinese and Indian and South Korean civilian shipping vessels with absolutely no response from those governments, you're a special kind of stupid. No, what this actually looks like in practice is a US Navy vessel is parked just outside the Strait of Hormuz asking everyone else - who has the legal right and paperwork to sail through the Strait - to please pretty please don't sail though. And then when they fucking ignore us and sail through the Strait anyway, the US Navy writes down the ship's identification number on a list and has a little cry about it.

So, here's the international state of affairs as it stands right now:

America is currently blockading itself, and ONLY ITSELF from passage through the Strait of Hormuz using its own Navy, because of actions taken by its own Air Force, which closed the Strait of Hormuz due to its own capitalist system, which is the only reason America even gives a shit about Hormuz in the first place.

Art of the fucking deal, folks.

Apr 13 at 8:42pmWeb
Show thread𝐿𝒶𝓃𝒶 "not yet begun to fight"Apr 14

Since this seems to be gaining some traction, here are a few peripheral nuggets of information which didn't really have a place to go in the above narrative, but are nevertheless interesting on their own.

Nugget #1) America doesn't need gas. America needs to SELL gas.

Everyone in the media seems to be framing this story in one way - as a story about a gas shortage crisis. That is not what is happening, at least not here. Twenty years ago, maybe. Forty years ago, definitely. Since the gas shortages of the 1970s, new mining techniques have opened up vast oil reserves in Alaska and other off-shore American drilling sites. America is now the #1 exporter of both crude oil and LNG. Yes, this shock will drive up the price of gas, because petroleum is a globally traded commodity not a local one. But what it is NOT going to do is cause gas shortages in this country. We have plenty of both liquid natural gas and crude oil. The shock felt here is and will continue to be asymmetric. America does still import heavy crude (about a half million barrels a day), to keep certain machinery running. But we don't really need to buy foreign fuel anymore. Those days are over.

Nugget #2) This will not destabilize China or the Asian area in the short term

China has been preparing for this for decades. Not only have they deepened and diversified trade relations across Asia (including trade with Russia), and increased their national oil reserves, but they have also sunk billions into reducing their dependency on petroleum products in the first place. Not only do they already have consumer grade electric vehicles on the market capable of recharging faster than you can fill a gas tank and that retail cheaper than your average Toyota Corolla, but the batteries they run on have a longer shelf life, and have an increased driving range well beyond anything available in the US. Your average Chinese/Japanese/S. Korean citizen is unlikely to feel the effects of this oil shock in the short term. In the medium term, they may have to dip into their reserves. And if this thing turns into a forever war, Asian nations will definitely need to rethink their long term energy strategy. What this is NOT going to do is destabilize the entire food chain, as some have predicted. This really is an "us" problem. We did this to us.

Nugget #3) There is no alternate route.

Despite what certain elected people who should really know better have posted on their social media, there is no other way through or around the Strait of Hormuz. In terms of liquified natural gas (LNG), I mean those words exactly. There literally is no pipeline or other means of circumventing the Strait. In terms of crude oil, there are *some* pipelines, but the volume they can handle is miniscule compared to global demand. And before you ask, no you can't just send it over land and I have to take a moment to explain why that idea is fucking hilarious. Your average VLCC carries about 2 million barrels of oil, with about 55 of those moving daily through the Strait. Your average oil tanker truck holds (generously) about 200 barrels of oil. That means that to circumvent the haul of JUST ONE VLCC over land, you'd need to send A FLEET OF 10,000 oil tankers carrying highly FLAMMABLE LIQUID through an ACTIVE WAR ZONE, crossing the borders of multiple nations that absolutely DO NOT WANT US THERE, on roads that DO NOT EXIST. Now just do that 55 more times and repeat every single day! Fucking lol.

Nugget #4) A military escort is not a solution.

First of all, we can neither confirm nor entirely rule out whether or not Iran has mined the Strait. If they have, escorting that many ships back and forth through the narrow urethra of the global oil economy is just a numbers game. Sooner or later, either a tanker or the US Navy itself will get hit by one, and fucking sink to the bottom of the Persian Gulf. And THAT WOULD, actually, destabilize global markets. Not to mention the fact that the route would take any deployed US Navy vessel extremely close to Iranian shores, allowing them to take as many pot shots at our military escort vessels as they like. Basically it's a PR nightmare waiting to happen. One wrong move and poof there goes global market stability.

Nugget #5) Packing up and going home isn't a solution either

Look at this from Iran's perspective for just a moment. Their entire military strategy here is to play for time. They know that the longer they can put pressure on global oil markets, the worse it is for us, and specifically for Trump. And they're not playing to win this war. They're playing to deter the NEXT one too. They want to make Trump suffer the consequences of his actions, and frankly, I love that for him. They also want the next President, whoever she might be, to never again consider using the United States military to invade and murder their civilians and religious leaders a viable strategy. Even if America packs up our ball, goes home, and declares victory TODAY, Iran still gets a vote in whether or not the war is actually over. They could (and probably would) continue to bomb everyone and everything in sight for months or years, if only to deter the next war.

Show threadOwenApr 14

@Lana Just to emphasize the point that an escort is not a solution, Bret Devereaux pointed out a few weeks ago that Iran can pretty freely position anti-ship missiles and drones anywhere along the shore of the Gulf without much hope of the US interdicting those deployments, and could handily direct enough fire into the Gulf to at least have a good chance of disabling warships therein, at relatively low-by-warfighting cost.

Not only would it not work, it'd turn the Gulf into a shooting gallery.

Show threadOwenApr 14
@Lana Eminently worthwhile analysis here https://acoup.blog/2026/03/25/miscellanea-the-war-in-iran/
Miscellanea: The War in Iran

This post is a set of my observations on the current war in Iran and my thoughts on the broader strategic implications. I am not, of course, an expert on the region nor do I have access to any spec…

A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry
Show thread𝐿𝒶𝓃𝒶 "not yet begun to fight"Apr 14
@owen those drones really are the main issue here too. Iran can pump them out by the hundreds of thousands, they cost about the same as a used Honda Accord, and they're fully capable of intercepting American missiles that cost us millions of dollars each. Iran doesn't really care whether or not they're 100% effective in all combat situations. Of course they're not. If they're even 10% effective at taking out an American military target that costs us a billion dollars and months or a year to replace, they're still coming out on top.
Show threadJestbillApr 14

@Lana ..."the narrow urethra of the global oil economy"...

FTW!!

Show threadVirginicusApr 14
@Lana I’m seeing some reporting that China won’t respect the US blockade. This could become what the Chinese call ‘interesting’.
Show threadChairman SteveApr 14

@Lana

The USA is effectively self sufficient in oil and gas. So in theory the Hormuz blockade should not affect them. Trump just has to limit exports.

Obviously there will be secondary effects, but it seems that all pundits are ignoring the USA's energy independence.

Show threadAriaflameApr 14
@stevenally @Lana Oh, I thought that the refineries that the USA had were not good at refining the crude oil that the USA produces.
Show threadRay KelmApr 15

@ariaflame @stevenally @Lana

This was my understanding as well, but it's information that I got second or third hand. With a few online searches I found reporting that said that 70% of the refineries we have can process heavy crude, but that the oil produced in the US is light (sweet) crude.

That statistic doesn't necessarily mean that we are not "energy independent", but it does mean that prices will likely be affected if the supply of heavy crude is interrupted.

Whether there will be gas shortages in the US might be more related to just how much we use compared to what we produce with those 30% of our refineries, and how much petroleum companies send elsewhere because they can get higher prices.

Either way, it sounds like trouble.

Show threadAriaflameApr 15
@rayk @stevenally @Lana Yes, it doesn't matter if you can make all your own if your companies see they can make more money selling it overseas. I live in Western Australia and our State government put in a requirement for the natural gas companies drilling here that they had to put a certain amount aside for the local market. The other States didn't. Our gas prices stayed a lot lower during some of the recent turbulence.
Show threadTiota SramApr 14

@Lana nugget #2 here doesn't really match up with my understanding of things in East Asia. Japan and South Korea are heavily dependent on oil imports, and Japan was already not doing so great economically; their economy is suffering directly right now.

China imports some huge percentage of their oil from Iran specifically, and while they've made great strides in renewables, they're by no means oil-independent, and their economy has its own weaknesses, especially in housing right now.

None of this undermines your broader point, but there are serious impacts on East Asia, and this has those countries extra pissed at the US right now.

Show threadTiota SramApr 14

@Lana nugget #2 here doesn't really match up with my understanding of things in East Asia. Japan and South Korea are heavily dependent on oil imports, and Japan was already not doing so great economically; their economy is suffering directly right now.

China imports some huge percentage of their oil from Iran specifically, and while they've made great strides in renewables, they're by no means oil-independent, and their economy has its own weaknesses, especially in housing right now.

None of this undermines your broader point, but there are serious impacts on East Asia, and this has those countries extra pissed at the US right now.

Show threadBen HammondApr 13

@Lana

You got me confused when you talked about May
It's only April 2026 in my timezone...

Show threadJoão PinheiroApr 13
@Lana Eh! Eh! @isabelpinheiro Lê, por favor!
Show threadMatthew NewellApr 13

@Lana

I am afraid there are a few inconsistencies in that account.

From a shipping and insurance view a lot of those figures are wrong. Eg No ship in the world carries 15 million barrels - a few can carry 3.5 the vast majority - very crude carriers carry 2million.

Ship owners do not insure the oil; they only insure the ship and claim premium back from charterer.

War Risk insurance is separate from normal insurance & lack of it would not stop a ship discharging o/s warzone

Show threadMs Bailey, Sound Production ArcApr 13
@MatthewNewell @Lana
I understood in that example that the 15 million number mentioned is the total number of barrels and not just a single ship's worth, but we're nitpicking over boat size:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=54359
As much as 15 million barrels of crude oil sold from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Energy Information Administration - EIA - Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government

Show threadMs Bailey, Sound Production ArcApr 13
@Lana @MatthewNewell
I have to keep reminding myself, "it's about the war and the bad decisions surrounding it, not so much about the boats."
Show threadMatthew NewellApr 13

@ayilathebailey @Lana

yes - exactly. A dangerous and immoral decision to start a war by two deranged and lying leaders of USA and Israel

Show threadDirk RitterApr 14

@MatthewNewell @Lana

More accessibly explained in the text below the graphic which is just weight classes.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=17991

That, however, merely changes some numbers if - and that's still a big IF - insurance is given.

Also, one issue that's often overlooked is how you can't force any sailor through a war zone. That basically voids contracts, so first of all they need to find a crew willing to take the risk anyway. And I guess everybody is aware of shaheds, eventual mines and stuff by now...

Ships move slowly, so any threats to possibly continue combat, any signs there might be further attacs or kinetic interventions of sorts, probably will be sufficient to simply refuse to sail.

Oil tanker sizes range from general purpose to ultra-large crude carriers on AFRA scale - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Energy Information Administration - EIA - Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government

Show threadMatthew NewellApr 14

@GNUmatic @Lana

Good explanatory article. Although I will say that last time I looked at the fleet the only ulccs in existence were those built by Hellespont and I know that after quite a few years service they had never been full. Charterers were too used to 2m barrel bottoms and their traders were not going to change for one or two ships.

Show threadMatthew NewellApr 14

@GNUmatic @Lana

With regard to crew - you are correct but I have never heard of a modern large crude carrier having this as a reason. Smaller ships with less high value cargo might have dodgy operator who can skirt obligations to crew but anyone placing over USD100m of cargo on a ship makes sure the operator listens to the master & crew. I think, with all operators good enough to be trusted by oilco.s, any crew action is forestalled by operator not considering route in first place

Show threadDirk RitterApr 14

@MatthewNewell

Oh great! We're all slowly learning about how shipping really works. Not bad at all, because - News flash! - politicians bought by fossils all around the world keep telling us about “energy security“, while all of that fossil stuff they're presenting as a “solution“ seems to be fragile as hell as soon as you're taking a closer look - much unlike solar panels, wind turbines or utility sized batteries that won't ever flinch. 🥳

@Lana

Show threadMatthew NewellApr 14

@GNUmatic @Lana

I am feeling like the epidemiologists must have felt during the first stages of the COVID pandemic. I have dealt with shipping and war risk insurance on a daily basis for 25 years

I think/hope that the blockage of Suez by that grounded container ship concentrated a few minds and made a small number of people stop buying worthless crap shipped from other side of the world.

This latest crisis will hopefully wean a good deal more off the current rampant overuse of petrol

Show threadDirk RitterApr 14

@MatthewNewell

Oh yesss! The Ever Given! That brave ship that stopped world trade for a brief moment, thereby stopping the entire world, all by itself, collapsing fragile supply chains and all.

🍿😂🤣

Nah! You don't even need a freaking war to bring it all to a grinding halt. We can do with a lot less! 🥳

@Lana

Show threadpeteryeatesApr 14

@MatthewNewell @Lana

Some additional perspective/sources on the insurance side:
- Lloyd's of London insurance market leads a large share of Marine & Aviation insurance, so is a good go-to for terms & conditions.
https://lmalloyds.com/insights-resources/press-releases/
Note the proposed DFC facility won't be instant, but could well underwrite cover that is ultimately written on Lloyd's paper

- Lloyd's List is a shipping news serveice (not to be confused with the insurance market lloyd's of London), here's there Hormuz feed
https://www.lloydslist.com/hot-topics/strait-of-hormuz-crisis

For example 12 April article on Chineese vessels transiting - https://www.lloydslist.com/LL1156879/Cosco-VLCCs-break-through-Hormuz-even-as-US-Iran-diplomacy-falters

LMA - Press releases

Show threadCrystalApr 13
@Lana
Thank you for writing all of that! My favorite part was the way insurance is allowing the Chinese. I like that because when I was reading about the history of insurance, it was traced back to Chinese merchants and dividing the risk of loss among more than one freight ship. I love circular stories and poetic justice. It is unfortunate for my financial future, but your words made me happy.
Show threadBuds_Always_Have_Elbows_Up 🇨🇦Apr 14
@Lana
I don’t get why ships carrying US oils and gas can’t get insurance if they are nowhere near the Strait.
Show threadSupermoosieApr 14

@Buds_always @Lana

Can't make a profit, if you can't move your oil/gas.

"ExxonMobil and Chevron, as well as European rivals BP, Shell and TotalEnergies, have widespread assets in the Gulf and are more affected by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz."

Show threadBuds_Always_Have_Elbows_Up 🇨🇦Apr 14
@SuperMoosie @Lana
So when Lana said “If America can't export its petroleum and petroleum based byproducts, because its ships, and its ships alone can't buy the insurance” she is referring to Gulf oil only. Then I guess it makes sense if Gulf oil is considered to be American.
Show threadNuclear OatmealApr 14

@Lana

Informative. Thank you.

Show threadMichael GemarApr 14

@Lana For even more context and news, I recommend this YouTuber:

https://www.youtube.com/@wgowshipping/videos?app=desktop

What's Going on With Shipping?

What's Going on With Shipping focuses on Maritime Industry Policy, and current events in the Maritime Sector, along with Maritime History. The channel features videos that examine the world's merchant marines, the international maritime sector, current events in the maritime trade, and history. You can support this channel at: https://www.patreon.com/WGOWShipping

YouTube
Show threadDror BedrackApr 14

@Lana Ships exporting US gas and oil dont need to go through the Strait of Hormuz, so they shouldnt have any problem getting insurence.

Other than that - excellent post!

Show threadGerardo LisboaApr 14
@Lana References?
Show thread[ˈJuɦo̞ ˈMæn̪t̪yˈs̠ɑ̝lo̞]Apr 14

@gvlx @Lana

Why would a ship delivering oil from USA go to Iran/Iraq? They have their own production.

Show threadSupermoosieApr 14

@iju @gvlx @Lana

Forgetting that US companies own oil and gas production in the gulf. Can't make a profit if you can't shift the oil.

"ExxonMobil and Chevron, as well as European rivals BP, Shell and TotalEnergies, have widespread assets in the Gulf and are more affected by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz."

Show threadGhostrunnerApr 14
@iju @gvlx @Lana US oil companies* not oil deliveries from the USA.
Show threadDeterioratedStuccoApr 14
@Lana
typo, "clockblocked" :)
Show threadAngus McIntyreApr 14

@SoftwareTheron @Lana The pornography writes itself:

- "I want your hard clock,” she whispered.
- Her eyes widened at the sight of his rigid, throbbing clock.
- "Give me your big clock, daddy!” she moaned.
- She went down on her knees and worshipped his clock.
- “I've never seen a clock that size before," he exclaimed.
- She could see the bulge that his clock made in his pants.

Show threadDeterioratedStuccoApr 14

@angusm
Hm.
Stopped clocks are right twice a day, I guess.

(Also, ew.)

@Lana

Show threadDeterioratedStuccoApr 14

@angusm
Also, very imperial.

@Lana

Show threadbovazApr 14
@Lana gas prices in Italy still rise, just in case, because capitalism as we have it is evil.
Show threadAsharasApr 14
@Lana This is by far one of the most interesting posts I've read on the Fediverse, thanks a lot!
Show threadHedgewizard 🐈Apr 14
@Lana
https://theshovel.com.au/2026/03/18/worlds-greatest-negotiator-a-bit-out-of-his-depth-now/
Show threadLillyLyle/Count MelancholiaApr 14
@Lana Very important point(s), but there are mines, and this is posing a future problem as they apparently did not document where they were put.
Show threadZenHeathen 🇨🇦Apr 14
@Lana Long read, but *excellent*.
Show threadTim FinnertyApr 14

@Lana "insurance rate went up to 5% of the value of the haul. Or roughly FIVE MILLION DOLLARS per ship per transit. Put simply, that's like you waking up one day and finding out that because some idiot bombed the Toyota factory half a world away, your car insurance just went up to $50,000/ a month overnight."

If $50,000 / month is 5% of the value of your Toyota and its contents, you must have a REALLY nice car or drive around loaded with gold bars.

Show threadBen HutchingsApr 14
@TimFinnerty @Lana 5% of the value of a car per trip quickly adds up to more than the value of the car
Show threadWarpinWolfApr 15
@TimFinnerty @Lana previously: 0.02% of something. Now: 5% of the same something. That's a 250 fold increase. 50,000 USD / 250 = 200 USD. So if standard Toyota insurance rates are near 200 USD / month the math is valid.
Show threadParaendroidApr 14
@Lana It's so fucking stupid but makes absolute sense in Capitalism.
Show threadswggrkllr3rdApr 14
@Lana Martin Armstrong emphasizes that the neoconservative movement has significantly influenced US foreign policy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgulI4dtIFc
Martin Armstrong: Expect 'Dragged-Out' War in Iran, Much Higher Oil Prices & $10,000 Gold

YouTube
Show threadswggrkllr3rdApr 14
@Lana https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/
Home | Armstrong Economics

Armstrong Economics
Show threadsusApr 14

@Lana if this is true then why is traffic thru the strait still essentially nonexistent?

Wouldn’t they just buy yuan-denominated insurance and get on with things?

https://hormuztracking.com/

Show thread𝐿𝒶𝓃𝒶 "not yet begun to fight"Apr 14

@sus just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD or that it's a viable long term financial strategy. The point of the post is that Iran doesn't need a Navy in order to close the Strait. The embargo is self-reinforcing. All Iran needs to do is keep making enough noise and rattling enough sabres.

Right now, all four of the biggest shipping companies, Maersk, Hapag-Lloyd, MSC, and CMA CGM. which comprise the majority of traffic through the strait, have taken a look at the financial risks and independently arrived at the same conclusion. It's too risky right now, because they can't predict whether or not the entire area will suddenly turn into a shooting gallery.

Companies that are currently still using the strait include the National Iranian Tanker Company (Iranian), Shanghai Xuanrun (Chinese), and Mitsui (Japanese but broadcasting as Chinese owned).

Show threadBenjamin BraatzApr 14
@Lana I don't understand much of this, but if it only blockades US vessels now, why is the traffic through the strait still down to basically nothing?
https://portwatch.imf.org/pages/cc317ba850e34c4dadbead6f7b336fb1
Show threadBenjamin BraatzApr 14
@Lana Found answer to same question here: https://beige.party/@Lana/116403772599170908
Thanks!
𝐿𝒶𝓃𝒶 "not yet begun to fight" (@[email protected])

@[email protected] just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD or that it's a viable long term financial strategy. The point of the post is that Iran doesn't need a Navy in order to close the Strait. The embargo is self-reinforcing. All Iran needs to do is keep making enough noise and rattling enough sabres. Right now, all four of the biggest shipping companies, Maersk, Hapag-Lloyd, MSC, and CMA CGM. which comprise the majority of traffic through the strait, have taken a look at the financial risks and independently arrived at the same conclusion. It's too risky right now, because they can't predict whether or not the entire area will suddenly turn into a shooting gallery. Companies that are currently still using the strait include the National Iranian Tanker Company (Iranian), Shanghai Xuanrun (Chinese), and Mitsui (Japanese but broadcasting as Chinese owned).

beige.party
Show threadProto Himbo EuropeanApr 15
@Lana Mostly I think (from my limited perspecitve) the same. However, I think from other media (e.g., NPR) that the insurance companies aren't jacking up prices due to "war." When the Iranian regime say ssomething like "we aren't letting boats through," the insurance companies, I think, understand that there is now a much stronger possibility of violence.
Show threadSeiðrApr 15
@Lana The funniest part about this is that it's pretty "time is a flat circle" thing, because insurance was invented to hedge bets on shipping enteprises back in the Age of Navigation: you didn't want to have that ship sent to the Isles of Spices to sink and lose everything you owned. Who could've told navigation kept being a complicated thing? Duh.
Show threadIndy Richard 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿Apr 15
@Lana I wonder if it has crossed the minds of Insurance professionals to look at the post by Trump showing himself as Jesus? Where war is covered by insurance, surely, acts of god are not...😅
Show threadherbertApr 15
@Lana not a single word about the role of insurance in the blockage of the strait in today’s episode of The Daily https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-daily/id1200361736?i=1000761507943
Trump’s Risky Strategy to Blockade Iran’s Blockade

Podcast Episode · The Daily · April 15 · 27m

Apple Podcasts
Show threadAlper Çuğun-GscheidelApr 16
@Lana Why would Trump want the strait open if the USA doesn’t need oil and is exporting it anyway?