BThe Wall Street Journal just published a stunner: Gulf states now accept Iran's control of the Strait of Hormuz as the new normal.
BThat's not a policy, Bella. That's a surrender.
BIt's realism. Hundreds of tankers a day have to pass through there, and Iran spent months proving it can choke them whenever it wants.
BAnd the Mecca Pact powers—Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan—just went to Tehran to ask nicely. That's the part that gets me.
BThat's not what they did. They sent their defense minister, army chief, and intelligence chief to press for de-escalation, not to bow.
BThen why is Iran's security chief calling the atmosphere "very good" and saying regional security should be built without outside intervention?
BThat's Iran spinning, but the visit itself wasn't a Tehran victory. The Saudis want oil flowing and their cities safe from Houthi attacks.
BAnd what price did they pay? The Journal's own opinion page says they're spurning the Abraham Accords. The US spent decades as the guarantor, and now the Gulf is running to Iran.
BWait, that's too simple. The US is the one that couldn't keep the strait open. If American naval power can't guarantee shipping, why wouldn't the Saudis hedge?
BBecause the answer to a bully is not to hand him the playground. Iran now knows it can strangle global oil and the Gulf will just accept it. That's defeatism.
BNo, the answer is to talk while you still can. Saudi Arabia isn't the US; it can't project power forever. They're buying time and maybe getting Iran to pull back on the Houthis.
BAnd maybe Iran is buying time until after the US midterms, when it thinks it can get a better deal—or a war it can win. Analysts are saying exactly that.
BThat's a risk. But if the alternative is a regional war that shuts Hormuz completely and sends oil to two hundred dollars, I'll take the diplomacy.
BI'd take a real threat of force behind that diplomacy. Right now, Iran got a visit from three regional powers, and it's the one dictating terms.
BOne analyst, Vali Nasr at Johns Hopkins, calls this a "post-American security order." The US isn't gone, but its word isn't the only one that matters anymore.
BThat's exactly my point. We didn't lose because Iran is strong. We lost because we stopped being reliable. That's on Washington, not Riyadh.
BMaybe. But the Journal report is about what is, not what should be. And what is, is that oil markets just priced in a permanent Iranian thumb on the spigot.
BThen the next president has to change that, because if this is the new normal, energy prices never come down.
BAnalyst Hussain Abdul-Hussain on X put it bluntly. He said Tehran sees the Mecca Pact visit as a victory, quote, "Iran is the center of the region, others visit to beg it."
BAnd he's right. That's the signal we sent.
BHe also said Iran thinks it decides who owns Hormuz, whether America stays or not. That may overstate it, but the trip did give Tehran a platform.
BA platform it used to call for Muslim unity against US and Israeli aggression. Whether that exact quote is confirmed or not, the goal is obvious: divide the region against America and Israel.
BThat call is still unverified, but the direction is clear. Iran wants a regional order without the US. We've seen that playbook for forty years.
BAnd now the Gulf is signing on. That's the Journal's headline: Iran is in control. Not a prediction, a fact.
BIt's a reported assessment, but hard to argue with. When you have the chokepoint and the missiles, you have leverage.
BLeverage is one thing. Capitulation is another. I hope the White House is watching and not just tweeting.
BThat's a podcast for another night. The bigger question is whether this makes war more or less likely.
BI say more. If Iran thinks it's won, it'll push. If the Gulf feels abandoned by the US, they might cut a deal that leaves Israel even more isolated.
BOr maybe this is the de-escalation everyone said they wanted. No ships hit in a week, a channel open to Tehran. That's not nothing.
BIt's peace through weakness. And history says that ends badly.
BYou want something concrete? Oil markets already reflect this. If Gulf producers expect permanent disruption, every fill-up gets more expensive.
BAnd no amount of "drill, baby, drill" fixes a chokepoint on the other side of the world.
BTrue. The US is a net exporter now, but prices are global. You can't isolate yourself from Hormuz.
BThen maybe build more pipelines? No, wait, that takes a decade and permits.
BOr accelerate nuclear and renewables so oil matters less. That's an argument you usually hate.
BI hate it because it's a slow surrender. You're saying let's make Iran's chokehold irrelevant by needing less oil. That's a thirty-year project.
BSo what's your fix? Bomb the strait open? Occupy Qeshm Island?
BNo, put real military consequences on the table. Make Iran's leadership understand that closing Hormuz means losing their navy and missile sites in a week.
BAnd if they call our bluff? Every president since Carter has threatened exactly that, and Iran still does what it wants.
BThen we're back to talking. But at least from a position of strength, not a visit where they're the gracious hosts.
BAlright, I'll grant you the optics were terrible. Sending three top officials to Tehran while US carriers sit in the Gulf does look like the region hedging on us.
BThat's a grudging concession, but I'll take it.
BDon't get used to it. We still haven't seen what the Saudis got in return. If Houthi attacks stop and oil flows, they may have played this exactly right.
BDifferent world entirely, but one number you should know. A climate scientist on Bluesky just posted that we crossed a major threshold.
BProf. Eliot Jacobson says as of October 29th, the four-year running average global temperature hit one point five degrees Celsius above pre-industrial. We can't independently confirm that exact date tonight, but monthly and yearly averages have been above it for a while.
BAnd what do you want us to do, panic? This is the number every climate agreement was built around. It's supposed to be a ceiling, not a floor.
BThe world has spent trillions, and it's still rising. Maybe the policy isn't working.
BOr maybe we're still not doing enough. But that's your side's favorite excuse for inaction.
BMy side? I'm not on a side, I'm looking at results. And the result is we keep hitting these milestones.
BFair enough. We'll keep an eye on it, but the Gulf story is the one that hits your wallet first.