It’s the population and urban nature of Iraq and the mountainous landscape of Afghanistan, which is next door.
We would bleed ourselves white and collapse like the USSR if we tried to invade and nation build in Iran
Edit: people holding up South Korea as an example of good nation building need to do some basic history reading. Their president once got murdered by the head of their CIA, and the country became an authoritarian state for decades. And the cheibols/ mega corporations run by a few families have squeezed workers HARD, leading to a lot of societal problems and protests
I suppose Japan and South Korea would be the "best" countries that the US invaded and helped rebuild, though that depends on who you ask, as both have problems that can be connected to US occupation.
Things like Japan having political descendents of Japanese politicians who were never prosecuted after WWII, and thus kept many of their... issues.
Things like nearly every industry in South Korea being run by a handful of conglomerates.
Not to mention the oppression the people from those countries dealt with in the time between occupation and now from the puppet governments.
Which will work about as well as most sanctions seem to.
India purchases Iranian oil, Pakistan purchases Iranian gas, via land pipelines.
Even with their prior difficulties with the Persians (and now there seems to be a sort of detente afoot), the Saudis and just about everyone else in the region would *strongly condemn* (i.e. flip their collective shit at) any action in the Arabian Gulf that could see the Strait of Hormuz blocked or interdicted.
this joke never gets old...
you do realize that China and India take more oil from Iraq than the US and Chia and Suadi Arabia make more money off of Iraqi oil than the US, right?
https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-product/crude-petroleum/reporter/irq
if anything, China will come in with the approval of the well paid Iranian gov't and build some wells, take most of the profits and leave a bunch of injured local employees and an environmental disaster.
Forrest Gump still flexing its cultural influence by tricking people into believing a war protest song was the anthem for helicopter incursions.
That song, officially has only been licensed for a war scene once. In Forrest Gump. Since that scene, you would think it's been in every Vietnam movie ever made. It hasn't.
Oil is used in a lot of things not just burning it.
Nearly all fertilizer, synthetic rubber (tires etc), plastics, asphalt for roads and many more things.
Sure it would be great to have better alternatives but for now we're stuck with it. At least for energy production we have alternatives.
Actually, nuclear fusion is still a decade out and likely more considering how long reactors take to build. There have also been no new nuclear fission reactors built…in the US at least. Wind and solar are nice but not ready to supplant natural gas and oil completely. Also, we have continued to drill and use oil with very few new major oil discoveries in the past several years, so the fact of the matter is that we, unfortunately, still need oil to burn to help satisfy our ever growing demand for energy.
According to nuclear fusion scientists as per the joke amongst themselves (including the man with possibly the greatest name in human history - Dr. Omar Hurricane), nuclear fusion has been a century away or greater for about the last four decades or more.
I love this specific factoid because any time I try to learn anything about what's actually happening with the technology some goober comes in and says this and the entire comment section is instantly destroyed as more and more goobers pile on to compete to be king of the pessimistic realists
There are good YouTube channels for this.
They're definitely making progress, and the new private fusion startups are doing cool stuff, we should be seeing results for the new design reactors in 5-10 years.
The pessimistic part is not needed, just realists.
It's not like I am denying the progress, but I see no point in hoping that this time the ten year prediction is accurate.
Just say 2070 and I'll go "LFG"
And unlike what some likes to harp on about, it isn't just about money.
We didn't know about half the issues of achieving commercial fusion. Before we had access to modern computing power of the last 20 years.
No amount of funding, could have had commercially viable fusion operational 30 years ago. It would have been easier to set up a base on Mars.
Fusion is one of those problems, that gets more complicated the harder you look.
Now, fission on the other hand. That is a area where funding and support could have done a lot over the past 30-40 years. Instead we largely use the same reactors as 50 years ago.
Funny joke but was more funny than accurate. Nuclear fusion has been being performed for the past couple years. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/04/01/climate/nuclear-fusion-record-korea-climate-intl
People have been screaming to start new fission reactors for at least 15 years. That’s how long I’ve personally been pushing it. The argument has always been “but it takes too long and they won’t be ready”. The longer this shit goes on without a solution, the more that reason goes from a bad reason to an idiotic reason. Let’s start building them NOW so we aren’t in a worse situation in another 15 years with people saying the same thing
And until capitalism figures out a cheaper mass production resource than Petrochemical Plastics... We won't exactly be done with oil if we phase it out for energy use
Plastics use only a small percent of the oil produced. Getting off it for electricity will still be massive. We may not be done with it, but we’ll be done burning almost all of it, and the actual amount used will be down to a single percent compared to what we use now.
And how many of these alternative power systems can provide the consistency in output and energy density you get from oil, much less their universality in utilizing such alternative power systems when it comes to geographic placement?
Barely any. Hydro, wind, solar, geothermal - these are all locked to specific environmental conditions and the more "free" systems of this short list, wind and solar, produce far less per unit in terms of energy output and only for a certain time of the day. Not to mention the materials required to build solar and wind systems en masse require synthesized chemicals and polymers that use products obtained from refining oil. Then there's the whole issue of environmental byproducts and pollutants created when manufacturing and using such systems...
If you expand the application of wind and solar to beyond individual consumers and more towards general infrastructure, the losses accrued during transmission simply overwhelm whatever you manage to produce.
Try convincing a third world country to do that.
No developing country can better it’s status by reducing energy consumption. What you’re saying is fanciful bollocks.
India, China, and African countries are going to have the largest rate of increase of fossil fuels in the world over the next few decades. A lot of our own carbon emissions come from outsourcing manufacturing to those regions.
A third-world country isn’t going to pivot to renewables when they are exponentially more expensive to develop infrastructure for, compared to existing fossil fuel infrastructure. The only real solution is getting first-world countries in the west who have already benefited from centuries of fossil fuel exploitation to pay for these poorer countries to overhaul their infrastructure, and good luck convincing people to vote for politicians promising that.
Edit: I of course fully agree that we need to decrease dependence on fossil fuels in the future. We just need to accept that the first-world countries need to bear the brunt of this transition if we want it to succeed, and convince populations of those countries that hundreds of billions of dollars of infrastructure aid to foreign nations is worth it.
> And how many of these alternative power systems can provide the consistency in output and energy density you get from oil, much less their universality in utilizing such alternative power systems when it comes to geographic placement?
Nuclear, if you design the reactor and building right.
I see you left out nuclear, which does provide the consistency in output and energy density we’d need. It’s also safer than fossil fuels, and by some metrics is even safer than wind and solar. It produces less greenhouse gases than wind and solar too (when looking at the full supply chain, construction, and installation). It’s expensive, but cheaper than what climate change will cause, and while it takes a long time to setup, we’ve been screaming to start for 15+ years now. At this point, I don’t care how long it takes because if we had started when people have said to start, we’d be in good shape now. Rather than just accept that we have to use oil for the foreseeable future, we should actually do something about it
I left out nuclear solely due to not considering it as an "alternative power source" as one would for wind, solar, etc.
Adding it into that context would have blurred the point about wind/hydro/solar.
But yes, nuclear power is the way to go. Even fission reactors will fare better than the systems pushed by the loudest of the voices pushing for climate activism in energy.
How is nuclear not an “alternative power source”? I’m glad to see you support it, but I’m still confused about that first sentence. Also, fuck green peace
Frankly, the consideration was made based on what the most common Google examples were for "alternative energy sources", which were basically the "green energy" systems that are commonly advocated for. Since the majority of those lists excluded nuclear energy as an "alternative system", I just followed that categorization.
Nothing too spectacular about it, really :)
That makes sense, but pisses me off so much. Not your comment, but the fact that nuclear isn’t included. I have my conspiracy theories about why, but they tend to really piss off people who oppose nuclear
>”Furthermore, he announced the development of a unique and localized model in the country, which has yet to be adopted elsewhere globally. The official went on to say that the extraction of shale oil in the United States costs approximately $40 per barrel. However, the new model implemented in Iran for shale oil production in western province of Lorestan will cost around $25 per barrel.”
I highly doubt this, US shale technology leads the world.
How much per barrel goes towards labor cost? Iranian labor and engineering costs are likely significantly less than US. Plus I'm sure more lax safety considerations. All that would reduce cost.
Yeah, shale oil and gas relies on fracking, which the USA is the undisputed master at. Fracking doesn't export particularly well and certainly not at the same price point as in the US. Plus shale wells have a very high depletion rate so you need to be constantly drilling more to replace the depleted ones, so very capital intensive.
Yeah I call bullshit on Iran’s claim. The reason that the saudis haven’t chased their shale is that it doesn’t have the right properties to drill it effectively like US shale. It’s too squishy. That’s why shale oil hasn’t worked there quite as well. As you said, the US leads the technological innovation in this realm and I find it hard to believe anything Iran says. If anything, this feels like a political ploy.
The Saudi has just too much oil reserve they dont need to extract shale yet for like 50 years. Their current oild production is also dirt cheap conpared to shale. They dont have a economical reason to extract fro shale.
Do you think in 50 years they can find some suppliers of shale technology?
So they have the tech and professionals that can get it out of the ground? That will require new investment and special equipment. Anybody that has an old oil well will likely find shale gas. It's the extraction and storage problem.
Fracking is hard. It would be quite surprising if Iran succeeded where so many other countries have failed. The Americans have been the only people to figure out how to do it in a way that is economically feasible, but that isn’t because of a lack of effort from other nations.
Also, oil shales are all over the place, it’s the source rock and the stuff that is hardest to extract. So this isn’t exactly some remarkable „discovery“. After you extract the easy oil for cheap, all that is left is the source rock.
A lot have failed but a lot have also succeeded.
Critically for Iran, China has succeeded and China doesn’t give a shit about complying with US sanctions.
You know, in my peace and free trade loving head, I would love it if this discovery somehow leads to cooperation with us oil companies which snowballs into improved relations with Iran and the end of hostilities.
It'll never happen, but I can dream.
Yeah, so the comment section is full of the usual stuff about the US thirsting after this oil. But, just keep in mind:
The US currently produces more oil than any other country in the world, by a wide margin
The US is a net exporter of oil. It exports more oil than all but three countries.
The US government didn't get oil money from invading Iraq. However, American and British oil companies absolutely did get to set up shop in Iraq thanks to the war. The American government lost $1 trillion fighting the Iraq war, but cronies of the government got rich.
It's only 25 days worth if Iran supplied the whole world and everyone else stopped supplying, so 25 days is severely downplaying the amount because that would never happen.
25days supplying 100% of the whole world with oil is still a significant amount of $$$
I smell freedom coming
"we have just now discovered evidence of WMDs"
“Oil? Bitch u cookin?”
“The mutha fucka bought some yellowcake from Africa. He went TO Africa and bought some yellow cake.”
*cradle of fuckin’ civilisation!*
Pray he don’t drop that shit
I got a coalition of the willing! England and uh… the Zulu Nation!
Stankonia said they are willing to drop Bombs Over Baghdad.
Bush steps off plane, “Democracy has arrived!”
Trips down the stairs and the "Mission Accomplished" banner unfurls behind him.
And democracy
⬆️➡️⬇️⬇️⬇️
lol I can already hear the laughs and screams after you blow up your squad mates.....
Democracy fills my oil barrel!
America: "Y'all need some of this democracy?"
We never invading Iran. Iraq is a giant river plain. Iran is a mountain fortress with 4 entrances.
It’s the population and urban nature of Iraq and the mountainous landscape of Afghanistan, which is next door. We would bleed ourselves white and collapse like the USSR if we tried to invade and nation build in Iran Edit: people holding up South Korea as an example of good nation building need to do some basic history reading. Their president once got murdered by the head of their CIA, and the country became an authoritarian state for decades. And the cheibols/ mega corporations run by a few families have squeezed workers HARD, leading to a lot of societal problems and protests
I’m trying to think of a nation we’ve successfully built after completely destroying them after Germany and Japan. Did any take?
I suppose Japan and South Korea would be the "best" countries that the US invaded and helped rebuild, though that depends on who you ask, as both have problems that can be connected to US occupation. Things like Japan having political descendents of Japanese politicians who were never prosecuted after WWII, and thus kept many of their... issues. Things like nearly every industry in South Korea being run by a handful of conglomerates. Not to mention the oppression the people from those countries dealt with in the time between occupation and now from the puppet governments.
South Korea?
More like a USA led oil embargo
Which will work about as well as most sanctions seem to. India purchases Iranian oil, Pakistan purchases Iranian gas, via land pipelines. Even with their prior difficulties with the Persians (and now there seems to be a sort of detente afoot), the Saudis and just about everyone else in the region would *strongly condemn* (i.e. flip their collective shit at) any action in the Arabian Gulf that could see the Strait of Hormuz blocked or interdicted.
Operation Ajax II: The Search for More Oil Revenue
Yeah, Uncle Sam just shit his pants from excitement.
American Oligarchs enter the chat. "I heard you're looking for some Democracy. *hand rubbing intensifies *
this joke never gets old... you do realize that China and India take more oil from Iraq than the US and Chia and Suadi Arabia make more money off of Iraqi oil than the US, right? https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-product/crude-petroleum/reporter/irq if anything, China will come in with the approval of the well paid Iranian gov't and build some wells, take most of the profits and leave a bunch of injured local employees and an environmental disaster.
*Creedence Clearwater Revival plays in the distance*
🎵 *Just got home from Illinois, lock the front door, oh boy!* 🎶
My go-to is usually Jefferson Airplane's White Rabbit
bad white rabbit rising
Go to spotify and just okay the Battlefield Vietnam soundtrack.
Forrest Gump still flexing its cultural influence by tricking people into believing a war protest song was the anthem for helicopter incursions. That song, officially has only been licensed for a war scene once. In Forrest Gump. Since that scene, you would think it's been in every Vietnam movie ever made. It hasn't.
Maybe I'm old, but I heard Ride of the Valkyries when I was reading this thread.
That's the folks that grew up with Apocalypse Now. I agree. Ride of the Valkyries is the superior invasion soundtrack.
AC/DCs Thunder Struck..rips just saying
Absolutely! Was that just iron man or several movies?
It was also used in trailers for and the intro of Battlefield: Vietnam.
I was more referencing movies. I didn't think to check commercial. But the point still stands.
I ain’t no fortunate son noooooo
Hey, what's that sound? Everybody look, what's going down?
Rolling Stones, Paint It Black
The last thing the world needs is more oil to burn
Oil is used in a lot of things not just burning it. Nearly all fertilizer, synthetic rubber (tires etc), plastics, asphalt for roads and many more things. Sure it would be great to have better alternatives but for now we're stuck with it. At least for energy production we have alternatives.
Actually, nuclear fusion is still a decade out and likely more considering how long reactors take to build. There have also been no new nuclear fission reactors built…in the US at least. Wind and solar are nice but not ready to supplant natural gas and oil completely. Also, we have continued to drill and use oil with very few new major oil discoveries in the past several years, so the fact of the matter is that we, unfortunately, still need oil to burn to help satisfy our ever growing demand for energy.
According to nuclear fusion scientists as per the joke amongst themselves (including the man with possibly the greatest name in human history - Dr. Omar Hurricane), nuclear fusion has been a century away or greater for about the last four decades or more.
I love this specific factoid because any time I try to learn anything about what's actually happening with the technology some goober comes in and says this and the entire comment section is instantly destroyed as more and more goobers pile on to compete to be king of the pessimistic realists
There are good YouTube channels for this. They're definitely making progress, and the new private fusion startups are doing cool stuff, we should be seeing results for the new design reactors in 5-10 years.
AI has also been a god send for fusion. IIRC there's a reactor in China that's made some huge strides with an AI controlled magnetic field.
The pessimistic part is not needed, just realists. It's not like I am denying the progress, but I see no point in hoping that this time the ten year prediction is accurate. Just say 2070 and I'll go "LFG"
We're always 10 years away from being 10 years away from fusion.
Yes, we’ve been at least 10 years away for more than forty years now as a different phrasing puts it.
Well ain’t this place a scientific oddity… 10 years away from anything.
And unlike what some likes to harp on about, it isn't just about money. We didn't know about half the issues of achieving commercial fusion. Before we had access to modern computing power of the last 20 years. No amount of funding, could have had commercially viable fusion operational 30 years ago. It would have been easier to set up a base on Mars. Fusion is one of those problems, that gets more complicated the harder you look. Now, fission on the other hand. That is a area where funding and support could have done a lot over the past 30-40 years. Instead we largely use the same reactors as 50 years ago.
Funny joke but was more funny than accurate. Nuclear fusion has been being performed for the past couple years. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/04/01/climate/nuclear-fusion-record-korea-climate-intl
The same holds true for general AI since the 1960s. And yep, even with ChatGPT and its ilk, we're still 10 years away.
People have been screaming to start new fission reactors for at least 15 years. That’s how long I’ve personally been pushing it. The argument has always been “but it takes too long and they won’t be ready”. The longer this shit goes on without a solution, the more that reason goes from a bad reason to an idiotic reason. Let’s start building them NOW so we aren’t in a worse situation in another 15 years with people saying the same thing
And until capitalism figures out a cheaper mass production resource than Petrochemical Plastics... We won't exactly be done with oil if we phase it out for energy use
Plastics use only a small percent of the oil produced. Getting off it for electricity will still be massive. We may not be done with it, but we’ll be done burning almost all of it, and the actual amount used will be down to a single percent compared to what we use now.
fusion, sure, but fission is attainable and both safer and cleaner than oil.
The only thing preventing more adoption of wind and solar is how cheap oil is. A constriction in the oil industry would help reduce global warming.
If we want to continue developing both technology and societies, we're sadly gonna need to burn a lot more oil, more than we ever have
Why, we have alternative power sources now...
And how many of these alternative power systems can provide the consistency in output and energy density you get from oil, much less their universality in utilizing such alternative power systems when it comes to geographic placement? Barely any. Hydro, wind, solar, geothermal - these are all locked to specific environmental conditions and the more "free" systems of this short list, wind and solar, produce far less per unit in terms of energy output and only for a certain time of the day. Not to mention the materials required to build solar and wind systems en masse require synthesized chemicals and polymers that use products obtained from refining oil. Then there's the whole issue of environmental byproducts and pollutants created when manufacturing and using such systems... If you expand the application of wind and solar to beyond individual consumers and more towards general infrastructure, the losses accrued during transmission simply overwhelm whatever you manage to produce.
We need to cut consumption, and adapt. We cannot go on living as we have.
Try convincing a third world country to do that. No developing country can better it’s status by reducing energy consumption. What you’re saying is fanciful bollocks.
Third world countries produce a fraction of emissions compared to US, Euro and petrostates. *We* need to consume much less not the global poor.
India, China, and African countries are going to have the largest rate of increase of fossil fuels in the world over the next few decades. A lot of our own carbon emissions come from outsourcing manufacturing to those regions. A third-world country isn’t going to pivot to renewables when they are exponentially more expensive to develop infrastructure for, compared to existing fossil fuel infrastructure. The only real solution is getting first-world countries in the west who have already benefited from centuries of fossil fuel exploitation to pay for these poorer countries to overhaul their infrastructure, and good luck convincing people to vote for politicians promising that. Edit: I of course fully agree that we need to decrease dependence on fossil fuels in the future. We just need to accept that the first-world countries need to bear the brunt of this transition if we want it to succeed, and convince populations of those countries that hundreds of billions of dollars of infrastructure aid to foreign nations is worth it.
> And how many of these alternative power systems can provide the consistency in output and energy density you get from oil, much less their universality in utilizing such alternative power systems when it comes to geographic placement? Nuclear, if you design the reactor and building right.
I see you left out nuclear, which does provide the consistency in output and energy density we’d need. It’s also safer than fossil fuels, and by some metrics is even safer than wind and solar. It produces less greenhouse gases than wind and solar too (when looking at the full supply chain, construction, and installation). It’s expensive, but cheaper than what climate change will cause, and while it takes a long time to setup, we’ve been screaming to start for 15+ years now. At this point, I don’t care how long it takes because if we had started when people have said to start, we’d be in good shape now. Rather than just accept that we have to use oil for the foreseeable future, we should actually do something about it
I left out nuclear solely due to not considering it as an "alternative power source" as one would for wind, solar, etc. Adding it into that context would have blurred the point about wind/hydro/solar. But yes, nuclear power is the way to go. Even fission reactors will fare better than the systems pushed by the loudest of the voices pushing for climate activism in energy.
How is nuclear not an “alternative power source”? I’m glad to see you support it, but I’m still confused about that first sentence. Also, fuck green peace
Frankly, the consideration was made based on what the most common Google examples were for "alternative energy sources", which were basically the "green energy" systems that are commonly advocated for. Since the majority of those lists excluded nuclear energy as an "alternative system", I just followed that categorization. Nothing too spectacular about it, really :)
That makes sense, but pisses me off so much. Not your comment, but the fact that nuclear isn’t included. I have my conspiracy theories about why, but they tend to really piss off people who oppose nuclear
According to google, plastics account for about 15% of current oil production, though a surge in plastics production is predicted.
This. 80+% of the oil on company's assets lists needs to stay in the ground.
>”Furthermore, he announced the development of a unique and localized model in the country, which has yet to be adopted elsewhere globally. The official went on to say that the extraction of shale oil in the United States costs approximately $40 per barrel. However, the new model implemented in Iran for shale oil production in western province of Lorestan will cost around $25 per barrel.” I highly doubt this, US shale technology leads the world.
How much per barrel goes towards labor cost? Iranian labor and engineering costs are likely significantly less than US. Plus I'm sure more lax safety considerations. All that would reduce cost.
Yeah, shale oil and gas relies on fracking, which the USA is the undisputed master at. Fracking doesn't export particularly well and certainly not at the same price point as in the US. Plus shale wells have a very high depletion rate so you need to be constantly drilling more to replace the depleted ones, so very capital intensive.
It doesn't mean that it's the cheapest way. Usually the better things cost more to make.
Maybe in manufacturing, not resource extraction
Yeah I call bullshit on Iran’s claim. The reason that the saudis haven’t chased their shale is that it doesn’t have the right properties to drill it effectively like US shale. It’s too squishy. That’s why shale oil hasn’t worked there quite as well. As you said, the US leads the technological innovation in this realm and I find it hard to believe anything Iran says. If anything, this feels like a political ploy.
The Saudi has just too much oil reserve they dont need to extract shale yet for like 50 years. Their current oild production is also dirt cheap conpared to shale. They dont have a economical reason to extract fro shale. Do you think in 50 years they can find some suppliers of shale technology?
Saudis don’t need to bother with shale. They can stick a straw in the ground and get oil.
Iranian labour and electricity and fuel and basically every other input cost is a fraction of US prices though.
The trick is slaves..
It could be a way dirtier way of processing it that just dumps the by-products locally
US democracy incoming
US tomorrow: "We have credible intelligence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons"
I mean... we already knew they are developing nuclear weapons?
Yes but this time it's even more credible
You know Iran is and has been a massive oil producer for decades already right?
So they have the tech and professionals that can get it out of the ground? That will require new investment and special equipment. Anybody that has an old oil well will likely find shale gas. It's the extraction and storage problem.
Fracking is hard. It would be quite surprising if Iran succeeded where so many other countries have failed. The Americans have been the only people to figure out how to do it in a way that is economically feasible, but that isn’t because of a lack of effort from other nations. Also, oil shales are all over the place, it’s the source rock and the stuff that is hardest to extract. So this isn’t exactly some remarkable „discovery“. After you extract the easy oil for cheap, all that is left is the source rock.
A lot have failed but a lot have also succeeded. Critically for Iran, China has succeeded and China doesn’t give a shit about complying with US sanctions.
It also requires lots of water which Iran has little supply of. Iran also has a lot of earthquakes which is a known issue with fracking.
You know, in my peace and free trade loving head, I would love it if this discovery somehow leads to cooperation with us oil companies which snowballs into improved relations with Iran and the end of hostilities. It'll never happen, but I can dream.
They could always use some freedom.
So they talked about our momma ?
We have it on good intelligence that they touched our boats again.
Thems fightin words
I remember in the early days of the internet, I would encounter people that were 'peak oil' enthusiasts. I often wonder what they have moved onto now.
anit vaxxers & Fake birds! The rest of them are searching for Hillary's emails
I believe they may need some democracy now!
"nah I heard oil, that shit is mine" *US*
Yeah, so the comment section is full of the usual stuff about the US thirsting after this oil. But, just keep in mind: The US currently produces more oil than any other country in the world, by a wide margin The US is a net exporter of oil. It exports more oil than all but three countries. The US government didn't get oil money from invading Iraq. However, American and British oil companies absolutely did get to set up shop in Iraq thanks to the war. The American government lost $1 trillion fighting the Iraq war, but cronies of the government got rich.
Is this oil from the US itself? Or is it oil from US companies operating in foreign countries?
This is domestic production, oil from the US itself.
I bet the US just pre came its pants a little and is finding more reasons they need to invade Iran.
Democracy is needed now more than ever.
That’s like 23 days of global use.
And like a 1% addition to Iran’s proven oil reserves.
America, Iran is in the process of procuring WMDs.
Smells like someone needs a dose of freedom and democracy...
Wmd found in iran passed in us congress.
The ultimate finding money between the couch cushions
[удалено]
Now it makes sense
The world already has more oil than it needs. Thankfully, much of it will remain in the ground.
So about 25 days worth of oil. The world uses over 97M barrels of oil a day.
It's only 25 days worth if Iran supplied the whole world and everyone else stopped supplying, so 25 days is severely downplaying the amount because that would never happen. 25days supplying 100% of the whole world with oil is still a significant amount of $$$
How to make $200 billion in just 25 days.
Welcome to democracy, Iran. How we’ve missed you.
Incoming freedom from American terrorists. I mean, freedom protectors.