Iran war wreaking havoc on shipping and air cargo, could create global delays

Impact on Shipping, Oil, and Markets

• Iran appears to be using attacks on shipping and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states to raise the cost of war for third parties and make the region “uninvestable,” including by threatening the Strait of Hormuz.
• Some compare this to the 1980s “Tanker War,” noting that oil markets eventually adapted and overall disruption stayed relatively low; others point out that current disruptions are far more severe (claims of ~90% shipping halted) and Iran now has better weapons.
• Several comments argue that China, India, South Korea and parts of Asia are more exposed on oil than Europe, which already diversified after the Russia–Ukraine war.
• Many expect spikes in oil prices, shipping insurance costs, and knock-on global inflation, with concern about another affordability crisis.

Military Balance and Strategy

• There is debate over US/Israeli capacity: some say reliance on expensive stand‑off weapons is unsustainable and air defenses are finite; others cite B‑52s and jets over Iran as evidence of air superiority and destroyed Iranian launchers.
• Strong disagreement on whether unguided “cheap” bombing will be used: one side says cost and disregard for civilian life make it likely; the other insists precision-guided munitions (e.g., JDAMs) are now standard and cost‑effective.
• Iran is seen as compensating for weak conventional forces with ballistic missiles and cheap drones, aiming for persistent disruption rather than battlefield victory. How degraded Iran’s capabilities really are is unclear.

Civilian Casualties, Legality, and Morality

• Posters clash over who “started” the war and whether initial strikes were “unprovoked,” with references to Iran’s proxy activity vs. US/Israeli actions and prior massacres inside Iran.
• There is sharp disagreement over how much the US and Israel care about civilian deaths; some insist they try to minimize them, others cite rhetoric and incidents (e.g., bombed schools) as evidence they do not.
• Legality under international law and the framing of the war as imperialism or “move fast and break things” foreign policy are recurring critiques.

Regional and Long-Term Dynamics

• Speculation that the conflict could fragment Iran into ethnic rump states (Kurds, Azeris, Baloch, Arabs), though some consider this conjectural and highlight repeated historical betrayals of Kurds.
• Others foresee regime change in Iran as inevitable; skeptics note air power alone has rarely produced stable outcomes and warn of an Iraq/Afghanistan‑style quagmire or proto‑ISIS successors.
• Risk of wider regional war or even “WWIII” is mentioned but viewed by some as overblown, with Russia and especially China expected to avoid direct military involvement while possibly providing limited support.

Ideology, Religion, and Domestic Politics

• Several comments emphasize religious fundamentalism on multiple sides (Iranian theocracy, hardline elements in Israel, US Christian Zionists) and note reports of US troops being given apocalyptic religious framing.
• Others frame the war as driven more by global capital and energy strategy than by religion, arguing that “capital” ultimately cannot be beaten and seeks to incorporate Iran into global markets.
• US domestic politics loom large: some see the war as a distraction from scandals or a bid to boost midterm prospects; others highlight how war spending benefits defense industries and entrenched elites regardless of outcomes.

Media and Analysis Skepticism

• A recommended YouTube “game theory” channel on the conflict draws mixed reactions: some find it insightful; others criticize it as conspiratorial, overconfident, and misusing technical concepts.
• Multiple commenters stress bias in all media ecosystems (Western, Gulf, Chinese, etc.) and advocate cross‑checking sources, with no consensus “trusted” outlet.