Nothing Gordon said is incorrect. Fossil fuels are, indeed, finite. The energy sky however, is not falling. The straight has been a problem for a long time.It will not extend into crushing danger territory. The world will not allow it.
Using fossil fuels to produce electricity is stupid. Much of our infrastructure around the world relies on it for a simple energy production. We need to wake up and get back to nuclear. It's safe, it's environmentally sound and it preserves the fossil fuels needed to produce fertilizers, clothing, lipstick and the very screen that I am tapping on now.
It's almost as stupid as growing corn to produce ethanol. 🤔 Let's use diesel, fertilizer, trucks hauling billions of bushels of corn to processing plants that consume outrageous amounts of energy to produce alcohol from corn. It's a circle of inefficiency, doom and stupidity on a global level.
One thing to learn from what's happening in the M.E. right now is the damage that Iran can impose on the entire world by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz. Before, it was just hypothetical, now it's there for all the world to see. Having the "aorta" of the world in their hands does not bode well, whether that be right now or in the future. I don't know how we walk away now and let them regain that control. Even if you wipe out their ability to ever manufacturer nuclear weapons, they now understand that they have the ability to do far more global damage than a few nuclear weapons ever could. It sounds like we have about two to three weeks to figure this all out, and even then, the fertilizer situation is probably a lost cause for this planting season in the Northern Hemisphere.
Iran controlled the SoH before the US and Israel kicked started this war. Unnecessarily. Prior to that, they had no need to shut it down and never did. It was just the checkmate move that was always going to be played if the US went for it. And they did. And so the checkmate was played and we all lose.
BOOTS ON THE GROUND AFTER "OPERATION EPIC FURY" IS WON?
The Strait of Hormuz contains several islands, but the most strategically significant ones are Qeshm Island, Hormuz Island, and Larak Island, all controlled by Iran. Qeshm Island is the largest in the Persian Gulf and lies close to the strait’s entrance, hosting Iranian military and surveillance assets. Kharg Island, while not in the strait itself, is a critical Iranian oil export hub located about 300 miles northwest in the Persian Gulf and central to regional tensions. Additionally, Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb are disputed islands at the strait’s mouth, occupied by Iran but claimed by the UAE.
It is MHO, after "Operation Epic Fury” is over, the US must leave "Boots on the Ground" and take control of all the several islands in the Strait of Hormuz. Perhaps the US Navy Seals would like a shot at the opportunity?
From what I have observed, Iran hasn't exactly 'shut down' the Strait. It's more like the little kid on the sidewalk saying "none shall pass" until a group of grown men come down the street. "Go away kid, you're bothering us". Iran has been threatening to destroy the oil production capacity of its neighbours literally for decades, and that led to a stand-off for a similar period. That ended when Iran actually struck but inflicted only relatively minor damage. Amazingly, those nations are standing with America (and Israel!). Iran has no airforce, no navy, few drones left, minimal domestic arms production, and few allies willing to risk their own access to international oil by helping what's left of the mullahs. The American military is to technologically advanced that it can obliterate any military opposition and even (in most cases) offset the danger from asymmetrical warfare by its weaker enemies. Far from being 'Trump's Folly", I believe what is happening in Iran and its environs will ultimately be seen as a geo-political masterstroke that will secure not only mid-east oil for the west, but the goodwill of its producers as well. Not to mention preventing the mad mullahs from getting the nuclear toys they so desperately wanted to play with. That's just my opinion, and I have no interest in arguing for or against it. I am happy to wait and see what will actually happen. After all, that's all any of us can do, anyway.
Your note asks whether we are staring down a prolonged energy crisis, who stands to gain or lose, and whether this resolves neatly enough for a political victory lap. Those are fair questions—but they are also, in a sense, the wrong ones to lead with.
Not because they don’t matter. But because they tempt us into the illusion that, with enough expertise, we can forecast our way through uncertainty.
We cannot.
As Carl von Clausewitz observed long ago, the decisive factors in conflict are wrapped in fog. The present moment is no exception. Whether this disruption proves temporary or prolonged—whether the Strait of Hormuz reopens swiftly or remains constrained—simply cannot be answered with confidence. The range of possible outcomes is too wide, the variables too interdependent, and the second-and third-order effects too complex.
But uncertainty about duration does not mean uncertainty about significance.
What is becoming clear—regardless of how long this particular episode lasts—is how fragile our so-called “age of abundance” actually is.
For generations, we have lived inside a system that feels permanent: energy is available, goods are stocked, supply chains hum quietly in the background.
And because it has worked so well, we have come to mistake access for security.
This moment exposes the difference.
It reveals that the modern world is not merely productive—it is tightly coupled, highly optimized, and dependent on uninterrupted flow. Energy is not just one sector among many; it is the precondition beneath them all. When that flow is threatened, even briefly, the entire structure begins to tremble.
So perhaps the deeper takeaway is not whether this becomes another 1973 oil crisis.
It is that we have built a world in which even the possibility of disruption feels existential.
And that points us toward a more enduring set of reflections.
It suggests, first, that resilience matters more than prediction. We have spent decades refining our ability to forecast markets, model risk, and anticipate shocks. Yet systems built on prediction alone tend to fail at the margins—precisely where reality becomes most unpredictable. Resilience, by contrast, does not require us to be right about the future. It requires that we are not undone when we are wrong.
Second, it suggests that redundancy matters more than efficiency. The modern global economy has been engineered to eliminate slack: lean inventories, just-in-time logistics, minimal excess. This has produced extraordinary prosperity—but at the cost of buffering capacity. Redundancy appears wasteful on a balance sheet, yet in practice it is stored stability. When disruptions occur, it is redundancy—not efficiency—that keeps systems functioning.
Third, it suggests that local stability matters more than global optimization. Globalization has maximized output by stretching supply chains across continents, linking distant producers to distant consumers with remarkable precision. But this same interconnectedness amplifies vulnerability. A disruption at a single chokepoint does not remain local; it propagates. Systems optimized for scale often lack the resilience that comes from proximity, diversity, and partial self-sufficiency.
Taken together, these observations shift the frame.
The question is no longer simply: Will this crisis last?
But rather: What kind of world have we constructed that makes any disruption—real or perceived—feel so consequential?
In that light, the winners and losers become clearer, though not in the usual sense. Yes, energy exporters may benefit from higher prices, and import-dependent economies may suffer. But even the “winners” are constrained by the same system. Higher prices ripple outward, slowing growth, straining consumers, and exposing shared dependencies.
As for politics—whether any leader can claim a clean resolution—history suggests caution. Energy shocks have a way of outlasting narratives. They are felt not in headlines, but in daily life: at the pump, at the grocery store, in the quiet tightening of household budgets. If this resolves quickly, it may be absorbed. If not, it will resist easy framing.
So where does that leave us?
Not in panic—but in realism.
This may prove to be a temporary disruption. In all likelihood, it will be. The world has strong incentives to restore the flow of energy, and history shows that such chokepoints rarely remain closed indefinitely.
But even if the crisis passes, the revelation should not.
Because what we are glimpsing is not merely a break in the system—but the nature of the system itself: extraordinarily productive, deeply interconnected, and more fragile than it appears.
And that is a truth worth holding onto—long after the headlines move on.
Wow! I am trying to literarily go back into the history of the development of mankind when the earth was full of independent geographic biospheres and how survival ,in each, created a great diversity of cultures and set limitations. The modern creation is indeed a precarious place.
I am astounded at your understanding. An outstanding presentation of a reality few contemplate.
The "collateral" damage that may have or may have not been thought out. In the mean time You and I "suffer" the consequences by the decisions of the few.
Trump's Folly will, as Mr. Gordon points out, have dire consequences in the longer term. If farmers don't get fertilizer, and soon, harvest season will be severely affected. There is no workaround. We can only hope there is an adult in the room with the wisdom to say: "You've destroyed Iranian military capabilities, Mr. President. It's time to declare victory and go home." But alas, that is not the way to bet....
It comes down to the difference between the Biogenic theory of FF development or the Abiogenic theory of hydrocarbon formation. One, essentially, the “dead dinosaur & plant material” as a finite resource, versus an almost limitless and constant process where the heat of the Earths core works to fuse carbon and hydrogen elements to produce hydrocarbon oil & gasses. If the latter, we still need to reconcile our rate of consumption versus the Earths rate of production and our concerns for our air and water environment remain as well.
You’re welcome Jean. The nuance here is that we do have to have reasonable environmental controls but we shouldn’t react precipitously to the doomsayers. One day, historians will shake their heads at our consumption of hydrocarbons for transportation & utilities power but we do have time to move to nuclear that is now going through an evolutionary phase to much safer technology and will see us transition to an EV transportation fleet and also support AI Datacenters rollout without ruining our physical world.
I am told America has some of the largest oil and gas deposits in the world and yet prices are skyrocketing at the pump. If we have so much damn oil why aren't we harvesting that rather than worrying about the straits of Hormuz. I am so tired of manipulations and lies. This has to be a reflection on the quality of our leadership or the absence of it. Joel, would you please explain this to an old man who has seen enough. Thanks for all you do for your people.
Us Oil producers are mandated to make a profit. If US production costs are say, $50 per barrel and that is the local US price, other locations like Brazil may be paying $90 per barrel so the US producer is obliged to sell it at the higher price...
According to Scott Ritter a former Marine(I know- once a Marine always a Marine) weapons inspector, including nuclear, who led the inspections in Iraq after the Iraq war(remember the drumbeat of WMD by Bush) found they had none- a big zero. He has also said that Iran has no nuclear weapons program and has no intention of developing one. He said their enrichment of uranium was specifically for power generation. I would believe him before I believe our gov't story. We can thank Trump and the other psychophants running things here for the current situation. He is controlled. By who? BN and company.
I forgot this. If Israel can have nukes and I'm sure some are pointed at Iran, why can't Iran have them. You know MAD. Russia, China, England, France the US all have nukes aimed at each other. Shouldn't Iran have that same right? Don't give me the mad mullah thing. It's a canard, propaganda. Of course the US is the only country to have ever used nukes. Hmm!
Sounds like an armageddon scenario .. what fun all those MAGA folks are gonna have pushing their wheel barrows around with useless $ollars that will buy absolutely nothing .. so lock & load up everyone cause its gonna be a beautiful trumpet kind of day for all those RED HATS to find out what their stupidity cost them .. revenge anyone ...?
Nothing Gordon said is incorrect. Fossil fuels are, indeed, finite. The energy sky however, is not falling. The straight has been a problem for a long time.It will not extend into crushing danger territory. The world will not allow it.
Using fossil fuels to produce electricity is stupid. Much of our infrastructure around the world relies on it for a simple energy production. We need to wake up and get back to nuclear. It's safe, it's environmentally sound and it preserves the fossil fuels needed to produce fertilizers, clothing, lipstick and the very screen that I am tapping on now.
It's almost as stupid as growing corn to produce ethanol. 🤔 Let's use diesel, fertilizer, trucks hauling billions of bushels of corn to processing plants that consume outrageous amounts of energy to produce alcohol from corn. It's a circle of inefficiency, doom and stupidity on a global level.
One thing to learn from what's happening in the M.E. right now is the damage that Iran can impose on the entire world by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz. Before, it was just hypothetical, now it's there for all the world to see. Having the "aorta" of the world in their hands does not bode well, whether that be right now or in the future. I don't know how we walk away now and let them regain that control. Even if you wipe out their ability to ever manufacturer nuclear weapons, they now understand that they have the ability to do far more global damage than a few nuclear weapons ever could. It sounds like we have about two to three weeks to figure this all out, and even then, the fertilizer situation is probably a lost cause for this planting season in the Northern Hemisphere.
Iran controlled the SoH before the US and Israel kicked started this war. Unnecessarily. Prior to that, they had no need to shut it down and never did. It was just the checkmate move that was always going to be played if the US went for it. And they did. And so the checkmate was played and we all lose.
BOOTS ON THE GROUND AFTER "OPERATION EPIC FURY" IS WON?
The Strait of Hormuz contains several islands, but the most strategically significant ones are Qeshm Island, Hormuz Island, and Larak Island, all controlled by Iran. Qeshm Island is the largest in the Persian Gulf and lies close to the strait’s entrance, hosting Iranian military and surveillance assets. Kharg Island, while not in the strait itself, is a critical Iranian oil export hub located about 300 miles northwest in the Persian Gulf and central to regional tensions. Additionally, Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb are disputed islands at the strait’s mouth, occupied by Iran but claimed by the UAE.
It is MHO, after "Operation Epic Fury” is over, the US must leave "Boots on the Ground" and take control of all the several islands in the Strait of Hormuz. Perhaps the US Navy Seals would like a shot at the opportunity?
From what I have observed, Iran hasn't exactly 'shut down' the Strait. It's more like the little kid on the sidewalk saying "none shall pass" until a group of grown men come down the street. "Go away kid, you're bothering us". Iran has been threatening to destroy the oil production capacity of its neighbours literally for decades, and that led to a stand-off for a similar period. That ended when Iran actually struck but inflicted only relatively minor damage. Amazingly, those nations are standing with America (and Israel!). Iran has no airforce, no navy, few drones left, minimal domestic arms production, and few allies willing to risk their own access to international oil by helping what's left of the mullahs. The American military is to technologically advanced that it can obliterate any military opposition and even (in most cases) offset the danger from asymmetrical warfare by its weaker enemies. Far from being 'Trump's Folly", I believe what is happening in Iran and its environs will ultimately be seen as a geo-political masterstroke that will secure not only mid-east oil for the west, but the goodwill of its producers as well. Not to mention preventing the mad mullahs from getting the nuclear toys they so desperately wanted to play with. That's just my opinion, and I have no interest in arguing for or against it. I am happy to wait and see what will actually happen. After all, that's all any of us can do, anyway.
Joel,
Your note asks whether we are staring down a prolonged energy crisis, who stands to gain or lose, and whether this resolves neatly enough for a political victory lap. Those are fair questions—but they are also, in a sense, the wrong ones to lead with.
Not because they don’t matter. But because they tempt us into the illusion that, with enough expertise, we can forecast our way through uncertainty.
We cannot.
As Carl von Clausewitz observed long ago, the decisive factors in conflict are wrapped in fog. The present moment is no exception. Whether this disruption proves temporary or prolonged—whether the Strait of Hormuz reopens swiftly or remains constrained—simply cannot be answered with confidence. The range of possible outcomes is too wide, the variables too interdependent, and the second-and third-order effects too complex.
But uncertainty about duration does not mean uncertainty about significance.
What is becoming clear—regardless of how long this particular episode lasts—is how fragile our so-called “age of abundance” actually is.
For generations, we have lived inside a system that feels permanent: energy is available, goods are stocked, supply chains hum quietly in the background.
And because it has worked so well, we have come to mistake access for security.
This moment exposes the difference.
It reveals that the modern world is not merely productive—it is tightly coupled, highly optimized, and dependent on uninterrupted flow. Energy is not just one sector among many; it is the precondition beneath them all. When that flow is threatened, even briefly, the entire structure begins to tremble.
So perhaps the deeper takeaway is not whether this becomes another 1973 oil crisis.
It is that we have built a world in which even the possibility of disruption feels existential.
And that points us toward a more enduring set of reflections.
It suggests, first, that resilience matters more than prediction. We have spent decades refining our ability to forecast markets, model risk, and anticipate shocks. Yet systems built on prediction alone tend to fail at the margins—precisely where reality becomes most unpredictable. Resilience, by contrast, does not require us to be right about the future. It requires that we are not undone when we are wrong.
Second, it suggests that redundancy matters more than efficiency. The modern global economy has been engineered to eliminate slack: lean inventories, just-in-time logistics, minimal excess. This has produced extraordinary prosperity—but at the cost of buffering capacity. Redundancy appears wasteful on a balance sheet, yet in practice it is stored stability. When disruptions occur, it is redundancy—not efficiency—that keeps systems functioning.
Third, it suggests that local stability matters more than global optimization. Globalization has maximized output by stretching supply chains across continents, linking distant producers to distant consumers with remarkable precision. But this same interconnectedness amplifies vulnerability. A disruption at a single chokepoint does not remain local; it propagates. Systems optimized for scale often lack the resilience that comes from proximity, diversity, and partial self-sufficiency.
Taken together, these observations shift the frame.
The question is no longer simply: Will this crisis last?
But rather: What kind of world have we constructed that makes any disruption—real or perceived—feel so consequential?
In that light, the winners and losers become clearer, though not in the usual sense. Yes, energy exporters may benefit from higher prices, and import-dependent economies may suffer. But even the “winners” are constrained by the same system. Higher prices ripple outward, slowing growth, straining consumers, and exposing shared dependencies.
As for politics—whether any leader can claim a clean resolution—history suggests caution. Energy shocks have a way of outlasting narratives. They are felt not in headlines, but in daily life: at the pump, at the grocery store, in the quiet tightening of household budgets. If this resolves quickly, it may be absorbed. If not, it will resist easy framing.
So where does that leave us?
Not in panic—but in realism.
This may prove to be a temporary disruption. In all likelihood, it will be. The world has strong incentives to restore the flow of energy, and history shows that such chokepoints rarely remain closed indefinitely.
But even if the crisis passes, the revelation should not.
Because what we are glimpsing is not merely a break in the system—but the nature of the system itself: extraordinarily productive, deeply interconnected, and more fragile than it appears.
And that is a truth worth holding onto—long after the headlines move on.
Respectfully,
Jack E. Chadwell, Jr.
Wow! I am trying to literarily go back into the history of the development of mankind when the earth was full of independent geographic biospheres and how survival ,in each, created a great diversity of cultures and set limitations. The modern creation is indeed a precarious place.
I am astounded at your understanding. An outstanding presentation of a reality few contemplate.
The "collateral" damage that may have or may have not been thought out. In the mean time You and I "suffer" the consequences by the decisions of the few.
Trump's Folly will, as Mr. Gordon points out, have dire consequences in the longer term. If farmers don't get fertilizer, and soon, harvest season will be severely affected. There is no workaround. We can only hope there is an adult in the room with the wisdom to say: "You've destroyed Iranian military capabilities, Mr. President. It's time to declare victory and go home." But alas, that is not the way to bet....
I'm totally baffled! As we march into the future, how is it that we haven't used up all or most of our resources, such as oil, ores, etc. --Jean
It comes down to the difference between the Biogenic theory of FF development or the Abiogenic theory of hydrocarbon formation. One, essentially, the “dead dinosaur & plant material” as a finite resource, versus an almost limitless and constant process where the heat of the Earths core works to fuse carbon and hydrogen elements to produce hydrocarbon oil & gasses. If the latter, we still need to reconcile our rate of consumption versus the Earths rate of production and our concerns for our air and water environment remain as well.
Thank you, Ed, for your educated expertise on the subject.--Jean
You’re welcome Jean. The nuance here is that we do have to have reasonable environmental controls but we shouldn’t react precipitously to the doomsayers. One day, historians will shake their heads at our consumption of hydrocarbons for transportation & utilities power but we do have time to move to nuclear that is now going through an evolutionary phase to much safer technology and will see us transition to an EV transportation fleet and also support AI Datacenters rollout without ruining our physical world.
I am told America has some of the largest oil and gas deposits in the world and yet prices are skyrocketing at the pump. If we have so much damn oil why aren't we harvesting that rather than worrying about the straits of Hormuz. I am so tired of manipulations and lies. This has to be a reflection on the quality of our leadership or the absence of it. Joel, would you please explain this to an old man who has seen enough. Thanks for all you do for your people.
Us Oil producers are mandated to make a profit. If US production costs are say, $50 per barrel and that is the local US price, other locations like Brazil may be paying $90 per barrel so the US producer is obliged to sell it at the higher price...
According to Scott Ritter a former Marine(I know- once a Marine always a Marine) weapons inspector, including nuclear, who led the inspections in Iraq after the Iraq war(remember the drumbeat of WMD by Bush) found they had none- a big zero. He has also said that Iran has no nuclear weapons program and has no intention of developing one. He said their enrichment of uranium was specifically for power generation. I would believe him before I believe our gov't story. We can thank Trump and the other psychophants running things here for the current situation. He is controlled. By who? BN and company.
https://josealnino.substack.com/p/its-in-the-blood-the-trump-familys?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
I forgot this. If Israel can have nukes and I'm sure some are pointed at Iran, why can't Iran have them. You know MAD. Russia, China, England, France the US all have nukes aimed at each other. Shouldn't Iran have that same right? Don't give me the mad mullah thing. It's a canard, propaganda. Of course the US is the only country to have ever used nukes. Hmm!
Each life is a food for other life
Energy and food are same in reality
Life is thus a sort of storage of energy
we in turn at some stage would be compelled to use that energy
Sounds like an armageddon scenario .. what fun all those MAGA folks are gonna have pushing their wheel barrows around with useless $ollars that will buy absolutely nothing .. so lock & load up everyone cause its gonna be a beautiful trumpet kind of day for all those RED HATS to find out what their stupidity cost them .. revenge anyone ...?
Prime Minister Starmer may be no Churchill but, so far, Trump is no Alexander - more like Xerxes.
UK Prime Minister Starmer may be no Churchill but so far Trump is no Alexander.
SNAFU !