Head For An Eye

Closing the trade balance through modern economics
(Source: nypost.com)

As projected here in late June, the supposed sixty-day ceasefire under the Islamabad Memorandum barely lasted a fortnight, with it practically being over some time before GOD-EMPEROR TRUMP declared so on the eighth of July. Though the proximate cause was Iran attacking vessels traversing the Strait of Hormuz without their permission - including at least one Singapore-flagged cargo ship - the ill-fated MoU had nearly all its fourteen terms at least bent before that. Beginning with the much-disparaged US$300 billion reconstruction fund (possibly the most obvious troll that TRUMP has made as POTUS), the Gulf states would disavow any knowledge just a few days later, with Rubio confirming that no discussion had been done on the topic. Vice-President Vance would then publicly admit that the MoU was simply a tactical break to refill oil (and maybe other) reserves, about which we can honestly evince little surprise.

This would have all of Iran's state bodies declare a week or so back that the U.S. could not be trusted - a sentiment surely largely reciprocated in Washington - and on this, both parties may well be right. The new (and yet unseen) Iranian supreme leader would further declare TRUMP's signature "utterly worthless", though seeing as it will be appearing on American banknotes, may be a considerate move towards calibration.


Look... what else did you expect??
(Source: GPT Image 2)

With the collapse of the ceasefire, much of the action has returned to controlling the Hormuz as covered in their Doha talks, with Iran adamant on their right to effectively charge a toll, if possibly under some other name or contrivance. The U.S. side has proposed several counteroffers while maintaining the illegality of tolls on international waterways, if with TRUMP reviving some old trolling with his suggestion of a 20% toll by America. There were also reports of a US$6 billion bribe for Iran to relinquish control, but one sort of understands why Iran may be wary of such unenforceable promises.

Oman, caught between the two powers, has apparently been swinging from one side to the other trying to play honest broker, seemingly alternating between the U.S. position of no tolls, and the Iranian demand of some fees one way or the other. Their latest Gulf state-backed plan appears to be for "voluntary fees" modelled after the Strait of Malacca setup alongside a two-corridor navigation scheme, which seems an attempt at saving some face for both sides (and Malacca-adjacent countries who had stuck their neck out); ideally, ships would be able to (possibly) pay some fees - officially unrelated to the act of transiting - to Iran, with America still being able to claim that they had prevented any (mandatory) fees from being imposed.

Unfortunately, this arrangement appears unlikely to work, beginning with the realisation that it would necessarily formally acknowledge an Iranian-controlled channel. Once this is codified, there is little to prevent Iran or their proxies from (literally) undermining the Omani half, which would leave vessels with no choice but to use the now-recognized Irani corridor. From there, it is frankly not that large a leap to compulsory voluntary fees, as some European nations have figured, given that the strait is not going anywhere fast.


And we have a standoff
[N.B. Still waiting patiently for Europe to get involved...]
(Source: GPT Image 2)

As it stands, America has reinstated their naval blockade of Iran from mid-July, after media linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps argued that they had no choice but to officially go nuclear; more-concrete preemptive assaults on U.S. bases in Jordan have had the American God of War pledging to "beat the f**king shit out of them", which actually comes as something of a relief given their Secretary of State's assertion of taking "a head for an eye", which recall had been foretold as TRUMP's true message sent by his Liberation Day tariffs early last year: "I am The King, My Word is Law, Those That Deny It Stand Against Me, And I Will Have Their Heads".

Dear sirs, how many heads would it take, before you would concur on this point?

Thankfully, GEOTUS's Great Fauchard of Swift Decapitation +2 has not had its smile visited on any major unfortunates since the removals of Maduro and Khamenei some months back, with Cuba (newly accused of being "The Capital of 21st Century Communism" by his Department of State, in a perhaps unintended backhanded slight towards Beijing) possibly to undergo what would amount to a mostly-peaceful handover, following a sustained blockade that has seen persistent blackouts and economic paralysis, reportedly resulting in rare riots against local Communist Party offices. The grandson of former President Castro is reportedly ready to negotiate, and one can again only hope for an acceptable compromise yielding minimal additional suffering for the civilians.



Duly noted.
(Source: straitstimes.com)

Some collateral damage may however have been sustained in another dimension, as our Foreign Minister has just raised to Rubio at an ASEAN meet in Manila. This involves the latest iteration of Amerika's Imperial Tariffs, as now imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). This replaces the temporary 10% global tariffs under Section 122, with new tariffs of either 10% or 12.5%, against sixty countries ostensibly due to using forced labour - Singapore included.

On this, let us revisit the framework and explanations applied to the original tariffs from last May. Recall, it was claimed that the specific numbers did not matter, since the primary objective of the edict was to underline America's supremacy towards preserving the current world order, by demanding a symbolic bending of the knee. That intent appears to remain, from how Canada pointedly got whacked with an additional 50% tariff, after being among the very few (including China) to attempt retaliation (i.e. not fully bend the knee) previously... which has not saved them from a 73.5% pea starch tariff courtesy of China either. Offhand, the signal from both bloc leaders has the air of "sure anyone is free to be 'sovereign' and 'independent'... but enjoy being on your own then, buddy!"

The sorting into teams thereof should take some time to play out, so consider next the meaning of the tariff bands, with a distinction between 15% and 20% suggested last July. The tiers have been refined to 10% versus 12.5% doubtless after careful consideration by the American powerbrokers, and again it might be recognized that there is probably an insignificant difference between those two figures, in an economic sense. Indeed, the official story by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is that the 10% figure is for those that have made commitments to address forced labour, and the 12.5% figure is for those that have not; however, given that the definition of forced labour appears broad enough that there is essentially no way to avoid it as defined - as comprehensively argued by our Ministry of Trade and Industry - one figures that not the real intent here.



It was always going to come to this...
[N.B. Or not, given that TRUMP has just banned China's humanoid robots.]
(Source: Google Nano Banana)

Well, given that the analysis provided here from last year did appear to mostly-accurately describe the tariff gambit, please do allow for another humble interpretation, following consideration of the tier distribution as assigned:



Don't shoot the messenger please
[N.B. Itself a throwback to the very first chapter.]
(Source: kengan-manga.com)