Scott R. Anderson (7:29)
such a group together to talk about three stories, all of which are the common nexus of the ongoing Iran conflict, but trying to tackle a couple of unique expressions and consequences thereof. Topic one for today, keeping it on the straight and narrow. Three weeks into the US And Israel's air campaign against Iran, ship traffic through the critical Strait of Hormuz remains at a virtual stop, sending crude oil prices north of $100 a barrel. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said last week that vessels are safe to sail through the strait, but continued attacks on tankers suggest otherwise. Some neighboring Gulf states, among others, are in turn growing antsy that US Strikes won't go far enough in preventing Iran attacks. What do we make of these developments, and how will it impact how other countries are navigating the broader conflict? Topic 29 to 59 US efforts to secure European support for efforts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz have fallen on deaf ears, with German officials, among others, describing it as a not our war and far outside the obligations imposed by NATO's Article 5 and other defense commitments. In response, President Trump said that he was disappointed in NATO and once again hinted that he might exit it. It's the latest Nader in what has been a precipitous decline in transatlantic relations over the past three months. How much worse can things get, and what could it mean for the future of the broader alliance? Topic 3 Unlawful good actually, I should put up at the end because question mark Unlawful good A US Strike on what turned out to be an elementary school in southern Iran in the early stage of the US Military campaign there has put a new focus on decisions by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to scale back rules and processes meant to reduce harm to civilians in armed conflict. Hegseth has called the rules of engagement stupid and has said that he wants to give military commanders maximum authority on the battlefield. He's also repeatedly called for no quarter in Iran and other contexts in order that, if taken literally, would itself be a violation of the laws of armed conflict. Exactly how far has Hegseth unraveled the Pentagon's rules of engagement, and what could the real consequences be in Iran and elsewhere? So for our first topic, let us go to the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway that has become the focus in many ways of the Iran conflict that is very much ongoing, not necessarily the focus of military operations, but the focus in terms of where the rubber is hitting the road. In terms of Iranian pushback, I think on the United States and to some extent Israel as well. By exercising control of the state of Hormuz, which it has effectively done despite claims to the contrary, it's operating essentially a screening mechanism where it it hasn't been allowing vessels through. For most countries, it looks like it's worked out a deal with, I believe last time I checked with India, Pakistan and China, where certain vessels have been able to get through without interruption, but otherwise other national vessels haven't been able to get through the kind of pseudo blockade they're not calling it that, but I'll use in the colloquial sense strait that Iran has put up. There's also been some reports of mining being used to block parts of the waterway, which obviously poses a more enduring problem. And of course, repeated attacks against vessels going through of various nationalities, that presents a real risk. Meaning that even if maybe the United States or Iran or other people will give assurances of the security, even if it may improve nominally on the ground, until that's perceived by, among other people, maritime insurance underwriters and the people who ensure the vessels that transport oil and other goods through the strait, they are not going to be able to financially likely to be in a position to move through, even though physically safety wise, they may actually be able to do so. This is causing major global economic ramifications. Oil prices have gone up precipitously and are likely to continue climbing as global stocks of oil dribble down. Remember, there's been a really relatively fast moving conflict and those stocks are still insulating to some extent the actual crude oil prices. As they wear down, the oil price is going to continue to creep up even if the status quo remains more or less the same, but also particularly problematic for consumers in Europe and Asia. You're also seeing fertilizer prices creep up and actually fertilizer stocks drop precipitously, something that could have huge ramifications for agriculture in various parts of the world. And relatedly, people, particularly in Europe, are concerned it could result in, among other things, migratory flows of human beings coming from Africa and other areas affected by this, who, when they're facing agricultural shortages, have in the past sometimes pushed immigration into Europe and other parts of the world, causing political complications and other humanitarian complications there. So, Ari, I think hopefully that captures some of the big dynamics around this. Talk to us about what we know about how the United States and Israel and other countries have been approaching trying to liberate the strait where it's fallen short. And what we're hearing from the wide range of countries that are affected by this action on the part of Iran.
