Trump is now threatening to block ships, including Chinese.
The population of China is 1.4 billion people with an average IQ of 105.
America has a population size of 0.35 billion, with an average IQ of 99. (MAGA pulls down the average IQ).
America has bullied small countries, but China can fight back
Either everyone are allowed to use the strait, or nobody goes through...good ...Iran is doing this, not the USA.
"Iran is doing this, not the USA."
Oh right . . . and Bozo's unprovoked attack on Iran had nothing to do with it?
Talk about delusional!
Absolutely the right move….turning Iran’s blockade on them. I’m not sure why it took weeks to come up with this obvious strategy. Open the Straits, stop trying to build a bomb, stop torturing people in your jails and we’ll all live happily ever after.
The S&P eliminates all the Iran war losses after the obvious move to blockade the Straits:
For I am a Pirate King!
And it is, it is a glorious thing
To be a Pirate King
I am a Pirate King!
You are!
Hurrah for the Pirate King!
And it is, it is a glorious thing
To be a Pirate King
It is!
Hurrah for the Pirate King!
Hurrah for the Pirate King!
Iran, like Venezuela, is about ensuring their oil gets traded in US dollars, and not Chinese.
The end goal is to undermine China, maintain America's role as the global reserve currency, and protect the petro-dollar.
China do not have the
The Dollar has demonstrated throughout the war that it’s unchallenged. Claiming the dollar was the motivation makes about as much sense as saying it was to preserve English as the global language.
TDS….but unfortunately for the Woke Set the scales are tilting back to the good guys, No issues for the two destroyers going through the Straits pointed out just how empty the Iran threats are.
The markets are scoring the war and they have turned positive,
Type this prompt into any AI Search Engine:
Trump said that his motives in Iran are to:
1. Prevent Iran from having a nuke
2. Help free the Iranian people who are victims of the current government. Wars often have underlying economic motives. What would Trump's most likely other motives be?
Here is an example:
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/trump-said-that-his-motives-in-Xpzna_pmSz.Krll7_pt3eg
Trump rarely leaves anything unsaid, I can’t recall ever hearing him even using the term ‘petrodollar’ …what a blast from the past that is. Your perplexity search gives possible motives not Trump motives.
Insert that bolded prompt into any AI, and see what the response is.
Return with your results. Thanks for your attention to this matter
Since you ask so politely. Please note the Question I asked and the response CHAT gives in the post below. If you would be so kind, please point out where the petrodollar or the dollar itself was mentioned.
And if I could impose a little further, also acknowledge the result. Hoping you are having a wonderful day.
Trump said that his motives in Iran are to: 1. Prevent Iran from having a nuke 2. Help free the Iranian people who are victims of the current government. Wars often have underlying economic motives. What would Trump's most likely other motives be?
Your two listed motives (nuclear prevention and “freeing the Iranian people”) are indeed the public-facing justifications. But based on what officials have said and how analysts interpret the policy, there are several additional, more strategic motives that are widely discussed.
I’ll separate these into well-supported strategic motives vs more debated/controversial interpretations.
1) Core additional strategic motives (widely supported)This is actually one of the clearest stated goals:
?? This goes beyond nuclear weapons—it's about reducing Iran as a regional military power.
?? This is a classic geopolitical motive:
Maintain U.S.-aligned regional balance of power
Some justification was:
?? This is less about immediate war and more about:
Shaping the battlefield before Iran can act
Recent events make this very relevant:
There were also discussions about:
?? That points to a clear economic/geostrategic motive:
Prevent Iran from disrupting global oil supply (and prices)2) Broader geopolitical motives (commonly inferred)
Even if not always emphasized publicly:
?? This aligns with your second stated motive—but in practice it means:
Replace the current regime with one more aligned to U.S. interests
Iran’s influence spans:
Weakening Iran reduces:
?? This is a classic great-power goal:
Roll back a rival sphere of influence3) Economic motives (more indirect but real)
These are not usually stated openly but are widely discussed:
?? Not “seizing oil” in a simple sense—but:
controlling the conditions under which oil flows
Military action strengthens:
?? This links war to:
forcing economic concessions from Iran4) More controversial / debated interpretations
These are discussed but less universally accepted:
Some critics argue:
This view is explicitly raised by critics in reporting
Some analysts suggest:
Strategic (most important):
Geopolitical:
Economic/strategic:
The most likely underlying motive isn’t a single hidden factor like “oil,” but a combination of security, geopolitical, and economic interests centered on limiting Iran’s power and influence in a strategically critical region.
If you want, I can rank these by which ones are most consistent with actual U.S. behavior vs rhetoric—that often gives a clearer “true priorities” picture.
Off for a bit of golf…catch your acknowledgement later?
Perplexity searches before creating a response, making it more current than ChatGPT.
So append this to the end of the prompt, "Do an internet search", which forces ChatGPT to get current information before responding.
Here is ChatGPT's Response below
https://chatgpt.com/share/69de88a1-4b0c-832c-bf99-d574deadbcdb
Publicly, Donald Trump has framed his actions around:
However, current reporting and geopolitical analysis suggest a broader set of likely underlying strategic, economic, and political drivers.
Below is a structured, evidence-based breakdown.
One of the clearest non-stated motives is reasserting U.S. dominance in the Middle East.
There is also a great-power competition angle:
Interpretation:
This aligns with a long-standing U.S. objective: limiting rival regional powers and maintaining strategic influence over global chokepoints.
Energy is not always the explicit justification—but it is structurally central.
Some analyses suggest:
Interpretation:
Rather than “taking oil,” the more realistic motive is controlling supply dynamics and global pricing influence.
Trump’s decisions appear partially influenced by financial markets and economic optics:
Interpretation:
The conflict intersects with:
These are critical for political positioning, especially in election cycles.
There is strong evidence of domestic political signalling:
At the same time:
Interpretation:
Foreign policy here doubles as political branding and leverage, not just strategy.
While not always explicitly stated, multiple analyses point to:
Some geopolitical commentary frames this as:
Interpretation:
“Helping the Iranian people” can function as a soft framing of regime-change objectives.
Wars often stimulate:
While not always directly stated, this is a structural factor in most conflicts.
From a data-driven perspective, the most plausible underlying motives are multi-layered, not singular:
The evidence suggests this is not primarily about oil extraction, but rather:
Control of systems (energy flows, geopolitics, markets) rather than ownership of resources.
That distinction is critical when analysing modern conflicts.
Classical I do exactly what you asked. You then point out Chat has a data cut off point, something I first mentioned on the Board, you change the search you asked me to do. But there still is no mention of the dollar.
What’s your major malfunction?
It is about oil - and trading in dollars. That is what the Petro-dollar is. It also helps keep the US as the reserve currecny.
I have used ChatGPT search since if first came out (initially it never had an internet connection).
I just mentioned to add do an internet search to be sure, sometimes it understands the context like timeframe and does this automatically.
Tiny feet and tiny hands,
tiny brain that understands
little of the world it sees,
changing with the slightest breeze.
Toddler-taming will not work
with this stupid, childish jerk,
ignorance that’s made up for
by the instruments of war.
Macho posturing will not
hide the fact he’s lost the plot,
leaving just an empty shell
pounding on the gates of hell.
Fear not, God will intervene.
-
Real Christians were offended by Trump portraying himself as Jesus - but not the fake Christians.
The fake Christians thought it was fantastic.
Atheists are now experts on who's Christians, what offends them and who are fake and who are not... bizarre...so Shark, does real Christians believe in the real Jesus and fake Christians in some or other fake Jesus?...from your atheist perspective?...or does real Christians believe in cheap petrol?
Whoooosh!
Real Christians believe in the liberal teachings of Jesus Christ. Fake Christians are just an association of convenience for self-preservation.
Draad, I herby cast you out to the heathen.
Ayatolla
19,835 posts
Apr 15, 2026, 11:49
Fear not, God will intervene.
……
Not your’s apparently
If God led Moses to the Promised Land, in the Bible, the Koran and the Tanakh - how can we be sure who God's chosen people are? Other than having war, whoever wins is God's chosen people?
You could use IQs…try Israel vs Iran. I mean that’s your test isn’t it. The chosen people would surely have been given the advanced brain option. Or maybe we could just look at their tech companies.
Israel:
Iran Tech companies
So two web design companies and an internet advertising agency.
Case closed?
"Real Christians believe in the liberal teachings of Jesus Christ. Fake Christians are just an association of convenience for self-preservation.
Draad, I herby cast you out to the heathen."
Nah, it's a narrow path, nothing convenient about it, but once you know, there is no other way, you're compelled...there is no such thing as a fake Christian...you either are or you ain't...these days there's no need or advantage to be gained pretending to be being one...only ridicule and condemnation for following the Path...it is what it is.
"Whoooosh"
Yes, I know it's far above your comprehension...I almost had hope ....
Nah, it's a narrow path, nothing convenient about it, but once you know, there is no other way, you're compelled...there is no such thing as a fake Christian...you either are or you ain't...these days there's no need or advantage to be gained pretending to be being one...only ridicule and condemnation for following the Path...it is what it is.
What a world, a liberal world...As a reminder, jesus came on earth to establish a community of people: the church, a community in spirit (and not a community in material as quite often today it is claimed)
The path can not be walked alone, it is a collective path to follow. And the bible warns a lot about people who stray from the path and calls for action against people who keep telling they are and act as christians as they are not. Claiming there is no such a thing like fake christians is claiming that the devil does not exist.
Liberalised speech: liberals speak with no consequences, just because the sound of their words is sweet music to their ears on the moment.
The chosen people would surely have been given the advanced brain option. Or maybe we could just look at their tech companies.
What a statement, what a statement.
It is understood that liberals can not bear being asked questions and must flee from them.
Atheists are now experts on who's Christians, what offends them and who are fake and who are not... bizarre...so Shark, does real Christians believe in the real Jesus and fake Christians in some or other fake Jesus?...from your atheist perspective?...or does real Christians believe in cheap petrol?
Even that liberal con artist Richard Dawkins was forced to admit he is a cultural christian.
Ultimately, the final test for christians is salvation: people who will be saved will be christians, the other will be not.
In the meantime, deviation from a course of faith is well described in the bible that calls to take measure against it. This liberal comment amounts to say that only christians can say they are christians, it is a very disturbing comment as followers of christ want to be acknowledged as christians by other people so they can spread the good news, the gospel of christ. That is one of the first priorities of christians when they interact with other poople: being acknowledged as christians. Therefore other people must be able to state this or that one is a christian.
Again, another example of liberalised speech: words are used because they sound sweet music.
Nonsense...the view from outside, looking in, is too destorted to be able to understand without the missing ingredient...nothing about Christianity can truly be understood without the Holy Spirit... Christians can't be Christians without it...and it cannot be faked... your posts show that you are ignorant of this crucial fact.
