Iran tells Trump his tweets raised oil price


President Donald Trump’s tough stance on Iran’s oil exports is apparently not the only thing that may be causing the price of a barrel to rise.

Hossein Kazempour Ardebili, Iran’s OPEC representative, said on Thursday that Trump’s tweet calling on OPEC to reduce oil prices is actually having the opposite effect—causing oil prices to rise even more.

“You impose sanctions on major producers, founders of OPEC, and yet you are asking them to reduce the prices?! Since when did you start ordering OPEC! Your tweets have driven the prices up by at least $10/b,” Kazempour said in a message published by Iranian Oil Ministry’s Shana news service, adding “Pls stop it, otherwise it will go even higher!”

Iran’s deputy commander of the Sarollah Revolutionary Guards said on Wednesday that any attempt to thwart its oil exports will result in the closure of Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway at the mouth of the Persian Gulf, where the world’s biggest concentration of tankers carry about 30 percent of all seaborne-traded crude oil and other liquids during the year.


Don’t we want higher oil prices to discourage use and fight climate change? I keep hearing about how climate change is a “pro-life” issue. Shouldn’t true “pro-lifers” (as opposed to those nasty “pro-birthers”) be celebrating now?


I don’t exactly consider Iran to be a neutral source, but my gas prices are certainly higher. It’s a shame that Trump can’t keep gas prices low.


Why would you want him too? High gas prices help stop climate change by discouraging use. Isn’t fighting climate change a true “pro-life” issue?


Well, I do own a high gas mileage car to reduce both my gas costs and use of energy, but I would like to see more efficient cars being used instead of driving up gas prices to encourage less usage.


Some of us believe in markets and economic freedom. Donald is a crony capitalist who wants the government to pick winners and losers in the marketplace. He offers very little for those who believe in economic freedom.


People prefer bigger cars, the way to make them buy smaller, more efficient cars is to raise fuel prices.

Aren’t you in higher education? You couldn’t survive without massive government subsidies in the form of student loans, grants, tax exemptions, etc.


That is the problem with socialism, the government thinks people aren’t smart enough to manage their own affairs.

If we didn’t have government I guess I would just starve then, wouldn’t I? After all, none of us in academia have skills that people would willingly pay for.


Yeah, I never got that. I always liked smaller cars myself as long as they had a decent engine.


That’s not the only problem with it.

You’d have to get a job in an industry the government wasn’t massively subsidizing and you didn’t have guaranteed lifetime employment in the form of tenure.

I’m sure you all have skills that people would willingly pay for. Just about anybody can wait tables, but how many of you have skills that would earn you what you earn in your heavily subsidized industry? I suspect that number is much smaller. I believe you mentioned you’re in finance, so you could probably do pretty well, but there a lot of majors that have very limited application outside the academy.

You’ve never understood how someone might have different requirements for a vehicle than you do? I thought it was people on the right who were supposed to lack empathy.


I never said it was.

Do you have a point?

I don’t disagree that there are many people in academia who couldn’t get a job elsewhere. On the other hand, I tend to have an irreverent streak that has no problem taking on sacred cows. I don’t dispute that spending in higher education has become out of control and I myself have been the beneficiary of that. That doesn’t mean that the status quo is the ideal situation.


I understand the different requirements, but I do not see the appeal of large vehicles for a commuter car and the vast majority of commuter vehicles are much larger than mine and doubt that they are needed by their drivers, but rather perferred.

I’m not sure what that has to do with ‘lacking empathy’.


When you say, kind of “snootily” TBH, that “Some of us believe in markets and economic freedom”, pointing out that you work in an industry that couldn’t survive as structured in a free market seems fair.

The first statement doesn’t support the second.


Can you give me an example of where I have been inconsistent in my support for markets over the heavy hand of government?


And let me get this right. Somehow, my comments lack empathy because I don’t see the appeal of large cars, but you are complaining about @stinkcat_14 is responding to you ‘snootily’. Looks like someone is pretending to be easily offended while trying to offend others.


As much as I oppose Trump and his anti-free-market policies a case can be made where modest price rises can be a boon to employment. It’s only a theory though and not fact.


Your career choice?

Because you can’t understand why anybody else would. I don’t like small cars, but appreciate that others do.


Is that inconsistent or opportunistic?


Why not both?


This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit