There is a considerable amount of counter-evidence that undermines this guy's assertion that the war has been a smashing success for the US and Israel. First, he's absolutely correct that Iran's air defenses have not performed well, and that the US and Israel have air dominance. But, this is hardly a surprise. I don't think there was any suggestion anywhere that this would not be the case.
Second, it appears clear that the US and Israel pinned much hope (not exclusive reliance, certainly) on the idea that a decapitation of Iran's leadership would result in a quick surrender, or chaos, or protests followed by a splintering into multiple factions. That hasn't happened. While I personally think the targeting of Iran's leadership while negotiations were underway was both cowardly and sets a terrible precedent, there's little doubt it was successful. Yet, the hoped-for consequences did not ensue. Indeed, just the opposite happened: This "sneak" attack appears to have galvanized the vast majority of people in Iran behind the regime, as we see in massive nightly demonstrations in favor of the regime.
Third, it is clear the US and its allies overestimated their abilities to defeat Iran's ballistic capabilities and/or underestimated Iran's missile/drone technologies. Simply put, ally interceptors have been ineffective; they are running low; and Iran has successfully targeted much of the radar necessary to successfully operate these batteries. Don't take my word for it. Run a few AI searches. Ask if there is satellite imagery supporting the assertion that one or more allied THAAD batters were damaged or destroyed by Iran. There's evidence that, potentially, all four (out of eight or nine in the world) have been impacted. If you're paying attention, you've seen reporting that South Korea has been asked to donate its THAAD battery. Certainly, THAADs aren't the only interceptors. But, if true, the defensive umbrella in the region has been ineffective and/or seriously compromised.
I claim no real expertise, but I can pay attention and do a little research just like anyone else. And, I've been around long enough to know that you have to disregard anything you read in the MSM, and 100% of what's coming out of our government. But, even if you want to disregard what some anonymous commenter says, give a listen to someone who is pretty close to an expert on these things: Daryl Cooper. https://www.youtube.com/live/qSjSFXPtfzM?si=0Ts08ltcl7D-WnkD
That leaves the ultimate question: How much does Iran have left? Its clear the US and Israel have neither been able to knock out all of Iran's missile launchers, nor eliminate the drone threat. It seems pretty unlikely they'll be able to do so any time soon. But, how much does Iran have left? That's the real question. Iran is never going to defeat the US/Israel in a conventional fight, or eliminate air dominance. They don't have to. They just need to be able to continue to reach out and touch the US and its allies. I suspect that will keep the Strait of Hormuz closed to everyone Iran does not explicitly want sailing through there (everyone except China), and that's a problem as long as it lasts.
I hate the idea of boots on the ground, but I do feel like the American's could take the islands and the Iranian coast along the Persian sea and simply hold it. That would allow oil shipping from other countries to return to a semblance of normal and completely defang the regime, at least as a last resort.
Not that big of a deal. Russian and Chinese weapons systems in the hands of Iranians don't prove anything to anyone. Using Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) has been going on for 40 years. By the time you get any weapons system through MILSPEC vetting it's already obsolete. Especially with Moore's law. It's increasingly systems on platforms that matter, not the platforms. Given that Iran hasn't hit one of our carriers with a hypersonic missile, I wonder if this isn't all just performative theater.
We lost Vietnam. We lost Afghanistan. The world got over it. Almost nobody likes Iran, none of their neighbors, none of the rest of us. Most of their neighbors just want to be left alone to make money selling oil. There is no coalition forming to help them.
Given the amount of civilian casualties from last month's demonstrations (10's of thousands), I'd guess someone will make a play for a new government. Maybe the son of the former Shaw? Don't expect a democracy, they only work when they're a good cultural fit, and I'm not optimistic in Iran. It looks like the Kurds will, at a minimum, try to carve out a chunk of land for themselves.
I doubt we'll wield oil as a weapon as it would only drive the Chinese into the arms of the Russians.
I appreciate everyone's concerns but think our growing national debt is our biggest issue, not this kerfuffle in the Middle East. We're never going to put boots on the ground, which is the only way this goes south.
And if memory serves me correctly, for the past month almost every tanker in the world has been sitting at anchor filled with oil.
Another perspective is that US conventional war dominance (which has been proven real) unfortunately makes nuclear weapons use (where China and Russia may have the upper hand with hypersonic glide vehicles) more likely.
There is that---nukes are a desperation move and if Russia is backed into a corner for instance. Even still, Western Russia would become a mound of charcoal if they ventured in that direction.
Regrettably, a number of countries and critical individuals involved -- on all sides of it -- may see this as an existential crisis. I definitely hope cooler heads prevail.
Existential for whom? This is a side bet, not an all in push. Any of the great powers might score a win in the end. And they all do better with the Theocracy off the table. The system is more stable with everyone playing by the same rules
Oh, I thought maybe you meant Israel and the US, too, and leaders and military officers from both who have both expressed religious reasons and justifications for the war. Got it.
The first claims that Trump would cause WWIII were put out there, along with all the other baseless bullshit, before Trump gained office the first time, in 2017. Nine years later, and nothing.
Iran has been mishandled since 1979, if not earlier. Now it's all Trump's fault. When you let psychopathic tyrants have their way for almost half a century, allow them to build their infrastructure and sphere of influence (terror) in the region, don't be surprised if a takes a while to undo the mess. Trump is doing what should have been done during the Carter administration, and every administration since.
Of course, always the contrarian, I think we are closer to WWIII than farther from it.
Some points of contention.
-See ! Russian and Chinese weapons are crap !. But they didn't send their best weapons to Iran. Maybe they are crap but still they would never send them. Because that would imply that they control them, man them, protect them and participate at the highest level to any strategic discussion (where to use them, when, against what, etc). It's not an alliance, it's not their war and if it was an alliance, who would be the leader? Your guess is as valid as mine ; I don't see one.
That's the most favorable point, by the way, for the US.
-The Chinese haven't fought a war for eons. Completely irrelevant. Each war is a total unknown.
Remember the 2003 counter offensive in Ukraine. The Ukrainian army, trained by the West, equipped by the West, in combat since 2014, embedded in the US forces since the Iraq war, was completely destroyed during this venture.
All the NATO strategies and material didn't make a difference. The only things that saved them is what they came up with in the heat of the battle, namely drones whilst Biden's generals were thinking that's a new gender.
Why are we closer than WWIII ? Because if the US is winning this one, with their current state of mind and the financial pressure home, they'll go after Russia, guaranteed, China next. Particularly if they control all the middle estern oil and the money that goes with it. And that's going to be a big ball game with the French, the German and the Brits all drooling for revanche tailing the US. Based on all these assumptions ; their weapons are crap, they don't know how to fight, they are pussies, we build better for half the price (GM and Stelantis you listen?), it will be a done deal in DC ; let's go war is so easy.
Well, we'll see but we may very well regret the precipice.
"Chinese haven't fought a war for eons." Point taken, but not completely irrelevant. When the bullets are real the truth comes to the surface. You'll recall the Russian attack during mud season. When everyone followed orders until they ran out of gas bumper to bumper on the main road. That's what happens when you haven't done a real operation recently. Wars are not a "total unknown" the point is to take the right lessons from the last war into the next fight.
2023? counteroffensive by Ukraine. You've got one version of the story, but I'd say it is far from the ground truth. I ran defense reform for EUCOM in Eastern Europe 04-07 and the Multi-National Training Division in Army Europe 2010-14. I retired over a decade ago, so this is what I think I know.
Culture, Technology and Doctrine have to be a good fit for each other or it's no bueno. Budgets also play a huge role. Blitzkrieg was a perfect fit for the Germans. Air Land Battle was a great fit for us in the 80's. Ukraine had a lot of baggage that doesn't shake out until the bullets start to fly; and their budget really didn't help, though I don't think they had the first three ever figured out.
And to call them "Embedded" would be a stretch. They never really sent enough downrange to gain critical mass. Our Security Cooperation program in Eastern Europe has built some powerful units, but Ukraine would not be on my top 10 list for a Poster Child. Ukraine would be high school JV football team, different countries in Eastern Europe would be Middle and upper level college ball. The US conventional forces would be a pro team.
There's a big difference between us poking the Iranians and us poking the Russians or the Chinese. It's call a nuclear weapon. There is not a chance we square of with either of them. Ever.
The counteroffensive point remains valid in my view particularly if we consider the official objective : cutting Russia land access to Crimea. And Russians messed up too. Anyway, I was an infantry officer in the Swiss army in the early 80's, full cold war, Russians in Afghanistan, only source of info the CIA and we really believed that they would come. And we were training like WWII combat ; foxholes to fight tanks and infantry that was it. Never talked about combat helicopter, never seen a manpad in my whole life. We would have had big problems.
Thanks. My Defense Reform Teams shared your apprehension while on active duty. They found plenty to fix once they got on the ground. Militaries so big they had no money to train. No money to purchase modern weapons systems. Nepotism. Eastern Europe has made great strides.
Yes - by all means let’s pressure the Chinese (and the Russians) until they feel the situation is tolerable. Sound like a “dandy” plan to me. Rah, rah for the American military capacity to murder Iranians. etc.
It only took a rag tag bunch of patriots to defeat the most fearsome army in the world. Beware, pride precedeth the fall. Alas, poor Rome, we knew thee.
From what I understand, we only have a few days left before production starts shutting down. Storage running out. Now that everyones refineries are being targeted, we won’t have long to wait until all Hell breaks out.
Not so much for the US. For us, oil recovery minus consumption is a positive number. More still for gas. Our EU neighbors will probably have some problems. Export LNG will be a bonanza for a little while. And the spot prices for both will jump. Just remember a manageable fraction of the trade is on the spot market.
Saddam's people set fire to all manner of wells and refineries in their Mother-of-all-Retreats and that stuff was back on line pretty fast. Those cats are accustomed to shooting wars.
There is a considerable amount of counter-evidence that undermines this guy's assertion that the war has been a smashing success for the US and Israel. First, he's absolutely correct that Iran's air defenses have not performed well, and that the US and Israel have air dominance. But, this is hardly a surprise. I don't think there was any suggestion anywhere that this would not be the case.
Second, it appears clear that the US and Israel pinned much hope (not exclusive reliance, certainly) on the idea that a decapitation of Iran's leadership would result in a quick surrender, or chaos, or protests followed by a splintering into multiple factions. That hasn't happened. While I personally think the targeting of Iran's leadership while negotiations were underway was both cowardly and sets a terrible precedent, there's little doubt it was successful. Yet, the hoped-for consequences did not ensue. Indeed, just the opposite happened: This "sneak" attack appears to have galvanized the vast majority of people in Iran behind the regime, as we see in massive nightly demonstrations in favor of the regime.
Third, it is clear the US and its allies overestimated their abilities to defeat Iran's ballistic capabilities and/or underestimated Iran's missile/drone technologies. Simply put, ally interceptors have been ineffective; they are running low; and Iran has successfully targeted much of the radar necessary to successfully operate these batteries. Don't take my word for it. Run a few AI searches. Ask if there is satellite imagery supporting the assertion that one or more allied THAAD batters were damaged or destroyed by Iran. There's evidence that, potentially, all four (out of eight or nine in the world) have been impacted. If you're paying attention, you've seen reporting that South Korea has been asked to donate its THAAD battery. Certainly, THAADs aren't the only interceptors. But, if true, the defensive umbrella in the region has been ineffective and/or seriously compromised.
I claim no real expertise, but I can pay attention and do a little research just like anyone else. And, I've been around long enough to know that you have to disregard anything you read in the MSM, and 100% of what's coming out of our government. But, even if you want to disregard what some anonymous commenter says, give a listen to someone who is pretty close to an expert on these things: Daryl Cooper. https://www.youtube.com/live/qSjSFXPtfzM?si=0Ts08ltcl7D-WnkD
That leaves the ultimate question: How much does Iran have left? Its clear the US and Israel have neither been able to knock out all of Iran's missile launchers, nor eliminate the drone threat. It seems pretty unlikely they'll be able to do so any time soon. But, how much does Iran have left? That's the real question. Iran is never going to defeat the US/Israel in a conventional fight, or eliminate air dominance. They don't have to. They just need to be able to continue to reach out and touch the US and its allies. I suspect that will keep the Strait of Hormuz closed to everyone Iran does not explicitly want sailing through there (everyone except China), and that's a problem as long as it lasts.
I hate the idea of boots on the ground, but I do feel like the American's could take the islands and the Iranian coast along the Persian sea and simply hold it. That would allow oil shipping from other countries to return to a semblance of normal and completely defang the regime, at least as a last resort.
Just to be a contrarian.
Not that big of a deal. Russian and Chinese weapons systems in the hands of Iranians don't prove anything to anyone. Using Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) has been going on for 40 years. By the time you get any weapons system through MILSPEC vetting it's already obsolete. Especially with Moore's law. It's increasingly systems on platforms that matter, not the platforms. Given that Iran hasn't hit one of our carriers with a hypersonic missile, I wonder if this isn't all just performative theater.
We lost Vietnam. We lost Afghanistan. The world got over it. Almost nobody likes Iran, none of their neighbors, none of the rest of us. Most of their neighbors just want to be left alone to make money selling oil. There is no coalition forming to help them.
Given the amount of civilian casualties from last month's demonstrations (10's of thousands), I'd guess someone will make a play for a new government. Maybe the son of the former Shaw? Don't expect a democracy, they only work when they're a good cultural fit, and I'm not optimistic in Iran. It looks like the Kurds will, at a minimum, try to carve out a chunk of land for themselves.
I doubt we'll wield oil as a weapon as it would only drive the Chinese into the arms of the Russians.
I appreciate everyone's concerns but think our growing national debt is our biggest issue, not this kerfuffle in the Middle East. We're never going to put boots on the ground, which is the only way this goes south.
And if memory serves me correctly, for the past month almost every tanker in the world has been sitting at anchor filled with oil.
+1
I usually bet against worst case scenarios, and am usually right. Note: that does not mean I am hyper-long and bullish (ever). Big difference!
Another perspective is that US conventional war dominance (which has been proven real) unfortunately makes nuclear weapons use (where China and Russia may have the upper hand with hypersonic glide vehicles) more likely.
There is that---nukes are a desperation move and if Russia is backed into a corner for instance. Even still, Western Russia would become a mound of charcoal if they ventured in that direction.
Regrettably, a number of countries and critical individuals involved -- on all sides of it -- may see this as an existential crisis. I definitely hope cooler heads prevail.
Existential for whom? This is a side bet, not an all in push. Any of the great powers might score a win in the end. And they all do better with the Theocracy off the table. The system is more stable with everyone playing by the same rules
Whose theocracy?
Iran?
Oh, I thought maybe you meant Israel and the US, too, and leaders and military officers from both who have both expressed religious reasons and justifications for the war. Got it.
The first claims that Trump would cause WWIII were put out there, along with all the other baseless bullshit, before Trump gained office the first time, in 2017. Nine years later, and nothing.
Iran has been mishandled since 1979, if not earlier. Now it's all Trump's fault. When you let psychopathic tyrants have their way for almost half a century, allow them to build their infrastructure and sphere of influence (terror) in the region, don't be surprised if a takes a while to undo the mess. Trump is doing what should have been done during the Carter administration, and every administration since.
Am I the only one to remember that there once was a rag tag group of people that defeated the largest and most fearsome Army in the world?
Israel doesn't care.
Of course, always the contrarian, I think we are closer to WWIII than farther from it.
Some points of contention.
-See ! Russian and Chinese weapons are crap !. But they didn't send their best weapons to Iran. Maybe they are crap but still they would never send them. Because that would imply that they control them, man them, protect them and participate at the highest level to any strategic discussion (where to use them, when, against what, etc). It's not an alliance, it's not their war and if it was an alliance, who would be the leader? Your guess is as valid as mine ; I don't see one.
That's the most favorable point, by the way, for the US.
-The Chinese haven't fought a war for eons. Completely irrelevant. Each war is a total unknown.
Remember the 2003 counter offensive in Ukraine. The Ukrainian army, trained by the West, equipped by the West, in combat since 2014, embedded in the US forces since the Iraq war, was completely destroyed during this venture.
All the NATO strategies and material didn't make a difference. The only things that saved them is what they came up with in the heat of the battle, namely drones whilst Biden's generals were thinking that's a new gender.
Why are we closer than WWIII ? Because if the US is winning this one, with their current state of mind and the financial pressure home, they'll go after Russia, guaranteed, China next. Particularly if they control all the middle estern oil and the money that goes with it. And that's going to be a big ball game with the French, the German and the Brits all drooling for revanche tailing the US. Based on all these assumptions ; their weapons are crap, they don't know how to fight, they are pussies, we build better for half the price (GM and Stelantis you listen?), it will be a done deal in DC ; let's go war is so easy.
Well, we'll see but we may very well regret the precipice.
"Chinese haven't fought a war for eons." Point taken, but not completely irrelevant. When the bullets are real the truth comes to the surface. You'll recall the Russian attack during mud season. When everyone followed orders until they ran out of gas bumper to bumper on the main road. That's what happens when you haven't done a real operation recently. Wars are not a "total unknown" the point is to take the right lessons from the last war into the next fight.
2023? counteroffensive by Ukraine. You've got one version of the story, but I'd say it is far from the ground truth. I ran defense reform for EUCOM in Eastern Europe 04-07 and the Multi-National Training Division in Army Europe 2010-14. I retired over a decade ago, so this is what I think I know.
Culture, Technology and Doctrine have to be a good fit for each other or it's no bueno. Budgets also play a huge role. Blitzkrieg was a perfect fit for the Germans. Air Land Battle was a great fit for us in the 80's. Ukraine had a lot of baggage that doesn't shake out until the bullets start to fly; and their budget really didn't help, though I don't think they had the first three ever figured out.
And to call them "Embedded" would be a stretch. They never really sent enough downrange to gain critical mass. Our Security Cooperation program in Eastern Europe has built some powerful units, but Ukraine would not be on my top 10 list for a Poster Child. Ukraine would be high school JV football team, different countries in Eastern Europe would be Middle and upper level college ball. The US conventional forces would be a pro team.
There's a big difference between us poking the Iranians and us poking the Russians or the Chinese. It's call a nuclear weapon. There is not a chance we square of with either of them. Ever.
The counteroffensive point remains valid in my view particularly if we consider the official objective : cutting Russia land access to Crimea. And Russians messed up too. Anyway, I was an infantry officer in the Swiss army in the early 80's, full cold war, Russians in Afghanistan, only source of info the CIA and we really believed that they would come. And we were training like WWII combat ; foxholes to fight tanks and infantry that was it. Never talked about combat helicopter, never seen a manpad in my whole life. We would have had big problems.
fab,
Thanks. My Defense Reform Teams shared your apprehension while on active duty. They found plenty to fix once they got on the ground. Militaries so big they had no money to train. No money to purchase modern weapons systems. Nepotism. Eastern Europe has made great strides.
So few people understand the scale of this undertaking. What a huge, open hand we are watching.
https://emmanueltodd.substack.com/p/the-beginning-of-a-world-war
Yes - by all means let’s pressure the Chinese (and the Russians) until they feel the situation is tolerable. Sound like a “dandy” plan to me. Rah, rah for the American military capacity to murder Iranians. etc.
Intolerable
It only took a rag tag bunch of patriots to defeat the most fearsome army in the world. Beware, pride precedeth the fall. Alas, poor Rome, we knew thee.
A Very Timely Article.
If the war fails and china forces a bretton woods style agreement, I will eat my hat
paging Dr. Carl Jung
Your articles are getting even more inane. I haven't gotten my pro-rata refund yet. Could you please look into that?
From what I understand, we only have a few days left before production starts shutting down. Storage running out. Now that everyones refineries are being targeted, we won’t have long to wait until all Hell breaks out.
Not so much for the US. For us, oil recovery minus consumption is a positive number. More still for gas. Our EU neighbors will probably have some problems. Export LNG will be a bonanza for a little while. And the spot prices for both will jump. Just remember a manageable fraction of the trade is on the spot market.
Saddam's people set fire to all manner of wells and refineries in their Mother-of-all-Retreats and that stuff was back on line pretty fast. Those cats are accustomed to shooting wars.