Recent Items

Will Trump Deliver on His Threat of Taking Military Action Against Iran?

Posted on by

Three weeks ago, Trump sent a letter through intermediaries to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Kahmeni, which was a prettied up “Agree to a more draconian version of the JCPOA or else” and demanded that Iran negotiate within two months. Middle-East conflict watchers have speculated that the US having moved roughly half of its operation-ready fleet of B2 stealth bombers to Diego Garcia, believed to be just out of range of both the Houthi’s and Iran’s longest range missiles, may be pre-positioning an operation against Iran, as opposed to the Houthis.

Nevertheless, Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi had previewed the answer on March 27: that Iran would not negotiate under threat and it would also not engage in direct negotiation with the US. That response became official on Sunday:

Some top Iranians were not so polite:

The Iranians politely offered indirect negotiations….which is the current footing for engaging with the US.

As we’ll discuss, the prospects for a war with Iran look all too high, due to the same reasons as for our disastrous Project Ukraine: a great over-estimation of the effectiveness of our tech heavy and otherwise flabby military to take on a serious power on the other side of the world, plus an abject failure to take a good measure of Iran and its capabilities, amped up by Israel’s and Trump’s sense of urgency.

But first, the immediate backstory. On March 7, Trump told the press he had sent a letter1 to the Supreme Leader of Iran, with the pretext being to negotiate an end to Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon. As most readers know well, it was Trump that took the US out of the JCPOA, whose inspection regime was designed to do just that, and Biden refused to rejoin the JCPOA. But the press write-ups skip over those pesky details. From Reuters:

U.S. President Donald Trump said he wants to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran and sent a letter to its leadership this week suggesting talks with the Islamic Republic, which the West fears is rapidly nearing the capability to make atomic weapons.

“I said I hope you’re going to negotiate, because it’s going to be a lot better for Iran,” Trump said in an interview with Fox Business Network broadcast on Friday…

“We have a situation with Iran that something’s going to happen very soon… Hopefully we can have a peace deal. You know, I’m not speaking out of strength or weakness. I’m just saying I’d rather see a peace deal than the other, but the other will solve the problem.”….

“There are two ways Iran can be handled: militarily, or you make a deal,” Trump told Fox Business. “I would prefer to make a deal, because I’m not looking to hurt Iran. They’re great people.”

The following week,, after a much-ballyhooed ceasefire in Gaza when Trump took office, Ansar Allah (aka “the Houthis”) said it would resume attacks on Israel-related shipping in the Red Sea, Arabian Sea, Bab al-Mandeb Strait, and the Gulf of Aden if Israel did not resume food supplies to Gaza.1 As most readers know, the earlier Houthi attacks, which started in November 2023, resulted in most commercial shippers rerouting their cargoes to avoid the Red Sea area, through which about 15% of sea traffic had formerly passed.

Trump made hyperbolic claims that Biden had not acted forcefully enough against the Houthis and authorized new air strikes. Key sections of the BBC write-up:

The US has launched a “decisive and powerful” wave of air strikes on Houthi rebels…

“Funded by Iran, the Houthi thugs have fired missiles at US aircraft, and targeted our Troops and Allies,” Trump said on social media, adding that their “piracy, violence, and terrorism” had cost “billions” and put lives at risk….

He added: “We will use overwhelming lethal force until we have achieved our objective.”…

Trump said that it had been more than a year since a US-flagged ship had sailed safely through the Suez Canal – which the Red Sea leads to – and four months since a US warship had been through the body of water between east Africa and the Arabian peninsula.

The Suez Canal is the quickest sea route between Asia and Europe, and is particularly important in the transportation of oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG).

Addressing the Houthis directly, Trump wrote that if they did not stop, “HELL WILL RAIN DOWN UPON YOU LIKE NOTHING YOU HAVE EVER SEEN BEFORE”….

Trump urged Iran to cease its support for the Houthis, warning that Washington would hold Tehran “fully accountable and, we won’t be nice about it”.

He also accused the previous White House administration, under Joe Biden, of being “pathetically weak” and allowing the “unrestrained Houthis” to keep going.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the US government had “no authority, or business, dictating Iranian foreign policy”.

So far, as the Signal leak indicated, the US seems mainly to be killing civilians in the dozens or so per day, mainly in the Saana area where the Houthis hang out. The logic seems to be to attempt decapitation strikes. By all accounts, that was not effective against Hamas or Hezbollah; what appears to have gotten Hezbollah to dial down its campaign was Israel engaging in what looked set to be Gaza-level destruction of Beirut (and perhaps secondarily, increased difficulty of getting supplies from Syria, although experts claim that the level of disorder and need in the area means workarounds are not that hard).

After Trump sent his missive, the just-released National Threat Assessment, reconfirmed that Iran is not developing a nuclear bomb:

We continue to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003, though pressure has probably built on him to do so. In the past year, there has been an erosion of a decades-long taboo on discussing nuclear weapons in public that has emboldened nuclear weapons advocates within Iran’s decisionmaking apparatus. Khamenei remains the final decisionmaker over Iran’s nuclear program, to include any decision to develop nuclear weapons.

Over the past weekend, before the official accounts that Iran was rejecting the Trump call for direct negotiations, Trump added Iranian drones to his list of beefs:

The segment below from PressTV makes clear why even if US would agree to the cumbersome mechanism of “indirect negotiations,” talks would go nowhere. The US does not merely want a supposedly better JCPOA inspection regime; it does not merely want Iran to stop supporting other members of what has come to be called the Axis of Resistance, such as the Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Kata’ib Hezbollah in Iraq; it wants Iran to prostrate itself and give up its missiles (see the slide at 1:46, admittedly not apparently based on the demands in the early March letter but in the text of the February 4 Executive Order restoring “maximum pressure” sanctions on Iran from Trump 1.0 after he exited the JCPOA).

As Alastair Crooke said in a talk with Larry Johnson, which we have embedded below, Iran might as well join a monestary.

US Bad Assumptions About Iran

Trump is exhibiting his signature sense of urgency, which when he runs into real world impediments, produces, as we have seen with his attempts to negotiate a Ukraine ceasefire with Russia, results in shifting deadlines with more “hurry up” bluster.

We pointed out that Trump got himself into his Ukraine time pickle all on his own. He could have dumped Project Ukraine as Project Biden as soon as he took office, announced he’d send all of the remaining goodies committed by Congress as soon as possible, and added that Ukraine was on its own.3 But Trump was caught up in his self-image as a negotiator extraordinaire and his loud and repeated promises that he could talk his way to ending the conflict.

But what is the basis for giving Iran a two-month deadline in early March, before Israelis re-upped their genocide campaign via blocking food supplies, leading the Houthis to resume strikes?

Misguided opportunism about Iran’s economy. The US believes Iran is particularly weak now. The Iran economy has been suffering due to the long duration of Western sanctions; Trump likely believes that the resumption of his “maximum pressure” sanctions will create more pain.

The US and Israel may also believe that the execution of so-called “snapback” sanctions provisions in the JCOPA, which can be triggered only through October 2025, hence the need to Do Something. The West seems to regard them as a major source of economic leverage over Iran. The Iran-hawkish Washington Institute disagreed in a 2022 article. Key sections:

Threatening to reimpose old UN sanctions would likely have little practical effect on Tehran’s ability to trade oil and export drones, while the plethora of other potential complications suggest that it should be treated as a tool of last resort….

The snapback process is designed to avoid the need for consensus among the five permanent members of the Security Council (the United States, Britain, China, France, and Russia). Once the measure is triggered—namely, by one or more JCPOA participants lodging a formal complaint regarding alleged violations—Iran’s relief from UN sanctions would expire within thirty days unless the council passes a resolution to continue it. And any permanent member can veto said relief resolution, making snapback difficult to halt except by the parties that triggered it (though as will be discussed below, the U.S. decision to withdraw from the JCPOA complicates its potential role in this process). The snapback mechanism itself expires in October 2025…

Western governments may hope to use the mere threat of snapback as negotiating leverage. For example, the E3 could trigger the thirty-day snapback process and demand that Iran back off of its hardline negotiating position before that deadline arrives. But this is unlikely to be effective given that the economic consequences of snapback are not very significant (see below), while the threat itself would probably extinguish any remaining Iranian interest in a deal.

Underestimating Iran’s military. The US dismissal of Iran’s capabilities has the same feel as the Western take on Russia in the runup to the Special Military Operation.

The US and its allies also see Iran as diminished. from the March 7 Reuters article quoted earlier:

Trump may be seeking a diplomatic opening to take advantage of what U.S. officials see as weakened Iran. Iran-backed groups in the Middle East – Palestinian Hamas militants in Gaza and Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon – have been heavily degraded by Israeli forces and Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, who was closely aligned with Tehran, was overthrown by rebels.

Even if Iran’s allies in its neighborhood seem to be on their back feet, this line of thinking takes an unduly blinkered view of Iran’s capabilities. First, even though the press has spun hard otherwise and the Administration seems blinded by its own PR, Iran has demonstrated, using its own forces, that it has escalatory dominance over Israel and the West. To make a long story short, Iran and the West negotiated a time and targets for Iran to retaliate against Israel for the assassinations of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Hamas political leader/negotiator Ismail Haniyeh. Even with being given advanced warning textbook perfect conditions for Israel to parry the strikes, Iran hit its targets with pinpoint precision3 Western media also, later, ‘fessed up that the cost to the West to try to defend against these attacks, across Israel, the US, the UK, and France, was over $2.2 billion, while the cost to Iran was about $90 million.

Israel then retaliated against Iran…or tried to. It reportedly intended to send in three waves of air strikes. But the first apparently only got within range of Iran and detected it was being caught on Iran air defenses (one assumes these planes were at least somewhat stealthy for this to have been a surprise; forgive me for not running down this detail). So they fired their missiles from afar and turned back. Israel nevertheless, with no corroborating satellite photo evidence, claimed to have done great damage to Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, which already seems like a howler (it’s believed to be so deeply bunkered as to be able to withstand even a nuclear attack). Later reports indicating the damage done to Iran was comparatively minor got little traction.

Ignoring the implications of Iran’s recent pact with Russia. The US and Israel appear not to have digested the implications of the Iranian–Russian Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, signed on January 17, 2025. It is primarily an economic alliance and so will offset the impact of any intensification of sanctions. It is also believed to have at least two significant military aspects: to increase Iran’s use of and integration into Russia’s air defenses (both detection and the provision of more weaponry, particularly S-400 systems) and include cooperation provisions that facilitate Russia backing Iran if attacked.

Israel internal dynamics. Without belaboring details, schisms within Israel keep growing. Many of the settlers who hoped to return to the Lebanon border have retreated, regarding the area as unsafe. Protests confirm that many Israelis are unhappy with the continuation of the campaign in Gaza, now adding starvation into the mix, since that increases the odds that the remaining hostages will not survive. Netanyahu has gone into full rogue mode with his persistence in trying to remove the head of the domestic spy agency, Shin Bet. Netanyahu tried firing its leader last week, only to have the Israel Supreme Court block the move. From the Guardian:

Benjamin Netanyahu is locked in a fierce battle with Israel’s judicial system after the supreme court blocked his attempt to fire the head of the Shin Bet domestic intelligence agency.

Amid protests against ministers’ vote to sack Ronen Bar, the top court on Friday froze the decision, with the order remaining in place until the court can hear petitions filed by the opposition and an NGO against the dismissal of the chief of the Shin Bet…

The Shin Bet has been investigating Netanyahu’s close aides for alleged breaches of national security, including leaking classified documents to foreign media, and allegedly taking money from Qatar, which is known to have given significant financial aid to Hamas.

In the last few hours, Netanuyahu has doubled down on his defiance by appointing a replacement for Ronan
Bar, despite the fact that the appeal of the court order do not start until April 8. From Jerusalem Post in Netanyahu stuns Shin Bet, appoints ex-Navy chief Sharvit as new head:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stunned the Shin Bet and the country early Monday morning appointing former naval chief Vice-Admiral (res.) Eli Sharvit as the new head of the agency…

In initial reactions from Shin Bet sources, V.-Adm. Sharvit was so unknown that most of them had little to say, despite a clear sense of shock that Netanyahu had not only not appointed a deputy Shin Bet chief to the role (which has been customary in recent decades), but took someone outside of the agency and even outside of IDF ground forces….

Netanyahu can name Sharvit, but Sharvit cannot take office before the April 8 High Court hearing.

The High Court may allow Sharvit to take office, may block his appointment due to Qatargate, or may seek a compromise allowing Bar to conclude the Qatargate probe, while allowing Sharvit to move into office as quickly as possible.

Needless to say, wars rally citizens around the flag, as in the incumbent government, so a hotter conflict would be very much in Netanyahu’s interest right now. But bolstering the wily and constitutionally intransigent Netanyahu is of questionable benefit to the US.

Timing Issues

Events are often more path dependent than deterministic. On the one hand, despite the afore-mentioned strategic agreement between Iran and Russia, Trump may have such faith in his negotiation prowess that he fancied he could get Russia to minimize its support of Iran in the event of an Israel attack because it would be reluctant to jeopardize a thaw with the US. Putin’s recent sharp (for him) statements that Russia is prepared to finish the job in Ukraine by force confirms that Russia has concluded the Ukraine negotiations are an empty exercise. That does not mean they won’t go though the motions to indulge Trump, but they’ve otherwise written them.

In other words, the US may have to recalibrate their plans in light of the high odds of Russia supporting Iran militarily. But that could merely amount to timing them to coincide with the now-widely expected big Russian offensive in May. Note, however, for Israel to get a break, Russia would need to commit substantial air assets. Russia has pretty much wiped out Ukraine’s air defenses. The differences in the type of material used in each operation would be so different that it’s a mistake to assume Russia can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. And Russia could simply grind harder rather than launch the big punch that the impatient would like to see (if we can see that Israel and the US are gunning for a fight with Iran, so too can the Russians).

Alternatively, there have been some hopes that this threat display might lead to Russia acting as a mediator with Iran. Aside from the fact that the strategic pact with Iran means Russia is not a neutral party, Alastair Crooke dismisses the idea flatly below in his talk with Larry Johnson, saying that Iran would reject it.

Yet another complicating factor for the US is that it still regards China its big military priority. It may admittedly think Iran is an appetizer it can finish off before turning to the main course. A leaked Pentagon memo reaffirmed the status of China as prime baddie. From the Washington Post yesterday:

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has reoriented the U.S. military to prioritize deterring China’s seizure of Taiwan and shoring up homeland defense by “assuming risk” in Europe and other parts of the world…

The document, known as the Interim National Defense Strategic Guidance and marked “secret/no foreign national” in most passages, was distributed throughout the Defense Department in mid-March and signed by Hegseth…

Hegseth’s guidance is extraordinary in its description of the potential invasion of Taiwan as the exclusive animating scenario that must be prioritized over other potential dangers — reorienting the vast U.S. military architecture toward the Indo-Pacific region beyond its homeland defense mission.

The Pentagon will “assume risk in other theaters” given personnel and resource constraints, and pressure allies in Europe, the Middle East and East Asia to spend more on defense to take on the bulk of the deterrence role against threats from Russia, North Korea and Iran, according to the guidance.

Despite this directive, it is inconceivable that the US would not run to Israel’s defense if attacked. That suggests that if Israel cannot use the expiration of the snapback provisions (mentioned by Crooke as a timing factor above) to bring the Iran to heel before the US repositions its forces in a big way, Israel would be highly motivated to state a false flag….potentially in the US.

Again, the Crooke talk is close to fatalistic about the odds of an attack relatively soon. Other experts see signs of a hotting up, including the afore-mentioned B-2 redeployment:

Having said that, Trump also engaged some fierce-looking threats against North Korea, only for that in the end not to translate into action. So as Hegseth’s memo suggests, the US might be recognizing that its forces aren’t as dominant as they were decades ago, and it will need to avoid overextension.
We’ll see in due course.

_____

1 On Sunday, Iranian media reported that Sky News Iran had published the text of the letter. I have no idea whether this tweet is a translation of that or not, but it does seem to hew pretty well to the general description PressTV provided, so this would seem to be at least in the ballpark:

2 Ansar Allah had set a four day deadline.

3 In this scenario, I assume the US would have continued supplying intel, if nothing else to extract some intel back about Russia actions and capabilities, but would have made a big show of ceasing all activities that required more money from the US. Not that Trump would evah go to Congress for more commitments; the point would be to formalize where things stood and make it unambiguous that Trump was out of the Ukraine game.

4 The Western press misled audiences by focusing on Iran leading its salvo with 300 slow moving drones, which were intended to draw fire, provide information about air defense operations, and deplete weapons. They weren’t expected to get through and if any did, that would have been gravy. The heavy, fast missiles followed.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Subscribe to Post Comments
67 comments

  1. JW

    I understand that Iran has both missiles and drones that can reach Garcia. I wonder what would happen to those planes that return from a bombing run if the airfield was destroyed in the meantime. Also its possible not many would faced by S400s supplied to Iran.
    I also understand Russia makes its own ‘Iranian’ drones now , with considerable enhancements.
    I cannot understand why, when he is supposedly transfixed by China, Trump would not just walk away from Ukraine after 14 April and liaise with Iran via Moscow calmly and quietly. If he is capable of operating that way.
    I can see that a certain amount of chaos internally is required to change ongoing policies of almost 20 years. But doing the same internationally runs a big risk of something going ‘bang’. By all means stamp all over vassal states, some certainly deserve it (EU, I’m looking at you), but restraint is required with other global or even regional powers.

    Reply ↓
    1. Unironic Pangloss

      no need to destroy the airfield. merely bombing the Diego Garcia fuel farms (which you any 9 y.
      o. can find on Google map) makes US action more complicated—the western world only has so much aerial refueling capability

      Reply ↓
    2. Yves Smith Post author

      No. conventional wisdom is the reverse. Iran’s missile limits are thought to be 2000km, Diego Garcia is just beyond that.

      However, some experts speculate that Russia may have provided Iran with missiles with a 5000km range.

      Your comment further implies that Russia is somehow making unauthorized copies of Iranian drones. That may not be what you intended but that is how it reads.

      Russia always finished their manufacture when it was buying them, since it would have to install its own GPS module (Russia having its own GPS so it could jam Western GPS without messing with its own devices). Given the close relationship between Russia and Iran, I would assume Russia licensed and then improved on the Iranian designs.

      Reply ↓
      1. JW

        In 2019 Iran demonstrated a version of the Khorramshahr that could reach 3000km, apparently this has now been improved to at least 4000km. The Shahed-136B drone also is reputed to have a range of 4000km.
        Apologies if my comments read as implying unauthorised copies that was not my intention.

        Reply ↓
          1. Polar Socialist

            Iran also operates 3 Kilo-class submarines, since 2019 capable of launching cruise missiles – likely Russian Klub-S (an export version of Kalibr) with a range of 300 km and payload of 300 kg.

            Iran also has it’s own “Abu Mahdi” cruise missiles (looking a lot like Kh-55) that have an estimated range of 2,500 km (Iran claims 1,000 km) and can be launched from a ship.

            Reply ↓
          2. juno mas

            Well, it seems the Russian ‘Oreshnik’ multi-threat, hypersonic, mobile missile/launcher is in full production. I would not be surprised if one or two (5 or6) find there way to Iran. The Vinson will be a fish reef soon enough.

            Reply ↓
      2. Julian Macfarlane

        https://www.iranwatch.org/sites/default/files/simorgh-irna-2021-12 Iran has updated its missiles, missiles like the Simorgh have ranges of 4000 kilometers. Diego Garcia is 5,267 km from Tehran — the figure usually given by the media, along with a maximum range of 2000 km for Iranian missiles, based on information from almost a decade ago. But Iran has been working feverishly to upgrade tis missile systems – as we saw in it successful warning strikes on Israel last year. It is getting a lot of help through its security alliances with both Russia and China, as well as its own emphasis on independent technological development. The “West” is at pains to denigrate this progress it seems. But is foolish,
        The recent published upgrades for Iranian long range strikes is 4000 km using both ballistic missiles and cruise missiles, Distance from Southern Iran (Pasabander) to Diego Garcia is 3747 km. Western sources consistently underestimate the military capabilities of their opponents. A large scale ballistic and cruise missile strike on Diego Garcia could wipe out at least half of the US B2 force, US missile defenses could not hope to do any better than the Israelis did with their much more advanced AD coverage.

        Reply ↓
        1. Yves Smith Post author

          Your information is inaccurate. That “distance to Iran” is to Tehran which is relatively far from the Indian Ocean.

          The city nearest to the Indian Ocean is Konārak which is nearly 1500 km by air from Tehran.

          The embedded video above from PressTV pointed out that Iran has “hundreds” of bunkered missile launch sites all over Iran. One would think locating them as close as possible to key borders would be a priority given the desire to maximize defense coverage area.

          A topological map shows there are mountainous areas in southeast Iran, so it seems reasonable to believe some missile bunkers are there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Iran#/media/File:Iran-geographic_map.svg

          Now admittedly the reduction in distance from “Iran” to Diego Garcia is probably not 1:1 with flight distance from Tehran to Konārak, but 1000km seems like a reasonable guess in the reduction of flight distance.

          Reply ↓
          1. Toro Rosso

            Diego Garcia is 5,267 km from Tehran
            Distance from Southern Iran (Pasabander) to Diego Garcia is 3747 km.

            5267 – 3747 = 1520

            The city nearest to the Indian Ocean is Konārak which is nearly 1500 km by air from Tehran.

            Reply ↓
            1. Yves Smith Post author

              Thanks for a more exact measurement from Southern Iran to Diego Garcia.

              FYI the Google Maps figure that came up with 4,800km from “Iran” put one of those Google red map markers in the center north, and the marker covered the circle for Tehran. But when you zoom in, the Google starting point is south of Tehran, but still quite far from the nearest point to Diego Garcia.

              Reply ↓
              1. Toro Rosso

                I did not post more exact measurement (thought I did verify on the map, liveuamap.com to be more exact), but just quoted in order to show that you two were not contradicting each other. :)

                The Google Maps number is probably measured form the (geometrical) center of Iran, which is somewhere south-southeast of Tehran.

                Reply ↓
  2. The Rev Kev

    Reading ‘Trump’s Letter to Iran’s Khamenei’ I notice that it does not really say anything. Just negotiate or else. I suppose that the Iranians will at most consider re-establishing the old nuke deal but with some iron-clad guarantees that the US will actually follow the terms this time. But I am sure that Trump regards the nuke deal as only a base line and will seek a whole raft of other terms which will amount to Iranian disarmament. The only – peaceful – resolution to this quandary is the status quo like he did in his first term with North Korea

    War games that the Pentagon has played gaming out a war with Iran indicate that it will last a decade with an uncertain end. My own opinion is that the only thing that is certain is that the price of oil will skyrocket – ‘To the Moon, Alice.To the Moon!’ If Trump does decide to attack Iran, then I would recommend that he get in a gross of paper-shredders for the White House. He will need them to shred any plan or agenda that he had on the domestic front as for the next four years his Presidency will be Iran 24-7 with little time for domestic matters. Kinda like with Biden and the Ukraine.

    Reply ↓
    1. Camacho

      Don sent them a letter with an offer they can’t refuse, and they refused. Sounds like a Netflix remake of Godfather. :) I wonder if writing of the letter was assisted by AI (that was trained on Blinken & Sullivan).

      Reply ↓
      1. JonnyJames

        But don’t insult the old-school Cosa Nostra – they actually had a code of ethics. Our government, as well as BOTH so-called political parties clearly do not. They have no qualms funding the mass murder of women and children for example. The traditional US Mafia would never condone that. I would prefer Frank Costello to the current crop of freaks.

        Reply ↓
    2. SZ

      Did the Pentagon war games account for the Thirty Years’ War–level of political instability and destruction that will hit America’s puppets in the Middle East in case of war with Iran?

      In case of an actual shooting war, say an immediate goodbye to al-Udeid and to the entire Qatari political arrangement for starters. Same goes for Jordan, which is bound to be Iran’s most strategic target, given Jordan’s restive population of Palestinian refugees and the fact that Jordan is Israel’s trusty floodgate. If I recall correctly, Iran already overtly threatened Jordan last April.

      A war like this will literally throw all bets off on the post-Nasser status quo in the Middle East.

      Is Israel itself even able to lug it for a decade? Israel’s whole shtick is blitzkrieg. It is simply not physically capable of waging long wars or surviving an unstable Middle East for that long. It doesn’t have the power reserve or the political cohesion for it. It won’t be fighting against militias with homemade weapons and makeshift PVC pipe RPGs either.

      Reply ↓
  3. timbers

    “U.S. President Donald Trump said he wants to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran…”

    My advice to Iran regarding an appropriate response:

    “Iran stands ready to inspect, verify, and assist with the nuclear disarmament of the United States and its controling entity, Israel. We look forward to concrete proposals and negotiations on proceeding with the plan for the benefit of peoples.”

    Reply ↓
  4. Unironic Pangloss

    Good news….(IMO)….the rabidly anti-China wing of the Blob will say no to any conflict that distracts from China; for once pushing against the rabidly pro-Israel wing of the Blob.

    Bad news….there is a rabidly anti-China wing of the Blob

    Reply ↓
    2. cousinAdam

      Good news, bad news. To paraphrase Yves from not too long ago, pivoting from Russia to China (but sidestepping Iran IF the AIPAC cronies allow it) is kinda like the dog who catches the ‘even bigger car’. And Rev Kev’s observation above- about the probable trajectory of oil prices addresses the really big elephant in the room. Kudos for the “Honeymooners” quote – Ralph Cramden’s abbreviated version of that warning to his beloved Alice was simply, “BANG, zoom!!” I have long been of the opinion that the Gaza genocide is mostly about Israel assuming sovereignty over the territory in order to assume ownership of the mineral rights to what is apparently a substantial gas / oil deposit largely offshore. “Riviera in the Promised Land” my a**. Exploratory leases were signed long ago between Big Oil and Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian Authority. No more Palestine, no more problem. Lots more ‘Benjamins’. Jared and DT’s real estate fantasies are chump change in comparison. IMHO. (ymmv)

      Reply ↓
      1. vao

        “the Gaza genocide is mostly about Israel assuming sovereignty over the territory in order to assume ownership of the mineral rights to what is apparently a substantial gas / oil deposit largely offshore”

        Exactly.

        This makes me think: there is that other project, IMEC, which was described in detail here at NC. It is supposed to include Israel as a major node. Gaza, once razed the ground and “cleaned” of its inhabitants will be the perfect place to build a modern, giant harbour, multi-modal transfer platform, and pipeline head station. Hell, Gaza was already a major port in the Antiquity.

        Of course, this only makes sense if other competitors can be taken out — such as the Chabahar port in Iran. I am of the opinion that USA and Israel, if they ever attack Iran, will go for the vulnerable, unfortified civilian infrastructure (like those countries always did in the past). Devastating Chabahar would increase the value of Gaza for IMEC, while hurting Iran economically.

        Reply ↓
  5. John Merryman

    It does seem Trump is starting to push in too many directions at once. Possibly going from full speed ahead to spinning his wheels. To the extent this is driven by the Crusader Bros, looking to Holy War the Infidels again and his Jewish NY real estate buddies thinking Israel is the best thing since sliced bread, it does seem like something that could blow up in his face.
    Patience is not his strong point.

    Reply ↓
  6. jefemt

    Never let a good crisis go to waste. Manufacture good crises. Tomorrow is April Fool’s Day, Tariff Day is April 2… planned protests against Trusk and Mump April 4. Springtime perfect for Self-licking Ice Cream Cones!!

    The Planets are entering new Constellations. We are entering another “turning” Woo Hoo!

    “The Fault, Dear Brutus, is not the the stars, but in ourselves… ”
    -Bard, Julius Cesar

    Dear Abby,

    Is it too late to start using cash for my diminished purchases, and to put my credit card in a glass of water in the freezer?

    Reply ↓
  7. Carolinian

    In answer to the “what’s going on?” question perhaps Sunday’s tantrum toward Putin is most relevant. Clearly Trump, the real estate empire builder, sees everything as the art of the business deal and that’s why Putin’s assertion of nationalist and patriotic priorities in Murmask “pissed him off.” Which is to say he doesn’t want to wash his hands of Ukraine or Gaza–the libertarian position–but rather to make them ripe for future exploitation. He wants to make a Riviera desert and call it peace. What happens to the ordinary people in these places is irrelevant and I don’t believe he really cares what happens to ordinary Americans either. It’s all about him.

    There may be figures in his administration pushing the other way however–gently pushing. RT relays a Politico assertion that Vance and others tried to get Trump to fire the rabid Waltz after Signalgate and Trump refused because it would give his opponents satisfaction. But there’s still a ray of hope that Trump will back down from his own foibles. And attacking Iran would be a very big foible indeed.

    Reply ↓
    1. Carolinian

      I finally was able to catch the Larry Johnson/Crooke which is very good–perhaps the second history half more than the first prediction half.

      They both think that Trump is going to attack Iran with even his saner advisors on board (i.e. the indeed misinformed Witkoff). Here’s hoping that is wrong but it says it all about our very decayed democracy that we the people have almost no say in the matter.

      Reply ↓
  8. Lathe Biosas

    The recent strategic partnership between Russia and Iran does not foresee one backing the other if under attack. Here are the provisions of article 3:

    3. In the event that either Contracting Party is subject to aggression, the other Contracting Party shall not provide any military or other assistance to the aggressor which would contribute to the continued aggression, and shall help to ensure that the differences that have arisen are settled on the basis of the United Nations Charter and other applicable rules of international law

    Reply ↓
    1. Yves Smith Post author

      You are misinterpreting the language. It bars assistance TO THE AGGRESSOR, not the victim! If Iran is attacked, that section in no way bars Russia from providing support.

      Reply ↓
      1. Lathe Biosas

        I didn’t misunderstand the language, I know it speaks of assisting the aggressor.

        This treaty does not exactly say it will provide assistance to the victim as well, in the same way the Russia – North Korea partnership does, as per article 4:

        Should either of the Contracting Parties suffer armed attack by any State or coalition of States and thus find itself in a state of war, the other Contracting Party shall immediately extend military and other assistance with all the means at its disposal

        This is not the same as “not aiding the aggressor”…

        Reply ↓
        1. Yves Smith Post author

          You seem to be straw manning or misreading the post, since I do not understand why you harping on this matter. This is what it said: “include cooperation provisions that facilitate Russia backing Iran if attacked. ”

          Times of Israel had a similar take:

          Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Iranian counterpart Masoud Pezeshkian deepened military ties between their countries on Friday by signing a 20-year strategic partnership that is likely to worry the West…

          Under their new agreement, Russia and Iran will boost cooperation in a range of areas including their security services, military drills, warship port visits, and joint officer training.

          Neither will allow their territory to be used for any action that threatens the other and will provide no help to an aggressor attacking either nation, according to the text, which also said they would work together to counter military threats.

          https://www.timesofisrael.com/russia-iran-deepen-defense-ties-as-putin-and-pezeshkian-sign-20-year-pact/

          Similarly, Alastair Crooke in his interview with Larry Johnson pointed out that Iran occupies territory that is geostrategically extremely important to both Russia and China, suggesting that both would find it hard to stand pat if Iran were attacked.

          Reply ↓
          1. Lathe Biosas

            My point is this: most people in the alt-media are saying that the new partnership says Russia will back Iran, and it doesn’t.

            I also find it hard that Russia and China will not act in case Iran is attacked, or rather that’s what I hope. It would have been wonderful if this was also clearly stipulated in a treaty. .

            Reply ↓
  9. NevilShute

    Once again, Israeli politicians and American Neo-cons are willing to start yet another war, and for what? To satisfy the sociopaths who thrive on war, and for whom peace is some tree-hugger’s fanstasy.
    It has been widely acknowledged that Iran can readily shut the Straits of Hormuz, thereby cutting off 20-25% of world oil supplies, and triggering an economic recession around the globe. That’ll make America great again. And above all, let’s not forget the countless souls who will lose their lives, a la a Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, etc. But then, other peoples’ lives are an afterthought for these war criminals.

    Reply ↓
    1. EY Oakland

      “…and for what?” For the financial ‘winners.’ Regarding those who lose financially in this – who cares? Some people stand to gain quite a lot from such a war, win or lose. In every war, the powerless just don’t count, including our “warfighters” – the new terminology replacing “warriors.” That heroic identifier is all that the soldiers fighting, getting wounded, dying – the fodder in other words – can count on as a take away. Perhaps that ‘warfighter’ designation will get them something from the government in the way of benefits after Doge is finished with its looting but I wouldn’t count on it.

      Reply ↓
    2. JonnyJames

      “Neocon” or neoconservative (the original PNAC followers of Leo Strauss) has been emptied of meaning in recent years. Now it is a synonym of warmonger. This is bipartisan – virtually every member of Congress are Zionist warmongers, aka “neocons”

      Reply ↓
  10. 4paul

    HANG ON … am i confused???

    ATA-2025-Unclassified-Report.pdf
    quoted and linked above

    nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003

    the world’s first documented use of a cyber-weapon was US/Israel’s Stuxnet against Iranian centrifuges in the year 2010 …

    the US government’s own official documentation says Iran suspended nukes in the year 2003 and has not taken them up since????? but in the year 2010 the US and Israel created a new front in warfare by bragging about using malware … to stop Iran’s nuclear program … but in the year 2003 the spooks verified Iran (and Iraq LOL) didn’t have nukes (and still don’t) ?

    counterpoint: the ATA goes on to say Iran

    likely aims to continue R&D of chemical and biological agents for offensive purposes

    (although what is “likely”?)
    better counterpoint: the spooks are wrong about most things, and completely missed the new weapons Russia announced in 2017-2018, so several grains of salt may be necessary

    am i … misreading / misunderstanding / mis-remembering ?

    Reply ↓
    1. Yves Smith Post author

      The US and Israel have repeatedly lied about the state of Iran’s nuclear program. Even after the National Threat Assessment said again, as it has many many times, said that Iran is not developing a nuclear bomb, Trump is threatening Iran over developing an imaginary nuke.

      Reply ↓
      1. JonnyJames

        That reminds me of the claim of Syria’s chem weapons some years back. Iraq’s WMDs. The pattern of lies appears consistent.

        Reply ↓
      2. SZ

        Confucius once said: “If America accuses you of developing a nuke, drop everything you’re doing and start developing a nuke.”

        Reply ↓
      3. WJ

        The real issue being of course Iran’s ballistic missile program in toto. Trump and Netanyahu know they can’t plausibly demand that Iran give up its entire (and entirely defensive) missile program–the one thing preventing Israel from bombing them NOW–or else face destruction (even though the demands ludicrously DO include this, though under the assumption that these missiles MIGHT carry nuclear warheads), so they have to play up the nuclear threat as a pretext for neutering Iran’s conventional defensive capacity. The proposal is literally as stupid as: either you render yourself defenseless against any future attack by Israel, or we will attack you now.

        Reply ↓
        1. Michaelmas

          WJ: ...a pretext for neutering Iran’s conventional defensive capacity.

          That cannot be done by the US or Israel, to be clear.

          I haven’t seen anyone in this thread say it yet, but people here are speculating about ten year wars and Israel’s putative capability or lack of it to survive such.

          That won’t happen.

          The Iranian conventional missile capability is such that it’ll probably rapidly flatten Israel in a matter of hours or days should the US/Israel attack, especially if the Negev reactor site is targeted. Conversely, Iran is a territory two and a half times the size of Ukraine, with many, many batteries of missiles in silos under the desert and inside mountains where not even nukes can take them all out.

          Furthermore, see commenter ISL below.

          Reply ↓
  11. Danpaco

    According to an Al Mayadeen article the IRGC commander said Iran would respond proportionately to any attack. My optimistic side thinks this is a diplomatic way for trump to back out of his bluster. Otherwise, who knows.

    Reply ↓
    1. JonnyJames

      The tragic humor is in no short supply eh. The genocide, the war in Ukraine, the threats against Iran, Economic Warfare, starvation-siege warfare against Venezuela, Cuba…nothing has changed except the blah blah blah…

      Would it be too cliche to cite Orwell?

      Reply ↓
  14. Mikel

    Is Saudi Arabia raising questions about all of this? Considering the possible effects on oil prices, I can’t imagine they don’t have much more to say.

    Reply ↓
  15. ISL

    A minor point, but it argues towards a bluff – readiness rates of B-2s are around 50%:

    “The specified readiness rate was not published, but it may represent a challenge for the contractor. Introduced from 1993-2000, America’s B-2 fleet has historically had availability rates below 50% for a number of reasons. In practice, what this meant was that even with moderate usage, an average of only 6-10 stealth bombers were actually available for missions at any given time.”

    https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/usas-b2-bombers-leading-the-way-in-contracting-for-availability-02950/

    So almost the entire available B2 fleet – a key part of the US strategic triangle – is exposed to potential destruction if used and Russian antiaircraft performs as well as in Ukraine (B2s are considered particularly easy for an AD to hit as they are very slow maneuvering, and stealth isn’t for Russian AD).

    Given that sustaining the fleet likely involves cannibalization (as for other older military systems) where parts are no longer produced – the strategic triangle would be unlikely to be restored for many, many years – given the politics and Pentagon procurement processes (which we would call corruption if it happened elsewhere).

    Reply ↓
  16. SZ

    Heavily concur on the false flag. I’m dialing it in now: Israel did it. I don’t know when or where or what, but I’ll take a shot in the dark. Netanyahu did 4/11. Iran didn’t hit Milwaukee. Jet fuel can’t melt cream cheese.

    Reply ↓
    1. JonnyJames

      Remember the Maine! Pearl Harbor! Gulf of Tonkin! Saddam has WMDs. Gaddafi gave Viagra to his troops! Assad gassed his own people! Chavez was a brutal dictator who was never elected, Putin shot down the plane…

      Reply ↓
  17. Aurelien

    I think a major part of the problem is that these people are amateurs, with very little understanding of the region, and of the relative strength of the forces involved. In brief, they think they can do to Iran what Israel did to Hezbollah, but the situation is quite different.

    Iran has been badly weakened in its ability to project power westwards. However, I can’t see that recent events have weakened its ability to defend the country and its airspace against attacks. A ground invasion of a mountainous country of eighty million people is a fantasy, so all that is possible is an attack by (probably stealth) aircraft. I would be surprised if the US could conduct a SEAD campaign with the assets it has, except at a terrible price, and even then it might not be able to suppress everything. No account seems to have been taken of possible Iranian reaction, although there are US bases within easy rocket range.

    I fear that somewhere in this intellectual swamp lurks the idea that some kind of shattering, decapitating attack would bring down the Iranian regime, and release “pro-democratic” forces that would swiftly ally themselves with the United States. But even if that latter fantasy were true, it would be impossible to bring about. The Israeli decapitation of Hezbollah succeeded because they had total air superiority, the ability to strike targets by day at any point, the targets themselves were unprotected or poorly protected living accommodation, and most of all the Israelis had excellent intelligence about exactly where to find the leadership targets, because Hezbollah had by that stage been thoroughly infiltrated. Literally none of those applies with Iran, and the US would be lucky to do more than superficial damage to the regime with the number of aircraft it is ready to risk.

    There’s a lot of confusion about the Iranian nuclear programme. Simply put, a nuclear capability requires a delivery system, a guidance system, and a warhead engineered from (in this case) highly enriched uranium. The Iranians already have the first two, and could adapt their missiles relatively easy to carry a nuclear payload over Intermediate distances. The Iranians have had a uranium enrichment programme for some years. The last IAEA report, dated about a year ago, showed Iran as having about 150kg of uranium enriched to 60%. This is far more than needed for commercial purposes, but also short of the 85% enrichment figure usually quoted for “weapons grade.” Assuming that the Iranians have access to warhead design technology from Russia, or have been working independently on it, or both, the decision to go nuclear is essentially a political one. A number of countries in the world (Germany, South Korea and Japan are most frequently quoted) are potential (or “dormant”) nuclear powers because they could move to an actual nuclear weapon within anything from months to a few years, depending on who you believe. I’ve always assumed that Iran wants to be effectively in the same position. With uranium enriched to 85%, the question is whether they could then immediately proceed to weaponise it, and very few people know the answer to that question. Of course, there’s no sign yet that Iran actively wishes to change its existing policy and go this way, but the regime may feel that strategic ambiguity is its best defence.

    Reply ↓
    1. JonnyJames

      Great points. The only question I have is if the “confusion” is not just willful ignorance and misinformation for political reasons and to provide a pretext for attack, akin to Saddam’s WMD’s with images of mushroom clouds and all that. The Politics of Fear is always a useful tool.

      I recall Netanyahu’s drawing of a bomb with fuse at the UN some years back. https://www.timesofisrael.com/rouhani-poses-challenge-for-israel-ahead-of-un-meet/

      Given the context, it should be understandable why Iran may want to have a strong deterrent.

      Reply ↓
  18. WJ

    Given Iran’s ability to wreck havoc on US assets in Western Asia, on Israel, on the global economy, on possible American planes and–if some of the comments above are correct–on Diego Garcia itself, I am led to the prediction that any decisive, multi-front response by Iran to American aggression risks the US/Israel quickly escalating to the use of nuclear weapons.

    Otherwise the war will drag on and on, with increasing damage and destruction to too many key American and Israeli assets–and a LOT of embarrassment for Trump and Netanyahu.

    Surely Iran must also anticipate this possibility. They might be motivated therefore to endure more belligerence than they are publicly letting on to, and to limit their response to a degree that would not prompt further escalation. Of course, if they don’t respond forcefully enough, they risk encouraging future attacks; if they respond too forcefully, they risk being nuked–at least in my opinion. They are in a very tricky position.

    Reply ↓
    1. ilsm

      Treating Iranian cities like Sana’a is not going to do it!

      Wilkerson said yesterday with Dima: Iran incursion with ground force the sole effective approach would be 100,000 plus U.S. casualties 3 to 4 trillion bucks, 10 years and no better result than 20 odd years doing Iraq.

      Zagros Mts and Caspian Sea lines of communications.

      Pacific will be peaceful for 30 years…..

      I think Wilkerson is an optimist

      Reply ↓
      1. nyleta

        Timing is going to be perfect if the US uses MEF’s to keep the Straight of Hormuz open in April/May the ground will be nice and hard for Russian tank groups in Ukraine. They should be in position by then at the current rate of progress. The shipments yesterday through South Korea of lots of Air Defences to the Middle East make an attack more likely. B2 sorties on Yemen yesterday as well., shaking out exercises for them. The US client states there must be getting nervous.

        The only real wild card is China, they will probably wait for a real disaster to hit US forces to move, Russia doesn’t have to wait it can pick and choose its time with battle hardened troops of all types now.

        Reply ↓
      2. ISL

        It took 6 months for the US to move forces (that no longer exist) and hardware to the region – I just cant see Iran allowing that to happen (or Trump willing to wait 6 months) without targeting and destroying the Middle Eastern ports. And would Turkey allow the US to use it for a land route? I doubt it. Is the US going to take the long route through North Africa.

        So I agree – Wilkerson is an optimist

        Reply ↓
  19. Clwydshire

    I wonder if stealth aircraft are really all that stealthy anymore, here is one report that suggests not: https://spacesecurity.wse.jhu.edu/2024/09/22/chinese-researchers-claim-to-detect-stealth-aircraft/ where Chinese scientists used simple equipment to detect a stealth drone via their effect on emissions from Elon Musk’s Starlink network. A couple of years ago I heard (but can’t source it anymore) that the wide distribution of cell phone transmissions across urban areas could be used to passively detect stealth aircraft, also with simple equipment. These are both el cheapo hacks, but cheap hacks have been a winning innovation ever since the war in Ukraine got serious. Finally, it seems to me the Russians are not worrying about stealth technology as much as they used to. Will the US lose some of those unbelievably (!!!) expensive bombers if they are used to attack Iran?

    Reply ↓
    1. Yves Smith Post author

      That is a point I had briefly looked into but neglected to include. “Stealth” is misleading. “Low visibility” seems to be the new preferred term of art.

      Reply ↓
    2. ilsm

      A lot of ways to “rough” track “low observable” aircraft. Interceptor missiles now have several seekers, IR, optical and radar.

      B-2 has less IR signature than F 35, which has some much jet fuel passing thru the single engine an IR seeker can lock many miles away. IR is passive so that threat warning on the F-35 can’ t see it.

      If there are 5 B-2 at Diego Garcia is 5 days of flying 4 will be broke.

      At $2 billion a piece in 1990 money a wrecked B-2 is a big deal.

      Reply ↓
  20. Anthony Martin

    In some ways the difference between Trump and Biden is merely semantics: Biden: “We are the world power.” Trump: “I am the world power.” Those in the current Administration seem to have, in general, the proper attitude of a colonial and imperialistic power. Indigenous people, Greenlanders, Palestinians, Yemeni, Persians, Ukranians, Canadians, anyone in the southern hemisphere, all are expendable pawns. Slavs and Asians, politely, lesser peoples. No need to consult with Congress about the Executive Branch declaring war with Iran, especially if the act is already pre-approved by Israel. “Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead.” For some unfathomable reason, everyone assusmes Trump is reasonably sane, but there is no guarantee that he is any more compotent, for different reasons, than was Biden. His advisors write the EOs which he signs. Instead of Blinken, Sullivan, Nuland, there are Miller, Bannon, & Musk. Instead of neocons, we have Project 25ers. Implementing grand visions that are not clearly defined, that don’t have the will of the people behind them, and which lack the willkingness of the people to fianance are probably doomed to failure. Forget the polls, the media and th deciision makers should walk the street, the general ‘conversation’, people don’t seem to think the leaders deserve the esteem to which the latter think they are entitled.

    Reply ↓
  21. raspberry jam

    Let me add a small but interesting potential that I haven’t seen discussed much here but was raised a couple weeks back by some Israeli colleagues who were in town for a conference after we’d loosened up with a couple bottles of wine over dinner. All of the Israelis present were tech executives and most were former IDF officers, which is to say, better connected and on the ground than most of the commentators we are reading on this issue.

    Their projected scenario is that Netanyahu will cut a deal to create a Palestinian state as part of a settlement of the Gaza ‘situation’ (as the Israelis call it). Their belief is that all of what is currently ongoing is about oil/gas pipelines from Ashkelon to Europe. Netanyahu is the only one in Israel who is positioned to create the Palestinian state without getting murdered; the Palestinian state is a requirement for Saudi to refrain from tanking the global oil market. War with Iran was not discussed much at dinner, they kind of waved it off, not in the sense that they thought Israel would win more that the horse trading over a Palestinian state would preclude anything worse than last year’s planned strikes.

    The Israelis present all agreed that if Netanyahu passed his budget (which happened right before this past weekend US time I believe) the Palestinian state was effectively a done deal as the budget was the only thing keeping him from being ousted until next election season.

    Reply ↓
  22. Haymer Doots

    Trump won’t attack Iran – it is too tough a nut. He will threaten and build up forces in the area to deter Iran from interfering while Israel/USA finish genocide, Houthis and Hezbollah. This can then be spun back home as a victory over Iran as any ME group beginning with”H” is Iran-backed (HTS being a possible exception unless they turn on Israel).

    Reply ↓
    1. Yves Smith Post author

      The flaw in this thinking is the US cannot stop the Houthis and they are not under Iran’s control. And I was remiss in not calling out particular sections of the Crooke talk. One is how he goes on about how the motivations of the Shia are alien to Western materialists. They are committed to a degree we cannot comprehend to persist in their notion of what their religious obligations are, even when having slow-motion torture inflicted on them.

      Reply ↓
  23. Tim N

    Ole T. Gabbard in full-on flattery mode, buttering up that imbecile Trump. Was it really only 4-5 years ago when Genocide Joe was getting the butter? It’s all part of her journey to the Presidency, but she’s clearly not a deep thinker. Her fanboys are likely having a tough time with her fawning, but they should’ve seen this coming. They were warned.

    Reply ↓
  24. johnnyme

    I haven’t seen any recent mention of this here at NC, so apologies if this is old news. The UK is sending a carrier strike group loaded with F-35s to the Indo-Pacific in April and if things heat up with Iran, they will be in position to join in.

    British carrier shortly to begin ‘Operation Highmast’

    The UK’s Carrier Strike Group (CSG) is preparing for its most ambitious deployment since the 2021 global voyage of HMS Queen Elizabeth, as HMS Prince of Wales prepares to lead Operation HIGHMAST—a months-long mission to the Indo-Pacific and back.

    The Carrier Strike Group 25 deployment will feature, for the first time, two full squadrons of UK F-35B Lightning II jets embarked aboard a British aircraft carrier, marking a significant leap in the UK’s ability to project airpower at sea.

    It also appears that at least one Canadian frigate is part of the strike group:

    MGen Peter Dawe, Chief of Combat Systems Integration (CCSI), highlighted the criticality of the experimentation being conducted on Project OLYMPUS and Operation HIGHMAST where Canada will be deploying HMCS Ville de Quebec with the HMS Prince of Wales UK Carrier Strike Group in the spring of 2025.

    Reply ↓
  25. juno mas

    Well, this has been an interesting, perceptive post by Yves. The Commentariat, again, leavens the bread. Thanks, All.

    Reply ↓
  26. WillD

    What happened to Trump’s promise not to start any new wars? Or perhaps the US doesn’t consider a war with Iran as ‘new’ – since it has been itching to start it for so long?

    Reply ↓
  27. Glen

    Great post thanks!

    You do start to wonder how this factors in:

    Iran-China Oil Flows Persist Despite U.S. Crackdown https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Iran-China-Oil-Flows-Persist-Despite-US-Crackdown.html

    The tightened U.S. sanctions on Iranian oil flows under the Trump Administration’s renewed maximum pressure campaign have created chaos in Iran’s oil exports to its single biggest buyer, China.

    However, Iranian exports to China, which buys around 90% of the Islamic Republic’s oil, continue as traders and middlemen rearrange tanker flows and increase ship-to-ship transfers, especially offshore Malaysia, vessel-tracking analysts say.

    China, Iran and Russia hold joint naval drills in Mideast as tensions rise between Tehran and US https://apnews.com/article/mideast-tensions-iran-china-russia-naval-drills-b150bd7fa1336e52fbbf6fd4afd593de

    Neither China nor Russia actively patrol the wider Middle East, whose waterways remain crucial for global energy supplies. Instead they broadly cede that to Western nations largely led by the U.S. Navy’s Bahrain-based 5th Fleet. Observers for the drill included Azerbaijan, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, South Africa, Sri Lanka and the United Arab Emirates — with the Americans likely keeping watch as well.

    However, both China and Russia have deep interests in Iran. For China, it has continued to purchase Iranian crude oil despite facing Western sanctions, likely at a discount compared to global prices. Beijing also remains one of the top markets for Iranian imports.

    So much for this (but it was largely a crack pipe dream anyways):

    Washington’s Embrace of Putin Aims to Drive Wedge Between Moscow and Beijing https://www.wsj.com/world/trump-putin-russia-china-policy-e73aeea6

    Reply ↓

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *