As I said below, debasing the currency he's trying to spend.
11 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Not really. He gave the Iranian theocrats a 2-part ultimatum: Open the strait or else, but if you open the strait we'll have a 2-week ceasefire. The mullahs have agreed to open the strait and accept the ceasefire. Trump seems to have gotten what he wanted, though like much else we'll have to see if it actually plays out that way.
It's entirely possible Trump's rhetoric here wasn't aimed at Americans or the West at all.
The theocrats are incommunicado. The elected government, which is subordinate to the theocracy, accepted the cease fire. But the IRGC fired on Israel immediately.
As we expected, the rounds of decapitation strikes have left Iran with no one who really has authority to negotiate a peace. That doesn't imply that we are the ones nearing defeat; but it does complicate the closing action.
In the age before we all became internet-addicted squirrels, we'd have given a ceasefire a few hours to take hold, maybe even a day.
But, yeah, I'm not claiming any particular wisdom here. I just pointed out that the threat was an attempt to open the strait, which the official leadership in Iran thought was worth doing, so it wasn't TACOs for dinner ... although, if the IRGC won't honor it, then we'll see. I'll check my salsa supply just in case.
We did start taking out bridges before the Iranians agreed to the ceasefire. At the same time, I think Trump really needs a ceasefire. He's running out of time politically and he may well decide an official-but-not-real ceasefire is fine. But back to the IRGC -- If they won't cooperate, will Trump blow the power plants? Beats me.
I do know he'll be condemned no matter what he does, and many of the same people will condemn him regardless of whether he hits the power plants or TACOs. They hate him and would gladly give the republic to the statists just to be rid of him.
Also, why do you cite the tabloid while not mentioning Fox News analysts who suggest--but do not claim--that Trump's hard talk maybe produced some results after pre-February pretty pleases had led to ever more Iranian misbehaviors and following graphic demonstrations of Iran's military nakedness along the counting of coup that the two aircrew being picked up from under their noses represents.
I generally don’t read FOX News. I wouldn’t know what they say, but I have a good friend— Jim Hanson— who is a contributor there. I tend to get that perspective from him, though we haven’t spoken in the last couple of days.
Others state that Iran's "points" are largely impossible for the US to accept, and that the NYTimes article about the "go" decision meeting is well-informed. Thus, they say, the US and Israel are going to 'lose the truce.'
So long as Iran retains control of Hormuz, even as a ticket-taker, the US did not "win."
They also think that Hegseth is dead meat by 30 days out....
I'm not familiar with them, but their site is unconvincing. "US OUT OF MILITARY OPTIONS" when we have two MEUs we haven't used even slightly yet, as well as an ABN Brigade in theater? "IRAN FORCES US INTO TRUCE" is also extremely improbable as a take: Trump seems to have wanted a truce to get out of having to carry out his promises, but Pakistan wanted one too, to avoid being drawn into the war on our side (or, more precisely, Saudi's side). The comments to the video suggest that the team has drawn a pro-Russian, anti-Israeli audience; that implies cognitive bias in favor of finding anti-American, anti-Israeli outcomes more plausible than otherwise.
In any case, it's strange to talk about 'the US losing the peace' when there isn't clearly a peace to lose. I have a friend in Dubai right now who says they got hit with a dozen Iranian drones and missiles this morning. There's no ceasefire, really, because the elected government doesn't control the weapons, and the weapons-handling IRGC isn't negotiating.
Now that kind of a split in the regime poses problems, as I have said; but it definitely doesn't imply that they're winning. Neither does the zero fatalities they've managed to inflict versus the thousands they've suffered; nor the ~5 aircraft to ~their entire air force; nor the ~0 ship losses to ~every medium sized ship and up in their entire Navy.
One is that it seems to me that Trump's massive threats are just his opening bids. Like the New York builder steeped in harsh language during negotiations that he is, he has always demanded excessively high prices or offered really low-ball prices as his initial position and then let himself get negotiated into the price range he'd determined was acceptable before he entered into the negotiations.
This on top of Trump really, really preferring negotiation to killing, often to a fault. Trouble is, he's dealing with Iranian theocrat terrorists, and they don't care the price they, or their subjects, pay to get what they want. I've quoted Rafsanjani before. Trump hasn't figured that out yet.
That brings me to my second thought. The current situation seems similar to that of the Rome-Carthage wars, particularly the second one. From Adrian Goldsworthy's The Fall of Carthage:
Despite their appalling losses, the string of humiliating defeats, the defections of some Italian allies, and the continuing malevolent presence of Hannibal's army in Italy, the Romans simply refused to come to terms with the Carthaginians…. They were then able to beat the enemy on every other front and force the undefeated Hannibal to evacuate Italy…. The Carthaginians expected a war to end in a negotiated peace. The Romans expected a war to end in total victory or their own annihilation....
We're not dead yet, say the Iranian "negotiators," so we haven't lost.
It's time for them to die. The sooner Trump figures that out, the better for him and for the rest of us.
11 comments:
Not really. He gave the Iranian theocrats a 2-part ultimatum: Open the strait or else, but if you open the strait we'll have a 2-week ceasefire. The mullahs have agreed to open the strait and accept the ceasefire. Trump seems to have gotten what he wanted, though like much else we'll have to see if it actually plays out that way.
It's entirely possible Trump's rhetoric here wasn't aimed at Americans or the West at all.
- Tom
The theocrats are incommunicado. The elected government, which is subordinate to the theocracy, accepted the cease fire. But the IRGC fired on Israel immediately.
https://x.com/wretchardthecat/status/2041662779384590795?s=20
As we expected, the rounds of decapitation strikes have left Iran with no one who really has authority to negotiate a peace. That doesn't imply that we are the ones nearing defeat; but it does complicate the closing action.
In the age before we all became internet-addicted squirrels, we'd have given a ceasefire a few hours to take hold, maybe even a day.
But, yeah, I'm not claiming any particular wisdom here. I just pointed out that the threat was an attempt to open the strait, which the official leadership in Iran thought was worth doing, so it wasn't TACOs for dinner ... although, if the IRGC won't honor it, then we'll see. I'll check my salsa supply just in case.
We did start taking out bridges before the Iranians agreed to the ceasefire. At the same time, I think Trump really needs a ceasefire. He's running out of time politically and he may well decide an official-but-not-real ceasefire is fine. But back to the IRGC -- If they won't cooperate, will Trump blow the power plants? Beats me.
I do know he'll be condemned no matter what he does, and many of the same people will condemn him regardless of whether he hits the power plants or TACOs. They hate him and would gladly give the republic to the statists just to be rid of him.
- Tom
The theocrats are incommunicado.
Incommunicado to whom, exactly?
Also, why do you cite the tabloid while not mentioning Fox News analysts who suggest--but do not claim--that Trump's hard talk maybe produced some results after pre-February pretty pleases had led to ever more Iranian misbehaviors and following graphic demonstrations of Iran's military nakedness along the counting of coup that the two aircrew being picked up from under their noses represents.
Eric Hines
Ya know, if there's daylight between whoever is in charge and the IRGC, it would be interesting if that could be exploited.
- Tom
I generally don’t read FOX News. I wouldn’t know what they say, but I have a good friend— Jim Hanson— who is a contributor there. I tend to get that perspective from him, though we haven’t spoken in the last couple of days.
Yes, a split in the regime is not necessarily a bad thing. It’s just going to be a complication.
Others state that Iran's "points" are largely impossible for the US to accept, and that the NYTimes article about the "go" decision meeting is well-informed. Thus, they say, the US and Israel are going to 'lose the truce.'
So long as Iran retains control of Hormuz, even as a ticket-taker, the US did not "win."
They also think that Hegseth is dead meat by 30 days out....
See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvNcXGtB3ME
I'm not familiar with them, but their site is unconvincing. "US OUT OF MILITARY OPTIONS" when we have two MEUs we haven't used even slightly yet, as well as an ABN Brigade in theater? "IRAN FORCES US INTO TRUCE" is also extremely improbable as a take: Trump seems to have wanted a truce to get out of having to carry out his promises, but Pakistan wanted one too, to avoid being drawn into the war on our side (or, more precisely, Saudi's side). The comments to the video suggest that the team has drawn a pro-Russian, anti-Israeli audience; that implies cognitive bias in favor of finding anti-American, anti-Israeli outcomes more plausible than otherwise.
In any case, it's strange to talk about 'the US losing the peace' when there isn't clearly a peace to lose. I have a friend in Dubai right now who says they got hit with a dozen Iranian drones and missiles this morning. There's no ceasefire, really, because the elected government doesn't control the weapons, and the weapons-handling IRGC isn't negotiating.
Now that kind of a split in the regime poses problems, as I have said; but it definitely doesn't imply that they're winning. Neither does the zero fatalities they've managed to inflict versus the thousands they've suffered; nor the ~5 aircraft to ~their entire air force; nor the ~0 ship losses to ~every medium sized ship and up in their entire Navy.
A couple thoughts on this.
One is that it seems to me that Trump's massive threats are just his opening bids. Like the New York builder steeped in harsh language during negotiations that he is, he has always demanded excessively high prices or offered really low-ball prices as his initial position and then let himself get negotiated into the price range he'd determined was acceptable before he entered into the negotiations.
This on top of Trump really, really preferring negotiation to killing, often to a fault. Trouble is, he's dealing with Iranian theocrat terrorists, and they don't care the price they, or their subjects, pay to get what they want. I've quoted Rafsanjani before. Trump hasn't figured that out yet.
That brings me to my second thought. The current situation seems similar to that of the Rome-Carthage wars, particularly the second one. From Adrian Goldsworthy's The Fall of Carthage:
Despite their appalling losses, the string of humiliating defeats, the defections of some Italian allies, and the continuing malevolent presence of Hannibal's army in Italy, the Romans simply refused to come to terms with the Carthaginians…. They were then able to beat the enemy on every other front and force the undefeated Hannibal to evacuate Italy…. The Carthaginians expected a war to end in a negotiated peace. The Romans expected a war to end in total victory or their own annihilation....
We're not dead yet, say the Iranian "negotiators," so we haven't lost.
It's time for them to die. The sooner Trump figures that out, the better for him and for the rest of us.
Eric Hines
Post a Comment