I nevertheless think that the understanding of Russia has always been your weak point.
As someone else has said, in their narrative, only total victory is all redeeming. They can't just stop the war with Ukraine half way after 5 years, take a so-and-so compromies and sell at home the fact that they won a trade agremeent with Trump and re-enter the 'European fold'.
On the other hand, to give them a larger part of Ukraine would be suicidal for Ukraine and Europe.
That is not what I call an equilibrium. I hope though you could write more on russia. Thanks.
I totally take that feedback! Maybe it’s wishful thinking but I think they need a deal too. 1m casualties for a path of dirt in Donbas is existential at some point
Honest question - how exactly can the US seize ships carrying Iranian cargo? Their cargo doesn't sail on Iranian flagged ships in the open seas. Are you telling me that the US would consider seizing Chinese chips carrying Iranian cargo and risk the ire of China?
Does China have enough of a navy to escort them through the strait? Maybe they can get their ships through if they stop selling them drones? I take your point it’s a big escalation though.
No, it doesn't work that way Alex. Trump cannot antagonize China (at least not today). The US is too dependent on them (manufacturing, rare earths). Seizing Iranian cargo may sound like an easy thing to do, but the US won't be able to withstand the blowback that comes along with it
Could the closing of Hormuz be part of the strategy for the non-Iran objectives?: disrupting supplychains which have an impact on two part of the US's main strategy to a US2.0 unipolar world order:
- Contain China and at the end squeeze them economically - we know the weak spots
But now especially the unfolding of the multi-step reshoring stratgey: here you further close the cost gap between China and ASEAN region with the US (include the elimination of the discounted oil: venezuela, Iran, Russia) - higher oil / higher insurrance / higher transportation costs / higher feedstock and related raw materials
At the end: the additional add on costs are higher for China/Asean region versus a domestic producer such as the US. Business cases will tilt now in favor to US - Beside closing cost gap -> US has availablity / less risk
I agree. Totally liked the piece, but how the Iran war was connected to Ukraine was inaccurate. Russia's ambitions are not about Ukraine alone, but about destroying the EU and reestablishing as regional hegemon (thats why the baltics, nordics, Poles are gearing up massively, they know their very aggressive neighbour best)., basically at any cost. Russian leadership has never cared about human lives.
Also, Europe did not start supporting Ukraine only after the drone threat became clear, it started earlier - but still too late to make a more pronounced difference especially in 2022 and 2023.
Drawing Russia away from China is wishful thinking, although you are correct that they basically do not like and trust each other, either.
Totally agree with your take on heartland / rimland regarding ground troops. As long as the US abstain from using ground troops, this does not have to end catastrophically. Question is how much pain Iran really is going to take.
What I really think is a shame is that the US did not try this in January where the regime seemed more fragile than in March.
As an European (Spanish specifically) I struggle to understand how lightly the decision going to war with Iran was made by Trump (at least, that's the way it seems to be framed here).
I'd rather think that this is more about controlling the oil supplies in case a war starts with China. And this is linked to Venezuela also.
If China invades/blocks/whatever Taiwan and you need to send the 6th fleet, those ships (and the Chinese) can't work on solar energy.. so you need to control the oil sources, as Hitler was aiming to invade the Caucusus for the oil, and choke the Chinese.
As a net exporter of oil and gas, US shouldn't care about the oil in Iran o Venezuela, anyways it was already off the market due to sanctions..
I'd like to believe this is more because someone is thinking there's a high likelihood of war with China and the US is getting ready, and planning long term for it.
“Park the carriers, interdict the tankers. Seize the assets.”
Unfortunately, much of those assets are oil going to China, who would not like that. Therefore, if China threatens to shut off our rare earth access our military withers on the vine. Yet another bottleneck to figure out. 🤔
Essential reading. Thanks!
I nevertheless think that the understanding of Russia has always been your weak point.
As someone else has said, in their narrative, only total victory is all redeeming. They can't just stop the war with Ukraine half way after 5 years, take a so-and-so compromies and sell at home the fact that they won a trade agremeent with Trump and re-enter the 'European fold'.
On the other hand, to give them a larger part of Ukraine would be suicidal for Ukraine and Europe.
That is not what I call an equilibrium. I hope though you could write more on russia. Thanks.
I totally take that feedback! Maybe it’s wishful thinking but I think they need a deal too. 1m casualties for a path of dirt in Donbas is existential at some point
Honest question - how exactly can the US seize ships carrying Iranian cargo? Their cargo doesn't sail on Iranian flagged ships in the open seas. Are you telling me that the US would consider seizing Chinese chips carrying Iranian cargo and risk the ire of China?
Alternately just blowup kharg island
https://x.com/firstsquawk/status/2034231912311750684?s=46
Does China have enough of a navy to escort them through the strait? Maybe they can get their ships through if they stop selling them drones? I take your point it’s a big escalation though.
No, it doesn't work that way Alex. Trump cannot antagonize China (at least not today). The US is too dependent on them (manufacturing, rare earths). Seizing Iranian cargo may sound like an easy thing to do, but the US won't be able to withstand the blowback that comes along with it
Trump has forced this war on EU to decouple them from energy just as he did from Russia.
No Russian missiles entered EU airspace, this is propaganda.
The USA started both wars to maintain the petrodollar.
(And has lost both)
Maybe some analysis like that
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HDr_0IKbgAALR5K?format=jpg&name=large
Could the closing of Hormuz be part of the strategy for the non-Iran objectives?: disrupting supplychains which have an impact on two part of the US's main strategy to a US2.0 unipolar world order:
- Contain China and at the end squeeze them economically - we know the weak spots
But now especially the unfolding of the multi-step reshoring stratgey: here you further close the cost gap between China and ASEAN region with the US (include the elimination of the discounted oil: venezuela, Iran, Russia) - higher oil / higher insurrance / higher transportation costs / higher feedstock and related raw materials
At the end: the additional add on costs are higher for China/Asean region versus a domestic producer such as the US. Business cases will tilt now in favor to US - Beside closing cost gap -> US has availablity / less risk
I agree. Totally liked the piece, but how the Iran war was connected to Ukraine was inaccurate. Russia's ambitions are not about Ukraine alone, but about destroying the EU and reestablishing as regional hegemon (thats why the baltics, nordics, Poles are gearing up massively, they know their very aggressive neighbour best)., basically at any cost. Russian leadership has never cared about human lives.
Also, Europe did not start supporting Ukraine only after the drone threat became clear, it started earlier - but still too late to make a more pronounced difference especially in 2022 and 2023.
Drawing Russia away from China is wishful thinking, although you are correct that they basically do not like and trust each other, either.
Totally agree with your take on heartland / rimland regarding ground troops. As long as the US abstain from using ground troops, this does not have to end catastrophically. Question is how much pain Iran really is going to take.
What I really think is a shame is that the US did not try this in January where the regime seemed more fragile than in March.
Hey
Thanks a lot, I do really enjoy all this!!
As an European (Spanish specifically) I struggle to understand how lightly the decision going to war with Iran was made by Trump (at least, that's the way it seems to be framed here).
I'd rather think that this is more about controlling the oil supplies in case a war starts with China. And this is linked to Venezuela also.
If China invades/blocks/whatever Taiwan and you need to send the 6th fleet, those ships (and the Chinese) can't work on solar energy.. so you need to control the oil sources, as Hitler was aiming to invade the Caucusus for the oil, and choke the Chinese.
As a net exporter of oil and gas, US shouldn't care about the oil in Iran o Venezuela, anyways it was already off the market due to sanctions..
I'd like to believe this is more because someone is thinking there's a high likelihood of war with China and the US is getting ready, and planning long term for it.
Would love to know your thoughts!
Thanks!
“Park the carriers, interdict the tankers. Seize the assets.”
Unfortunately, much of those assets are oil going to China, who would not like that. Therefore, if China threatens to shut off our rare earth access our military withers on the vine. Yet another bottleneck to figure out. 🤔