5 ms·
1. By a show of hands, who was surprised that the cataclysmic warnings of the weekend subsided into talk of diplomacy on Monday? 2. Let’s hypothesize the US go
by unyttigfjelltol 7mo ago
1. By a show of hands, who was surprised that the cataclysmic warnings of the weekend subsided into talk of diplomacy on Monday?
2. Let’s hypothesize the US gov’t or allies did pre-release this info to traders as a policy tool, inviting them to sell oil profitably, shaping the later price action . In a practical sense they may have brought more speculators to the short side than otherwise would have been there; is that scenario really beyond the pale?
3. News of war and sovereign relations on an international stage necessarily will test the boundaries of traditional law of confidentiality and fair practices.
- inaros 7mo agoIf you run the numbers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47504505 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47504505 You will see, that anything else other than a ground invasion, is guaranteed to give Iran a war victory.
- saidnooneever 7mo agoif a ground invasion goes they will destroy oil trade and everyone is screwed. The war should not be won. it should be ended before everyone loses.
- inaros 7mo ago>> The war should not be won. it should be ended before everyone loses. My analysis and my comment I linked to agrees. And that is a strategic victory for Iran, Russia, China and a defeat for Israel, and the US. The worst will be the Gulf States hostages of their dueling stock pile of defense missiles running out...to which they will have to queue for, with US DOD at the front of the queue.
- password54321 7mo ago>a defeat for Israel False, Israel has used the whole war to take over Lebanon almost silently from mass media attention. They are about to annex a part of it.
- ngruhn 7mo agoThey are at war because Hezbollah attacked... again.
- password54321 7mo agoLet me repeat: They are about to annex a sovereign nation while reducing the capital city to rubble. May or may not remind you of another country further north.
- ngruhn 7mo ago> remind you of another country further north It would remind me of that if Ukraine attacked first... over and over again throughout the last decades... together with it's allies in the region... occasionally abducting a few hundred Russia civilians... there is no parallel here.
- password54321 7mo agoLebanon is not Hezbollah.
- citrin_ru 7mo agoOne may argue that Lebanon is already annexed by Iran using Hezbollah which has more power than the official Lebanon government or at least had more power before attacks from Israel in recent years. Also I don't beleive Israel is going to annex Lebanon but they may create a buffer zone in the south of the country.
- password54321 7mo ago>One may argue that Lebanon is already annexed by Iran No one serious is arguing this. Total nonsense as far as anyone in Lebanon is concerned. >I don't beleive Israel is going to annex Lebanon but they may create a buffer zone in the south of the country. So they are going to annex but under a different term. Got it.
- cmrdporcupine 7mo agoand the parties that initiated it know that. they actually have no interest in geo-strategic goals. they are interested only in selfish commercial ones. The US is an oil exporting country and the people pulling the puppet strings of the dominant party in power directly benefit from high oil prices. Further, oligarchical political-economic structures also benefit from "chaos is a ladder" scenarios where their privileged knowledge and access to decision makers gives them the ability to benefit from every new conflagration. The insider trading examples are only the trip of the iceberg. The "war" will wind down after they've made their profits and redistributed the wealth and control as they set out to do. Gone are the days where ruling elites benefited from international commercial stability. Those with power right now want chaos, and they will continue to create it until they are held to account. Note that all of above applies just as well to the rulers of Iran as it does to the United States. It is the people who suffer, not the elites.
- metabagel 7mo agoI don't think so. I think Trump just thought it would be easy and with no repercussions.
- ngruhn 7mo agoThis. That man is not playing 4D chess. His only superpower is such blatant disregard for norms that he can do stuff everyone assumed is impossible.
- cmrdporcupine 7mo agoAbsolutely no way he's playing 4D chess but he is a very willing sock puppet for people much smarter than he is.
- scrubs 7mo agoLiked comment 'Gone are the days where ruling elites benefited from international commercial stability.' Interesting point.
- unyttigfjelltol 7mo agoI think you’re just seeing the logic of US defense by offense, and the reason why the excursion was launched as it was three weeks ago. If you step back, in 1979 Iran launched a revolution that had an avowed goal of “death to America”. If the Iranians play the kinetic scenario to the bitter end, they simply are demonstrating this was not mere poetry and there never was any other off-ramp, just tactically deciding at what relative strength these two systems will collide. So Iran loses by demonstrating irrational resolve in antisocial tactics, like firing missiles randomly at neutral neighbors, which is the same precondition you take as gating victory. Conflicts are played out in the real world specifically to resolve inconsistent modeling like this held by different sides, and all parties would be well served by finding a better way to resolve the conflicting modeling here, because the most likely scenario currently is that everyone loses.
- soperj 7mo ago> If you step back, in 1979 Iran launched a revolution that had an avowed goal of “death to America”. If the Iranians play the kinetic scenario to the bitter end, they simply are demonstrating this was not mere poetry and there never was any other off-ramp, just tactically deciding at what relative strength these two systems will collide. Step back further and you see that they were overthrowing a dictator that the US had installed over their democratically elected government.
- malfist 7mo agoIf you take a step back even further, perhaps you don't bomb a girls school three times because someone 47 years ago said something mean about your country and then never followed up.
- inaros 7mo agoThe Iraq-Iran war, in the eighties....who had Iran lining up a million soldiers in battle, for eight years, has shown Iran is ready for a level of endurance, the US cant even imagine.
- 7mo ago
- soperj 7mo ago> The war should not be won. it should be ended before everyone loses. No one ever really wins in war, except those not participating.
- meindnoch 7mo ago[flagged]
- mmooss 7mo agoThe US would not win a ground war in Iran. Before every US war, people tend to think the US military and their $800 billion/year budget are unbeatable. But look at outcomes of significant US ground wars since WWII - only one clear victory: * Korea: Stalemate, which is still a problem now 70 years later * Vietnam: Loss * Gulf War: Victory * Afganistan: Loss, after 20 years of fighting * Iraq: Mixed results after 8 years: Saddam Hussein threat eliminated, Iran and ISIS made significant gains Iran is larger and has more people and resources than Afghanistan and Iraq combined. Terrain in Iran is a game world-builder's fantasy of defensibility: https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F277020426%2Ffigure%2Ffig1%2FAS%3A294521754669056%401447230866774%2FTopographic-map-of-Iran-shows-various-physiographic-regions-source-wwwworldofmapsnet.png&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=4863cfcceed8ebfe3d263afe3c511a6089c564e713be3170515cf0b560ce39fc https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F... Iran is far more capable militarily than Iraq and Afghanistan and, particulary, their military may be world's the leading experts on assymetric warfare; they train everyone else - Hezbollah, the Houthis, etc. Their proxies held off the US military and allies in Iraq, a neighboring country, where Iran had far less motivation than to defend their own homes from a US invasion. The US could win given unlimited political will and time, but it would be very costly and anyway, the US couldn't sustain that will for much easier situations in the prior two wars. Nobody is crazy enough to launch a ground invasion of Iran, I hope.
- metalliqaz 7mo agoDepends on how bad the leaks from the E-files are
- pfannkuchen 7mo agoBut if the goal was actually to destabilize those places then maybe it worked as intended?
- actionfromafar 7mo agoIf think assume too much competence. I'm sure there are various plans (ok maybe not with this "administration", their "plans" seems to be fast-forward grift) but I have very little confidence in them going in any particular direction.
- metabagel 7mo agoIran can block the Strait of Hormuz indefinitely. They are demanding war reparations from the United States. Since Trump won't do that, the best case scenario seems to be that one or more third parties - Europe, India, Japan, Saudi Arabia, etc. - offer(s) Iran a package of financial incentives and security assurances which convince Iran to end the war. If only Muad'dib were here. He could find a way through.
- zehaeva 7mo ago>He who can destroy a thing has the real control of it.
- manofmanysmiles 7mo agoWhat's the spice?
- ithkuil 7mo agoWe burn the spice
- citrin_ru 7mo ago> Iran can block the Strait of Hormuz indefinitely. So can the US leaving Iran without means for existence. Right now Iran can export own oil but denies Arab countries form exporting their oil, I don't think such arrangement could last indefinitely.
- tokai 7mo agoOn the contrary, Iran get the sanctions on their oil lifted. They are in a significantly improved position economically now.
- ndsipa_pomu 7mo agoIf only Muad'dib were here, we'd have already won the Butlerian Jihad and got rid of the AIs.
- zahlman 7mo agoWhat does "victory" or "defeat" actually entail here? It's not as if the US risks any territory?
- aucisson_masque 7mo agoVictory or defeat as in war goal. Trump war goal are to destroy Iranian nuclear capabilities, and to change the Iranian government. If he succeed, victory. Otherwise, defeat.
- conception 7mo agoI think his war goal was the change the headlines away from constant evidence of child sex trafficking. Victory I guess.
- tokai 7mo agoThis is so naive and uninformed.
- aucisson_masque 7mo agoYou convinced me !
- CommenterPerson 7mo ago"If the US doesn't win, it loses. if Iran doesn't lose, it wins" .. per [John] on Krugman's substack.
- orwin 7mo agoWar can't be won by everyone, but it can absolutely be lost by all concerned parties, even those who didn't participate.
- carefree-bob 7mo agoThese are very jingoist terms focused more on domestic political reactions than anything happening on the ground. All conflicts, with the exception of genocidal or total war style conflicts - end with some kind of settlement, in which each side makes concessions, and then tries to sell it as a victory to their domestic audience. This will be no different, which is why people are already lining up to spin everything and argue about who is the real winner or loser. That they have no problem expoliting the conflict for domestic political gain makes it clear that no one takes this war very seriously. If there was a real winner or loser, no one would need to argue about it, it would be clear to everyone, since the loser would be under occupation, and that's not going to happen here, neither to the US, nor to Iran. This entire war is two sides shooting missiles and bombs at each other from a safe distance.
- roncesvalles 7mo agoThe loss of ability to intercept missiles does not mean that the war is lost for America. It just means that it now has to contend with more of its own losses during the war. America always goes to war with the handicap that 1 American life is worth hundreds of enemy lives. This handicap is why one gets the impression (illusion) that countries like Iran are able to hold their own against the great mighty USA. But if America stops playing as cautiously as it does, it turns into a very different war machine.
- ithkuil 7mo agoBut that handicap is due to domestic politics which is a real world force that shapes the american war machine ability more than anything
- roncesvalles 7mo agoIf oil hits $150 and there's real pain on the streets, Americans will assent to a much bloodier war. In fact, I suspect this "15 point peace plan" is just theater to this effect. "Look we tried everything, we're gonna have to go in and really knock them out."
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- fakedang 7mo agoThat handicap is due to the fact that the USA today doesn't fight defensive wars. It's hard to justify fighting wars happening in the Old World to Americans. Woodrow Wilson only joined WW1 once the Lusitania was sunk, which caused American deaths. FDR only joined WW2 once Pearl Harbor was attacked. Reagan got away with Grenada because it was a quick and dirty operation. Same with GHWB and First Gulf War. The younger Bush could justify the Afghan invasion only because of WTC, yet even as more Intel dropped on the identity of the terrorists and the lack of progress in locating Bin Laden, domestic support fell. > But if America stops playing as cautiously as it does, it turns into a very different war machine. Good luck trying to convince average Americans to do that. On the other hand, the US and Israel have managed to convince the same for the Iranians. They literally rained bombs on the upper class neighborhoods of Teheran, the places where moderates and regime opposition actually lived.
- tim333 7mo agoTrump could do something like say we destroyed your military and leadership, we win, we are going home. If you do bad stuff we'll do that again. Not saying it's a great plan but I think Trump may be thinking that way.
- saidnooneever 7mo agono one was surprised. i imagine both sides are actually in the same game. why do u think trump allow iran to sell oil still -_-. there was a lovely post earlier today on HN laying it all out pretty eloquently. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47499822 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47499822 i personally think the people who do _business_ on both sides will find their way to profit out of this. as they always do. if u look at the timing of statements u can see its just a game.
- casefields 7mo agoWhat’s wrong with your shift key?
- triceratops 7mo agoMust be a billionaire
- The_President 7mo agoPasses the turing test.
- Spooky23 7mo agoNot traders. Friends and family. These guys are idiots who figure they will all be pardoned before Trump leaves office, or part of the junta that replaces him if he doesn’t leave office.
- hedora 7mo ago1. I was, but felt dumb, like Charlie Brown. 2. They definitely did. There's evidence from prediction markets too, and the timing is within 15 minutes of the press conference. It's beyond the pale because this was a quid pro quo action, where Trump toyed with people's lives so that his campaign donors could profit off his otherwise pointless war. 3. Not true. It is unusual for militaries to preannounce their battle plans to wall street speculators so that those speculators can make a quick buck.