5 ms·

Honestly? I presume Trump and Iran both gain the ability to kick the can... which they both want. That ten-point plan is 'unrealistic' but he gets to beat his c

by scoofy 7mo ago

Honestly? I presume Trump and Iran both gain the ability to kick the can... which they both want. That ten-point plan is 'unrealistic' but he gets to beat his cheats and it looks like both sides are 'claiming' victory here. That this isn't a workable long-term solution seems almost irrelevant. We're at a point where our bargaining frictions are so high, that we'd both rather remain in this standoff as long as possible even if we don't actually resolve it, because resolving it means serious pain on both sides, whereas the US has about a week before the pain really starts hitting consumers and investors. "What Causes Wars: An Introduction to Crisis Bargaining Theory", by William Spaniel, PHD and professor, specializing in game-theory and specifically crisis bargaining theory: https://youtu.be/xjKVcl_lDfo?si=NFHvjOdWbLbPOOvA https://youtu.be/xjKVcl_lDfo?si=NFHvjOdWbLbPOOvA

ajross 7mo ago
> That this isn't a workable long-term solution IMHO that's bad analysis. This is a VERY good solution from Iran's perspective. They stared down a superpower and won. They've gone from an international pariah and nuissance to a genuine regional overlord in a single tweet. "Whoah there, folks. Stop your tankers please. Thanks. Last year was rough for our farmers. We're increasing tolls on the straight again. Don't like it? Come on over and bomb us again you infidel fucks. See how your precious stock market likes that."
- technothrasher 7mo ago
  > We're increasing tolls on the straight again. They're increasing tolls on the strait again. This strait isn't particularly straight.
- scoofy 7mo ago
  Until they are able to rebuild their country, they are actually in a very, very bad position. Saving face is great and all, but rockets are still hitting much of their infrastructure anyway. My point is that their demands are not realistic. That the can has been kicked is good for Iran, it's also good for Trump. Conflict here is bad for both parties, the problem is there I currently don't see a way to step back from the precipice at this point.
  - ajross 7mo ago
    > rockets are still hitting much of their infrastructure anyway As has been extensively discussed over the past week, hitting civilian infrastructure with rockets (or otherwise) is a war crime, and we aren't doing it. They lost some military hardware they couldn't have deployed anyway, they have a bunch of holes in runways that they'll fill within the week. They lost their head of state and a bunch of miscellaneous leaders, but it turns out their chain of command was robust. It's gotten stronger for the stress and unity, not weaker. No, we have to take the L here. The USA went to war with Iran and got its ass kicked. We achieved nothing useful in the short term, and made things much (much) worse for our interests in the long term.
    - dboreham 7mo ago
      Funny how the smart people in the room sometimes turn out to be right.
    - scoofy 7mo ago
      > hitting civilian infrastructure with rockets (or otherwise) is a war crime, and we aren't doing it. I mean there is no world policeman that’s going to stop Trump. While I agree with you on the practicality of the situation, we have been on tenterhooks all day exactly because Trump can dramatically escalate this if he wants. It’s just that that escalation will be extremely painful in all sorts of ways, especially if Iran wipes out the oil production infrastructure. My point here isn’t to “pick a side.” I obviously think this whole escapade was unwise. My point is only to point out that the bargaining frictions point to continuing the conflict. Iran is happier to delay because the oil crisis is about to hit America. Trump is happy to delay because he can always launch a strike tomorrow, and concessions via existing infrastructure breakdown, or improve his position with intelligence, and this may prevent a more serious oil crisis. That means both parties see opportunity in maintaining the status quo.
    - itsmek 7mo ago
      > As has been extensively discussed over the past week, hitting civilian infrastructure with rockets (or otherwise) is a war crime, and we aren't doing it. I agree, but want to add that the threat of hitting civilian targets is itself a war crime, so there's a pretty solid case that we already did over the last few days: "Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited." -Article 51(2) AP1 to Geneva Conventions
- cjbgkagh 7mo ago
  If it holds they’ll be a regional hegemon instead of Israel, which is why Israel will not let it hold. They put everything on the line and they’re not going to give up now.
  - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
    > they’ll be a regional hegemon instead of Israel No, neither Israel nor Iran would be hegemon. (Is there a term for contested hegemony?) > They put everything on the line and they’re not going to give up now When does Israel have to hold eletions?
    - cjbgkagh 7mo ago
      I warned you specifically that this Iran war was coming and would not end up in Israel’s favor. As I stated “the Iran war is already unpopular and it hasn’t even started yet.” I understand that it is not yet over. Iran and its proxies can slow squeeze Israel like Israel was squeezing Gaza. I see this war as a breakout attempt to fracture Iran into a failed state so that Israel would be the uncontested regional hegemony. Israel is losing popular support, which precedes losing political support and military support. You had some fantasy that Israel would dump America and find some other client state to support it.
      - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
        > Israel is losing popular support, which precedes losing political support and military support This is a very Western-centric view. Step outside that gap and you'll find Israel maintains solid ties in the Emirates, India and even in Europe. In any case, on the time horizons you're talking about anything can happen. If someone wants to hold on to random hopes, I'm not going to rain on their parade. > Iran and its proxies can slow squeeze Israel like Israel was squeezing Gaza This doesn't make sense. Gaza was blockaded. Iran and its proxies have zero ability to blockade Israel. (Hell, Israel has an easy option if they do–bomb Kharg.) Take Israel's nonsense in Palestinian territories and Iran's penchant for terrorist proxies out of the equation and the Middle East is more or less balanced. (Famous last words.) > You had some fantasy that Israel would dump America and find some other client state to support it Israel isn't dumping America. If you're continuing a thread from another time, I was probably arguing that the notion that Israel existentially depends on America is nonsense. Israel depends on America to be a regional hegemon. (Probably.) But it's perfectly capable of turning its military-export machine and gas fields into sources of sovereignty. Anyone who thinks the region is anything less than transactional has emotionally wedded themselves to a cause the world isn't invested in.

by scoofy 7mo ago

ajross 7mo ago

> That this isn't a workable long-term solution IMHO that's bad analysis. This is a VERY good solution from Iran's perspective. They stared down a superpower and won. They've gone from an international pariah and nuissance to a genuine regional overlord in a single tweet. "Whoah there, folks. Stop your tankers please. Thanks. Last year was rough for our farmers. We're increasing tolls on the straight again. Don't like it? Come on over and bomb us again you infidel fucks. See how your precious stock market likes that."

technothrasher 7mo ago
> We're increasing tolls on the straight again. They're increasing tolls on the strait again. This strait isn't particularly straight.
scoofy 7mo ago
Until they are able to rebuild their country, they are actually in a very, very bad position. Saving face is great and all, but rockets are still hitting much of their infrastructure anyway. My point is that their demands are not realistic. That the can has been kicked is good for Iran, it's also good for Trump. Conflict here is bad for both parties, the problem is there I currently don't see a way to step back from the precipice at this point.
- ajross 7mo ago
  > rockets are still hitting much of their infrastructure anyway As has been extensively discussed over the past week, hitting civilian infrastructure with rockets (or otherwise) is a war crime, and we aren't doing it. They lost some military hardware they couldn't have deployed anyway, they have a bunch of holes in runways that they'll fill within the week. They lost their head of state and a bunch of miscellaneous leaders, but it turns out their chain of command was robust. It's gotten stronger for the stress and unity, not weaker. No, we have to take the L here. The USA went to war with Iran and got its ass kicked. We achieved nothing useful in the short term, and made things much (much) worse for our interests in the long term.
  - dboreham 7mo ago
    Funny how the smart people in the room sometimes turn out to be right.
  - scoofy 7mo ago
    > hitting civilian infrastructure with rockets (or otherwise) is a war crime, and we aren't doing it. I mean there is no world policeman that’s going to stop Trump. While I agree with you on the practicality of the situation, we have been on tenterhooks all day exactly because Trump can dramatically escalate this if he wants. It’s just that that escalation will be extremely painful in all sorts of ways, especially if Iran wipes out the oil production infrastructure. My point here isn’t to “pick a side.” I obviously think this whole escapade was unwise. My point is only to point out that the bargaining frictions point to continuing the conflict. Iran is happier to delay because the oil crisis is about to hit America. Trump is happy to delay because he can always launch a strike tomorrow, and concessions via existing infrastructure breakdown, or improve his position with intelligence, and this may prevent a more serious oil crisis. That means both parties see opportunity in maintaining the status quo.
  - itsmek 7mo ago
    > As has been extensively discussed over the past week, hitting civilian infrastructure with rockets (or otherwise) is a war crime, and we aren't doing it. I agree, but want to add that the threat of hitting civilian targets is itself a war crime, so there's a pretty solid case that we already did over the last few days: "Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited." -Article 51(2) AP1 to Geneva Conventions
cjbgkagh 7mo ago
If it holds they’ll be a regional hegemon instead of Israel, which is why Israel will not let it hold. They put everything on the line and they’re not going to give up now.
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
  > they’ll be a regional hegemon instead of Israel No, neither Israel nor Iran would be hegemon. (Is there a term for contested hegemony?) > They put everything on the line and they’re not going to give up now When does Israel have to hold eletions?
  - cjbgkagh 7mo ago
    I warned you specifically that this Iran war was coming and would not end up in Israel’s favor. As I stated “the Iran war is already unpopular and it hasn’t even started yet.” I understand that it is not yet over. Iran and its proxies can slow squeeze Israel like Israel was squeezing Gaza. I see this war as a breakout attempt to fracture Iran into a failed state so that Israel would be the uncontested regional hegemony. Israel is losing popular support, which precedes losing political support and military support. You had some fantasy that Israel would dump America and find some other client state to support it.
    - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
      > Israel is losing popular support, which precedes losing political support and military support This is a very Western-centric view. Step outside that gap and you'll find Israel maintains solid ties in the Emirates, India and even in Europe. In any case, on the time horizons you're talking about anything can happen. If someone wants to hold on to random hopes, I'm not going to rain on their parade. > Iran and its proxies can slow squeeze Israel like Israel was squeezing Gaza This doesn't make sense. Gaza was blockaded. Iran and its proxies have zero ability to blockade Israel. (Hell, Israel has an easy option if they do–bomb Kharg.) Take Israel's nonsense in Palestinian territories and Iran's penchant for terrorist proxies out of the equation and the Middle East is more or less balanced. (Famous last words.) > You had some fantasy that Israel would dump America and find some other client state to support it Israel isn't dumping America. If you're continuing a thread from another time, I was probably arguing that the notion that Israel existentially depends on America is nonsense. Israel depends on America to be a regional hegemon. (Probably.) But it's perfectly capable of turning its military-export machine and gas fields into sources of sovereignty. Anyone who thinks the region is anything less than transactional has emotionally wedded themselves to a cause the world isn't invested in.