4 ms·
"Esfandiary, of Bloomberg Economics, said Iran “theoretically knew” it had leverage over the strait but was uncertain how significant the impact would be if it
by mikestew 5mo ago
"Esfandiary, of Bloomberg Economics, said Iran “theoretically knew” it had leverage over the strait but was uncertain how significant the impact would be if it acted on those threats.
Now, she added, Tehran “has discovered the impact.”
The thing that mystifies me is that U. S. war planners "theoretically knew" this, too; at least, I would assume. The whole war strikes me as the current administration finding out the hard way why previous administrations all the way back to Reagan didn't commit to warfare against Iran, even if they wanted to. "FAFO", as the kids say, I guess.
OTOH, I do have theory floating around in my head that someone got one of the letters wrong and confused Iran with Iraq: "we kicked their ass before, we'll do it again!"
"Uh, different and much better-armed country, sir."
Or, as has been famously said, "Don't confuse me with the facts." [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Landgrebe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Landgrebe
- JohnMakin 5mo ago> The thing that mystifies me is that U. S. war planners "theoretically knew" this, too; at least, I would assume. They would have, because this has been wargamed and written about for decades. It's playing out exactly as expected, which is why no US administration until this one was willing to go to an outright hot war with Iran. Unfortunately, this war dept and admin has a staggering amount of hubris, incompetency, and a strange devotion to carrying out every whim of a certain semi-allied state I won't name directly but can be inferred.
- throwaway85825 5mo agoNot legally an ally under any treaty.
- intalentive 5mo ago>a strange devotion to carrying out every whim of a certain semi-allied state I won't name directly Israel. The White House is willing to sacrifice American power and prestige for Israel. We have to stop tip-toeing around the elephant in the room.
- throw0101c 5mo ago> They would have, because this has been wargamed and written about for decades. From a think tank simulation from 2012: > The simulation’s second move principally focused on the Iranian team and how it would respond to the various American actions in the first move. The Iranian team chose to respond in several ways: […] It decided to create a threat to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz by ordering IRGC small boats to harass American naval ships passing through the strait, and—of far greater importance—laying a relatively small number of mines there. […] * PDF: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/us-iran-crisis-simulation-pollack-paper.pdf https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/us-iran... Interview at the time with the organizers: * https://www.npr.org/2012/09/24/161706698/simulated-war-between-u-s-iran-has-grisly-end https://www.npr.org/2012/09/24/161706698/simulated-war-betwe...
- jLaForest 5mo agoThe purpose of this war is to distract from the Epstein files, and it's been very successful
- lonely_wanderer 5mo agoI don’t think this argument really makes sense tbh. When you own the justice department and congress, what matter does it make? Epstein stuff was going to to stale regardless, as much as I hate that fact.
- criddell 5mo agoI don't think it's actually supposed to be an argument. It's just a Redditism that occasionally pops up here.
- dylan604 5mo agoAgreed. I think the Epstein angle was just a bonus to a decision made by an incompetent commander-in-chief of the military. It being the sole reason seems farcical even for this administration.
- himata4113 5mo agopretty sure people already had epstein fatigue and didn't really care anymore. yes billioanires participated in crazy unethical parties with human traffiked hookers, water is wet. to be a billionaire you have to have an inherit evil inside you, otherwise your concious would simply never allow you to build up wealth to that point without redistributing it to employees, people who helped you get where you are, improving your community and so on.
- genxy 5mo agochildren, girls
- amanaplanacanal 5mo agoCalling children who are sexual assault victims "hookers" is certainly a choice.
- lonely_wanderer 5mo agoI vacillate between two potential rationales: - there is a concerted effort to target and topple oil producers which China relies on as a form of containment of the Chinese economy. Venezuela, Iran, eventually Russia in a more direct way. The current administration is willing to accept economic pain for just about everyone because they see the transition from petroleum to green energies as the death knell for US superiority. They see this as their last chance to derail China, so they are taking it. It provides incidental value (like giving pre-text for increasing domestic repression). - they thought it would be easy after Venezuela and Trump was flattered by Netanyahu and pressured by evangelicals into doing it.
- spankalee 5mo agoThe China point doesn't make any sense to me. High oil prices only accelerate China's transition to renewables, and rewards them for all the investment they've made so far, both in national energy production and in selling panels and EVs to the world. It hurts the US far more, especially with this admin's anti wind and solar policies.
- bluGill 5mo agoChina can't transition that fast. China has a lot of oil in storage but if the current situation continues or gets worse they are hurt. The US is a net exporter of oil so is okay though some areas use middle east oil and are hurt too. This will take a long time to play out. Discount every short term prediction as both Iran and the US are forced to play a long game.
- spankalee 5mo agoHow does being a net exporter even help? There's a global market and prices rise globally. US companies and consumers will pay more no matter if we're importing or exporting.
- derekp7 5mo agoCouldn't a stroke of a pen (executive order) specify that US markets must be saturated prior to exporting?
- ZeroGravitas 5mo agoWe have reporting on this leaked by people who were in the meeting. Netanyahu told Trump they wouldn't block the strait. The US military said they would. Trump went with Netanyahu.
- ck2 5mo agoit's even more simple than that Israel talked him into it, just like he has no interest in anything until the last person in the room whispers ideas into his ear Lindsey Graham is this term's Rudy Giuliani and he was flying back and forth to Israel briefing their version of the CIA on what to tell Trump to get him to do this Personally I think another aspect is once he realized American oil companies became massively profitable overnight for months now at $100+ a barrel, he just took a cut somehow Remember it took Obama's team YEARS to get Iran to sign something, this is not ending this year or next for any number of bombs killing their innocent civilians, Iran doesn't care, executions are at an all time weekly high there It's death-cult vs death-cult at this point, we all lose
- hightrix 5mo agoLet's call it what it is. Israel didn't just "talk him into it", they played trump like a fiddle and tricked him into doing their dirty work. With the blackmail they have on him provided by Epstien and associates, trump is exactly the type of person that our enemies love. He is a useful idiot at best.
- criddell 5mo ago> their dirty work Surely making Iran stronger and an even bigger menace wasn't the plan.
- ch4s3 5mo ago>Israel talked him into it, Trump has hated the Iranian regime since the hostage crisis. He called for Ronald Reagan to invade Iran in a 1987 TV interview. He's been remarkably consistent on this issue.
- chadgpt3 5mo agoThe current regime is staunchly anti-intellectual and regularly believes things are false solely because scientists say they are true.
- realusername 5mo agoIt's always the same with the US, the US always overestimate raw military power and underestimate local and strategic conditions. All the previous wars got lost the exact same way. Trump is losing the same way the US lost in Afghanistan, Irak, Vietnam, Korea... Just faster than any anybody else.
- lenerdenator 5mo agoIf anything, those were lost (I'd argue Iraq was a draw of sorts and Korea was more-or-less a victory) due to lack of raw military power. This is a country with enough nuclear warheads to end intelligent life on this planet. It has bombers that, even with conventional payloads, could wipe most cities off the map once air superiority is achieved - and it almost always is. Instead, there's a tendency to try and move the nation into the American sphere of influence and let it defend itself under its own power, and that's where things fail, because that requires lots of ground troops over a period of years while the local allies in the conflict get ready to do the fighting. The interesting wrinkle with Iran is that The World's Best Negotiator(TM) has essentially painted himself into a corner. Could the US do more to break Iran? Of course. Would those things be politically popular in the US or receive the support of the international community? Hell no. So he has to keep puffing his chest up. It'll be interesting to see what happens post-midterms.
- realusername 5mo agoThere's some truth here as well, there's a very large political asymmetry at play here. On Iran's side, no death will really matter to the regime, it's a political hydra which is capable of doing and sustaining lots of damage to stay in power. On the US side though, the war is highly unpopular, every single death and every single side effect of the war is politically painful. But I don't agree about the first part, there's definitely a "we're the biggest military in the world, we will win no matter what" mindset in the US military, which is the reason why they lost so many wars. Having a military so large is a blessing and a curse, they are too confident and then trip on strategy.
- abrowne 5mo ago14-month old article headline, but hasn't aged a bit: American Foreign Policy Is Being Run by the Dumbest Motherfuckers Alive (Daniel W. Drezner https://danieldrezner.substack.com/p/american-foreign-policy-is-being https://danieldrezner.substack.com/p/american-foreign-policy...)
- grim_io 5mo agoIn the time of their declining empire, the US got late stage Nero instead of Marcus Aurelius.
- joe_mamba 5mo ago[flagged]
- SauciestGNU 5mo agoNero also knew that he must stand up to politicized Christianity.
- joe_mamba 5mo agoExcept Trump is controlled by Israel not Christianity, so another point where he's a shittier ruler than Nero.
- browningstreet 5mo agoRemember all those senior military officials being fired right before things kicked off? They knew. But all it takes is Trump and Hegseth YOLOing past them and all that institutional, historical knowledge counts for nothing.
- lenerdenator 5mo ago> The thing that mystifies me is that U. S. war planners "theoretically knew" this, too; at least, I would assume. The other administrations you mentioned operated on the principle that the President should listen to his advisors and was ultimately accountable to the American people should his decisions result in poor outcomes. This administration operates on the principle that the executive branch of the US federal government is now the Trump Organization but with access to taxpayer funds and the state's monopoly on violence. Since DJT was the undisputed leader of the Trump Organization, he was never questioned there, and he's not questioned now, whether it be about decisions to bomb Iran or about anything else. These people wanted to do things like "keep their jobs" and "be able to receive a pension", so they went through with the orders from a man who is almost 80 years old and shows both declining cognitive skills and personality disorders. Ideally, you have a judicial and legislative branch that would punish this behavior, but those people also want to keep their careers/lives. So the majority party, his own, cows to him as well.
- Ajedi32 5mo agoThe argument goes that, given the general disposition of Iran towards the US, its allies, and basically anyone who's not a Shiite Muslim, it wasn't a choice between war with Iran or no war with Iran. It was a choice between war with Iran now, or war with a stronger, possibly nuclear-armed Iran at some unspecified point in the future. Personally I disagree war was inevitable; time can change a lot of things and it doesn't seem like there was any imminent threat, but I also don't see why you would find it so hard to believe others might disagree with that assessment.
- amanaplanacanal 5mo agoPreemptives strikes against anybody who might be a threat sometime in the future seem like a really bad idea.
- Ajedi32 5mo agoCertainly "might be a threat" is way too uncertain to act on. But if they're actively threatening "death to [your country]", sponsoring terrorist attacks on their neighbors, regularly shooting ballistic missiles at your allies, and quietly working on nukes in the background? That's a different matter. Again, not saying I agree with a preemptive strike in this case, but it's pretty easy to understand why others might think it necessary even if the short-term economic consequences of that are unpleasant.
- watwut 5mo agoRegularly scheduled reminder that if nuclear was the worry, Iran was actually abiding to existing agreements. In the USA Iran history, USA is consistent agressor and agreements breaker. There was no imminent threat and per international law, that war is illegal. And even worst, situation where Iran does not have those anti-nuclear agreements was created by the very same people who started the war. And even worst, they shown themselves ao untrustworthy, that no one can trust their future promisses. The only rational expectation Iran can have is that USA lies in negotiations and dont keep word. And attacks at will regardless of whether Iran keeps word or negotiates. And note that it does not matter one bit that Iran has psychopatic goverment on its own right. Whatever irational paranoia they had was now validated.
- kashunstva 5mo agoIt is, after all, well-documented that the current U.S. president ignores, or frankly is unable to pay attention to intelligence briefings. So it is almost irrelevant whether any analysis of risks and benefits took place. The U.S. president admits that his decision-making process is a seat-of-the-pants “feeling” about things.
- Eggpants 5mo agoI suspect they knew if oil can’t move out of the gulf, then US oil will gladly step in. Republicans have always had to be Oil company supported. Just look at the number of oil tankers leaving the Gulf of Mexico: https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-86.3/centery:25.7/zoom:5 https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-86.3/cent...