Signing you in

Show on Wall:Donation Amount, User Details & CommentsUser Details & Comments Only

[Today’s post yet again launched before complete. Please return at 8:00 AM EDT for a final version]

The Iran war front seems deceptively quiet despite the intensification of risks and in particular, the increase in the odds of very bad outcomes. Trump’s epic flip-flopping, the Groundhog Day-ish-ness of the kinetic and negotiation dramas, and the bizarre extreme optimism among market participants seem to have been numbing. Normalcy bias means people in advanced economies expect to be subject only to the slow grind of neoliberal extraction, as opposed to the bottom dropping out. Market experts have described how more rational trader, who bet on oil price rises using highly leverage futures, have been burned so many times that they won’t try again until it is certain that a bull market dynamic for energy has really set in.

But as Nassim Nicholas Taleb has pointed out, the turkey has the most confidence the farmer is his friend the night before he is slaughtered, because it is then that he has the most observations of having been housed and fed.

More specifically, Trump is attempting to engage in a more intense escalation to force Iran to back down in some not-well articulated way, which varies between “return to the negotiating table” and “open the Strait of Hormuz.” Iran as we know well is perfectly willing to “open” it under their management. The US has launched more intense and more wide-ranging strikes, with Iran hitting back harder, including in a well-focused way on elements of logistical support for a possible ground operation. As we’ll discuss, the US has also reimposed its blockade and Trump is now threatening to engage in yet more war crimes by attacking Iran energy facilities next week if Iran does not “return to the negotiating table” which is his code for capitulation.

Yet the US, as Iran knows even if they would not put it this way, is subject to Stein’s law: “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” Iran knows that the US can, at most, sustain four weeks of pretty fierce bombing. The best thing that could happen to Iran would be for the US to attempt a ground operation. The US would not get a mere bloody nose but a broken jaw and teeth.

As many have pointed out, sustainment would be impossible and losses would be high. Iran might be lucky enough to get hostages.

The window for that sort of misguided operation, given temperatures and humidity in the region, would not seem to arrive until October, when it seems vanishingly unlikely that energy, particularly diesel, won’t be much pricier and even have gone into shortages by then. Economies run on diesel, not gas. Jet fuel shortages (admittedly at smaller airports) are already stating to manifest in Europe.

Keep in mind that Trump is a coward. He TACOed yet again on his loopy threat to charge 20% fees in the fantasy-land where the US got control of the Strait of Hormuz.

So in our humble opinion, the limiting factor for Trump is the oil cliff, which he has now put back into play. He will not be able to stare down a marked increase in paper oil prices. He will also have great difficulty dealing with a further rise in diesel prices and possible shortages. His team does not even remotely have the competence to devise and implement a rationing scheme.

But when might that start to bite? The very disaggregated nature of energy markets and limited data-gathering1 means there is a lot of guesstimation. How far down could the US draw the Strategic Petroleum Reserve?

The aggressive Trump posture suggests that he will get the ever-compliant Pete Hegseth to approve drawing down to the statutory minimum of 150 million barrels,2 perhaps buying Trump enough time to conceivably get to October. Many experts believe the actual minimum is higher due to damage to the salt caverns. Given current trajectories, we seem likely to test that.

Keep in mind also that the SPR is about 60% sour crude, so the drawdowns provide some relief on the diesel supply front.

Another big wild card is China. China considerately drew on its own reserves rather than buy oil in the market, even at Trump-manipulation-lowered prices. It rejected buying unsanctioned oil as unduly pricey. Now with lots of Iran oil on tankers at sea and now sanctioned, which means subject to discounts, and China also falling short of its growth targets, it seems possible that China will continue to operate to the advantage of the US, as in continue to not buy much non-Iranian oil.

Even the normal low-oil-price enthusiast Javier Blas of Bloomberg seems a tad uncertain:

Excluding any US-Iran talks about Hormuz, China remains the most important factor for oil prices for the next 60 days or so. All eyes on Beijing.

Ex-China Asian oil imports have recovered to normal levels (see 📈⤵️), within the 2023-2025 range. What China does next is crucial. pic.twitter.com/jJTUd5ZCGR

Purchases fell 41% from a year earlier to their lowest level since 2016

President Trump would prefer a resolution before the November midterm elections and before oil prices surge back to painful levels for Americans. Tehran is hoping it can outlast Trump before a reimposed U.S. naval blockade cripples its already reeling economy—and without provoking another large-scale American and Israeli attack aimed at toppling the Islamic government.

Each side has concluded that its best course is to resume the conflict at a low level while waiting for the other to buckle, analysts said. “It’s really about endurance now,” said Hamidreza Azizi, a visiting fellow specializing in Iran at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs.

For Washington, the challenge is to find a way to slip out of that knot, by degrading Iranian military sites that threaten shipping and by curtailing Iran’s oil exports from the gulf with a reimposed naval blockade. The strategy had limited success early in the conflict, but it might show better results as the toll on Iran mounts.

How often have we heard the “Russia is about to run out of missiles” storyline? A sanity check from Chamberlain’s Ghost at Twitter:

Just remember that Iran hasn’t fired a single anti-ship ballistic missile in this entire war yet, even though we know they’re in possession of a formidable arsenal of such weapons. The point is not that they are going to use one but to illustrate that they too still have formidable assets at their disposal in addition to a remaining estimated 70% or more of their missile stockpile. This escalation is not going to be a one way street.

And the Trump view on the ability to get oil out of the Gulf is deranged, even before getting to the live threat to shut down the Bab el-Mandeb strait (more on that soon) and the not-sufficiently-recognized de facto shut down of Fujairah:

"Sinokor and MSC executives are concerned the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps will continue to attack their ships to try to shut down the shuttle market, said people familiar with the matter. At least two captains on their tankers have refused to go through… pic.twitter.com/DzCU5gZXJr

JUST IN: Despite two U.S. aircraft carriers and with heavy air cover, the United States could not keep the Gulf’s biggest oil bypass open. Fujairah Port has effectively ceased operations, removing roughly 6 million barrels per day from the market, according to @HFI_Research .… pic.twitter.com/LGvMl1TviZ

Strait of Hormuz risks deepen despite slight rise in crossings

Vessel activity through the Strait of Hormuz increased slightly on 14 July, with 21 confirmed crossings recorded, according to #MarineTraffic data. Commercial traffic accounted for most movements, including vessels… pic.twitter.com/oIkrtu2kGl

With the US SPR largely drained, the temporary "surge" of escaped Strait barrels ~ absorbed, Chinese buying returning, and the Strait by any rational definition "closed", charts like these should once again matter: pic.twitter.com/iZlIFdxjns

The other big issue, as Brandon Weichert treated long form in a recent Mario Nawfal interview, is Iran is not a materialistic society. The government legitimacy does not rest on delivering prosperity. It could not possibly still be standing after so many years of sanctions if that were the case.3

We’ll now go to updates, and also turn to some commentary, including the unintentionally-revealing sort.

The order of the day is threat display. From the Guardian’s live blog:

To dial back a bit, recall the US blockade went live yesterday afternoon US EDT. A recap of Trump’s latest table-pounding, from Anadolu Agency in Trump says US to hit Iran’s power plants, bridges next week unless Tehran returns to talks:

US president says strikes will continue ‘until I say it’s enough,’ adds he believes Iran has ‘no choice’ but to make a deal

US President Donald Trump said Tuesday that strikes against Iran will continue and intensify in the coming days, warning that the United States will begin targeting the country’s power plants and bridges next week unless Tehran returns to the negotiating table.

“We’re hitting them very, very hard. We’re hitting every single thing that they have along the shore, along the waterfront…They’ll continue until I say it’s enough,” Trump said during an interview with Fox News.

Asked if he is considering hitting energy targets, he responded: “I’ll save the energy targets for last, but ultimately we’ll hit energy targets.”

“We’re going to hit them very hard tonight. We’re going to hit them very hard tomorrow night. We’re going to hit them very hard the night after. And then next week, it gets really bad for them, because next week comes the power plants. Next week comes the bridges. We’re going to knock out all their power plants. We’re going to knock out all their bridges unless they get to the table and negotiate,” he added.

Trump said he believes Iran has “no choice” but to make a deal, adding that US representatives were in contact with Iranian officials as recently as an hour before the interview.

“They want to make a deal…You better make a deal. You’re not going to have anybody left,” he said.

Trump said the US wants to keep the Strait of Hormuz open, adding: “I was going to charge a fee, but instead, they (Gulf states) would rather spend a lot of money in the United States, which frankly is better, because I don’t like the idea of a fee. It’s got to remain free because otherwise, others will do the same thing.”

“The only way you can negotiate with these people is through strength, and the only strength is military strength — and that’s what we’ve done,” he added.

“Two days ago, we had a deal, and then they broke it at the last moment,” he said.

The comments came after the US Central Command (CENTCOM) said Tuesday that American forces launched another round of strikes against Iran to “continue degrading Iranian capabilities used to attack commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.”

CENTCOM later announced that the US had resumed its naval blockade of Iran, saying more than 20 US Navy warships and hundreds of military aircraft were operating across the Middle East.

Axios has duly amplified the Administration desire to appear ferocious: From The Kobeissi Letter on Twitter:

BREAKING: President Trump held a Situation Room meeting on Tuesday to discuss a “massive offensive” in Iran, per Axios.

1. The offense will include strikes that are wider in scope than the current strikes around the Strait of Hormuz

2. Trump was joined in the Situation Room by JD Vance, Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth, Dan Caine, John Ratcliffe, Steve Witkoff and other senior officials

3. The meeting reportedly focused on new plans for “devastating strikes on strategic targets in Iran”

Trump said Iran “better make a deal” or they are “not going to have anything left.”

Brett Erickson on Twitter argued that much could be inferred from the actions the US did or did not take, given its limited runway as described above:

The initial 24 hours of the now official US blockade will be very significant because the United States is obviously operating on a short timeline.

These are the primary actions I am watching for. (Not cheering for, not cheering against, just… read)

1) Will the United States strike Iranian vessels LOADING at oil terminals?

2) Will the United States interdict vessels OUTSIDE of the blockade line?

3) Will the United States conduct military strikes on critical Iranian economic infrastructure?

4) Will the United States strike civilian infrastructure (roads, bridges, rail lines, power plants, water infrastructure)?

5) Will the United States turn to full naval escorts along the Omani Route?

I hate to single out the normally very informative Robert Pape, but this short segment below with Mario Nawfal illustrates the consequences of not knowing the limits of your knowledge. As regular readers here well know, not just military experts but also reasonably observant laypeople have described how a US attempt at a ground operation, even if we spent half a decade building up a remotely adequate sized army and munitions, would fail due to many obvious factors: Iran’s terrain, the extreme difficulty of even getting forces into theater, as well as logistical obstacles.

Below, Pape depicts a limited invasion as a somehow realistic, if high cost exercise for the US, and bizarrely depicts Iran as having difficult in dislodging US forces, as if they’d have to send in ground forces of their own to oust them. Huh? Just deny them resupply, pound them with missiles, and hunt the rest with drones:

How would American (and Trump in particular) react to Iran publishing the sort of videos of FPVs killing soldiers that have become common in Ukraine?

Pape further posits that if Iran were to engage in that sort of activity of sink a destroyer or two, that it would rally the US behind Trump and against Iran. Americans are dumb but they are not that dumb. Remember that North Vietnam actually lost the Tet Offensive, but the fact that they put the US and South Vietnamese on the back foot knocked back fading public support for the conflict even further.

Now to some detail on the kinetic action. From Aljzaeera’s live feed:

Before we continue, we feel compelled to remind readers that the idea the that US can meaningfully degrade Iran’s ability to harass and blow up ships in the Strait of Hormuz is ridiculous. Iran can (and likely soon will) mine the Oman channel. Recall from the failed great Ukraine counter-offensive that mining can be done by air. It has underwater drones. It has apparently many many speedboats stored in caves. It has drones of many sizes and varieties.

The US military says it has launched a new round of daytime attacks on Iran beginning at 6am Washington, DC, time (10:00 GMT, 1:30pm Tehran time).

“The strikes are designed to further degrade military capabilities Iranian forces have used to attack commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz,” the US military’s Central Command (CENTCOM) said in a post.

At 6 a.m. ET today, U.S. Central Command forces began launching a wave of strikes against Iran. The strikes are designed to further degrade military capabilities Iranian forces have used to attack commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) threatened to cut off all energy exports from the Middle East over the reimposition by the US of naval blockade on its ports.

“The export of oil and gas from the region will be either for everyone or for no one,” it said in a statement….

Patience with Iran over Gulf attacks ‘may fall apart very soon’

“Geopolitically and strategically, it is very evident that Iran is taking this as an opportunity to have a militarised upper hand in this region and showcasing its ability to attack these countries – including ones advocating for diplomacy,” he added.

“The patience within the Gulf and the view of Iran may fall apart very soon.”

As we noted yesterday, it seems Trump-level self-destructive for the Saudis to escalate against Ansar Allah now over its small air-blockade breaking by getting one plane in and out and then a second. It isn’t hard for them to effectively close Bab el-Mandeb when merely allowing an occasional flight through and feigning incompetence in preventing it would keep things from getting out of hand. But I heard (forgive the lack of a specific YouTube citation) that MBS had actually asked Trump for a green light to mix things up with Ansar Allah, which Trump in his current escalatory mood, provided. And per Tracy Shuchart on Twitter:

keep and eye on this, this is the first time since the Houthis directly targeted Saudi Arabia since 2023 >

Houthis target Saudi airports as ballistic missiles intercepted

Saudi Arabia says air defenses intercepted missiles launched at the country’s south; reports say Houthi attacks targeted Abha airport and two air bases in retaliation for strikes on Sanaa airport (YNet)

We have pointed out that one not-sufficiently-acknowledged impediment to any sort of resolution is the rising hostility of the Gulf States to Iran. That was demonstrated by the meeting between Secretary of State Rubio and the GCC a few weeks back, when they signed a statement opposing Iran control of the Strait of Hormuz. As we said, as much as they are furious with the US, they do not want to become hostage to Iran.

I disagree. Iran is conducting a systematic counter-base campaign, with front-loaded and preferential targeting of US radars. If anything, the Iranian counter-base campaign has become more effective, not less. They’ve started using jamming-resistant terminal guidance which has… https://t.co/jggcYX0xMw pic.twitter.com/I2VTBrnl2O

And some interceptor shortfalls seem to confirm Iran targeting success:

1 I have no idea if this is still the case, but when I worked with Japanese, they had remarkably granular economic data, such as on the sales of two burner versus four burner gas stoves.

2 The president can go down to the statutory minimum if he declares an energy emergency and the Secretary of Defense certifies that doing so would not impair national security.

3 Recall that economist Stephen Hanke, using PPP GDP per capita, has argued that that measure show the trend in average living standards, and that Iran and Saudi Arabia have been the best performers in the region since the 2008 crisis, showing almost identical, if low, growth rates. This is indirectly confirmed by Nima of Dialogue Works, who recently visited Tehran for the first time in over a decade, and said it was more prosperous.

‘I was going to charge a fee, but instead, they (Gulf states) would rather spend a lot of money in the United States, which frankly is better, because I don’t like the idea of a fee. It’s got to remain free because otherwise, others will do the same thing.’

And with that Trump was seen to be furiously backpedaling when he had pointed out to him that his idea of a 20% toll by the US legitimized Iran’s claim for a toll. And I can’t see the Gulf States investing much in the US as they have been on reduced revenue since March and will also need big bikkies to pay for all the damage that they have incurred because of Trump’s war.

I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if Trump’s 20% fee was merely him being like “Well, Iran is imposing a fee, so we should impose a fee that’s ten times bigger! To show everybody that we’re ten times stronger and better than Iran!” I’ve repeatedly shied away from such juvenile, schoolyard interpretations of the Trump admin’s foreign policy in search of *some* kind of quasi-rational backbone but at this point I think I have to concede to them out of sheer Occam’s Razor, especially considering he withdrew from that point within a day or two. The only other major interpretation I’ve seen of that statement is that was yet another market price manipulation, which makes some sense but is also childish and kicks the can down the road.

The Bessent plan to use Iran’s frozen funds to repair the damage that Iran does to Gulf states is similarly juvenile; “Nuh-uh! I-I’m not actually hurt at all by your punches! A-and actually, every time you punch me, it’s going to come out of YOUR allowance when I tell mom!!” As if Iran would see that the US has used all their frozen funds to spend on the Gulf and go “Ah, well played. The 14 demands have become 13 now because, after all, we can’t just demand those funds back even if they don’t technically come out of our frozen funds and are instead an equivalent cash transfer. That would just be rude of us!”

Have you seen the TruthSocial photo of Meloni worshipping Trump*? Jr High School. Robert Barnes (with Nima) would agree with your assessment that the best interpretation is currently to assume a 2-year-old (temper tantrums) to a 13-year-old juvenile male. Listening to Trump describe his interaction with women also suggests a 13-year-old, sh*t-talking, hormone-ridden, self-doubting teenage boy.

This is not 5D manipulation of the markets. It’s pure juvenile delinquent behavior

“hormone-ridden, self-doubting teenage boy”…..not to mention erotophobia, probably due to a wee willy.

I almost wonder if that was the point: if people, especially Gulfies, don’t mind 20% imposed by US, what’s the matter with Iran’s paltry demand? Certainly, it would help make Iranian fees implementable as part of a future deal… But Trump can’t be that far seeing or self sacrificial…

In regards to a rally around the flag, I think that Pape is reflecting a prevalent mindset among media and elite circles, that the American public would support further military action, if the U.S. started to experience real losses. He (and they) are not necessarily wrong, but I think that circumstances matter. Some sort of attack on the American homeland? Almost certainly yes. Some planes being shot down over Iran, or some naval vessels sunk? Maybe not. In the past, there has been that rallying effect, but as has been noted elsewhere, this administration hadn’t done any of the public relations needed to gin up support prior to starting this war. Or, if they had, they did it as lazily and incompetently as anything else that Trump tries. So, I don’t think that it would necessarily happen in this case, though I do think that Iran has to be careful not to respond in a such an over-the-top manner as to swing public support around.

Unfortunately, I think both reactions will prevail within the US body politic. I saw a recent poll that surprised me: something like 30% of the MAGA base would be in favor of regime change operation.

So a spasm of US casualties would likely further intensify the civil war at home, a la Vietnam (the current near-consensus that it was a stupid mistake took a lot longer to diffuse into conventional wisdom). So we might see more vicious attacks on the anti-war side by Team Trump.

On the other hand, JD Vance would cement his role as the Hubert Humphrey of this cycle…..

I feel that is a very soft 30%. Kinda like the Mike Tyson line about everyone having a plan until they get punched in the mouth.

30% of the MAGA base is not a very broad base of support, given the MAGA base is at most 30% of eligible voters to begin with.

Hard to say if there would be a rally round the flag moment after a major Iranian hit. No war has ever been so unpopular in American history right from the get go – and that includes Vietnam. Think too how back in ’83 when 241 marines, soldiers & sailors were killed in Lebanon, that there was no demand by Americans to go full bore into that country. If there is a quick win like in Venezuela, Americans will support it. But not a quagmire as they tend to be very expensive..

The Lebanon bombing is a relevant example, in my opinion. It wasn’t that the average US citizen wasn’t outraged, but the general response was: “what the hell were we doing there anyway?” As Hands Off says above about our current conflict, there was no ideological prep work for dealing with that event; most US citizens had no idea what was going on in Lebanon besides some vague sense that Iranians were the Bad Guys. Then, it appeared that our tough-guy President, Rambo Reagan, just up and high-tailed it out of there. And as you say Rev, this current war has been unpopular from the beginning. Its “justifications” might be accepted by a percentage of the MAGA faithful, but I think the majority see through the lies. Again, it’s not that most citizens support Iran or wouldn’t sympathize with US casualties. But they don’t buy the rationale for this latest regime change adventure.

An outrageous enough false flag *might* have the necessary effect on public support. It’s hard to over-estimate the credulousness of the US public in that area. But…

True, and not to mention declining average life expectancy for the majority, dismal and declining health outcomes, and a general health care crisis. The most expensive and ineffective “health care” on earth is really an extortion racket.

I suspect that losses amongst special forces will not cause a “rally round the flag” reaction, whereas those amongst “normal” army / navy / airforce personnel may well do.

Tough to say, though – one of the “benefits” of the all volunteer force is a sales pitch that “they knew the job was dangerous when they took it.”

On the other hand, conscription* which picks up rando boy-next-door who then comes home in a body bag is much more likely to even have the reverse effect.

*which, if it were to include the 30% MAGA base along with every congresscritter and their family members who would inherit by intestate succession, would not be a bad idea. Along with the Executive Head of State and his cabinet and advisors. Give ’em Ukrainian levels of training and send ’em to the front. Ask Iran, politely, to wait until they’re all on the ground.

True, but often enlisted personnel had scarcely any other possibility to find gainful employment, especially when coming from economically distressed areas.

On the other hand, joining special forces means that one really, truly likes the job and relishes the idea of becoming a professional ass-kicker.

…but often enlisted personnel had scarcely any other possibility to find gainful employment, especially when coming from economically distressed areas.

Can I get an OHY!!!!! from the choir??? Because that’s what teh early interwebz called QFT, there!

Which – to think sideways about it – is why DC would WANT to crash the economy. More cannonfodder available to do sepoy work for TPTB, either internally or externally. There’s nothing I can see to suggest that a complaisant Congress couldn’t just repeal the Posse Comitatus Act and allow straight-up federally-directed military intervention in domestic “problem areas.”

Public anger at Trump will be immense if ships sink or ground forces are lost. But the blood lust and need for vengeance will drive decisions in DC. Not many politicians can afford to have advocating for taking the loss on their record.

If an attack on US soil generates a rally around the flag response, the US and particularly Israel would seem to me to be the most incentivized toward carrying it out. Iran? Not so much.

Its really hard to see a rally around the flag response here. The US launched a war of aggression, with no real propaganda build up in advance. With Iraq, first you had 911 and a pissed off electorate, second you had this whole theater about Iraq, WMD, and claims that Iraq was behind 911. From 9/11/2001 until March 2003, you had a very intensive psy ops campaign to convince the American public that invading Iraq was a just war. None of that happened with Iran, which means people see it as a war of naked aggression, and American military casualties are going to be seen as self defense. The war was already unpopular.

Second, American patriotism has been pretty effectively hollowed out in the intervening decades from 2003. It would be hard to underestimate the impact of 2008 on increasing the level of cynicism about American government. The US Armed Services are facing a protracted recruitment problem.

The MAGA contingent believes they are living in a Rambo movie, and America just needs to take the gloves off and escalate to win. But escalating won’t produce a win, just a bigger loss. They will flip once they can’t afford to refuel their trucks, and America gets a bloody nose. They want to rally behind a tough guy who is a winner. When Trump is exposed, they will run to the next poseur.

“Rambo” is quite interesting, He was the protagonist in a “Chase Novel” entitled “First Blood” by David Morrell which is explicitly anti War. Hollywood improved it in the way it usually does, to glorify War.

Unfortunately, the Zio-MAGA version of Rambo is likely to end in the same manner as the original book.

And the last movie sort of came back to the origins, albeit still in a liberal imperialist kind of way…

And if you watched that psyops campaign, it wasn’t even that good. Complacent and complicit politicians provided cover, but a significant portion of the US public knew the Iraq invasion was a war crime intent on asset seizure. While there was still another portion of patriotic people rallying because of 9/11, it has been hollowed out as most came away from that almost two decade long debacle knowing they were manipulated and used. Hence the recruitment crisis that was ongoing before this delusional atrocity began.

but a significant portion of the US public knew the Iraq invasion was a war crime intent on asset seizure.

And yet that portion was not significant enough, or perhaps not caring enough, to vote out of office the enablers of the war crime and demand punishment of those involved.

Americans – and the West – are just not keen on consequences for bad behavior. It’s “kinder and gentler” that way, I guess.

vote out of office the enablers of the war crime and demand punishment of those involved.

Having watched the mechanics of the political system, it is massively hard to vote out most incumbents. And not only because of the hurdles of getting on the ballot. Sometimes it is even a conspiracy between the supposedly opposing parties. See Joe Lieberman for one of my “favorite” object lessons in the system telling voters “family blog you”.

And of course there was one of Obama’s fake appeals to primary voters, his supposed anti Iraq war stance.

The real question is do the massive numbers of Americans who don’t vote just not care or have they figured out the dirty little secret that it just doesn’t really matter because the system is designed to make sure real change cannot happen especially one that comes with consequences for bad behavior by the top donor class?

The only people who would support more bombings after US losses are the 30% of Americans who support US aggression unquestioningly. The folks who were in favor of bombing “Agrabah”. Those people already support the war and you can be sure would be interviewed prominently in every flavor of our corporate state media to imply mass support for “vengeance”. But at this point the vast majority of Americans are burnt out and cynical about wars and the unending crimes of this administration and just want it to be over.

I read Pape’s free stuff. I see a professor with no experience or training in game theory posing as expert. His escalation modes is too narrow and not game theory.

He also has no “feel” for logistics, he lack a general and admiral needs a logistic expert with a map to say “you can’t get ther”,

His point about Trump getting a lot of troops killed leading to committing to a human life sunk cost fallacy may be appropo given the loonies in C DC and Tel Aviv.

As a professor of IR of the neo-Realist persuasion, I would think he is quite familiar with “game theory”. I’m not sure how it would help here though. He would do well to consult with his former mentor, John Mearsheimer as well as military and logistics experts often featured here. And he should

I am thinking a hostage game with either the strait as hostage or ARAMCO, et al GCC infrastructure.

Done for today! Please refresh this page and re-skim if you arrived before the time of this comment.

“As we said, as much as they are furious with the US, they do not want to become hostage to Iran. ” That’s the issue with the Gulf States. They think their options are being hostages to Iran or being hostages to the USA. Actually, their options are being hostages to Iran or being obliterated as prosperous or even remotely liveable nations. And they’re actively seeking out the second outcome – which personally I won’t mind, they fucked up parts of the world too much with their funding of salafists for me to ever forgive them.

As for China, I wonder if Xi has prepared some finishing move to gut the Western order once and for all. Because I could see one or two ways of actually achieving it, considering the current sorry state of Western involvement in the MIddle-East and in Ukraine.

“But as Nassim Nicholas Taleb has pointed out, the turkey has the most confidence the farmer is his friend the night before he is slaughtered, because it is then that he has the most observations of having been housed and fed.” So, are you basically suspecting that Trump is scamming people? Because this reminds me of the epiphany I had a few months ago, reading about Ukraine claiming new successes against Russia and that next time they’ll collapse the whole country, if only they could get those weapons and some more billions – that’s when I realized that Ukrainian leadership (and probably some other actors) is actually enacting a typical pig butchering scam against Europe and USA (at least EU and US taxpayers) at an insane scale.

[the] Ukrainian leadership (and probably some other actors) is actually enacting a typical pig butchering scam against Europe and USA (at least EU and US taxpayers) at an insane scale.

Well, the taxpayers. There’s more than willing compliance, connivance, and conspiratorial assistance by – and likely remuneration to the “leaders” of the victims of that scam.

Typical script for a modern grievance industry, except on a far bigger and bloodier scale than anything recent (and unlike the last big one, they themselves are driving this.)

American capacity to overestimate the effectiveness of its sanctions regime is apparently limitless.

And Pape’s “analysis” of the likely outcome of any US ground invasion is the sort of thing that has already gotten too many grunts killed over the years.

One thing that can not be taken into account is Trump’s continuing Mental and Physical deterioration. I have observed that when we old folks start falling apart that there are plateau’s. The person in questions loses capacity suddenly, then stabilizes for a time before the next loss of capacity. Their managers ( Usually relatives) adapt to the new normal and pretend every thing is “Just fine” until there’s a another sudden loss of capacity. At which point their managers adapt and pretend that “Every thing is Just fine”. And it goes like that until the incapacity can not be ignored because they are now dealing with an obvious lunatic. Even then many enablers will still put on a brave front and pretend that “Everything is fine, just fine”. That’s what i think I’m seeing at the White House.

We’ve already seen this movie before with Biden. And as it turned out, they supported him being in office right until his last day. I expect the same with Trump as he is proving so lucrative to so many parties.

Given that the US has been using their territory for the entirety of the war to attack Iran (and they’ve also been helping defend US and Israeli assets), it’s hard to be sympathetic.

I think the real issue is that they want all the benefits of US bases, without any of the disadvantages. And until they realize that’s no longer an option (if for no other reason US intransigence) – they’re going to continue to experience problems.

And anyway, what the hell are the gulf states going to do about it? Intercept “100% of Iranian drones and missiles” with their oil infrastructure, as they’ve been doing so far? Attack with the world’s most incompetent militaries?

The issue of defending the countries in the Middle East reminds me of one of the famous passages in Orwell’s Animal Farm. Napoleon the Pig said (I paraphrase): All of the animals on the farm are equal. It’s just that some are more equal than others. I guess the GCC countries didn’t read the book because its absolutely clear to me that of all the countries in the area who completely depend on the US to defend them from attack, there is one animal (country) that is clearly vastly more equal than the rest. I have tried to no avail to understand how the GCC countries can believe that Iran is more dangerous to them than the US/Israel axis. To me, for all animals other than the one, siding with the US it is like one of the Pigs making friends with the Big Bad Wolf.

Worse, they are partaking in the pork fest (yes, pork is haram and I’m using this example deliberately) to show their affinity with the wolves (ironic, if the main wolf keeps kosher…).

Although Oman is only minimally a “Gulf state,” it is a member of the Gulf Cooperation Council. Its Foreign Minister addressed this question from another point of view on Monday.

It’s a good possibility they are scared excrement-less. Aside from Oman, are any of the gulf states not controlled by a small minority (and uber-wealthy) over a much larger, poorer population of an other caste/religion? I’m sure they would detest being ‘ruled over’ by Persians, and Shia to boot, but a far greater fear is having their heads chopped by a massive revolution under them. Right now, the US is giving Gulf states cover but if that were to disappear, game over. Same thing holds true for Jordan.

Imo One option is Iran prevails, the us leaves, and they pay 1$/b toll. The other option is us prevails and they pay 20%. As far as I can tell they have no agency in either case, though in the first they might find better uses for their revenues than us treasuries.

To say someone is a coward assumes a theory of unified thought and personal agency, but what we actually have is more like a broken and miswired toaster in the form of an equally broken role.

You underestimate our reactions. It would engender a lot of support for war. It may only last months instead of years, but we are a vengeful people. Which is exactly what we see in Iran, and why they are willing to endure this punishment. Pape is right on this..

1. Americans care more about their pocketbooks. There is no reason for the US to be in Iran. People resent the increase in gas prices. They resent the war costs.

2. We have a direct precedent. Carter and the hostage crisis. Carter did not come out well. And you are just talking past the Tet Offensive precedent.

3. With our shrunken military, not as many American have friends or relatives in the armed forces. Traditional military families have been recommending against service.

I’d rather use the “Blackhawk Down” incident in Somalia than Tet, seeing as it’s much more recent – from the post-draft era – and you can draw a direct line from that to, say, Clinton’s abject fear of putting ground troops into Kosovo in 1999.

The Iraq War is also instructive. Whatever public support there existed in 2002-2003 had eroded quickly enough for the war to be a major issue in the 2004 election. And, statistically, those casualties work out to ~1.5 US troops killed per day (and a comparable number of “contractors”) over 8 years. With Iran, we’re starting at a much lower base of support; higher gas prices AND a “Blackhawk Down” incident? That smells an awful lot like political suicide to me…or, at least, I expect most people in Washington would read the situation that way.

To be sure, there will always be a core of support – 30%? – for just about anything any Administration, Republican or Democrat, does. But there is a lot of room to swing before hitting that. LBJ lost ~10 points when the Tet offensive started; Trump, per Nate Silver, currently sits at 39.8% vs. 42.0% on March 4. What say we land a battalion of Marines on Kharg Island and find out how deep the rabbit hole goes?……

You actually hit the other nail on the head – (mercenaries) contractors. Nobody in the US will give a rodent’s gluteus if tens of thousands of them were to die in Iran.

But could you hire that many Colombians? It’s not like US mercenaries are going to sign on for a deathride like that.

Great idea, send ICEstapo over there. Culling the inbred herd at it’s finest.

Any American who is actually gung-ho for a ground operation in Iran is already serving in the IDF.

Traditional military families have been recommending against service.

That is very interesting. When feasible, please share a link to more info. I’ll accept anecdata as a starting point.

“When we’re going through this report and seeing some of the findings and the reality that a lot of families are having a hard time making ends meet, it’s not all that startling to see that there will be a decline here,” said Shannon Razsadin, president and executive director of the Military Family Advisory Network, an organization that provides resources and conducts research on issues affecting military families. “But what I was really surprised by was, you know, that it was as big of a decline as it is.”

America’s Military Recruitment Crisis: Why Legacy Families Are Saying No to Enlistment

Only 37% of active duty family members responding to a recent survey said they would recommend military service to a young family member – a figure that points to persistent and unresolved quality-of-life issues facing those in uniform.

Ditto, something* I mention with great frequency to most of my middle schoolers who ask me about military careers.

*also I try and convince the brighter ones that the practice of law is not all it’s cracked up to be.

aye. when our boys…each in their time(right around puberty, it turns out) discovered the Callof Duty type video games with their respective buddies…and started making chest thumping noises about joining the Marines and going over there(?) to kick ass…i sent them each, again in their time, to my stepdad Don on the front porch, to ask him about it. he was shot in the bck by a sniper in a rice paddy outside Da Nang in 68…before he ever even had sex(!)…and lived the rest of his days in a wheelchair. i gave him a heads up on each occasion, and he gave them The Talk…and we never heard another word about it.

May All Gods Bless You, amfortas! Muchas Gracias, my Peace Loving Friend

My kids never thought of the military, my grandkids 4 girls one boy, he is 3.

I just got back from a visit with my sister’s family and sat my nephews down to tell them about the realities and consequences of being in the military, both short and long term, using my experiences as a guidepost. I also told them to resist the propaganda which paints us as the “good guys”.

9/11 is the counter example. Americans do care when it strikes close to home. Rallying the masses against Iran might be done with a false flag event.

We’re as dumb as our media want us to be. And they will surely try to spin disaster as a rally around the flag moment. That’s been the story of the last forty years.

I am not sure this is true anymore. Sentiments regarding Israel have nose dived since 10/7 despite wall to wall Israel apologia from the media.

‘In an interview with Fox News on Tuesday, Trump said he would consider a ground operation “if I thought it was appropriate.” “Sometimes you need a ground campaign, but we have other people who will do the ground campaign for us… But we have already hit Kharg Island twice, even three times. I said, ‘Hit everything but the oil!’”’

Of course that Fox interviewer should have asked Trump if those ‘other people’ were in the studio with them now.

Little Miss Trump-ette Sat on his rump-ette Dreaming of Kurds, oi vey!

I hope he hasn’t decided that this would be a good time to hike the Zagros Mountains.

Is it elder abuse yet? I know it’s not politically correct but” “dude ain’t right in the head”. Yet the court jesters and sycophant-stenographer media hang on his every word and pretend thieving is “normal” , no matter how irrational.

Yes, they do indeed pretend everything, including thieving, is normal.

Must have been a slip, I meant to write “everything”, but yeah, that includes thieving…

…as well as grifting, telling absurd and obvious lies, mass murdering children, genocide, abuse of power, and general disregard for the law, constitution, and basic morality. Just mundane, run-of-the-mill, ordinary stuff.

I am surprised that so much of the analysis and commentary about this war focuses entirely on action by the U.S. and Iran, ignoring the enormous threat posed by Israel. It seems clear that the only outcome that will satisfy the Israelis is the complete destruction of Iran or, at a minimum, the replacement of its existing institutions with an alternative that is totally subservient to usarael. Such an outcome seems out of reach through any conventional military or economic means. Israel must also realize that this is its last, best chance to achieve its goal. There is rising opposition in the United States and the entire world stares at the events in Gaza in horror and disgust. under these conditions, the use of nuclear weapons by Israel can not be ruled out. In fact, as the current impasse drags on and as the leverage available to the United States declines relative to that of Iran, Israel’s nuclear option is ever more probable. does anyone really believe that Israel will not take that last fateful step?

If they do, any shred of remaining sympathy held by the rest of the world will evaporate instantly and it will become clear that Israel needs to be put to sleep before they nuke somebody else, for they won’t be finished just with Iran.

FAFO, if Israel uses nukes, my bet is on the destruction of Israel. We need just look at a map to figure it out.

Israel will not be as sloppy as the Trump regime. It will have plausible false flags against both itself and the US before nuking Iran.

Israel is perfectly aware that if they use nuclear weapons against Iran, within 48 hours every single piece of their critical infrastructure – power plant (including Dimona), transformer plant, desalination plant, refinery, oil platform, oil pipeline, hospital, gas station, etc etc – will be entering the upper atmosphere as vaporized dust particulates. Iran has conventional MAD vs Israel’s nuclear MAD, and it works because Israel is very small and has many points of extreme vulnerability. This is especially true now more than any prior point in the last few decades now that Western air defence in the region is by far the weakest it’s ever been, and also Iran’s missile cities have been empirically proven to be impregnable to all Western weaponry.

As such, Israel will only use nuclear weapons when they think Iran will completely destroy them regardless.

If Iran was not capable of MAD against Israel, then and *only* then do I think it would be plausible to try a false flag attack to provide the justification to nuke Iran, because I think they would consider it worth the risk. Who would stop them? China is almost humiliatingly averse to not just conflicts, but seemingly even arguments and disputes that aren’t directly and explicitly levelled at them (“only” their not-quite-allies). If China *still* hasn’t ended relations with Israel and sanctioned them after committing genocide and bombing more countries in the last 3 years than most countries do in a century, I am reasonably sure that their response to Israel nuking Iran will be an *extremely* strongly worded letter and a non-binding UN resolution to create a committee to decide within 5 years whether to create a new institution to hire a panel of specialized judges which will meet within 10 years to decide through a 2/3s majority on when and how to create non-binding consequences for use of nuclear weapons against civilian populations. I have no idea what Russia will do, but I doubt they’d use nukes and risk their own civilian population centers merely to avenge – not even save – Iran. Same with Pakistan.

And we all know that Israel could nuke pretty much any point on the planet, perhaps even an American city, and American Zionists in the upper echelons of power would still not withdraw support, so Israel knows that no atrocity is too great for their annual allowance to be withdrawn.

Iran is, therefore, on their own in a nuclear conflict, and so thank god they have the conventional firepower to have their own MAD.

>I doubt they’d use nukes and risk their own civilian population centers merely to avenge – not even save – Iran. Same with Pakistan

Pakistan said during the original fighting earlier this year that if Israel nuked Iran then Pakistan would nuke Israel. Around that same time Israel started talking about regime change in Pakistan

Can I just say, yes, Israel is more likely to go nuclear, but I think due to any number of rogue Kahanist or settler groups having control of the military in a setting where there is no enforcement of discipline, no enforced ROE, and a military culture which encourages wanton individual acts of violence, disobeying orders, in complete absence of or fear of reprisal. I also think it is for the same reason that Israel is not capable of maintaining a ceasefire. Any number of elements will break it and without reprisal.

So, similar to the mention of the Tet offensive somewhere in the comments above – Israel is now as the US was in Vietnam, run amok. With the added twist that for the Israelis anyone not Israeli is Amalek, anti-Semite.

Israel is now as the US was in Vietnam, run amok. With the added twist that for the Israelis anyone not Israeli is Amalek, anti-Semite.

Hmmm…I suspect that you were never in the American military serving in an Asian theater of operations. Even in peacetime, GIs do not tend to consider “those” people to be, you know, “actual people.”

But I could, of course, be wrong and you were simply assigned to a more enlightened branch/MOS than large swathes of the types I put up with. :-)

“…Below, Pape depicts a limited invasion as a somehow realistic, if high cost exercise for the US, and bizarrely depicts Iran as having difficult in dislodging US forces, as if they’d have to send in ground forces of the…”

Some of Pape’s opinions about Russia, and now his opinion about ground invasion are directly at odds not only with military experts, but also fellow neo-Realist IR scholar John Mearsheimer.

Chas Freeman’s (as well as Alastair Crooke and others) opinion also differs with Pape. I think Freeman is on the mark, and Pape has tarnished his credibility. Although he does not have specific military expertise, I would think he should know better.

According to the Federalist Society, Professor Pape’s resume includes:

Before coming to Chicago in 1999, he taught international relations at Dartmouth College for five years and air power strategy for the USAF’s School of Advanced Airpower Studies for three years.

He should know better, which means he is shilling for someone.

I’m not sure that gives him credibility in this area. Just because he taught a couple of courses (that are tangentially related to the topic) at an Ivy League college does not mean he has real/good knowledge in the area, just that someone else thought he did.

Also, the USAF is infamous for thinking it can win wars via airpower alone, so the second course is already suspect.

FWIW, Mearsheimer is also a legit military expert, although not a high ranked one: he’s a West Pointer and made a captain before joining academic life.

His team does not even remotely have the competence to devise and implement a rationing scheme.

There’s no doubt this is true, but I think more importantly any kind of rationing arrangement would have such terrible optics that Trump would be tarred and feathered immediately.

The only reason that the US public has given Trump the leeway he’s had so far is that the war doesn’t seem to have any practical effects inside the US. If day-to-day operations had to be organized around a rationing scheme, and people had to spend much of their time curtailing operations to comport with it, that would cause immediate fury and outcry, and the obvious question would be shouted in every quarter: “why is Trump fighting this stupid war and why doesn’t he stop it?”

Of course, there is no good answer to that question beyond “because he’s an idiot”.

Domestically, I think Trump’s only practical strategy is to feed the population’s sense of denial.

It seems possible that both Iran and the US have an identical interest in allowing traffic to pass through on the Iran side of the Straight. Iran, to cement the idea that it’s the de facto manager of the Strait of Hormuz, and the US, to allow more oil and cargo onto the world market and give itself more time before the cliff.

As long as the US is officially opposed to traffic transiting the straight on the Iranian side, it matters little whether it’s actually happening.

Which might actually be a relief to Oman, as it can just take itself out of the equation, point to its lack of mine-clearing equipment and any meaningful ability to punish Iran for an obvious act of war, and then sit comfortably on the sidelines while the interested parties sort things out.

Oman is hosting a US Navy logistics hub, apparently also a US Special Forces command ship and has allowed US Navy to organize protected convoys trough Oman’s territorial waters.

Given that US is a belligerent nation, according to the “law of the naval warfare” as codified in the San Remo manual, Oman is in no way or form a neutral state in the current armed conflict.

This is a pattern I have noticed in a wide range of publications, certainly not restricted to your writing. People from all kinds of media have bought into the use of the term “hostages” when talking about possible negative outcomes of a potential ground attack (or failed air offensive over Iran).

This is clearly a direct attempt by some to tie the current situation to the memory of the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979. But these are entirely different circumstances. This is a war, even if undeclared. Iran was attacked. If some number of attackers were to be captured, they would not be hostages, but prisoners of war. Those are NOT the same thing even if the effect on Americans and their government might feel the same.

The use of the term hostages is clearly intentional. It not only ties the current events to an unrelated and unpleasant past memory for Americans, but it is designed to imply that the Iranians would be committing some kind of criminal or political act. In reality, if any US military personal ends up in Iranian captivity, it will not be because they were taken hostage in some kind of Iranian act, but because they were unfortunate enough to be sent to fight an ill-conceived illegal war and had the bad luck to get captured by the military defending its country.

Writers and commentators should stop supporting a narrative that is intentionally designed to mislead the public into thinking that Iranians have no right to defend themselves and take prisoners if the situation so evolves. Refer to soldiers in these scenarios as what they would be, POWs, not hostages.

Sorry, the use of that word cuts the other way. You must not be old enough to remember the Iran hostage crisis of the 1970s. It humiliated the US. Trump as a young businessman was worked up about US impotence:

In 1980, 34-year-old Donald Trump, decades before becoming President of the United States, spoke publicly about the ongoing Iran hostage crisis, which had kept 52 Americans captive in Tehran.

In an interview with television columnist Rona Barrett, Trump criticized the U.S.… pic.twitter.com/eAxxaTT23o

More recent commentators have said one of the things that has deterred Trump from ground operations is fear of Iran getting hostages…their words, not mine. Trump is afraid of a re-run of the hostage crisis, even if the captives in this case would technically be POWs. But even that is not clear cut since the US has not declared war, despite clearly being at war.

And on top of that, Iran is in revenge-seeking mode. So Iran itself would be on board with the more threatening-seeming characterization of any captured Americans as hostages.

There you go. In the last hour, various reports have surfaced saying that “Iran called. They want to make a deal very badly”. I’m screaming.

Yeah, how many times have we heard that BS before? Groundhog Day indeed. We destroyed Iran’s military dozens of times blah blah, we’re gonna take their oil, blah blah, they are begging… blah blah. We are in negotiations (withe imaginary people) blah blah.

And the sycophantic mass media stenographers pretend it is “normal” and even the loyal opposition pretends this is normal, thus reinforcing more normalcy bias. And millions of gullible, misinformed, willfully ignorant people believe it. I know highly educated, otherwise intelligent people who believe in absurdities. After all, some dude with makeup, hairspray who gets paid millions a year to regurgitate CIA talking points can never be wrong.

I don’t know if it’s technically possible to tailor anti-ship missile attacks in such a way as to damage a ship rather than sink it, but if so that seems like it would be an effective Iranian strategy against the US Navy.

We have seen that it’s fairly easy to take US navy ships out of the fight (set their laundry on fire, jam up their sewer systems, etc.) The British navy has also showcased how simple it is to render their ships ineffective. Repairs for US navy ships seem to be almost impossible now, due to a lack of shipyards and the fact that only private sector technicians are legally allowed to work on many proprietary shipboard systems.

My point is that modern first world navies seem to have a glass jaw and their ships are difficult or impossible to repair at sea, and if Iran wants to put the US on its back foot, it only has to damage its ships in the Middle East, and avoid the escalating and inhumane tactics of sinking ships outright. A casual study of the Red Sea adventures of the US Navy against the Houthis will demonstrate what can be accomplished here with little or no loss of life.

“The British navy has also showcased how simple it is to render their ships ineffective.”

Are we (US) really approaching an “oil cliff” or is it a “diesel cliff”? And how far out is it? I see conflicting accounts of whether we can make up the shortfall in heavy, sour crude using Venezuelan and Canadian imports, but many commenters online talk as if we have no problems with sourcing light, sweet crude. And the Trump administration seems not to have a worry in the world about our ability to maintain the “not negotiable” American way of consumption.

As Yves has written above, it’s awfully hard to have a sense of how many days left. In the previous phase, even knowledgeable folks have given dates that finally came and went without a cliff or shock. Just today I saw at MoA a back-of-the-enveloppe calculus that came out to 100 days of crude (commercial+SPR) more or less. I’m not saying it’s wrong but we don’t know… So let’s be prudent and stop predicting! What we DO know is that between Feb and now we have burned through a mighty amount of buffer, it’s gone baby gone, and that much less resilience all around.

yeah. all the following is from memory, and from tidbits ive picked up from my boyhood being around oilmen, as well as all the studying i did when discovered “Peak oil”. we(USA) produce mostly light sweet crude, from several spent fields(Permian peaked for conventional production in the 70’s)…as well as from shale(in itself, a mess that need to be Pre-Processed). Canda’s tar sands are just what it sounds like…and must undergo extensive, and extremely dirty, pre-processing…before getting to the regular pre-processing. Venezuela is a little better for these purposes…but its oil infrastructure is mostly rusting away in the swamp, after decades of sanctions…even exxon, etc took a look and said “no thanks”. it would cost too much. light sweet is ecellent for gasoline and lighter fluid and a bunch of other things that are adjacent to petroleum refining(plastics come to mind, but i havent paid as much mind to this stuff). but you cant make diesel or jet fuel out of light sweet…without mixing it with a great deal of heavy sour. as in the light sweet is like putting a lil pickle juice in yer tater salad to thing the mayo. russian(urals, esp) and persian gulf oil is whats needed. and that aint coming here any time soon…so yeah…diesel cliff is apt. we might possibly see continuing low gas prices…at least for a time…but that would be small comfort, as we could afford to drive to stores that have empty shelves, because the trucks couldnt deliver because the diesel is too expensive…or simply not available.

also remember Just In time(thanks, walmart!)…warehouse on wheels. theres no wiggle room in inventories. ive told the tale before, about how hurricane rita took out the east side of houston, where all the distribution hubs are…and out here, 350 miles away, we didnt have trucks for a week, and ran out of gas, groceries, and almost beer(local beer stores got together and went with a big stock trailer to brownwood, a hub of a differnt ditribution system, to load up on beer, lest there be riot) point in this last part of this long winded reply, is that civilisation is the thinnest of patinas.

as in the light sweet is like putting a lil pickle juice in yer tater salad to thing the mayo. You have a way with words amfortas, it’s always a treat ;-)

Yes! I always add pickle juice to my tater salad… making me hungry. Yeah and that would be a catastrophic event if they ran out of beer. If the diesel fuel for the beer delivery trucks aint happening, things are going to get real ugly. Not enough local home brew or moonshine to go around.

If the diesel fuel for the beer delivery trucks aint happening, things are going to get real ugly.

“There are only nine meals between mankind and anarchy.” – Alfred Henry Lewis, 1906

For the US to impose its will on iran would require the US to invade Iran and conquer it with ‘boots on the ground.’ What are the odds on Polymarket? The SPR eminds me of childhood: 99 barrels of oil on the wall, take one down and what do you get. ( Another day older and deeper in debt.) 98 barrells of oil on the wall….

Prediction markets are overrated. They do a lousy job when the betters are not experts in the subject matter. They are good at things like elections. But even then, Brexit betting was way off actual results.

Trump realizes he doesn’t have a military solution and he can’t negotiate his way out of this war either. Trump’s latest incarnation is renewed bombing and threats which he assumes will collapse the Iranian economy before the ratatouille hits the fan on the US economy. It’s a gamble not a strategy; what else do we expect from a former casino owner? I agree with Brandon Weichert mentioned above that “Iran is not a materialistic society.” Rest assured Trump doesn’t believe it and he can’t accept such a concept. For Lord Trump, US troops will be necessary to secure important infrastructure after Iran finally realizes it has no option except surrender; so he thinks.

I think what Trump has said, and how he has governed, is that he assumes stuff will just work out. Because it always does for him. That is not a strategy. It is also not a good idea when governing a nuclear capable country like the US. But consider that from his assassination of Soleimani several years ago, to his own survival of assassination attempts in 2024-2025, Trump believes that he is not going to realize any bad consequences for his actions. As such, he is just going to go where his interests and ego tell him. Because that has always worked!

If you believe that, I have several slightly used casinos to sell you.

Today’s SPR release data has totals at 316.5 million barrels, down about 3 million from last week but less than the approximately 6 million weekly decrease it was seeing before. Maybe the effect of some of the pent up oil exiting the strait during the ceasefire, but we will probably need to wait for next week’s release to get a better sense (assuming that a potential additional effect like Fujairah’s closing or China returning to the market doesn’t cancel out the released oil).

Today’s EIA Petroleu Balance Sheet was very “tame”. May not last with the past several days closing and blockade. It may be positive effect of Hormuz transits from MOU.

Crude stock 726.2 is down 4.1 mbbl, 3.0 is SPR draw to 316.5 mbbl. Comm’l: -1.1 mbbl, to 409.7 in stock

A US aircraft fired missiles into an oil tanker’s smokestack in the Strait of Hormuz, disabling the vessel, CENTCOM has claimed.

“US forces enforced naval blockade measures against Iran, July 15, by disabling an unladen oil tanker attempting to sail toward an Iranian port in the Arabian Gulf. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) forces observed Curacao-flagged M/T Belma transiting international waters toward Kharg Island.

“The commercial vessel ignored multiple warnings as it attempted to violate the U.S. blockade. A U.S. aircraft disabled the vessel after firing hellfire missiles into the ship’s smokestack. The ship is no longer transiting to Iran.”

Of all the deranged tactics of Kegsbreath and Taco, this has to be the worst in terms of serving up a basket of unintended consequences, coming soon to a theater near you:

1. Every barrel of oil that doesn’t make it to the market needs to be factored into reduced global GDP. And you can’t proclaim that China is going to take the hit, because they’re not stupid; they’ve prepared for this.

2. Even worse, there are a finite number of oil tankers available to transport oil. Encouraging more demand destruction.

4. Reciprocity is a real beeyatch. One of these days, an LNG freighter headed for Japan or Germany is gonna go boom.

I was speculating yesterday about what the u.s. regime might possibly be thinking to explain their behavior. One of my guesses was about the SPR. Turns out they found someone to tell them the SPR can go down to 70 million barrels – far below what had been the minimum for decades (250 to 300 million). If true that probably pushes the oil cliff back some months. However if the Red Sea and UAE are shut in that changes the calculation.

“An Energy Department statement to MarketWatch on Wednesday indicated that the industry assertion of a “minimum operating level” of 250 million barrels is incorrect.

This comes as the U.S.-Iran cease-fire agreement from June has collapsed in recent days. President Donald Trump wants to exert more control over shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, and on Wednesday evening another round of U.S. military strikes took place against Iran.

Meanwhile, the Energy Department said the SPR’s minimum inventory is determined by “cavern mechanics” that when applied across the full system translates to a “conservative operational minimum of about 70 million barrels,” the DOE spokesperson said. That may leave more to spare for emergencies — around 246 million barrels, according to the DOE’s latest estimates.”

The Mainstream posits that the Iranians are the Romulins, not me it’s the Political Powes ruling Türkiye

Seems like a yes to this as overnight they disabled a ship trying to get to Kharg. Not loading but close to.

In general this all seems like more predictably counterproductive US action. Iran is getting more militant, and the “compromisers” seem to be losing popularity/influence.

That the US convincingly lost round one, yet is coming back for round two is so stupid.

Add in the renewed Houthi/Saudi stuff and the growing likelihood of Bab el-Mandeb getting closed and the mess gets messier.

There is no light at the end of this tunnel, just a very unfriendly oil cliff about to impact.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *