Checkmate in Iran
theatlantic.com> In a world where Iran wields influence over the energy supply of so many nations, Israel could face enormous international pressure not to provoke Tehran in Lebanon, Gaza, or anywhere else.
One can hope.
This is a silly article. It assumes the situation in the Gulf is finalized, calling the current situation "checkmate". It implies the game is finished, even when all sides know the status-quo is unsustainable. Neither side agrees to the terms of the other. The conflict, which is currently paused, is not resolved.
This article is written two months into the war. We are still in the early stages.
Recall the situation in Europe two months into WWII. It is November 1939, a month after the fall of Poland. A naval and economic blockade is going on. There is no fighting outside of minor naval skirmishes. The conflict is stalled. Harsh words are exchanged. Nothing important is happening. WWII entered a lull where basically nothing happened for 8 months, until the invasion of the Benelux in May 1940.
We are currently in a similar lull.
> It assumes the situation in the Gulf is finalized, calling the current situation "checkmate".
To be fair, the article does not assume that: it analyzes potential next moves and concludes that a certain outcome is inevitable.
To harp on the chess metaphor, most games are conceded when the result becomes obvious, before reaching literal checkmate.
Whether the analysis is accurate is a separate conversation.
The article's conclusions are bunk. It's too US-centric and does not consider the political stances of other Gulf states. The UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain have all explicitly rejected the toll as a political position. The article claims (without evidence) that all these countries will roll over and accept Iran's demands.
God help us if it turns out your comparison to WWII is anything more than a bad analogy.
This war will be a large regional conflict but it won't expand past that. Neither of Iran's allies (Russia and China) care to join the conflict and defend Iran militarily.
Iran is also a pariah state after firing drones and missiles at pretty much all of its neighbors.
It also claims that Pearl Harbour happened in the first months of WWII.
It is hard to believe this doesn't push us towards electricity for more things. It is so much less to have an electrical vehicle right now. Electrical prices have a soft cap too as solar becomes cheaper.
Iran cannot get their oil out of their country fast enough. Iran's oil storage facilities are filling up, as evidenced by them bringing in derelict tankers just to temporarily store oil. If they have to start capping wells, they will almost certainly never produce at the same rate again, if they can start the flow at all since capping typically damages the well to some extent. If it comes to that, Iran will be permanently diminished. Hard to see how Iran will come out of this a winner as the article projects. You need money to pay for a war.
Better to preserve the illusion of military hegemony than to stalemate against tier2 power and remove all doubt. - Mr Rogers, probably. At least Kagan losing some sleep.
The actual significance of this article is that, finally, the establishment is beginning to accept that the US may be in big trouble because of this war.
I mean what’s there to say but, well…FAFO.
If Iran gets to tax the strait of Hormuz, it's the entire world that will be doing the "FO" part. The EU, maybe China. For the US, consequences will be relatively minimal.
Obviously Iran will be using their newfound leverage to force policy changes in the EU first. That will be very, very bad.
(and if I can say something really unpopular: this is why Trump wants and asks for EU and other allies to support the US in this war. Not because it's just or fair ... nothing to do with it. More like "deal with Trump or deal with mullahs", expecting any sane person to choose Trump, rather than deal with the consequences of Iran either taxing Hormuz or acquiring nuclear weapons)
Iran extracting Hormuz tax rounding error on prewar $60 barrels vs current $100 war premium. Paying Iran what they ask is pocket change.
The geopolitical reality is US gets disproportionately fucked if OPEC+ doesn't have to care about US regional US security umbrella leverage... forced to cooperate with Iran, GCC countries and Iran can price US shale out of export market while saving 100s of billions per year on not buying US services/hardware (which potentially drops their fiscal breakeven per barrel below US shale). Iran can increase toll 500%, i.e. $50 barrel + $5 Iran tip and every sane global actor would still choose MENA oil who can push prices and supplies that bankrupt US+VZ+CA oil network, if only out of cathartic lulz.
This is the real strategic dilemma, US protection racket leverage is what incentivizes GCC producers to price barrels that allow US shale to survive, and recycle 100s of billions of petro dollar into US hardware and services. If US unable protect i.e. US doesn't have capabilities to prevent Iran from glass GCC infra and US doesn't have capacities to survive forward basing as security provider, then that leverage gone. Now obviously US won't let shale go bankrupt, but CONUS energy would simply become another subsidy/burden item.
It doesn't take much for somebody to seem like a more reliable party to make a deal with than Trump. Trump has already made direct threats of military action against Europe. Making a deal together with China might be the better option.
Also, Trump asking the EU and other allies to contribute seems much more to be about shifting blame and cost. Participating in the quagmire he created, with such an unreliable partner seems like a terrible idea.
Except ... look at the map. If Iran wins they (and 10 other parties) control Bab-El-Mandeb and Hormuz. Indonesia has already announced they'll close Malacca if Iran wins.
That means that for Europe to trade with Asia, it has to either pay tax to 10 different countries ... or to the US.
In other words, it gives the US the ability to apply import tariffs the way the UK famously did: if France or any EU country wants to trade with China, or any Asian country they'll have to pay tariffs ... to the US. The American revolution coming full circle.
Obviously words cannot describe what a disaster this would be for the EU.
Indonesia did not announce they would close down the strait of Malacca. Someone made an offhand comment that they would consider tolls if Iran could get away with it, and then the government announced as a response they would never do that.
Unless China makes a deal. They definitely want their trade with Europe. Europe is currently a much more reliable trading partner to them than the US.
Why don't you ask the EU how well making deals with Iran went so far? Hell, why not ask Israel? (they've been making deals with Iran for 47 years and saved their bacon, espeically in the Iran-Iraq war, multiple times. The sad truth is that half the Iranian regime, both the regime itself and the individuals involved owe Israel their lives. Most owe both the Mossad and the IDF their lives)
Here's how politico describes the EU's relation with the Iranian regime in one article: "Iran continues to hold and execute European Union citizens, using capital punishment for accused spies or dissidents, leading to severe diplomatic tension and EU condemnation of 'hostage diplomacy'"
You think Trump is untrustworthy? When is the last time Trump invited someone for diplomacy ... then had that person executed?
I mean, I get why people make the point that Trump is the worst US president ever to deal with. That's politics, and there's an election coming up... what I don't understand is why people get confused about that still making him 1000x better than a lot of other parties.
> When is the last time Trump invited someone for diplomacy ... then had that person executed?
When Trump approved Israel's strike on the Hamas negotiators...
>I mean, I get why people make the point that Trump is the worst US president ever to deal with. That's politics, and there's an election coming up... what I don't understand is why people get confused about that still making him 1000x better than a lot of other parties.
You answered your own question - that’s politics. It doesn’t need to make sense to you.
Ridiculous article. It is not even a war when no one on the American side has died. Von Clausewitz would have some choice words for this armchair general.
> no one on the American side has died.
Incorrect. Thirteen US service members are confirmed to have died, here are their names:
Here are the press releases from the US government acknowledging their deaths:Sgt. Benjamin Pennington (age 26) Maj. Sorffly Davius (age 46) Maj. Jeffrey O'Brien (age 45) Capt. Cody Khork (age 35) Sgt. Noah Tietjens (age 42) Sgt. Nicle Amor (age 39) Sgt. Declan Coady (age 20) Maj. John Klinner (age 33) Capt. Ariana Savino (age 31) Tech. Sgt. Ashley Pruitt (age 34) Capt. Seth Koval (age 38) Capt. Curtis Angst (age 30) Tech. Sgt. Tyler H Simmons (age 28)https://www.war.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/4428396/do...
https://www.war.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/4428157/do...
https://www.war.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/4421430/do...
https://www.war.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/4420475/do...
https://www.war.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/4434924/do...
Rest in peace.
@dang my stalker has returned.
America does have a not-such-a-complete-disaster, and probably by now quite popular, possible way out.
Cut off Israel, and contain them with treaties, including nuclear non-proliferation and inspections.
Unite the gulf states under that understanding, and particularly Oman, to at least share control of the strait.
Cutting off Israel would be very popular in some quarters, but absolutely impossible in others -- most notably, the political party currently in charge of the US.
About half of that party is religious fanatics who are pushing Israel towards bringing about Armageddon and the return of the Messiah.
The other half believe that Israel holds a crucial security role as the only American ally in the Middle East. Or at least, if they don't believe that, they're politically allied to the first half, and aren't looking to upset that apple cart. It would be unbelievably costly to them, politically.
The other political party is less absolutely wedded to Israel, but it does have quite a few Jews in it. Even Jews who are uncomfortable with Israel's behavior are not thrilled about the idea of abandoning it, surrounded by enemies who have been engaged in constant warfare against it for decades.
That party also has a lot of people who consider Israel beyond the pale and would be ecstatic to have it dumped. And politically, that might be a net benefit to that party to get them on their side -- a lot of the party's woes have to do with the split over this issue.
Still, it seems extremely unlikely to me. Although there are some who are absolutely in favor, opposition is also extremely strong.
> Cut off Israel, and contain them with treaties, including nuclear non-proliferation and inspections.
My AIPAC funded Congressman and Senators will allow no such thing.