Ian Welsh

The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: Military Page 1 of 16

Facts On the Ground In Ukraine

By

On August 3, 2026

40 Comments

Escalating against a more powerful foe is usually a bad idea.

Ukrainians are finding this out now. There’s no denying that Ukraine’s strikes on Russia oil infrastructure, especially refineries have been effective, or that its strikes against Russian shipping had an effect but that campaign led to Russia changing its strategy as well.

It has basically turned Ukraine into a landlocked country with massive strikes against Ukrainian ports. This is as the harvest needs to be sold.

A systematic attack on gas and diesel distribution in the country, by taking out gas stations, has made logistics within the country extremely difficult. It’s not just that Ukraine is landlocked, it’s that once you get into the country by land, it’s hard to move at all.

This has always been the problem Ukraine faces: Russia is just more powerful. Putin was very restrained for most of the war, not taking out dual use infrastructure, letting power stay on, etc, etc… This is the sort of stuff that the US usually takes out first, as it did in both Iraq wars. Russia didn’t.

But while Putin has been remarkably humane for a wartime leader, there is an implicit quid-pro-quo here: we leave certain things alone and you return the favor. Ukraine, knowing it was slowly losing by accepting that status quo has broken it multiple times and each time Putin’s release of constraints on the Russian military has meant that Ukraine was hurt worse than Russia.

It’s instructive to notice that in the Iranian war the US has actually been fairly restrained compared to its normal operations, for the simple reason that while Iran can’t hit the US homeland, it can hit US allies infrastructure. So Trump’s latest promise to turn off all the lights in Tehran came to nought, as have the past threats, because Iran can turn off the lights and water in the Middle East, and more importantly, smash oil production and refining in ways that would take a decade to repair, even as US petroleum reserves keep dropping.

John Arnold put together a good timeline:

March 23: Postponed announced attacks on Iran’s power grid, citing “very good and productive” negotiations March 26: Extended deadline by another 10 days; negotiations were “going very well.”

April 7: Two week ceasefire to give time to conclude a proposed 10-point plan April 21: Extended ceasefire indefinitely after mediators requested more time May 18: Held off a major strike because “serious negotiations” were underway

June 11: Canceled strikes hours after threatening to hit Iran “very hard,” claiming a negotiating breakthrough

June 17: Signed an interim ceasefire agreement ending hostilities and beginning a 60-day period to negotiate a final agreement

July 27: Paused bombing campaign to give diplomacy another chance

August 1: Canceled planned attack after claiming that Iran had agreed on parameters of a deal

Iran says there’s not only no deal, but they aren’t even talking.

So deterrence has, to some extent, worked in the Middle East, but it hasn’t worked in Ukraine.

Zelensky is now offering Russia an “air campaign” cease fire: they’ll stop hitting Russia’s oil infrastructure and ports in exchange for the same.

Too late is my guess. “Now that this strategy is hurting us more than you, let’s stop” isn’t likely to be all that convincing to Russia.

Ukrainians are resisting conscription massively, the Russian army’s advance is slow, but it continues to advance, and Ukraine’s almost out of interceptors, since they’re going to the Middle East and Israel. A promise to let Ukraine make its own patriot missiles is unlikely to work: if they build them in Ukraine, they can be hit. This isn’t like drone manufacture, you can’t farm it out to thousands of dispersed households: it’s need a real factory, and the Russians will find that factory and hit it. Oh, and Ukraine’s post-war population is likely to be ten million less than the pre-war population, with women massively outnumbering men.

Ukraine needs a comprehensive peace deal. Much like America in the Middle East, this is a war it cannot win and which hurts it more than it hurts Russia. When you can’t win a war, you make concessions and go to peace. Denial of reality is not a war plan, it’s a way of marching to doom. At some point the Ukrainian army will collapse, and the conditions that Russia imposes in an unconditional surrender scenario are a lot worse than those they’ll get, even now, in a negotiated peace.

The same is true in the Middle East. Yes, Iran can’t conquer America, but what happens when diesel and gasoline and fertilizer and plastic and medicine shortages all hit the US mainland? The deal America gets in that situation is worse than the deal it gets if it makes peace now.

When you’ve lost a war, you’ve lost the war. Making your opponent prove it across the board will never lead to a better outcome.

 

What I write here is for the benefit of everyone, but alas, I live in capitalism and I, and the site, take money to keep running. If you value the writing here and can, please subscribe or donate.

We Live In Epochal Times

By

On July 28, 2026

16 Comments

History has cycles. When dealing with ideas about how to organize societies there are ideological and sub-ideological cycles. Various nations have been capitalist since the 16th century, but what the means kept changing, usually every 50 to 80 years. Britain started very protectionist. It had periods where imperialism and capitalism were very intertwined. It had laisszez faire periods. All of these were forms of capitalism, but they were quite different from each other. The Roman Empire is an empire from Augustus to the end, but the Rome of Augustus is very different from future Romes, with their serfs (something Augustinian Rome didn’t have), their German legionaires, and so on.

In our times there are people alive who remember two and a half transitions:

  • The transition from laissez-faire (in America) to New Deal.
  • The transition of New Deal to Neoliberalism.
  • The transition of neoliberalism to whatever the new system will be called. (This is not the old system, Trump’s crazed tariffs, export controls to major buyers, the severe cutting of research, etc… all show that.)

In China they remember:

  • The change from warlordism and Republicanism to Maoism.
  • The change from Maoism to Dengism.
  • The recent change from Dengism to Xiism.

Globally we remember multiple transitions as well

  • The transition from the multi-great power world centered on America/Europe to the Cold War world dominated by the USSR and US. (Note this transition involved two world wars.)
  • The transition from the cold war world to the unipolar superpower world with the US the world hegemonic power.
  • The current transition from the American hegeomonic world to whatever will replace it.

In energy technology we have one and a half transitions:

  • The transition from the coal world to the petrochem world;
  • The current transition from the petrochem world to the electrical world based on other power sources.

Note that the technological cycle is a LOT slower. (And yes, I’ve left out the digital/telecom, but you could easily make the same sort of schema.

There is also the environmental question, and that’s part of various cycles. We aren’t different from other cultures in this regard: one thesis for the fall of Mesopotamia from the world’s leading region for six to eight thousand years is environmental. They aren’t the only ones.

We have multiple changes income all once:

  • Sub ideological changes in how capitalism and democracy run in Europe and the US.
  • A more or less complete change in China from Dengism to Xi-ism.
  • A change to the world political system, with the rise of China and the weakness of America.
  • Environmental collapse
  • Climate Change

All of these at the same times. Not only is “nothing ever happens” bullshit (as it always was) but we live in a period of radical change, and it’s only going to become more obvious over time.

But there are people alive, albeit not many, who remember the pre-WWII world.

Change is constant. It seems slow to humans, but those who live a long life have seen a great, great deal of change. And we didn’t even discuss the way daily life has changed due to the change from the analog world to the digital one. (A change I personally think was probably more bad than good, though I certainly love large parts of it.) And, of course, there’s the revolution in war making technology, strategy and tactics, as big as the change to trench warfare, then the change to blitzkrieg and air war.

Everything changes. And if you have a perspective longer than a couple decades, everything changes pretty fast, actually. Certainly the world I grew up in, that I remember from the 70s and early 80s no longer exists.

In human affairs nothing is constant save change.

What I write here is for the benefit of everyone, but alas, I live in capitalism and I, and the site, take money to keep running. If you value the writing here and can, please subscribe or donate.

America Doesn’t Have Enough Missiles To Fight Iran

By

On July 20, 2026

51 Comments

Readers will remember that at the start of the Iran war I said that if it got serious, the Iranians would win, because they would run the US out of missiles, especially air defense missiles.

The math is simple. If Iran keeps firing, and the US/Israel does not take out the launchers and missile stockpiles in large numbers, Iran will run the US and Israel (it has its own variants, but the same supply issues) out of interceptors. At that point Iran hits everything it shoots at.

If Iran just keeps going long enough, it WILL win the war. The main danger is Iran’s leaders accepting a cease-fire too soon.

Well, confirmation from within the government:

“The U.S. is planning for a wider war,” said one U.S. official familiar with internal administration discussions, adding that the Pentagon was increasing the number of military aircraft in the region.
But the official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media, cautioned that the expansion of U.S. operations will be limited by dwindling stockpiles of air defense and long-range munitions and constraints on the ability to surge more troops and aircraft into the area because of battle damage.
“We do not have enough to safely sustain operations, and I don’t think the White House is aware of that,” the official said.

You will notice that I said the main mistake the Iranians could make was going to peace too soon. At least militarily speaking, there were diplomatic reasons to do so, since both Pakistan and China wanted a peace deal, and Pakistan has a defense pact with Saudi Arabia. Iran needed to prove that they had made all possible efforts, to continue receiving the support they need from China and to keep Pakistan out of the war.

There were also significant internal political reasons. What most people don’t understand is that the supreme leader almost never over-rides government consensus. Elijah Manjier is reliable on this (part behind a paywall). He has a lot of contacts in Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas.

The Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Sayyed Mojtaba Khamenei, never trusted the Memorandum of Understanding negotiated with Washington that was too good to be true. From the outset, he reportedly expressed reservations about American real and honest intentions and questioned whether the United States would ultimately implement its commitments. Nevertheless, despite his scepticism, he did not impose his personal assessment on the country’s political institutions or prevent the agreement from proceeding once it had secured substantial institutional support equivalent to the majority of the National Security Council voting.

In doing so, Sayyed Mojtaba Khamenei reportedly followed the political approach adopted by his assassinated father, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, during the negotiations that produced the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Although the late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei repeatedly warned that the United States could not be fully trusted, he allowed President Hassan Rouhani, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and the majority supporting them within the Supreme National Security Council to pursue the nuclear agreement because they believed diplomacy remained preferable to confrontation.

This position reflected a broader principle within Iran’s strategic decision-making system. The Leader establishes the general direction of national policy, but crucial security decisions are debated within institutions that include officials elected directly or indirectly by the population and their representatives, among them the president, the parliamentary speaker and senior government and military representatives. When a substantial institutional majority supports a particular course, the Leader permitted that collective judgement to be tested, even where it conflicts with his personal assessment of the risks involved.

However, the MOU’s failure strengthens those in the government who thought it was a waste of time.

The damage extends beyond the current political leadership. Future Iranian governments, regardless of their ideological orientation, will judge the risks of dealing with Washington against the combined experiences of the JCPOA and the more recent Memorandum. Even officials inclined towards negotiation may conclude that engagement carries prohibitive domestic costs unless future arrangements include enforceable guarantees, simultaneous implementation and mechanisms preventing one party from receiving concessions before abandoning its own obligations…

…Yet diplomatic options have not disappeared completely. The Memorandum itself showed that both sides remain capable of negotiating when the military, political and economic costs become sufficiently high. Any renewed process, however, would require a substantially different structure based on reciprocal implementation, verifiable sequencing, the release of assets alongside measurable Iranian steps, and guarantees sufficiently credible to survive political change in Washington or Tehran.

Manjier’s connected. I’d assume the last paragraph reflects what the Iranian government wants said about any possible new agreement.

Meanwhile in the war itself the Iranians are concentrating on taking out US bases, radars, supply depots, command/communications centers and so on. They’re systematically degrading the infrastructure the US uses. Note that they have started attacking in Jordan, which they had rarely done before. Jordan could be considered the “last shield” before Israel, and Israel’s basing of US assets is the next big goal, I suspect.

It seems clear that Iran is taking apart US logistics and command and control, and depleting weapon stocks faster than the US is doing this to Iran.

Again, the simple math.

Anything can happen in war, but I don’t see any way for the US to win this war if Iran stays the course, and we haven’t even included all the shortages coming down the line, especially now Ansar-Allah has closed another strait. The only people with serious leverage over Iran are China and Pakistan (and Pakistan’s is limited. There’s a deal, but they’d have mass riots if they tried to attack Iran. Pakistan’s population support for Iran polls around 80%.)

If America were even marginally competently run this would be the point where Congress would impeach Trump. He won’t admit defeat and oil stockpiles are running low. He has no viable part to victory, but keeps acting as if he does. He’s turning a military defeat into an economic catastrophe thru his delusional disconnect from reality, or perhaps because he’s being blackmailed. Whatever the reason for his behaviour, he needs to go. (Yes, I’m aware this won’t happen, that’s the point.)

In all my life, and I’m getting old now, I have never seen a stupider war or an American elite more determinedly detached from reality.

 

What I write here is for the benefit of everyone, but alas, I live in capitalism and I, and the site, take money to keep running. If you value the writing here and can, please subscribe or donate.

 

x

America Attacks Iran & Declares The Truce Over

By

On July 8, 2026

30 Comments

From the orange man’s mouth:

“As far as I’m concerned, it’s over,” Trump said at the ongoing Nato summit in Ankara when asked if the truce with Iran was now finished.

“It’s just a waste of time dealing with them,” AFP reported.

He blasted Iran’s leaders after Washington launched strikes on the Islamic Republic and Iran said it targeted US bases in the Gulf.

“They’re sick, there’s something wrong with them,” he said.

Treasury also re-instated oil sanctions on Iran.

The simple calculus is that the US was trying to re-open the Strait through Oman waters, and while they got a few ships thru, the Iranians stopped most of them hit some. As long as the Strait stays closed, the US is under pressure, because there is a physical economy, and reserves are running down, leaving aside shortages in fertilizer, helium and so on.

Iran just needs to keep the Strait closed to put pressure on the US homeland. As usual, the US can’t be hit directly by its enemies, so this is Iran’s way of hurting America even though its missiles can’t reach American cities.

On the other hand, the US can directly hit Iran, and if they didn’t actually want peace on the terms of the MOU, which apparently they didn’t (though I think this is a factional dispute inside the administration), then going back to hitting Iran makes sense.

Problem is that if the Iranian military does what it’s threatening to do, which is to blow the hell out of oil infrastructure in the Gulf States, the shortages will last years.

And the US isn’t leaving Iran with a lot of other options in terms of escalation.

Anyway, we’ll see what happens. Trump’s decisions have the consistency of runny jello, the real question is if the Iranian hard line faction wins their internal debate and is given the green light to go all out.

What I write here is for the benefit of everyone, but alas, I live in capitalism and I, and the site, take money to keep running. If you value the writing here and can, please subscribe or donate.

Russia War Situation & A Possible EU/Russia War

By

On June 29, 2026

45 Comments

This is elevated from comments, by Purple Library Guy.

Picked up and posted on the front page because it’s a balanced assessment. No, Russia isn’t losing, and it’s interesting that so much Western media is suggesting it is. That said, Russia isn’t having everything its way either. – Ian

As to the current war, Russia is winning, but I’d have to say I don’t think they’re real happy with how it’s going. The damage Ukraine is doing to Russia is real, the damage they’re doing to Russian logistics in Crimea is serious and could lead to a Ukrainian offensive with some success in that area. They have had some success in counterattacks in Zaporozhia. Drones have allowed them to hang tough on the defensive for far longer than they could have without that huge technological shift on the battlefield. It is not going all Russia’s way, or how the Russian high command would prefer it to be going. They’d really prefer all that stuff wasn’t happening.

But that said, Russia has nonetheless done FAR more damage to Ukraine and the Ukrainian armed forces than Ukraine has done to them. At the moment, Ukraine and Russia are attacking each other with similar amounts of long-distance drones, but Russia has much better defenses so does not get actually hit with as many. Still more than they’d like, but not as many. But on top of that, Russia is still doing damage with bombs dropped from planes, missiles, and even some old fashioned artillery. Ukraine doesn’t have much of any of that. They do have some missiles, mostly from the Brits, but not in comparable numbers. Where Russia has lost serious logistics capability in one place on the front, Ukraine’s logistics and military capabilities and manufacturing have been seriously eroded over the whole country.

And the attrition at the military level continues at a solid pace. Some hackers claim to have gotten hold of Ukrainian casualty numbers; apparently 2.4 million Ukrainian troops dead or missing, 400,000 of which are from so far this year. I don’t think Ukraine is replacing troops at a rate of 400,000 per half-year. Already I hear some sections of the front are held almost entirely by a few drone squads. At some point men, materiel and/or logistics erode to the point where sections of the front just can’t be held. Probably if they mount a serious counterattack around Crimea, that just accelerates the time when that happens, even if the counterattack is tactically successful.

As to a possible more direct war between Europe and Russia . . . I think they would find themselves dealing with the same problem Russia has, only much worse. Drones favour the defense massively at the level of taking territory. In such a war, Russia would be on the defensive, and Europe would be getting creamed by drones as they tried to advance. The difference being that Russia is fundamentally much stronger than Ukraine, and so the drone revolution on the battlefield can drastically slow the Russian win but cannot in the end stop it. Whereas Europe is not fundamentally much stronger than Russia in military matters, and so trying to take the offensive against a Russia with, now, much more experience in drone warfare than Europe, would lead to European armies being fed into a meat-grinder. And I don’t think Europe has the stones or the unity to keep up an aggressive war of attrition for all that long once the casualties start mounting up.

This is a very good thing, because if Europe attacked Russia and Russia felt really threatened, there would be a nuclear war and we would all die. It really creeps me out that hardly anyone seems to notice this problem any more.

Brief Iran Update

By

On June 26, 2026

24 Comments

So, Iran closed the Strait because Israel wouldn’t leave Lebanon. Some ships tried to leave to Iran struck the ships. Trump called that a violation of the truce and struck targets in Iran.

As predicted, there is no peace possible if the US won’t control Israel.

Meanwhile in Lebanon the government signed an agreement with Israel saying that Hezbollah is to be disarmed. Hezbollah straight up said:

Hezbollah MP Hassan Fadlallah: ‘Hezbollah considers the Lebanese presidency and government illegal and unconstitutional. We shall not permit this unconstitutional institution to implement any deal on the ground.’

The Lebanese army can’t disarm Hezbollah, Hezbollah is far stronger. I doubt they’ll seriously try, whatever Aoun orders. The deal would amount to ceding southern Lebanon to Israel permanently. Aoun might not care, it’s all Shia land, but Hezbollah won’t go along.

No peace is possible if the US won’t either restrain Israel or cut it loose. “If Iran and Israel fight, we will not intervene.”

Controlling Israel is easy. What Kissinger and Nixon did was just stop weapon shipments. That’s all it takes.

Oh, and Israel lost its battle to take Ali Taher Hill. Wound up begging Hezbollah to allow them to retrieve the corpses of their fallen soldiers. The Israeli ground forces really are absolute crap.

The MOU was very one sided: everything was what Iran wanted, not what the US wanted. That’s because the Strait being closed really will wreck America. This remains true. Iran appears to believe this, and they are willing to go back to war or semi-war until the US disciplines Israel. No signs of cutting Hezbollah loose.

Hope you’re looking forward to very high food prices, bare shelves and eventual food riots. Because if the US doesn’t make peace these are all coming to America. Oil prices have been held artificially low by market manipulation, but there is a real world and in that real world distillates like diesel are running very low.

At this point it’s clear Trump has to go, for America’s sake. Vance is scum, but he’s realistic scum. If it was up to him, there’d be peace.

Here’s hoping the MOU gets back on track. I don’t like the world where it doesn’t.

What I write here is for the benefit of everyone, but alas, I live in capitalism and I, and the site, take money to keep running. If you value the writing here and can, please subscribe or donate.

Can Europe Win A War With Russia?

By

On June 25, 2026

58 Comments

European elites appear to be preparing for war with Russia. Lots of new military spending, lots of anti-Russia rhetoric, willingness to let Ukraine launch drones from their territory and plenty of provocations like seizing tankers. They’re pretty open about preparing for war.

So, can they win such a war, starting in say 2030?

On paper it shouldn’t be much of a contest. Europe’s GDP is about 8x larger and its population is 3x larger. In principle, Russia should be smoked. Nor does history support “you can never beat Russia”, Germany lost in WWII, yes, but it won in World War one, nor was all of Europe fighting with it.

I’m gong to keep this simple. It isn’t GDP that matters, it’s resources and the ability to turn them into war materials, plus the willingness of the population to fight and die in large numbers.

Right now Russia alone produces more of the type of armaments that matter than all of Europe. Missiles, artillery, drones, glide bombs and so on. It has more oil and more minerals. It does have less population, but Russia’s historically been willing to absorb massive losses to defend the motherland.

Then we come to allies: Europe might have America, Russia might have China.

China is stronger. A lot stronger. Everything that Russia can’t make itself China can provide. Everything Russia needs that it can’t grow or dig up itself can be sent thru China to Russia from China’s African and Asian allies and there is no way for either the US or Europe to intercept all of that.

Nor is there any possibility that China will let Russia lose in any big way to Europe. Europe wants Russia broken up and subordinate to America and Europe. That would be an existential threat to China, and they know it. America can lose Europe and it will suck, but it isn’t existential.

This is how I predicted that Western sanctions would not work on Russia. I predicted it when the war started. Again, because everything Russia needed they could either produce themselves or get from China and even then Western elites were clear that the idea was to break up Russia and that China was the ultimate enemy.

The Chinese would have to be morons not to give Russia whatever support they needed, and unlike the West, China is not ruled by idiots or fools.

Europe can fight a very nasty war with Russia which wrecks both of them. But it can’t win in any meaningful fashion. European elites selling war or genuinely planning on war are either liars or fools or both. Europe’s problems cannot be fixed by war. Keynesian war stimulus will not fix their economic problems which are a result of the fact that they’re falling behind technologically and losing their industry to high input costs, including energy. They have less and less manufactured goods to sell to the rest of the world, can’t force the rest of the world to give them what they want or sell it below cost any more, and have no significant natural resources to sell to the rest of the world. Nor are they big leaders culturally any more, especially as China’s cultural sector takes on the standard great power glow—tons of money and people to work on it, and it must be great because China is great.

If Europe fights a real war with Russia all it will do is drive itself into the ground so it can go back to what it was for most of history: a barbaric backwater irrelevant to most of the rest of the world.

They need to fix their society and economy, and starting wars they can no longer win won’t do that.

What I write here is for the benefit of everyone, but alas, I live in capitalism and I, and the site, take money to keep running. If you value the writing here and can, please subscribe or donate.

Israel’s Support Is Eroding In the US

By

On June 19, 2026

14 Comments

A friend pointed out to me that Israel’s support is eroding hard. The elite consensus is shifting. Point in case:

The hard core Zionists will keep opposing this deal, of course, but there are two groups that are shiftable. The first is the one that Tapper belongs to: he’s an authority follower. He’s been hardcore pro-Israel and loathes Muslims, but his first instinct is to follow the leader. Trump’s made a clear turn, and Jake is following.

The second group are those who need administrative favor. Their livelihood or plans depend on the levers the President controls favoring them. They were for Iraq, for Ukraine, etc… but they have no strong ideological commitment, only self-interest.

Trump made a mistake letting hard core Zionists roll up media and social media, but there’s still enough run by self-interested or follow the leader types that if Trump stays solid, the American elite zeitgeist will shift towards his stance. Israel is an ideological commitment, it’s not, for most elites and courtiers, all that involved with making lots of money or being part of the in-group. If the window shifts, they’ll shift with it.

At a fundamental level what happened is that America got itself involved in a war which it couldn’t just walk away from. Losing in Vietnam was embarrassing but really, who cares? Just walk away. Losing in Afghanistan, likewise.

But the Iranians have the West’s balls in a vise and the vise was slowly tightening. Key reserves were way down. Oil at Cushing OK is near historic lows. Distillates are getting scarce. Market manipulation of the price of oil was very successful, but actual physical shortages were on the way, starting in a month or so. (Ironically, price manipulation meant that oil reserves drew down faster than if actual price discovery had been allowed.)

There is a real world, and a real economy and Iran had control of it. The econo-morons talking about how the effect of this has been less than the oil shocks are right when looking at market numbers, but it wasn’t going to stay less and even Trump figured that out.

So the neocons and the hard Zionists will attack, but if Trump had the least concern for the actual economy, he had to make a choice.

Meanwhile Israel is still fighting in Lebanon and the first real battle of the Lebanese invasion is taking place.

Both Hezbollah and Israel are concerned there’ll be a new, actually real ceasefire and Israel is seeking to create facts on the ground. Ali Taher hill is an important strategic objective, giving whoever controls it sight lines for miles around. This is the first large engagement I’m aware of in this invasion where Hezbollah has chosen to stand and fight, instead hitting and fading. (That’s not a criticism. Guerilla warfare makes sense for them.)

And so far they’re doing well, because the Israeli ground forces are actually crap.

The Iranians have not gone to Geneva for the signing or negotiations. They are holding firm on Lebanon. And that means Trump can either rein in the Israelis or the vise starts tightening around America’s balls again.

America cannot win this war. It is impossible. Even using nukes probably wouldn’t work fast enough. That’s why they agreed to a deal that is very pro-Iranian.

That has not changed. They can rein in Israel or cut it loose now, or they can do it in two months when the US is in much more pain, or in 4 months when there are food riots.

There’s a real world. America lost a war that matters. There’s going to be a price for that. If America is smart and not completely controlled by Israel, they’ll pay that price now and if necessary cut Israel lose, because the price will go up every day if the MOU fails.

What I write here is for the benefit of everyone, but alas, I live in capitalism and I, and the site, take money to keep running. If you value the writing here and can, please subscribe or donate.

 

Page 1 of 16

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén