1. Backing down means conceding Middle East to Iran
2. Bombing Iran aggressively will create an energy crisis unseen in human history, drain the already depleted US arsenal
3. Dragging this out will push energy cost higher, drain SPR to manipulate the price to show everything is fine
All scenarios lead to the end of US hegemony. There is no way to turnaround
Trump was smart to head for his new bunker under the ballroom, but …
I believe Prof Pape is right on an important point. The only deal with Trump Iran is interested in at this point is for a pound of flesh.
The Hormuz Letter @HormuzLetter
BREAKING: Iran’s IRGC is considering launching preemptive strikes as Iranian officials are aware of Trump’s political vulnerability and are looking to exploit, per WSJ.
Thanks for reading Meaning In History! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
The only question right now is how badly the US will be hurt as a result of this conflict. There's no way to get out of the predicament - chess has the term "zugzwang" which basically means any move that the participant makes leaves him in a worse position. And as far as "ceding" the ME to Iranian control, that is a foregone conclusion under any reasonable course of action.
When President Trump took office and started making noises about Greenland, I was hopeful that he recognized that the US Empire was overextended and needed a generational retrenchment and rebuild. Had he followed that course of action, the US could have remained a "first among equals (Russia and China)", dominated the Western Hemisphere, Europe, the Middle East and parts of Asia. A wise pullback would have preserved hegemony for at least another generation or two with the acceptance that the era from 1945 to 2005 was an historical anomaly (the US as sole superpower) and retrenchment was the best course of action.
The US didn't and the rest is history. One way or another the Empire is winding down and the only question is how bad will the breakup be. The ME is gone (even nukes wouldn't accomplish anything); Europe is de-industrializing (but industry doesn't seem to be relocating to the US, it just seems to be disappearing); the neo-liberal economics of the last 40+ years have gutted the US industrial base and workforce; finally the US military appears to be out of date by a generation (missiles and drones feel like the trenches and machine guns of 1915/1916). Actions taken in the last 10 years couldn't have been more detrimental (like, um, don't drive Russia and China together - which is exactly what we've done).
Finally our leadership seems focused on stealing anything that's not nailed down (and even some things that are). And notwithstanding our pre-eminence in financial capitalism, its short-term nature enriches a handful of individuals but impoverish the country as a whole. As we lose our industrial capabilities (those that still remain), the financial aspects become more important and we end up with a monopolized, extractive, rentier economy. And this once pre-eminent economy ends up as a colony (what do colonies do - export raw materials which is what the US's top exports are today).
Sorry to be so dour - the country can recover but not under our current leadership and not with our current policies (foreign and economic).
Mark,
The only question right now is how badly the US will be hurt as a result of this conflict. There's no way to get out of the predicament - chess has the term "zugzwang" which basically means any move that the participant makes leaves him in a worse position. And as far as "ceding" the ME to Iranian control, that is a foregone conclusion under any reasonable course of action.
When President Trump took office and started making noises about Greenland, I was hopeful that he recognized that the US Empire was overextended and needed a generational retrenchment and rebuild. Had he followed that course of action, the US could have remained a "first among equals (Russia and China)", dominated the Western Hemisphere, Europe, the Middle East and parts of Asia. A wise pullback would have preserved hegemony for at least another generation or two with the acceptance that the era from 1945 to 2005 was an historical anomaly (the US as sole superpower) and retrenchment was the best course of action.
The US didn't and the rest is history. One way or another the Empire is winding down and the only question is how bad will the breakup be. The ME is gone (even nukes wouldn't accomplish anything); Europe is de-industrializing (but industry doesn't seem to be relocating to the US, it just seems to be disappearing); the neo-liberal economics of the last 40+ years have gutted the US industrial base and workforce; finally the US military appears to be out of date by a generation (missiles and drones feel like the trenches and machine guns of 1915/1916). Actions taken in the last 10 years couldn't have been more detrimental (like, um, don't drive Russia and China together - which is exactly what we've done).
Finally our leadership seems focused on stealing anything that's not nailed down (and even some things that are). And notwithstanding our pre-eminence in financial capitalism, its short-term nature enriches a handful of individuals but impoverish the country as a whole. As we lose our industrial capabilities (those that still remain), the financial aspects become more important and we end up with a monopolized, extractive, rentier economy. And this once pre-eminent economy ends up as a colony (what do colonies do - export raw materials which is what the US's top exports are today).
Sorry to be so dour - the country can recover but not under our current leadership and not with our current policies (foreign and economic).
WSJ, Murdoch owned, is just trying to get Trump to restart attacks.