The Middle East conflict

[Cdd89]

I agree with the points that Iran has the US over a barrel, in the sense that Trump has no good options here that don't destroy his domestic popularity, but pessimistically I think this means escalation.

If Iran were rational, they would be trying to broker such a deal that massages Trump's ego. But I think we may be in the worst-case scenario whereby Iran is damaged enough that they lack the power structures in place for this kind of nuanced negotiation, while not being sufficiently destroyed for the war to end for that reason.

If Trump can't extricate the US from the war with a face-saving victory and a long-term solution to the energy crisis, then the relative political cost to Trump in escalating decreases – in particular I think a land invasion may be underpriced (not likely, but not unlikely anymore either) as it becomes apparent that no solution is forthcoming and Trump becomes more desperate.

 

[ainsworth74]

Trump can't TACO so easily on this one because it's not all in his hands; the Iranian and Israeli regimes both have a stake in this as well. Iran thinks it has the US over a barrel and will demand all sorts of concessions, while Israel, and more specifically Netanyahu, needs constant war to boost his election chances later this year, which is his one route to staying out of jail. Right now, neither group will end this fighting on Trump's terms.

I think that this is one of the more "interesting" for lack of better word things about this. With say the "beautiful" tariffs it was fairly straight forward to reverse direction on them. Sure damage was still done but it was fairly intangible and the people subject to the tariffs were willing to reduce/match the revised tariffs. It was in their interest to do so. Or with the ICE invasion of somewhere like Minneapolis in that case seeing as they weren't actually doing anything productive (like dealing with actual crime, rather than inventing it) and just instituting terror on the local population. Very easy therefore to simply declare victory and dial down the terror.

This time? Well this time Iran gets a vote on what happens and has been preparing this for sort of conflict for a long time. Israel similarly gets a vote as do all the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia. There are a lot more moving pieces to this one and so it is that much harder for Trump to declare victory and dial everything back to something akin to a status quo ante.

He really has gotten himself into trouble here and there's no obvious good choices for extricating himself unless, in particular, Iran and Israel are willing to go along with it...

 

[ainsworth74]

If Trump can't extricate the US from the war with a face-saving victory and a long-term solution to the energy crisis, then the relative political cost to Trump in escalating decreases – in particular I think a land invasion may be underpriced (not likely, but not unlikely anymore either) as it becomes apparent that no solution is forthcoming and Trump becomes more desperate.

It always times like this that I try not to think about the fact that the President has sole discretionary nuclear launch authority and has previously (prior the 2016 election) apparently asked why the US couldn't use nuclear weapons.

Donald Trump asked a foreign policy expert advising him why the U.S. can’t use nuclear weapons, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough said on the air Wednesday, citing an unnamed source who claimed he had spoken with the GOP presidential nominee.

“Several months ago, a foreign policy expert on the international level went to advise Donald Trump. And three times [Trump] asked about the use of nuclear weapons. Three times he asked at one point if we had them why can’t we use them,” Scarborough said on his “Morning Joe” program.

Scarborough made the Trump comments 52 seconds into an interview with former Director of Central Intelligence and ex-National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden.

Trump asks why US can't use nukes: MSNBC

Trump asked a foreign policy advisor why the U.S. can't use nuclear weapons, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough says, citing an unnamed source.

www.cnbc.com

 

[najaB]

It always times like this that I try not to think about the fact that the President has sole discretionary nuclear launch authority and has previously (prior the 2016 election) apparently asked why the US couldn't use nuclear weapons.

You would like to think that somewhere in the chain between the nuclear football and the launch key someone will refuse to follow the order.

 

[ainsworth74]

You would like to think that somewhere in the chain between the nuclear football and the launch key someone will refuse to follow the order.

Once it gets much beyond the Secretary of Defence and the Chair of the Joint Chiefs I don't see that happening. US nuclear command and control is designed (and selects for amongst the people staffing it) to transmit and execute valid launch orders quickly and accurately. It is absolutely not designed to allow for questioning or even thinking about those launch orders. If an authenticated launch order arrives at the sharp end, it's getting executed. It's a very thin wire we're relying on at that point...

 

[najaB]

Once it gets much beyond the Secretary of Defence and the Chair of the Joint Chiefs I don't see that happening.

That's true to an extent.

However, while Pete Kegseth likely wears Florsheim shoes that are too big, I do not believe that anyone at the level of the Joint Chiefs or the admirals/generals who report directly to them would act on an order for an unprovoked first strike on a non nuclear-armed state.

 

[Harpo]

He really has gotten himself into trouble here and there's no obvious good choices for extricating himself unless, in particular, Iran and Israel are willing to go along with it...

Trump has met his match - People way more unpredictable than he is and who won’t play to his mode of operation where everything is solved with a (mafia-like) ‘deal’.

 

[ainsworth74]

However, while Pete Kegseth likely wears Florsheim shoes that are too big, I do not believe that anyone at the level of the Joint Chiefs or the admirals/generals who report directly to them would act on an order for an unprovoked first strike on a non nuclear-armed state.

Fingers crossed...

Which isn't really what I like to rely on...

Trump has met his match - People way more unpredictable than he is and who won’t play to his mode of operation where everything is solved with a (mafia-like) ‘deal’.

Absolutely.

 

[brad465]

This will not surprise anyone who has been paying even a small amount of attention:

https://www.ft.com/content/1171d623-3709-4f6e-8ded-a5df4ec57696

Traders made bets worth half a billion dollars in the oil market about 15 minutes before Donald Trump’s post touting “productive” talks with Iran sent the price of crude tumbling and ignited volatility in other assets.

In a sane world every entity/person involved in that trade would be investigated for insider trading. On its own this is immoral and greedy behaviour. Throw in the loss of lives this conflict has caused, including over 100 schoolgirls, this is categorically evil.

 

[Gloster]

This will not surprise anyone who has been paying even a small amount of attention:

https://www.ft.com/content/1171d623-3709-4f6e-8ded-a5df4ec57696

In a sane world every entity/person involved in that trade would be investigated for insider trading. On its own this is immoral and greedy behaviour. Throw in the loss of lives this conflict has caused, including over 100 schoolgirls, this is categorically evil.

It has been commented by someone in the field that this was higher than normal for that time of day but not exceptionally so, which makes me wonder if only a very small number of people were both party to the information and willing to abuse their position. Cynically, I suspect that almost all in the first group also belong to the second group.

Anyway, how can you call it evil. This is making money for the righteous and did not Jesus say, ‘Thou shalt rake in the dollars in any way you can get away with.’

 

[SargeNpton]

That's true to an extent.

However, while Pete Kegseth likely wears Florsheim shoes that are too big, I do not believe that anyone at the level of the Joint Chiefs or the admirals/generals who report directly to them would act on an order for an unprovoked first strike on a non nuclear-armed state.

However, those same people didn't seem to object to an act of war (even though it was couched in different language) that the Constitution requires congressional approval for.

 

[najaB]

However, those same people didn't seem to object to an act of war (even though it was couched in different language) that the Constitution requires congressional approval for.

That's pretty much how it's been for the last 70 years. As long as you don't call it a war then no Congressional approval is required.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Mar 2026 ==

This will not surprise anyone who has been paying even a small amount of attention:

https://www.ft.com/content/1171d623-3709-4f6e-8ded-a5df4ec57696

In a sane world every entity/person involved in that trade would be investigated for insider trading. On its own this is immoral and greedy behaviour. Throw in the loss of lives this conflict has caused, including over 100 schoolgirls, this is categorically evil.

Place your bets...!

Link to a video on the A Different Bias YouTube channel outlining reasons to believe that there will be a ceasefire timed for maximum market manipulation.

 

[ainsworth74]

That's pretty much how it's been for the last 70 years. As long as you don't call it a war then no Congressional approval is required.

True but even then there is the War Powers Resolution which is supposed to provide some check of Presidential power by requiring the President to provide a report to Congress within 48 hours of why they've taken the action they have and what the scope and expected duration of those actions will be. Then, unless Congress passes an "authorisation of military force" the action is limited to sixty days after which US forces must be withdrawn within thirty days. Of course, as with so much of the wider Constitutional arrangements within the US, that only matters if Congress intends to do its job and hold the Presidency to account.

It is always worth recalling that all of this could be brought to swift end should Congress decide to actually be a check on the untrammelled Presidential power that Trump and his acolytes have grasped and Congress cares not to stop.


The "48 hour report" for the Iran affair is broken down here (and there's a link to the original on that page as well):

Purpose/Mission​

Respond to threat
Details: “Despite my Administration’s repeated efforts to achieve a diplomatic solution to Iran’s malign behavior, the threat to the United States and its allies and partners became untenable. . . . These strikes were undertaken to protect United States forces in the region, protect the United States homeland, advance vital United States national interests, including ensuring the free flow of maritime commerce through the Strait of Hormuz, and in collective self-defense of our regional allies, including Israel.”

Domestic Legal Authority​

Constitution (Art. II)
Details: “I directed this military action consistent with my responsibility to protect Americans and United States interests both at home and abroad and in furtherance of United States national security and foreign policy interests. I acted pursuant to my constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive to conduct United States foreign relations.”

Claimed International Legal Basis​

Self-Defense
Details: “These strikes were undertaken to protect United States forces in the region, protect the United States homeland, advance vital United States national interests, including ensuring the free flow of maritime commerce through the Strait of Hormuz, and in collective self-defense of our regional allies, including Israel.”

Estimated Scope/Duration​

Mission-bound but indeterminate
Details: “Although the United States desires a quick and enduring peace, it is not possible at this time to know the full scope and duration of military operations that may be necessary. As such, United States forces remain postured to take further action, necessary and appropriate, to address further threats and attacks upon the United States or its allies and partners, and ensure the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran ceases being a threat to the United States, its allies, and the international community.”

Type of Enemy or Mission​

Nation-state
Details: “the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran”

Military Activity​

Air operations
Details: “United States forces conducted precision strikes against numerous targets within Iran . . . No United States ground forces were used in these strikes”

US Casualties Reported​

Unknown

Non-US Casualties Reported​

Unknown

Reporting as it Relates to Termination Clock​

Unknown

20260302A

A living resource on presidential reporting practice and the use of U.S. armed forces abroad.

warpowers.lawandsecurity.org

In theory if Trump cannot bring this to an end within 60 days then he should begin with the withdrawal of US forces from the conflict unless Congress provides him with either a declaration of war or an authorisation for use of military force.

 

[najaB]

True but even then there is the War Powers Resolution which is supposed to provide some check of Presidential power by requiring the President to provide a report to Congress within 48 hours of why they've taken the action they have and what the scope and expected duration of those actions will be. Then, unless Congress passes an "authorisation of military force" the action is limited to sixty days after which US forces must be withdrawn within thirty days. Of course, as with so much of the wider Constitutional arrangements within the US, that only matters if Congress intends to do its job and hold the Presidency to account.

While I was only speaking to the fact that the Air Force didn't object to starting the "excursion", that is very useful additional context. Thanks for adding it.

 

[bleeder4]

This will not surprise anyone who has been paying even a small amount of attention:

https://www.ft.com/content/1171d623-3709-4f6e-8ded-a5df4ec57696

In a sane world every entity/person involved in that trade would be investigated for insider trading. On its own this is immoral and greedy behaviour. Throw in the loss of lives this conflict has caused, including over 100 schoolgirls, this is categorically evil.

The pandemic was full of this sort of thing as well. Weren't there instances where Moderna and Pfizer stock returns suddenly got significantly higher immediately before positive COVID-19 vaccine development information was made public?

 

[The Ham]

Anyway, how can you call it evil. This is making money for the righteous and did not Jesus say, ‘Thou shalt rake in the dollars in any way you can get away with.’

Indeed, it's 2nd Donald chapter 6 vs 12.

(Well at least if you're reading the Trump Bible TM and you know it's scriptural as it quotes that other great scripture - The Art of The Deal)

Anyone who questions this, clearly doesn't love the glorious leader.

 

[Bantamzen]

This will not surprise anyone who has been paying even a small amount of attention:

https://www.ft.com/content/1171d623-3709-4f6e-8ded-a5df4ec57696

In a sane world every entity/person involved in that trade would be investigated for insider trading. On its own this is immoral and greedy behaviour. Throw in the loss of lives this conflict has caused, including over 100 schoolgirls, this is categorically evil.

This is not the first time Trump may well have been at the heart of something like this. After the first round of his tariffs, he was caught boasting off-mic that he and a number of his (rich) supporters had made 8, 9, and even 10 figure dollar profits as a result. It's a very, very fair bet that the timing of some of the flip-flopping he's been doing has been carefully calculated, as some people seem to <cough> coincidentally <splutter> make market bets that just happen to pre-empt the exact change of policy made.

It's a bad enough practice in normal times, but doing it whilst we stand on the edge of a major escalation in both wars and potentially a rise in terrorism, perhaps even the unthinkable scenario of it charging out of control towards WWIII, is nothing sort of evil.

 

[Annetts key]

Times News interviews Lt Col Daniel Davis, who makes some interesting comments on the war in Iran.

Trump Now Realises Military Action On Strait Of Hormuz Won’t Work | Lt Col Daniel Davis

“He’s trying to get a different deal because he sees there’s no military solution.”

Trump now realises that military action won’t open the Strait of Hormuz, says Lt Col Daniel Davis.

He goes on to say that trying to put U.S. troops on the ground in Iran is a very bad idea.

 

[Cdd89]

Interesting video. I'd say the issue around military action to reopen the Strait is that it doesn't make sense financial sense for the US to bear the full costs of doing so, considering the military costs to make it "safe enough to get things moving" would be enormous, but they only benefit by the discount on the amount of oil they consume (around 20% of the world's supply), and also "safe enough" only incentivises ships to take the risk while prices are elevated so the discount would be limited. In other words, it's not in the US's interest to expend military effort to only partially fix a problem that 80% affects the rest of the world.

It might be a different proposition if the US's global allies were to get involved with escorting/defence, and sometimes I wonder if Ukraine is a little disappointed in Europe for not doing more here, given that Russia benefits from higher oil prices: even though the US started the war, wishing the US didn't do what they did a month ago isn't a solution (unless anyone has a time machine? ).

On the other hand, given that Trump constantly announces that the best deal ever is just around the corner as part of his delusional negotiations, it's hard to see appetite building for joint military operations. I suspect Starmer in particular is tired of taking political risks to "support Trump" only to have nothing to show for it.

 

[najaB]

Interesting video. I'd say the issue around military action to reopen the Strait is that it doesn't make sense financial sense for the US to bear the full costs of doing so, considering the military costs to make it "safe enough to get things moving" would be enormous, but they only benefit by the discount on the amount of oil they consume (around 20% of the world's supply), and also "safe enough" only incentivises ships to take the risk while prices are elevated so the discount would be limited. In other words, it's not in the US's interest to expend military effort fixing a problem that 80% affects the rest of the world.

A much less monetarily expensive solution would be to....er... stop bombing Iran. This problem only exists because Israel and the USA decided to launch a pointless air campaign against Iran.

 

[Cdd89]

A much less monetarily expensive solution would be to....er... stop bombing Iran

While I wish this were accurate, as per my comment above about time machines unfortunately at this point I don't think that solves the problem.

Iran view themselves as having a major bargaining chip over the US, and would be likely to continue the blockade to seek further concessions.

 

[najaB]

While I wish this were accurate, as per my comment above about time machines unfortunately at this point I don't think that solves the problem.

Iran view themselves as having a major bargaining chip over the US, and would be likely to continue the blockade to seek further concessions.

That is the point I was making though - there's an entirely political solution to this problem, it just requires the USA to deal with Iran in a civilised manner.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That is the point I was making though - there's an entirely political solution to this problem, it just requires the USA to deal with Iran in a civilised manner.

And to concede that, because they bombed Iran, they are going to have to concede more than they did before for access to be reinstated.

I'd be unsurprised, for instance, if the condition to pay a fee per ship in Yuan Renminbi (specifically not dollars) would remain, even if the amount might be reduced from the rather swingeing $2m equivalent. That said, apparently a tanker contains about $150m worth of oil, so maybe $2m is where it might stay.

 

[Annetts key]

Interesting video. I'd say the issue around military action to reopen the Strait is that it doesn't make sense financial sense for the US to bear the full costs of doing so, considering the military costs to make it "safe enough to get things moving" would be enormous, but they only benefit by the discount on the amount of oil they consume (around 20% of the world's supply), and also "safe enough" only incentivises ships to take the risk while prices are elevated so the discount would be limited. In other words, it's not in the US's interest to expend military effort to only partially fix a problem that 80% affects the rest of the world.

It might be a different proposition if the US's global allies were to get involved with escorting/defence, and sometimes I wonder if Ukraine is a little disappointed in Europe for not doing more here, given that Russia benefits from higher oil prices: even though the US started the war, wishing the US didn't do what they did a month ago isn't a solution (unless anyone has a time machine? ).

On the other hand, given that Trump constantly announces that the best deal ever is just around the corner as part of his delusional negotiations, it's hard to see appetite building for joint military operations. I suspect Starmer in particular is tired of taking political risks to "support Trump" only to have nothing to show for it.

Three points:

• Most of the oil that goes through the Strait Of Hormuz doesn't go to Europe or other NATO countries (yes, some does go to Southern Europe).
• As said by others, the quickest and cheapest way is for the U.S.A. and Israel to stop attacking Iran and to provide some meaningful assurances.
• Why should European and other NATO countries put their navy ships at risk when the U.S.A. and Israel started this war without even consulting any European or other NATO countries? Trump made the mess, he can fix it at America's cost.

The reason that the cost of oil, natural gas and other oil derived products have gone up in most places around the world is because these are worldwide markets. A shortage of the prediction of a shortage causes all worldwide prices to rise.

 

[Cdd89]

I'd be unsurprised, for instance, if the condition to pay a fee per ship in Yuan Renminbi (specifically not dollars) would remain, even if the amount might be reduced from the rather swingeing $2m equivalent.

I find it really hard to imagine a situation where the US stops the war, and Iran controls the waterways and charges a fee to any country going through there. Firstly the US wouldn't stop, and secondly this would rapidly become a world problem to solve. I don't see how the war ends until the Strait of Hormuz being fully reopened, one way or another.

Also, if Iran could easily have done this, they would have done it before the war – when they were in a better military position. Why wouldn't they have wanted to control the strait and collect a toll? Even viewing the action as misguided, Iran's resources are heavily depleted compared to the start making this I think even less likely in the long term.

 

[Annetts key]

I find it really hard to imagine a situation where the US stops the war, and Iran controls the waterways and charges a fee to any country going through there. Firstly the US wouldn't stop, and secondly this would rapidly become a world problem to solve. I don't see how the war ends until the Strait of Hormuz being fully reopened, one way or another.

Also, if Iran could easily have done this, they would have done it before the war – when they were in a better military position. Why wouldn't they have wanted to control the strait and collect a toll? Even viewing the action as misguided, Iran's resources are heavily depleted compared to the start making this I think even less likely in the long term.

And exactly how would you guarantee the safety of oil tankers, LNG tankers and other commercial ships?
Iran only has to fire a single drone, rocket, missile, high speed boat with explosives or similar at a single ship and then no commercial ship will dare to try again. Well apart from those that are from Iran friendly countries which are still passing through in small numbers.

No practical military operation can change this in any reasonable time frame. that's why Trump was warned about this before he started this war. He chose to ignore the advice hoping that the regime would fall.

Instead, the regime is still in power and is betting on Trump coming under pressure from price rises in the U.S.A. and on the other countries in the region getting fed up with Trump.

Trump 's poll rating is still as low as ever. And as the increased cost of fuel works it's way through the system causing price rises for many products, his rating is very likely to get worse. Not good in the run up to the mid term elections. Upsetting many voters after promising to tackle the cost of living in America...

 

[Cdd89]

You appear to be arguing against a point I haven't made!

My point was merely that this war doesn't end without the Strait fully reopened, either by force or as a central condition of a negotiated settlement. I'm don't think that contradicts anything you've written.

I do think Trump is desperate to reach a settlement (when he says Iran are desperate I think that is projection), but if one can't be reached then Trump doesn't get a solution to his domestic problems (higher oil prices), and it clearly becomes in the US's interests to continue the war.

 

[DarloRich]

I have got some questions here:

• What are the goals of this action?
• What does victory look like?
• How do the USA get out of this situation?
• What is USA plan for victory day +1?
• Are the USA goals the same as the Israeli goals?
• What are the rules for ground intervention?
• How much will the MAGA base tolerate?
• Is there any chance of getting allies to help out with the straights?

Anyone got the answer? Trump doesn't seem to!

 

[Annetts key]

I have got some questions here:

• What are the goals of this action?
• What does victory look like?
• How do the USA get out of this situation?
• What is USA plan for victory day +1?
• Are the USA goals the same as the Israeli goals?
• What are the rules for ground intervention?
• How much will the MAGA base tolerate?
• Is there any chance of getting allies to help out with the straights?

Anyone got the answer? Trump doesn't seem to!

For everything but the last question, the answer is nobody knows.
For the last question, it's unlikely any country (apart from maybe the U.S.) will want to get involved.

 

[najaB]

Also, if Iran could easily have done this, they would have done it before the war – when they were in a better military position. Why wouldn't they have wanted to control the strait and collect a toll?

They didn't, and they don't. They don't really want to collect tolls. Even at $2M per vessel it would only represent a tiny boost to their economy.

What they really want is the lifting of sanctions, tolls are a bargaining chip.

Tolls would bring in tens of billions a year, Iranian oil exports could potentially represent more than two hundred billion annually.