Mango Mussolini’s Morass

I highly recommend this video from last night’s PBS Newshour for a lucid, hardheaded explanation of the current status of the Iran War. 

Here are a few additional thoughts.

Iran’s Rulers are Behaving Like Rational Bad People

Yes, Iran is hurting economically and militarily. Yes, Trump is so desperate for an “off ramp” that he would willingly give the Iranian rulers a very sweet deal if only they would give him some means of saving face.

But here’s the deal—from the rational bad person’s point of view: if they buy off Trump, there’s a strong likelihood that he won’t stay bought. Trump is a psychotic, delusional man-child who thinks the U.S. Navy, Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps are his toy soldiers. He is entirely capable of making a deal with you this week and trying to kill you next week.

From the rational bad people’s standpoint, the only possible way to be sure of getting peace is put Trump in a place where he is thoroughly humiliated—a place where he is forced to admit defeat.

Mango Mussolini’s Three Choices

1. He could send in the ground troops. (Or maybe try dropping a few nuclear bombs.)

2. He could let the stalemate continue more or less indefinitely.

3. He coule accept Iran’s terms and surrender.

That’s all there is and there ain’t no more. 

Which Will He Choose?

Pretty much no one thinks he’s going to go for the ground troop option. Nor is the nuclear option attractive.

A lot of people reckon that the stalemate scenario is the most most likely, and of course they might be right. But I don’t agree. 

Why? Broadly speaking, two reasons. 

First, continued stalemate is going to make his political problems even worse. It’s going to risk nationwide and worldwide recession. And it’s going to invoke one of his very biggest fears—being remembered as a second Herbert Hoover.

Secondly, one of Mango Mussolini’s core beliefs is that he is the world’s greatest con men—that he can serve up a shit sandwich and make you believe that it is Panera’s latest premium masterpiece.

Put those two thoughts together, and I think he will conclude that surrender on Iran’s terms is the least bad of three very terrible options. 

General Hertling on the Iran War Today

IMHO, you won’t find a more informative military analysis than that of the general.

Wikipedia reports that

Mark Phillip Hertling (born September 29, 1953) is a retired United States Army Lieutenant General. From March 2011 to November 2012, he served as the Commanding General of United States Army Europe and the Seventh Army. Hertling served in armor, cavalry, planning, operations and training positions, and commanded every organization from platoon to field army. He commanded the 1st Armored Division and Task Force Iron/Multinational Division-North in Iraq during the troop surge of 2007 to 2008.

What My Crystal Ball Tells Me

One. The people who are in control in Iran want to put Trump in a position where his only choices are (a) a ground invasion of Iran or (b) abject surrender.

Two. The people who are in control in Iran are not afraid of a U.S. ground invasion. To the contrary, they would welcome a U.S. ground invasion.

Three. This is where it gets interesting. Many say Trump’s ego will lead him to take the ground invasion option. That may happen. But I think it’s more likely that he will surrender. 

For all his bluster and bullshit, Trump sometimes recognizes that he has lost, and he sometimes backs down. Remember Trump Taco Tuesday?

Trump possesses a basic animal cunning. Plus, he continues to imagine that he can sell a shit sandwich as the latest premium offering on the Panera menu. 

The Iran War Participation Trophy on the National Mall Today

A Headline from Today’s Wall Street Journal

I have posted several times about the two-pronged dilemma Trump faces in the Iran War that he started: either try to finish it off with a ground invasion of Iran, and thus royally piss off his base, by starting another endless land war in the Middle East, or supinely acquiesce to Iran’s strategic victory.

Some think the ground invasion may be inevitable, and of course they might be right. I say that supine acquiescence will probably be Trump’s final choice, because he really, really does not a land war in the Middle East; because he fears his base; and because he has a naïve faith in his ability to bullshit his way out of any problem that he creates for himself.

For completeness, I should have added that his final choice between these two alternative courses will be down the road a little bit. In the meantime, he will bluff and bluster and try to find some better third alternative. That is what’s happening right now. 

He still thinks that bluster and bullshit will make whoever is in charge of Iran bend to his will. That will not happen. He is deathly afraid of a ground invasion of Iran. I actually think the Iranian leadership would welcome a ground invasion. 

For several reasons, a big one being that Shi’a Islam is all about martyrdom. 

Iran: The Fork in the Road

The Australian Broadcast Corporation interviews Richard Pape, professor of political science at the University of Chicago and director of the Chicago Project on Security and Threats. Prof. Pape’s discussion illuminates the two—and only two—alternatives for the Iran War. 

Prof. Pape is a very smart man, and he knows ten times as much as I know about international security. I believe he’s right about the two, and only two, alternatives: (1) acquiescence in Iran’s regional hegemony, control of the Strait of Hormuz, and continued nuclear program or (2) a much wider war, including a ground invasion. 

However, despite his impressive credentials and wisdom, I think Pape is wrong to predict that Trump will pick Door Number 2, a massive land war. I think Trump will pick Door Number 1, acquiescence in defeat, which he will try, clumsily and unpersuasively, to disguise with his usual hallucinatory bullshit. That’s mainly because, (a) he knows his base will desert him if there is another land war in the Middle East and (b) he has a childlike faith in his ability to con the rubes. 

Waving the White Flag

Let me begin by apologizing to those who could not view the preceding post because they are not premium members of The Bulwark. I am almost 80, and this was my first mistake. At least I didn’t start a stupid, unwinnable war.

And BTW, you might want to consider paying some bucks to support The Bulwark. I find it to be money well spent. 

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board continues to tell it like it is:

Iran Is Winning the Battle of Hormuz: Tehran is using force to gain control over traffic through the Strait

Iran then hit a tanker carrying Qatari crude. The U.S. retaliated again against Iranian military sites and has escorted oil tankers with heavy air cover. Iran then fired drones and missiles at civilian targets and U.S. bases in Bahrain and Kuwait.

“It is very possible that they will never learn,” Mr. Trump wrote of Iran’s regime on Saturday night. Or is it U.S. decision makers who never learn? Vice President JD Vance has been touting Iran’s “transformed” Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps leaders ready to “turn over a new leaf” with the U.S. He even reached “gentlemen’s agreements” with them outside the memorandum, Mr. Vance assured critics.

Well, these are no gentlemen. It’s the same terrorist regime, and this is the Battle of Hormuz that Mr. Trump thought he had ducked. In case there was any doubt, foreign minister Abbas Araghchi said Sunday that Iran is solely responsible for managing the Strait under the memorandum. He said “no other country has any responsibility in that regard.” Mr. Araghchi is Iran’s chief negotiator with Mr. Vance. 

It wasn’t enough that Mr. Trump gave Iran an oil sanctions waiver without safeguards, promised billions of dollars in frozen assets and stopped sanctions enforcement. The regime wants to conquer the Strait and turn it into a toll booth, with transit by permission only. On a ship-by-ship basis, Iranian foreign policy would determine who crosses. This is the opposite of free navigation and provides no security for energy flows.

Force is the regime’s means to make the world bend. Without it, shippers refused to heed Iran’s dictates for Hormuz during the deal’s early days. Vessels sailed out via the Strait’s southern, Omani lane. Tehran’s demands that ships transit only through the Iranian lane, request access two days in advance, and sign up for special Iranian “insurance” were ignored. Oil prices fell far faster than most experts expected.

In short, the Strait wasn’t going Iran’s way. It was becoming free again—hence the regime’s resort to force. Iran is intimidating Oman and other Gulf states. It may also offer them a cut of the spoils from a tolled Strait, but that hardly sweetens the foul deal for the rest of the world.

The question is why Iran still gets the cash, selling its oil free of sanctions and repatriating the revenue to fund its Revolutionary Guard. If Mr. Trump isn’t ready to resume the U.S. blockade, he can amend Treasury’s sanctions-relief license to require that all proceeds from Iranian oil sales be placed in escrow. 

The U.S. needs the leverage for nuclear negotiations, and it was never wise to give Iran a blank check. All the more so now that the regime isn’t respecting the deal, which mandates a cease-fire as well as Iran’s “best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels.” That means don’t shoot at them, for starters.

More U.S. “love taps” against Iranian targets won’t impress the hard men in Tehran. They behave as if they have escalation dominance because they think Mr. Trump won’t return to war before the midterm elections. They don’t believe Mr. Trump’s social-media bluster because they see his reluctance to enforce the cease-fire terms. 

In the bigger strategic picture, the regime is leaving the President a choice: surrender Hormuz to Iranian terror or fight for it, like he always should have once he started the war, and reopen the Strait by force.