Post New

yesterday:

US President Donald Trump has warned Iran the "clock is ticking" as talks to bring the war to an end have stalled. "They better get moving, FAST, or there won't be anything left of them," he wrote on his Truth Social platform. "TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE!" The message came as the president was due to speak with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday.

today:

President Donald Trump said Monday that he will “hold off” on a Tuesday plan to attack Iran, citing a request from the leaders of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as he said negotiations to end the war grow more “serious.”

Trump added in his Truth Social post that he’s instructed his leadership to “to be prepared to go forward with a full, large scale assault of Iran, on a moment’s notice” if a deal isn’t reached.

Yep. The other Gulf states know that Iran retains a sizable portion of its missile and drone capabilities. Which means that if the U.S. renews the "kinetic action" part of the war, Iran doesn't just have to sit back and take it. They can respond by lighting on fire the energy infrastructure of all the other Gulf states. They still have escalatory cards to play. Last time they knocked out almost 20% of Qatari natgas production for the next 3-5 years. Rather than just sit back and let the U.S. destroy the regime, they can take out even more. So, the other Gulf states have to keep pushing the U.S. to find a way out that doesn't involve starting the bombing again.

We're now in a quagm....oh, wait, we can't call it that. Perhaps a morass. The two week ceasefire began on April 8th, and that phase has now lasted longer than the hot phase of the war that preceded it. We're stuck. And Iran very much wants us to stay stuck:

What they're saying: "We are really not making a lot of progress. We are at a very serious place today. The pressure is on them to be responsive in the right way," the senior U.S. official said.

"It's time for the Iranians to throw a bit of candy out. We need some real, sturdy and granular conversation [regarding the nuclear program]. If that's not gonna happen, we will have a conversation through bombs, which will be a shame."

https://www.axios.com/2026/05/18/iran-peace-deal-o...

It's hardly surprising that Iran isn't offering us any candy. Not even a bit. Because Iran's self-interest requires that the U.S. really come out of this badly. If they give the U.S. a face-saving deal, a deal with enough candy that it's at all plausible for us to declare it a win, that's an enormously dangerous outcome for Iran's future security. They can't have us come out of this saying to ourselves, "well, that was worth it." Because if that's what happens, it won't dissuade us from doing this again. We'll always be massively stronger than Iran; we'll always be able to damage Iran as much as we want to. So the only rational thing for them to do is to try to make sure we won't want to anymore.

It worked with Iraq. No, it didn't work out for Hussein - but the U.S. sure learned our lesson that big "nation change" ground troop invasions aren't worth the price. Iran's going to sure try to teach that same lesson about aerial campaigns to try to overthrow the regime; that there's no quick Venezuela-like wins on offer, just a very long qua...stalemate with high energy prices and a frustrated President.

Iran's going to sure try to teach that same lesson about aerial campaigns to try to overthrow the regime; that there's no quick Venezuela-like wins on offer, just a very long qua...stalemate with high energy prices and a frustrated President.

Boneheaded operation from start to finish…… whenever and however that “finish” occurs.

Boneheaded operation from start to finish…… whenever and however that “finish” occurs.

A dunning-kruger fool and megalomaniac in the Whitehouse and an adolescent-brained moron at the head of DOD. And this is what you get.

You would think that everyone would simply stop listening to this buffoon. Oil futures are down tonight. They must figure, that someday, he might not TACO, so they stampede to one side of the trade, or the other, with every royal brain fart. Those who think that the objective is to keep the Strait closed, for years, are still in the minority, as the kabuki dance of "negotiations" continues.

Steve

The other Gulf states know that Iran retains a sizable portion of its missile and drone capabilities. Which means that if the U.S. renews the "kinetic action" part of the war, Iran doesn't just have to sit back and take it.

One would have thought US leadership had been taught that lesson less than two weeks ago. Desperation in full display?

May 7, 2026, 12:02 AM GMT+2
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s abrupt reversal on his plan to help ships go through the Strait of Hormuz came after a key Gulf ally suspended the U.S. military’s ability to use its bases and airspace to carry out the operation, according to two U.S. officials. Trump surprised Gulf allies by announcing “Project Freedom” on social media Sunday afternoon, the officials said, angering leadership in Saudi Arabia. In response, the Kingdom informed the U.S. it would not allow the U.S. military to fly aircraft from Prince Sultan Airbase southeast of Riyadh or fly through Saudi airspace to support the effort, the officials said. …

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump...

One would have thought US leadership had been taught that lesson less than two weeks ago. Desperation in full display?

Yep. We're in a bit of a morass, with no great options to get out.

Resuming bombing might put some pressure on the Iranians, but they have responsive actions they can take. They can attack our military assets in the region, they can attack the Gulf States' energy resources, they can attack the undersea cables, they can attack the vessels trapped in the Gulf - all sorts of soft targets within missile and drone reach. Plus, we've already bombed most of the strategically valuable targets (one assumes the military ranked their targets capably), so there's only so much damage left to do by bombing. The more we bleed into the civilian side of the military-civilian spectrum, the more threatened the energy infrastructure of our Gulf allies (and world energy prices).

We always have the capacity to launch a ground invasion. But I think that's very unlikely, and Iran probably thinks so too.

We have the blockade, but that's not likely to work. Iran's regime endured the "maximum pressure" of sanctions that drove oil exports below 0.5 mbpd (and at times near zero) for close to two years in 2018-2019. They've learned how to reduce production while minimizing damage to wells, and to survive without oil import revenue for a very long while.

So we're left with threats of horrible consequences, which threats have been largely unsuccessful in shifting their negotiating strategy. They're not throwing any candy out, because they know it's essential to their long-term survival that the U.S. not get enough out of this to save face. But Trump can't withdraw without getting something from the Iranians that allows him to save face.

Hence, the stalemate continues. All we can do is posture: we threaten to kick their asses, have our friends hold us back from delivering the "tune up" we surely were prepared to do, and then wait a bit and do it again.

Yep. We're in a bit of a morass, with no great options to get out.
...
Resuming bombing might put some pressure on the Iranians, but they have responsive actions they can take.

The US might be the big bear that it's dangerous to poke, but Iran has become the hornet's nest that even the Big Bear is loath to agitate.

The US might be the big bear that it's dangerous to poke, but Iran has become the hornet's nest that even the Big Bear is loath to agitate.

The Strait is closed. That was the objective. No further agitation needed. Just a kabuki dance to give the media something to natter about.

Steve

The Strait is closed. That was the objective.

No, it wasn't.

I know you have this theory that Trump wanted oil prices to rise sharply, but I think that's false. Trump doesn't benefit from high oil prices, and he doesn't care whether oil companies do. His personal grift is in making lots of deals in the fantabulously wealthy Gulf states, along with all kinds of other financial and crypto and other shenanigans. He doesn't play in the oil patch and doesn't have a stake in it. And he's not in the business of making other people money, whether they donate to his campaigns or not. And high gas prices are poison to his popularity, and he knows that. There's no reason at all that Trump or his administration would want higher oil prices.

Everything about the prosecution and discussion of this war indicates that they thought it would be a low-cost and quick win. They thought it would be Venezuela 2.0. They'd hit leadership and create an opening for a more pliant junior person to take charge, blow up a bunch of crap so that the pliant person would have sufficient motivation/cover to bend the knee, and then the knee would be bent. That's why they kept predicting a 4-6 week timetable, and why they kept insisting they were on schedule with that 4-6 week timetable. They never would have done that if they even anticipated - much less intended - the Strait to be closed for any length of time.

It's always more comforting to think that things are going to plan, even if the plan is terrible (I think that was the Joker in TDK, but I can't remember). But that's not what's happening here. This is an unintended outcome, not the objective.

The Strait is closed. That was the objective.

Nonsense. Closing the Strait means gas prices are elevated for Americans. (Worse for those in Asia, of course, but so what?) Higher gas prices hurt Trump at the mid-terms, and even with his gerrymandering he may not overcome that.

Yes, closing the Strait also hurts Iran, but two things: first, they don’t really care about what happens to the citizenry. And two, they have ways to ameliorate the issue: they have borders with 7 countries, most of whom are if not sympathetic, at least not antagonistic to them (especially as compared to the US): Iraq, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan.

There is already significant smuggling going on across several of those borders: everything from oil going in one direction to consumer goods coming in the other. If this is siege mentality it’s the leakiest siege in recent memory.

Goofyhoofy:

Nonsense. Closing the Strait means gas prices are elevated for Americans. (Worse for those in Asia, of course, but so what?) Higher gas prices hurt Trump at the mid-terms, and even with his gerrymandering he may not overcome that.

albaby1:

I know you have this theory that Trump wanted oil prices to rise sharply, but I think that's false.

We shall see, "in the fullness of time". How long do you guys wish to wait, to render a verdict? Six months? A year? Two years?

Trump doesn't benefit from high oil prices, and he doesn't care whether oil companies do.

I have posted links before, persistent chatter about a $1B bribe paid to Trump by big oil, two years ago. How do you insure more bribes will be paid? By delivering for the bribes you have already received.

His personal grift is in making lots of deals in the fantabulously wealthy Gulf states,

And, besides US big oil, who else has profited? His buddies MBS and Putin. Saudi can ship 7Mbpd via the Red Sea. Aramco reported a 25% profit gain last Q, and that included only one month of the Strait being closed. And he has suspended sanctions on Russian oil, so Putin can profit too.

And high gas prices are poison to his popularity, and he knows that.

Trump said it out loud: he doesn't care about how much USian Proles pay for gas. I posted a link, today, quoting Burgum explaining why it would be bad for the US to restrict exports of crude and refined products, to insure US Proles are amply supplied at relatively reasonable prices. He says it out loud, must not crimp big oil profits.

Everything about the prosecution and discussion of this war indicates that they thought it would be a low-cost and quick win.

That is what Bush #43 claimed about Iraq too. Remember the claims the war would be essentially free, as the US would recoup all the cost from Iraqi oil revenues? How much blood and treasure did it cost us? Meanwhile oil markets were pinched, to the benefit of US big oil.

That's why they kept predicting a 4-6 week timetable, and why they kept insisting they were on schedule with that 4-6 week timetable.

That was also Trump's COVID playbook: it's a hoax. It's no worse than the flu. It will all be over in a few weeks, Hydroxychloroquine will save us. Ivermectin will save us. Mainlining bleach, while shoving a UV light up your kazoo will save you. It will go away on it's own. Same routine as Trump's weekly "peace is at hand" blather now.

It's always more comforting to think that things are going to plan, even if the plan is terrible (I think that was the Joker in TDK, but I can't remember). But that's not what's happening here. This is an unintended outcome, not the objective.

As suggested before, seizing control of Venezuelan oil and the Panama Canal, *before* attacking Iran, was no coincidence. Yes, it is more comforting, to think the US government would not stoop to such levels, but, we have seen all this play out in real time. As noted before, I worked for dickheads like Trump, for years. I know how low a "JC" will stoop, to push his agenda, and enrich himself.

Steve

Yep. We're in a bit of a morass, with no great options to get out.

Agreed. I think the least bad option is simply to walk away. We're expending munitions that we are likely to need elsewhere, with no end-game plan. We've already used about 50% of our inventory of cruise missiles, for example.

The Felon can claim victory (I think he's done it at least twice already), and we just leave.

Not a good option, but probably the least bad. Sometimes you just have to cut bait.

Goofyhoofy and albaby1, you can add this bit to your files.

'Not a forever war': Vance reassures Americans Trump’s Iran war will not drag on

JD Vance said during a White House briefing that although the war with Iran is not a "forever war," an escalation in the absence of a diplomatic solution would serve long-term US security interests.

https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/articl...

Steve

Goofyhoofy and albaby1, you can add this bit to your files.

Yep. Exactly what I'm saying.

Again, I think you're absolutely right in pointing out that the effect of our actions has been to block the Strait - and I don't think they have a good option to unblock it. But I don't for a second believe that was their objective. They wanted a quick win, Venezuela 2.0. The last thing they wanted was a long, drawn-out mess like we have now.

When they make these (ultimately incorrect) predictions about how short the conflict is going to be, it's because that's what they want to be the case. It's not that they have some secret desire for this to be a long quagmire and are trying to pretend otherwise - they want this to be a major win for the U.S. achieved on the cheap, and are trying to talk it into existence. And they're trying to talk oil prices down, not up.

They wanted a quick win, Venezuela 2.0.

The regime clearly had Rodriguez in the bag, before they snatched Maduro, and threw Machado under the bus. They clearly did NOT have anyone in the bag in Iran. If they did not have anyone in the bag, then they would have known that it wasn't going to be Venezuela 2.0, before they attacked.

This latest attempt to explain they had a plan, is laffable.

NYT: Israeli-developed plan sought to have Ahmadinejad run Iran after Khamenei killed

Assessing that bombing and expected Kurdish invasion would collapse regime, Israel reportedly used airstrike to free Holocaust-denying ex-president from house arrest, but he soured on plan

An Israeli-developed plan called for installing Iran’s Holocaust-denying former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the country’s new leader, after the killing of Ali Khamenei and other top Iranian officials at the end of February, The New York Times reported on Wednesday.

Ahmadinejad was consulted about the plan, according to the Times, though the manner of his recruitment remains unknown.

The attack succeeded in freeing the ex-president, but it wounded him in the process, after which he reportedly became disillusioned with the scheme. He has not been seen since, and his whereabouts are unknown.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/nyt-israeli-develope...

This is nuts. I remember how western media reacted with horror when Ahmadinejad was first elected. And now, we are supposed to believe he was Israel's pick to run Iran? More likely, the Israeli propaganda machine worked over time, after their real pick "Prince Reza" was found to have no support in Iran. I used to have respect for the capabilities of Israeli intelligence operations. But this is a joke. I see the big dogs at Mossad in a mad scramble to provide some sort of cover story to pretend they had someone in the bag. This is the best they could cook up, after three months of efforts? File this with "they're eating dogs and cats".

Chaos and forever war is more profitable for Trump. Would Trump the Empire Builder double cross "Bibi", say he wants regime change too, then pivot to forever war? Of course.

Steve

If you want to secure a perimeter, you can't secure part of it.

Sort of like fencing half your yard and the deer still come in and eat the hostas. And the the act of being angry at the deer is seen as irrational and childish by a slightly functional adult, but here we are.

They clearly did NOT have anyone in the bag in Iran. If they did not have anyone in the bag, then they would have known that it wasn't going to be Venezuela 2.0, before they attacked.

It's pretty likely they thought they had someone in the bag before they attacked. And that person either was inadvertently killed in the initial strikes or ended up losing out in the scramble for a replacement leadership. Probably the former, given various administration comments on how the initial attack might have been too successful. That would have been their "Plan A." And Plan B would have been that either some other person takes power that realizes they can't win and decides to bend the knee, or that Iran falls apart (and that might have been Israel's preferred outcome), and descends into a state incapable of maintaining opposition to the U.S.

I don't believe they wanted what ended up happening - that Iran successfully managed the transition past the killing of their initial leadership and ended up maintaining both continuity and steadfast opposition to the U.S. That wasn't their plan, and it wasn't their objective. This is a terrible situation for the Administration, and not something they ever would have wanted to happen.

Sort of like fencing half your yard and the deer still come in and eat the hostas.

The deer eat my vegetables.

The rabbits eat my hostas (and some vegetables)

It's pretty likely they thought they had someone in the bag before they attacked.

Remember the riots in Iran in January? Western media reported the crowds were chanting for "Prince Reza". Mossad was publicly bragging they had agents in country, agitating those riots. It was the Mossad agents that were pushing "Price Reza". No-one in Iran, over the age of 50, would want any part of the Pahlavi tribe, and they would tell the younger people why they didn't want that bunch back in power.

So, now, they try to insist they did have a plan. But they pick Ahmadinejad, who is Kaddafi lite? They probably picked him, after the fact, because kn-one knows where he is, so he can't deny it. Mossad agents probably found, and greased, him, so he will never be able to deny it.

And that person either was inadvertently killed in the initial strikes

von Stauffenberg knew to get out of the room, after he started the fuses. No way would a picked front man sit in a meeting he knew was targeted. One of the Mossad or CIA agents in country would make sure he was safe.

I agree Israel would love Iran to be a failed state, because then Iran could not obstruct Israeli expansion. But that isn't necessarily Trump's objective. Closing the Strait takes more oil off the market, than only tipping Iran into chaos.

Steve

So, now, they try to insist they did have a plan.

They certainly had some plan. Whether it was a good one or not, the Administration certainly would have had a "this is the outcome if things go well" scenario. What they wanted to happen. And that certainly wasn't a "months-long stalemate with no progress and very high gas prices due to the Strait of Hormuz being entirely blocked.

No way would a picked front man sit in a meeting he knew was targeted. One of the Mossad or CIA agents in country would make sure he was safe.

Yeah, unless they botched it. Fog of war, and all that. Turns out that when the window opened up to kill Khameini, there ended up being a lot more people in the room than they might have wanted. Right at the very beginning of the war, they came right out and admitted they ended up killing most of the people they were looking at as successors in that in initial strike:

The president told reporters on Tuesday that his administration’s preferred successors to the late Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei were killed in recent airstrikes on Iran. In a press conference at the White House, Trump openly worried that the attack on Iran would be for naught.

“The worst case would be we do this and then somebody takes over who’s as bad as the previous person, right? That could happen. We don’t want that to happen,” he said. “You go through this and in five years you realize you put somebody in who is no better.”

When asked who he would pick to lead the country, Trump admitted that his administration’s top candidates in the Iranian government had been killed.

“Most of the people we had in mind are dead,” he said. Now, we have another group. They may be dead also, based on reports. So I guess you have a third wave coming in. Pretty sure we’re not going to know anybody.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/people-had-min...

They didn't want the outcome of this war to be closing the Strait and taking all that oil off the market. They wanted to take out Khameini and replace him with someone who would cut a deal with the U.S. and let the oil flow, just like in Venezuela. They might not have picked a single individual, and instead have a list of folks they thought might take over - but either way, they didn't expect Khameini's son to be the one to take charge and for Iran to continue to be as steadfast in opposition.

The scenario we're in now is a mistake, the failure scenario, from the Administration's pre-war planning (if even they planned for it, given that they didn't anticipate that Iran would use attacks against our Gulf allies as a way of keeping us from even trying to reopen the Strait to cargo traffic).

They wanted to take out Khameini and replace him with someone who would cut a deal with the U.S. and let the oil flow, just like in Venezuela.

Ahmadinejad was their pick for a pliable front man? That's as credible as the regime claims that Cuba has 300 drones and will launch a sneak attack against Key West. The only thing that lends a shred of credibility to that nonsense is that Ahmadinejad was not at the big meeting that was bombed. But his home was bombed as well. The reasonable read is the intent was to kill anyone who could lead the government, to tip Iran into chaos. That would be "Bibi's" objective. Trump's MO would be to tell "Bibi" he's all in on regime change too. Then, once "Bibi" gives him what he wants, double cross him, and conduct kabuki theater about negotiating with the existing regime, while implementing his real objective.

Keep in mind, Trump has been all about increasing demand for USian oil and gas. Within weeks of his inauguration, he was crowing about "deals" with Japan and Korea for them to buy US oil and gas.

US and Japan unveil $36bn of oil, gas and critical minerals projects in challenge to China
This article is more than 2 months old

Donald Trump says deals ‘end our foolish dependence on foreign sources’, while Japanese PM hails enhanced economic security

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/feb/18/u...

South Korea considering buying more US oil and gas, industry minister says

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/south-...

India seeks to import more U.S. oil and gas under pressure from Trump to stop Russian oil purchases

https://spectrumlocalnews.com/us/snplus/politics/2...

Of course, the best way to increase demand for USian oil and gas, is to cut off competing supplies.

Steve

Ahmadinejad was their pick for a pliable front man?

Dumb, I know. Perhaps they thought that because he was in opposition with a lot of the key folks in the current leadership, and on the outs, that he would be grateful/willing to cut a deal in order to find his way back into power. No evidence that it ever got locked down in an agreement, but that's what they might have been going for.

I think it's more likely that they had a number of folks that they believed would seize power in the event of a leadership vacuum, and who they believed would be willing to cut some sort of deal rather than be in the Assassination Chair. They clearly had a bunch of folks that they were expecting to be the contenders after Khameini was dead, but whom they ended up killing in that very first wave of strikes.

The goal was not to end up with a new leadership that was just as resolute in opposing the U.S. as the prior one, resulting in the Strait being closed and remaining closed and Iran having their hand around the neck of our Gulf state partners with the threat of bombing their energy infrastructure. That's what ended up happening. But that absolutely was not what they wanted to happen, because it's so completely terrible for the Administration in every way.

Post New

Mechanical Investing FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.