Iran agreed to open the Straits of Hormuz. But not in writing. So they did, with their interpretation. Anybody can pass through the Straits of Hormuz, provided they coordinate with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. In practice, that meant that only Iran could sell their oil. That deal was not to the US government’s liking. The US’s sanewashed position is that if the Saudi, Iraq, and the UAE can’t sell their oil, then neither can Iran.
Since the US wants low low oil prices, it is effectively holding itself hostage. I’d expect US flexibility if oil prices go above $120. Or even stays above $110. Or heck,I’d expect eventual flexibility if oil prices stay near where they are. The commander in chief is getting bored after all: there are weaker countries to attack. Flexibility will probably occur Sunday evening, with tough talk happening after the close of Friday financial markets.
I suppose there’s no way for Trump to end the war without looking like a loser. He might try throwing Hegseth, our allies, and otjers under the bus, but I think he’s stuck in a quagmire of his own making.
The possibility always exist that Iran ends up throwing the towel, be it due to internal problems (the regime did not look very stable 2 months ago, probably prompting the attack), or simply because the level of shit that the U.S. can throw on them gets to be too much.
Trump’s idiotic attempts at diplomacy (if you can call it that), general loathsomeness and more importantly inherent untrustworthiness make it difficult but the possibility exists.
Is not likely though, IMHO.
I was thinking much the same thing, and it could happen if the US starts bombing infrastructure, such as railroads, highways, airport runways, etc. The argument would be made that these are being used for military purposes and thus are legitimate targets. (It wouldn’t be correct, but that’s how Hegseth and Trump would justify these actions.)
I’m certain that this strategy is being considered by the dumasses in charge.
It’s possible. I imagine when Iran retaliates in kind against our Mid East allies they will be non too pleased. I don’t mean to imply Trump cares about allies, but these particular allies are prone to paying him bribes. Trump is kind of stuck with no clear out.
Are you under the impression that Iran isn’t already attacking civilian targets (not even just dual use targets like roads and railways but totally civilian ones like offices and homes)?
Since that would be the next best thing to national suicide, I don’t think so. Unconditional surrender, Trump picks the next leader, having their oil stolen, their military permanently rendered impotent, and who knows what else. On top of having no reason to think it’ll even stop either Trump or Israel from attacking again anyway. They have no reason not to fight until they simply can’t fight anymore.
As I say, it’s unlikely.
However we don’t know the “facts on the ground” so to speak, it may very well be that the regime’s hold to power is tenuous and enough atrocities/acts of war/blockades/embargos, etc will end up with a new government presenting something that Trump can then trumpet as a victory.
Unlikely (Historically bombing seems to favor the regime in power, at least in the short term) but not impossible.
Nah. Nor am I under the impression that Iran are the good guys. But I imagine they’d retaliate by targeting infrastructure including bridges, desalinisation plants, etc., etc. if the United States wants to play that game.
Working tactically - Iran ships are being blocked, with possible exceptions for humanitarian shipments. The article doesn’t discuss strategic issues, such as what the US is suppose to gain from the blockade. The explainer does note that Iran has threatened to shut down all Persian gulf trade if the blockade doesn’t end.
Also, it’s an AP article. It’s not written by PBS.
It’s a common error though. Usually takes this form:
"The snobs at the NYT are guilty of shoddy thinking, again!
“That’s an AP wire story.”
Fast. Cheap. Accurate. Choose 2. AP is fast and cheap. It’s mostly accurate, but it’s often superficial. The linked article here was better than most I’ve seen in the past, though a nod to strategic goals would have made it better.
When a news org chooses to run a particular wire story, we can view that as an implicit endorsement of that story. Maybe not of every word, but over the overall content of the piece. As to objective quality of reporting and writing but also as to political lean.
That was more true in the days of paper newspapers, when actual physical space was limited and running this article necessarily meant not having space for that article.
But the fact remains that if e.g. PBS chooses to run an AP article, then PBS gets to mostly own the consequences to them of choosing that content. Likewise if e.g. NYT runs the same AP article. Any praise or complaint from NYT readers flows first and primarily to NYT.
There’s something to what @LSLGuy says. Maybe the NYT agrees: I’ve seen them run fewer AP stories over time, maybe. Not sure.
From the editorial point of view, the publisher might reasonably think that an AP story offers their readers something decent, if not great. But fast. Maybe that’s a good value proposition for the reader.
From the reader’s perspective, it’s best to distinguish between AP, Reuters, and pieces written by quality publications. eg NYT > Reuters > AP. But AP stories will be available faster.
To me it seems obvious that Trump cannot bear to admit defeat. His position is worse than before the attack and by continuing he hopes to reverse that. What he is actually doing is getting in deeper, but he doesn’t realize that and the sycophants he has surrounded himself with are either too dumb to know are too scared to say so.