The most fascinating thing for me is the level of US / western cope: so many commentators simply cannot believe that Iran will win. My guess is that ultimately the narratives will blame Trump personally. This is just as he is blamed for the continued descent of the US political system. It avoids the need for difficult soul searching.
But, the underlying issues are structural; as they are for the rest of the West. Trump is accelerating most of the bad trends such as short termism, personal grift, authoritarianism, symbolism and spin. He is not the root cause though, more a symptom. The next administration will not be a reversion to some mythical “normality”. It will be another step on the way.
NOBODY on either side of the Trump vs. (whichever DNC front person was proposed) wanted to hear that the problem was their whole system, based on offering us distracting, meaningless "brand" choices, advertising a single name/party just needs to be changed for us all to return to some mythical golden age, while quietly continuing to run the same geopolitical game we'd planned way back in the 1950s.
Real structural changes were scary & positive results for the largest financial interests were not guaranteed- So real change was successfully avoided.
Now, the future arrives (as it always must) while the empire's foreign policy & military capabilities are stuck in an outmoded past.
Will this kind of behavior continues until dead bodies on the streets of nicer DC suburbs grow too numerous to ignore? I was really hoping for a more reasoned response.
I don't live in the US, though I have friends there, so I can't really talk authoritatively about what might or will happen. What I believe should happen is that the US, after perhaps some period of internal conflict - violent or not, will split into a number of independent countries without any federally imposed uniformity, and with a political interest mostly only as far as their own borders. Consequently the US Navy, Air Force and Army would similarly split. All this of course may or may not happen, soon or in the future, but the world needs the USA and its aspirations to hegemony to be gone, either as I hope or in some other way.
As others have pointed out, most Americans do not, and likely will not, recognize that we are not the most powerful military on the planet, at least not until it becomes undeniable when we get our asses handed to us on a platter.
The scary part is when that happens, what our reaction will be. I cannot believe that the US will accept this fact without throwing a tantrum and will likely respond by throwing nukes around.
I believe that the Chinese and the Russians know this as well. I read often how they should be more forceful in their resistance to the US, and the fact that they are not doing this is offered as proof that they are weak and scared of us.
I think they're being intentionally cautious so as to avoid the above outcome, which I think is the wise course. Our economic, political, and military systems are all crashing. The best outcome for everyone on the planet is that we slowly implode due to our own incompetence instead of being backed into a corner and bringing the house down around us.
I very much agree with your assessment regarding the other big powers. China will eat our lunch eventually. It pains me to think of how our own US children will suffer, as they already have been - from neglect and miseducation. Very sad.
I think the thrust of this essay has been misunderstood for a long time.
First, nobody (including influential political and military leaders in the West but also media types and think tankers) could get their head around the idea that the West was not all powerful. Despite a fair bit of evidence.
Second, even when lessons were learnt in real time (mainly in Ukraine but also Vietnam, Afghanistan etc) with evidence that new technology and doctrine had proved the first idea, nobody wanted to accept the facts.
This shows that the technological lessons in this essay are true. But also that ideas, imagination and mental dexterity are just as important as technique. Aurelian has also emphasised this as well as many other thinkers.
Michael Hudson constantly says that the lack of a different idea of economic organisation is an important factor in maintaining neo liberal thinking. That’s why University Economic Departments were purged of all but Hayekian disciples in the 70s in Chile, for example.
If you cannot imagine an alternative, there will not be one.
The easy domination of Western powers has led to complacency, not only in industrial policy but in doctrine.
That is a classic text book example of hubris in action I think. You end up getting whipped by the vassals. This is not the first time that has happened.
Well, my Feral friend it does not surprise me that you think that.
I do too, sort of. But thinking about it, Iran may even be able to survive that - At least it’s command structure. While Israel can be destroyed utterly by even an Iranian conventional response if they take the gloves off.
And that doesn’t even consider the total pariah status that nuclear use would bring.
The Samson option sounds like a strong response until you consider what would happen afterwards.
I suspect that there would be a few days of handwringing, the Americans would jerk the leash, and the world would go back to "Israel Has The Right To Defend Itself (tm)".
After all, humans naturally admire, respect and identify with bullies.
Excellent perspective. The changing nature of warfare has been discussed for decades and now here we are; a new paradigm emerges. The Iranians have proven with mass produced low cost technologies that they can go head to head against the Empire's tactical stand-off warfare. I wonder whether this is understood in Washington to a sufficient degree? I sincerely hope so. Looking strategically, Hormuz and the attack on the petrodollar has been very well played by Iran. Secondarily, the US bases in the Gulf have been turned into a liability. Finally the Gulf monarchies have been punished and are in an extremely vulnerable position thanks their allies short-sightedness. Difficult days ahead for us all by the look of it.
Difficult days ahead for the knot-heads in DC for sure, but far better days ahead for the rest of us. This Iran conflict has been a long time coming but it was totally necessary to dramatically demonstrate the Empire's utter impotence. In that sense, as much as I hate Trump and everything he represents, he's nothing less than an angel sent to earth to break the spell of US Judeo-Christian Zionist dominance. No irony whatsoever that it took certifiable mad man for the world and the remaining rational actors in the US to see it, but there ya go. We're finally taking a hard look in the mirror and seeing what a grotesque monster we've become and the reaction is sobering. Yes, the piper must be paid for all we've said and done already, especially in the aftermath of 9-11 (which will hopefully be fully examined again now too), but maybe, just maybe, we can at least stop digging our current hole any deeper in the coming years.
"dramatically demonstrate the Empire's utter impotence"
Well, there is a sense in which you are right. But the US still retains immense power to do harm, and the big question is how to get it to lie down gently and enter its final sleep without convulsions that will destroy large parts of the world. This is probably the foremost issue for Presidents Putin and Xi.
Agreed. Getting control of all the various WMDs the DC idiots have been stocking up on these past many decades will be job one in the aftermath of collapse. I have no doubt that they'll actually turn them on US citizens before they give them up willingly.
Xi and Putin are far more intelligent than these boobs. If wiser leaders were put forth in the US and axis of NATO, I think we'd have chose policy more intelligently? Or are all of them captured by the the money game? Time will tell.
This is an excellent article. I went to the US Naval War College and studied strategy. Aureilen gets it. While I largely agree with his conclusions about American incoherence , it remains possible that a US ground force can secure the Strait of Hormuz. This is a tactical-operational action and the US military is still capable. This outcome will become the defacto ‘strategic victory’ and it would establish a period of US power. However, the costs of keeping the strait controlled by a perpetual presence of tens of thousands of ground troops is not affordable unless the US collects a toll on shipping. Even then, I doubt the cost would return a positive net benefit. But we should give military power its due. It can impose new realities. I am thinking that the WW2 Germans took Europe even without a strategic concept because their military was superior. If they had not invaded Russia, the Germans may have remained in control of Europe for a very long time. In this opinion, I am a heretic. It’s a touchstone of strategic education that a superior strategy will overcome tactical power wielded without coherent strategy. That means my conclusion must be wrong! Trump is approaching a “double-down or back down” moment regarding troops. As an autocrat, he’s likely to value appearing strong and unlikely to value the opinion of experts (which is why we are in this war in the first place). We will see what American ground forces can do. One last note, time is on Iran’s side. The global economy creaks. Wall Street and the bond market are fragile. Trump must win quickly or he cannot win at all. A quick win is only possible if Iranian forces in the SOH collapse. Unlikely but possible. There’s really only one major highway connecting Iran to the SOH. It can be interdicted. On these opportunities, catastrophe or victory can be seen. Depends on whose eyes are doing the looking.
I think you are correct here. Might China get imvolved? So far, they just observe. Russia could, but they are engaged in Ukraine - maybe waiting out the over extended empire? Much can change.
Excellent reasoned analysis as usual. Both currently active conflicts in Ukraine and Iran, have completely reshaped the modern battlefield space. I recently saw a comment that stated that the modern US military is built for spectacle but not resilience. Shock and awe, but unable to sustain long term engagement against asymmetric resistance. I don’t know the validity of this claim, but Iran will be the test of that theory.
From a pure platform perspective, both the Ukraine and Iran wars are putting a real point on cost/benefit analysis of multimillion dollar missile interceptors being overwhelmed by cheap drone swarms ahead of high energy missile strike waves. With the low replenishment rate of these weapons vs the quick fabrication rate of the drones, hard choices have to be made ultimately, by defending commanders, on what to save and what to let go.
Ultimately, however this ends, we are witnessing the death of the current global systems, and the emergence of something new. What this eventually settles into is up for grabs, with multiple regional forces vying for control. I look forward to your continuing insights on the future as it unfolds.
Thanks for this excellent essay. The one decisive reason for the „platform“ based military in the West is indicated in this essay: you can only buy what is on offer. The MIC is not keen on producing „cheap“ bulk but rather expensive platforms with the need of purchasing expensive maintenance and spare parts. The after sales market allows them to make never ending cash flow. Why? Because it’s a profit oriented business, keep the investors satisfied. It’s capitalism Baby.
There is a cosmic glint in the way the pesky Chinese are "weaponizing rare earths", i.e. declining to sell us certain minerals without which it is impossible to make advanced weapons to point at them. I understand that refining these metals at home is virtually impossible without loosening Western environmental standards, which no sane person wants. It is a facile example of the point already covered by Aurelien's reference to a hard limit on military production. If, owing to its heavy reliance on advanced platforms for projecting power far from home, USA ceases to be a great military power, does the USA still make sense, or will individual states secede, as the member states of the Austro-Hungarian empire did in 1918?
Will individual states secede? In my opinion that would be a very good outcome, both for the world and for (at least some of) the States concerned. Possibly if the US Federal government lost all credibility as an effective ruling entity, that would suffice to tip some of them over. Maybe some US based commenters could opine? I believe that currently there are movements in Texas and California, but they don't seem very effectual so far.
Whole heartedly agree. I visit several blogs where the commentary overwhelmingly agree as well. I think the collapse of the dollar will be the final death blow to DC hegemony. It's the only thing holding things together out west here now, where contempt for the Feds (other than those whose paychecks depend on it at least) is pretty much universal.
Can’t really imagine a scenario where Gavin Newsom (a standard issue Machine Democrat) might steer California away from the federal system—particularly when you consider that there are currently 76 active military installations up and down the state—which, excepting the National and Air National Guard are directly under the authority of the Commander and Chief. Of these, 38 are naval bases while the other 30 represent the other branches, along with the Reserves (5 bases). So, unless there are wholesale mutinies…
Meanwhile, Texas secessionists partake of their own deep-fried origin myths, adding a unique favouring to their world outlook.
The Cascadia Movement by people (I'm in WA state) has been around a long time. I doubt the politicians like it. Money💰 brokers might profit. The west coast states, absent Idaho, Montana, etc.
WA, CA, CA, BC have the economic clout to go it alone perhaps. Our major issue in the US is the money-driven pay to play system. This gives rise to incompetent people, especially tRump and his merry band of ideological cretins.
"The Fuhrer Directives were generally negotiated between interested parties in the light of Hitler’s known opinions, and then presented to him for approval or modification."
----------
The more things change, the more they stay the same? Donald Trump is dyslexic/ADHD and according to those who know him, most definitely does not read books or technical presentations by choice.
Meaning whoever got the Fuhrer's attention last with the best verbal presentation effectively decided policy, much as is presently the case with Trump & his closest advisors/donors/Epstein club compradores
Trump isn't playing 5 dimensional chess. He's playing checkers with 5 + different people yelling his next move in his ear alternately while doing the odd bit of Adderall & Xanax (much as Hitler was making life & death choices while doing Pervitin, Cocaine and a selection of other "prescription" pharmaceuticals).
1. The US and Israeli goal in Iran is in fact quite plain. The goal ever always only was to turn Iran into a failed state on any pretext, much like what was done to Iraq, Libya and Syria.
Needless to say, this could not be said out loud, hence the self-serving bullshit about nuclear weapons, protesters, women's rights and so forth.
2. International law is simply victor's justice.
3. The Gulfie tyrants will not change their ways as long as their slush funds remain in western banks, as long as they own western trophy properties and western investments, all of which are liable to be seized, should the Gulfies fail to obey orders. "For where a man's treasure is, there his heart is."
I agree. There should be no “confusion about aims” or whether this is a “war” — the “goal” is quite plain to see. The near-term goal is the physical obliteration of the Islamic Republic of Iran through the overwhelming application of high explosives. The model is Raqqa, Aleppo, and Gaza. The ultimate goal is to eliminate the only credible threat to the total liquidation of the Palestinian people and the permanent occupation of their former homeland by settlers.
The open question is whether Israel and the U.S. possess sufficient delivery systems and high explosive projectiles to reduce to dust a nation of the size and population of Iran. My concern is that, for different reasons, the Israeli and American leaders are delusional about their capabilities and the ability of the Iranians to resist.
There is a disconnect in western thinking that fails to take into account Shi’a Islamic legal proscriptions against wars of aggression. The Iranians appear to have limited themselves to acting defensively, which I fear has led to the underestimation of their ability to retaliate. There may also be an element of Mutual Assured Destruction in play Iranian strategic thinking, as well as the rationing of their own high explosive capabilities.
I have to agree that current international law appears to have been crafted in such a way that there is no enforcement mechanism should the WW2 victors choose to violate it. Also agree that the Gulf princelings will cling to their western investments since they do not rule national entities as such.
The “wild card” is Pakistan. At some point the pervasively corrupt military leadership of that country might be shamed by a popular uprising into retaliating on behalf of their Iranian brothers. I still suspect that the 12-day missile war was related to India-Pakistan in Kashmir and Pakistan seeking a safe haven for some of their warheads in Iran.
I must agree with you on this one, the strategy is to make Iran a failed state. The tactic – by bombing. Will it fail? No, it has been proven to succeed admirably in so many places, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Gaza, even Serbia. The mistake the US made in Iraq was to try to occupy it and will not be repeated here. The Kurds in Iran are waiting, biding their time, when Iran has failed as a state, they can stake their claim, so why should they fight now? How long will take to turn Iran into a failed state is the question, a month or 3 months? Trump can claim he is winning the war every day with his strategy. Will the Iranians give up before they become a failed state? That is another interesting question. Probably not. Will the US and Israel stop before Iran is a failed state? Very unlikely.
I'd agree, but I'm no military strategist. tRump hates losing. Hegseth is dangerous. Rubio is a hater. Both the narrative and propaganda is and has always been delusional. US boomer here.
Plan A was regime change (and maybe introduction of Shah or sbd else) that would serve USrael. They stated it plainly and Trump was actually spinning the current quagmire into a win, with the reference how there was a regime change, actually. Not the one they wanted, though. lmao
Also Levitt or whatever she is, said that US already won. It is just Iran that does not get it yet.
Of course, they will try to turn Iran into Libya or sth, but this time, at least for Israelis, there will be a payback time. Americans might have some mental breakdown with few body bags. After all one American is more precious than all of us are. Just priceless. But how many of the Americans really care or follow what is happening in Iran? And for how long would this attention span last?
For the gulfies, I would say it is more important to stay in power, because there is always a step-brother or a cousin in the wings waiting for an opportunity to take over. Which could literally mean the difference between life, prison or maybe even death. If all the infrastructure remained intact, they could have easily recuperated their slush funds in USA. If they wanted to move away from USA, of course. The most important aspect, for the ruling figures, is to have US cover their backs. But having US presence in your country, these ruling figures cannot go rogue on US. lmao
" But having US presence in your country, these ruling figures cannot go rogue on US."
That was before it all blew up. Now all/nearly all the US bases in the gulf have been more or less demolished, and the troops withdrawn. All the GCC's have to do is sell their US bonds etc. - and they have a good excuse - repairs and rebuilding. Whether they have the brains and guts to do this is another matter, but if Iran succeeds in imposing a tax on shipping, then they would be well advised to change owners and get a share.
Well, they started talking about reconsidering their investments in US early in this war already.
Bases are gone, but where are troops? Where are cca 50k troops? Some of them moved to hotels and other civilian buildings. Plenty of them still there, lurking.
Trump just said MbS is kissing his ass and that he needs to be nice with Trump, at the Future Investment Initiative. In front of Saudis, I guess. There is still leverage over them.
Then there is this new thing: All US military age males must register by December. Do they plan to force through a draft? Who knows how far these theocrats, egotists, sociopaths will go?
Agree on 1 and 3, mostly, but disagree on 2. UN international law was supposed to be established precisely to avoid what you say. And, to respond to Aurelien’s remarks on this point, you can call it whatever you want, but the US and Israeli attack on Iran is legally qualified as an act of aggression under art. 39 of the UN Charter. The fact that the Security Council can’t do anything about it due to the veto doesn’t change the reality. I believe that we cannot give up on international law just yet.
By the way, excellent essay, Aurelien, you gave me a lot to think about, thank you!
"UN international law was supposed to be established precisely to avoid what you say."
Mostly "UN international law" was honored with lip service. Otherwise, every American president going back to Truman would be in the dock at Nuremberg.
The reason that the Security Council cannot do anything is entirely intentional. Because nobody wanted to be obligated to face down the USSR or USA.
The Security Council enables the rogue US. There ought to be no Security Coucil. That was the control established by the US fir dominance. Both China and Russia are way smarter imo.
In the depths of WWII Stalin said that quantity is a quality in itself and the current malaise of Western military affairs only emphasises the truth of that statement.
As a citizen of the West, I am not looking forward to the results of the rude shock we are now getting. But it is long overdue.
Two observations. First, much of what appears to be the muddle where motivations are concerned in this conflict as depicted here for me seems to disappear if you pull back, say, to the 200 year or so scope — especially where Iran/Persia is concerned: it amounts as much as anything else as saying in the strongest terms possible to “western” imperial powers, ALL OF THEM:
Get. The. Fuck. Out.
Second, as a military analogy, this conflict reminds me of the flower of French aristocratic knighthood looking with disdain across the fields of Crecy at the assembled Welsh and English rabble that Edward III and The Black Prince had managed to assemble — oops … 🤨
Excellent article. Thank you.
The most fascinating thing for me is the level of US / western cope: so many commentators simply cannot believe that Iran will win. My guess is that ultimately the narratives will blame Trump personally. This is just as he is blamed for the continued descent of the US political system. It avoids the need for difficult soul searching.
But, the underlying issues are structural; as they are for the rest of the West. Trump is accelerating most of the bad trends such as short termism, personal grift, authoritarianism, symbolism and spin. He is not the root cause though, more a symptom. The next administration will not be a reversion to some mythical “normality”. It will be another step on the way.
@Stephen
Indeed.
NOBODY on either side of the Trump vs. (whichever DNC front person was proposed) wanted to hear that the problem was their whole system, based on offering us distracting, meaningless "brand" choices, advertising a single name/party just needs to be changed for us all to return to some mythical golden age, while quietly continuing to run the same geopolitical game we'd planned way back in the 1950s.
Real structural changes were scary & positive results for the largest financial interests were not guaranteed- So real change was successfully avoided.
Now, the future arrives (as it always must) while the empire's foreign policy & military capabilities are stuck in an outmoded past.
"another step on the way" - down, as I imagine a lot of us hope.
Will this kind of behavior continues until dead bodies on the streets of nicer DC suburbs grow too numerous to ignore? I was really hoping for a more reasoned response.
I don't live in the US, though I have friends there, so I can't really talk authoritatively about what might or will happen. What I believe should happen is that the US, after perhaps some period of internal conflict - violent or not, will split into a number of independent countries without any federally imposed uniformity, and with a political interest mostly only as far as their own borders. Consequently the US Navy, Air Force and Army would similarly split. All this of course may or may not happen, soon or in the future, but the world needs the USA and its aspirations to hegemony to be gone, either as I hope or in some other way.
Why would the Western oligarchies split up and disable their primary compliance enforcers?
Forces beyond their control? If the reality of things get through to enough people, there may come a tide . . . Of course, it's not inevitable.
I don't see that either. Such a violent split would not be tolerated. However, it is hard to predict. Much more violence and a steady decline?
Very good essay, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
As others have pointed out, most Americans do not, and likely will not, recognize that we are not the most powerful military on the planet, at least not until it becomes undeniable when we get our asses handed to us on a platter.
The scary part is when that happens, what our reaction will be. I cannot believe that the US will accept this fact without throwing a tantrum and will likely respond by throwing nukes around.
I believe that the Chinese and the Russians know this as well. I read often how they should be more forceful in their resistance to the US, and the fact that they are not doing this is offered as proof that they are weak and scared of us.
I think they're being intentionally cautious so as to avoid the above outcome, which I think is the wise course. Our economic, political, and military systems are all crashing. The best outcome for everyone on the planet is that we slowly implode due to our own incompetence instead of being backed into a corner and bringing the house down around us.
I very much agree with your assessment regarding the other big powers. China will eat our lunch eventually. It pains me to think of how our own US children will suffer, as they already have been - from neglect and miseducation. Very sad.
Agree with the previous commenters.
I think the thrust of this essay has been misunderstood for a long time.
First, nobody (including influential political and military leaders in the West but also media types and think tankers) could get their head around the idea that the West was not all powerful. Despite a fair bit of evidence.
Second, even when lessons were learnt in real time (mainly in Ukraine but also Vietnam, Afghanistan etc) with evidence that new technology and doctrine had proved the first idea, nobody wanted to accept the facts.
This shows that the technological lessons in this essay are true. But also that ideas, imagination and mental dexterity are just as important as technique. Aurelian has also emphasised this as well as many other thinkers.
Michael Hudson constantly says that the lack of a different idea of economic organisation is an important factor in maintaining neo liberal thinking. That’s why University Economic Departments were purged of all but Hayekian disciples in the 70s in Chile, for example.
If you cannot imagine an alternative, there will not be one.
The easy domination of Western powers has led to complacency, not only in industrial policy but in doctrine.
That is a classic text book example of hubris in action I think. You end up getting whipped by the vassals. This is not the first time that has happened.
I suspect that the Americans and Israelis will not hesitate to go nuclear if need be.
Well, my Feral friend it does not surprise me that you think that.
I do too, sort of. But thinking about it, Iran may even be able to survive that - At least it’s command structure. While Israel can be destroyed utterly by even an Iranian conventional response if they take the gloves off.
And that doesn’t even consider the total pariah status that nuclear use would bring.
The Samson option sounds like a strong response until you consider what would happen afterwards.
I suspect that there would be a few days of handwringing, the Americans would jerk the leash, and the world would go back to "Israel Has The Right To Defend Itself (tm)".
After all, humans naturally admire, respect and identify with bullies.
"After all, humans naturally admire, respect and identify with bullies."
Speak for yourself, Feral. Some of us have more dignity - and morals. But I imagine morality is a kind of black box to you.
I've seen enough mobs and witch hunts.
Cats are many things, but we are not herd animals.
I see both of your points as possible. Look what's in charge of the US and Israel. That knowledge alone is frightening.
That is a high concern. We now have a total sociopath at the helm of the US. Hegseth is not qualified in any way.
I think your comments are highly accurate.
I believe and hope that you are right. But let's also spare a thought for those 'innocents' who are caught up in this hell.
Yes.
Excellent perspective. The changing nature of warfare has been discussed for decades and now here we are; a new paradigm emerges. The Iranians have proven with mass produced low cost technologies that they can go head to head against the Empire's tactical stand-off warfare. I wonder whether this is understood in Washington to a sufficient degree? I sincerely hope so. Looking strategically, Hormuz and the attack on the petrodollar has been very well played by Iran. Secondarily, the US bases in the Gulf have been turned into a liability. Finally the Gulf monarchies have been punished and are in an extremely vulnerable position thanks their allies short-sightedness. Difficult days ahead for us all by the look of it.
Difficult days ahead for the knot-heads in DC for sure, but far better days ahead for the rest of us. This Iran conflict has been a long time coming but it was totally necessary to dramatically demonstrate the Empire's utter impotence. In that sense, as much as I hate Trump and everything he represents, he's nothing less than an angel sent to earth to break the spell of US Judeo-Christian Zionist dominance. No irony whatsoever that it took certifiable mad man for the world and the remaining rational actors in the US to see it, but there ya go. We're finally taking a hard look in the mirror and seeing what a grotesque monster we've become and the reaction is sobering. Yes, the piper must be paid for all we've said and done already, especially in the aftermath of 9-11 (which will hopefully be fully examined again now too), but maybe, just maybe, we can at least stop digging our current hole any deeper in the coming years.
"dramatically demonstrate the Empire's utter impotence"
Well, there is a sense in which you are right. But the US still retains immense power to do harm, and the big question is how to get it to lie down gently and enter its final sleep without convulsions that will destroy large parts of the world. This is probably the foremost issue for Presidents Putin and Xi.
Agreed. Getting control of all the various WMDs the DC idiots have been stocking up on these past many decades will be job one in the aftermath of collapse. I have no doubt that they'll actually turn them on US citizens before they give them up willingly.
Xi and Putin are far more intelligent than these boobs. If wiser leaders were put forth in the US and axis of NATO, I think we'd have chose policy more intelligently? Or are all of them captured by the the money game? Time will tell.
This is an excellent article. I went to the US Naval War College and studied strategy. Aureilen gets it. While I largely agree with his conclusions about American incoherence , it remains possible that a US ground force can secure the Strait of Hormuz. This is a tactical-operational action and the US military is still capable. This outcome will become the defacto ‘strategic victory’ and it would establish a period of US power. However, the costs of keeping the strait controlled by a perpetual presence of tens of thousands of ground troops is not affordable unless the US collects a toll on shipping. Even then, I doubt the cost would return a positive net benefit. But we should give military power its due. It can impose new realities. I am thinking that the WW2 Germans took Europe even without a strategic concept because their military was superior. If they had not invaded Russia, the Germans may have remained in control of Europe for a very long time. In this opinion, I am a heretic. It’s a touchstone of strategic education that a superior strategy will overcome tactical power wielded without coherent strategy. That means my conclusion must be wrong! Trump is approaching a “double-down or back down” moment regarding troops. As an autocrat, he’s likely to value appearing strong and unlikely to value the opinion of experts (which is why we are in this war in the first place). We will see what American ground forces can do. One last note, time is on Iran’s side. The global economy creaks. Wall Street and the bond market are fragile. Trump must win quickly or he cannot win at all. A quick win is only possible if Iranian forces in the SOH collapse. Unlikely but possible. There’s really only one major highway connecting Iran to the SOH. It can be interdicted. On these opportunities, catastrophe or victory can be seen. Depends on whose eyes are doing the looking.
I think you are correct here. Might China get imvolved? So far, they just observe. Russia could, but they are engaged in Ukraine - maybe waiting out the over extended empire? Much can change.
Excellent reasoned analysis as usual. Both currently active conflicts in Ukraine and Iran, have completely reshaped the modern battlefield space. I recently saw a comment that stated that the modern US military is built for spectacle but not resilience. Shock and awe, but unable to sustain long term engagement against asymmetric resistance. I don’t know the validity of this claim, but Iran will be the test of that theory.
From a pure platform perspective, both the Ukraine and Iran wars are putting a real point on cost/benefit analysis of multimillion dollar missile interceptors being overwhelmed by cheap drone swarms ahead of high energy missile strike waves. With the low replenishment rate of these weapons vs the quick fabrication rate of the drones, hard choices have to be made ultimately, by defending commanders, on what to save and what to let go.
Ultimately, however this ends, we are witnessing the death of the current global systems, and the emergence of something new. What this eventually settles into is up for grabs, with multiple regional forces vying for control. I look forward to your continuing insights on the future as it unfolds.
Thanks for this excellent essay. The one decisive reason for the „platform“ based military in the West is indicated in this essay: you can only buy what is on offer. The MIC is not keen on producing „cheap“ bulk but rather expensive platforms with the need of purchasing expensive maintenance and spare parts. The after sales market allows them to make never ending cash flow. Why? Because it’s a profit oriented business, keep the investors satisfied. It’s capitalism Baby.
The "plan" was to maximize profit for defense contractors. Platforms were designed for showroom floors. Projectiles were overpriced.
The idea was that the threat of these would make cowards of opponents. That idea is no longer viable.
There is a cosmic glint in the way the pesky Chinese are "weaponizing rare earths", i.e. declining to sell us certain minerals without which it is impossible to make advanced weapons to point at them. I understand that refining these metals at home is virtually impossible without loosening Western environmental standards, which no sane person wants. It is a facile example of the point already covered by Aurelien's reference to a hard limit on military production. If, owing to its heavy reliance on advanced platforms for projecting power far from home, USA ceases to be a great military power, does the USA still make sense, or will individual states secede, as the member states of the Austro-Hungarian empire did in 1918?
Will individual states secede? In my opinion that would be a very good outcome, both for the world and for (at least some of) the States concerned. Possibly if the US Federal government lost all credibility as an effective ruling entity, that would suffice to tip some of them over. Maybe some US based commenters could opine? I believe that currently there are movements in Texas and California, but they don't seem very effectual so far.
Whole heartedly agree. I visit several blogs where the commentary overwhelmingly agree as well. I think the collapse of the dollar will be the final death blow to DC hegemony. It's the only thing holding things together out west here now, where contempt for the Feds (other than those whose paychecks depend on it at least) is pretty much universal.
Can’t really imagine a scenario where Gavin Newsom (a standard issue Machine Democrat) might steer California away from the federal system—particularly when you consider that there are currently 76 active military installations up and down the state—which, excepting the National and Air National Guard are directly under the authority of the Commander and Chief. Of these, 38 are naval bases while the other 30 represent the other branches, along with the Reserves (5 bases). So, unless there are wholesale mutinies…
Meanwhile, Texas secessionists partake of their own deep-fried origin myths, adding a unique favouring to their world outlook.
The Cascadia Movement by people (I'm in WA state) has been around a long time. I doubt the politicians like it. Money💰 brokers might profit. The west coast states, absent Idaho, Montana, etc.
WA, CA, CA, BC have the economic clout to go it alone perhaps. Our major issue in the US is the money-driven pay to play system. This gives rise to incompetent people, especially tRump and his merry band of ideological cretins.
I meant to type OR, not 2 CAs. It's late.
Individual states will not secede for as long as the local elites believe that the United States is more valuable as a going concern.
That will get more and more difficult to believe, even just this year.
Thank you for making sense of this moment. You analysis is spot on.
(Quote)
"The Fuhrer Directives were generally negotiated between interested parties in the light of Hitler’s known opinions, and then presented to him for approval or modification."
----------
The more things change, the more they stay the same? Donald Trump is dyslexic/ADHD and according to those who know him, most definitely does not read books or technical presentations by choice.
Meaning whoever got the Fuhrer's attention last with the best verbal presentation effectively decided policy, much as is presently the case with Trump & his closest advisors/donors/Epstein club compradores
Trump isn't playing 5 dimensional chess. He's playing checkers with 5 + different people yelling his next move in his ear alternately while doing the odd bit of Adderall & Xanax (much as Hitler was making life & death choices while doing Pervitin, Cocaine and a selection of other "prescription" pharmaceuticals).
1. The US and Israeli goal in Iran is in fact quite plain. The goal ever always only was to turn Iran into a failed state on any pretext, much like what was done to Iraq, Libya and Syria.
Needless to say, this could not be said out loud, hence the self-serving bullshit about nuclear weapons, protesters, women's rights and so forth.
2. International law is simply victor's justice.
3. The Gulfie tyrants will not change their ways as long as their slush funds remain in western banks, as long as they own western trophy properties and western investments, all of which are liable to be seized, should the Gulfies fail to obey orders. "For where a man's treasure is, there his heart is."
I agree. There should be no “confusion about aims” or whether this is a “war” — the “goal” is quite plain to see. The near-term goal is the physical obliteration of the Islamic Republic of Iran through the overwhelming application of high explosives. The model is Raqqa, Aleppo, and Gaza. The ultimate goal is to eliminate the only credible threat to the total liquidation of the Palestinian people and the permanent occupation of their former homeland by settlers.
The open question is whether Israel and the U.S. possess sufficient delivery systems and high explosive projectiles to reduce to dust a nation of the size and population of Iran. My concern is that, for different reasons, the Israeli and American leaders are delusional about their capabilities and the ability of the Iranians to resist.
There is a disconnect in western thinking that fails to take into account Shi’a Islamic legal proscriptions against wars of aggression. The Iranians appear to have limited themselves to acting defensively, which I fear has led to the underestimation of their ability to retaliate. There may also be an element of Mutual Assured Destruction in play Iranian strategic thinking, as well as the rationing of their own high explosive capabilities.
I have to agree that current international law appears to have been crafted in such a way that there is no enforcement mechanism should the WW2 victors choose to violate it. Also agree that the Gulf princelings will cling to their western investments since they do not rule national entities as such.
The Americans and Israelis will go nuclear if they must.
The “wild card” is Pakistan. At some point the pervasively corrupt military leadership of that country might be shamed by a popular uprising into retaliating on behalf of their Iranian brothers. I still suspect that the 12-day missile war was related to India-Pakistan in Kashmir and Pakistan seeking a safe haven for some of their warheads in Iran.
They won't. The United States has many areas of leverage over Pakistan, and the Pakistani leadership don't exactly like the Shia in the first place.
I must agree with you on this one, the strategy is to make Iran a failed state. The tactic – by bombing. Will it fail? No, it has been proven to succeed admirably in so many places, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Gaza, even Serbia. The mistake the US made in Iraq was to try to occupy it and will not be repeated here. The Kurds in Iran are waiting, biding their time, when Iran has failed as a state, they can stake their claim, so why should they fight now? How long will take to turn Iran into a failed state is the question, a month or 3 months? Trump can claim he is winning the war every day with his strategy. Will the Iranians give up before they become a failed state? That is another interesting question. Probably not. Will the US and Israel stop before Iran is a failed state? Very unlikely.
I'd agree, but I'm no military strategist. tRump hates losing. Hegseth is dangerous. Rubio is a hater. Both the narrative and propaganda is and has always been delusional. US boomer here.
Plan A was regime change (and maybe introduction of Shah or sbd else) that would serve USrael. They stated it plainly and Trump was actually spinning the current quagmire into a win, with the reference how there was a regime change, actually. Not the one they wanted, though. lmao
Also Levitt or whatever she is, said that US already won. It is just Iran that does not get it yet.
Of course, they will try to turn Iran into Libya or sth, but this time, at least for Israelis, there will be a payback time. Americans might have some mental breakdown with few body bags. After all one American is more precious than all of us are. Just priceless. But how many of the Americans really care or follow what is happening in Iran? And for how long would this attention span last?
For the gulfies, I would say it is more important to stay in power, because there is always a step-brother or a cousin in the wings waiting for an opportunity to take over. Which could literally mean the difference between life, prison or maybe even death. If all the infrastructure remained intact, they could have easily recuperated their slush funds in USA. If they wanted to move away from USA, of course. The most important aspect, for the ruling figures, is to have US cover their backs. But having US presence in your country, these ruling figures cannot go rogue on US. lmao
" But having US presence in your country, these ruling figures cannot go rogue on US."
That was before it all blew up. Now all/nearly all the US bases in the gulf have been more or less demolished, and the troops withdrawn. All the GCC's have to do is sell their US bonds etc. - and they have a good excuse - repairs and rebuilding. Whether they have the brains and guts to do this is another matter, but if Iran succeeds in imposing a tax on shipping, then they would be well advised to change owners and get a share.
Well, they started talking about reconsidering their investments in US early in this war already.
Bases are gone, but where are troops? Where are cca 50k troops? Some of them moved to hotels and other civilian buildings. Plenty of them still there, lurking.
Trump just said MbS is kissing his ass and that he needs to be nice with Trump, at the Future Investment Initiative. In front of Saudis, I guess. There is still leverage over them.
Then there is this new thing: All US military age males must register by December. Do they plan to force through a draft? Who knows how far these theocrats, egotists, sociopaths will go?
Regime change would not please Israel.
Anyway, if polling is to be believed, few Americans outside the Trump Cult are on board with this war.
You are correct regarding the Gulfies.
New, more "democratic" regime could proceed with the balkanization of Iran into 8-9 new statelets. "Democratically", self-determination and all.
Just like they would proceed with it in Russia, in case they manage to achieve regime change there. They missed the opportunity in 1990s.
Managed, properly by the book, disintegration.
Agree on 1 and 3, mostly, but disagree on 2. UN international law was supposed to be established precisely to avoid what you say. And, to respond to Aurelien’s remarks on this point, you can call it whatever you want, but the US and Israeli attack on Iran is legally qualified as an act of aggression under art. 39 of the UN Charter. The fact that the Security Council can’t do anything about it due to the veto doesn’t change the reality. I believe that we cannot give up on international law just yet.
By the way, excellent essay, Aurelien, you gave me a lot to think about, thank you!
"UN international law was supposed to be established precisely to avoid what you say."
Mostly "UN international law" was honored with lip service. Otherwise, every American president going back to Truman would be in the dock at Nuremberg.
The reason that the Security Council cannot do anything is entirely intentional. Because nobody wanted to be obligated to face down the USSR or USA.
Agreed. US veto is their control.
The Security Council enables the rogue US. There ought to be no Security Coucil. That was the control established by the US fir dominance. Both China and Russia are way smarter imo.
Thanks for the excellent essay Aurelien.
In the depths of WWII Stalin said that quantity is a quality in itself and the current malaise of Western military affairs only emphasises the truth of that statement.
As a citizen of the West, I am not looking forward to the results of the rude shock we are now getting. But it is long overdue.
A very good analysis - thank you for sharing it. LF
Two observations. First, much of what appears to be the muddle where motivations are concerned in this conflict as depicted here for me seems to disappear if you pull back, say, to the 200 year or so scope — especially where Iran/Persia is concerned: it amounts as much as anything else as saying in the strongest terms possible to “western” imperial powers, ALL OF THEM:
Get. The. Fuck. Out.
Second, as a military analogy, this conflict reminds me of the flower of French aristocratic knighthood looking with disdain across the fields of Crecy at the assembled Welsh and English rabble that Edward III and The Black Prince had managed to assemble — oops … 🤨
Nice analogy.