From the overpriced NYC suburbs it’s easy for me to say we don’t need to. I’m not sure if I lived in Ashdod, Haifa or Tel Aviv I’d feel the same way. One thing I DO know. If they had the capability to destroy us….you bet your carne asada theyd do it in a Tehrani minute.

Not so fast cowboy…

I won’t comment on the Don. For several reasons. What I can say, neither here nor there really, of the big 5; Xi, Putin, Netanyahu, Z, the US powerbroker bargains a hand with least internal support. What is it unions chant at contract pickets, UNiTY???

Well if ALPA decided to war with my airline because some other labor group in a different country forced our hand, I would be calling for recall. Blind unity only exists in toleration states. There is a reason ALPA requires a vote before we strike. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could vote on a war?

If if we’re skiff, we’d all go sailing. To label any war righteous is a crime in itself. Forget that crap. Shoot to train, kill, destroy. Nothing else. Calling off a major bombing campaign prematurely is tossing the towel. No nice way to put it. Don’t stop, transparent existential arithmetic. If here remains something worth saving that is. Every citizen’s call either way.

I think you are correct. That does not mean I like it, but honestly I do believe we put ourselves in a corner and the only way out is to turn Iran in to Gaza. Judging by your posts, you personally, might like that. But since the point of this thread is the ECONOMIC impacts, let's stay on topic to keep the moderators happy.

I will join you and put my realpolitik hat on. The current Iranian regime is a long-term existential threat. The regime is similar to the USSR in that they have to be in a perpetual cold war with the rest of the world to justify their authoritarian rule. Just as Orwell wrote, getting an entire country to direct their hate towards an outside figure distracts them from their day-to-day issues. The U.S. serves as that punching bag. Do they want a hot war or just a cold war to justify their existence? For the sake of this, let's say they want war. How can we eliminate this regime in a way that has the least economic impact on us then?

Let's see how Xi Jinping is handling his similar goal of taking over Taiwan. He is trying to make a stable economy. He is popping housing bubbles, investing in strategic industries, and is making an alternate finical system separate from the West. At the same time, he is modernizing his military. Both of these are done with long horizons. China's economic modernization has taken decades, and so has it's millitary. It is nowhere near ready to invade Taiwan, but Xi Jinping has put his country on a roadmap where that could happen in 10-20 years.

Meanwhile, we seem to have stumbled into Iran. Benjamin Netanyahu clearly needed this war to happen now since the only way he can evade prosecution is to be in a constant state of war. He forced our country to commit to a war before we were ready. Everyone knew war with Iran was going to require Naval action, yet our Navy is in a transition state. We had no minesweepers in place and new drone swarms have absorbed all of our escort capacity. We don't have the naval power to protect the Strait of Hormuz. The fact that we didn't have minesweepers in theater shows that this was poorly planned.

If our goal was to replicate Venezuela, then we failed on that too. If this was planned correctly, we would have used the CIA to reach out to leaders in the government who would take over and be willing to negotiate. IF we did that, then Israel killed them which took away our assets. So our next best option is a complete revolution. Again, we would have needed the CIA to establish resistance groups years before we attempted this. There are plenty of middle class people in Iran who want a revolution. But they never had a chance to organize. Do you really think some doctor in Tehran will turn on is TV one night to see the U.S. killed the Ayatollah and say, "Yeah, I was going to eat dinner with my kids, but I guess I have to overthrow the government that recently killed thousands for protesting even though I have no idea how functional this totalitarian state is right now." So we had no plan to replace the leaders in government and no plan to organize the local population. That leaves only one path... total war.

The only way out of this mess is to completely destroy Iran. Bombing them to the stone age and declaring victory won't be enough. We will simply create a generation of terrorist who want revenge and will will start the cycle all over again. THAT is why Netanyahu has turned Gaza to rubble. The only way to prevent future terrorist is to kill the entire population. Again, morals aside... do we have the capability to do that? How many cruise missiles will it take to level Iran? I don't see how an air campaign can accomplish our goals. Since you seem very gung-ho on this, how do you think this war ends? Do we eliminate the current stat of Iran?... What will it cost? Do we cut our losses, declare victory, and leave?...won't we simply be right in the same place we were 6 months ago but now with our best weapons depleted and our national debt even higher?

Xi Jinping is loving this! All of our expensive missiles are being used, or Navy is pushed to their limits, and our debt is ballooning. If we cant protect the Strait of Hormuz from Iran, we have no shot of stopping China from taking Taiwan in 10 years.

Hitler was also said to be charming in personal encounters.

A megalomaniac couldn't get very far if they didn't know how to mingle charismatically.

Bill Maher's assessment that he was polite at a dinner party is unconvincing to me.

Great Post. Are you really an Airline Pilot or a Former 4 star general in a think tank ? This plan was poorly executed I agree. The repercussions will last years. There was a great interview with General mad dog Maddis this weekend. He summed it up similar to your post.

Much to unpack there. Several points full of relevant comparisons, appraisal. Have to think it over frankly. Economic damage may only be partially mitigated at present engagement cost. Agreed. But while 89% of median expert forecasts are pessimistic, there remains adequate, credible evidence a positive outcome could potentially ignite global free market recovery to historically higher highs. Which the 10 billion humanoid freaks dwelling this dump will urgently demand.

Yes there was more to the context.

Why do you quote this post? You didn’t address anything regarding the substance.

All of this.. Best post on the entire topic.

This is a great summary.

To turn Iran into Gaza, I think there is a non-zero chance that we nuke them.

They were in the process of negotiating when the U.S. bombed them along with Israel. The message sent to Iran was the whole thing is a farce to move troops and equipment into position.

Sustain the operation longevity enough, they’ll eat cheese? Who ate cheese in Vietnam? Afghanistan?





Because Fox told you, or was it OAN? How many ICBM nukes do you envision it would take Iran to destroy a country the size of America?


Gaza, the size of Philly with 2 million people.

Iran, the size of Alaska with 90 million people.


Good luck.


Eliminate 90 million people?

Good luck.


The “only” way out of this mess is to take our ball and go home.

Of course not. You really think we will take on China? Not easy to attack a country that holds all your debt and can send numerous ICBMs with nukes.


All the talk about Iran being a world threat, what a joke. You’ve seen the last 3 yrs of a Russian aggression towards Ukraine and Europe, 100,000+ dead, and no one even dared bomb Putin or Moscow. Wonder why? Oh that’s right, they are a nuclear country.



If Iran had no desire to pursue nuclear weapons, they most definitely do now. Full of mountainous regions they could have facilities today enriching uranium and we’d have zero clue.

If I had to guess, one day just like Pakistan there’s going to be a successful nuke test underground in Iran and they will announce to the world. And like India and Pakistan, who went to war 3 times since the independence in 1947, and zero wars since going nuke power in 1998, there will be a forced stalemate peace among Iran, the U.S. and Israel.



And maybe that’s the best we can hope for the Middle East.

Attempts to flip Vietnam/Afghanistan into rule of law cultures were 127% misguided. For which we pay a grievous price. True.

Revolutionary guard storm troopers just smoked what, 20k of their own to remain in power?Displacing a 50 year regime is beyond our control. Still doesn’t mean it’ll never happen. More to the point, Iran triggers a successful test, you tell me, what’ll IDF’s next move be?

They didn’t. Israel and the U.S. did. I think the west doesn’t realize their hatred of the Rev Guard is far less than their hatred of being bombed by the U.S. and Israel simultaneously.


Stalemate. Or a mutually assured destruction. Stalemate sounds better. The good news about religious fanatic leaders in the Middle East, including Bibi, is they value staying in power above tasting uranium or plutonium.

Interesting how we have changed as a nation. Here is a portion of a speech in 1941.

Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.

Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American island of Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.

It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time, the Japanese government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.

Funny how some politicians are always afforded "context" while others are not, isn't it?

There's no riddle. Some specific civil infrastructure is protected by LOAC, basic survival stuff like water supply, hospitals.

Economic infrastructure is not inherently protected. It is commonly (especially by the US) not targeted initially, better to go after military assets first and see if that encourages them to negotiate. Next up would be mil industrial facilities, then maybe civil economic infrastructure.

But in this case oil economic infrastructure could go to the top of the list at any time. Probably better to capture/blockade rather than destroy, for several reasons.

That is the entire point of my post. I am saying IF Iran was truly a threat to America, the only solution would be total war. And if we go down that path, it would require more ammunition than our economy (the point of this thread) could ever afford. Taking our ball and going home, while the cheaper option, is also bad for the economy. We waste expensive munitions, we damage oil infrastructure, and we supply the world with another generation of terrorists. It's a quagmire where we lose no matter what path we pick.

”A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Looks like you were off on oil prices by about $111 and missed the mark on furloughs and a complete collapse of the economy and the aviation industry…

But keep parroting a term referenced as museum by Eric Stalwell… it makes ya look and sound ridiculous, but in the end that’s all you have. Wonder if the Ayatollah is eating TACO’s in Jannah?

well, define over?

we’ve established that y’all think oil is going between $150-200, the airline industry is about to crumble with furloughs and a/c cancellations…

I believe we’ve seen the worst of the oil spike, we’ll see a nuclear deal, the SOH will be reopened, prices will plummet quickly and by Summer I’ll be filling my truck up for $60.

You believe in TACO’s, Iranian officials being honest and not a threat…

One of us won’t stress about the future, won’t make irrational financial decisions and in the end, be right again.

Franz-Stefan Gady wrote in Foreign Policy of what he called the "strike-as-strategy" paradox. Where "we substitute tactical prowess for comprehensive strategic design".
How true.
Wars that are begun without a clearly defined, understood, and stated political objective rarely go very well. (partially because no one really knows what will end them, or when they will end)
All the battlefield victories don't mean much if they do not achieve a political goal.

There is a lengthy list of post WW2 mid-sized wars that end poorly for the power that has the stronger military.
On paper they have all the advantages. But the major powers often enter the war as a sideshow to the population's daily life. Not only is sacrifice not solicited of them, the very opposite is encouraged. ("Go Shopping!") The war and the country are disconnected.

For the weaker military power, when it is an existential crisis that involves their very existence or their core identity, they find resilience and reserves that leaves the stronger power baffled. With the 'stronger' lacking political leadership that is willing to advise the nation that there must be sacrifice, the weaker nation outlasts them and emerges the victor. (see Khaldun's asabiyyah)

An ambivalent People are incapable of waging total war.
(It can be waged with nukes by a handful of people. However, my personal opinion is that any nation that launches an unprovoked nuclear attack will either perish quickly in the ensuing nuclear catastrophe, or perish within a generation or two from the fallout of the monstrousness of the crime.)

Why do find it outlandish? About the same % of people support the effort as those that are against it.

An equally foolish question would be....Why do you cheer for the Iran war effort to fail? (See what I did there?)

Is it possible in your world, that people can have a different perspective than you ......and not be stupid?

Rhetorical

Yes you obviously need a clear roadmap to the ultimate *strategic* objective before you employ tactical/operational capabilities.

So far nobody has used nukes lightly. Doing so would be existential for the first user in many scenarios.

But context would matter, if it's last-ditch in defense from invaders on your own territory you'd get a pass from the international community.

The vast majority of nuclear powers do appear to consider their arsenals as a deterrent, and thus potentially an enabler of their own freedom of action. As opposed to a first-use weapon.

The most likely nations to use them first would be IL, then very distant second/third India and Pakistan.

No, DPRK doesn't have a reason to actually use them (unless US and ROK invaded...).

"It is better to offer no excuse than a bad one."

George Washington

The only thing I’m accusing anyone of is seeming to take someone else’s criticism of a politician as a personal attack. It just seems odd. To me they’re all just a revolving door of managers who usually seem to do a mediocre to terrible job.

I added the comment regarding nukes as a qualifier to my assertion that an ambivalent country is incapable of waging total war. Obviously the power to launch does not require the participation or approval of "the People".

Your reference to "last ditch" defense is why I included 'unprovoked use' as possibly bringing total destruction to whomever would do such a thing.
Regardless the circumstances, first-use would definitely be entering "a path where no man thought".
(talk about launching something that would have unpredictable results!)

Yes. Exactly this.

Actually, polls from across the political spectrum show a 40/60 divide. 60 pct of the American people oppose this war.

Not anymore. Shifting accountability for f’ups onto anything & anyone else is an essential job skill.
Getting by on 2/3’s previous global crude output is not impossible. Meanwhile mounting internal pressure to restore tanker traffic to Asian/euro/gulf state economies is the unstoppable force behind a mediated truce.

Really, only 60%? At the start of WWII (1939) the percentage of people opposing and wanting to STAY OUT OF “Europe’s War” was 90%.

Not sure ANYONE EVER really LIKES wars.

Even so, someone shouts “Death to America” for 47 years, you become inclined to take their threats seriously.

A rational action if one truly believed high fuel prices are on the way Up and here to stay ala 1970-1980s would be to trade in the gas guzzler and buy a Prius or Tesla.

Better yet, leverage your assets and buy a fleet of Priuses in anticipation of a sharp uptick in demand in the next two months and flip them.

Just one thought experiment to ask oneself about how much one believes in doom and gloom.

During COVID You remember those two brothers from Tennessee who bought 18,000 bottles of hand sanitizer and thousands of anti bacterial wipes for the purpose of resell at higher markup.

I’m still conflicted on this…… in one way it’s what any large corporation would do and does do on a daily basis. They drove all over Kentucky and Tennessee clearing out Walmarts….but this was weeks ahead of any reported cases in TN…..so it clearly involved some effort, risk, and market insight and analysis……..furthermore I don’t think they were marking it up 5,000% like Martin Shkreli.

On the other hand, these brothers were preying on their own flock: a very vulnerable people with little money and high probability of compromised immune systems. It’s certainly something I wouldn’t do. I would never want to benefit at all if it meant it came off of the misfortune or tragedy of the the community I grew up in. I donate my time and contribute to charities to that community.

I think they found without the shield of a corporate name and a PR department; they themselves were a lot more vulnerable to viral backlash and probably regret their decision.

and think of how smart the general population was in 1941 versus now. frankly im surprised the 60% isn’t much higher with how dumb people are nowadays.

We are supposed to trust the Islamic Republic of Iran’s government when they say they have no intention of developing nuclear weapons. So why wouldn’t we trust them when they say their intention is to wipe Israel off the map and wish Death to America.

We (Western Countries) have the technologies to destroy them but we also possess the morals and ethics not to do so. …..the reason sirens aren’t going off in the middle of the night in our towns and cities and our hospitals aren’t not being destroyed is not because of the morals or ethics of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran………it’s because they lack the technology.

Great point but 10% is good enough for the midterms.

Devil's advocate - but if Iran had dropped a bomb on the WH, killed the President and accidentally killed 170 school children in the process would that make you less likely to want to attack Iran in the future?

Depends, it's quite variable. Germany and Japan don't seem to have any interest in attacking us.

A new regime might just not care much what happened to the old one. Or maybe they do, but have other priorities, or learned lessons from the past.

Baby Milk Factories are a dime a dozen. They don't serve as particularly potent rally points unless there's enough of it happening to appear systematic and intentional. If the school is a lingering diplomatic sticking point after the dust settles the US can just pay compensation and apologize. It was of course an accident.

Worth noting, that as a matter of policy, I'd be opposed to compensation/apologies in cases where military targets were hiding under/inside schools, hospitals, etc. (SOP in Gaze for example). That just encourages the behavior. Also there are no LOAC protections when you do that.

Agree we had no intention of killing children - I don't know if it was due to out of date intel (most probably?) or if the Iranians purposefully set them up as a human shield. I do however think the administration failed in the initial messaging with what seemed like a denial/casting blame on someone else's tomahawk.