Do you not know who Robert Kagan is?
Are you unfamiliar with his writings and what he is known for?

 

Yes, 4 letters

R
I
N
O

Has had a vendetta against Trump since day 1 because of mean tweets or whatever. Hard to find a more biased person out there. Of course he would write for The Atlantic lol

 

If you're referring to NATO, there could be nothing better for them. If you've ever sat at the MILDEL or been to SHAPE, it's pretty eye opening the difference between the US and the other member-states' militaries.

 

He left the Republican party in 2016 and voted for hillary. His wife is a career DC swamp creature who served under W, obama and biden. I'm sure no bias from him.

 

Part of the choices they made years ago, basically they decided to regulate everything and innovate nothing. Their AI trails mightily, but they were proud to lay out the first set of regulations against what it could do. And yes, I agree, having worked with our Nato "allies" that most of them could last a few days against an advanced enemy. Couple that with almost complete energy dependance, they are in a tough spot.

 

Someone with command of the facts can attack the ideas and not just the source. Just because you think he's a dick - it doesn't make him wrong necessarily.

Trump really has three viable options that I can see.

1) (Feasible) He can change nothing substantial and continue the blockade. That's problematic for pretty obvious reasons, but hopefully it will eventually get him a slightly better deal than the JPCOA that he can sell domestically. That said, it seems likely the Iranians can take economic pain for quite some time, and I'm not optimistic the nuclear program completely ends, based upon what the admin has telegraphed through the news. This is probably his most likely course of action. It likely avoids strategic defeat.

2) (Feasible?) He can conduct a limited ground operation to secure the uranium. That seems politically unpalatable for a lot of reasons, including "no new wars". I would have argued the whole "60 days war powers act" and "Congress/constitutional republic" with midterms coming, but I suspect the "hostilities ended before 60 days" argument would be in play here. If he goes this route, the exec would likely decide to act without congressional authorization, and in conjunction with Israel. This is the only COA that meets the stated objectives of this conflict, but without a negotiated settlement or regime change, it doesn't reopen the straight.

3) (Feasible) He can unilaterally withdraw and hope that Iran doesn't toll the ever-living crap out of traffic transiting the straight...which they probably would, because who's gonna stop them? Europe? Gas goes down, but American hegemony in the Middle East is severely weakened, if not effectively over. This is US strategic defeat.

4) (Infeasible) He can make good on his threats to end Iranian civilization. Seems like a re-hash of PGM strikes wouldn't be enough, not that we have a lot left anyway. Would probably make $150/bbl oil look like a relative bargain. Might wanna get a lot of Canadian sports wear for international overnights. At least AA is tilted domestically. IND, CID, MDT, AVP, and ILM overnights would probably go senior.

5) (Infeasible) Iraq 2.0 style regime change. This is probably the only COA other than #1 that secures something approaching a victory.

Is there something else he can do that we delusional, ignorant, MSM brainwashed peasants can't see? If so, enlighten us by engaging with the subject material and not just yelling about the source.

 

Just for clarity, the US has an incredible, nearly inexhaustible supply of PGMs. I think you are referring to specific more exquisite weapons that weren’t in large quantities to start, but JDAMs are aplenty, not that you need everything to be that level of precision for acceptable CDE.

 

Yeah, you're absolutely right on both those counts.

 

The last time Iran backed down in a major conflict, it required the use of mustard gas and sarin against military and soft targets.

 

Europe and Asia will resort to jet fuel rationing here in just a few weeks. Tankers are already filling up on US crude and exporting it overseas. Jet fuel shortages are going to hit the west coast shortly thereafter (CA is at it's lowest quantity on hand since 2003). A CIA source quoted a report saying Iran can last in their present predicament for at least the next four months.

The SPR drawdown will end in July.

If the war ends before July, we'll be OK. We've got a few months to see how it plays out. But I don't see Iran moving off their position at all. Why would they? They have the least to lose and most to gain from holding out. They know Trump has backed us into a corner.

There was a way to do this - had the US moved years ago to reduce demand on oil products (ie more EVs like China is doing) this war was doable. The issue is, just like always, the US government operates in knee-jerk mode and does little long term planning (again, like China).

There might be some good news for airlines. *If* and only *if* the war ends quickly in the next few months, Jet A prices should fall significantly (although not to Dec 2025 pricing of under $2) and profits will be healthy, because they are pricing now for $4/gal gas. Same thing happened in 2016(?) when OPEC tried to undercut the frackers.