Why not NK?

 

if we're naming defunct airlines that went under in this time period, we can't forget about the man that managed to buy Eastern's most profitable domestic operation and bankrupt it in 3 years: Trump Shuttle (1989-1992)

 

"Terrorists" isn't correct word to call Spirit passengers.

 

What a mess. The only real way out of this is diplomacy. It will be way too easy to periodically aim some drones at a ship in the Strait of Hormuz. No one will insure these ships until this is over.

AA would have lost $6 billion + last year at these Fuel prices. Delta and United would have been closer to break even. So if only one major airline is crying to the government to help, will they get it? In a capitalist society one would think let the best companies win. All bets are off with the current administration. They seem to pick favorites. If I was Isom I would be concentrating on Washington. Touting the DCA dominance of AA and they need to survive.

AA has a young efficient fleet but global supply chain issues slow down parts. Those new efficient engines have high maintenance costs and need parts that are rare.

Current jet fuel costs are speculative. Another 1 to 2 weeks will be when they get more reactive. Supply and demand

 

I kept reading that thinking you were talking about Spirit, lol. I haven't seen any terrorist attacks by North Korea in the last 50 years, but I could have missed one.

 

Their asymmetric capability involved a *very* large inventory, built up at great expense over many years. They are rapidly expending most of it as we speak. Hence "wad".

If this drags out, global economic pressures will cause the system to adapt...

New insurance will be facilitated, if shipping companies and crews still don't want to take risks then ships will be sold, crews replaced by military, etc.

Navies can provide escort protection.

GCC countries have tried to walk a fine line, but they really don't like IR at all and if you choke *their* income long enough they'll turn against IR as well.

Trump will quickly feel political pressure at home (lots of rational people in his camp didn't like this one bit from the get-go). If he effs up the global economy and loses both houses this fall, he could get impeached over war powers and removed from office (at that point there would be enough defectors). If he can't control the situation by force, he'll have to do an armistice, and quickly.

Worst case, limit IRGC access to water. Iraq certainly wasn't meddling with the AG or it's neighbor's oil in 1992 or 2004 (yes it's a harder problem with IR).

Again, IR does not have the ability to seriously disrupt the global oil supply long-term. Short-term is different, and the fallout could last mid-term. The fixes in and of themselves are costly and disruptive, especially if it involves actually holding IR territory. Which is why I certainly never advocated for any of this.

 

Unfortunately IR is unique in that regard... they have made various statements regarding their intent to use nukes, including a previous president promising, in public, to nuke Israel as soon as they had the ability.

Their bluster is extreme, and while I suspect it is just bluster, Israel is simply not taking the chance... they have perfectly understandable holocaust PTSD and only have one big city, so would essentially cease to exist if they took one nuke hit.

I do not believe that IL will allow IR to progress to a bomb... they have the means to stop within hours, anytime they feel the need, and ultimately there's nothing to stop them. A one-sided nuclear conflict in the ME would arguably be worse for global stability than what's going on now. Certainly be worse for IR.

 

Or turn against the USA for helping to start this and showing that we have been unable to help protect them from drone strikes effectively.

 

You literally don't know what you're talking about (I do, professionally). We are far better than being limited to just "obvious" targets. It's a large country and takes weeks of sustained airstrikes to get around to everything planned. Of course there are priorities... your "obvious" front line military hardware targets take precedence because they are potentiality more dangerous to our forces and mission. Then lower-intensity (less capable) hardware, munitions storage and ultimately things like production facilities.

I wholeheartedly agree, if we try to take and control the entire country. That would be ludicrous, and everybody in the national security establishment knows it. Trump would get impeached if he tries to go there.

But there are other uses for boots, expensive but not irrational.

 

Very unlikely. We buy their oil. Fundamentally they actually fear IR long-term... since the regime's stated aspiration has long been to a establish a Shia Caliphate in the region, which would not likely be great for the Sunnis on the west side.

Minor drone strikes are simply the cost of doing this business. It's annoying, but not catastrophic... IR would not be using little drones if they had cruise missiles, capable strike fighters, stealth bombers, etc.