What does surprise me is why the GCC nations are not willing to actively participate militarily after all the Iranian attacks. From what is being reported (not necessarily true), Trump had to suspend Project Freedom because Saudi stopped the US from using their bases because US was not retaliating for the UAE strikes. π€·π½ββοΈ
Arab military impotency, particularly in the aftermath of the Arab-Israeli wars the mid-to-late 20th century, is one of the many curious paradoxes of the region.
In 1991, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and parked the bulk of his army on the border with Saudi Arabia, the monarchy immediately appealed to the United States for assistance. This was met with more than a few raised eyebrows in Washington, because for decades the US had been providing substantial military aid to Saudi Arabia, begging the question why the Saudis couldn't see to their own security.
That same question was raised by a former Mujahadeen fighter who had returned from Afghanistan following the withdrawal of Soviet troops from that country--Osama bin Laden. bin Laden went so far as to use his family's connections to seek an audience with the monarchy, where he offered to reconstitute the Mujahadeen--many of whom hailed from the Arab peninsula--to defend the Kingdom and especially to defend the Islamic shrine cities of Mecca and Medina. Bin Laden wanted Arabs and Muslims defending Islam's holiest sites, not western "infidels".
Not only did the monarchy turn him down, but found the very prospect that he could quickly raise a fighting force on his own so disturbing that he was exiled, and he would spend the next decade in Sudan and then back in Afghanistan nursing his grievances. The 9/11 attacks arguably were the result of the Saudis turning to outsiders for defense, and for those same outsiders appearing to encourage the monarchy down what bin Laden considered a path of heresy and blasphemy.
At the same time, the UAE along with Saudi Arabia have some of the few functional air forces in the region, and Iran has already accused the UAE of using its Mirage fighters in air strikes against the secondary oil terminal and refinery on Lavan near the Strait. The UAE has not confirmed if its forces have launched any raids against Iran.
The relationship between the Arab states and the west is a bizarre symbiosis where the Arab states have largely outsourced their practical military security primarily to the United States. Their own forces are largely untested in combat (although Saudi's air force has racked up combat hours flying sorties against the Houthi rebels in Yemen).
Paradoxically, even Iran's regular military is impotent to the point of nonexistence. They were a non-factor in last year's Twelve Day War and they have been largely a non-factor during Operations Epic Fury and Roaring Lion. The only notable exception has been their retaliatory strikes using missiles and drones--most of which are actually controlled by the IRGC.
One of the more fascinating reveals from this war with Iran is which countries have functional militaries which can be deployed to project power in various regions.
In the Middle East military power projection right now is largely the US and Israel, followed by Turkey, and that is about it. Fighting conventional wars and battles is just not something for which the Arab nations or Iran are displaying any great capacity.
Outside the Middle East, does any nation have meaningful military power projection capacity besides the US? Based on global responses to Iran mining and closing the Strait of Hormuz, it is difficult to answer that question in the affirmative.
These global geopolitical dynamics are going to have reverberations worldwide for a decade at least. How other nations respond to this tectonic shift in the status quo is very much a question still being answered.
I read an interesting paper stating that $88 a bbl is the minimum price Saudi Arabia needs to support its economy. Iβm thinking Iran figures its shadow fleet would still operate as before. $110 bbl pricing benefits all the Gulf producers. Inflation be dammed. βTrumpβs bluffing!β Simplistic and stupid but desperate despicable totalitarians take irrational measures. December 7, 1941 comes to mind. Trump should remind the free world, itβs staring down the same gun barrel except it has nuclear weapons. Keep the blockade on, IMHO.
If the tracking data from Kpler is at all accurate, the shadow fleet is not operating.
The oil prices are a benefit to Gulf oil producers, but with Saudi oil production down 25%, UAE oil production down over 40%, and Iraqi oil production down over 50%, the benefits of the higher oil prices are lost in the lack of production.
With Iranian oil production calculated to fall by 40%, no one will profit from the high oil prices.
Scarcity is the one variable no one factored in, with the possible exception of Donald Trump.
Iran striking Fujairah could be an artifact of the mosaic defense philosophy that Iran built. The same could be said of the seaborne attacks successfully thwarted by the US Navy.
There is a strong possibility that the IRGC can no longer control thier forces from a 'central command' as they could have in the opening days of the conflict. Rogue units may be operating 'on thier own' and the IRGC will not attempt to constrain them.
While that philosophy served the needs of Iran against a land attack, it fails when you isolate their economy. An economy based on petroleum, petrochemical and ordinance exports. With no way to finish goods or send them to market, Iran is truly screwed.
Even if the tribal model of civilization is applied across the Middle East, the destruction of Iran's capability to project power through terrorism, is welcome by Iran's neighbors. Most have benefitted from the sale of petroleum and petrochemicals and want to keep that income stream. You need a relativley calm environment to make that happen.
However, if the IRGC leadership in Tehran has lost control of individual units, they are also by definition losing control of the country overall.
Factionalism and infighting are inevitable in that scenario, as different unit commanders develop different understandings of the situation, and whether or not other units are pursuing the same righteous agenda.
Turning the Basij militia loose on a restive population is also a more difficult exercise if command and control have broken down.
If the IRGC has lost control, then the moment for a rebellion has arrived, and it's up to the Iranian people to seize it.
Great writing, Peter - youβve answered so many of my questions!
So now Iβm pressing once again on your amazing analytical mind to speculate. What, in your opinion, should Trump do to ensure that America comes out on top as the hero? If he sits back and holds his share of the ceasefire, he risks losing control of the situation and having undesired outcomes - but his political opponents canβt attack him as a βwarmongerβ. If he steps in with full military fury, he makes America look like the strongest and best ally to have in the region - but American servicemen will die. Thereβs a whole slew of calculated risks and trade-offs to weigh. Your thoughts?
This is where I believe Iran miscalculated. President Trump is not under any additional pressure to change tactics.
Israel is pledging to defend the UAE. For a whole host of reasons it benefits Israel and the US for them to be out in front on that. If the UAE wants to retaliate, the US has no reason to interfere in a joint Israeli/UAE strike. Based on Iran's belief that the UAE has already struck Lavan with its Mirage fighters, the UAE may be more combat ready than previously estimated.
If the UAE chooses not to retaliate, the ceasefire holds.
If the UAE retaliates on its own, the ceasefire can be restored.
If the UAE retaliates with Israel participating, Iran's regional calculus will be radically altered.
In none of these scenarios is Trump obligated to act. In none of these scenarios is Trump precluded from acting.
What should Trump do? I would let the UAE shape the next round, and keep the blockade pressure on Iran.
If Iran wants to wait the US out, why launch a strike at a neutral nation?
Why attack one of the Arab oil terminals that is outside the Strait of Hormuz?
What pressure makes now the right time for such an escalation?
Attacking the UAE certainly looks like a blunder because no strategic priority of Iran's was advanced.
If the Gulf Cooperation Council countries declare war on Iran and decide to fly joint strike missions with Israel the geopolitical dynamics of the Middle East will be permanently altered and not in Iran's favor. That outcome became more likely after today.
I feel for those people in Iran who want nothing to do with the IRGC. At some point though, just like during the times of the American Revolution, itβs up to the people there to gain their liberty. The way in which Iran is behaving, led by the IRGC, defies reason. Attacking other Gulf states is dumb, just going to increase the numbers of countries in and out of the region who want nothing to do with that regime. It also creates an opportunity for less hostility towards Israel and a better, more peaceful Middle East,
The people of Iran are in a tough spot, but, as I have said before, their choices boil down to whether they will choose to die as slaves to the IRGC or die fighting as free people.
That's not an attractive set of options, but the situation in Iran is deteriorating to the point where fighting as free people means that fewer Iranians will die overall. Rebellion has become the perverse "safe" choice for them.
Now the question is whether the Iranian people will reach that conclusion.
Look at our own history. Many American colonists were willing to resist British policies, but fewer were immediately ready to fight a full war to overthrow British rule. The shift toward independence took years of conflict, debate, and escalating tensions. For the Iranian people who want freedom, the same elements are needed: strong leadership, enough people willing to fight for freedom, and a clear plan.
What does surprise me is why the GCC nations are not willing to actively participate militarily after all the Iranian attacks. From what is being reported (not necessarily true), Trump had to suspend Project Freedom because Saudi stopped the US from using their bases because US was not retaliating for the UAE strikes. π€·π½ββοΈ
Arab military impotency, particularly in the aftermath of the Arab-Israeli wars the mid-to-late 20th century, is one of the many curious paradoxes of the region.
In 1991, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and parked the bulk of his army on the border with Saudi Arabia, the monarchy immediately appealed to the United States for assistance. This was met with more than a few raised eyebrows in Washington, because for decades the US had been providing substantial military aid to Saudi Arabia, begging the question why the Saudis couldn't see to their own security.
That same question was raised by a former Mujahadeen fighter who had returned from Afghanistan following the withdrawal of Soviet troops from that country--Osama bin Laden. bin Laden went so far as to use his family's connections to seek an audience with the monarchy, where he offered to reconstitute the Mujahadeen--many of whom hailed from the Arab peninsula--to defend the Kingdom and especially to defend the Islamic shrine cities of Mecca and Medina. Bin Laden wanted Arabs and Muslims defending Islam's holiest sites, not western "infidels".
Not only did the monarchy turn him down, but found the very prospect that he could quickly raise a fighting force on his own so disturbing that he was exiled, and he would spend the next decade in Sudan and then back in Afghanistan nursing his grievances. The 9/11 attacks arguably were the result of the Saudis turning to outsiders for defense, and for those same outsiders appearing to encourage the monarchy down what bin Laden considered a path of heresy and blasphemy.
At the same time, the UAE along with Saudi Arabia have some of the few functional air forces in the region, and Iran has already accused the UAE of using its Mirage fighters in air strikes against the secondary oil terminal and refinery on Lavan near the Strait. The UAE has not confirmed if its forces have launched any raids against Iran.
The relationship between the Arab states and the west is a bizarre symbiosis where the Arab states have largely outsourced their practical military security primarily to the United States. Their own forces are largely untested in combat (although Saudi's air force has racked up combat hours flying sorties against the Houthi rebels in Yemen).
Paradoxically, even Iran's regular military is impotent to the point of nonexistence. They were a non-factor in last year's Twelve Day War and they have been largely a non-factor during Operations Epic Fury and Roaring Lion. The only notable exception has been their retaliatory strikes using missiles and drones--most of which are actually controlled by the IRGC.
One of the more fascinating reveals from this war with Iran is which countries have functional militaries which can be deployed to project power in various regions.
In the Middle East military power projection right now is largely the US and Israel, followed by Turkey, and that is about it. Fighting conventional wars and battles is just not something for which the Arab nations or Iran are displaying any great capacity.
Outside the Middle East, does any nation have meaningful military power projection capacity besides the US? Based on global responses to Iran mining and closing the Strait of Hormuz, it is difficult to answer that question in the affirmative.
These global geopolitical dynamics are going to have reverberations worldwide for a decade at least. How other nations respond to this tectonic shift in the status quo is very much a question still being answered.
π½π§²ππβ° Grace and peace to you Amigo,
An executive summary of the Upcoming Summit:
https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/15a6833c-acd0-42ed-b826-fb4475f0a620
^your wonderful work is referenced in the artifact today. βοΈπ’οΈβπ¨π³βοΈπΊπ²β₯οΈππ½π
I read an interesting paper stating that $88 a bbl is the minimum price Saudi Arabia needs to support its economy. Iβm thinking Iran figures its shadow fleet would still operate as before. $110 bbl pricing benefits all the Gulf producers. Inflation be dammed. βTrumpβs bluffing!β Simplistic and stupid but desperate despicable totalitarians take irrational measures. December 7, 1941 comes to mind. Trump should remind the free world, itβs staring down the same gun barrel except it has nuclear weapons. Keep the blockade on, IMHO.
If the tracking data from Kpler is at all accurate, the shadow fleet is not operating.
The oil prices are a benefit to Gulf oil producers, but with Saudi oil production down 25%, UAE oil production down over 40%, and Iraqi oil production down over 50%, the benefits of the higher oil prices are lost in the lack of production.
With Iranian oil production calculated to fall by 40%, no one will profit from the high oil prices.
Scarcity is the one variable no one factored in, with the possible exception of Donald Trump.
I agree, hopefully the shadow fleet is not operational. Keep the pain at maximum. Iran will destroy the planet when they go nuclear.
https://hardpressednorth.substack.com/p/the-april-5th-clock-why-the-iran?r=el34k&utm_medium=ios
Iran striking Fujairah could be an artifact of the mosaic defense philosophy that Iran built. The same could be said of the seaborne attacks successfully thwarted by the US Navy.
There is a strong possibility that the IRGC can no longer control thier forces from a 'central command' as they could have in the opening days of the conflict. Rogue units may be operating 'on thier own' and the IRGC will not attempt to constrain them.
While that philosophy served the needs of Iran against a land attack, it fails when you isolate their economy. An economy based on petroleum, petrochemical and ordinance exports. With no way to finish goods or send them to market, Iran is truly screwed.
Even if the tribal model of civilization is applied across the Middle East, the destruction of Iran's capability to project power through terrorism, is welcome by Iran's neighbors. Most have benefitted from the sale of petroleum and petrochemicals and want to keep that income stream. You need a relativley calm environment to make that happen.
That is a possibility.
However, if the IRGC leadership in Tehran has lost control of individual units, they are also by definition losing control of the country overall.
Factionalism and infighting are inevitable in that scenario, as different unit commanders develop different understandings of the situation, and whether or not other units are pursuing the same righteous agenda.
Turning the Basij militia loose on a restive population is also a more difficult exercise if command and control have broken down.
If the IRGC has lost control, then the moment for a rebellion has arrived, and it's up to the Iranian people to seize it.
Great writing, Peter - youβve answered so many of my questions!
So now Iβm pressing once again on your amazing analytical mind to speculate. What, in your opinion, should Trump do to ensure that America comes out on top as the hero? If he sits back and holds his share of the ceasefire, he risks losing control of the situation and having undesired outcomes - but his political opponents canβt attack him as a βwarmongerβ. If he steps in with full military fury, he makes America look like the strongest and best ally to have in the region - but American servicemen will die. Thereβs a whole slew of calculated risks and trade-offs to weigh. Your thoughts?
This is where I believe Iran miscalculated. President Trump is not under any additional pressure to change tactics.
Israel is pledging to defend the UAE. For a whole host of reasons it benefits Israel and the US for them to be out in front on that. If the UAE wants to retaliate, the US has no reason to interfere in a joint Israeli/UAE strike. Based on Iran's belief that the UAE has already struck Lavan with its Mirage fighters, the UAE may be more combat ready than previously estimated.
If the UAE chooses not to retaliate, the ceasefire holds.
If the UAE retaliates on its own, the ceasefire can be restored.
If the UAE retaliates with Israel participating, Iran's regional calculus will be radically altered.
In none of these scenarios is Trump obligated to act. In none of these scenarios is Trump precluded from acting.
What should Trump do? I would let the UAE shape the next round, and keep the blockade pressure on Iran.
Smart, Peter! As Iβve said many times, you should be advising in the White House!
All Donald has to do is callβ¦β¦
πβ³π Hey Pete, All Facts Matter β ~ Ξ£ Ξ΄Ο/dt:
https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/60e4e0fe-9e0a-4e98-bbac-ab1ce892766c
Grace and peace to you Amigo, Christ is RISEN!
......one day at a time, βπ»π¦π²π¦ π Semper Fortis.
Attacking the UAE or any other gulf state is a huge strategic blunder by Iran.
What is baffling about the strike is why now?
If Iran wants to wait the US out, why launch a strike at a neutral nation?
Why attack one of the Arab oil terminals that is outside the Strait of Hormuz?
What pressure makes now the right time for such an escalation?
Attacking the UAE certainly looks like a blunder because no strategic priority of Iran's was advanced.
If the Gulf Cooperation Council countries declare war on Iran and decide to fly joint strike missions with Israel the geopolitical dynamics of the Middle East will be permanently altered and not in Iran's favor. That outcome became more likely after today.
I feel for those people in Iran who want nothing to do with the IRGC. At some point though, just like during the times of the American Revolution, itβs up to the people there to gain their liberty. The way in which Iran is behaving, led by the IRGC, defies reason. Attacking other Gulf states is dumb, just going to increase the numbers of countries in and out of the region who want nothing to do with that regime. It also creates an opportunity for less hostility towards Israel and a better, more peaceful Middle East,
The people of Iran are in a tough spot, but, as I have said before, their choices boil down to whether they will choose to die as slaves to the IRGC or die fighting as free people.
That's not an attractive set of options, but the situation in Iran is deteriorating to the point where fighting as free people means that fewer Iranians will die overall. Rebellion has become the perverse "safe" choice for them.
Now the question is whether the Iranian people will reach that conclusion.
Look at our own history. Many American colonists were willing to resist British policies, but fewer were immediately ready to fight a full war to overthrow British rule. The shift toward independence took years of conflict, debate, and escalating tensions. For the Iranian people who want freedom, the same elements are needed: strong leadership, enough people willing to fight for freedom, and a clear plan.