Tale spodnja zgodovinska paralela med lahkotnostjo nemškega napada na Francijo avgusta 1914 in Trumpovim “vikend napadom” nas Iran je fenomenalna. V to kategorijo spada tudi Napoleonov napad na Rusiho sto let pred tem ali britanski poskus zavzetja polotoka Gallipoli ob turški ožini Daedanele. Gre za napad iz objestnosti, kjer napadalec nima plana B, ker je bil tako zaverovan v svojo zmago. Nakar je šlo vse narobe in vodilo v zgodovinsko katastrofo.

There are many historical parallels to be drawn with Epic Fury. The most telling, to me, is with the beginning of the First World War. Both conflicts began with what looked like a brilliant plan. The US and Israel aimed to decapitate the Iranian regime on day one of the war. Germany’s strategy was to secure a rapid victory in France. It was devised by Field Marshal Alfred von Schlieffen eight years previously, and rather than attacking France directly from the Franco-German border, where it had strong fortifications, the Germans would go through Belgium and Luxembourg and encircle Paris in a spiral-like movement. Speed was of the essence back then, just as it is today.

It is hard to imagine today the degree of optimism everybody had about the war when Helmuth von Moltke, the German military commander, executed a version of the Schlieffen plan. Kaiser Wilhelm II told his soldiers: “You will be home before the leaves fall from the trees.” Young men left their jobs to go to the front. Older men, like the German sociologist Max Weber, lamented their inability to fight. In Britain, too, the general expectation was that the war would be “over by Christmas”. Trump predicted that the Iran war would last four to five weeks. We are now in week five.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Spodnji graf, ki so ga pripravili v Morgan Stanley in ki ga je objavil Bloomberg, ilustrira kontroverzno situacijo na trgu nafte. Bela krivulja predstavlja današnje stanje krivulje terminske cene Brent nafte: cene v bližnjem roku se vzpenjajo proti 110–116 dolarjev za sodček, nato pa strmo padajo proti 70–80 dolarjem v letih 2028–2030. Modra krivulja izpred meseca dni je bila precej nižja in precej manj strma. To je vizualni prikaz učinka t.i. backwardation. To pomeni, da trg plačuje visoko premijo za takojšnjo nafto, medtem ko verjame, da se bo čez čas vse umirilo. V normalnih razmerah je krivulja contango (cene rastejo z rokom – prihodnje cene so višje). Backwardation pa pomeni obratno: trg pričakuje, da bo nafta zdaj dražja kot kasneje. V tem grafu je backwardation zelo strm, kar je signal velike kratkoročne panike zaradi motnje v dobavi. Trg pravi: „zdaj je nafte premalo, zato plačujemo premijo za takojšnjo dostavo“.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Destrukciji ponudbe (primanjkljaj 15-20 % svetovne ponudbe nafte) bo sledila tudi destrukcija povpraševanja. Drugače ne gre.

Seveda, če bo Hormuška ožina ostala zaprta oziroma če bo prišlo do fizičnega uničenja naftne infrastrukture v Zalivu.

Prepis nekaterih delov pogovora:

Then I think all that’s left for us to think about is how far the desperation of the United States will take it, because it can’t tolerate a defeat. And in this way, I think it’s really quite similar to the almost by now absurd hysteria of the Europeans vis-à-vis Russia. Not because they have a chance to defeat Russia — they don’t — but because the thought of a defeat of Europe by Russia frightens them to such a point.

By them, I mean the leaders of the countries. Their careers would be over, their political life, history would be kind of erased. The whole world would see the kind of slavish subordination Europe accepted after World War II. Perhaps it had no choice, but in any case, it accepted it. And this is the end of that process — the United States throwing them under the bus because it has its own problems.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

John Mearsheimer:

There is much talk about President Trump preparing to launch a ground attack against Iran. In the media discourse, much is made of the fact we have about 50,000 troops in the region. See the three articles below.

One might think those are all combat troops and we therefore have roughly three combat divisions available to invade Iran. But that is not true.

Until recently, there were about 40,000 US troops in the region, which were mainly a mixture of Air Force, Army, and Navy forces. Very importantly, there were few Army or Marine combat troops, although there were certainly some special forces. But they are of little use for major combat operations, for which you need organized combat units like battalions, brigades, regiments, and divisions.

In essence, until recently, there was hardly any organized ground power in the Middle East, which is what you need to invade and hold Iranian territory. As Napoleon was known to say: “God is on the side of the big battalions”

President Troop has recently sent about 2,000 combat troops from the 82^nd Airborne Division to the Middle East as well as the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) comprised of about 2,500 combat troops. There is another MEU – the 11^th – on its way to the Middle East from California, which I assume will add another 2,500 combat troops. That MEU is not expected to arrive until mid-April. That means there will be a total of roughly 7,000 combat troops organized in combat units after mid-April, but 4,500 before then.

That is a tiny force with little chance of conquering and holding Iranian territory, especially when you consider that: 1) all these units are light infantry, 2) they have not prepared to fight this particular war and are doing it on the fly, 3) supporting them logistically when they are in combat will be very difficult, 4) Iran has mobilized an army of about a million men and is lying in wait, 5) the Iranian army is likely to put up fierce resistance as not only will it be defending sacred territory, but the fighting forces will surely understand they are facing an existential threat, 6) the skies over the US troops are likely to be filled with deadly drones – think Ukraine where it is hard for either side’s soldiers to move in the open without getting killed, 7) Iranian ballistic missiles, rockets, and artillery will be directed at the US forces.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Scenarij 3 se zdi najbolj realističen. 

V nobenem scenariju pa ni omenjena usoda Izraela. Izraelske oblasti bi se v tem trenutku morale najbolj bati za eksistenco njihove države.

To predict what will happen, let’s start by ruling out a few scenarios:

1. We are unlikely to see the use of nuclear weapons. First, Israel is unlikely to use them; the U.S. wouldn’t allow it, and more importantly, nukes wouldn’t completely eliminate Iran. Instead, it would risk a counter-strike from Iranian nuclear weapons (which they likely already possess). As for Iran, they won’t be the first to use them. There’s simply no need. We can likely rule out this worst-case, unpredictable risk.
2. The U.S. will not launch a large-scale war on Iranian mainland. They simply can’t afford it.
3. The U.S. will not retreat just yet. Many are anticipating a TACO, but taco now is meaningless. A true “TACO” would mean handing control of the Strait of Hormuz over to Iran—a “Grand TACO,” if you will. It’s too early to give up.
4. Israel will not back down. Stopping now would mean all previous efforts were in vain; they won’t get another chance.
5. As long as there is no regime change, Iran will not back down either. As I’ve discussed before, since they’ve already played their biggest card—Hormuz—they won’t fold easily. Folding means certain death for top IRGC people; staying in the game at least offers a chance at survival.

Once we exclude these five possibilities and establish these constraints, the path forward becomes relatively clear.

First, the U.S. will likely engage in island-seizing operations, hoping to control the situation through small-scale, high-leverage ground combat.

From there, three possibilities emerge:

• Scenario 1: The battle goes smoothly and concludes in days. Iran is forced to the negotiating table, or regime change occurs. The U.S. quickly gains control of the situation.
• Scenario 2: The fighting is grueling and protracted, but the U.S. eventually secures the objective and stabilizes the situation.
• Scenario 3: The fighting is exceptionally difficult. The U.S. either fails to take the objective or takes it but finds it impossible to defend, eventually forcing a withdrawal. This would complete the “Grand TACO.” Trump would shrug his shoulders and take the exit, claiming the battle was simply unwinnable.

Aside from Scenario 1, both Scenarios 2 and 3 would inflict massive pain on the global economic order.

I personally think scenario 3 is the most likely.

In the last 10 days or so, the US war machine unleashed upon all of us its most effective weapon of mass destruction: the coordinated lie.

By claiming negotiations are going on they mostly killed the meaning of this war for the vast majority of humanity – including people in the anti-colonial camp.

This is precisely what they did to the Palestinian struggle with the ceasefire agreement. Once it was announced, the pro-Palestine movement worldwide collapsed and disappeared. Palestine was abandoned and Palestinians were forgotten.

Millions of people went from being involved and enthused to numb and indifferent. It happened in one hour. That’s how destructive this power is.

The US has the consciousness equivalent of nuclear bombs, and it never hesitates using them. In fact, its very existence depends of constantly dropping them. 

They are trying to do the same to the Iran war now; to kill its spirit and the meaning. To minimise, muddle and depoliticize it. To defile it.

Only this time, the power they are fighting is not mostly helpless us or ‘the markets’. It is Iran’s military and Revolutionary Guard Corps.

And I’m telling you: if anyone believes Iran (and the Axis) is returning to just sitting passively and waiting for the next time it is convenient for Israel and the US to attack, they are painfully mistaken.

I’ve said it since day 1 of this, and I’ll say it again: this war will not end before monumental political changes materialized in West Asia. Monumental.

No country or institution identified with the colonial West is safe, will be safe, or will remain the same as before, and many won’t survive this.

Don’t succumb to the immense lie machine. This is not a limited, short-term conflict. This is West Asia’s War of Liberation. This is what all my senses are telling me.

The West will keep on lying and lying to shape perception for its needs till reality has been made 100% clear for everyone, at which point they will have no more power at all.  What they will do after that is unknown because they have no plan other than murdering, exploiting and lying.

Galloway: When you talk about the “international community,” do you mean Washington, London, Tel Aviv, and Brussels? That’s not the whole world.

Morgan: Then who is the world, in your view? Do you support Iran?

Galloway: Listen carefully… China stands with Iran, Russia stands with Iran, Brazil stands with Iran, South Africa stands with Iran, Indonesia stands with Iran, Pakistan stands with Iran — and India deals with Iran.

When did you, Piers Morgan, gain the right to decide that seven-eighths of the world’s population don’t matter just because you dislike their systems?

These are the majority of the planet’s people, and they reject your so-called rules-based order — one that allows you to kill Palestinians while lecturing the world about human rights.

Morgan: I’m not saying they don’t matter. I’m saying I’d rather live in a liberal democracy that guarantees freedom of speech than under a brutal dictatorship.

Galloway (interrupting): You’re free to choose where you live — but you’re not free to destroy the rest of the world because they don’t live the way you do. That’s your “rules-based international order” — it’s the law of the jungle.