Better to preserve the illusion of military hegemony than to stalemate against tier2 power and remove all doubt. - Mr Rogers, probably. At least Kagan losing some sleep.
> In a world where Iran wields influence over the energy supply of so many nations, Israel could face enormous international pressure not to provoke Tehran in Lebanon, Gaza, or anywhere else.
This is a silly article. It assumes the situation in the Gulf is finalized, calling the current situation "checkmate" and implying the game is finished, even when all sides know the status-quo is unsustainable. Neither side agrees to the terms of the other. The conflict, which is currently paused in a fragile ceasefire, will resume. It's unavoidable.
This is akin to looking at Europe in November 1939, a month after the fall of Poland and two months after the war began, and claiming the war was finished. WWII entered a lull where basically nothing happened for 8 months, other than a naval blockade and minor skirmishes.
It is hard to believe this doesn't push us towards electricity for more things. It is so much less to have an electrical vehicle right now. Electrical prices have a soft cap too as solar becomes cheaper.
If Iran gets to tax the strait of Hormuz, it's the entire world that will be doing the "FO" part. The EU, maybe China. For the US, consequences will be relatively minimal.
Obviously Iran will be using their newfound leverage to force policy changes in the EU first. That will be very, very bad.
(and if I can say something really unpopular: this is why Trump wants and asks for EU and other allies to support the US in this war. Not because it's just or fair ... nothing to do with it. More like "deal with Trump or deal with mullahs", expecting any sane person to choose Trump, rather than deal with the consequences of Iran either taxing Hormuz or acquiring nuclear weapons)
It doesn't take much for somebody to seem like a more reliable party to make a deal with than Trump. Trump has already made direct threats of military action against Europe. Making a deal together with China might be the better option.
Also, Trump asking the EU and other allies to contribute seems much more to be about shifting blame and cost. Participating in the quagmire he created, with such an unreliable partner seems like a terrible idea.
Better to preserve the illusion of military hegemony than to stalemate against tier2 power and remove all doubt. - Mr Rogers, probably. At least Kagan losing some sleep.
> In a world where Iran wields influence over the energy supply of so many nations, Israel could face enormous international pressure not to provoke Tehran in Lebanon, Gaza, or anywhere else.
One can hope.
This is a silly article. It assumes the situation in the Gulf is finalized, calling the current situation "checkmate" and implying the game is finished, even when all sides know the status-quo is unsustainable. Neither side agrees to the terms of the other. The conflict, which is currently paused in a fragile ceasefire, will resume. It's unavoidable.
This is akin to looking at Europe in November 1939, a month after the fall of Poland and two months after the war began, and claiming the war was finished. WWII entered a lull where basically nothing happened for 8 months, other than a naval blockade and minor skirmishes.
We are currently in a similar lull.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney_War
It is hard to believe this doesn't push us towards electricity for more things. It is so much less to have an electrical vehicle right now. Electrical prices have a soft cap too as solar becomes cheaper.
https://archive.is/3UIBI
I mean what’s there to say but, well…FAFO.
If Iran gets to tax the strait of Hormuz, it's the entire world that will be doing the "FO" part. The EU, maybe China. For the US, consequences will be relatively minimal.
Obviously Iran will be using their newfound leverage to force policy changes in the EU first. That will be very, very bad.
(and if I can say something really unpopular: this is why Trump wants and asks for EU and other allies to support the US in this war. Not because it's just or fair ... nothing to do with it. More like "deal with Trump or deal with mullahs", expecting any sane person to choose Trump, rather than deal with the consequences of Iran either taxing Hormuz or acquiring nuclear weapons)
It doesn't take much for somebody to seem like a more reliable party to make a deal with than Trump. Trump has already made direct threats of military action against Europe. Making a deal together with China might be the better option.
Also, Trump asking the EU and other allies to contribute seems much more to be about shifting blame and cost. Participating in the quagmire he created, with such an unreliable partner seems like a terrible idea.
[dead]