Tag: strait of hormuz
Did We Lose Yet? Trump's Ego-Driven Iran 'Excursion' Crashes Into Reality

Did We Lose Yet? Trump's Ego-Driven Iran 'Excursion' Crashes Into Reality

“Many questions, few details in latest Iran peace proposal,” read the headline on a New York Times report Sunday. As the subhead explained, “It is too early to tell what exactly Trump and Iran have agreed to, or if they have agreed to much at all.” The article, by the way, was written by David Sanger, who Trump called “treasonous” over his clearly accurate reporting on how badly the war was going.

But, in fact, Trump’s Iran war may be over, or virtually over. America lost.

Iran may or may not agree to exercise restraint in its control over the Strait of Hormuz and its nuclear program. But as Donald Trump of all people should know, agreements can be broken. At a fundamental level Trump, who began by demanding UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER and trying to impose a subservient new regime, is now slinking away, leaving Iran’s hard-liners empowered — and America’s reputation shattered.

How did that happen? America is a superpower, Iran a middle-sized regional power at best. Spending isn’t the only determinant of armed might, but even so a comparison of the two government’s military budgets is ludicrously one-sided:

US and Iran military spending 2025 Data from Stockholm International Peace Research Institute

Yet the Iranian regime is not only still standing, it is stronger than before. Meanwhile, Trump is running away.

Trump’s disastrous leadership isn’t the sole factor behind this debacle, although it’s a large part of the story. In my view there are four main reasons Trump’s Iran “excursion” is ending in humiliation.

First, this was a fundamentally unwinnable war.

Once the initial decapitation strike against Iran’s leadership left the regime’s hold on power intact, Operation Epic Fury became an attempt to end Iran’s threat to world oil supplies by suppressing its missiles and drones with air power. Unfortunately, as the Substack History Does You has documented, such campaigns have never worked. Allied air forces tried to stop Nazi Germany from launching V1s and V2s in World War II; they failed. During the first Gulf War, Coalition air forces devoted huge resources to an attempt to stop Iraq from launching Scud missiles; they also failed. Chasing down mobile launchers, especially in an era of cheap, abundant drones and in a huge, mountainous country like Iran, is an impossible game of whack-a-mole.

Of course, leaders who aren’t terminally arrogant and ignorant don’t start unwinnable wars in the first place.

Second, painful as this is to recognize, the U.S. military, after decades of unchallenged dominance, appears to have lost much of its edge. As Phillips O’Brien recently wrote,

The lack of thought-through US response to the technological changes we are seeing [especially in the Russia-Ukraine war] before it embarked on the Iran bombing shows how smug militaries can be—and the bigger and more powerful they think they are the more smug they tend to be.

There is far too much self-congratulation in the US about its military, a belief that US armed forces are highly professional, show initiative, are thoughtful, etc. This is a romantic vision that Americans are using now to throw all blame for the Iran failure on the Trump Administration.

That said, the Trump administration has made the degradation of the military much worse.

Pete Hegseth, the self-proclaimed Secretary of War, has carried out an unprecedented purge of military officers with impeccable reputations, with the majority of those fired Black or female. He has replaced them with political loyalists like Admiral Brad Cooper, the head of Central Command, who has in effect been running Trump’s war.

The officers who survived the purge got the message. Under Hegseth, official accounts of the war’s progress have been a stream of bombastic claims of victory and ludicrously rosy depictions of the situation on the battlefield. Less than two weeks ago Cooper was still peddling fantasies of easy victory to Congress, asserting among other things that the U.S. could easily open the Strait of Hormuz by force.

Do you believe that these delusions are only for public consumption, that Hegseth has been getting and acting on accurate information? I don’t. It’s far more likely that Hegseth and Trump have also been receiving false, optimistic reports, because nobody in the military dares to tell them the uncomfortable truth.

The sycophancy and flattery Cooper exhibited in that testimony surely reflected groupthink that has led to many bad decisions. For example, reporting by CNN, the Washington Post and the Times finds that U.S. bases and facilities have suffered a remarkable amount of damage from Iranian drone and missile strikes, with casualties and much expensive equipment and aircraft destroyed. Why wasn’t the U.S. military prepared for this possibility?

The lack of preparation clearly reflected a predetermined view that Iran would be so devastated by U.S. attacks that it would be unable to strike back. And it’s reasonable to infer that any officers who tried to warn of the dangers were treated as defeatists and silenced.

Finally, success in modern war depends crucially on out-thinking one’s enemies. But MAGA is all about deprecating hard thinking and valorizing belligerent ignorance.

On Saturday Hegseth addressed the graduating class at West Point. In war, he declared, “you can’t throw your pronouns at the enemy.” He congratulated the cadets on being “fit, not fat.” Despite humiliating failure, Hegseth still has his job — and is still asserting that eliminating DEI wins wars and that bulging biceps can beat drones.

Can America still snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, or should it accept a deal that leaves us clearly worse off than we were before the war? The answer is that running away — if that is what Trump is doing — is now the right move. It’s better to accept a bad deal, one that leaves America much weaker than it was a few months ago, than to double down on a failed war. Time is not on our side: looming shortages of critical weapons, the imminent exhaustion of world oil inventories, and the lost support of our allies and the American public mean that this war needs to end soon.

Paul Krugman is a Nobel Prize-winning economist and former professor at MIT and Princeton who now teaches at the City University of New York's Graduate Center. From 2000 to 2024, he wrote a column for The New York Times. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Paul Krugman.

Discerning The Grim Reality Behind Trump's Fog Of Wartime Lies

Discerning The Grim Reality Behind Trump's Fog Of Wartime Lies

For anyone who believed Donald Trump's promise to be a "peace" president, his regime becomes more confusing every day.

Having started a war with Iran for no intelligible reason, Trump now alternates between threatening to bomb them back to the Stone Age and overseeing a ceasefire in which the firing hasn't actually ceased. Yesterday, US forces launched what the Pentagon called “self-defense strikes” after Iran fired missiles and drones against the destroyers USS Truxton, USS Rafael Peralta, and USS Mason, as well as attacking with small boats.

Trump insists the ceasefire is still in place and that negotiations toward a peaceful resolution continue. Meanwhile to avoid the Constitutional requirement for Congressional authorization, he has called the war an "excursion," a "military operation," a "conflict," and most recently a "skirmish."

But having issued repeated orders to strike boats allegedly carrying narcotics in the Caribbean and the Pacific, which most of the world regards as a violation of international law, Trump and his Pentagon stooge Pete Hegseth claim that we're "at war" with the supposed narco traffickers on those vessels. According to their twisted logic, those accused smugglers are combatants, and thus not entitled to arrest and trial instead of summary execution.

In the real world -- which bears little resemblance to the Trump fantasy universe -- we have been at war with Iran for months and while the outcome remains to be seen, this misadventure isn't going well by any sane measure despite Trump's constant grandiose prevarications.

He constantly insists that Iran was on the brink of acquiring nuclear weapons before the US started this war, a claim he reiterated this week when he slandered Pope Leo. The mullahs were "two weeks away" from possessing atomic bombs, he wrote on Truth Social, to be deployed immediately against Israel, every other country in the Mideast, Europe and the United States. They were about to blow up the world! Only the most braindead MAGA imbeciles believe such fables. The International Atomic Energy Agency and every other credible authority -- including the US intelligence community's own assessment last year -- have determined that Iran is nowhere near to building even a single bomb, nor has its leadership undertaken any decision to do so.

Both he and Hegseth boast that their current military campaign has "completely destroyed" Iran's military, including its navy, air force, missile and drone production facilities. Yet somehow Iran continues to control the Strait of Hormuz and to hit targets at will, including US navy vessels and the territory of US allies in the Gulf.

Trump has said many times in recent weeks that negotiations to conclude the "skirmish" are on the verge of success, although what success would mean is far from clear. He blusters on and on, assuring Americans that the Iranians are desperate to make a deal while he "holds all the cards."

Yesterday the Washington Post revealed that the CIA does not agree with that optimistic assessment. In a secret report to the White House, the agency found that Iran can endure the US blockade of the Strait of Hormuz for several months before encountering any serious economic trouble. As one US official told the Post, the Iranian leadership -- the same leadership that Trump says no longer exists -- has become "increasingly confident" that they can outlast the Trump administration in a contest of wills.

There is a reason that almost every word out of Trump's mouth is a lie. Neither he nor we can tolerate the reality of the world deformed by his incompetence and narcissism.

Joe Conason is founder and editor-in-chief of The National Memo. He is also editor-at-large of Type Investigations, a nonprofit investigative reporting organization formerly known as The Investigative Fund. His latest book is The Longest Con: How Grifters, Swindlers and Frauds Hijacked American Conservatism (St. Martin's Press, 2024). The paperback version, with a new Afterword, is now available wherever books are sold.




Ceasefire! What Might This Mean for the Strait, the Markets, and You

Ceasefire! What Might This Mean for the Strait, the Markets, and You

As I suspect you’ve heard, a two-week ceasefire appears to be in place in the war with Iran. That is unequivocally good news, though no one paying attention can breath anything like a sigh of relief, despite the relief rally going on this morning in equity markets, with West Texas Intermediate oil down ~$20 as I write this (which will have moved by the time you read this).

There are more questions than answers and for the (scant) details as we know them, go to any news source you trust. But here are my quick impressions. Hovering over all of them are “What was that for? What did thousands of people have to lose their lives for?”

Let me be unequivocal about this. I’ll be very happy if the parties in this conflict can find the offramp they appear to be seeking. But I fear this will be no occasion for celebration. Iran’s hardline theocracy remains in place, and worse, appears ready to continue their operation of turning the Strait of Hormuz into a tollbooth, which would be a massive cash cow for them. If you’re thinking “the U.S. would never let that stand!” you might be right, but that could well mean the ceasefire ends and the conflict restarts.

My top priority is that nobody else gets killed because of Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu’s aggressions. But I don’t celebrate the arsonist who puts out the fire he started.

With that, a few impressions of where we are. They talk about the fog of war, but what I’m about to try to see through is the fog of this ceasefire, with an econ-more-than-a-geopolitical angle.

—Feeling the Blues in the Strait of Hormuz: A key Iranian condition for the ceasefire is that "safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz will be possible via coordination with Iran’s Armed Forces and with due consideration of technical limitations."

This is bad. To me, and to some press reports, it reads like they’ll ramp up their control of who transits (relative to pre-war), possibly with a cap on traffic, and with a toll (the number $2 million per vessel has circulated for a while).

We don’t know how private shippers will respond, but what choice do they have? At least in the medium term, there's nowhere near enough supply-chain alternatives to move product out into the globe. If this is broadly correct, and if this condition stands, it suggests that a new, post-war SoH transit premium will be added to the price of oil and other goods coming through the Strait, one that will continue to be passed forward to consumers.

—The Way We Were: Will Markets/Oil Just Revert to Prewar Levels/Trends? Unknowable, but, at least re oil, not if the aforementioned premium kicks in. Equity markets, though they trended down toward correction territory, broadly expected Trump to back down, so the relief rally is solidly underway as I write this AM: Here’s the S&P pre-opening futures:

Gas is up this morning ($4.16/gal), and if the oil decline sticks, we’ll have a real-time test of the old rockets/feathers dynamic, where the gas price takes the elevator up and the stairs down.

I’m not in the biz of predicting where markets will go but if the result of this war, as some are predicting, is to crimp the existing supply chain of fossil fuels, it would raise prices and dampen global growth at some margin. But it could also stimulate new activity to find workarounds to this obviously dysfunction choke point, and put more wind power in the sails of renewable energy development. (You know my views on this: as I said to Shalanda Young yesterday, if I were in charge, I’d do the Canadian Shuffle and allow a nice bunch of Chinese EVs into the US, conditional on some degree of tech-transfer and joint production.)

—Will It Stick? I find the fact that the Trump administration is apparently allowing Iran’s 10-point plan to be a starting place for ceasefire negotiations to be very surprising and a symbol of how desperate Trump is for an offramp. He’s gone from promising to end their civilization at 8pm ET to “sure, we’re cool with sitting down to chat about you keeping your nukes and controlling the Strait.” You’ll see what I mean if you look their list.

I’ve been following Tobin Marcus from Wolfe Research on these matters, who writes this morning (with Chutong Zhu):

If the US were outright accepting Iran's 10 points as they're now being reported, this would be a huge surprise and a massive concession, with the US accepting various Iranian red lines and giving up on our own, including on the nuclear file. On the other hand, if defining the 10 points as a "basis for negotiations" does not imply acceptance of those points, then it's unclear how close the two sides really are in the ongoing negotiations. It's a little hard to believe that Trump is accepting anything like Iran's 10 points, and the WH seems to be telling Israel we're doing nothing of the sort, so we lean toward interpreting this as intentional wiggle-room to facilitate an offramp, which raises questions about the likelihood that the next two weeks of negotiations will actually culminate in a permanent deal.

In other words, there’s a tension between Trump’s usual play—break something, declare victory, move on to breaking something else—and accepting what should be unacceptable. And it is impossible to know at this point how that balances out. If you pushed me to take a side, I’d guess he’s more likely to mush up some version of pushing back on the most egregious Iranian conditions and turn tail outta there.

—What Does All This Mean For Regular Folks Just Trying to Go About Their Lives? As you know, this is always my touchstone up in here. Assuming the ceasefire sticks, Strait of Hormuz traffic picks up, and the oil price falls at least part of the way back to its prewar level, the gas price should slowly come down, much as we predicted here. That still cuts meaningfully into real disposable incomes, and, as I’ve been worrying about, lower real wage gains. I’m watching carefully to see how the March headline CPI, out Friday, compares to the most recent pace of mid/low wage growth of 3.4 percent.

But more broadly, for folks just trying to make ends meet, this misadventure in the Middle East is yet another Trumpian own goal kick in their faces. The Trump tariffs, the Trump budget, the Trump war—they’re all making life more expensive for people, which is especially ironic given that those people will tell you that their main economic concern is affordability.

And never forget the opportunity costs: if you’re spending all your time making things worse, you’ve squandered the time you could have spent making things better. Imagine that instead of negotiating a 10-point plan that gives the Iranian regime what they want, we were negotiating a 10-point plan for affordable housing, childcare, and healthcare.

I’ve said it before, including yesterday, so sorry—not sorry—for being repetitious. But any Democrat who seeks to retain and win office that isn’t working to operationalize that contrast needs to immediately get out of the way and make room for someone who will fight their a— off on behalf of these priorities.

Jared Bernstein is a former chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Joe Biden. He is a senior fellow at the Council on Budget and Policy Priorities. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Econjared.


Iran Hawks Must Confront The Catastrophic Failure Of Trump's Leadership

Iran Hawks Must Confront The Catastrophic Failure Of Trump's Leadership

I am an Iran hardliner. But I'm struggling to understand how other hardliners can be so credulous about President Donald Trump's leadership of this war. It's as if you were stranded by the side of the road and accepted a ride from an obviously drunk driver.

Earlier this month, the Wall Street Journal editorial board scolded those of us who were not cheerleading for this war: "There's remarkable pessimism in the media and political class about the U.S. bombing campaign against the terrorist regime in Iran. Five days into the war, you'd think from the coverage and commentary that the U.S. is losing."

In the weeks since, the Journal, along with other unreconstructed hawks, has worried that Trump may not "finish the job" and have chided doubters by reminding us of the many depredations perpetrated by Teheran.

But here's the problem with the hawks' posture: You cannot separate the war from the people directing it.

Trump fans believe he always has a plan — that if he threatens, cajoles, or pivots, it's a sign of his unique ability to keep others off balance. To me, it looks like he's the one who's off balance. How do they account for Trump's pronouncements early in this now monthlong war that it was "won in the first hour"? Do they recall Trump's proclamation on March 6 that he would accept only "unconditional surrender"? What about the demand, five days into the conflict, that Trump have a say in choosing Iran's next leader? Did all of that suggest the smooth unfurling of a master plan or clear evidence that he expected a quick and decisive toppling of the regime and was surprised by reality?

The Iran hawks stress that the regime is one of the most dangerous and repressive on the planet and note that the region and the world would be so much better off without the mullahs in charge. Yes. But: Where is the evidence that a bombing campaign led by an impulsive narcissist can achieve that goal? Was there a Plan B if the bombing failed to ignite a popular uprising? How confident can we really be that Iran will, in the long term, be less dangerous, less hostile to the United States and Israel, less likely to support terrorism, less brutal to its own people thanks to Trump's "excursion"?

One of Trump's throughlines is the belief that other leaders and specifically his predecessors have failed to achieve goals due to "stupidity" and lack of will. Enraptured by America's military might, he imagines that threatening it and using it are the skeleton keys to pick any lock. There are no complex challenges requiring subtlety and discretion. There is no understanding that not every problem can be solved through the application of force. He disdains expertise, preferring to surround himself with lickspittles who bring only good news.

And when reality intrudes, as it did when his 2017 inauguration crowds were smaller than Obama's, or the COVID pandemic was not less harmful than the flu, or he lost the 2020 election, he chooses to believe lies and to insist that everyone else assent to the lies as well. Lies are his pacifier. When such a toddler is calling the shots in a war, it's acutely dangerous.

What Trump should be learning (though he isn't) is that previous presidents refrained from attacking Iran not out of fecklessness but because they weighed the risks. Yes, Iran is a weaker nation militarily than the United States (or even Israel), but it happens to own the high ground above the Strait of Hormuz.

Days into the war, Trump crowed that Iran had "no navy." But even as Trump spoke, Iran was in the process of disabling the Strait of Hormuz through the use of drones and fastboats and threatening to mine it. Meanwhile, they are charging a hefty toll for the ships they allow to pass, a new revenue stream for the regime.

Because Trump pulled the trigger without securing political or popular support, without allies (save one) and without considering how much damage to the world economy Iran could inflict, he is highly vulnerable to economic pain, and the Iranians know it. That's their asymmetric advantage. As a military matter, it doesn't matter that they have no navy. They don't have to hit a single ship in the strait. Their threats are hitting the insurance companies, and that's enough.

A large share of the world's supply of not just oil and gas but also helium, fertilizer and other chemicals now relies largely on the Iranian regime. We teeter on the edge of a worldwide recession and widespread hunger. Yet we are being led in this war by a fantasist who does not assimilate reality. "Trump is getting a little bored with Iran," an administration official indicated last week. "Not that he regrets it or something — he's just bored and wants to move on."

It's impossible to say which is more alarming, Trump's inattention or his engagement.

Mona Charen is policy editor of The Bulwark and host of the "Beg to Differ" podcast. Her new book, Hard Right: The GOP's Drift Toward Extremism, is available now.

Reprinted with permission from Creators

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World