On the one hand the US has pushed for this by weakening NATO. On the other hand what's interesting is that the EU's primary defense focus is Ukraine whose primary adversary's primary defense partner is Iran, including creator of the dominant drone that Russia uses to attack Ukraine. So while it makes sense that European countries are doing what they can to avoid being targeted by Iranian retaliation, it's a pretty sad state of affairs for Europe to not be able to do much to defend its interests (in Ukraine or the Gulf). All of this will lead to a newly muscular Europe, presumably. Which is what the US has been pushing for. But the US will have to get used to getting less red carpet treatment in Europe.
I'm sure Europe would in theory prefer to be unified against Iran (for the reasons you mention, namely Russia), but the way this war was started was just too colossally stupid. It (entirely predictably) jacked up oil prices, so Iran is making more money on their exports, and Russian sanctions are being lifted. The immediate consequences of this war are directly funding our (both the US's and EU's) adversaries. I don't think fear of Iranian (para)military retaliation is much of a factor, but certainly not the main one.
There was no way you go to war with Iran without oil prices rising and the straits closing temporarily. So you had a choice: be permanently deterred or take action and bear the pain. Sure Europe would like to avoid that pain for obvious reasons, but it's going to be a long-term gain in the form of a weakened Iran and a strengthened Europe. If you feel Iran and Russia are strengthened by this you're over-focusing on one key thing: oil revenue, when Iran is weakened by countless other things and Russia is weakened having their entire middle eastern strategic allies including the gulf players they've pandered up to now hostile.
> There was no way you go to war with Iran without oil prices rising and the straits closing temporarily
Agreed, but
> but it's going to be a long-term gain in the form of a weakened Iran and a strengthened Europe
I don't think this is a sure thing at all.
The fact is that the US and Israel kicked a hornets nest that everyone is stuck in the room with, and everyone else in that room is understandably upset. And (to belabor the metaphor) the only ones who those hornets were eyeing had themselves been causing trouble for the past 80 years.
To continue the metaphor, there are some that are comfortable having a hornet's nest in their bedroom and others that will take the initiative to remove it
How is Iran weakened, in what sense? It suffered economic damage and casualties for sure, but I don't think there is anything it cannot recover from. It's just a pure destructive rage from US side without thinking of any long-term strategic results.
They have put all of their resources into military technology over the last 30 years and now much of that is destroyed or degraded. They have lost their deterrence and the lawn will continue to be mowed if they do decide to attempt to rebuild it. Because the people resent the regime it's just a matter of time before things change on the ground and when that does happen assistance and economic opportunities will emerge. But until then Iran will be in this extremely degraded state
This is a silly claim; they're still sending missiles and drones all over the area, and the strait is functionally closed.
We spent twenty years trying to tame Afghanistan and it went right back to the Taliban within days of withdrawal from the area. Iran has a lot more capacity to bounce back than they did.
Before the war, the regime was facing the threat of imminent collapse. But if the war ends without regime change, they may use it as an excuse to eliminate organizers and other key opposition figures. If they have not already done so. If no other options exist, the regime will remain in power, despite the lack of popular support.
As for deterrent, Iran will probably stop being a significant threat to Israel. But cheap drones have changed the situation closer to Iran. The military power required to close the Strait and hobble the economies of the Gulf states is orders of magnitude smaller than the military power needed to stop it.
The US government were surprised that they closed the strait btw. Let’s not rewrite history to make this all sound planned and foreseen when it clearly was not.
Also currently Iran is looking stronger not weaker tbh. The Americans have really fucked it all up.
I have heard numerous people make this assertion when every single wargaming exercise has always predicted the closing of the straight. I don't understand where this is coming from.
When you say Iran is looking stronger I think you mean in some kind of relative expectation game in the media sense rather than a real hard power sense.. I would encourage you to look at the latter instead
Weakened Iran is not a given outcome. It's a possible outcome. As for Gulf players, the feel suckered by Trump now. The saudis are begging for Trump to finish the job exactly because they are afraid he won't.
I had heard that Iranian exports had increased. This [0] is the best source I can find commenting on their output either way, and it says they're exporting about 50% more. That part might be untrue, but the lack of reporting suggests that at worst that their output hasn't decreased. Whatever the change though, the price of oil has increased significantly, which makes them more money. So at present they're making anywhere from 50%-100% more money, depending on whether their exports have increased.
Iran's relationhip to Russia is in no way strategic to EU. Overall trade between Russia and Iran is 1/400th of that of Russia <-> China trade. Breaking the relationship now would not lead to any noticeable effect on Ukraine war. Russia manufactures geran drones itself. And you will not bomb technology/knowledge transfers away anyway. Vast majority of the materials for Russia's war come from China and the rest of the world, incl. USA and Europe.
What is a complete strategic failure though is EU's support for Israel's impunity that created this war, which will negatively effect all of the EU. There should have been severe sanctions and travel bans on all Israelis long time ago, to force their government to act better. Economic losses this shithole country caused to the EU, will not be offset by any benefits Israel's<->EU trade could create for a looooong time.
The EU should have attacked Iran the moment Iran started providing defensive assistance to Russia. Initially it wasn't know how that they gave them but explicit shipments of drones. That would have been the moment to pounds but of course the EU did not have the strength to act in that moment. That weakness unfortunately persists but it will not forever. And in time, oncr strengthened again, the EU will be able to act where needed.
If you think this war is somehow negatively impacting the EU you're being very short sighted. Do you realize the level of impunity the IRGC has traditionally operated with in europe? Only the mass murderer of the Iranian civilians in January initiated a slow wake up call for europe. Still only a service level wake up call unfortunately
Out of curiosity did you reach out privately to explain you were surprised by their omission, and give them a change to update things? or did you go straight into the public story about copycats not giving credit where credit is due? Because it seems very conceivable to me that in the game of telephone of getting something out there some things may have been lost that might have been added in if you had reached out in good will. If you had, and they still ignored, that would be a different story entirely.
i assume based on their concerns of the hetzner pricing that they didnt want to pay for voyage/turbopuffer. unless there are free versions of those products that I'm unaware of, but I'm only seeing paid.
The ability of a state to run on energy pulled out of thin air is an obvious strategic benefit.
Surely the resources required to build and maintain solar panels, turbines, dams, and nuclear reactors are logistically more stable than oil has proven to be.
Everyone knew the Iranians would close the strait and that it would take time to re-open it. That was the price the administration was willing to pay. Put differently, the regime's traditional deterrence did not work against this administration. You seem to think the administration would not have done this thing with what we know now. What makes you think that?
Trump is quoted saying that Iran would surrender or be pverthrown way before they would close the strait.
This operation was cobbled together between Trump, Hegseth, Rubio and Vance without consulting anyone outside that circle. The way they have been selling it, espwcially the strait stuff, smells of unplanned developements all around.
I disagree. Even though I think the Iranian regime has been extremely incompetent overall their war strategy has been surprisingly lucid. They aren't actually risking much more by attacking neighboring countries that are already cooperating with the US. How much is Qatar's military involvement going to move the needle when you're already facing a full-on war with the US and Israel?
Raising the overall costs to the US and its allies is a pretty coherent theory of victory for Iran. Obviously they aren't going to win a conventional fight, but they might be able to inflict enough havoc on energy and commodity markets to the point that it really hurts the US and its allies economically; perhaps enough that they bail out of the war in order to stabilize the global economy.
Trump clearly wanted a quick easy win here and does not want to see massive inflation at home. Sure he personally doesn't give a shit about Americans but the rest of the politicians who enable him do and he's at risk of absolutely torching his own party for years if the war drags on and costs really get out of hand.
All the Iranian regime has to do to win is not lose for enough weeks. If the regime holds out Trump will have to either give up and try to pretend this disaster was a Great Victory, or he'll launch a ground invasion that will almost certainly turn into a quagmire. Bombing civilians makes a popular uprising much less likely, so the US is doing them quite a favor on that front.
well... I actually think even when trump is impeached, the democrats will continue -- even more so, to call mr trump "a weak president"
I mean, can US and its allies exactly stop at status quo?
Iran just learnt it can missile nearby neighbors and demand $2M toll fee on the strait users...
even if US just backs down from "epic wut", will iran become "the good guy" and never missile neighbors and stop demanding that $2M toll?
nope: rather, that would mean US and allies will lose its deterrence against Iran completely
iran'll start bullying more on those neighbors, and the toll fee will go up: $2M to $5M to $10M to... even $100M -- I mean, what's stopping iran from doing so?
anyway, I'm just surprised everyone in this forum is trying their best only to say "trump is such an idiot to start the war (well duh?)", and not to look at what choices each nations had/have after trump's dickhead move
Stop projecting on Iran what USA would do in their place (bullying everybody).
Iran was NOT bombing its neighbours and demanding Hormuz toll before the war.
Not even after it was bombed last June.
If they had not responded strongly, USA/Israel would keep periodically 'mowing the lawn', not acceptable to any country, especially not for a big and proud nation like Iran.
Btw, the US military bases in Gulf countries are legitimate military targets, and have born the brunt of Iran's attacks. It is just that in our western media the focus is on any civilian damages, and almost all damages to military is hushed up.
Iran has no good way to prevent future attacks (nobody sane would believe any agreement signed by USA), their only way is to make sure beyond any doubt that attacking them again will hurt VERY, VERY much. As a side note, getting rid of USA military bases in the Gulf would be beneficial to them in making any future attacks on them more difficult. Hence the (very true!) messaging 'the USA military bases are not there to protect you, but to help them project power over us (and you!), and are only making you a target, reducing your security, not increasing it'.
>Iran was NOT bombing its neighbours and demanding Hormuz toll before the war. Not even after it was bombed last June.
They were funding and arming proxies that were bombing and destabilizing neighborhoods. Nobody in the region likes Iran, that is precisely why the Gulf States want US bases and a Israeli military pact.
And this is not a reactive policy as it is an explicit proactive policy of exporting the Islamic Revolution and gaining regional hegemony. Which no one wants.
> Iran was NOT bombing its neighbours and demanding Hormuz toll before the war. Not even after it was bombed last June.
Iran has a history of launching rockets into Israel, both through it's proxies an directly. It has also invaded the US embassy holding 52 staff hostage, conducted unprovoked attacks against allied interests, attacks merchant ships in international waters and massacred tens of thousands of it's own people for the crime of speaking out against the government.
If using proxies invites invasion, then proportionally the USA should be nuked multiple tims over from the face of the earth given the mass scale of terrorism their proxies have conducted. So this proxy argument is nonsense.
Under a sane president there would be a pretty clear off ramp available in the form of a negotiated settlement. Iran stops attacking neighbors and the strait in exchange for a US promise to not start another unprovoked war, along with another JCPOA type agreement lifting sanctions and limiting their nuclear development. The problem here is that absolutely nobody trusts trump to actually stick to a deal, especially after he was the one who broke the previous deal and then attacked them twice in the middle of negotiations. Trump's stupidity compounds the mess in ways that no other president would.
Without a negotiating partner Iran basically has to settle the issue with force. They are going to try to do as much economic damage as possible in order to deter current and future attacks, or die trying. Without a ground invasion the attacks on both sides will wind down at some point but it's hard to see how we get to a clean cease fire, it's likely to be a messy uneven one that could flare back up at any point.
The Gulf states are not any more willing than the USA at invading Iran with ground troops. The only thing that changes by making them angry is that slightly more missiles fly into Iran. Which is already accounted for and won't magically reopen the strait.
Did that involve boot on the grounds or just shelling via cruise missiles or from air? Also, Yemen is poorer, but has more or less the same population as Saudi Arabia.
Their military is a paper tiger like Saddam’s was during the Iraq invasion. Modern gear but without the doctrine or officer corps to effectively use it.
My experience while working there years ago was that their armed forces were a weird mix of coup proofing and a nepotistic dumping ground for family members who couldn’t be trusted to help run the family business.
> Iran should have just shot israel with all its missiles (select and focus)
Iran has deliberately escalated the war horizontally to create a bigger mess and to make the military adventure more expensive for America and the world.
Iran is saying, "If you attack us, these are the costs."
As an invading military, you're either willing to pay those costs or you're not.
I see a lot of people throw this "no revolution" perspective around when everyone involved has been very clear to the Iranian people: that this is the time to stay safe and inside. People rising up will take time, and will be highly unpredictable. No one said otherwise. You imply "analysts already had this all identified" yet you are putting forward a supposition here that's just wildly unrealistic.
Did you even listen to the link you just posted? He makes very clear in his instructions to the Iranian people that they should stay sheltered as bombs will be dropping.
Seriously, all these armchair "experts" are missing very obvious truths -
1) Every authority figure is telling the Iranian people to stay inside and wait.
2) Revolutions don't happen overnight, the same way that businesses don't succeed overnight, even though from far away it might seem that way.
3) Official Israeli statements estimate it could take up to a year after the war is over for a successful overthrow, even if everything is going according to plan.
The truth is there's a lot of people who want this war to fail, because it will align with their political convictions and hopes.
I will predict right now that no revolution will happen. Revolutions happen because of fragmentation within the regime. If there is one thing that puts all grievances aside then that would be an existential war. Just like during the Iran-Iraq war.
> 1) Every authority figure is telling the Iranian people to stay inside and wait.
Last week: "Our aircraft are striking terrorist operatives on the ground, on roads and in public squares. This is meant to allow the brave Iranian people to celebrate the Festival of Fire. So go out and celebrate...we are watching from above," Netanyahu said, speaking from air force headquarters.
Israel does not want functional moderate goverment in Iran. It would bomb and kill anyone who tries that. Israels plan is to periodically bomb and keep Iran failed state.
It is working on making itself larger cleansing whole areas around it and settling it.
> Israel does not want functional moderate goverment in Iran
Israel would probably be fine with a moderate government in Iran. A moderate Tehran doesn't encourage Hamas and Hezbollah to randomly lob rockets into Israel.
Even if Israel disagreed, a moderate Iran balances Israel in the region. An Iran that has beef with literally every single one of its neighbors other than Turkmenistan cannot provide that balance.
> Israel would probably be fine with a moderate government in Iran.
Maybe, but I think they are genuinely aiming for a failed state.
Israel is a state with a political apparatus that is predicated on providing security. That apparatus needs a persistent (but non-serious) threat to remain in power. I think best case for that power is to have a number of failed, weak states in the Middle East that occasionally launch relatively impotent attacks against Israel. This would also have the side effect of giving hard-line elements in Israel the enough justification to expand their borders and continue ethnic cleansing (e.g. what is happening in Lebanon right now).
> Summarising the Israeli government’s position, Citrinowicz said: “If we can have a coup, great. If we can have people on the streets, great. If we can have a civil war, great. Israel couldn’t care less about the future . . . [or] the stability of Iran.
>
> “That is a point of difference between us and the US. I think [Washington is] more concerned about nation-building and threats to their regional partners,” he added.
> is that better than Israel and its relationships with its neighbors?
Yes. Tel Aviv retains solid security relationships with Jordan and Egypt. And it trades with its region [1]. On a ranking of hegemonic pests, Iran is way ahead.
Pre-war, Iran had good relations with Qatar and Oman. Also with Pakistan. And Armenia. Their current relations with Iraq are also OK.
They have problems with Saudis, Bahrain, UAE - exactly the countries with extensive US military bases. No surprise there.
And Iran has not (prior to being attacked) attacked any of their neighbours.
The only two neighbouring countries Israel does not have problems with are heavily-bought Jordan and Egypt (Israel still attacked them prior to Camp David accords).
To any non-ideologically blind person it is obvious who is the one stirring the instability in the middle east.
>Israel would probably be fine with a moderate government in Iran. A moderate Tehran doesn't encourage Hamas and Hezbollah to randomly lob rockets into Israel.
I don't think they would be happy having a moderate government that could still evolve Iran into a regional leader.
It may not be in Israel's national interest having an aggressive Islamist government in Iran, but political incentives and national interest aren't always aligned.
Amazing to me how impatient people are. It was six to seven months between the 12 day war in June and the mass uprising seen in December/January which was ruthlessly crushed. It will likely be a while between the end of this war and the next mass uprising. But every uprising that happens against a massively weakened regime means there's more chance of real change. Totalitarian regimes fall in ways that are hard to predict, but gradually and then suddenly.
Huh, many companies use TSMC, in fact, probably all of them use TSMC, including Intel, yet there are only a few who dominates in performance. There are much more in designing chips than what you just listed.
Intel uses its own fabs for certain IP, tsmc for others yeah. As far as I've seen the latest greatest Panther Lake that stuff is made in intel's arizona fabs.
There's a big difference between just providing IP and actually doing the physical design, manufacturing and packaging. You can't just send your RTL to TSMC and magically get packaged chips back.
I haven't ever ordered an ARM SoC but I also wouldn't be surprised if there were significant parts that they left up to integrators before - PLLs, pads, SRAM etc.
The article takes an odd turn in the second half and seems to veer from a very interesting deep-dive into how a lot of backlogged US data center production may correlate with GPU "slippage" via questionable resellers and GPU rental outfits to China
reply