"The Nuclear Option"
by Bill Bonner
Youghal, Ireland - "It looks as though the ‘terms of this war’ may not be in US hands after all. Barrons: "Oil prices top $100 today. The Iran war looks like it’ll last longer than expected."
Associated Press: "Iran’s unrelenting attacks on Mideast shipping and energy infrastructure send oil prices soaring. Unrelenting Iranian attacks on shipping traffic and energy infrastructure pushed oil above $100 a barrel Thursday, as American and Israeli strikes pounded the Islamic Republic with no sign of an end to the war in sight."
Since the United States and Israel started the war with a Feb. 28 attack on Iran, Tehran has focused on inflicting enough global economic pain to pressure them to halt their attacks. U.S. President Donald Trump suggested that was not imminent, however, promising to “finish the job” even though he claimed Iran is “virtually destroyed.” Nobody knows what ‘job’ POTUS is talking about. In the meantime, the world still runs on oil. And Iran has its hands on the main valve.
Dear Readers certainly shouldn’t put too much faith in our geo-political insights. But we will give them to you anyway. And more and more, the attack on Iran is looking like a food fight in a lunatic asylum; neither side gains anything but it makes one helluva mess.
The US war strategy is still cloaked in confusion. But we think we know what Iran had up its sleeve. With only a tiny military…the country had no way to protect itself – except by using its own ‘nuclear option.’ No, the country had no nukes. Not even close. Under attack, the Iranians figured they would cut off the world’s oil until the attacks stopped. Simple. Easy. That is what the Iranians are hoping to do now. So, who’s winning?
On Wednesday, we advised the Iranians to give it up; with the US and Israel in control of the air above their heads, they’re going to get pounded. But the US may not be able to win either, not unless inflicting pain is its only real objective. The disgraced ex-CIA director, David Petraeus, seems to think so. The headline from Real Clear Politics: "Petraeus: We’re quite far along in accomplishing our objectives in Iran, “We’re very well along in this”
Petraeus is looking at the ‘first order’ effects…and finds them impressive: ‘We’ve largely taken down their air and ballistic missile defense, we can now fly really at will with our non-stealthy aircraft, not just the stealth B-2 and F-35, but the B-52, the B-1, other fighter bombers. We’ve had considerable success against their Navy. Needless to say, we’ve taken down probably at least 70 percent of the missile launchers and a substantial amount of the stockpile.’
And maybe unrestricted firepower will inflict so much pain on the Iranians that they will wave the white flag and do as they are told. If so, it will be a rare moment in military history.
In ancient times, an attackers would approach a city and use catapults, slings, and bows and arrows to send projectiles upon it. They were also known to throw the bodies of those who died from infectious disease over the walls to cause a plague within the city. The ‘incoming’ was surely disagreeable, but rarely decisive. Typically, the bombardments were accompanied by a siege - starving the population into submission.
Airplanes, missiles and artillery brought attacks from the air to a new level. They added more firepower, but not necessarily more success. Our old friend Richard Russell had some personal experience of this. He had been a bombardier in WWII. In 1943, his plane had been outfitted with the newly developed Norden bombsight. It was considered so precious that Russell was instructed that in case he was shot down, he was to destroy the bombsight (and himself if necessary) rather than let it fall into German hands.
The allies were confident that, armed with this new sighting device, they could destroy Germany’s war industries, and force the Nazis to capitulate. Later studies found that the device was not nearly as good as they thought. While it improved the precision of some bombardiers, its overall impact was marginal. Massive bombing raids killed 600,000 civilians; they didn’t bring the war any closer to an end.
Nor did the US campaign to bomb Hanoi ‘back to the stone age’ force the Vietminh to give up. Bombing excursions into Laos and Cambodia had similarly poor results. The NATO bombing of Belgrade in 1999 didn’t bring peace. Nor did even the almost total destruction of Gaza, 2023-2025.
Our advice to the Trump high command: Give it up. Bombing Iran may increase the price of oil. It probably won’t cause Iran to surrender. Stay tuned."
No comments:
Post a Comment