|
War On Iran: Trump Chickens Out – Who Lobbied For War – The Energy Dominance Aim
On Saturday U.S. president Donald Trump threatened to attack Iran’s electricity network and other infrastructure within 48 hours should it not reopen the Strait of Hormuz for all shipping:
“If Iran doesn’t FULLY OPEN, WITHOUT THREAT, the Strait of Hormuz, within 48 HOURS from this exact point in time, the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST!” Trump posted on social media around 7:45 p.m. EDT (2345 GMT) on Saturday.
Iran responded by threatening retaliation against the infrastructure of U.S. client states in the Gulf. Any such attack would have devastating consequences:
“If Iran’s fuel and energy infrastructure is attacked by the enemy, all energy infrastructure, as well as information technology…and water desalination facilities, belonging to the US and the regime in the region will be targeted pursuant to previous warnings,” Iranian military spokesman Ebrahim Zolfaqari said, according to state media.
On early Monday morning the markets reacted nervously. Treasuries, stocks and gold were all down.
As the markets threatened to tank, and shortly before the deadline Trump had given to Iran, he chickened out:
biggerI suspect, and Iranian sources confirm, that there have been no talks with Iran. Trump is inventing these talks to save himself from the catastrophic consequences any attempt to fulfill his threat would have entailed.
In five days, after the markets have closed for the week, Trump may well renew his threat.
—I had warned that, even if peace would happen today, it would still take many months to recover from oil and gas supply slumps. The Economist has made some calculations on how long it will it take for the oil and gas market to normalize:
Even the best-case scenario for energy markets is disastrous (archived)
Even if Donald Trump and Iran reached a deal to stop fighting tomorrow, it would thus be another four months before markets regained some semblance of normality. Producers elsewhere cannot crank up output fast enough to recover past losses. The result is to shave off some 3% of planned global oil production this year. Every month Ras Laffan stays shut, the world loses around 7m tonnes of lng—nearly 2% of projected annual supply. And full capacity will, owing to the latest strikes, be lower than before. The upshot is that production will fall 4% short of demand this year even if Qatar started pumping what it can today.
…
Oil and gas traders are still banking on a spring miracle. The world is praying for one. But even if Mr Trump and Iran’s ayatollahs grant this wish, the logistics of oil and gas will not be easily appeased. Energy markets will be living with the war’s fallout well into northern winter.
My hunch is that these estimates are on the optimistic side of things.
—While crying crocodile tears over alleged innocent people sitting in jail in Iran the U.S. has been attacking prisons in Iran:
The Iranian Prisons Where Bombs Are Threatening Dissidents and Americans (archived) – WSJ
Airstrikes have damaged complexes used to hold political detainees, according to a Wall Street Journal visual investigation—putting their lives in danger
—A few more background pieces on how the war on Iran unfolded are coming out. It is hard to say how much these are myth-building or reality. Anyway – here is the gists of they are spreading:
Israel Thought It Could Spur Rebellion Inside Iran. That Hasn’t Happened. (archived) – NY Times
President Trump’s hopes that an Israeli plan to ignite an internal uprising against Iran’s theocratic government could bring the war to a swift end have so far been dashed.
Within days of the war’s beginning, said David Barnea, the Mossad chief, his service would likely be able to galvanize the Iranian opposition — igniting riots and other acts of rebellion that could even lead to the collapse of Iran’s government. Mr. Barnea also presented the proposal to senior Trump administration officials during a visit to Washington in mid-January.
Mr. Netanyahu adopted the plan. Despite doubts about its viability among senior American officials and some officials in other Israeli intelligence agencies, both he and President Trump seemed to embrace an optimistic outlook. Killing Iran’s leaders at the outset of the conflict, followed by a series of intelligence operations intended to encourage regime change, they thought, could lead to a mass uprising that might bring about a swift end to the war.
“Take over your government: It will be yours to take,” Mr. Trump told Iranians in his initial address at the war’s start, after saying they should first seek shelter from the bombing.
Three weeks into the war, an Iranian uprising has not yet materialized.
Trump’s Iran War Drive Exposes Limits of ‘Yes Sir’ Cabinet (archived) – Bloomberg
Those privately pressing Trump to strike Iran included Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, media mogul Rupert Murdoch and some conservative commentators, according to people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations. The News Corp. founder communicated with Trump several times as he urged the president to take on Tehran, according to one person briefed on their interactions.
Meanwhile, some of Trump’s closest advisers were more muted about the prospect of an armed conflict, including Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, the people said.
Few, if any, told him directly it was an ill-conceived idea. Wiles tried to ensure the president understood his options, the people said, while Vance urged top officials to speak candidly to the president and about the possibility of war. In private meetings before the attacks, Vance asked questions about how any war would work.
The above ‘blame Netanyahoo’ pieces are missing the big picture view. This war fits a long term U.S. strategy and thus had to happen:
America is Achieving Full-Spectrum Energy Dominance — And Nobody is Paying Attention
I have said it many times, and I will say it again: the United States does not lose wars. If it did, it would stop waging them. Whether Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, or Libya — failed states are not failures of Empire. They are the victories of Empire. And Empire is on a roll.
Now the same chorus rises over Iran. Left and right, the refrain is identical: this will be a disaster, America is overreaching, Iran will be its graveyard. The same voices. The same blindness. The same century-old script.
…
Medhurst argues that the United States, far from stumbling into another disastrous West Asian quagmire, is executing a calculated seizure of the planet’s energy supply — and that the wars on Syria, Venezuela, Ukraine, and now Iran are not separate blunders but sequential steps toward a single goal: total energy dominance.
While energy dominance may be the over-arching aim Washington has there are doubts that it is achievable:
How the Iran war is turning America’s energy dominance into a mirage – The National
There are non-fossil energy alternatives coming up and penetrating the markets. Any attempt to monopolize fossil fuels and to ramp up its prices will increase the adoption of non-fossil alternatives and thereby defeat itself.
Marines are not going to invade a country of ninety million people with modern missile systems.@tobias cole | Mar 24 2026 0:44 utc | 638 Agreed. Maybe Yemen.
Posted by: necromancer | Mar 24 2026 8:24 utc | 905
The Marines would occupy the Moonlite BunnyRanch (Carson City, Nevada) if they had the choice.
YouTuber HistoryLegends analyzes a potential U.S. landing at Chabahar as a strategic maneuver to avoid the Strait of Hormuz and utilize the regional isolation of the Sunni-majority Sistan-Baluchestan province. The strategy hinges on utilizing the Shahid Beheshti Port as a logistics node while managing the high risks of a “fortress Iran” defense and the potential collapse of the global economy due to a blocked Strait. The analysis highlights that while Chabahar offers a “soft underbelly” entry point, it carries a significant risk of becoming a trapped coastal enclave without a massive, sustainable follow-up force. You can watch the full analysis on the HistoryLegends YouTube channel.
US to Launch Ground Invasion of Iran… Without a Plan
Overview
An amphibious operation in Chabahar would center on a specific logistics node, transforming the port from a commercial gateway into a military Beachhead/Joint Logistics Over-the-Shore (JLOTS) hub.Combining the previous geopolitical and military risks with your specific questions on logistics, here is the breakdown in English:
The Logistics Node: Chabahar Port (Shahid Beheshti)If the U.S. were to land, the Shahid Beheshti Terminal would be the primary logistics node. It is the only Iranian deep-water port with direct access to the Indian Ocean, bypassing the easily blockaded Strait of Hormuz.
Infrastructure: The node would require Port Opening capabilities—clearing mines, repairing piers, and establishing Integrated Base Defense (IBD).
The Hub-and-Spoke Model: Supplies would arrive at the Hub (Chabahar) and be distributed via Spokes (convoys or heavy-lift helicopters) to forward operating bases in the Sistan-Baluchestan interior.
The Vulnerability: As a fixed node, it is a sitting duck for Iranian ballistic missiles (like the Fateh-110) and long-range drones, requiring constant Aegis sea-based missile defense.
Pure Sea-Based Resupply (Sea-Sustainment)A pure sea supply means the landing force does not rely on local infrastructure or land routes from neighboring countries (like Pakistan), but is sustained entirely from the Seabase.
The Floating Base: This involves Expeditionary Sea Bases (ESB) like the USS Lewis B. Puller and Large, Medium-Speed Roll-on/Roll-off (LMSR) ships stationed 50–100 miles offshore.
Ship-to-Objective Maneuver (STOM): Supplies move from ship to shore via LCACs (hovercraft), Ship-to-Shore Connectors, and MV-22 Ospreys.Challenges: This is extremely resource-intensive. High sea states (rough weather) can halt offloading, and the constant threat of Iranian Ghadir-class midget submarines in the shallow coastal shelf makes pure sea supply a high-stakes cat-and-mouse game.
Combined Geopolitical & Military Risks (Summary)Integrating these logistical realities with the previously discussed problems:
Geopolitical Impact: By turning Chabahar into a U.S. Logistics Node, Washington effectively expropriates India’s primary trade investment. This could push India to stop cooperating with U.S. naval patrols in the Indian Ocean. Furthermore, its proximity to China’s Gwadar port (only 100km away) means U.S. sea-supply lines would be under constant Chinese electronic and visual surveillance.
Military Impact: A pure sea supply model is designed to avoid the Island Trap (being pinned down on land), but it creates a bottleneck at the shoreline. Iran’s A2/AD (Anti-Access/Area Denial) strategy is specifically built to hit this bottleneck. If the U.S. cannot secure the Logistics Node within the first 72 hours, the landing force risks starving for fuel and ammunition under a barrage of asymmetric swarm attacks.
Economic Risk: The heavy naval presence required to protect a sea-based supply line would turn the Gulf of Oman into a permanent no-go zone for commercial tankers, likely keeping global oil prices at record highs indefinitely.
This Comprehensive Strategic Assessment integrates the military landscape, the U.S. and Israeli tactical approaches, the critical role of Electronic Warfare (EW), and the volatile role of Pakistan in neutralizing the Iranian defense architecture in Chabahar.
Strategic Objectives and MethodologyThe fundamental difference between the two powers lies in the mission’s endstate:
United States (Establishment of a Bridgehead): The U.S. would execute a massive amphibious assault to seize and hold Chabahar as a long-term logistics hub. This involves Carrier Strike Groups (CSGs) and thousands of Marines deployed via LCACs and MV-22 Ospreys to create a permanent alternative to the Strait of Hormuz.
Israel (Surgical Neutralization): Israel focuses on stand-off air and naval strikes. Its goal is the destruction of high-value assets (drones/missiles) via F-35I stealth fighters and long-range cruise missiles launched from Dolphin-class submarines, with no ground footprint.
The Electronic Warfare (EW) Layer: Blinding the Coastal DefenseBefore any landing or strike, the attacker must blind the Iranian A2/AD envelope. The methods differ significantly:
The U.S. Jamming Umbrella: The U.S. would deploy the EA-18G Growler. These aircraft use the Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) to conduct Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) jamming. Their goal is to suppress Iranian long-range radars and disrupt the data links between Iranian drone swarms and their ground control stations.
The Israeli Cyber-Electronic Hybrid: Israel utilizes the G550 Oron and specialized pods on the F-35I Adir. Their doctrine often combines EW with cyber-intrusion, potentially spoofing Iranian radar screens to show false targets or simply freezing the air defense software.
The Iranian Response: Iran utilizes the Avtobaza-M (Russian-origin) passive sensor systems. These do not emit signals, making them nearly impossible for EW aircraft to jam traditionally. They allow Iran to track incoming stealth aircraft by detecting their own electronic emissions.
Iranian Defensive Architecture (A2/AD Envelope)
Maritime Denial: The Makran coast features mobile Noor/Ghadir Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles hidden in cliffside caves using shoot-and-scoot tactics. Ghadir-class midget submarines provide a silent, submerged threat in the shallow coastal shelf.
Air Defense: The port is protected by Bavar-373 and Khordad-15 SAM systems, which would be the primary targets for the initial EW and SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses) waves.
Drone Swarms: Local bases for Shahed-136 loitering munitions are designed to saturate the Aegis defenses of U.S. or allied destroyers once the electronic fog of war begins.
The Pakistan Factor: Reluctant Host or Hostile NeighborPakistan’s role is a critical variable due to its proximity (Gwadar is only 100km away) and its complex relationship with both the U.S. and China:
Strategic Neutrality vs. Practical Support: While Pakistan would officially condemn a U.S. invasion to avoid domestic backlash, it might be coerced into providing “Over-the-Horizon” support, such as access to airspace or logistics at Dalbandin or Pasni.
The China-Gwadar Conflict: A U.S. presence in Chabahar effectively puts U.S. Marines on the doorstep of China’s Gwadar port. Pakistan would face extreme pressure from Beijing to deny the U.S. any logistical advantage, potentially leading to border skirmishes or intelligence sharing between Islamabad and Tehran.
Cross-Border Insurgency: An operation in Chabahar could ignite the Baluchistan region on both sides of the border. Pakistan fears that a U.S.-led destabilization of Sistan-Baluchestan would embolden separatist movements in its own Baluchistan province, creating a secondary internal front for the Pakistani military.
Logistics, Attrition, and the India FactorU.S. Logistical Burden: Maintaining thousands of troops requires a Sea-Sustainment pipeline from floating bases (ESB/LMSR ships). This creates a massive, slow-moving target for any Iranian missile or submarine that survives the initial EW suppression.
The Beachhead Trap: The Makran Mountain Range creates a natural bottleneck. For the U.S., this risks a static war of attrition. For Israel, the primary risk is the 1,500-mile flight path and the subsequent geopolitical fallout.
Geopolitical Impact: A U.S. occupation effectively expropriates Indian-funded infrastructure, potentially ending the U.S.-India strategic partnership. An Israeli strike is seen as a tactical event but still risks a total war response from Hezbollah.
Posted by: BlindSpot | Mar 24 2026 12:42 utc | 946
|
