|
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.
Der US-Flugzeugträger USS Gerald R. Ford traf nach einem Großbrand am 12. März zur Reparatur in Kreta, Griechenland, ein. Das Schiff wird mindestens eine Woche Reparaturarbeiten benötigen und wird anschließend durch den Flugzeugträger USS George W. Bush ersetzt. ☑️ @sepah_pasdaran
I just tried to check where the Ford actually is and why it’s probably NOT in Crete yet—feel free to correct me if I’m wrong
Well, that’s a false report and a pretty clear one at that. As of today (March 23, 2026), the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) is still in the northern Red Sea and has not yet reached Souda Bay in Crete. Current Position & Facts (Tracking + Official Sources) AIS and satellite tracking (MarineTraffic, VesselFinder, OSINT accounts such as @IntelCrab, @AuroraIntel):Since March 17–18, the Ford has been moving slowly northward through the Red Sea (position approx. 25–26° N, off Jeddah/Al Wajh). It is currently located about 200–300 nautical miles south of the Suez Canal.Official US Navy/CENTCOM reports: No confirmation whatsoever that the Ford has already entered Souda Bay. The latest official statement (March 20) reads: “The Ford is en route north for repairs in Souda Bay. Transit through Suez is being prepared.”After the fire (March 12), the Ford took several days to stabilize the repairs enough to make it seaworthy again. The northward course did not begin until mid-March, and a Suez transit takes at least 2–3 days for a damaged carrier (reduced speed, increased caution). The canal itself is also extremely narrow—the Ford is therefore traveling very slowly and waiting for optimal escort.The report originated from a Russian/Iranian Telegram channel and was reposted by several pro-Iranian accounts. It has not been confirmed by the U.S. Navy, CENTCOM, or Greek authorities.Souda Bay has not issued a public announcement regarding the arrival of a U.S. aircraft carrier (which would otherwise be standard procedure for a 100,000-ton ship). Satellite images (Planet Labs, Maxar, March 22–23) clearly show the Ford still in the Red Sea, not in the eastern Mediterranean.The Ford continues to bob in the northern Red Sea (en route to the Suez Canal), is not yet in Crete, and will not arrive there for at least 1–4 days—depending on its escort, the security situation, and the status of repairs.The reality is more sobering: The Ford remains vulnerable in the Red Sea, and the transit through Suez remains a high risk (Houthi drones, mines, anti-ship missiles).Passing through the canal is extremely risky for a damaged 100,000-ton carrier. Here are the specific risks, listed by probability and impact:1. Geographical & nautical risks (very high)The Suez Canal is only 200–300 meters wide in many places and has a maximum depth of 24 meters. The Ford has a draft of approx. 12 meters and is 333 meters long → it barely fits through.With a severe list (following the fire) or reduced maneuverability, it could easily run aground or strike the embankment.Narrowest section (“Bitterseen” and “Ballah Bypass”): Here, the canal is only about 180–220 meters wide. There is no room to maneuver. A collision or technical failure would immediately bring the ship sideways, blocking the canal for weeks or months (similar to the Ever Given in 2021, only five times larger).Military Threat (extremely high) Houthi and Iranian anti-ship weapons: Khalij Fars, Sejjil variants, and C-802/Nour (range 200–400 km) can reach the northern section of the canal from Yemen. Shahed-136/238 drones (low-altitude flight, difficult to detect) pose the greatest danger—they can hardly be intercepted in the narrow confines of the canal. Anti-radar missiles could blind the remaining Aegis systems on the Ford and its escort.Mine threat:The Houthis have laid mines in the Red Sea and near the entrance to the Suez Canal on multiple occasions in recent weeks. A large carrier like the Ford is extremely vulnerable to them.The Ford currently has only a reduced escort force (some destroyers are with the Lincoln or in need of repairs). Without a full carrier strike group, air and missile defense is severely weakened—especially in the narrow channel, where maneuvering is virtually impossible.Technical risks due to prior damage: The fire on March 12 damaged ventilation systems, living quarters, and parts of the electronics. The Ford is sailing at reduced speed (max. 20–22 knots instead of 30+).If hit again (e.g., on the flight deck or an ammunition magazine), there is a risk of a secondary explosion or total failure. A sinking or burning carrier in the canal would be a disaster—towing it out would be practically impossible.Egypt permits transit only under strict conditions. In the event of an attack during transit, Cairo could temporarily close the canal and “detain” the Ford.A blockade scenario would severely impact global trade (approx. 12–15% of global shipping traffic passes through Suez). The U.S. would then be without a rapid supply route for months.Probability of an attack during transit: very high (70–80%). The Houthis and Iran know exactly when the Ford is coming and that it is particularly vulnerable.Consequences of a hit: Blockade of the canal for at least 4–8 weeks, massive damage to the ship, heavy casualties. The U.S. would then have to either abandon the carrier or salvage it at enormous cost.The Navy is deliberately delaying the transit and waiting for better escort and reconnaissance. The Ford is currently the most vulnerable large U.S. carrier in the entire conflict. Passing through the Suez Canal would be a huge gamble—and Iran and the Houthis know exactly that.
Posted by: SonderstabF | Mar 23 2026 15:41 utc | 197
|
