But, what is the consequence of NOT degrading Iran's drive to Nuclear weapons? Perhaps a Cost/Benefit analysis on a 10-year basis might be in order? Rather than just looking at the next 3 months?
In other words, what is the Net Present Value (or cost) over 10 years for doing Nothing, versus the NPV over the next 10 years for degrading Iran?
Most reporting never considers both sides of the Trade-Off.
“But by joining with Israel in launching widespread bombing attacks against Iran, Trump is playing a dangerous game that could trigger a wider conflict that could drag on for months, or even years, to come.”
Come on Robert, you must know better than to put out the same defeatist message as the MSM. As Margaret Thatcher said “this is not the time to go wobbly.” It’s way past time for the U.S. to eradicate the IRGC. And giving column space to rehash quotes from The Guardian, a leftest British rag, is practically inexcusable.
The options for the US don't look good. Stop before the government collapses and they'll see they can blackmail the world and proceed with rearmament. But troops on the ground could end up just sheltering from drones in trenches like in Ukraine. We wouldn't bomb cities like Russia does, but food shortages would worsen and we don't want to be responsible for widespread starvation. I'm not optimistic.
Robert, does the discovery of missiles that can travel 2300-2500 miles make the threat more imminent? I also think that maybe Israel knew about them possibly?
If Trump in fact follows through in destroying Iran’s electrical grid, that reality is on (what’s left of) Iran’s leadership. This is war, the US is in charge, do what we say (stop blocking/hindering Hormuz shipping) or suffer the consequences…!
If Trump in fact falls through in destroying Iran’s electrical grid, that reality is on (what’s left of) Iran’s leadership. This is war, the US is in charge, do what we say (stop blocking/hindering Hormuz shipping) or suffer the consequences…!
An attack as articulated by President Trump, i.e., an attack on electrical infrastructure entailing systematic destruction of the grid, seems to meet the definition of a war crime. See: Article 54 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977: " It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population…" As Robert Bryce has brilliantly demonstrated, electricity is key to life. In an advanced society like Iran, electricity is necessary to water supply and medical care. Trump and his advisers are aware of this dependency; it appears to be exactly why they are making the threat. So the element of intent seems met. There is no military necessity to justify it. In addition, the members of the military who might participate in planning and carrying out war crimes would appear to be liable under US law.
When the war settles down, 93 million Iranians will still live there. These people will need electricity and a revenue-generating oil industry to survive. Hopefully US and Iran's neighbors can steer the new government to peaceful industry and commerce. Destroy too much infrastructure and government, then gangs will take over, like Haiti.
100% agree. In my March 7 weekly Trading Desk Notes I wrote that once the two sides started hitting infrastructure like desalination plants, we'd know this was going to be a war of total victory/defeat. I welcomed Trump's Friday afternoon post, opening the door to de-escalation, but I dread the global consequences of his Saturday post threatening the obliteration of Iran's grid. The longer this war continues, the more countries that rely on energy imports will have to ration supplies. If you agree with Doomberg that "energy is life, then that's a grim future.
Derailing Iranian nuclear ambitions is one thing, bombing Iran back into the 'Dark Ages' that creates a failed state that becomes ISIS on steroids is another.
This is good:
This morning, Trump said he is delaying plans to bomb Iran's grid for five days due to "good" talks with the Iranian leadership.
https://www.geo.tv/latest/656883-trump-puts-off-threat-to-bomb-iran-power-grid-iranian-agency-denies-report-of-talks
But, what is the consequence of NOT degrading Iran's drive to Nuclear weapons? Perhaps a Cost/Benefit analysis on a 10-year basis might be in order? Rather than just looking at the next 3 months?
In other words, what is the Net Present Value (or cost) over 10 years for doing Nothing, versus the NPV over the next 10 years for degrading Iran?
Most reporting never considers both sides of the Trade-Off.
MD
BTW - The effect of taking out Iran's grid is part of both scenarios. In this case, I would guess that taking it out is a bad idea.
“But by joining with Israel in launching widespread bombing attacks against Iran, Trump is playing a dangerous game that could trigger a wider conflict that could drag on for months, or even years, to come.”
Come on Robert, you must know better than to put out the same defeatist message as the MSM. As Margaret Thatcher said “this is not the time to go wobbly.” It’s way past time for the U.S. to eradicate the IRGC. And giving column space to rehash quotes from The Guardian, a leftest British rag, is practically inexcusable.
Great job as always.
The options for the US don't look good. Stop before the government collapses and they'll see they can blackmail the world and proceed with rearmament. But troops on the ground could end up just sheltering from drones in trenches like in Ukraine. We wouldn't bomb cities like Russia does, but food shortages would worsen and we don't want to be responsible for widespread starvation. I'm not optimistic.
Robert, does the discovery of missiles that can travel 2300-2500 miles make the threat more imminent? I also think that maybe Israel knew about them possibly?
If Trump in fact follows through in destroying Iran’s electrical grid, that reality is on (what’s left of) Iran’s leadership. This is war, the US is in charge, do what we say (stop blocking/hindering Hormuz shipping) or suffer the consequences…!
I’m glad you’re not in charge.
You are glad Robert or Bob is not in charge?
If Trump in fact falls through in destroying Iran’s electrical grid, that reality is on (what’s left of) Iran’s leadership. This is war, the US is in charge, do what we say (stop blocking/hindering Hormuz shipping) or suffer the consequences…!
An attack as articulated by President Trump, i.e., an attack on electrical infrastructure entailing systematic destruction of the grid, seems to meet the definition of a war crime. See: Article 54 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977: " It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population…" As Robert Bryce has brilliantly demonstrated, electricity is key to life. In an advanced society like Iran, electricity is necessary to water supply and medical care. Trump and his advisers are aware of this dependency; it appears to be exactly why they are making the threat. So the element of intent seems met. There is no military necessity to justify it. In addition, the members of the military who might participate in planning and carrying out war crimes would appear to be liable under US law.
Bob, I think your advice is spot on, it's just that, I think it should have been given privately.
You have unique credibility. I am sure the President would have taken your call.
PS, I'm guessing the President reads you every time you publish.
No, publicly is best. Let Cris Wright tell him privately.
Thank you Mt Bryce.
How vain is man, who boasts in fight
The valour of gigantic might!
And dreams not that a hand unseen
Directs and guides this weak machine.
Very glad you are not running the war.
Energy is life in both forms.
When the war settles down, 93 million Iranians will still live there. These people will need electricity and a revenue-generating oil industry to survive. Hopefully US and Iran's neighbors can steer the new government to peaceful industry and commerce. Destroy too much infrastructure and government, then gangs will take over, like Haiti.
“Destroy too much infrastructure and government, then gangs will take over, like Haiti.” And Lebanon, Syria, Libya, etc.
That’s exactly what Israel wants.
100% agree. In my March 7 weekly Trading Desk Notes I wrote that once the two sides started hitting infrastructure like desalination plants, we'd know this was going to be a war of total victory/defeat. I welcomed Trump's Friday afternoon post, opening the door to de-escalation, but I dread the global consequences of his Saturday post threatening the obliteration of Iran's grid. The longer this war continues, the more countries that rely on energy imports will have to ration supplies. If you agree with Doomberg that "energy is life, then that's a grim future.
Derailing Iranian nuclear ambitions is one thing, bombing Iran back into the 'Dark Ages' that creates a failed state that becomes ISIS on steroids is another.