Iran War?

[frunk]

Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand = Assassination of Ali Khamenei?

[PJL]

Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand = Assassination of Ali Khamenei?

You're late to the party, I already made that analogy about 2 weeks ago - see post 249 in this thread.

[Grey Fox]

China will stop. China's policy is China Only. And they never want to do anything that will in any way diminished their capabilities in making Taiwan part of the PRC.

[Jacob]

China will stop. China's policy is China Only. And they never want to do anything that will in any way diminished their capabilities in making Taiwan part of the PRC.

China will stop what?

[The Minsky Moment]

The NYT article Jimmy linked does suggest a US objective that has a logic to it - namely controlling Iran's oil as a means to put pressure on China. The article makes the point that if the US control both Iranian and Venezuelan oil exports, they have access to a lever to choke the Chinese economy.

There is no logic there at all; although I agree that either Trump or someone around him may be thinking something this, it only demonstrates how clueless they are.

Oil is produced globally in many different places and consumed globally in many different places. It is effectively fungible, especially for a country like China which has ample refinery capacity and can pretty easily retool to accommodate different flavors. 

China imports about 11.5 million bpd. Officially, none of the imports as of 2025 were from Iran or Venezuela. Unofficially, China was receiving dark market imports of as much as 2 million bpd from those countries or about 20% of needs. This was opportunistic; China's supply is extremely diversified across many national suppliers. 2 million bpd is not completely insignificant, but it can be replaced either by getting more from elsewhere, from increasing supply of other energy sources, or both.

If the US seizes control of all Venezuelan and Iranian oil, then what?  The US produces domestically more than it needs.  So where does that oil go?  India perhaps, Japan, Korea, Europe are all candidates (assuming they can or want to process the heavy Venezuelan grades). OK - but then those countries will then import less from other suppliers (eg. Saudis, Gulf, Nigeria etc) and those countries then have excess capacity to send to China.  You've achieved nothing.

If Trump still had adult advisors that could talk to him as an adult - like Rex Tillerson, his first SecState and an experienced oil man - they could have explained this too him. 

[Jacob]

Fair enough.

[The Minsky Moment]

The idiot is still treating a large-scale military confrontation with a nation of 100 million halfway across the world that he knows nothing about, like one of his petty real estate squabbles with Leona Hemsley over control of an apartment building. He is flailing about looking for "leverage" and "cards".  Infuriating and frustrating to watch.  It's like watching a monkey trying to operate a nuclear reactor by flinging shit at it.

[Jacob]

Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand = Assassination of Ali Khamenei?

You're late to the party, I already made that analogy about 2 weeks ago - see post 249 in this thread.

If this is leading up to WWIII I think the "starting point" will be seen differently depending on how the participants line up, and on where you're from (much like WWII).

Candidates for "what kicked off the world war" include:

• The Russian invasion of Ukraine
• The Oct 7 attack on Israel and the Israeli attack on Gaza
• Trump's and Nethanyahu's attack on Iran

... but yeah, it does seem like we're headed for a conflagration rather than a deescalation.

[Zanza]

At least we didn't start it this time.

[mongers]

The NYT article Jimmy linked does suggest a US objective that has a logic to it - namely controlling Iran's oil as a means to put pressure on China. The article makes the point that if the US control both Iranian and Venezuelan oil exports, they have access to a lever to choke the Chinese economy.

There is no logic there at all; although I agree that either Trump or someone around him may be thinking something this, it only demonstrates how clueless they are.

Oil is produced globally in many different places and consumed globally in many different places. It is effectively fungible, especially for a country like China which has ample refinery capacity and can pretty easily retool to accommodate different flavors. 

China imports about 11.5 million bpd. Officially, none of the imports as of 2025 were from Iran or Venezuela. Unofficially, China was receiving dark market imports of as much as 2 million bpd from those countries or about 20% of needs. This was opportunistic; China's supply is extremely diversified across many national suppliers. 2 million bpd is not completely insignificant, but it can be replaced either by getting more from elsewhere, from increasing supply of other energy sources, or both.

If the US seizes control of all Venezuelan and Iranian oil, then what?  The US produces domestically more than it needs.  So where does that oil go?  India perhaps, Japan, Korea, Europe are all candidates (assuming they can or want to process the heavy Venezuelan grades). OK - but then those countries will then import less from other suppliers (eg. Saudis, Gulf, Nigeria etc) and those countries then have excess capacity to send to China.  You've achieved nothing.

If Trump still had adult advisors that could talk to him as an adult - like Rex Tillerson, his first SecState and an experienced oil man - they could have explained this too him. 

It's a pity this has to be repeated, but yes there is no logic to it, it's just random BS from a ultra-narcissist that fools elected to access so much power.

I think it's us Languishites tending to want to analyse everything, looking for complex reasoning when there is none; sometimes monkeys just sling shit around their enclosure.

[Jacob]

I don't disagree that Trump's decision-making is purely driven by whatever momentarily soothes his malevolent ego and id. However, I'm pretty confident that the coterie around him has a variety of agendas and plans which they attempt to pursue by manipulating Trump's psychology.

I'm thinking of people like Stephen Miller, Bessent, Rubio, and the like.

So yeah, I contend there's an underlying logic to the Trump administration's actions, even if the logic is perfidious or based on ignorance in many cases. Or perhaps more accurately, there are multiple competing logics depending on which way the Trump-vane blows that day.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

At least we didn't start it this time.

It's not really a world war until the UK, France, and Germany join, though.

[Jacob]

At least we didn't start it this time.

It's not really a world war until the UK, France, and Germany join, though.

It's quite possible we're through the "things leading to" phase and well into the "by then events were escalating beyond control" phase.

We haven't entered the "then major hostilities commenced" phase yet, though.

[Jacob]

German minister of defense:

"This is not our war; we did not start it," Boris Pistorius, the German defense minister, said at a news conference in Berlin on Monday. "We want diplomatic solutions and a swift end to the conflict, but sending more warships to the region will likely not help achieve that," he said.

"What does Donald Trump expect from, say, a handful or two of European frigates in the Strait of Hormuz?" he added. "He needs them to achieve what the mighty US Navy cannot manage on its own there, is that it? That's the question I'm asking myself."

This is from NYT, but beyond a paywall so no link.

[The Brain]

Since Republicans are some of the dumbest mfs on the planet, they can't really articulate their ideology. But from their actions we can determine some of the things that are very important in Republicanism:

- greatly reduced US prestige and influence in the world
- Russia's interests
- women and non-whites and liberals and gays and lesbians and transpersons and vegetarians and educated folks reduced to serf status or worse
- greatly reduced ability of US institutions to function
- damage to US economy
- end of democracy and freedom in the US
- end of democracy and freedom outside the US
- utter self-humiliation by the US and by Republicans as individuals