Category: War

We are being absolutely crushed by Iran (NYT)

by philg

Let’s have a look at the New York Times right now. Every story on the front page seems to be about a failure of U.S. military. Russia is winning. We stole some oil tankers and that’s actually costing us money instead of making us money. Missiles are falling in northern Israel. Maybe we’re firing some missiles at Iran from Bahrain, but they certainly aren’t hitting anything. We’re suffering an “oil shock” like in the bad days of the 1970s.

Let’s compare to a random day in the middle of our involvement in World War II. The British-spec’d P-51 hadn’t come into action yet so we were losing B-17 bombers and crews at a ridiculous rate. Nonetheless, the focus of the stories was on the enemy’s losses, not our own.

This is the first time that I can remember when more than half of Americans seem to be invested in the idea that the U.S. is doomed to lose a war.

(I personally believe that our best option for winning is to use bombs to (1) disable Iran’s oil production and export infrastructure, and (2) disable Iran’s electricity generation. Without money from selling oil, the Islamic Republic won’t be able to do too much that we don’t like. Without electric power, Iran won’t be able to produce a lot of sophisticated weapons. (Yes, they can use generators for some stuff, but that’s not the same as plugging a massive factory into the power grid.))

Full post, including comments

Our war on Iran has been less destructive to Iran’s economy than the Biden-Harris administration was to the U.S. economy?

by philg

“In Tehran, hope for change turns to panic: ‘They are turning the country into ruins'” (NBC):

Prices on basic goods have ramped up about 10% since the war started, residents say.

In other words, all of the military might that we’ve thrown at Iran has done less damage to their economy than the Biden-Harris administration did to ours? See below, for the 21 percent inflation that working and saving Americans suffered.

(Why only “working and saving Americans”? The Americans who were wise enough to choose the welfare lifestyle of public housing, Medicaid, SNAP, and Obamaphone didn’t suffer since they received most of their spending power in kind rather than in cash and their SNAP benefits were automatically adjusted for inflation at official rates.)

Full post, including comments

Why are Climate Change alarmists also Strait of Hormuz alarmists?

by philg

If you believe in climate change, shutting down the Strait of Hormuz is the best thing that ever happened to Mother Earth because it reduces fossil fuel supply and, thus, reduces CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuel. Bizarrely, however, people and organizations who’ve been reliable climate change alarmists describe the closing of the Strait of Hormuz, and the resultant obstruction of oil and gas exports, as a catastrophe. Example from today’s New York Times:

Here’s CNN. For a Follower of Science, the headline should be “Key method of destroying our planet shut down” and high oil prices should be welcomed as a spur to conservation. Instead, we learn that high oil prices should be “fixed” (i.e., oil should be cheap enough to burn in a profligate Earth-destroying CO2-emitting-as-fast-as-possible manner) by Trump and that the strait being closed is a bad thing.

An Obama-generation Democrat in 2022 says that he wants to make it illegal for people to purchase gasoline or, at least, the cars that burn gasoline. This will be an “important climate change policy”:

A few years later, Gavin Newsom is excoriating Trump for causing an increase in the price of the product that he thinks should be outlawed because use of that product is harmful:

Here’s a representative young Democrat saying, in July 2025, that we need to take climate change seriously:

Here is the climate change alarmist, less than a year later, saying that gas prices should be lower so that people can afford to buy and operate that 12 mpg SUV:

Full post, including comments

Does Iran’s indifference to being bombed highlight how dangerous they would have been as a nuclear power?

by philg

The leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran have been indifferent to everything that the infidels have thrown at them. Their leaders have been killed. Their infrastructure is being degraded. New York Times:

Across Iran, more than 90 million people are trapped between two terrifying realities. American and Israeli leaders, whose bombs are razing ever more parts of their infrastructure, have called on Iranians to use this as an opportunity for liberation. And their rulers, determined to cling to power, have threatened more bloodshed against whoever dares answer that call.

A week after the U.S.-Israeli strikes that killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Mr. Trump expressed his desire to play a role in selecting the country’s new leader — perhaps from the very authoritarian system that he has urged Iranians to rise against. The authorities responded by appointing the dead leader’s son, Mojtaba Khamenei, a hard-line cleric, as the successor.

For days, American and Israeli bombardments have pulverized Iranian military, intelligence and police sites across the country. And yet, there is no clear indication of a collapse in the government’s deeply entrenched and ideologically motivated security forces.

Apparently, Iranian leaders don’t mind being martyred and they certainly don’t seem to care if their subjects suffer. Does this highlight how dangerous Iran would have been with nuclear weapons mounted on ballistic missiles? (the NYT said it would take them about “a decade” to build a significant number of nukes plus delivery missiles) How do you deter a nuclear power if the rulers of that power don’t care what happens to themselves or the country that they’re ruling?

Loosely related…

Full post, including comments

New York Times Iran Vibe

by philg

It’s been a week since the U.S. attacked the peace-loving leaders of a peaceful Islamic theocracy. Let’s look at some of the wartime propaganda.

Sunday, March 1, a day after the hated dictator launched airstrikes while poolside in Palm Beach, the deaths of most of Iran’s senior leaders was just slightly more important than the second most important story: the Jeffrey Epstein saga. 93 million Iranians were without leadership for the first time since 1979, but also why didn’t the hundreds of U.S. government lawyers across multiple administrations manage to prosecute more of Jeffrey Epstein’s elite friends? (We know that it can’t be because it wasn’t actually criminal for Larry Summers to try to have sex with a 43-year-old or for Prince Andrew to be introduced to a 26-year-old female in a jurisdiction where the age of consent was 16.)

Today, the stories all seem to be reminding readers that Donald Trump is incompetent and mindlessly aggressive. Here’s part of the NYT front page in which Trump refuses to compromise while the Iranians are reasonable (apologizing):

CNN assembled PhD experts to do a “forensic analysis” and they concluded that war is damaging to infrastructure:

NYT, today, says that attacking Iran is pointless and, by implication, only a moron would order such an attack:

Also from today, the NYT says that only an incoherent (stupid) person would consider killing folks who chant “Death to America” while building nuclear bombs and ballistic missiles to deliver them to American cities:

The peaceful people of Lebanon, who declared war on the Zionist entity, never recognized the State of Israel, supported the October 7 attacks by Hamas (80%; 60% support among Lebanese Christians; 32% wanted to bravely attack Israel to help their brothers, sisters, and binary-resisters in Gaza), and continue to fire projectiles at Israeli civilians are sadly forced to flee their homes because of Jewish aggression:

(The Israeli attacks on Beirut actually do confuse me. The Israelis told the Lebanese to evacuate and then bombed some empty buildings. How does that reduce Hezbollah’s ability to fight? The apartment buildings weren’t being used as forts.)

Another sympathy-provoking story from Lebanon. Merely because they declared war on their neighbor and refused to accept any peace treaty over a 75-year period, some Lebanese can’t sleep comfortably in their own beds:

Trump is far worse than Vladimir Putin (March 6): “Mr. Trump has demonstrated a willingness to disregard international norms and engage in foreign adventurism by fully exploiting Washington’s might.”

From March 3, perhaps it would make sense to prevent a nation of 93 million people from building nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles that could deliver them anywhere in the world, but not if 900 people are killed:

(Comparison to the Bad Old Days: The U.S. killed 100,000 residents of Tokyo on March 9, 1945 and rendered 1 million homeless.)

In a politically diverse discussion group on Facebook, a passionate Democrat posted about 20 times about rising oil prices. In other words, Donald Trump has now convinced Democrats to support Islamic theocracy and also cheap fossil fuels for maximizing climate change. (Greta Thunberg has similarly been posting in support of the Islamic Republic of Iran; you’d think that at least she’d be happy that oil prices are higher and, therefore, that consumption will be lower.)

My own social media post on how Donald Trump has caused suffering on the home front:

Full post, including comments

If attacking Iran is a disaster for the U.S., why is the stock market slightly up?

by philg

This is my last morning in Berkeley, California. Support for the Islamic Republic of Iran is almost universal here. Nearly everyone shares the New York Times perspective that Trump’s attack on the noble legitimate leaders of Iran was reckless and exposes the U.S. to risks almost as bad as climate change. Certainly there was no imminent threat from some guys chanting “Death to America” and working on nuclear bombs and ballistic missiles. At dinner last night I asked a local, “Have you checked the stock market? If we’re in serious trouble, the market should be down.” She replied that she hadn’t checked, but was sure that there had been a market crash.

The Google shows that the market is about where it was a week ago.

How about oil?

Anyone who loaded up on oil on Friday is up 10 percent, but with standard leverage of 10:1, the lucky (or well-informed) trader has doubled his/her/zir/their money.

Loosely related, a favorite tweet regarding the fighting in and around Iran:

What else are Bay Area lifelong Democrats excited about? One friend wasn’t interested in the Iran war because he’s working to stop the construction of roughly 180 units of affordable housing that would be 2 miles from his house. (I’m also against this, of course, but likely for different reasons. A limited supply of taxpayer-subsidized housing results in a violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. 180 people will enjoy low rents for brand new units. Perhaps 5,000 nearby people with exactly the same income will be forced to pay high market rents for crummy older apartments. In what world can this be considered “equal” treatment by the government?)

Another friend was passionate about not straying too far from the 4th Street restaurant where we’d dined. She believed that we would become victims of crime if we walked away from the brightly lit main blocks. I pointed out that it wasn’t a great advertisement for 70 years of lavishly funded progressive government if Berkeley, in fact, had dangerous neighborhoods. (My local friend says that she often sees broken glass in parking spaces, evidence of prior break-ins.)

Separately, check out the “Living Wage” bump of 6 percent over the menu prices for this kosher meal.

Full post, including comments

Theodicy question: Why didn’t Allah protect the Islamic Republic of Iran from attack by infidels?

by philg

Infidel rogue states (U.S. and Israel) were recently successful in killing many of the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran. If Allah is omnipotent and benevolent, how was it possible for infidels to achieve this apparent military victory over a nation that follows the Koran and Hadiths?

Is the answer that those recently killed were martyrs to a larger cause and that their successors will build Iran into a stronger and more dominant nation?

Ayatollah ChatGPT isn’t tremendously helpful. Excerpts:

Iran’s interpretation of Islamic law is shaped by centuries of Shīʿī jurisprudence and legal reasoning (fiqh), not just direct literal verses from the Qurʾān or ḥadīth.

Islamic theology emphasizes that God’s wisdom (Hikmah) transcends human understanding. What may seem unjust or inexplicable from a human standpoint may be understood only in a larger spiritual context — especially one that includes the afterlife and final judgment, which humans do not see.

Related:

Flashback to 1979 New York Times, “Trusting Khomeini”:

Part of the confusion in America about Iran’s social revolution involves Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. More even than any third‐world leader, he has been depicted in a manner calculated to frighten.

The news media have defamed him in many ways, associating him with efforts to turn the clock back 1,300 years, with virulent anti‐Semitism, and with a new political disorder, “theocratic fascism,” about to be set loose on the world.

… there are hopeful signs, including the character and role of Ayatollah Khomeini.

To suppose that Ayatollah Khomeini is dissembling seems almost beyond belief. His political style is to express his real views defiantly and without apology, regardless of consequences. He has little incentive suddenly to become devious for the sake of American public opinion. Thus, the depiction of him as fanatical, reactionary and the bearer of crude prejudices seems certainly and happily false.

In looking to the future, Ayatollah Khomeini has spoken of his hopes to show the world what a genuine Islamic government can do on behalf of its people. … Despite the turbulence, many nonreligious Iranians talk of this period as “Islam’s finest hour.” … Iran may yet provide us with a desperately‐needed model of humane governance for a third‐world country.

Full post, including comments

Wartime reading: The Last Days of Budapest

by philg

I recently finished listening to The Last Days of Budapest: The Destruction of Europe’s Most Cosmopolitan Capital in World War II by Adam LeBor. It covers the history of Hungary starting after World War I. From Wikipedia:

The Communist Party of Hungary, led by Béla Kun was a newly formed party aligned with the Bolsheviks of Soviet Russia. The Social Democrats were split in their relation to them, but on 21 March [1919], the radical faction won out, and the two parties officially merged. They declared the Hungarian Soviet Republic, and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

In terms of domestic policy, the communist government nationalized industrial and commercial enterprises, socialized housing, transport, banking, medicine, cultural institutions, and all large landholdings. Land was collectivized, which alienated most of the peasantry who still demanded redistribution. The Communists also introduced prohibition of alcohol, which was very unpopular.

That last sentence saddens me because, of course, I think that if COVID-19 justified lockdowns and school closures then alcohol prohibition is trivial to justify under the banner of public health. (See Use testing and tracing infrastructure to enforce alcohol Prohibition? and The CDC supports my neo-prohibitionist philosophy)

Eventually a right-wing government takes over and unifies Hungarian under the ideas of (1) regaining territory lost after a post-WWI Treaty of Trianon, (2) restricting the influence of Jewish Hungarians (about 5 percent of the population), e.g., with race-based university admissions programs. Hungary ended up as an ally of Germany in WWII primarily because it wanted to regain territories lost in WWI. The majority of the population supported various anti-Jewish laws, but not necessarily the killing of all their Jewish neighbors. A minority of Hungarians did work with the Germans to kill Jews while the majority, including the police and the army, much more powerful than the militias, stood by watching (in most other European countries, the Jews were first moved out of public sight and killed in more private settings).

Zionists, with the assistance of foreign diplomats such as Raoul Wallenberg, worked to create papers that would ultimately protect about half of Budapest’s Jews, many of whom ultimately made it to the British mandatory Palestine and fought against the invading Arab armies in 1948 to establish the modern State of Israel that is currently in the news for her role in attacking entirely peaceful Iranians who enjoy building nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles while chanting “Death to America”. (The New York Times says that Trump and Netanyahu had no reason to attack because it would be “it would be a decade before Iran could get past the technological and production hurdles to produce a significant arsenal [of nuclear bombs mounted on ballistic missiles capable of reaching the U.S.]” (maybe a good reason to move from NYC to West Palm Beach, Florida? If they have only a dozen nuclear bombs to deploy, the Iranians might not bother targeting Florida!).)

The tenacity of the Germans and Hungarians was impressive. They knew that they couldn’t hold out against a Russian siege, but fought almost to the last man (killing about 80,000 Russians in the process, but the Russians weren’t discouraged by casualties). Unfortunately for the Jews, the Hungarians, notably members of the Arrow Cross, were equally tenacious when it came to killing Jews. Even as they knew that their city and country were falling to the Red Army, Hungarians spent a lot of time, energy, and ammunition killing their Jewish neighbors. Perhaps there is a modern analogy. Europe is currently experiencing economic stagnation and irrelevance to the modern world economy (ChatGPT: “EU imports would generally be easier to replace than Taiwan imports … Taiwan imports are strategically critical; Substitution is slow and difficult; Some products currently have no near-term substitute”). Legacy Europeans are being replaced by new and improved migrants. What do a lot of legacy Europeans do with their time and energy? Protest against whatever the State of Israel is doing.

An email from New Yorker just now says that there is no upside, but only risk, in attacking Iran. I don’t subscribe so I can’t read their paywalled content, but presumably the Iranians who were previously chanting “Death to America” could start chanting “Double Secret Death to America”.

Let’s close with my favorite headline about the attack on Iran, from the Wall Street Journal. Breaking new ground in the Department of Projecting Strength, the Commander in Chief of the U.S. military is relaxing in Palm Beach rather than nervously drinking coffee in an underground war room in D.C.:

(The Israeli and U.S. militaries also projected strength by sleeping late and attacking Iran at 10 a.m. local time. The bombing of Tehran was scheduled for the same time of day as a student pilot lesson.)

Full post, including comments

How much will Venezuela cost U.S. taxpayers?

by philg

It seems as though old-style United States is back in Latin America. We’ve removed a leader we don’t like and will install a U.S.-friendly replacement. We aren’t going in like the Romans, though, and expecting to make a profit by taking the new colony’s resources (oil). So how much will we spend on Venezuela over the next ten years? Or can we argue that we can’t resist taking in Venezuelan asylum-seekers, each household of which costs $100,000 per year in welfare, and therefore we will actually save money via intervening, even if we do also give Venezuela $100 billion (enough to fund at least 6 Somali day cares?)?

The new U.S.-picked leader of Venezuela identifies as a woman (Delcy Rodriguez) and we have two additional Venezuelan migrants living in the U.S. One might expect American progressives to be delighted, yet apparently they are not.

Full post, including comments

Cloud-AI relationship translated into fighter jets (France-Ukraine)

by philg

The relationship between cloud service companies and AI companies transcribed for military hardware… “France Wants to Build Jet Fighters for Ukraine. Neither Has the Cash.” (WSJ):

Separately, the article says that it will take at least 10 years for these fighters to be produced:

Dassault Aviation, the French aircraft manufacturer of the Rafale, would struggle to produce 100 jet fighters within the next 10 years, said Léo Péria-Peigné, a researcher at the French Institute for International Relations. Manufacturing a Rafale takes around two to three years, and the company said last month it still had 233 jets on order that it aimed to deliver over the next five years.

Does this mean that people expect the Russia-Ukraine war to continue for at least 10 more years?

Related:

Full post, including comments