Category: War

We’re informed that a peace deal with Iran is coming any day now. Some of the terms seem worse than what Carthage had to give when they surrendered to Rome. For example, “Trump’s $300 billion problem on the Iran agreement”:

In an interview with CBS News Monday morning, Vice President JD Vance seemed to tacitly confirm the premise that Iran could be given “access” to a reconstruction fund worth as much as $300 billion.

Ever since that interview, the administration has strained to clarify things. It has emphasized that this money wouldn’t come from US taxpayers. Instead, it would be money from other Gulf countries that would only be available if Iran complies with a peace deal.

Vance said late Monday on Fox News that “we would invite other countries — not us, but other countries — to invest in” Iran. He echoed that Tuesday, telling Megyn Kelly that the US wouldn’t let the United Arab Emirates, for example, “invest in Iran, unless the Iranians change their behavior.”

When the Obama administration and other countries cut a nuclear deal with Iran in 2015, it included giving Iran access to billions of dollars. In that case, it wasn’t money from other countries, but instead Iran’s own assets that had been frozen in foreign banks under sanctions. Estimates generally placed the dollar figure around $50 billion.

The Islamic Republic of Iran still officially hates the U.S., right? They’ve been chanting “Death to America” for 47 years. To the extent that they have money and sovereignty, therefore, won’t they use that money to build weapons factories? To the extent that they have electric power, won’t they use that power to run the factories 24/7?

One purported benefit is oil can flow through the Strait of Hormuz without interference from the Iranian Navy that, we’re informed, no longer exists. But if the U.S. is an oil exporter, how do we benefit from the ability of competitors in the Persian Gulf to export through the Strait?

Maybe Donald Trump is doing this for immediate political gain? The price of gasoline will go down a little and, therefore, Democrats who were previously climate alarmists and wanted higher gasoline prices to discourage consumption will stop their recent complaints about the higher gasoline prices that they previously advocated? This explanation seems implausible because surrendering to an enemy, even if you call it “winning”, doesn’t usually make a politician more popular. Wouldn’t Trump enjoy more popular support, at least among Republicans, with round-the-clock bombing of Iran’s oil industry (thus denying the ayatollahs the money they need to build weapons factories) and electricity plants (thus denying the regime the grid-scale electric power that it needs to run its weapons factories)?

Separately, if the goal is to keep the non-existent Iranian Navy out of the Strait, couldn’t we use robot submersibles to make the waters unfriendly to those whom we don’t like? Here’s an example from Anduril that can endure for 10 days:

Reading to remember the sacrifices that some U.S. military personnel made during World War II: 81 Days Below Zero: The Incredible Survival Story of a World War II Pilot in Alaska’s Frozen Wilderness. When Seward bought the territory in 1867, nobody could have imagined that the interior would end up being useful for the yet-to-be-invented heavier-than-air military airplane, including the B-24 that Leon Crane was co-piloting in the crash that led to his fellow airmens’ deaths and his own remarkable survival.

Of course, most of the military deaths in Alaska occurred in the Aleutian Islands battles (see Justifying our total war against Japan for some Fairbanks museum exhibits on this subjectd). It’s tough from today’s perspective to see the military value of these fights, but we can still reflect on the memory of those who were willing to sacrifice their lives in the cold for the perceived value at the time.

I was in Juneau yesterday. Seward doesn’t look too happy about the future state that he purchased:

Wall Street Journal, yesterday, “Iran Has Strong Cards Going Into U.S. Talks but Risks Overplaying Its Hand”:

The question now is whether Iranian leaders will overplay this critical lever at the planned meeting in Islamabad, Pakistan, with Vice President JD Vance by insisting on maximalist demands despite losing much of Iran’s military and industrial base during the war. This is something that President Trump, despite all his apparent eagerness to wind down the conflict, will likely find impossible to accept.

“From Tehran’s point of view, they think that they have Trump over a barrel. They think they have weaponized the world economy, have taken everything that America can throw at them, and came out standing,” said William Wechsler, director of Middle East programs at the Atlantic Council and a former senior Pentagon official. “Trump blinked first. Now, the Iranians won’t take a deal unless it is a deal in which Trump and Vance completely abandon U.S. national security interests in the Middle East.”

The playing field is clearly stacked in Iran’s favor after more than a month of warfare that involved a dozen nations in the region. This is largely because the crucial component of any negotiation—the time factor—now works for Tehran.

What could possibly make us look weaker and more pathetic than this? Maybe if the negotiations were held in the house in Pakistan where Osama bin-Laden resided and which at least some people in Pakistan had to know about?

I can’t figure out why we wouldn’t just keep disabling or destroying more assets of the Islamic Republic regime, e.g., oil production and electricity generation until either (1) they surrendered, or (2) they had so little industrial capability left that they couldn’t maintain significant military power. If we didn’t like high domestic oil prices we could simply reduce the U.S. oil market’s exposure to the world oil market, e.g., by limiting exports to whatever they were in January 2026. If the Europeans and Asians were unhappy about not being able to get oil through the Strait of Hormuz they would have been free to do something about that, e.g., send their own warships.

Until they started to decline, Rome never surrendered even after grievous battlefield losses, e.g., to Hannibal, and Rome wouldn’t negotiate with another power as a peer. They sent some low-level guys to Carthage to dictate terms for Carthage’s ultimate surrender, for example, not the equivalent of a vice president. And they didn’t call it a “negotiation”. Carthage was not their peer, nor their partner in peace, etc. Speaking of Rome… on the very day that J.D. Vance headed to Pakistan to surrender to the Islamic Republic of Iran, plans for a triumphal arch in D.C. are unveiled:

Maybe we need a more muscular president? The NYT says that Kamala Harris remains available:

Loosely related…

How does the U.S. benefit from a two-week ceasefire in the war against Iran? I’m sure that some of our pilots could use a rest, but otherwise isn’t the main beneficiary our adversary? Iran’s oil industry wasn’t damaged so the regime can keep loading up tankers with crude and shipping it out to customers via the Strait of Hormuz. Thus, the Islamic Republic’s stockpile of cash will soon be back where it was. Iran can dig any buried missiles out of damaged buildings and bunkers and set them up on launchers ready to go on April 21. Iran should be able to get many of its weapons factories back into production as well since the U.S. didn’t damage Iran’s electric power grid or generating stations. Every Islamic Republic military officer or political leader who was busy running from bunker to bunker and fearful that a traitor would rat out his GPS coordinates to Israel or the U.S. can go home, shower, and relax.

Iran has already said that it isn’t going to do any of the things that the U.S. has demanded, e.g., give up making ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons. Is there a realistic chance that the Islamic Republic will change its mind during the two weeks of this ceasefire?

The pro-Iran/anti-Israel in DC featured by the WSJ:

We’re not at war with Cuba, as far as I know, and Cubans don’t chant “Death to America” while building advanced weapons. Nonetheless, we’ve supposedly prevented Cubans from getting oil and, thus, generating electric power. From state-sponsored NPR… “How the U.S. oil blockade is taking a high toll on everyday Cubans”:

For millions of Cubans, daily life has turned into a desperate struggle. Earlier this week, Cuba was forced into a nationwide blackout after months of the U.S. effectively choking off oil shipments to the island from Cuba’s allies. The country continues to experience rolling blackouts. And meanwhile, President Trump continues to float the idea of taking over the country. But amid negotiations with the U.S., Cuban officials say they don’t intend to go anywhere.

(According to the U.S. Department of State, NPR is simply lying, but that isn’t relevant for the purposes of this post. Let’s assume that NPR Is telling the truth.)

Trump-hostile media outlets complain that U.S. policy toward Cuba is cruel, but not that it is a “crime” or a “war crime” (NYT example).

The most obvious way to reduce the Islamic Republic of Iran’s long-term military power is to disable the country’s oil industry and electric power generation. Without money from selling oil, the Islamic Republic wouldn’t be able to rebuild weapons factories. Without a surplus of electric power, the Islamic Republic wouldn’t be able to run its weapons factories.

The same newspaper that implies it was not a crime for us to disable Cuba’s electric power says that it would definitely be a “war crime” to do anything to harm our actual enemy, Iran. NYT, March 24, 2026:

Intentionally targeting the country’s energy infrastructure could constitute a war crime under international law.

Here’s another mystery… “Iran Moves to Formalize Toll Plan in Strait of Hormuz” (NYT):

Tehran has effectively closed off the critical waterway, turning back container ships on Friday, and Iranian lawmakers are considering whether to charge fees to pass.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps said Friday that it had turned back three container ships attempting to enter what it described as a designated corridor, declaring that “the Strait of Hormuz is closed” and warning that any unauthorized traffic would face “severe action,” according to a statement carried by Fars.

We’ve been told that the U.S. has sunk the entire Iranian navy and also that A-10 Warthogs are patrolling the Strait of Hormuz. How is Iran able to operate military naval vessels, even boat-sized, that can “turn back” a ship? Maybe the answer is that Iran is radioing the ships and threatening them with drones or missiles?

A couple of days ago, Donald Trump said that we would start doing to Iran what FDR and Truman did to Germany and Japan, i.e., attack the electric power generation that allows an enemy nation to run its weapons industry. Today, however, we learn that the U.S. is actually planning to surrender to Iran. “Trump Says U.S. Will Postpone Strikes on Iranian Energy Infrastructure” (WSJ):

President Trump said the U.S. military would postpone strikes on Iranian power plants and energy infrastructure for five days following “productive” talks between Washington and Tehran.

In a Truth Social post written in all caps, Trump said the two countries had “very good and productive conversations regarding a complete and total resolution of our hostilities in the Middle East.” Trump said that based on those discussions, which he said would continue this week, he had asked the Pentagon to hold off on energy-related strikes that he had threatened. U.S. stock indexes jumped after markets opened and Brent crude futures dropped nearly 10%.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry denied Tehran was in talks with the U.S., according to state media, saying there was “no dialogue” with Washington.

Earlier, Iran threatened wider attacks on infrastructure—including fuel, tech and desalination facilities—used by the U.S. in the region if its energy sites were hit. Iran also warned it would lay mines across the entire Persian Gulf if its coasts or islands were attacked. The escalation of threats came after Trump demanded at the weekend that Iran fully open the Strait of Hormuz, saying in a social-media post late Saturday that the U.S. would “obliterate” Iranian power plants if the regime failed to act within 48 hours.

This wouldn’t be the first time that we’ve paid $1 trillion/year to run our military and also surrendered, but some of the above is confusing. We’ve been told that the Iranian navy was sunk and that we control the airspace over and around Iran. Boats capable of laying mines would seem to be too big to hide anywhere. How would the Iranians have the ability to “lay mines across the entire Persian Gulf” if our claims of having destroyed their navy are true? If there are a few small boats left, why can’t the planes and drones flying over the Iranian coastline find and destroy them?

There is also, of course, the obvious inconsistency of us saying that we’ve negotiated our surrender with the Iranian government and the government of Iran saying that the U.S. hasn’t yet surrendered to them.

Presumably any proposed agreement would (1) leave the current Islamic Republic officials in charge of Iran, just as they have been for 47 years, (2) leave Iran with its oil production infrastructure intact so that it can keep funding its weapons production, and (3) leave Iran with its electric power infrastructure intact so that it can keep running all of the weapons factories that it wants to run, including uranium enrichment, short-range ballistic missile (that can reach the Islamic Republic of London), and peaceful nuclear weapons factories. I can’t think of a way to summarize this other than “U.S. surrenders.” Maybe the Iranians will provide a paper promise not to build nuclear weapons or longer-range ballistic missiles, but what good would that be from a regime that has promised and sworn “Death to America”?

There is no way to learn about any U.S. military successes from reading our media (see We are being absolutely crushed by Iran (NYT)). The U.S. military itself doesn’t seem to have a lot of recent success to report. Here’s a tweet from last night that describes an attack from earlier in March:

If we are currently doing some damage to the Islamic Republic’s military capabilities shouldn’t CENTCOM be able to report more recent strikes?

Readers: What can we make of the above other than “U.S. surrenders”? And if we are forced to surrender, what is the point of paying $1 trillion/year for our military?