Brett Erickson

18.7K posts

Brett Erickson banner
Brett Erickson

Brett Erickson

@BrettErickson28

Managing Principal, Obsidian Risk Advisors Board Member: DePaul, Seton Hall, Loyola Chicago Featured in WSJ, NYT, WaPo, Bloomberg [email protected]

Katılım Mart 2026
573 Takip Edilen11K Takipçiler
Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Brett Erickson
Brett Erickson@BrettErickson28·
Seeing as it is clear the blockade and economic warfare campaign failed miserably, I want to highlight some of my major quotes that, if listened to, could have helped to avoid this catastrophe: Bloomberg, May 2nd: “Washington is operating on a status-quo assumption that Iran will sit idly by and absorb this pressure and move toward collapse on a predictable timeline. That fundamentally misunderstands how regimes behave under sustained economic warfare. They do not fold, they adapt.” The New York Times, May 5th: “Iran is not particularly close to even starting to shut down its wells. Sanctions and the blockade will move the needle, but there is no feasible scenario by which they will produce the necessary result in a feasible timeline for Mr. Trump. Even if the war ends today, it will be multiple months before things return to normal.” Bloomberg, May 23rd: “There’s not really a lot of incentive for them to capitulate when they know that the shackles come off in a couple weeks. A fully unified Western sanctions front would absolutely tighten the screws on Tehran over the long term. But the global economy does not have the luxury of an extended timeline.” The Washington Post, March 21st: “This move directly contradicts Trump’s own statements that the United States is considering winding down this conflict. You don’t unsanction Iranian oil if you’re winding down. This is the action of an administration that has no exit ramp and knows it. The word for that is desperation.” The Washington Post, April 30th: “We are banking on being saved by a silver bullet that is flawed in a number of ways.” Reuters, March 20th: "The easing of sanctions raises concerns about the rapid depletion of Washington's economic toolkit to dampen oil prices. If we've reached the point of loosening sanctions on the country we are at war with, we're really running out of options." The Hill, April 25th: “We are really all-in on this economic warfare campaign, and Iran is calling our bluff here. If we lose on the river here, we’re now several more weeks into this conflict with no progress being made, and the global economy is going to suffer for it.” DropSite, May 1st: “Iran will still receive revenues from exports shipped out between January and April, they will not necessarily see the full weight of the economic impact from this blockade for several more months. If the blockade takes another 2-3 days to force them to capitulate or reach an agreement, that’s fine. If it takes 2 months that is a nonstarter for the global economy.”
English
32
57
198
80.3K
Ambrose Pike
Ambrose Pike@ambrose_pike·
With a shit-ton of strikes, there is a risk of unintended, chance events getting woven into a story. Not saying that's happening here. But as the degrees of freedom increase, it's easier to find shapes in the clouds. Maybe the wheat was an accident. Too soon to tell. If not, it's horrible.
English
1
0
2
64
Brett Erickson
Brett Erickson@BrettErickson28·
I don’t see any possible way the United States could even DREAM of achieving victory against Iran without taking actions that would see the entire Middle East and the global economy devastated. If ANYONE can provide a rebuttal as to how we could, I’d love to hear it, but I’ve never come across on.
English
72
44
304
16.8K
Brett Erickson
Brett Erickson@BrettErickson28·
@BarakRavid @axios So… terrorism? That’s the strategy? “Devastating targets” almost certainly means critical economic infrastructure
English
5
1
17
1.6K
Barak Ravid
Barak Ravid@BarakRavid·
🚨🇺🇸🇮🇷President Trump held a Situation Room meeting Tuesday to discuss a massive offensive in Iran that will be wider in scope than the current strikes around the Strait of Hormuz, three sources with knowledge said. My story on @axios axios.com/2026/07/15/tru…
English
32
87
348
42.4K
Brett Erickson
Brett Erickson@BrettErickson28·
The initial 24 hours of the now official US blockade will be very significant because the United States is obviously operating on a short timeline. These are the primary actions I am watching for. (Not cheering for, not cheering against, just... read) 1) Will the United States strike Iranian vessels LOADING at oil terminals? 2) Will the United States interdict vessels OUTSIDE of the blockade line? 3) Will the United States conduct military strikes on critical Iranian economic infrastructure? 4) Will the United States strike civilian infrastructure (roads, bridges, rail lines, power plants, water infrastructure)? 5) Will the United States turn to full naval escorts along the Omani Route? 6) Will the United States conduct an AIR blockade of Iran?
English
26
22
81
12K
Brett Erickson
Brett Erickson@BrettErickson28·
@CurtMills It’s the penguins from that one country we tariffed. Gotta be.
English
1
0
1
119
Redrunner01
Redrunner01@Redrunner097513·
@BrettErickson28 Middle East goes back to the dark ages of tents camels and no power and no water if they do
English
1
0
2
50
Brett Erickson
Brett Erickson@BrettErickson28·
Just to be clear: Maybe people are poking fun at President Trump once again threatening “bridge and power plants day”… I am not so sure that he is bluffing here. I see no way that a simple dueling blockages strategy will produce the necessary strategic outcomes, so the only possible option is escalation.
English
36
21
91
7.1K
Brett Erickson
Brett Erickson@BrettErickson28·
As I have been highlighting for the last two weeks, I do NOT think this is a mere bluff from Trump. In the first blockade, President Trump CLEARLY bought all-in on the “13 days to oil well shut-ins theory”. Then he bought into economic anarchy. Neither of those even remotely came close to happening. Very clearly, military operations are not viable here. UNFORTUNATELY, Trump decided to rip up the MOU by torching the oil sanction waivers and imposing fresh new sanctions on Iran, directly violation Article 9 and Article 10 of the MOU. IF there is a new deal reached between Iran and the United States, it will be a FAR worse deal because Iran will have even more leverage. But due to ripping up Art9 and Art10, there is no turning back to the old deal now. As a result, President Trump is left with one of two options: 1) He can come crying back at the feet of Iran and sign a worse MOU 2) He can go all-in on the blockade. The problem with number 2 is that Iran is now in a STRONGER position now than they there prior to the MOU as a result of exporting more than 80M barrels of oil in the past 27 days since the MOU was signed. Therefore, it is utterly ridiculous to assume that simply returning back to the dueling blockades will produce the requisite outcomes. As a result, President Trump will need to take steps NOT taken in the first blockade iteration if he wants any chance of success. … This should concern everyone.
Special Report@SpecialReport

🚨EXCLUSIVE: President Trump details his administration's pressure campaign on Iran with @TreyYingst , warning of targeted strikes on critical infrastructure—including power plants and bridges—to force a negotiation. "If I didn’t do it the way I’m doing it, they would never make a deal."

English
13
16
58
10K
Josh
Josh@Joshpewpew1911·
@BrettErickson28 A reasonable government would trade aggression for prosperity. Stop attacking civilian shipping, drop the nuclear ambitions, and your economy improves. The problem isn’t a lack of options, it’s a leadership willing to sacrifice its people’s future to keep pursuing confrontation
English
2
0
1
61
Brett Erickson
Brett Erickson@BrettErickson28·
So… Just a question for anyone who cares to answer… What happens if the blockade IS successful in creating a massive economic crisis in Iran? Do we expect Iran to just… roll over and NOT massively escalate? Or would they more likely pull one of their MANY escalation levers?
English
49
18
137
6.7K
Remy
Remy@Remy0165·
@BrettErickson28 And let's just say it was somehow semi-effective. Do they really want the prospect of another failed state in the middle east? That benefits literally no one.
English
3
0
1
152
Brett Erickson
Brett Erickson@BrettErickson28·
@jillgt888 The theory is the U.S. is going to bomb those roads, bridges, and rail lines
English
1
0
3
49
Jillgt
Jillgt@jillgt888·
@BrettErickson28 Aren’t they getting aid from Russia and China? Food, medicine, weapons shipped by land?
English
1
0
1
55
MirH_x
MirH_x@MirH_x·
@BrettErickson28 IRGC will chose the escalation option. If they don't then there could be an internal revolt within irgc with more radical ones coming out on top.
English
1
0
1
47
Tom in Kansas
Tom in Kansas@Tommers71·
@BrettErickson28 Question for the War Hawks: If we create a humanitarian crisis in the ME, are we obligated to take in refugees? They are victims by all accounts. Somehow I doubt MAGA will grasp their accountability.
English
1
0
2
42