Dan Ridler

Trump says US will "blockade" Strait of Hormuz after talks failed over Iran's "nuclear ambitions" - follow live bbc.in/3OjJmgT

Just spoke to @POTUS about our European allies’ unwillingness to provide assets to keep the Strait of Hormuz functioning, which benefits Europe far more than America. I have never heard him so angry in my life. I share that anger given what’s at stake. The arrogance of our allies to suggest that Iran with a nuclear weapon is of little concern and that military action to stop the ayatollah from acquiring a nuclear bomb is our problem not theirs is beyond offensive. The European approach to containing the ayatollah’s nuclear ambitions have proven to be a miserable failure. The repercussions of providing little assistance to keep the Strait of Hormuz functioning are going to be wide and deep for Europe and America. I consider myself very forward-leaning on supporting alliances, however at a time of real testing like this, it makes me second guess the value of these alliances. I am certain I am not the only senator who feels this way.

A thought experiment regarding a pro-US solution to the Iran War. Let's imagine what a new Iranian leader that would be acceptable to the US presidential administration (per the criteria defined by Donald Trump himself) would have to achieve. First, such a leader would have to seize power in Tehran. Amid all the chaos, he would have to grab what remains of central government control of what physical infrastructure is left. Then, because the Iranians have installed the Distributed Mosaic Defence, he would have to somehow assert authority over all the distributed, autonomous military, intelligence and civilian units to which power has been devolved. In other words, he would have to reconstitute the centralised control that has been dissolved. Secondly, if he somehow achieved that, he would have to turn to the population. Recall the history of Iran. It was preyed upon by western powers, first the UK, and then to a much greater degree the US. It then had a revolution, and not one like Iraq or Syria. As @policytensor pointed out in his (ongoing) Spaces this morning, the Iranian state fundamentally saw itself as a revolutionary vanguard state, and one with religious theocratic rule at its constitutional and cultural core. So, for the new leader to be acceptable to Donald Trump, per President Trump's own definition, that leader would have to persuade the Iranian people that all that had been a terrible mistake. It led to catastrophe; it led to us being bombed to pieces. And the solution, my fellow citizens, is to not only make peace with the nations that are currently bombing our schools and hospitals along with our military, but to in future run our affairs in their interests, rather than yours, the Iranian people. To that end, we will have to give up our means to ever defend ourselves in future, allow the US, and perhaps Israel and the UK and France, to run combat air patrols over our territory, allow them some small basing rights, share intelligence and internal security information with the US and Israel and allow them to military interdict our people, as they see fit. We will also have to pass legislation that they want, at least for a time. If that sounds preposterous, well, that's exactly what Trump has said he wants. It is the only thing he would accept, he has said. Does this seem likely to any of you? It is what Pahlavi is offering, and has been clear about offering. How likely is Pahlavi, a soft-headed dauphin who has lived most his life in luxury in America, to be able to do this? How likely is anybody? Maybe my understanding of the collective psyche of the Iranian people is wrong, so I am happy to hear why I my view that the chances of this are ZERO is incorrect. The only way that outcome could be obtained, I would say, is after a period of civil war. And perhaps that would be acceptable to Israel. Afterall, a civil war would destroy Iranian economic capacity, which would reduce its ability to fund proxy forced opposed to Israel. It would further mean that Iranian military potential was turned inward against itself and its own people. So maybe Israel would not be too unhappy. Especially as it would also draw in Turkey and Pakistan. Champagne corks pop in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem! However, this is also a scenario in which the US and the rest of the West would become structurally and unavoidably involved in Iran. Why? Because the threats to US interests would have multiplied in that scenario, not reduced. Security over nuclear materials, the influence of great power rivals, the threats to global supply chains, including regional energy production, the production of extremism and terrorism, the threats to the stability of regional allies, would all increase in that scenario. Fears of Chinese or Russian proxies gaining control, the needs of US corporations, and the demands of allies in Europe and the Middle East would demand US involvement. [THE SOVIET CAVEAT] The USSR was also a revolutionary vanguard state. It also had a mythology about predatory western powers. It also had an ideological education. It was also 'defeated' in a kind of security competition by the US. But it found a leader who was able to grab control over the levers of state and make friends with the US, and, to a certain degree, pursue domestic and foreign policies in US interests (see: oil exploitation deals, and the acquiescence to NATO expansion to its near abroad). But that situation was obtained by national exhaustion and internal collapse, not destruction from without. This is the thought experiment. This is how I see it. Happy to hear other scenarios. @ProfessorPape @baoshaoshan @ripplebrain @SwampGhost22 @philippilk @_HenryBolton @AaronBastani