Egry Gábor

@KShevchenkoReal What is the problem with 10 tr Euros in low yield bank accounts? That is cheap and historically quite stable source for banks unlike liablities that are more expensive and more volatile.

⚡6 major economies—France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, and Spain—are supporting a single EU watchdog for large cross-border finance players like stock exchanges and clearing houses. Germany's support is a game changer after years of blockage. Why this matters: €10 trillion in EU savings is sitting in low-yield bank accounts, acc. to @POLITICOEurope. A unified supervisor could cut red tape, close loopholes, lower costs, and boost jobs and growth. It could also strengthen Europe's position against the US and China. However, smaller countries like Ireland and Luxembourg are pushing back. They worry that centralized rules will take away their regulatory flexibility and financial advantages, which could hurt their business and profits. There’s a huge potential gain for the global economy, but national politics might still put a stop to it. #CapitalMarketsUnion Photo: @POLITICOEurope

@KamranBokhari Yes, I clearly remember how Saddam's regime collapsed without any external intervention in 2003!

In intelligence analysis and strategic forecasting, we’re taught to think about the next war(s) even while the current one is still underway. The Iran war may be creating a couple of new strategic normals/baselines: 1️⃣ Intermittent strikes become routine. Even after the current war ends, the U.S. and/or Israel may periodically strike Iranian targets whenever Tehran is seen rebuilding capabilities or engaging in hostile moves. In other words: the threshold for kinetic action against Iran may now be permanently lower. Iran could become a theater where episodic strikes are treated as an extension of deterrence, rather than an escalation to full-scale war. This trajectory would unfold unless: • Tehran cuts a deal with Washington & the U.S. doesn't need to end the war unilaterally • Or the regime becomes consumed by post-war internal instability. 2️⃣ War itself becomes normalized in Tehran. Iran has now directly experienced war with the U.S. and Israel. Should the regime survive, hardliners - and even some of their middle of the road allies - may internalize a dangerous lesson: Yes, the war was devastating. But the regime endured. That conclusion/perception could produce greater strategic risk tolerance in Tehran, rather than lower it. But survival in the immediate aftermath doesn’t guarantee long-term stability. Recent history is instructive: The Saddam regime in Iraq survived the shock of the 1991 Gulf War, yet the system ultimately collapsed in 2003. The point is not the analogy itself, but the broader pattern: wars frequently weaken regimes in ways that unfold over time. The immediate survival of regimes after major wars often masks longer-term systemic erosion - setting in motion slow-burn internal stresses that play out years later. Still early days. But the outlines of the post-war strategic environment are already taking shape.

@FAZ_Feuilleton @OliverBWeber Aussergewöhnlich offenes Gestaendiss. Doch ist es vielleicht ein Beweis für das wahre Niveau von Mounks intellekutellen Leistungen?

Yascha Mounk behauptet, dank ChatGPT könnten die Geisteswissenschaften schon bald automatisiert werden. Ganz besonders gilt das für seine Bücher. Von @OliverBWeber faz.net/aktuell/feuill…

@jabeale Great tweet! Makes the military and the administration look even sillier. Everyone expceted and planned for and somehow they are standing there with pants down?

Since 1979, there has never been a professional military and/or IC discussion, review, table-top exercise, planning session, research project, targeting review, maritime conference, or any mention of war with Iran in a professional setting that didn't include a comprehensive examination and acknowledgment of the war's impact on the Strait of Hormuz and the military options available to prevent, counter or ultimately defeat Iran's attempts to close it. CNN should consider the agenda of any former military "expert" of any rank or position who would even suggest otherwise. It's beyond ridicule - tens of thousands of living, breathing human beings who have been involved in such planning and research would tell you the exact opposite of what CNN is reporting. Apparently they were unable to find one.

@lawofsea The most important is that this is not WWII when you could compel ships to join a convoys whatever the potential costs. Now, joining is voluntarily and Iran only needs a credible threat of hitting one or two to keep the costs exremely high and induce risk aversion.

Let's talk about why the US Navy hasn't been escorting commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. (1) Our surface naval force had other tasks to carry out, including carrier protection. You should ask why our Navy is too small - that is a proper question. (2) Eliminating the IRN and IRGC navies through air and missile attacks means major threat reduction while allowing the ships that would have been used for escorting to remain at their other higher priority tasks (3) Escorting is: (a) A more complex problem than it might appear. The systems used by Iran to attack shipping require escort ships to deal with surface, air, and subsurface issues, especially early on before the attrition of Iranian forces. (b) The ships we would have use to do escorting are the same DDGs used for carrier protection and conducting strike operations. (c) An escort can only "protect" a limited area. This limits the number of ships in a convoy. (c) We lack classic escort ships, either frigates or corvettes to pick up this role. We had plans for both, but there's a long history of why we don't have them now. (d) Escorting can done from the air - assets that can eliminate UAVs, USVs, and UUVs without taking the DDGs away from their other tasks. But those aircraft are also tasked with other missions which are deemed of higher priority. (e) The Gulf is big so lengthy transits eat up escort availability which limits the number of convoys. (4) We knew there was no mining of the Strait because the Iranians were telling their customer ships to go through the Strait. We were also monitoring the Iranian coast so then when they sortied mine layers, we took them out. (5) We keep attacking the "archers" - who are sending out drones and missiles to attack shipping. At some point, assuming the other attacks on drone and missile manufacturing are successful, the Iranian forces will run out of these systems. Aircraft are better at this mission than warships, though, at some point, both can be used. (6) The Gulf states have frigates, corvettes, patrol craft, and aircraft. They can escort commercial shipping if they so choose. It's their sea line of communication, it's their oil, it's their loading facilities, it's their business. All they need is the will, and, apparently, the assurance that the majority of the threat from Iran has been quashed, so that they can put their sailors and airmen to work. The US should encourage them in this. (7) One can imagine a string of local sea and air assets running the length of the Gulf providing zone coverage for shipping instead of small clumps of escorted vessels.

@IAPonomarenko Using this precedent, Ukraine should send a delegation to Hungary to retrieve the stolen goods.

Wait for it -- private individuals from Hungary entered Ukraine through the regular border crossing with no official authority, no agreements, and no scheduled meetings with Ukrainian officials. In front of TV cameras at the checkpoint, they declared themselves an “official delegation” that had come to conduct “negotiations” with Ukraine and inspect the condition of the Druzhba oil pipeline. Tomorrow morning these private individuals will, quite predictably, not be allowed by security onto a strategic restricted facility. And Orban will start foaming at the mouth again, yelling that this is all because Zelensky is trying to drag Hungary into the war with Russia, that it was Zelensky who damaged the pipeline rather than Russian strikes on Ukraine, and that Zelensky is threatening his wife and children and planning to starve all Hungarians to death. Therefore, everyone must urgently vote for him on April 12, because only he can save Hungary from the horrors of using non-Russian oil and from Zelensky's armadas of death.

The art of the deal...

@patrickwintour The best case scenario is that he has just seen Master and Commander and the movie fundamentally shapes his perception of naval warfare. The worst is unfortunately the most probable.

Trump said in an interview with Fox News that ships stopped in the Strait of Hormuz should "show a little courage" and pass through this channel. The US President alleged: "There is nothing to fear, they have no navy, we sank all their ships... and sank all but 20 percent of their ships." He has really thought this through.

@MartinSauerbrey Das entscheidende war dass damals wusste man die Kriegsziele... Ist dieser Logikfehler wirklich das Niveu von Jurastudium an deutschen Universitataeten?

Das Entscheidende an Operation Avalanche 1943 war, dass in der ersten Phase schon mal 160.000 Mann anlandeten. Während die Wehrmacht gegen Million Sovietsoldaten im Osten kämpfte. Ohne Bodentruppen wird das im Iran nicht funktionieren. Wenn überhaupt...

No, DOGE, ChatGPT and the Trump Administration would never condone antisemitism! Unintelligence. "A documentary about Jewish women’s slave labor during the Holocaust? The focus on gender risked “contributing to D.E.I. by amplifying marginalized voices.” nytimes.com/2026/03/07/art…

@MartinSauerbrey The most recent news is that these murdered experts elected the murdered son of Khamenei the new Supreme Leader. I seriously think Isreal is trolling the media - and quite successfully.

Either the Iranians are incredible stupid or it's propaganda 🤷

@simon_schama Well, according to the most recent news this ghost assembly elected another ghost as the new supreme leader in the meantime. Maybe source criticism would be a good subject for journalists, public intellectuals, analysist and the likes?

Was Alireza Arafi (Second Chairman of Assembly) there? He was tipped to become SL

@simonmontefiore Israel claimed he was killed and no one questioned it yet (I guess Trump counts him among the 49 killed Iranian leaders), so why not to elect the ghost/resurrected?

New Dynasty. 47 years after they overthrew The Shah. Not a sign of strength.

So, Isreal announces that someone they had announced of having killed is the new supreme leader. And it is just tweeted out uncritically. Dementia is the new Covid?

which is very bad news

@simon_schama Especially as Isreal already announced they killed him... A ghost is very hard to fight with conventional arms.

@MattheusWehowsk Zeigt auch wie sinnlos ist was Merz, von der Leyen, Rutte und Co macht. Sie verdienen nur mehr Spott und Druck...

Ok, weil Europa also nicht bei dem völlig planlosen #Iran-Abenteuer dabei sein will, haben die USA Anspruch auf Grönland. MAGA-Logik 👍

@ArvindBudane @sentdefender The only thing it proves is that Trump is completely deranged.

This statement makes it clear that the decision to launch the strikes was presented as a preemptive move based on perceived intelligence and strategic assessment, not pressure from Israel. President Trump is framing the action as a defensive necessity, arguing that Iran was preparing to strike first and that waiting would have put lives at risk. By saying he may have “forced Israel’s hand,” he shifts the narrative to suggest U.S. leadership and initiative rather than influence from an ally. However, such claims would ultimately depend on verified intelligence and international scrutiny. Preemptive military action is always controversial, especially when it risks escalating regional tensions. Supporters may see it as decisive leadership, while critics may question the evidence and long-term consequences.

Reporter: “Mr. President, did Israel force your hand to launch these strikes against Iran?” President Trump: “No. No, I might have forced their hand. You see, we were having negotiations with these lunatics, and it was my opinion that they were going to attack first. They were going to attack. If we didn't do it, they were going to attack first. I felt strongly about that. great negotiators, great people, people that do this very successfully and have done it all their lives very successfully. And based on the way the negotiation was going, I think they were going to attack first. And I didn't want that to happen. So, if anything, I might have forced Israel’s hand. But Israel was ready and we were ready. And we've had a very, very powerful impact because virtually everything they have has been knocked out now.”

Tragic farce or farcical tragedy: - I'm the most powerful man on earth, the greatest president of all times. The peacemaker and dealmaker. - Wait, what do you say, Bibi tells I should attack Iran? Oh, how can I resist?

@MartinSauerbrey That is an exemplarily stupid tweet as it implies logically that the US must annex Europe.

That would make everything better, wouldn't it? The whole mess about Greenland is exactly why your European allies get more and more distant. Because Trump and his posse know nothing about diplomacy and wonder afterwards why they get snubbed.