Chamberlain's Ghost

17.3K posts

Chamberlain's Ghost banner
Chamberlain's Ghost

Chamberlain's Ghost

@RSA_Observer

History, geopolitics, social issues. Peels apples with scalpels. Quiet civil conversations. Mostly somewhere in the moderate middle. Mute button enthusiast.

เข้าร่วม Ağustos 2011
904 กำลังติดตาม3.6K ผู้ติดตาม
ทวีตที่ปักหมุด
Chamberlain's Ghost
Chamberlain's Ghost@RSA_Observer·
Some of you may wonder about the name of this profile - Chamberlain's Ghost. Just briefly, when this war started in early 2022, I strongly expressed the view that Ukraine should seek a settlement with Russia as soon as possible. This was long before we all learned about the abortive Istanbul negotiations. For this I was pilloried by friend, family, acquaintance and stranger alike. I was labelled 'Putin's shill', 'Munich appeaser', 'Neville Chamberlain' and and many other things besides. But I was right then and I am still right now. The only solution to this war for Ukraine was and still is a negotiated peace. The only difference now from then is that now the terms will be worse, many people have died and a great deal of destruction has been done. This was, in the greater sense of matters, an avoidable war. People did not need to die and a country did not need to be wrecked. But in substance ideology preceded pragmatism.
English
30
25
160
42.2K
Chamberlain's Ghost
Chamberlain's Ghost@RSA_Observer·
@Magpie_Hunter So far it hasn't worked out. What is interesting is the Russian (alleged) assistance to Iran. They seem unconcerned about how Trump reacts to this.
English
1
0
1
16
Saxon Homesteader
Saxon Homesteader@Magpie_Hunter·
@RSA_Observer great post, the battle for Ukraine was just a warm up for this one. I suspect the Anglo American zionist empire thought they could weaken Russia before going after Iran and it hasn't worked out for them.
English
1
0
1
8
Chamberlain's Ghost
Chamberlain's Ghost@RSA_Observer·
I see Netanyahu is still talking about a ground operation in Iran to overthrow the state. Maybe, but it feels like an increasingly faint - indeed, remote - possibility. If you ask me, it seems that the question is now no longer who will be running Tehran when the dust settles but who will be in control of the Strait of Hormuz and it's surrounding seas. I recognize that the US military (still) has unequalled capability to deal with specific point issues that rely on power projection but I suspect that the probable coming amphibious operation may be quite difficult. Not that I think the Iranians are in any way going to find it easy either. The thing is that the question of who ends up holding the gateway to the heart of the world's petroleum energy markets is absolutely determinative of what the geopolitical future of the globe looks like. It is in many ways "the" question of our time. If it is held by Iran and it's backers - including China - the entire world shifts on its axis. Europe for one will likely be significantly weakened and US influence will be severely diminished across the globe as a whole. It will then truly be a fully multipolar world and quite possibly the Petro dollar will be fully and finally dead. It's hard to overstate the significance of the coming battle of the Persian Gulf. It's probably far more significant than the war for Ukraine. I don't know what the US and it's partners plan. But I do know that in their own self interest they had better not screw it up this time. Far too much turns on it for them.
English
18
7
56
17.9K
Chamberlain's Ghost
Chamberlain's Ghost@RSA_Observer·
@jdanielcook @BraudelMarx You know. Dien Bien Phu, etc. Some generals do dumb stuff. Like Petraeus. They want to retire comfortably, not be fired by fools like Hegseth.
English
0
0
0
10
Daniel Cook
Daniel Cook@jdanielcook·
@RSA_Observer @BraudelMarx That is true but will generals order what they know will be a massacre? The strategy may be a gamble but the tactics have been impeccable. Trump could not just tweet “charge” and it happens. I would expect we would see resignations if he ignored the tactical.
English
1
0
1
11
Braudel Marx
Braudel Marx@BraudelMarx·
@jdanielcook @RSA_Observer Totally agree, but I think, if the US is dumb enough to try such a stunt, the Iranian might just let the US acquire a shaky foothold just for this very reason--in order to slowly decimate the marines and to watch the resulting domestic political recriminations in the US.
English
2
0
2
46
Chamberlain's Ghost
Chamberlain's Ghost@RSA_Observer·
To my surprise, Iran is the world's 10th largest producer of steel. It's annual production is only a bit less than that of Germany (2025 numbers, 32 vs 34 million tons).
English
2
3
22
489
atila el 1.
atila el 1.@_atila_el_1·
La cuestión de nuestro tiempo. Está guerra reconfigura todo, desde las finanzas hasta la proyección de poder militar.
atila el 1. tweet media
Chamberlain's Ghost@RSA_Observer

I see Netanyahu is still talking about a ground operation in Iran to overthrow the state. Maybe, but it feels like an increasingly faint - indeed, remote - possibility. If you ask me, it seems that the question is now no longer who will be running Tehran when the dust settles but who will be in control of the Strait of Hormuz and it's surrounding seas. I recognize that the US military (still) has unequalled capability to deal with specific point issues that rely on power projection but I suspect that the probable coming amphibious operation may be quite difficult. Not that I think the Iranians are in any way going to find it easy either. The thing is that the question of who ends up holding the gateway to the heart of the world's petroleum energy markets is absolutely determinative of what the geopolitical future of the globe looks like. It is in many ways "the" question of our time. If it is held by Iran and it's backers - including China - the entire world shifts on its axis. Europe for one will likely be significantly weakened and US influence will be severely diminished across the globe as a whole. It will then truly be a fully multipolar world and quite possibly the Petro dollar will be fully and finally dead. It's hard to overstate the significance of the coming battle of the Persian Gulf. It's probably far more significant than the war for Ukraine. I don't know what the US and it's partners plan. But I do know that in their own self interest they had better not screw it up this time. Far too much turns on it for them.

Español
1
0
3
194
Decelerationist1
Decelerationist1@DirtUndrMyNails·
@aniru4h @RSA_Observer @policytensor Thats ~2800 combat troops, plus 82 got called up a weeks or so ago iirc. It ain't nearly enough but they're caught in a trap. Even if they "win" the US empire is mortally wounded. War with China is impossible
English
1
0
1
15
Policy Tensor
Policy Tensor@policytensor·
The war is already lost. There is no “coming battle of the Persian Gulf.”
Chamberlain's Ghost@RSA_Observer

I see Netanyahu is still talking about a ground operation in Iran to overthrow the state. Maybe, but it feels like an increasingly faint - indeed, remote - possibility. If you ask me, it seems that the question is now no longer who will be running Tehran when the dust settles but who will be in control of the Strait of Hormuz and it's surrounding seas. I recognize that the US military (still) has unequalled capability to deal with specific point issues that rely on power projection but I suspect that the probable coming amphibious operation may be quite difficult. Not that I think the Iranians are in any way going to find it easy either. The thing is that the question of who ends up holding the gateway to the heart of the world's petroleum energy markets is absolutely determinative of what the geopolitical future of the globe looks like. It is in many ways "the" question of our time. If it is held by Iran and it's backers - including China - the entire world shifts on its axis. Europe for one will likely be significantly weakened and US influence will be severely diminished across the globe as a whole. It will then truly be a fully multipolar world and quite possibly the Petro dollar will be fully and finally dead. It's hard to overstate the significance of the coming battle of the Persian Gulf. It's probably far more significant than the war for Ukraine. I don't know what the US and it's partners plan. But I do know that in their own self interest they had better not screw it up this time. Far too much turns on it for them.

English
15
30
256
15.3K
Chamberlain's Ghost รีทวีตแล้ว
⚜️Dr. Yuxel Hoš
⚜️Dr. Yuxel Hoš@ErkaniHarbiyye·
Great map Simon but it’s only telling half the story. Vietnam looked big on paper, yet the war was largely compressed along a narrow north/south axis. Iran isn’t just larger it’s fragmented terrain. Zagros, Alborz, deserts, plateaus. Not one battlespace, but many. The real question isn’t “how many Vietnams,” it’s how many simultaneous operational problems! 580K US troops wouldn’t be enough anyway. And pushing kurdish seperatist forces into that kind of battlespace would likely turn them into a grinding war of attrition they’d be the ones absorbing the heaviest costs. So the 580K troop peak matters but context matters more. The U.S. couldn’t translate that mass into decisive outcomes in Vietnam. In Iran, you’re starting with longer lines, harsher terrain, and deeper strategic depth. Distance isn’t neutral it compounds friction. Every mile inland is more exposure, more logistics, more vulnerability. Btw, Threat profile is also on a different level. Vietnam was jungle + insurgency + limited conventional force. Iran adds layered air defense, ballistic missile reach, and mountain-enabled asymmetric warfare. So this is harsher than Vietnam. Additionally , It’s not just bigger it’s multi-domain and vertically integrated in ways that complicate any ground campaign from day one. And here comes the classic trap now: coastal access ≠ control. We never forget this! The Gulf is the easy part; the interior is where campaigns stall. Vietnam was a peninsula fight. Iran is a continental, depth-heavy battlespace with buffers. This isn’t a classic Rimland-style problem a maritime power can easily handle. It would look much closer to a Soviet-style campaign in Afghanistan and we all know how that ended. By the way, before the U.S. entered Afghanistan, much of the region had already been taken through operations launched by northern Turkmen and Uzbek forces. In other words, even in Afghanistan, they didn’t enter directly from scratch those familiar with the Northern Alliance campaign under Abdul Rashid Dostum will know what I mean. This map isn’t just about scale it’s a quiet answer to why this would be exponentially harder. Last day I met with a U.S. officer and he told me: “A big part of Iran is empty, so we don’t take its size too seriously.” That honestly made me smile. In military geography, “empty” space has never meant irrelevant space. Terrain whether mountains, deserts, or distance itself shapes how wars are fought, how logistics stretch, and how power degrades over space . Terrain doesn’t just shape war it decides who pays the bill in blood and time. So US Army doesn't know what they doing exactly. Iran has got a huge depth! Depth is the defender’s best ally, distance is the attacker’s first enemy. What looks empty on a map often becomes the very thing that slows you down, exposes you, and wears you out. I always tell my students this: In military geography, space isn’t empty it fights back!
English
0
4
22
977
John Shreffler
John Shreffler@johnshreffler0·
American success in clearing the Hormuz bottleneck is highly unlikely. Even if the two battalion task force of Marines managed to seize the islands and adjacent Iranian shore, the Iranians can still rain missiles on the landing party and prevent maritime traffic via mines and missile boats. Looks like the synthesis of the 1942 Dieppe fiasco, the Charge of the Light Brigade, and Arnheim. It isn’t something I would order if I had command authority.
English
2
4
25
1.1K
Chamberlain's Ghost
Chamberlain's Ghost@RSA_Observer·
@acurioushensman Then they're quite simply screwed unless they some other way - a deal perhaps? - of getting Iran to relinquish control.
English
2
0
5
602
Anthony H
Anthony H@acurioushensman·
@RSA_Observer I don't believe they're actually going to do it. They'll work themselves to the edge and then back off.
English
1
1
6
739
ᛊᛁᛖᛗᛖ
ᛊᛁᛖᛗᛖ@dorstvlegel·
@RSA_Observer Also Venezuela. They don’t need their energy. They just don’t want others to have their energy.
English
1
0
0
25
Chamberlain's Ghost
Chamberlain's Ghost@RSA_Observer·
⬇️ Pay attention.
⚜️Dr. Yuxel Hoš@ErkaniHarbiyye

💢While the U.S. talks about taking #Iran's oil hub, #Kharg Island, I want to explain why such a threat is practically impossible from a military geography perspective. I won’t go too technical anyone can follow this. 💢 Let’s look straight at the topographic map panel and interpret what we see. This is the kind of information people need. It took a bit of effort to turn my thoughts into a visual map, but AI helped generate an approximate image. Even in this short time, it conveys the essential idea. 💢To occupy an island at this distance, the invading force would need to control and secure the Iranian coastline the island faces both north and south for at least 100 km each. Then, they would need to establish full control over the inland terrain behind the coast in this case, the brown mountainous area on the far right—for at least 150 km. That roughly equals an area of 30,000 km², about the size of Sivas in Turkey. 💢 The U.S. taking this island is not like Russia occupying a low-lying area like Azovstal. It would cause heavy losses, and establishing a foothold would likely fail, similar to the difficulties seen at Iwo Jima. 💢 Unlike Iwo Jima, the island does not have heroic, high-relief terrain. Its defense may seem weak at first glance, but in reality, the nearby Iranian coastline and elevated regions dominate the island with 100% firepower coverage. How could anyone take it? At least 100,000 troops would be needed for such an operation. 💢 As is well known, taking low-lying islands or coasts depends heavily on the proximity of higher ground. Any assault without dominating those heights is essentially suicidal. 💢 This is not like the Gulf War, when Iraq easily occupied the relatively flat Bubiyan and Failaka islands of Kuwait. Those islands faced no nearby high terrain with firepower dominance, so Iraqi forces could move in without significant resistance. 💢 Here, the decisive factor is not the size of the island itself, but the coastline it faces and its geographic connection to Iran’s inland highlands. The ability to read and use this geographic information determines strategy and outcomes. 💢 The U.S. unfortunately puts too much trust in expensive toys, much like the Allied forces at Gallipoli. If they attempt something like this, they are likely to suffer a similar fate. 💢 Armies fight armies, but real war is fought against geography. In this region, geography favors Iran. This is one reason Iran has survived for thousands of years. The U.S. will learn this lesson too, but at a very high cost.

English
0
1
3
255
Chamberlain's Ghost
Chamberlain's Ghost@RSA_Observer·
And what assistance is Finland able to offer the US in the Gulf? Probably only the French have any real capability to help meaningfully and they're quite clear that they're only going to be there when the shooting has already stopped. If Europe wants to help directly in a kinetic environment, it should be doing so in Ukraine. But we all know the reality of that situation too.
English
1
0
1
88
TheBossRoss 🇪🇺 🧶 ❄ 📷 6x💉
On 17 March, Finland's president Alexander Stubb visited Chatham House. The Nightly 🇦🇺 journalist Latika M Bourke asked him: "Why doesn't Europe go to Trump and say, 'If you want assistance in the Gulf, here's what we want you to do on #Ukraine?'" Listen to his reply. 🥇
English
1
5
12
550
Chamberlain's Ghost รีทวีตแล้ว
Furkan Gözükara
Furkan Gözükara@FurkanGozukara·
BOMBSHELL! Netanyahu just casually admitted on live TV that there will be a GROUND INVASION of Iran. The air strikes were just the beginning of a massive, devastating regional war.
English
555
1.4K
3.6K
946K
Chamberlain's Ghost
Chamberlain's Ghost@RSA_Observer·
You may or may not be aware that Cuba has for some time now been under an illegal energy blockade by the US (it's largely been out of the MSM). Now it's grid has, inevitably, totally collapsed. The objective of course, is the same as with Venezuela. But possibly it may also ultimately bring about improved economic conditions for ordinary Cubans.
Mats Nilsson@mazzenilsson

CNN: Cuba's power grid has completely and definitively failed. This was reported by the country's energy operator. This is the first nationwide blackout since the US effectively blockaded the oil supply to Cuba.

English
0
0
4
378
Ankit Khandelwal
Ankit Khandelwal@Namasteankit·
@RSA_Observer That does not mean Israel won't attack again. It feels like US government is controlled by Israel and the entire information is now restricted to media leaks rather then direct communication.
English
1
0
1
35
Chamberlain's Ghost
Chamberlain's Ghost@RSA_Observer·
@farajalrashidi And yet we know that they are working on it. Hence Hegseth wanting completely autonomous killer bot capability.
English
1
0
1
23
Chamberlain's Ghost รีทวีตแล้ว
Megatron
Megatron@Megatron_ron·
JUST IN: 🇮🇷🇺🇸🇮🇱 Iran announced that if Israel and US once again attack the Iranian energy infrastructure they will destroy all the infrastructure in the middle east for good “We warn the enemy that you made a major mistake by attacking the energy infrastructure of Iran. Iran had no intention of expanding the scope of the war to oil facilities and did not want to harm the economies of friendly & neighboring countries. However, after US/Israel’s aggression on Iran’s energy sector, Iran has effectively entered a new phase of the war, and struck energy facilities linked to the United States and American shareholders. The responses are underway and is not over yet. If terrorism against Iran is repeated again, the next attacks on your energy infrastructures and that of your allies will not stop until their complete destruction.”
English
862
7.6K
29.8K
2.2M