Slomowitz 20260307

End of Defeatism and a Return to Victory

The Iran War Brings a new Strategy Against Tyrants

Opinion: The following article is commentary and its views are solely those of the author. This article was first published the 8th of March via The Angry Demagogue.

We are witnessing not the end of some amorphous “rules-based international order”, but the end of defeatism and a return to victory.

The defeatist attitude amongst the talking heads regarding the Iran war stems from an inability to imagine victory. For the West, as a friend pointed out, victory has been absent from the vocabulary of war since the end of WWII. The “there is no military solution to the problem” crowd can’t imagine that force is sometimes not only necessary but is the only way to move forward. Giving up on diplomacy does not mean that force will attain the compromises that diplomacy looks for but rather attain the victory that diplomacy can never gain.

This is why the NY Times headline is “In War’s First Week, a Punishing Military Campaign with No Coherent Endgame” while the Wall Street Journal decided that the main story of the day is “Dread and paranoia spread across a 1,000-year-old city” – Teheran. The Financial Times quotes one of America’s foremost defeatists, Richard Haass – “America chose this war — and must now choose how to end it”. These are just small samples of the panic that encrusts the progressive mind when someone stands up to terrorists and tyrants with military force. For the defeatist, the “endgame” can never be victory and the deposing of an illegitimate, tyrannical and genocidal regime.

This is the hope of the tyrants worldwide and they have basically been correct in their assessment of western behavior. The so-called “rules-based international order” is not liberal in any sense of the word but a recipe for the spread of cruelty. This so-called “order” not only tolerated the disorder that tyrants and terrorists have brought for the past 70 years it has funded them, too. In South America, from Maoist terrorists in Peru to the Cuban and Venezuelan kleptocracies, they always knew there would be a chance to “negotiate”. Russia’s Putin was allowed to destroy Chechnya and occupy the Crimea, supported by European thirst for their oil and gas and American desires for a piece of the pie. In the middle east, Yassir Arafat’s Palestinian Authority and later Hamas were given billions of dollars by the United States and Western Europe in spite of their clear and present danger to the West by their spread of terror. Hezbollah and Iran run drugs throughout the world, engage in human trafficking and money laundering all to bring disorder and upset the national governments that support them by purchasing their oil and simply giving them planeloads of cash.

Off ramps are needed when victory is not possible but that is not the case regarding Iran. Imbecilic questions that the press likes to ask like “will you commit ground troops?” trying to trick the leaders of the free countries into showing their hand, are just part of the defeatist culture that has occupied the minds of the chattering classes since the French Revolution. That attitude was fine tuned in Vietnam when defeat was the preferred option and victory deemed immoral. The “end of diplomacy” in this and many other cases is not only the moral option it is the correct strategic option. The WSJ thinks there is no connection between an American victory in this and other theatres and the deterrence of China. The ignorant headline that the WSJ news section has today (one of many since the start of this war) “America’s Military Is Focused on Iran. Its Biggest Challenge Is China” cannot imagine that victory – absolute, total victory – is the greatest diplomatic weapon one can have when dealing with a country the size and strength of China.

A history professor once told me that the reason why diplomats hate war is because it means they have failed but the West has upped the ante on that failure by always insisting on a diplomatic (read: defeatist) end to whatever military action is or is about to take place. Diplomacy might be a necessary end to some conflicts but not to one that one is winning. Any description of the current war as a “quagmire” is bad faith reporting at best, traitorous propaganda at worst.

As we have stated here in the past, predicting President Trump is a fool’s game but it is also a fool’s game to assume this administration thinks in the same defeatist terms that has been the essence of the Western “rules-based international order” for the past half century and more. The same is true regarding Israel’s attitude towards this war. Israel too, has been caught up in the same defeatist attitude as it took the word “victory” out of the goals of the IDF. “Managing crises” is what brought us to October 7 as the IDF General Staff pre-October 7 were mediocrities who gained their positions for political reasons and because they “checked-off” two year stints in various jobs in the military.

Netanyahu was part of that defeatist attitude and that is why people still doubt his ability to see this through to the end. But he now has a military that is determined to win and we all hope he, under encouragement from the US administration, will follow suit. The headline that purposely plays to the anti-semitic woke and Tuckerist followers “Netanyahu Finally Got What He Wanted on Iran by Appealing to an Audience of One” misses the whole point – this is as much Trump’s pressure on Netanyahu as Netanyahu’s on Trump.

This is more than “whatever is good for Trump must be bad”. This is a failure of imagination by a large group of modern day “influencers” (yes, the so-called journalists reporting on the war are no better than Instagram and Tick Tock influencers) who can’t fathom what victory looks like and who believe that a military victory of any sort is one that is, by definition, immoral. The failure of diplomacy is not a failure of morality. Rather it is a realization that the moral way requires military force. The off ramp and the end-game is victory, plain and simple. The fact that some can’t imagine what that looks like does not mean it is not within reach.

The flip side of this of course is that the enemies of the west have an inability to admit defeat. This comes from the fact that the west seems to enjoy surrender in the name of diplomacy so these enemies can always count on the west playing the short game and demanding a return to negotiations. That is why these negotiations failed so miserably. The enemies of the west don’t seem to realize that things have changed and that the Starmer-Macron-Obama defeatist wing of the West is no longer making the decisions.

Contra all the defeatist headlines and analyses, the idea that the off ramp and endgame is now “victory” might actually deter the next tyrant and allow future negotiations to succeed.

Disclaimer: the views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of the author, and not necessarily the opinions reflected by angrymetatraders.com or its associated parties.

You can follow Ira Slomowitz via The Angry Demagogue on Substack https://iraslomowitz.substack.com/ 

Copy and paste the text from AMT that you want to share

Troll

Risk Analysis versus Trolls Demanding to Know the Impossible

Behavioral Sentiment Fatigue and Long-Term Opportunities

As I write Gold remains below $5,000.00. Silver is slightly above $75.00. The Nasdaq 100 and S&P 500 remain cautious. And my favorite exclusion choice – MicroStrategy is struggling below $129.00. The markets in general appear to be waiting for a dose of impetus, be it positive or negative. Some investors who are brave may believe assets have reached an accumulation phase as support levels get tested in equity markets. They hopefully also understand that the equity indices can go lower and they may suffer for a while as prices decline. And because of this notion, perhaps the larger investors remain ultra-cautious and are trying to time when they will re-enter the marketplace as a forceful buyer. In the meantime bonds will be bought as signals are awaited on for long-term positions in the major indices.

However, there is also a large contingent of traders who are not looking for long-term investment, instead they are hoping to take advantage of short-term price movement – positive and negative – depending on their philosophies. These folks may be part of hedge funds, or simply large players who believe they have the benefit of experience and know-how.

And then there are folks like me who watch the market and offer analysis on current conditions. I am of the opinion the broad markets are nervous and that behavioral sentiment remains troubled. While I know that experienced large players and financial institutions are accustomed to noise, there seems to be sense that an attitude of fatigue is being felt. People are tired of dealing with the constant amplitude of policy threats and risks. However, this insight regarding tired minds and markets may serve a purpose, it is possible long-term players will see current conditions as an opportunity to buy and hold.

If short-term players such as hedge funds and large speculators are too busy being nervous and assets are straddling prices in equities that are seen as potentially oversold by others, real value can be accumulated and waited upon to produce more growth. This is still a gamble, there are no guarantees. The markets go up and they go down. Cycles occur and new traders are often perplexed when their insights do not come to fruition. Patience is needed. And it is also good to have others in your ear who serve as contrarian advocates offering different opinions that you may not find agreement.

Perhaps you know someone who has an interest in the financial markets and is the same good friend. There is even a chance that you have worked with this person professionally, and have shared ideas on business management, organization and scaling trades and investing. And there is a chance that even though you like this person and find them completely engaging, that you disagree with everything they say.

Trust me when I say my friend (colleague) knows I am talking about them, and suffice it to say that I know he will completely disagree with my further comments, but also quietly embrace the words and believe he is serving his function as a voice of reason. He will not call himself a devil’s advocate, but as someone who serves to create focus. He is the person that says charge ahead, aim for an outcome and tell people what you think. He wants values to look for and timeframes to take action.

However, as a risk manager I frequently find myself being cautious, I try not to make outlandish predictions and try to remain conservative in my approach. I tend to think long-term, while he the trader frequently acts on short-term intuition with a focus on the future per his perspectives. But timing the market and exactly what is going to happen in the next five minutes, one hour, day and sometimes even a week remains a difficult and often an expensive game, I am constantly vigilant of this possible plight.

When I wrote that Silver appeared to be in a speculative mode and feared the highs, and told folks to be prepared for the metal returning to earth it was appreciated by my associate, but it also came with the question of when. When is Silver going to fall, he would ask. And I typically answered that patience was needed. And now that Silver has fallen he says, ‘you warned us that Silver would fall, but didn’t say when’, and he is correct. I cannot give an exact answer because I am not a master of the universe.

Day traders need to know that their CFD positions do not move the cash market. And even participants in the cash market are actually mostly wagering in the futures markets via exchanges and hoping for prices to move in their chosen direction only. Most people choosing to trade in the futures markets do not want to take deliverables of a commodity. Speculators in the futures markets may dream about taking Gold and Silver deliverables, but they know logically they cannot. The same goes for traders in futures with agricultural products and soft commodities.

To buy or not to buy is not the question. To participate or not to participate is the question. You do not have to trade every day, even if you are a short-term speculator. You can watch the markets. Sometimes the best trades you will ever make are the ones you do not pursue.

Copy and paste the text from AMT that you want to share

Confused Markets 20260217

Market Volatility: Structure, Geo-Politics and Culture

However, the current hedge fund environment is based on much more than picking the right stocks or bonds and all that goes with it. The current hedge fund system is a group of funds, many of multiple hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars that don’t make investments per se as they try to beat their competitors by the microsecond in order to profit a very small amount on a a large but extremely short term investment (we will speak of the money of unfree countries below).