Iran: What Victory Looks Like Part 2 - The Military

Iran: What Victory Looks Like, Part 2 – The Military

by with No Comment AssetsBehavioral SentimentBusinessCommoditiesExclusive ContentFeatured HighlightsFinancial InstitutionsIra SlomowitzRisk ManagementWorld

Missiles, Drones, the Straits and Regime Change

Opinion: The following article is commentary and its views are solely those of the author. This article was first published the 17th of March via The Angry Demagogue.

In a recent X post, Edward Luttwak, the elder statesmen amongst strategists and one who we ignore at our own peril, stated that “The regime is impotent viz the U.S but all-powerful against its own people. So, regime change with bombs may fail but without bombs it might last for ever.” In other words, American and Israeli bombing is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for the overthrow of the Islamic Republic. Luttwak also made it clear that the Iranian people cannot overthrow the regime without native military support.

Iran: What Victory Looks Like Part 2 - The Military

Not only will bombing not be sufficient to overthrow the regime, but American and Israeli commandos combined with Mossad and CIA operations will not be enough because for the Islamic Republic, internal, Iranian opponents of the regime are a bigger religious and ideological threat than Americans, Israelis or Sunni Arabs and they will always have enough Kalashnikovs and machine guns to kill 30,000 Iranians a night.

But regime change is not the only path to military victory. The mistaken views of the war when the opponents are “shocked”, Casablanca style, when they realize that wars are difficult and unpredictable and come with speed bumps, unexpected ups as well as downs and that not everything is in your control.

The first path to victory is one that is occurring now. That is the destruction of the military and command and control assets of the Islamic Republic. That focuses as we know, on the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) and the “Basaj” – essentially the IRGC’s domestic militia who are responsible for keeping Iranian citizens in line and are, for the most part, ideological hardheads. With other types of dictatorships, the embarrassing way their military has handled Israeli and American attacks past and present would have been enough to topple them. However, with Shiite fanatics who know no borders (morally or geographically) and whose main enemies are domestic, that is not the case – and no one expected that to be the case.

The attacks must continue until either the regime changes or until their military-industrial infrastructure is destroyed. This means its drone and missile production, its naval forces, air-defenses and underground missile storage and nuclear facilities must be done away with. It does not mean the nearly impossible attempt to secure enriched uranium. Regime change can lead to cease fire and negotiations but without regime change the attacks must continue until the mission is completed.

The second path to victory is the opening and complete control of the Strait of Hormuz. While there still are ships that make it through, this is the one thing that the regime still holds over the United States and the world. The missiles they send to Israel and the gulf will be degraded enough if the bombings continue, but the Western world cannot allow a vicious, cruel dictatorship to control any waterway. Freedom of navigation is one of the key reasons why Taiwan is so important (which Japan knows well – making us wonder why it has not sent ships to help with the Straits) and a key reason this war must be fought. We wrote the other day about the price premium that the Islamic Republic holds over the world (and there was a Jerusalem Post article quoting Peter Navarro, head of the White House Office of Trade and Manufacturing state that the price premium is between $5-15 a barrel – we think that is understated). The Islamic Republic must be denied this ability to blackmail the world.

Of course, it seems that Western Europe is happier with the Iranian regime not losing, than with the American (or Israeli) government winning, but that is something to be dealt with later

The third thing that will bring a military victory is of course, regime change. First, the presence of a new leader on Iranian soil must be attained. This can either be the Shah’s son, Reza Pahlavi, who has been encouraging his countrymen to revolt and therefore needs to show real leadership by making his way home, or someone, possibly a senior military figure, who is in Iran now. Pahlavi is the natural choice, but he must take some risks and show he has the pull and prestige with at least part of the military in order to be able to accomplish the mission of overturning the regime.

In order for that to happen, circumstances must be created where a few divisions of the regular army can protect Pahlavi as he enters the country and he can lead the people to revolt. Once a few divisions defect and with American and Israeli air-power, they can liberate territory, further army divisions will probably join in – assuming they see a path to victory. A revolution need not happen overnight but can come with the army moving across the country and the defeat or defection of some in the IRGC. A few million in Swiss or Dubai bank accounts will also encourage defection.

Without a leader and an organized armed force, the regime just needs small weapons fire to put down any citizen revolt – and they will.

Military victory can come either with the destruction of the drone/missile capabilities and stockpiles along with the forced re-opening of the Strait of Hormuz or with regime change. If the former two, then the Iranian people will continue to suffer, but the Persian Gulf countries, Israel, the United States and the rest of the free world will not. If the latter, then everyone except China and Russia will be winners.

Let us not forget what everyone has been saying since day 1 – that only the Iranians can overthrow the government and that will only be done if the regular army decides to throw itself to the side of the people. The United States and Israel can only create the necessary (but not sufficient) conditions for this to happen. Without regime change, but with the opening and complete control of the Straits, the destruction of the regime’s naval, air defense, missile and drone forces and production, along with the elimination of senior Basaj and IRGC commanders, will still constitute a satisfactory military victory.

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

Iran Pt One 20260316

Iran: What Victory Looks Like, Part 1 – The Economy

by with No Comment AssetsBehavioral SentimentExclusive ContentFeatured HighlightsIra SlomowitzRisk ManagementUncategorizedWorld

Ridding the World of the Islamic Republic Price Premium

Opinion: The following article is commentary and its views are solely those of the author. This article was first published the 16th of March via The Angry Demagogue.

There has been much chatter about what “victory” over the Islamic Republic means and it is mostly an attempt to deny the very concept of victory. We wrote about “The End of Defeatism and a Return to Victory” last week where we criticized the whole aversion to victory in Western society. The naysayers don’t like to admit that an anti-Western regime can be all that bad, and therefore endless diplomacy needs to be a goal until the final surrender of the West. They don’t really care about the cost of gasoline in the United States – they actually want it to rise – but as long as it was brought up, let us examine in part, the cost of the Islamic regime and what “economic victory” will look like.

Iran Pt One 20260316

Victory in WWII meant not only the defeat of the evil that was Nazi Germany, but it also meant the resurgence of Europe as an economically successful continent. The Marshall Plan that was the crux of the European revival was as much a part of the Allied (sans the Soviets) victory as the surrender signed by German generals.

What is “economic victory” in this war? The media is all over the costs of the war, but no one has examined the costs of allowing the Islamic Republic to continue as it is. No one has examined the cost that the mere existence of the Islamic Republic (as opposed to non-Islamic Iran) creates for the world in general and the United States in particular.

Let’s start first with the most talked about and panic-ridden event and that is the Strait of Hormuz, the gateway to the Persian Gulf and a chokepoint in international shipping to and from that region. It is the gateway to much of the oil shipped to the world, but also fertilizers and other products. The Wall Street Journal news section in another ignorant headline it considered a “scoop”, wrote that President Trump was told that the Straits might be closed in case of war and he attacked anyway. I am not sure there is a knowledgeable military or diplomatic figure or layman in the world who didn’t consider that an option, but to the WSJ news editors it was the surprise of the century.

As Condoleezza Rice said on the recent episode of Hoover Institutions “Goodfellows” a 50 cent rise in gasoline prices for a few weeks is not a reason not to attack a country who has been at war with you for 47 years. But before we even get to that point, has anyone analyzed the cost of giving Iran a veto over who gets to ship through those straits?

If we look at the insurance rates for shipping through the Strait of Hormuz from Lloyds of London we will get a first hint. From 1970-1979 (before the Islamic Republic) the typical premium was 0.01-0.05%. Once Khomeini took power the rates were 0.05-0.2%. During the Iran-Iraq war when there were the “tanker wars” (between 1984-7) those rates jumped to around 5% with a peak of 7.5%. The post Iran-Iraq and Gulf war period of 2004-19 ranged from .0.05-0.25% – well above the pre-Islamic Republic days.

As for absolute figures, a tanker valued at $200m with a rate of 0.01% (pre-Islamic Republic) cost $20,000 and .05% will cost $100,000. The cost at 0.5% is $1million. So, the pre-Islamic republic rate for a $200m tanker ranged from $20,000-$100,000 while the absolute rate at the lowest level since the Islamic Republic came into existence ranged from $100,000-$400,000 – during the best of times. This does not take into consideration the war premium for the many years Iran threatened and even hit tankers even without the excuse of American or Israeli bombing. The average “war premium” from 1979-2020 was 0.83% or $1.66 million for a $200 million vessel.

We don’t have the wherewithal to continue this analysis, but this is exactly the type of article that we used to expect from the pre-ideological WSJ (or even NY Times) news sections. Maybe some economist or even the WSJ editorial page can start to do the heavy lifting and tell us how much the Islamic Republic of Iran has added to the gasoline bill of the average American even during non-war periods.

In economic terms – victory means a eliminating the price premium for shipping energy and global trade in general brought on by the very existence of the Islamic Republic. We will know victory is here when there is a return to the insurance premiums of the pre-Islamic Republic days and when the price of oil, due to increased supply from a non-terrorist Iran reaches the levels it is capable of. A 50 cent or even a 1 dollar rise in gas prices for a month will be followed by $2-3 decreases permanently. We won’t reach the 28 cents a gallon I remember from my childhood (actually 27.9 cents), but neither will it be $4.00 (except maybe in California).

This economic victory will reverberate to other theatres. While the Russians might profit from a temporary rise in oil to $100 a barrel, in the medium and long term, if oil drops to $40 a barrel or even less, they will struggle to support the war effort.

The short term costs and dire predictions that the journalists and diplomats have foisted upon us will end up being a drop in the bucket after economic victory is achieved.

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

Slomowitz 20260307

End of Defeatism and a Return to Victory

by with No Comment AssetsBehavioral SentimentExclusive ContentFeatured HighlightsFinancial InstitutionsIndiaInvestingIra SlomowitzRisk ManagementWorld

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.

Slomowitz 20260307

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

postN19

Broader Alliances: Sustaining Economic and Political Power

by with No Comment Featured HighlightsRisk AnalysisRisk Management

Broader Alliances: Sustaining Economic and Political Power

The following article is commentary and its views are solely those of the author.

If the United States decides to abandon its role as the premier global superpower and shall only be a Pacific and Atlantic power, withdrawing as defender of free seas, free trade and freedom in general, its democratic allies will have to start looking elsewhere for broader military alliances. This large group of nations would have to defend their interests against a revanchist China tied to Iran, Russia, North Korea and many of the Latin American countries – possibly including Brazil, and South Africa who have questionable politics and outlooks.

Eastern Mediterranean Alliance: A Strong Sea Power

Here is a speculative, yet reasonable look at the future of the free world. Let’s start with the Eastern Mediterranean where the two major powers are Israel and Turkey. One cannot deny that both these countries outclass all others regarding military might in the region. Israel’s air force is second to none and its navy is becoming a strategic necessity as it needs to defend its natural gas fields miles offshore. It now has six submarines that are capable of projecting power anywhere in the Mediterranean and even into the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf. Turkey is currently a NATO member, but it is not clear that this will outlast the first half of the 21st century.

There is currently an informal alliance among Israel, Greece and Cyprus (both NATO countries) via joint military exercises and intelligence sharing. The Israeli navy and air force train regularly with Greece and its special forces train in the Cyprian mountains with its army. It would be in all three countries interests to formalize a treaty – if not of mutual defense, at least of mutual aid during times of war. All three of these countries are democracies and all three have mutual economic interests.

postN19

A formalization of this alliance makes sense now and if there is a NATO collapse it turns into a necessity for Greece and Cyprus. Adding Egypt (although it would be the only non-democracy) to this group would only strengthen the alliance and keep Turkey at bay. A post-Erdogan Turkey that is comfortable with its Islamic character and its modern society could even join this grouping with Israel as a potential peacemaker between the historic Greek-Turkish rivalry.

This alliance without Turkey is a powerful force in the eastern Mediterranean, and this alliance with Turkey could neutralize a nuclear Iran. A Post-Hezbollah Lebanon which is in the interests of all of these alliance members (including Turkey and Egypt), could become a reality and another member.

A New Alignment: The United Border Nations

What about Eastern and Central Europe? Poland is rapidly becoming the major non-nuclear European military power. Within the next few years it will outshine Germany and the U.K and rival France. It is quite clear, nuclear weapons aside, Poland would probably defeat Russia in a number of weeks, if not days if a conflict were to ignite.

Whether the Russian-Ukrainian war ends in a Russian defeat or in some sort of face saving armistice, Russia will not lose its aggressive nature or nuclear capabilities and it will inevitably become aligned more closely with China and Iran because of its current political nature.

The important new alignment will be categorization of ‘countries bordering Russia’. A new alliance of Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway and the Baltic states – Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia together would have the land, sea and air power necessary to deter and defeat, if necessary, any Russian imperialist expansion. Even with closer ties to China it would be difficult to imagine that, over the next 50 years, Russia would be a threat to this alliance. Adding Ukraine to this grouping would make a powerful force. Its joint population of over 100 million people, while not quite Russia’s 150 million – would be a formidable adversary, especially as the technological skills of these countries is first world and continuing to improve. Adding the other former Warsaw Pact countries like Czech, Slovakia, Romania, Moldova and Bulgaria can only increase its potency.

Unlike the Eastern Mediterranean alliance mentioned above, this would have to be based on a mutual defense treaty in order to properly deter any Russian-Chinese-Iranian attack. Linking up, informally with the ‘new’ Eastern Mediterranean Alliance would create a powerful grouping of free countries against any attempt by authoritarian adversaries. Adding an economic aspect to these border nations and an alliance with the Eastern Med group with free trade zones would create a strong challenge to any attempted Chinese hegemony.

Asian Border Nations Group: Potential Look Ahead at Potential

If we were to unite the Eastern Mediterranean and Border Alliances to an admittedly non-democratic Asian ‘stans nations, including Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan with a joint population of around 80 million, we are beginning to see the creation of a multi-cultural alliance that extends from the Arctic Ocean through Central Europe, Northern Africa and into Asia.

The Crucial Partner in Order to Balance Power: India

Which leads us to the Indian Ocean; a dominant India can help control the sea lanes from the Persian Gulf to the Bay of Bengal and down to Australia. An Indian-Australian alliance, along with Israel would create a democratic economic and military force that would keep China and Iran from dominating the region. This would require an Indian navy that is not only large, but effective also because it would hold a main responsibility for patrolling the seas from the Persian Gulf up to Australia strongholds.

As India also reaches its potential as a global manufacturing giant, it will be a force to be reckoned with. Including into this potent mix of nations, is the possibility of adding authoritarian countries like Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states; along with Thailand, Myanmar, Malaysia and Indonesia who have strong ‘western’ economic interests and would create a formidable bulwark against China’s imperialist Belt and Road project.

Without the need to project naval power worldwide the Unites States could use it massive naval, air and ground forces to take better control of the Pacific Ocean along with Japan, South Korea and Australia.

If we add countries like the Philippines and Vietnam, then China would be deterred from further aggression. The only other region that would fall under American responsibility would be the Atlantic Ocean – the shipping lanes to Europe, West Africa and the Mediterranean. Along with the UK and France there would be no challenger to the control of the Atlantic. This could also lead to a revival of the old Monroe Doctrine and maybe free South America from the destructive influences of Iran, China and Russia.

The Global Economy and Free Trade Zones with a Stable USD as Reserve Currency

What does all this mean for the global economy? The free world along with its less than free allies who fear China, Russia and Iran could still maintain a U.S dollar based world. Free trade zones amongst and between the various alliances along with a revival of manufacturing led by a technology revolution using AI, quantum computing, renewable energy and space exploration could lead to a global resurgence of free countries that could stop the authoritarian appetites of Russia, China and Iran in its tracks. This can only happen with a stable reserve currency the ‘West’ can rely upon which is the USD.

Potentially a U.S freed from being the sole defender of freedom in the world, would help get America’s fiscal house in order and allow it to focus on being a dominant economic power. Is there a future for the ‘free world’ without a United States that projects power globally? Currently, a U.S withdrawal from global military assertion would certainly cause the end of freedom (economic and political) in the world for many nations. However, with the new alliances described above and a fiscally responsible United States, freedom could yet make a comeback.

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