Iran What Losing Looks Like 20260323

Iran: What Losing Looks Like

by with No Comment AssetsExclusive ContentFeatured HighlightsIra SlomowitzRisk ManagementWorld

Who is Losing Militarily, Technologically, Economically and Diplomatically?

Opinion: The following article is commentary and its views are solely those of the author. This article was first published the 20th of March via The Angry Demagogue.

It is difficult for many to admit that the US and Israel are winning the war and that conquering a country the size of France, Germany, UK, Netherlands and Spain together with only air power does not take a day or two. However, by any objective (meaning without thinking that all Trump/Bibi/Hegseth, etc. bad) standard, the allied coalition is systematically destroying the military industrial complex that is the Islamic Republic of Iran (what it is not is a State dedicated to the good of its citizens). People forget that the American air campaign in Gulf War 1 was 38 days. It started on January 17, 1991 and only by February 24 did the generals feel that they could invade and take Kuwait.

Iran What Losing Looks Like 20260323

The air campaign then poured over 88,000 tons of bombs in approximately 100,000 sorties. And this to capture a country a bit smaller than New Jersey.

As we finish the third week of this war we can assess who is winning and who is not. We have spent this past week discussing what it means to be victorious in this war (The Economy and The Military) and to state unequivocally that victory is the moral choice no matter the price of oil. That being said, the price of oil is rising and hit $120 a barrel before dropping. Economists see $138 barrel as the price that could send the US into a recession. So far, the US economy is holding firm. The S&P 500 closed on the Friday before the war at 6740 and yesterday’s close was 6624 – a drop of about 1.7% – not the panic that the front pages would have us think. The Eurostoxx 50 is actually up slightly from 5719 to 5736.

The Federal Reserve did not cut rates, signifying that they don’t need to prop up the economy and risk inflation as they do when they fear a collapse.

The economies of the West seem strong in spite of (or because of?) the war which should end with the cessation of the 47 year of Islamic Republic price premium. The Russian and Chinese economies meanwhile will be under stress for quite some time. While China will have to wonder about its oil supply, Russia understands that $100 a barrel oil will encourage increased US production (and now Russian and Chinese free Venezuelan?) that will hurt them when oil prices go back to normal levels. As we will now discuss, Chinese and Russian arms deals might start to go south, too.

Technologically, this war is a further test of American and Israeli technology and abilities, and they have passed with flying colors. The American and Israeli missile and drone defense systems are outperforming what they did less than a year ago in the “12 Day War” and the U.S Navy is untouchable. The Gulf States are also fairing better than expected although due to the short distance and the lack of experience, they are getting hit more than Israel is. To top it off, the Russians have forced Ukraine to become global leaders in the defense against drones and there are now 2,000 Ukrainian anti-drone personnel in the Gulf States.

But is the air-forces that are performing so well, that one would think that the Iranians did not invest in the most advanced Russian and Chinese air-defense systems over the past few years. The S-300 or S-400 advanced Russian systems or the Chinese HQ-9B long range surface to air missile and the JY-26 (alleged) anti-stealth radar, are performing so poorly, the Chinese themselves must be hoping it is a personnel issue and not a technological one.

Speaking of personnel, this war has shown that pilot skill still matters. It is the bravery, daring and success of American and Israeli aviators that matters as much as the technology. Just look at the Gulf countries who fear sending their combined force of around 400 F-15’s and French Rafale fighters into the air.

The Russian air force (and army) has already shown it is lacking the skill to compete with even poorly trained Ukrainian pilots, let alone with American or Israeli aviators. The Chinese too, must be wondering if their air force, made up of untested, pilots from one-child families will brave the fire coming from Taiwan as well as the American and Japanese navies in order to complete their missions.

Technology is great – especially if it works as advertised, but if the “operators” are inferior, even great technology will not be up to par. No one yet has been able to match American and Israeli personnel, in the air or on the ground.

Which brings us to that annoying wild-card, the Straits of Hormuz. While the Iranians have not succeeded in closing the straits they are scaring off shipping to an extent that it is a concern not only for the present but for the future. By using this tool, by playing this card, if you will, Iran has forced the United States to make the security of the Straits a war aim. The success of the U.S operation in the Straits will turn it from an international waterway under the veto power of Iran to a U.S controlled and protected gateway from the Persian Gulf. In times of war with China the U.S Navy will be able to turn it into a Chinese energy chokepoint. If the U.S was not there prior to the Iranian gamble, they will be there now.

As for pure military, Iran is losing as no one has lost before. The combined forces have destroyed nearly all their production capabilities for military hardware, have destroyed air defenses, command and control centers, leadership on multiple levels and most of their navy. We don’t need much more to declare Iran the military loser.

Diplomatically, things are not as they appear. While no western European countries support the fighting or even the aims of the war, the Gulf States, India and others are quietly forming an unofficial coalition against regional terror. As Europe tries to figure out how to pacify its growing radical Moslem population, other counties, including Moslem ones, are finally realizing that terror against Israel and Jews slowly but surely works its way back to them. For fanatics, no one is religiously or ideologically pure enough, even if you are descended from Mohammed.

Western Europe is a clear diplomatic loser in this war as President Trump is the last person who will forgive their teachery and allow them to share in the spoils of this war. Their role in the Middle East and in global politics generally is done. Their ability to use their victory in WWI to determine and influence events around the world is finished even though they have now backtracked and agreed to help on the Straits of Hormuz issue.

Regarding China, they have now abandoned one of their main allies and the country they have depended on to provide them not only oil but a strong military presence in the Middle East. The war was clearly coming and just as the United States sent carrier groups to protect its and its allies’ interests, so too, could have China. They could have sent naval vessels to help defend Iran – or at least deter the United States but did not, either because they don’t have the ability to do it or they don’t have the will. In either case, China is a diplomatic loser in this war.

Russia is also losing the diplomatic game as Ukraine becomes closer to the Gulf states and Israel and America are neutering their best technology. Regarding Israel’s recent sinking of Iranian naval ships in the Caspian Sea, reports are coming out that they were laden with Russian military aid. Russia, like China, has not raised a finger to help their main Mideast ally, making it hard for them to claim the loyalty of other purported allies.

And Israel? Israel seems always to be a diplomatic loser, war or peace. However, this war has strengthened the bonds between the American and Israeli military in ways that no one could have foreseen just months ago. The cooperation and trust between the two militaries is beyond anything America has had since its partnership with the UK in WWII. Western Europe’s continued irrelevance on the global scene has lightened the pain the Israeli public feels for western Europe’s betrayal.

India on the other hand has tightened its ties with Israel as Prime Minister Modi’s pre-war trip to the country showed. As for the Gulf Countries, the UAE seems to be interested in strengthening its Israeli ties while Qatar does not. While Qatar is angry at Iran for their attacks it is not clear that this will lead them to abandon their goals of Islamicizing the West and ridding the world of Israel. Saudi Arabia is hard to call. We don’t expect any diplomatic breakthroughs especially if the Islamic Republic actually falls.

Israel we can say is neither a winner nor a loser, yet, in the diplomatic arena – which, considering the beating Israel gets on the world stage, might be called a win but most certainly is not a loss.

The United States can hardly be considered a diplomatic loser in this war as they are the only major power to be able to come to the aid of allies when U.S interests are also involved. The tough talk out of western Europe is a very small thorn in the side of the United States.

To summarize, Iran is the big loser of course as their support comes from a neutered Russia, an apathetic China and a global progressive left that has no power to influence, let alone determine events. Iran’s main allies have been proven ineffectual at best, uninterested at worst and their “brand” has been diminished no matter what else happens in the war.

The only part of the war that the United States and Israel can be said to be losing is the news and propaganda (but I repeat myself) war.

For the things that count though, one thing is certain – the United States and Israel are not the losers.

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: 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

postN76.1

India Insider: Strategic Memory and Why Unilateral Power is Resisted

by with No Comment Behavioral SentimentBusinessFeatured Highlights

India Insider: Strategic Memory and Why Unilateral Power is Resisted

After Independence, India was often described as “tilting” toward the Soviet Union. In reality, this was the outcome of India’s pursuit of Non-Alignment at a time when the United States was actively backing perceived rogue actors in South Asia, most notably Pakistan. What appeared as ideological preference was, in fact, strategic necessity born of hard experience.

postN76.1

The Soviet Union supported India on core security concerns when few others would. The first major Soviet defense deal was not merely a weapons sale. It included licensed production in India through Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, full technology transfer, and made India the first non-Communist country to receive the MiG-21. This distinction mattered. India was treated as a sovereign partner capable of absorbing technology, not as a dependent client expected to align unquestioningly.

By contrast, Washington’s alignment with Pakistan was driven by Cold War geopolitics rather than South Asian stability. Despite repeated military coups, wars with India, and regional destabilization, the United States armed Pakistan, provided diplomatic cover during conflicts, and sustained the relationship through military rule and nuclear proliferation. These experiences deeply shaped India’s strategic culture and explain its enduring emphasis on autonomy, redundancy, and diversified partnerships rather than alliance dependency.

This history is one of the central reasons India resists Washington dictating regional dynamics. South Asia, in New Delhi’s view, is not a chessboard for external powers to reorder at will.

Democratic Republic of the Congo Example

The same pattern is visible beyond Asia. Take the Democratic Republic of Congo. After decades of horrific colonial exploitation, the Belgians realized by the mid-20th century that they could not hold on indefinitely and exited abruptly, having never prepared the country for self-rule. What they left behind was not independence, but a political vacuum. The United States and the United Nations intervened, but their actions were shaped less by concern for Congolese society than by geopolitical rivalry, ideological competition, and racial hierarchy.

The assassination of Patrice Lumumba destroyed the Republic of the Congo’s (as it was known then) only credible attempt at building a unified nationalist state at independence. The dictatorship of Mobutu Sese Seko that followed did not merely fail to develop institutions; it actively hollowed them out. Corruption became a governing principle, loyalty replaced competence, and the state turned into a vehicle for extraction. Today’s instability in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is not a governance failure in isolation—it is the predictable outcome of a political system designed to rule without building state capacity. For countries like India, this is not ancient history, it is a warning.

Washington’s unilateralism reinforces this mistrust:

The recent military operation to remove Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro without U.S Congress authorization, international legal justification, or an imminent threat would have been unthinkable as recently as the first Trump administration. It became possible in 2026 only because of congressional capitulation, judicial immunity, and the transformation of an apolitical defense establishment into a politicized instrument of executive power. To much of the world, this signals that restraint is no longer embedded in American decision making.

Europe exposes another contradiction. The post war order was built on liberal democracy and collective security through NATO. When that order is weakened by unilateral action, trust erodes, even among allies expected to align automatically.

Even before Trump, the U.S – India relationship remained cordial rather than fully strategic. Before 9/11, India was the most natural regional ally against Al-Qaeda, yet Washington lacked patience and local understanding to navigate India’s complex democracy and nationalism. That failure was not tactical, it was conceptual.

India’s neutrality today is deliberate:

It prioritizes diplomacy over military actions that violate international law. India sees a multipolar world emerging, not as disorder, but as the end of unchecked unilateral supremacy. This is not ambiguity. It is a strategic memory.

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.