Post New

Master Negotiator: How to Lose Friends and Influence Nothing...

Iran Deal We Had Under Obama:
Strait of Hormuz open for free
Iran limits Uranium enrichment
Iran agrees to make no nuclear weapons
Iran allows Int'l inspectors to ensure compliance
Inspectors confirm Iran's full compliance

Iran Ceasefire Deal Under Trump:
Strait of Hormuz closed, only open for $2M Per Ship
Iran makes no guarantee of limit on uranium enrichment
Iran makes no guarantee of no nuclear weapons
Iran makes no guarantee to allow Int'l inspectors
15 American soldiers killed, ~700 injured, 1900 Iranian civilians killed, 26,000 injured, $50 BILLION in taxpayer money wasted, 18 countries bombed or involved in war.

#The Art of the Raw Deal

https://bsky.app/profile/qasimrashid.com

#The Art of the Raw Deal

An article I saw on the wire this morning showed Trump and Hegseth boasting about what a big "win" they had. They claim Iran will turn over all it's uranium, never enrich, never build or have missiles, never built or have drones. The missile and drone ban came up before, and was a total no-go for Iran.

But here was the item that had me laffing.

Trump says he’s considering ‘joint venture’ with Iran for Strait of Hormuz tolls

President Trump on Wednesday said he is considering the formation of a “joint venture” with Iran to set up tolls in the Strait of Hormuz after the Trump administration and Tehran agreed to a two-week ceasefire deal.

ABC News’s Jonathan Karl asked Trump if he approved of Iran’s plan to charge vessels a fee for passing through the strait — a key channel through which roughly 20 percent of the world’s oil is transported.

“We’re thinking of doing it as a joint venture,” the president told Karl, who shared Trump’s response on social platform X. “It’s a way of securing it — also securing it from lots of other people. It’s a beautiful thing.”

https://thehill.com/policy/international/5821343-t...

Trump the Conqueror reminds me of a cartoon I saw a while back: flock of "JCs" at a conference table saying "people hate our greed. how can we monetize that?"

Steve

But here was the item that had me laffing.

Trump says he’s considering ‘joint venture’ with Iran for Strait of Hormuz tolls

Wow. Would he really let Iran have strategic control over the Strait as long as we get promised a cut of the money?

Wow. Would he really let Iran have strategic control over the Strait as long as we get promised a cut of the money?

The very definition of MAGA “winning”.

It’s like a mob boss chortling about how he was able to get a cut of another mob’s extortion racket.

In fact, belay that wording….

It isn’t “like”.

It IS.

trump grift was already indicated here :

https://www.shrewdm.com/MB?pid=902780461

$2m/ship easily surpasses canal revenues. oman got the message, but i think you have to bomb ships to enforce.


riddle me this:
how much taxpayer cost would trump expend in any endeavor for each $1 gain of crony wealth?

Would he really let Iran have strategic control over the Strait as long as we get promised a cut of the money?

When it comes to Donald Trump, there is no “we”.

as long as we get promised a cut of the money?

We?? As in the US of A? He doesn’t give a damn about “we”.

But if he gets a cut, he’s all in.

Trump says he’s considering ‘joint venture’ with Iran for Strait of Hormuz tolls

President Trump on Wednesday said he is considering the formation of a “joint venture” with Iran to set up tolls in the Strait of Hormuz after the Trump administration and Tehran agreed to a two-week ceasefire deal.

LOL.
Not happening.

That's not how navigation of international waterways works. Nobody is paying the Iranians a dime.

Maybe now this board is starting to realize why you need a first-class, blue-water Navy capable of global power projection.

LOL.
Not happening.

That's not how navigation of international waterways works. Nobody is paying the Iranians a dime.

I mean, you say that...

Iran reportedly intends to require ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz to pay the cryptocurrency equivalent of $1 per barrel of oil on board during the two-week ceasefire with the U.S.

Hamid Hosseini, a spokesperson for Iran’s Oil, Gas and Petrochemical Products Exporters’ Union, which works with Iran’s government, told the Financial Times about the requirement on Wednesday.

He said that it will cost $1 per barrel of oil and that ships need to email Iranian authorities about what they are carrying.

“Once the email arrives and Iran completes its assessment, vessels are given a few seconds to pay in bitcoin, ensuring they can’t be traced or confiscated due to sanctions,” Hosseini told the newspaper.

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5821...

Trump's comments suggest that he's aware of this plan and supports it, as long as the U.S. gets a piece.

You're correct that that's not how navigation of international waterways used to work. But as someone once said, "we live in a world, in the real world, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power." In our recent war with Iran, Iran was able to seize the Strait and wasn't forced to give it up - so they're going to impose a toll now. That's an enormous strategic asset to them - it lets them put their foot on the neck of the global energy economy and yields a ton of revenue to finance the rebuilding of all the stuff we blew up. Arguably as big a strategic advantage as their nuclear program is/was:

An adviser to Russian President Vladimir Putin said Wednesday that Iran’s nuclear weapon “is called the Strait of Hormuz” and that the waterway has unlimited potential to be used against the U.S., following a two-week ceasefire deal the U.S. made with the Middle Eastern country.

Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy chair of the Security Council of Russia and the country’s former president, wrote on social platform X that it is “not clear how the truce between Washington and Tehran will play out.”

“But one thing is certain – Iran has tested its nuclear weapons,” he added. “It is called the Strait of Hormuz. Its potential is inexhaustible.”

https://thehill.com/policy/international/5821680-i...

That's not how navigation of international waterways works. Nobody is paying the Iranians a dime.

Before this cease fire was announced, last night, Trump the Conqueror wanted to charge a toll, without Iran receiving a cut.

04/06/26

Trump suggests US could charge toll for Strait of Hormuz passage

President Trump suggested Monday that the U.S. could impose its own tolls on vessels trying to transit through the Strait of Hormuz — a strategy employed by Iran as it continues to control the key energy shipping choke point.

“What about us charging tolls?” Trump responded.

“I’d rather do that than let them have them,” he added. “Why shouldn’t we? We’re the winner.”

“We won, OK? They are militarily defeated. The only thing they have is the psychology of ‘oh, we’re going to drop a couple of mines in the water,’” Trump continued. “We have a concept where we’ll charge tolls.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/581843...

Steve

I mean, you say that...

International law, several dozen treaties, and several hundred years of maritime trade says that.

In our recent war with Iran, Iran was able to seize the Strait and wasn't forced to give it up - so they're going to impose a toll now. That's an enormous strategic asset to them - it lets them put their foot on the neck of the global energy economy and yields a ton of revenue to finance the rebuilding of all the stuff we blew up.

No one's paying them a dime. Oman already told them where they can shove their demands. I would posit we haven't made an effort to force the strait open yet.

Before this cease fire was announced, last night, Trump the Conqueror wanted to charge a toll, without Iran receiving a cut.


That's great. No one's paying anybody for transit through an international waterway.

I would posit we haven't made an effort to force the strait open yet.

You do a lot of positing and sanewashing.

Meanwhile, today, the president of the United States is talking about splitting the toll booth proceeds with the same country that he threatened yesterday with annihilation.

“Freedom of Navigation”. Remember that bedrock principle of US foreign policy?

It appears that Trump doesn’t.

Now he’s talking about siding with another terrorist regime to shake down world commerce.

International law, several dozen treaties, and several hundred years of maritime trade says that.

Sure. But they also say you can't fire missiles and drones at civilian cargo ships passing through international waters to being with...and yet here we are. Iran's been doing it. There's no one that's going to stop them any time soon.

No one's paying them a dime.

Again, you say that - but with the POTUS chiming in on how we're going to be business partners with Iran on this, I'm not sure that's what's going to happen. Billions of dollars in oil revenue is something that would capture Trump's attention, and might lead him to overlook such niceties as "international law, several dozen treaties, and several hundred years of maritime trade."

Sure. But they also say you can't fire missiles and drones at civilian cargo ships passing through international waters

How about blowing up civilian speedboats?

Good thing Shinyland is "exceptional", so it isn't bound by laws and treaties.
/sarcasm

Steve

LOL. Not happening. That's not how navigation of international waterways works. Nobody is paying the Iranians a dime. ~Dope

Meanwhile in the real world...
Iran has told mediators it will be limiting the number of ships crossing the Strait of Hormuz to around 12 per day and impose tolls under the ceasefire, per WSJ.

https://www.facebook.com/WSJ/posts/iran-told-media...

You do a lot of positing and sanewashing.

It's called "thinking".

“Freedom of Navigation”. Remember that bedrock principle of US foreign policy?

Yeah, and exactly 1 person on this board talks about the size of the Navy and how important is for things like this. That would be...me.

Sure. But they also say you can't fire missiles and drones at civilian cargo ships passing through international waters to being with...and yet here we are. Iran's been doing it. There's no one that's going to stop them any time soon.

Again, we haven't made a concerted effort to force open the strait yet.

Again, you say that - but with the POTUS chiming in on how we're going to be business partners with Iran on this, I'm not sure that's what's going to happen. Billions of dollars in oil revenue is something that would capture Trump's attention, and might lead him to overlook such niceties as "international law, several dozen treaties, and several hundred years of maritime trade."

He's blowing smoke up Iran's rear end.
And for all the "Trump is a tyrant who shreds the constitution" talk on this board you yourself have shown how when told not to do something but a court...Trump doesn't do a thing.

Here's how you understand Trump: Stop taking what he says literally. Look more at what he actually does.

Yeah, and exactly 1 person on this board talks about the size of the Navy and how important is for things like this. That would be...me.


Horseshit.

In any event, this little chest beating episode by your boy Trump has left navigation less free than it was just 5 weeks ago.

Again, we haven't made a concerted effort to force open the strait yet.

It was open before Trump launched his war.

So what will be the price of forcing it open? And how long will naval forces have to remain in order to keep it open?

What level of material and human casualties are you willing to sustain in order to rectify the problem that is of Trump’s creation?

Again, we haven't made a concerted effort to force open the strait yet.

And we’re not likely to. Forcing open the strait almost certainly would require large numbers of ground troops. Iran is aiming to charge a toll on the strait. That means short range missiles and drones, not mines; which means land forces on the coast, not naval forces. And I just can’t see Trump willing to put boots on the ground like that. He might be willing to restart the air war if the ceasefire really falls apart, but not ground forces to seize the coastal areas to secure them against mobile missiles and drones.

He’s blowing smoke up Iran’s rear end

Perhaps, but words matter in diplomacy and international relations. The President of the United States has publicly approved Iran’s plan to charge “tolls” through suggesting we’d partner up with them. That makes it more easier for them to at least try to do it, because they have a little more cover.

LOL Not happening

Yes, true. Yesterday Karoline Leavitt told reporters that the Strait is seeing “an uptick” in ships traversing the Strait.

Total number of ships traversing the strait yesterday: 3

Number of ships loaded and not traversing the strait: more than 800.

Number of ships which traversed an given safe passage by Iran: 3

So: Victory!

Yeah, and exactly 1 person on this board talks about the size of the Navy and how important is for things like this. That would be...me.

Still in the throes of “size matters”, I see.

Here’s the thing. The Strait is so narrow and the shipping lanes so defined that there are essentially undefendable. You can put a destroyer on each end of a tanker, and you can still take out the tanker with a drone swarm.

Russian, as well as military strategists from Allied countries have described the Strait was Iran’s “nuclear bomb”. In some ways it’s much better than a nuclear bomb, because it is virtually inexhaustible. It can be closed or opened at will, and there is almost no defense against it, save a massive ground invasion of Iran itself, which no one wants to do (particularly after the Republican championed Iraq fiasco.) It affects the core of the enemy’s economy at the cost of a few tens of thousands of dollars. It affects THE WHOLE WORLD, while barely lifting a finger.

Based on recent geopolitical analysis, the Strait of Hormuz is being described by officials and analysts as Iran's "nuclear weapon," acting as a strategic, non-conventional deterrent that offers immense, immediate leverage against global powers, particularly the U.S. and Israel.

Following an April 2026 ceasefire, officials, including an adviser to Russian President Vladimir Putin, stated that Iran’s ability to close this key waterway is a tested, "inexhaustible" weapon against its adversaries, functioning as a high-stakes leverage tool rather than a nuclear bomb

There are all kinds of situations where the BIG military power is taken down by a smaller, smarter, or more well positioned power. (Heck, we have Vietnam and Afghanistan in our own recent history. Were you not paying attention?) Don’t count on the Strait being opened anytime soon unless Iran decides its in their own best interest to do so. That seems unlikely while bombs are falling on their heads.

Horseshit.

Your standard, Tourette's Syndrome response to any fact you don't like.

It was open before Trump launched his war.

So what will be the price of forcing it open? And how long will naval forces have to remain in order to keep it open?

What level of material and human casualties are you willing to sustain in order to rectify the problem that is of Trump’s creation?

You delusional if you think this day wasn't coming, and soon. All that matters is where we go from here.

And we’re not likely to. Forcing open the strait almost certainly would require large numbers of ground troops. Iran is aiming to charge a toll on the strait. That means short range missiles and drones, not mines; which means land forces on the coast, not naval forces. And I just can’t see Trump willing to put boots on the ground like that. He might be willing to restart the air war if the ceasefire really falls apart, but not ground forces to seize the coastal areas to secure them against mobile missiles and drones.

The most likely scenario is the seizing of Kharg island which will have ramifications on Iran's oil exports (which would drop to zero). Iran's partners won't like that either.

The most likely scenario is the seizing of Kharg island which will have ramifications on Iran's oil exports (which would drop to zero). Iran's partners won't like that either.

Why is that likely? It won't reopen the Strait - Kharg is at the "wrong end" for that to have any effect on Iran's ability to hit vessels trying to transit. And it will increase the economic pain to the global economy even further, since it not only will directly eliminate the only oil currently getting through the Strait (Iran's), but it would certainly lead Iran to strike at the energy infrastructure of other Gulf states. But perhaps worse, seizing Kharg would put U.S. servicemen within range of drones and short-range missile fire, which dramatically increases the risk of casualties to a degree not yet present in the war.

Again, to use the formulation from one of the other threads, Iran has shown itself willing and able to take a lot of punches (metaphorically). They're not like a schoolyard bully who runs away (or picks another victim) the moment you stand up to them. Seizing Kharg only makes sense if you're pretty sure that Iran would react to it by folding - that this will be the punch that causes them to give up, rather than use their leverage (the strait and their continued ability to strike regional energy assets) to fight back.

Your standard, Tourette's Syndrome response to any fact you don't like.

Nope.

“Horseshit” is the term I reserve to describe outlandish and false claims.

There are simply some assertions that are so fact-free or so jumbled up in a tangle of inconsistencies that to describe them as anything other than “horseshit” would be dishonest.

The most likely scenario is the seizing of Kharg island which will have ramifications on Iran's oil exports (which would drop to zero). Iran's partners won't like that either.

Do you know where Kharg Island is? It’s above the Strait. It will not, in an of itself, have any impact on the military possibilities of opening the strait. It could have an economic impact in Iran, for sure (not “zero”, they have four other, but much smaller terminals for oil), so only if they would come to the table to negotiate an opening would it work.

But — how would that work? If we are to take that terminal there would surely be significant damage, both to the terminal and casualties on our side. We can’t just “bomb it from the air” because then they have no incentive to negotiate anyway. So the question is, do you think that taking control of the terminals, including the attendant damage, would be enough to convince Iran to “open the Strait”, given that we have destroyed significant infrastructure all over the country already and they have not moved from their basic positions (see the Ten Points in the negotiating document).

So: if we bomb it from the air, they have nothing, and no reason not to continue asymmetric strategies (including guerrilla tactics on shipping.)

If we invade by land and try to hold, we invite significant casualties and continue to have no support from anyone else because, why?

This is a “grasping at straws” strategy, popular among Trump supporters because there is nothing else and they can’t follow an idea through to its obvious and logical conclusion *(see: the entire nonsense of this “war”).

Or tell me: how to we “take” Kharg Island, keep it intact, and do so without allies and without casualties?

The most likely scenario is the seizing of Kharg island which will have ramifications on Iran's oil exports (which would drop to zero). Iran's partners won't like that either.

Do you realize that oil is priced based on worldwide supply and demand? It’s not only Iran’s partners that won’t like it, no one that consumes oil will like it (except, of course, the big oil companies).

You delusional if you think this day wasn't coming, and soon.

The refuge of every scoundrel who launches a war of choice.
“i attacked before they did what I knew they would do.”

The strait was open before Trump attacked.

Now it’s closed, profiting Iran, Russia and China.

Smooth move, 5D chess player.

The only thing we know for certain is:
Trump attacked and Iran closed the strait in response.

We also saw several people in the administration who were surprised by this escalation
“Who could have guessed Iran would have closed the Strait of Hormuz?”, they exclaimed!

Everybody. That’s who. Iran has been telling the world for years that it would do this if attacked.

And now 120-150 million a day in toll revenues have been added as a stream of revenue for that pirate regime. And Donald Trump had the sheer gall and stupidity yesterday to suggest that the United States could “make a lot of money” by signing on as a partner to this piratical scheme.

Geez…… Obama only sent 400 million in Iran’s own cash to Iran. Iran can now extract that much every three days in tolls, thanks to Donald Trump creating the opening for them to do it.

This is a perfect example of the flaws in Trump’s character that led to failed casinos and bankruptcies.

Here's how you understand Trump: Stop taking what he says literally. Look more at what he actually does.

So we’re not supposed to take the word of the most powerful person in the world literally? In other words, you’re saying that Trump’s words are absolutely meaningless. You might be on to something.

The problem is that both Trump’s words and actions are incoherent.

This is a “grasping at straws” strategy, popular among Trump supporters because there is nothing else and they can’t follow an idea through to its obvious and logical conclusion *(see: the entire nonsense of this “war”).

I think it's more a failure to accurately assess the enemy. The Administration seems to have thought that the Iranian regime was weak and perhaps cowardly. Again, like a bully, rather than a hardened criminal. So that if we took Iran and "tuned them up" with a solid beating - a little of the old "Shock and Awe" = they'd either lose control of the country or capitulate and do what we wanted.

And then they didn't.

I've read a handful of conservative media discussions about Kharg, and it seems to be basically the same assumption. That if we seized Kharg, they would quickly either lose control of the country or capitulate. That they wouldn't possibly just continue the fight with asymmetric warfare - that this would force them to understand that they've lost.

I don't rule out the possibility entirely. I suppose it could be that ending their oil exports might be the straw that breaks the camel's back. If there were any intelligence to suggest that, I would think we would have bombed Kharg already, but it might be that circumstances have changed recently.

But I think that's unlikely. As you point out they've suffered a lot of damage already and haven't lost the ability or willingness to fight back. And this is probably an existential fight for the regime; they are unlikely to believe that giving up their nuclear program and their ballistic missiles and their control over Hormuz will result in them remaining in power for very long, after what happened to Qadafi and Hussein.

We'll see, I suppose.

Why is that likely? It won't reopen the Strait - Kharg is at the "wrong end" for that to have any effect on Iran's ability to hit vessels trying to transit.

Iran is presumably letting some of their ships through. If they want to play the game of Oil Denial, then other people can play also: seizing Kharg brings their oil exports to zero.

Again, to use the formulation from one of the other threads, Iran has shown itself willing and able to take a lot of punches (metaphorically). They're not like a schoolyard bully who runs away (or picks another victim) the moment you stand up to them.

Fine, if they can take punches. If the initial tune-up didn't work, then put the neighborhood thug in a wheelchair.

Now it’s closed, profiting Iran, Russia and China.

I need few reminders of how little the left knows about the outside world. This line is another one. Let's blow it up:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/08/world/asia/chin...

China Pressed Iran Toward Cease-Fire, Iranian Officials Say
Beijing appeared to have helped push Tehran to accept the two-week deal with the United States, reflecting China’s growing influence and its stake in avoiding a wider war.

That's NYT-speak for "China was feeling the oil squeeze, and didn't want the US to amp things up any more".

Iran is presumably letting some of their ships through. If they want to play the game of Oil Denial, then other people can play also: seizing Kharg brings their oil exports to zero.

Again, we can do that. But will that accomplish our goal, or will it just lead Iran to then close the strait for the duration and resume striking the energy infrastructure in the region?

Fine, if they can take punches. If the initial tune-up didn't work, then put the neighborhood thug in a wheelchair.

And what if that doesn't work? What if putting the neighborhood in a wheelchair doesn't solve the problem, but instead leads the neighborhood thug to kill your pets, set your car on fire, and kidnap your kids (to continue the analogy)?

The assumption with the bully/neighborhood thug is that at some point he stops fighting back. He either quits or finds someone else to pick on. That's what lets you achieve your strategic goal (getting him to stop harassing you and the neighborhood) without actually killing him and taking the consequences of killing him.

If your opponent is weak or cowardly, that can work. You can get "regime modification." But if your opponent is neither weak nor cowardly, they may respond to your escalation by always continuing to hit back, and there may not actually be a low-cost way of "winning" that conflict.

But will that accomplish our goal, or will it just lead Iran to then close the strait for the duration and resume striking the energy infrastructure in the region?

They're doing that now.

And what if that doesn't work? What if putting the neighborhood in a wheelchair doesn't solve the problem, but instead leads the neighborhood thug to kill your pets, set your car on fire, and kidnap your kids (to continue the analogy)?

Then after the kids are rescued, go all Raymond Reddington on him.

Then after the kids are rescued, go all Raymond Reddington on him.

Raymond Reddington was intelligent.

No one in the current administration is.

They're doing that now.

And we want them to stop. It's hard to see how seizing Kharg gets them to stop. It doesn't reduce their capacity to close the strait or fire missiles and drones at energy infrastructure in the region. The theory seems to be that if we seized Kharg they would finally give up and remember that "they've been conquered," as Trump put it today. But if they don't, then we've got servicemen stuck a few miles from the Iranian coast.

Then after the kids are rescued, go all Raymond Reddington on him.

But we can't rescue the kids (open the Straits or stop Iran from attacking regional energy infrastructure). Or go all Raymond Reddington. To do that, we would need to launch a large-scale ground troop invasion of Iran. Which we're not going to do. Kharg is a hopeful "baby-split" - something we can do with a small number of ground forces in hopes that it gets Iran to capitulate. But there doesn't seem to be any great likelihood that would work.

That's the choice Trump made early on. You don't have to spend the political capital and time to get a lot of public buy-in for your military action, build a coalition of allies for broad base cover, and bring Congress along so that everyone is stuck on the record as being okay with what you're doing. You can just go ahead and commence kinetic operations.

But if you don't do the work upfront, there's only so far you can actually go - there's an upper bound to how high you can escalate. An Iraq-style invasion is off the table for you. So you really are betting the entire thing on an assumption that your opponent won't go all the way to the mat - that you can either destroy them or get them to capitulate short of an Iraq-style invasion. Unfortunately, your opponent knows it, so they just have to outlast what you can throw at them - and if they do, they can wait until you have to capitulate.

China Pressed Iran Toward Cease-Fire, Iranian Officials Say
Beijing appeared to have helped push Tehran to accept the two-week deal with the United States, reflecting China’s growing influence and its stake in avoiding a wider war.

China is fast supplanting the United States as the “reasonable and reliable” world power. That’s the face they’re showing the world, and it’s working. We’re losing allies and many countries are beginning to ink new deals with China.

Of course China is going to urge restraint! That’s what sane and responsible regimes do.

So that’s their plan.

And it’s working.

If the initial tune-up didn't work, then put the neighborhood thug in a wheelchair.

Spankee is already headed for the wheelchair. It won't take much to put him there. Iran could do it--and they haven't been really trying yet. Then again, do they need to?

China is fast supplanting the United States as the “reasonable and reliable” world power.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHA!

By the way, only one person on this board talks about China as a global threat. Hint: it's none of you lefties.

the way, only one person on this board talks about China as a global threat. Hint: it's none of you lefties.

More horseshit, chest thumper.

More horseshit, chest thumper.

Not my fault I follow the news, tie it to world events and think a lot. Perhaps the left side of this board should do the same.

that this would force them to understand that they've lost.

Wasn't the sneak bombing on the 28th, that killed flox of their top people, supposed to do that?

Steve

But if you don't do the work upfront, there's only so far you can actually go - there's an upper bound to how high you can escalate. An Iraq-style invasion is off the table for you. So you really are betting the entire thing on an assumption that your opponent won't go all the way to the mat - that you can either destroy them or get them to capitulate short of an Iraq-style invasion. Unfortunately, your opponent knows it, so they just have to outlast what you can throw at them - and if they do, they can wait until you have to capitulate.

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/why-game-theory-fa...

One month into the war with Iran, the game theorists have converged. They are right but only if the strategy space remains the same. If the game being analyzed is the only game that exists. They are fundamentally wrong, because there is no such thing as a static game that never changes and they have mistaken the boundaries of their model for the boundaries of the possible.
...

Every analysis I’ve read defines a fixed strategy space — escalate, negotiate, attrit, withdraw — computes equilibria over those moves, finds no stable solution, and concludes: there is no endgame. But this conclusion contains a hidden assumption that no one is stating explicitly: that the strategy space is closed. That the moves currently on the board are the only moves that can exist.

It's a cool article.

By the way, only one person on this board talks about China as a global threat. Hint: it's none of you lefties.

Wrong, yet once again.

I, and I’ve seen others, talk about China being a threat to our world wide standing.

One of the biggest concerns is that the current war in Iran only weakens the United States (and Israel) and strengthens China in the world.

Sadly, China certainly appears to be more reasonable and reliable than the United States under the Trump administration. And that doesn’t look to change over the next few years.

Everyone sees Trump as erratic, unreliable, and untrustworthy. Because he is.

The assumption with the bully/neighborhood thug is that at some point he stops fighting back. He either quits or finds someone else to pick on.

These lengthy post threads can be a little confusing at times. Which one are we saying is the thug now? Iran or the U.S. (aka trump)?

Pete

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHA! ~Dope

Dainty little man tries to compensate with really big laugh.

It's a cool article.

I mean....no, it's not. It's rather stupid.

The author tries to model the IRGC as if it was an ordinary business entity, and thus concludes that if the Administration simply seized the $100+ billion of frozen assets and then somehow managed to transfer most of it to Iranian businesses and people, they would overthrow the government. They dress it up in all kinds of game theory jargon, and process the how that would happen through game theory models - but the fundamental premise is just absolutely ludicrous. It reminds me of nothing more than the foolhardy investment money sleazeball from Die Hard who tries to treat hardened criminals like they are businessfolk and gets shot for it.

The central idiocy is this part:

The IRGC’s power over the Iranian population rests on four claims that have never been tested — not because they are true, but because the regime controls the conditions that would produce the test:

“The West stole your money.” The population cannot access $100–120 billion in frozen assets to verify. “Only we provide.” No alternative provider exists. “The resistance is winning.” State media monopoly prevents independent verification. “Loyalty is strength.” No visible alternative to regime loyalty exists, so the cost of loyalty is hidden.

...which is phenomenally dumb. Like beyond dumb. The IRGC's power over the Iranian population rests not on those four claims, but on the fact that the IRGC has the capability and demonstrated willingness to killing anyone who doesn't do what they say. That's the basis. Not because of these silly claims about money and providing services, but because they have the ability to simply kill anyone that stands up to them. All the author's "Miftan Protocol" does is send a few tens of billions of dollars to Iran for the IRGC to simply steal and use for their own purposes, rather than "test" these claims - because again the IRGC can kill people who don't agree.

Is stuff like this seriously why some conservatives think taking Kharg Island would help things?

Is stuff like this seriously why some conservatives think taking Kharg Island would help things?

You missed all her points about how there are effectively multiple Irans out there right now to talk to, and that affects the outcomes we might get.
If you want to have an intellectual discussion, we can do that.

If you want to have an intellectual discussion, we can do that.


AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHA!

You missed all her points about how there are effectively multiple Irans out there right now to talk to, and that affects the outcomes we might get.

I didn't miss it - I dismissed it as irrelevant. Again, the IRGC has the ability to kill anyone who doesn't toe the line. The fact that there's a large segment of the Iranian population that might be willing to "talk" to us isn't really germane to the outcome of the war. It's a continuation of the hope that the regime might fall early in the conflict when their leadership was decapitated. But that didn't happen, because the regime was well prepared for this contingency and has more than enough stability to maintain rule by force over the civilian population.

I mean, this specific thing is a very unserious proposal from a person who doesn't know much about how any of this stuff works (apart from game theory, which she seems quite knowledgeable about). A trivial example - the first part of the first step of her "Miftan Protocol" is to provide negotiated settlements to 21,723 American families from the asset pool before any money goes to Iran and while the IRGC is still in existence. Okay - so Step 1A will take...what, maybe two or three years? At best? it's a very silly plan.

But more generally, we can all recognize that while there's maybe a background hope that the Iranian people might rise up in revolution and cast out the regime, there's no indication that it's a likelihood. Whether we resume bombing or seize Kharg Island, that's a remote possibility. It's not zero. Maybe more damage to the economy increases the odds a bit (though there's always the chance of a rally 'round the flag effect, too, as folks get pissed off at the privation the other side in the war has caused them and not just the regime). But there's nothing to indicate that it's likely, even if we could magically settle tens of thousands of lawsuits and set up a mechanism for funneling tens of billions of dollars to all the Iranian hospitals and water treatment plants and schools and whatnot without the IRGC just taking the money for itself.

Here's how you understand Trump: Stop taking what he says literally. Look more at what he actually does.

What silly nonsense.

Everything Trump does is idiotic.

There is a reason he bankrupted multiple businesses. His only talent is in grifting and the voters gave him the perfect 'job' for lining his pockets.

By the way, only one person on this board talks about China as a global threat. Hint: it's none of you lefties.

Nope. It's just easier to talk with the Asians and the Australians about it than you.

Post New

Macroeconomic Trends and Risks FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.