Personal Finance Topics / Macroeconomic Trends and Risks
No. of Recommendations: 14
Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, the Speaker of Iran’s Parliament, said Friday there will be no negotiations with the U.S. without a ceasefire in Lebanon and a release of blocked Iranian assets.
Qalibaf wrote on the social platform X that two measures “mutually agreed upon between the parties have yet to be implemented.”
“These two matters must be fulfilled before negotiations begin,” he wrote.https://thehill.com/policy/international/5825614-i...Apparently, Iran is happy enough with the
status quo right now to risk postponing tomorrow's negotiations. Leave aside that the U.S. is pretty unlikely to agree to these preconditions, even if we were amenable to doing so it would probably take more than the twelve hours between now and tomorrow morning in Islamabad to get it done. Hopefully this is just posturing, but even the posturing is an unwelcome sign that Iran's not feeling much pressure to cut a deal - because they would know that making these kinds of statements runs the risk of Trump reacting in a way that scuttles the negotiations.
Trump's statement today that the Iranians “don’t seem to realize they have no cards other than a short term extortion of the World by using International Waterways” is a bit silly: of course they have no cards to play other than the cards they have to play. But it turns out, those cards (blocking the strait and the ability to attack other regional energy infrastructure) are pretty strong cards, and they've been very effective so far.
No. of Recommendations: 2
There's no universe where either happens. Lebanon/Israel are talking it out here in the US and after Iran shooting a bunch of missiles into the Gulf States...yeah, they're not getting their money back.
What they will be getting is a 21st century dose of Rolling Thunder.
No. of Recommendations: 12
There's no universe where either happens. Lebanon/Israel are talking it out here in the US and after Iran shooting a bunch of missiles into the Gulf States...yeah, they're not getting their money back.
What they will be getting is a 21st century dose of Rolling Thunder.
That's certainly possible. Hopefully the negotiations get started and reach a constructive outcome.
But if they don't - what comes after the 21st century dose of Rolling Thunder? What do we do once Iran has absorbed the Rolling Thunder and still has the ability to close the Strait and fire missiles at energy infrastructure in other Gulf states?
No. of Recommendations: 2
But if they don't - what comes after the 21st century dose of Rolling Thunder? What do we do once Iran has absorbed the Rolling Thunder and still has the ability to close the Strait and fire missiles at energy infrastructure in other Gulf states?
As Ted Kennedy said to Mary Jo Kopechne after she told him she was pregnant:
“We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it.”
No. of Recommendations: 5
What they will be getting is a 21st century dose of Rolling Thunder.
Unfortunately, the Trump version is called Rolling Blunder.
No. of Recommendations: 3
What they will be getting is a 21st century dose of Rolling Thunder.
Rolling Thunder wasn't very effective from what I've read. We've improved since then, but don't count on it having any great effect. They can be very inventive at resupplying themselves. Trump walked right into this, and it seems he was totally unaware that it could happen, so he threatens allies, or our former allies. This has the makings of a disaster so far, but, crossing my fingers that with luck, something good falls out of the sky.
No. of Recommendations: 9
Unfortunately, the Trump version is called Rolling Blunder.
Yes, and with taking the fees for passage in the strait or sharing them with Iran, with the market manipulation by tweet, with getting sweatheart deals with the "allied" Arab countries, maybe Rolling Plunder describes it, too.
Pete
No. of Recommendations: 1
But if they don't - what comes after the 21st century dose of Rolling Thunder? What do we do once Iran has absorbed the Rolling Thunder and still has the ability to close the Strait and fire missiles at energy infrastructure in other Gulf states?
Then it becomes a series of hypotheticals.
No. of Recommendations: 12
Then it becomes a series of hypotheticals.
Sure - no one knows the future.
But the thing about Operation Rolling Thunder is that it didn't work. It failed. Sure - it killed a lot of people and caused a lot of damage. The tactical objectives of the bombing missions were achieved. But it didn't accomplish any of the strategic goals it was intended to deliver.
There's no particular reason to think a renewed, or even a larger, aerial bombing and missile campaign is going to accomplish any strategic objective. Yes, we'll blow up bridges and power plants and other fixed targets. Almost anything we want to destroy, we'll be able to.
But Iran can hold the strait hostage with short range missiles and drones that can be carted around in (and hidden in) something as small as a box truck. And they might not even need to do that - even the risk of Iranian action will keep most tanker companies (and their insurers) from sending any vessels through the strait without Iranian permission. Couple that with their continued ability to launch drones and medium-range missiles at the energy infrastructure elsewhere in the Gulf, and Iran has the ability to make life very unhappy for the global economy. And we can't stop them.
What's the hypothetical where this ends well for us, if the negotiations fail and we're back to war?
No. of Recommendations: 2
Then it becomes a series of hypotheticals.
Are any of the realistic hypos good?
No. of Recommendations: 0
Lebanon/Israel are talking it out here in the US
I wonder if the Israelis will try to kill the Lebanese/Hezbollah negotiating team, here in the US? I would not be surprised to learn it was the Lebanese that requested a US location, on the expectation that the Israelis would try to kill them in any location within the radius of the IAF.
Is Islamabad within the radius of the IAF? Would the USAF provide in-flight refueling services, so that the IAF could make it to Islamabad?
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 4
I wonder if the Israelis will try to kill the Lebanese/Hezbollah negotiating team, here in the US? I would not be surprised to learn it was the Lebanese that requested a US location, on the expectation that the Israelis would try to kill them in any location within the radius of the IAF.
Is Islamabad within the radius of the IAF? Would the USAF provide in-flight refueling services, so that the IAF could make it to Islamabad?
This is so far removed from reality that I'd guess you're joking, except that you keep making such outlandish comments about the Israelis.
The negotiation is in Washington because it's mostly a show for Trump. It's at the level of ambassadors because it's not meant to reach any kind of agreement. It's meant as a response to the Iranian demand that Lebanon be part of the cease fire agreement, while Israel wants to continue bombing Lebanon. Nobody in their right mind would expect Israel to assassinate a Lebanese ambassador or to bomb Pakistan.
No. of Recommendations: 3
But the thing about Operation Rolling Thunder is that it didn't work. It failed. Sure - it killed a lot of people and caused a lot of damage. The tactical objectives of the bombing missions were achieved. But it didn't accomplish any of the strategic goals it was intended to deliver.
I was using Rolling Thunder as a foreshadowing. If you want to go to bombing as a means to force negotiations, then the proper analogy is Nixon's Christmas bombings of Hanoi in 1972. The North Vietnamese wouldn't negotiate at all and lo and behold after being visited by B-52s again...within a month a deal was struck.
But Iran can hold the strait hostage with short range missiles and drones that can be carted around in (and hidden in) something as small as a box truck. And they might not even need to do that - even the risk of Iranian action will keep most tanker companies (and their insurers) from sending any vessels through the strait without Iranian permission. Couple that with their continued ability to launch drones and medium-range missiles at the energy infrastructure elsewhere in the Gulf, and Iran has the ability to make life very unhappy for the global economy. And we can't stop them.
Hmm. Pretty tricky problem. What's an out of the box way to counter this?
No. of Recommendations: 7
Hmm. Pretty tricky problem. What's an out of the box way to counter this?
Got me. The obvious answer is an Iraq-style ground invasion, but no one wants that (and that's kind of in the box). The other obvious answer is "time machine" and undo the initial decision to start this war with no answer to the Hormuz problem - but that's too outside the box.
I suppose you could have a "limited" ground invasion just to seize the coastal regions and islands in the area surrounding the strait itself. No easy feat, given that Qeshm is a little more than half the size of Rhode Island and you'd have to control a hundred miles of coastline at least a few miles inland. That would probably be very foolhardy, but it's a half-measure short of actual regime change.
I do not include the proposal you linked a little upthread, because that was a silly and uninformed impossibility by someone who might understand game theory but not much else.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Nobody in their right mind would expect Israel to assassinate a Lebanese ambassador or to bomb Pakistan.Everyone thought Qatar would be neutral ground for the Israelis to negotiate with Hamas, too.
On 9 September 2025, during the Gaza war, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) conducted an airstrike in the Leqtaifiya district of Qatar's capital Doha, targeting the leadership of Hamas, housed in a Qatari government residential complex,[6] as it met to discuss an active ceasefire proposal presented by the United States.[7][8] The attack killed and injured Hamas members, Qatari security forces,[6] and multiple civilians.[9][6] The attack was Israel's first known attack in Qatar,[7][8] and its first direct strike on a Gulf Cooperation Council member.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_attack_on_Do...Steve
