If the allies are the ones paying and he can say so, Trump will make that deal.

1/3 of missiles destroyed, 1/3 surviving, and 1/3 not sure would not be good numbers for a damage-limiting strike in a nuclear war. But the credibility of US extended nuclear deterrence on behalf of its allies relies on its alleged ability to limit damage to itself in such a scenario.

1/3 of missiles destroyed, 1/3 surviving, and 1/3 not sure would not be good numbers for a damage-limiting strike in a nuclear war. But the credibility of US extended nuclear deterrence on behalf of its allies relies on its alleged ability to limit damage to itself in such a scenario.

I had the opportunity to survey Americans to see if learning about China's nuclear build-up changed their opinions on building new U.S. nuclear weapons. The answer? Republicans (and older folks) become way more supportive of new US nukes--but not Democrats or Independents.

Market is realizing that even if Trump wants to find a way out, he doesn't have full control over that outcome?

Take a step back and consider how demeaning it is for the president of the United States, a country that has historically stood for freedom of the seas, to boast about Iran allowing eight tankers to pass through the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump is back to threatening to abandon NATO rather than threatening to invade another NATO member. That's progress of a sort, I suppose.

it's so crazy, it just might wo-- no, nope. can't say it

This ends with the US and Israel bombing JASK too. Energy sector MAD

So the plan is the US takes Kharg, gets bombarded by Iran from the mainland, Iran wrecks the Gulf's oil infrastructure, the price of oil shoots up astronomically, the world goes into a deep recession, Iran can still export from the other 10% of its oil terminals, and... victory?

Tellingly, this story has a lot more detail on how the US might take Kharg and far less on what it would do afterwards.

In the good old days, US presidents received information about their disastrous military interventions from watching three TVs simultaneously.

That is not remotely what is being reported

"Tehran said in the letter that vessels linked to the US and Israel, as well as 'other participants in the aggression, do not qualify for innocent or non-hostile passage.'"

I've said this before, but part of why I continue to be bleak on prospects of prompt war termination are because Iran has *very strong incentives* to continue pain infliction (against the US/Israel/GCC and the broader world) to deter a future war by credibly communicating the magnitude of costs.

I'm the feedback man. I just give feedback all day. Feedback is my way.

All sounds a bit Khe-Sanh-on-Sea. www.nytimes.com/2026/03/23/u...

This week, I'm speaking (virtually) at RAND Europe on deterrence and escalation on the Korean Peninsula. If you're interested, you can register here: events.teams.microsoft.com/event/8d7998...

Sums it up

Very easy to track a conflict in which both sides are extremely untrustworthy.

I think this is more likely a case of Bessent hearing a phrase that sounds cool and repeating it without understanding the context. He talked about "midrange ICBMs" in this interview too.

I'm not fall 2022 worried, but I'd be lying if I said this wasn't on my mind.

The United States used to condemn Russia for targeting Ukraine's power infrastructure. Now, the Trump administration is threatening to do exactly the same.

And he didn't even include the damage to the oil infrastructure!

Votel: "In addition to the kind of operators you put on the ground [to get Iran's highly enriched uranium], you’d also have to bring in a security force, but probably a sizable security force – a brigade size or 1,000 to 3,000 or 4,000 troops to just secure while they did that work."

I keep seeing this framing like Bremmer's. It is wrong. Instead: 1. Iran was developing an ICBM when Khamenei imposed a 2,000-km range limit. 3. The programs shifted to space launch. 4. Khamenei lifted the restriction in October 2025 after the June attacks. 5. Now he's dead, and here we are.

This is fake. Deleted previous post.

The Geen Transition is expensive, but constant bailouts due to spiking fossil-fuel prices is also expensive.

In other words, a failure of US and Israeli counterforce.

So in the best case, in which Iran doesn't sink any US ships, about half of the US Navy's globally deployed destroyers could be tied up escorting tankers through the Gulf. That's not counting those assigned to the carrier strike groups and bombardment of Iran. giftarticle.ft.com/giftarticle/...

Time to get the cardigans out!

This.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis, members of the Kennedy administration argued that the United States should not execute a surprise air strike against Cuba, because it would be as immoral as Pearl Harbor. By contrast, Trump sees Pearl Harbor as a model to be emulated. That's where we are.

Unspoken in this article is that this is the deterrent playbook NATO has been drilling against the Russians for years now. A fait accompli against a weakly guarded frontier, deterred by a tripwire force. MAGA foreign policy is predation & piracy. It is dangerous and it is anti-American at its core.

Mandatory reading for the "NATO stronger than ever" crowd NATO now is a defence alliance whose members have to deter attacks from another ally

This will be a chronic future alliance management problem for the US post-Trump (if we still have alliances). Allies will be more capable & assertive than at any time post-Cold War.

Trump and Hegseth have praised Israel for its military capabilities. But the Israeli strike on South Pars illustrates that the more capable allies are, the less the US can control them -- a trade-off that Trump et al have never confronted in their push for a greater European contribution to NATO.

"I just realized that escalation in a multi-party war conducted for existential stakes may not be as easy to control as I first thought. Thank you for your attention on this matter!"

As NATO’s most able SACEUR, General Lauris Norstad, summed it up arguing against Secretary McNamara about the doctrine of flexible response, “In warfare, escalation is likely to be explosive."

Escalating to deescalate *needs* to look quite similar to pure escalation in order to scare the other party into deescalating. The thing is that the decision to deescalate is ultimately not under the escalating party's control.

Doubly security/insecurity studies.

So many potentially disastrous military operations; so little available judgment to decide if any of them are a good idea.

A commando raid deep into Iran: what could possibly go wrong? (Even DJT must remember Eagle Claw and what its failure did for the career of Pres Jimmy Carter)

So many potentially disastrous military operations; so little available judgment to decide if any of them are a good idea.

So we've gone from "It's not war" to "It's World War II."

Flashback to a time when the US president moving the bust of a foreign head of government necessitated a detailed White House rebuttal, published on its website.

Strong "It's just one airbase in Da Nang" energy.

Strong "It's just one airbase in Da Nang" energy.