|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States44060 Posts
On June 14 2026 23:13 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2026 11:18 KwarK wrote:
The White House announced a deal would be signed on Sunday in Geneva by Vance. They seem to have a very high threshold for embarrassment. Based on the details of the alleged deal that outlets are reporting on, it's nothing short of a complete surrender to Iran. The US position must be unbelievably bad if Iran won't sign it because they think they can get an even better deal.
I think there are a few elements to it.
The US Navy has failed to reopen the strait. They are running nighttime escort missions as Trump bragged about and in the last month they've got about a day worth of tankers out of the strait. I doubt any of those tankers will be returning, they're just getting out from being stranded. I suspect that they concluded 3 months ago that they simply can't run escort missions on the scale that would be required because they said that they would be doing escorts on day 3 of the war and then nothing ever materialized. They'd need considerably more frigates than they have, more anti drone capability than they have, and a tolerance for losses that they lack.
The oil situation is bad. The multinational strategic oil release strategy was agreed on March 19 with covering a short term disruption in mind. The rest of the world committed 212 million barrels from their reserves to help the US. That's done (and incidentally it looks like the US didn't take much of a role in it for the first month if you check the data below). Another has not been announced. You can see the US petroleum reserve levels here.
https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_ending_stocks_of_crude_oil_in_the_strategic_petroleum_reserve
The US started the war at about half full and has been releasing over a million barrels a day. This is oil reserved for strategic military use in the event of a global war that involved the adversary disabling US oil supplies (it dates from before the US became a net oil exporter). Trump is flooding it onto the market in a successful effort to suppress price increases in the US.
The interceptor situation appears to be considerably worse. The stockpile of high end interceptors appears to be basically gone with the US hoarding new production. In the first month of the war the Gulf states were using high end interceptors on everything with reports of 90% depletion levels by the start of April. Everyone was promising a short war so it didn't make sense to ration them and allow small hits against critical infrastructure in that context. The problem is now they can't prevent large hits on critical infrastructure and the US is offering resupply timelines in the 2030s. That's the context in which the UAE is reportedly paying Iran $10,000,000,000 to shoot at someone else. Not to stop firing, just to hit someone else's irreplaceable infrastructure because the replacement cost would be higher than the ransom.
And the missile situation appears to be equally bad too. The US strategy again seems to have been convinced this would be a very short war. They bombed the access tunnels to the subterranean missile depots and concluded that would buy them enough time. The stockpiles were never destroyed, only buried. Leaked intelligence reports are saying that Iran has unburied them during the ceasefire. US allies have reached the correct conclusion that the US is simply unable to keep its commitments to them. They cannot keep the strait open, they cannot protect infrastructure, they cannot deter Iran.
Even worse still is the US theory of victory which was predicated on internal collapse. There is no indication of any kind of positive progress in that area.
That gives us a situation in which the US has not only given up on imposing a settlement upon Iran, it also can't hold its ground. It can't keep releasing oil forever. It can't produce enough interceptors. It can't stop the missiles and drones. It has lost, and lost decisively.
|
On June 15 2026 01:28 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2026 23:13 LightSpectra wrote:On June 14 2026 11:18 KwarK wrote:
The White House announced a deal would be signed on Sunday in Geneva by Vance. They seem to have a very high threshold for embarrassment. Based on the details of the alleged deal that outlets are reporting on, it's nothing short of a complete surrender to Iran. The US position must be unbelievably bad if Iran won't sign it because they think they can get an even better deal. I think there are a few elements to it. The US Navy has failed to reopen the strait. They are running nighttime escort missions as Trump bragged about and in the last month they've got about a day worth of tankers out of the strait. I doubt any of those tankers will be returning, they're just getting out from being stranded. I suspect that they concluded 3 months ago that they simply can't run escort missions on the scale that would be required because they said that they would be doing escorts on day 3 of the war and then nothing ever materialized. They'd need considerably more frigates than they have, more anti drone capability than they have, and a tolerance for losses that they lack. The oil situation is bad. The multinational strategic oil release strategy was agreed on March 19 with covering a short term disruption in mind. The rest of the world committed 212 million barrels from their reserves to help the US. That's done (and incidentally it looks like the US didn't take much of a role in it for the first month if you check the data below). Another has not been announced. You can see the US petroleum reserve levels here. https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_ending_stocks_of_crude_oil_in_the_strategic_petroleum_reserveThe US started the war at about half full and has been releasing over a million barrels a day. This is oil reserved for strategic military use in the event of a global war that involved the adversary disabling US oil supplies (it dates from before the US became a net oil exporter). Trump is flooding it onto the market in a successful effort to suppress price increases in the US. The interceptor situation appears to be considerably worse. The stockpile of high end interceptors appears to be basically gone with the US hoarding new production. In the first month of the war the Gulf states were using high end interceptors on everything with reports of 90% depletion levels by the start of April. Everyone was promising a short war so it didn't make sense to ration them and allow small hits against critical infrastructure in that context. The problem is now they can't prevent large hits on critical infrastructure and the US is offering resupply timelines in the 2030s. That's the context in which the UAE is reportedly paying Iran $10,000,000,000 to shoot at someone else. Not to stop firing, just to hit someone else's irreplaceable infrastructure because the replacement cost would be higher than the ransom. And the missile situation appears to be equally bad too. The US strategy again seems to have been convinced this would be a very short war. They bombed the access tunnels to the subterranean missile depots and concluded that would buy them enough time. The stockpiles were never destroyed, only buried. Leaked intelligence reports are saying that Iran has unburied them during the ceasefire. US allies have reached the correct conclusion that the US is simply unable to keep its commitments to them. They cannot keep the strait open, they cannot protect infrastructure, they cannot deter Iran. Even worse still is the US theory of victory which was predicated on internal collapse. There is no indication of any kind of positive progress in that area.That gives us a situation in which the US has not only given up on imposing a settlement upon Iran, it also can't hold its ground. It can't keep releasing oil forever. It can't produce enough interceptors. It can't stop the missiles and drones. It has lost, and lost decisively.
The problem with internal collapse was that it was crushed weeks before this war started. So internal actors that wanted the government to fail was at its weakest in many years just as the US choose to kick it off.
I also agree that the US lost decisively when the government didn't collapse. It cannot achieve its goal without invading. Which is much more expensive than losing a war. Just see the current Russian situation, they lost the war in the first year but are still burning money and people. Cutting losses might not be fun but is the best thing in some cases. (Ukraine might still lose the war but it would be Pyrrhic victory, at best, for Russia.)
|
Now that the US has lost, and couldn’t even get the signing of the loss on Donald’s birthday like he desperately wanted, because his priorities are clearly US interests…
Here is the count.
Trump said he defeated Iran 55 times.
He stated that Iran was destroyed 35 times.
He stated the deal was imminent 38 times.
And he stated the straight of Hormuz was open 25 times.
People who trust Trump are idiots.
|
United States44060 Posts
Israel attacked Beirut which Iran appears to be using as a pretext to delay things further. It's almost like Israel isn't aligned with the American desire to end the conflict by giving Iran whatever it wants. Perhaps the coalition should meet and discuss what their war aims will be.
|
If it wasn't for the multiple wars israel is engaged in.. Bibi would be in jail, or at least no longer PM.
|
On June 15 2026 05:03 KT_Elwood wrote:
If it wasn't for the multiple wars israel is engaged in.. Bibi would be in jail, or at least no longer PM.
Why do you think they are in multiple wars 
|
On June 15 2026 05:36 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2026 05:03 KT_Elwood wrote:
If it wasn't for the multiple wars israel is engaged in.. Bibi would be in jail, or at least no longer PM.
Why do you think they are in multiple wars
Coincidences like that are surely surprising.
Got any internal problems as a ruler? Start a war, and suddenly everyone has to stick to you against the common enemy.
|
On June 15 2026 05:03 KT_Elwood wrote:
If it wasn't for the multiple wars israel is engaged in.. Bibi would be in jail, or at least no longer PM.
He'd probably be in the Hague and/or Israel would be heavily sanctioned if not for the US aiding and abetting/protecting him/them.
The "rules-based international order" was never really much more than a thin veneer on US dominated "might makes right" but the veneer has been worn away.
What that means for humanity is still up in the air, but my 8-ball keeps coming up "outlook not so good"
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1305 Posts
Well, now that we might actually see an end to immediate hostilities (if it can be believed).
On April 02 2026 10:38 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
Oh I expect the Israelis to bomb Kharg Island almost immediately if the US doesn't do anything to it before they leave.
This might be back on the table, given that the US (wisely probably) didn't try to land people on Kharg Island.
At least if Iran stops exporting oil for a while, that's only like... 4.5% of global oil supplies. A significant improvement actually over the current situation. Of course if Iran doesn't open the Strait or attacks the oil production infrastructure of neighbouring countries... The world might be in a spot of trouble given the state of strategic oil reserves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
