US Perspective on the Iran - Israel / US War

The *New York Times* has just published the most damning account of Trump since the outbreak of the war.
Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman, two White House journalists, reveal how Trump made the decision to go to war against Iran.

Here are the facts.

Netanyahu sold a dream. On February 11, in the Situation Room, the Israeli Prime Minister presented a four-act scenario: kill the Supreme Leader, destroy the Iranian military, spark a popular revolution, and install a new regime. He even showed a video montage featuring the "future leaders" of Iran. Trump replied: "Sounds good to me." With a single sentence, he had sealed the fate of the region.

The next day, the CIA stated that it was all hot air. Parts 3 and 4 of Netanyahu’s pitch—the popular revolution and regime change—were described by Ratcliffe himself as a "farce." Rubio translated: "In other words, it’s bullshit." General Caine added: "This is standard procedure for the Israelis. They overestimate themselves, and their plans aren't always well thought out."

Trump heard it all. And he said yes anyway.

Vance saw it all. The Vice President was the only person in the room who offered direct opposition, warning that the war could "destroy Trump’s political coalition," that the Strait of Hormuz was the true vulnerability, and that no one could predict the nature of Iranian retaliation when a regime’s very survival is at stake. He said: "You know I think this is a bad idea. But if you want to do it, I’ll back you."

That is not political courage. That is capitulation.

Susie Wiles looked on. The Chief of Staff, who harbored concerns, felt it was "not her role" to voice an opinion on a military decision in front of the others. She "encouraged the advisors to share their views." She remained silent.

General Caine never said no. He laid out the risks: dwindling ammunition stockpiles, the Strait of Hormuz, no clear path to victory. Then he said: "If you order the operation, the military will carry it out."

Trump, on the other hand, "heard only what he wanted to hear."

And Trump signed the order aboard Air Force One, 22 minutes before the deadline set by his own general: "Operation Epic Fury is approved. No aborts. Good luck."

This is how one goes to war in the 21st century. Not through solemn deliberation. Not through a vote in Congress. Not with an exit strategy. But with a slideshow from Netanyahu, a "sounds good to me," and a note dispatched from an airplane.

In *Le Pantin de la Maison Blanche*, I write that the true decision-makers are those who prepare the presentations that Trump watches. Netanyahu understood this better than anyone else. He staged an hour of visual spectacle in the Situation Room—with the Mossad in the background, videos of "future leaders," and the promise of a quick and clean victory.

And Trump said yes. While Vance, Rubio, Wiles, and Caine looked on.

Here is the *New York Times* article: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/07/us/politics/trump-iran-war.html

THIS, APPARENTLY, IS THE CALIBER OF OUR ALLIES. THIS IS NOT PROTECTION; IT IS A LIABILITY.

🟥
 
RescueRanger said:
The British stand by ready to "Help"...

Ladies and Gentlemen... I give you, the British Army:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
Click to expand...

You can’t park there mate
 
1775814138713.png

... Lets be honest here for one moment!
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
The Revolutionary Guards, in a statement, said they have not conducted any attacks “at any country during the ceasefire”, reports Tehran Times.

So it was rogue elements or false flags?
 
RescueRanger said:
Professor Clarke is not wrong, he is one of the saner and more eloquent analysts produced by the UK.
Click to expand...
I almost worked for him in the late 2000s when I was a couple of year out of the military and was bouncing between Think Tank and Contract job then opportunties with RUSI came up, I went all the way to the UK (I was living in Sweden with my wife back then), and interviewed for the position of Intelligence Analyst but ultimately dropped out when I moved back to the US

Dude had a reputation, and I will say this probably extended to the entire RUSI
 
Yasser76 said:
To be fair, in major cities fuel prices are much less of an issue in the UK then in the US where car culture dominates.
Click to expand...


Brother, Just remember your take home pay means nothing where you live after paying tax once again on fuel and some foods what are we actually left with in our pockets... absolute joke this country literally bleeding people dry from every angle
 
KingQamaR said:
Brother, Just remember your take home pay means nothing where you live after paying tax once again on fuel and some foods what are we actually left with in our pockets... absolute joke this country literally bleeding people dry from every angle
Click to expand...

Yeah, but dude, that was even true before the war....
 
东风夜放花千树 said:
Please answer a question for me.

According to the information I have learned, the United States is a major oil-producing country. Data shows that the United States has maintained the position of the world's largest oil producer for seven consecutive years.

The United States does not have an energy crisis, and its energy is almost unaffected by this war. Why have energy prices in the United States also begun to rise?
Click to expand...
One major reason is that oil is a global commodity and traded in global markets. When there is a disruption in supply, like the 20% reduction in oil flowing through the Strait of Hormuz, then the same number of customers are chasing the lesser oil available and hence the increase in price. This is Law of Supply and Demand in economics.

American hypercapitalist companies are not going to sell oil at lower price in the US if they can get better prices abroad.

Another reason is that the petrol and diesel that is used in transportation in the US is still imported whereas different kinds of oil are exported.
 

Why the ‘Tehran tollbooth’ will never work​


Iran’s so-called “Tehran tollbooth” threatens to make the restoration of normal oil and gas supplies from the Gulf impossible.

Experts have said the plan – to allow oil tankers to pass through the Strait of Hormuz if they undertake an Iranian inspection – would see the number of ships reduced to a trickle compared to pre-war levels, given the physical constraints involved.

The high risks mean many ship owners may also boycott the tollbooth altogether, leaving the Strait effectively shut.

Late on Thursday night, Donald Trump accused Iran of “doing a very poor job” of allowing oil to go through the Strait of Hormuz, writing on Truth Social: “that is not the agreement we have”.

He added: “There are reports that Iran is charging fees to tankers going through the Hormuz Strait. They better not be and, if they are, they better stop now!”

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has said it will allow ships to pass through the Strait of Hormuz if they hug Iran’s shoreline and undergo scrutiny by military authorities.

Ships would be diverted between the islands of Qeshm and Larak, forcing traffic through an extremely narrow choke point only a few miles across.

The lane has been called the Tehran tollbooth as a key part of inspections would be ensuring ships have paid a fee to Iran.
Iran is believed to be charging a “toll” of at least $1 (£0.7) per barrel of oil – or $2m per ship for the largest tankers – depending on the perceived friendliness of a vessel’s home country.

That could generate Tehran an estimated $500bn – or £373bn – over the next five years.

Around 120 vessels that Iran permitted through the Strait during the weeks of conflict are believed to have used the route.

However, Lloyd’s List, a shipping intelligence publication, estimates that up to 700 oil tankers, liquefied natural gas carriers and cargo ships remain stuck in the Gulf.

That is too many to be extricated during the current two-week ceasefire. Many ship operators may be reluctant to risk the journey, analysts at Lloyd’s List said.

Fears of ‘hazardous’ path​

The narrowness of the waterway would increase the risk of collisions and groundings involving 1,000ft tankers that can carry two million barrels of oil and take three nautical miles to stop.

Forcing ships through the narrow waterway also threatens to overwhelm navigation systems, which track signals from nearby ships. Other dangers include uncoordinated changes of direction that could cause chaotic chain reactions.

Richard Meade, of Lloyd’s List, said: “We need to temper expectations in terms of what is feasible. It is going to be a slow return to normalcy even in the best case scenario, which as of now we don’t have.”

The publication warned that plans for reopening the Strait must be carefully coordinated to avoid collisions, especially if the tollbooth model is retained.
As part of its bid to control the Strait, Iran published a map showing permitted shipping lanes passing around Larak Island, close to the Iranian mainland.

The map included a no-go zone marked as “hazardous” occupying the whole of the middle of the Strait – normally used by transiting vessels.

It was accompanied by a warning of the likely presence of “various types of anti-ship mines in the main traffic zone”. It added that the specified “alternative transit route” should be used until further notice to “avoid potential collision with naval mines”.

Peter Sand, a container shipping analyst at logistics specialist Xeneta, said whether Iran had really mined the main shipping lanes in the middle of the waterway was largely irrelevant.

“They have said that the Strait is impassable and whether we believe there are mines or not, it is the threat that matters,” he said.
Saeed Khatibzadeh, the deputy foreign minister of Iran, told ITV News: “The Strait of Hormuz is open. Of course, there are technical restrictions because of the war zone and because of many arrangements Iran did during the war.

“This is why all the ships that would like to pass through the Strait of Hormuz have to communicate with the army and military. We have to be very careful for the safety and security of tankers and vessels.

“Whoever communicates, we provide safe passage through safe channels that we have.”

Mr Trump has meanwhile demanded that Western states make “concrete” pledges to deploy warships in the Strait following a meeting with Mark Rutte, the Nato secretary-general, German media reported.

The US president has previously appeared to be attracted by the idea of operating the tollbooth system himself, rather than opening up free passage.

“What about us charging toll?” he said this week. “I’d rather do that than let them have them. Why shouldn’t we? We’re the winner.”

The Iranian map indicates that westbound vessels would need to use a five-mile gap between Larak Island and the larger Qeshm Island to the west.

Mr Sand said the system would not be able to cope with the 125 ships a day that made the transit pre-war.

He said: “They are creating an artificial bottleneck. It’s a far narrower passage and it’s not divided inbound and outbound. You can’t perform the amount of shipping that used to go via the Strait only within those territorial waters.

“They have set this up to make it more complicated and ensure that they are in absolute control. They’d rather say ‘no’ to a vessel if they are in doubt – but then they are at war and the normal rules are on the side.”

‘Is this possible?’​

Bridget Diakun, a senior risk and compliance analyst at Lloyd’s List, said that ships attempting to take the Larak Island route during the conflict had often done so in a chaotic fashion.

She said: “We’re seeing ships taking u-turns and waiting for permission to be granted, including a Russian cargo ship which had to wait about a week and two liquid natural gas carriers linked to Qatar which ended up turning around.

“The question people are asking is: is this possible, can Iran effectively control the Strait? It’s a scary prospect but I don’t know how we return to so-called normal now that this is in place.”

Lloyd’s List said the detour around Larak Island required each vessel to seek clearance via an agent in Iran, with permission granted on a case-by-case basis.
Documentation must be supplied detailing the ship’s seven-digit International Maritime Organization number, its ownership, cargo manifest, destination, financing and a full crew list. The naval arm of the IRGC then conducts cargo checks and “geopolitical vetting”.

Countries known to have negotiated safe passage with Iran include Iraq, Pakistan, Japan, China, Malaysia, Oman and India, which has sent warships to escort vessels.

Just three ships transited the Strait on Wednesday as of 4pm with another three aiming to do so, all headed east. That was a lower total than even at the height of hostilities, according to Mr Meade.

He said: “Hopes of an imminent reopening have been pretty much dashed at the moment. There is very little moving.

“The ceasefire has left ship owners waiting on the sidelines with fewer vessels passing through the Strait than during the fiercest days of fighting. The new bit is the mines – that is deeply concerning.”

 
F-22Raptor said:

Why the ‘Tehran tollbooth’ will never work​


Iran’s so-called “Tehran tollbooth” threatens to make the restoration of normal oil and gas supplies from the Gulf impossible.

Experts have said the plan – to allow oil tankers to pass through the Strait of Hormuz if they undertake an Iranian inspection – would see the number of ships reduced to a trickle compared to pre-war levels, given the physical constraints involved.

The high risks mean many ship owners may also boycott the tollbooth altogether, leaving the Strait effectively shut.

Late on Thursday night, Donald Trump accused Iran of “doing a very poor job” of allowing oil to go through the Strait of Hormuz, writing on Truth Social: “that is not the agreement we have”.

He added: “There are reports that Iran is charging fees to tankers going through the Hormuz Strait. They better not be and, if they are, they better stop now!”

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has said it will allow ships to pass through the Strait of Hormuz if they hug Iran’s shoreline and undergo scrutiny by military authorities.

Ships would be diverted between the islands of Qeshm and Larak, forcing traffic through an extremely narrow choke point only a few miles across.

The lane has been called the Tehran tollbooth as a key part of inspections would be ensuring ships have paid a fee to Iran.
Iran is believed to be charging a “toll” of at least $1 (£0.7) per barrel of oil – or $2m per ship for the largest tankers – depending on the perceived friendliness of a vessel’s home country.

That could generate Tehran an estimated $500bn – or £373bn – over the next five years.

Around 120 vessels that Iran permitted through the Strait during the weeks of conflict are believed to have used the route.

However, Lloyd’s List, a shipping intelligence publication, estimates that up to 700 oil tankers, liquefied natural gas carriers and cargo ships remain stuck in the Gulf.

That is too many to be extricated during the current two-week ceasefire. Many ship operators may be reluctant to risk the journey, analysts at Lloyd’s List said.

Fears of ‘hazardous’ path​

The narrowness of the waterway would increase the risk of collisions and groundings involving 1,000ft tankers that can carry two million barrels of oil and take three nautical miles to stop.

Forcing ships through the narrow waterway also threatens to overwhelm navigation systems, which track signals from nearby ships. Other dangers include uncoordinated changes of direction that could cause chaotic chain reactions.

Richard Meade, of Lloyd’s List, said: “We need to temper expectations in terms of what is feasible. It is going to be a slow return to normalcy even in the best case scenario, which as of now we don’t have.”

The publication warned that plans for reopening the Strait must be carefully coordinated to avoid collisions, especially if the tollbooth model is retained.
As part of its bid to control the Strait, Iran published a map showing permitted shipping lanes passing around Larak Island, close to the Iranian mainland.

The map included a no-go zone marked as “hazardous” occupying the whole of the middle of the Strait – normally used by transiting vessels.

It was accompanied by a warning of the likely presence of “various types of anti-ship mines in the main traffic zone”. It added that the specified “alternative transit route” should be used until further notice to “avoid potential collision with naval mines”.

Peter Sand, a container shipping analyst at logistics specialist Xeneta, said whether Iran had really mined the main shipping lanes in the middle of the waterway was largely irrelevant.

“They have said that the Strait is impassable and whether we believe there are mines or not, it is the threat that matters,” he said.
Saeed Khatibzadeh, the deputy foreign minister of Iran, told ITV News: “The Strait of Hormuz is open. Of course, there are technical restrictions because of the war zone and because of many arrangements Iran did during the war.

“This is why all the ships that would like to pass through the Strait of Hormuz have to communicate with the army and military. We have to be very careful for the safety and security of tankers and vessels.

“Whoever communicates, we provide safe passage through safe channels that we have.”

Mr Trump has meanwhile demanded that Western states make “concrete” pledges to deploy warships in the Strait following a meeting with Mark Rutte, the Nato secretary-general, German media reported.

The US president has previously appeared to be attracted by the idea of operating the tollbooth system himself, rather than opening up free passage.

“What about us charging toll?” he said this week. “I’d rather do that than let them have them. Why shouldn’t we? We’re the winner.”

The Iranian map indicates that westbound vessels would need to use a five-mile gap between Larak Island and the larger Qeshm Island to the west.

Mr Sand said the system would not be able to cope with the 125 ships a day that made the transit pre-war.

He said: “They are creating an artificial bottleneck. It’s a far narrower passage and it’s not divided inbound and outbound. You can’t perform the amount of shipping that used to go via the Strait only within those territorial waters.

“They have set this up to make it more complicated and ensure that they are in absolute control. They’d rather say ‘no’ to a vessel if they are in doubt – but then they are at war and the normal rules are on the side.”

‘Is this possible?’​

Bridget Diakun, a senior risk and compliance analyst at Lloyd’s List, said that ships attempting to take the Larak Island route during the conflict had often done so in a chaotic fashion.

She said: “We’re seeing ships taking u-turns and waiting for permission to be granted, including a Russian cargo ship which had to wait about a week and two liquid natural gas carriers linked to Qatar which ended up turning around.

“The question people are asking is: is this possible, can Iran effectively control the Strait? It’s a scary prospect but I don’t know how we return to so-called normal now that this is in place.”

Lloyd’s List said the detour around Larak Island required each vessel to seek clearance via an agent in Iran, with permission granted on a case-by-case basis.
Documentation must be supplied detailing the ship’s seven-digit International Maritime Organization number, its ownership, cargo manifest, destination, financing and a full crew list. The naval arm of the IRGC then conducts cargo checks and “geopolitical vetting”.

Countries known to have negotiated safe passage with Iran include Iraq, Pakistan, Japan, China, Malaysia, Oman and India, which has sent warships to escort vessels.

Just three ships transited the Strait on Wednesday as of 4pm with another three aiming to do so, all headed east. That was a lower total than even at the height of hostilities, according to Mr Meade.

He said: “Hopes of an imminent reopening have been pretty much dashed at the moment. There is very little moving.

“The ceasefire has left ship owners waiting on the sidelines with fewer vessels passing through the Strait than during the fiercest days of fighting. The new bit is the mines – that is deeply concerning.”

Click to expand...
First stage of grief

DENIAL
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

  • ... and 3 more.
    • Total: 12 (members: 4, guests: 8)

    Pakistan Defence Latest

    Country Watch Latest

    Latest Posts

    Share this page

    Back
    Top