The shadow war is over. Iran’s direct attack on Israel, with its own missiles from its own territory opens a new chapter in Middle East power politics. It is the realization of a nightmarish confrontation. It will no doubt trigger a reset in global confidence and expectations about geopolitical risk.
Er... You seem to studiously avoid the fact that this Iran strike is a response to a brazen attack on Iranian consulate in Damascus, making a pipifax of Geneva conventions. If you throw that in, the equation changes completely and things become less worrying - unless Israel chooses to escalate and try to draw the US in, at all cost.
Potential re-escalation between Israel and Iran is in Bibi's hands. But it's the Biden administration who made it clear they can't afford it - not at this inconvenient time, before the election. It's hard not to ask, what is being exchanged there, to satisfy both of those parties.
PS- "escalate to de-escalate" is shaky theory on the best of days. It has worked only a fraction of the time, and rarely in just one cycle of tit for tat. The supposedly weaker party can and often does simply refuse to acknowledge the stronger party. The number of repetitions is unpredictable.
Future oil prices - medium term wildcard, at the margin, is Chinese auto manufacturing in the middle of the typical ramp-up curve. The world is set for the return of the $10000 car? There would be a period of time where it won't be all NEV everywhere
Prof. Tooze’s analysis of the Iranian attack on Israel is rather superficial and oddly downplays the fire with which Iran is playing. Launching some 350 drones, ballistic and cruise missiles, all told carrying an estimated 60 tons of explosives is not performative nor could Iran have had any confidence that Israel and its allies defense would have been so successful. Aside from injuring an 8 year old Bedouin child and making a small hole (already repaired) at one military base, the attack was such a humiliating failure that Iranian TV was showing film of fires from either Texas or Chile (the jury is still out) as proof of its “devastating” attack.
To write that Jordan and Saudi Arabia were “roped in” to help defend against the attack shows a lack of attention to regional dynamics since President Obama signed the JCPOA or more recently Iran’s attempt to destabilize the Hashemite Kingdom.
Khameini has managed to accomplish something very similar to Putin. His aggressive instincts have resulted in the unveiling of a new alliance among the U.S., Israel and the Sunni states against Iran, much as Putin’s aggression has thrown Sweden and Finland squarely into NATO’s camp.
If Prof. Tooze (and anyone else) is interested in a rather sober analysis of Iran’s miscalculation and Israel’s potential responses, he would do well to listen to todays podcast interview of Israeli journalist Nadav Eyal on “Call Me Back with Dan Senor”. Or Prof. Tooze can stick to his expertise of economics and stop dabbling in foreign policy matters as to which he appears to confuse partial with complete information.
I am amused that Brooks thinks that Russia "pays for" its war with revenues from oil sales. This can only be true to the extent that it must pay for materials it is unable to produce at home.
And what, exactly, are those materials? Brooks doesn't say. Maybe he doesn't understand this at all.
Er... You seem to studiously avoid the fact that this Iran strike is a response to a brazen attack on Iranian consulate in Damascus, making a pipifax of Geneva conventions. If you throw that in, the equation changes completely and things become less worrying - unless Israel chooses to escalate and try to draw the US in, at all cost.
Potential re-escalation between Israel and Iran is in Bibi's hands. But it's the Biden administration who made it clear they can't afford it - not at this inconvenient time, before the election. It's hard not to ask, what is being exchanged there, to satisfy both of those parties.
PS- "escalate to de-escalate" is shaky theory on the best of days. It has worked only a fraction of the time, and rarely in just one cycle of tit for tat. The supposedly weaker party can and often does simply refuse to acknowledge the stronger party. The number of repetitions is unpredictable.
Future oil prices - medium term wildcard, at the margin, is Chinese auto manufacturing in the middle of the typical ramp-up curve. The world is set for the return of the $10000 car? There would be a period of time where it won't be all NEV everywhere
Prof. Tooze’s analysis of the Iranian attack on Israel is rather superficial and oddly downplays the fire with which Iran is playing. Launching some 350 drones, ballistic and cruise missiles, all told carrying an estimated 60 tons of explosives is not performative nor could Iran have had any confidence that Israel and its allies defense would have been so successful. Aside from injuring an 8 year old Bedouin child and making a small hole (already repaired) at one military base, the attack was such a humiliating failure that Iranian TV was showing film of fires from either Texas or Chile (the jury is still out) as proof of its “devastating” attack.
To write that Jordan and Saudi Arabia were “roped in” to help defend against the attack shows a lack of attention to regional dynamics since President Obama signed the JCPOA or more recently Iran’s attempt to destabilize the Hashemite Kingdom.
Khameini has managed to accomplish something very similar to Putin. His aggressive instincts have resulted in the unveiling of a new alliance among the U.S., Israel and the Sunni states against Iran, much as Putin’s aggression has thrown Sweden and Finland squarely into NATO’s camp.
If Prof. Tooze (and anyone else) is interested in a rather sober analysis of Iran’s miscalculation and Israel’s potential responses, he would do well to listen to todays podcast interview of Israeli journalist Nadav Eyal on “Call Me Back with Dan Senor”. Or Prof. Tooze can stick to his expertise of economics and stop dabbling in foreign policy matters as to which he appears to confuse partial with complete information.
“The only thing standing between the Gazan people and a ceasefire is Hamas.” - Anthony Blinken. U.S. Secy. of State, this morning https://jewdicious.substack.com/p/passover-poland-april-19-1943
I am amused that Brooks thinks that Russia "pays for" its war with revenues from oil sales. This can only be true to the extent that it must pay for materials it is unable to produce at home.
And what, exactly, are those materials? Brooks doesn't say. Maybe he doesn't understand this at all.