Asymmetric warfare: another mighty US fail

In keeping with our readiness to slate pathetic Russian military & strategic performance in Ukraine, once again we must even-handedly slate the current US debacle.

Which started (as is widely commented) with a complete absence of anything that could honestly be described as a strategy - just large-scale deployment of powerful forces that may fairly be described as tactically accomplished.  But (as, again, we all know) tactics without strategy is just empty waste of effort - and life.

And materiel!   I'm not going to open a laundry list here, but take it from me, US losses of important kit have been very significant, betraying a complete and utter failure of US doctrinal development for the drone era.

By stark contrast, Iran has clearly been developing - and executing - very appropriate plans for making the very best of its conventionally much, much weaker hand.  It's as impressive in its own way as Ukraine's efforts (- with equivalent lack of guarantees of ultimate success).

We may only hope that the risible, contemptuous (and contemptible) triumphalism of Hegseth & Trump doesn't prevent the US military & strategic community from quietly learning lessons seriously, thinking very hard, and doing the right things, urgently and in depth.  Sadly, we know from the ridiculous UK aircraft carrier debacle (thanks, Gordon), when you've been set on to spend all your money on crazy WW2-type projects like that, and the new 'Trump Class Battleships", such mega-distractions seriously weigh on the ability to do anything else.

On the plus side: we do know that Ukraine has comprehensively figured out this very traditional asymmetric warfare problem, both in theory and in deeply impressive practice: Taiwan may yet have time (though not much) to do likewise: and even the UK + Europe might be positioned to do something intelligent.

But will we?  One unhappy perspective on this might be that Miliband's (and other nations') NZ obsession is the new national distraction that hinders our efforts.  Not a lot of time for this to be set on track.  As Russian subs patrol our cables, pipelines and offshore energy facilities, the analogy with 1938 is very uncomfortable.

ND

The subliminal impact of $4 gasoline

As is well known, the USA as a nation is addicted to motoring.  The "summer driving season" is a major phenomenon in the oil industry, when many Americans think nothing of driving thousands of vacation road-miles.

And various points along the price curve have mythical status.  It used to be considered that "3 dollar gas" was something no President's reputation could survive: a simple metric for consumer inflation as it is felt in the pocketbook.  More recently, "3 dollar gas" has become a semi-ironic [1] nostalgic look into the rear-view mirror: hey Bud, remember when we used to worry about $3?!   [2]

But $4 is now a reality.  I suspect that simple number alone could be a subliminal factor in dishing Trump amongst his regular base of support.

ND

________________

[1]  To the extent Americans do irony 

[2] To be fair, it was known to hit $6 - in California.  But that state, like NYC, is often thought of as not really America.

AI: crashing and burning foreseen, in plain view

Munching our popcorn (while we still have fuel to heat it up) & waiting for Trump to crash and burn ...

We've discussed before the AI bubble, its seemingly inevitable forthcoming bursting, and the system-crashing potential it might hold.  Well here's something to give anyone pause:

Source:  CHARTR / date from Bloomberg

It's pretty remarkable to me that Uber needed such a long runway - surely its only major assets are software?  Tesla looks pretty outstanding value & commercial discipline[1] by comparison - and Musk was shooting for the moon, with serious hardware involved, as well as software.  

But why am I gazing at the foothills?  Because then we step back and look at the mammoth on the mountain, and  - wow!  What type of revenues do they "forecast" - and persuade investors of - to make that even vaguely sane?  And OpenAI isn't alone out there.  What kind of economy can afford their products on the necessary scale?

Sometimes you have to look at something - a bullion price spike, a US president - and just tell yourself the obvious conclusion is the correct one.  That Is Insane.

And the US economy[2] has been wagered on this?  Hello China - the rest of the century belongs to you.

ND

PS: for something more edifying on AI, try this:

__________________

[1] One would need to interrogate that tapering-off of the black bars: was it Tesla that bought X?  Had greenie car buyers lost faith in Musk even before 2025 and his rogue DOGE behaviour?  

[2] And I'm the one that has said, many times: in the long run, never bet against the US economy ...

Who said this ..? Weekend reading

Two quotations for you, long and short.  Who said these things?

1.  ... a future where the Middle East is defined by commerce, not chaos; where it exports technology, not terrorism; and where people of different nations, religions, and creeds are building cities together, not bombing each other out of existence.  We don’t want that.... The gleaming marvels of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi were not created by the so-called nation-builders, neocons or liberal nonprofits like those who spent trillions and trillions of dollars failing to develop Kabul, Baghdad, so many other cities. Instead, the birth of a modern Middle East has been brought by the people of the region themselves, the people that are right here, the people that have lived here all their lives - developing your own sovereign countries, pursuing your own unique visions, and charting your own destinies in your own way ... the so-called nation-builders wrecked far more nations than they built, and the interventionalists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves. They told you how to do it, but they had no idea how to do it themselves ... it’s something only you could do.   

2.  Despite employing some of the best and brightest analysts in the world, the advice given by the US State Department over the last fifty years could comfortably have been outperformed by a parrot that had been trained to repeat the phrase 'Don't start a war'. 

The first, of course, is Trump.  One could give many more quotations from that speech:  "my greatest hope is to be a peacemaker and to be a unifier. I don’t like war  /  my greatest hope is to be a peacemaker and a unifier  /  far too many American presidents have been afflicted with the notion that it’s our job to look into the souls of foreign leaders and use US policy to dispense justice for their sins" etc etc, and feel like applauding it.

Ho hum.  Trump talks a lot, and even the scripted speeches like the one above incorporate the usual mendacious, vainglorious narcissism which makes one glad one isn't a US military cadet, forced to listen to him and realise he's the Commander in Chief.  Here are a couple, if you have the time: the first, from May last year, is actually the source of 1. above but this other, from November, is truly embarrassing and has virtually no redeeming features whatever.  The judgmental decline had really set in by then, and it's only linked to here by way of illustration of how bad things are.

Yes, the prescient parrot of quote #2 has been well and truly stuffed.  (It's from a writer called Dan Davies in The Unaccountability Machine.)

ND 

Negotiating with Iran? Waters always muddy there

So are there any substantive negotiations taking place, as Trump avers?  Or "talks"?  Or even "talks about talks"?  Well something, probably: but there's very good reason to be genuinely confused rather than just plain disbelieving.

Here's a first-hand story.

Back in the mists of time, when dinosaurs (Saddam, Khomeini etc) roamed the earth, I was working for a US oil company.  Then, as now, there was an American embargo on selling stuff to Iran; but the Iranians needed specialised oil products that they were unable - strange though this may sound - to produce locally themselves: and somehow we had State Department approval to sell it to them.  But it had to be done very discreetly.

Negotiations commenced, in London and Hamburg, with no American staff members involved.  There were several difficult issues to resolve, so it wasn't a simple horse-trade on price; and the whole thing was quite drawn-out.  We had an OK working relationship with our Iranian opposite numbers.

Then one day another Iranian turned up unannounced at our London offices and sought a meeting: he knew all our names & telephone extensions.  We hastily convened, and he laid out on the table all the paperwork relating to the deal, announcing that we would be dealing with him from now on.  Being somewhat taken aback, we were entirely non-committal and progressed nothing beyond making a few notes.  Upon his departure we called our previous contacts, who told us to have nothing to do with this individual, and that the whole episode was "a mistake" and should be forgotten.

We could only conclude there were competing middle-men in play and that in this murky world, copies of the paperwork could be procured for a price.  The complicated deal eventually came to completion after several more weeks.

But not without another remarkable episode.  With a particularly knotty issue being thrashed out, one of our interlocutors suddenly leaned forward and said in agitated tones:  you must concede this point to me, otherwise my family will be arrested!

I have been in many a difficult & protracted negotiation, including with Russians and Chinese counterparties.  But this is not a gambit I have met, before or since.  I have to tell you that we politely ignored his personal anxieties (genuine or otherwise) and proceeded with getting to the ultimate handshake by more conventional horse-trading.

Yes, customs & practices in that part of the world are, well, a bit different (I could tell you other stories about dealing with Arab counterparties - and Russians** & Chinese, too.)  For all his vaunted "New York real-estate expertise" Steve Witless-Dummkopf doesn't look to me like the kind of person who'd be much good at figuring out what's really going on.  Heaven help us all.

ND

_________________

** The critical trap with Russians is their readiness to fall silent in meetings for very sustained periods of time - the record in my experience was something like 45-50 minutes: a tactic designed to make the other side's nerve crack & offer just any concession they can think of to break the apparently awful deadlock.  Well, if that's all you are made of, it'll work every time.  But 'silence implies nothing' is the operative axiom.  Oh, and never get stuck with a firm homebound airline booking (which most people do, just to get out of the miserable surroundings).  They'll back you up against it every time.