He does. He's just stuck in between his previous rethoric about the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) and his misreading of IRGC capabilities and will.
He can't take a worse deal than the Obama deal he spent years criticizing then personally destroyed, and the Iranians don't seem very inclined to give him anything better.
Nuclear plants will not be built in the timescales these plants demand. No data centre is going to wait 5-10 years for a nuclear plant to be built in the USA, and the modular passively safe designs aren't ready.
I also seriously doubt the ability of the Trump admin to co-ordinate the required reforms and investments in nuclear energy.
Renewables, batteries and gas are probably going to be the only viable option.
The world wasn't exactly a kind place before Pax Americana. If you check the stats, the American era does pretty well for peace and prosperity, and it's not realistic to expect the Americans would oversee a conflict-free utopia.
So in other words, while America is starting the most wars, it somehow gets credit for the hypothetical wars that weren't started? The assumption being that the natural state of the world is to have a world war every few years?
The norm of human history is constant wars, extreme repression, and genocide, yes.
Oh, and levels of taxation even Karl Marx would immediately agree are theft. In fact, ending the pre-pax-Americana period is what the manifesto is about. (the period stupidly referred to as "modern times", where the rich aren't fighting over who gets to mars first, but massacring poor people to gain a few square kilometers of land, which ironically Soviets know all about)
I get that that's hard to see for anyone born far enough away from the beginning of the pax Americana, ie. let's say 5-10 years after world war 2 but that's really how things work.
And that means that you just won't believe the consequences of any real victory against the US either: a return to the norm. If Iran wins, immediately, 50 genocides will start. Not just in Iran. Global trade will freeze 90%, not just oil. Inequality will explode worldwide. And that's just the start. In a way, that's what Iran is fighting for.
It's interesting to see the kind of nonsensical, evidence-free ideological statements that some people use to hand wave away decades of horrifying US perpetrated atrocities.
Ignore the genocide the US is engaged in right now, if it loses the war it started with Iran there will be 50 hypothetical genocides that I made up! Why stop at 50? Maybe there will be 500 or 5,000 genocides! If not for the benevolence of the US, we'd be having another world war every 2-3 years. It just stands to reason I suppose.
Since you've successfully moved into the blatantly absurd, how about I just let Captain Darling and General Melchett explain how the period before the Pax Americana worked. First, WHAT the rich were fighting over:
My grandfather explained this in much harsher terms to me (he's dead now, even though he got past 100 years), with explicit mention of which of 2 options is the better one: killing 100 people in your own city or returning to this situation again. He was a baby at the end of WW1 and lived through (with kids of his own) WW2.
(but even that beats how Iran's islamic government treats it's own citizens. Did you know primary school children make excellent demining equipment, and on top of that make very cheap poison gas detectors? The islamic mullahs sure do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_key_to_paradise )
Ah yeah the US would never demand young volunteers to be fed to the meat grinder
They would compel them, by law, to be fed to the meat grinder. And not to defend their homeland, but to murder civilians in another hemisphere, and apparently i must remind you, TO THE TUNE OF 4,500,000 DEAD CIVILIANS IN KOREA AND VIETNAM ALONE.
I've a friend up the coast, nearly 100 now, a ham operator who used to relay space shuttle calls, former operator in PNG, British soldier during the Mau-Mau uprising.
Back in the day, during WWII, he was defusing bombs and mines while a young boy scout.
If the US population were capable of learning, Republicans wouldn't be elected. Alas, that's not the world we live in. Republican administrations are worse by basically every recordable metric. From job creation to deficit reduction to foreign policy. Every 4-8 years the Democratic party has to be the only adults in the room and clean up the shit Republicans create. Only for it to be turned around and handed back to the shit spreaders.
In the real world, the American resident is suffering deeply.
The fact that things are so bad for the average American when the economy is growing (thanks largely to healthcare and AI investment), makes me shudder at what may happen if those tailwinds slow down, or the existing headwinds (like the impact of the war) strengthen.
"Based on the simulations of our global macroeconomic model, oil prices would only need to average close to $125 per barrel in the second quarter of this year for a recession to ensue soon thereafter, all else equal. And it is not difficult to envisage oil prices increasing to $125 per barrel. It only requires that the conflict and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz last a few weeks longer, say through July 4, or even much sooner, if the combatants increasingly target the region's energy-producing infrastructure."
If Wood Mackenzie is not your cup of tea, lots of other resources with a search of “recession strait of Hormuz” keywords. The only reason we’re not in a global recession yet was because China paused oil imports, due to their >1B barrel strategic reserves.
That forecasts a global recession if "the Strait remains largely closed through the end of 2026."
Even under that scenario, which would emerge after the Strait had been closed for over ten months, the forecaster only sees "US GDP growth" falling "below 1%," i.e. not a recession. (I'm ignoring the fact that the Strait has already been closed for more than 2 months.)
> Oil and gas traffic via the Strait of Hormuz may never go back to pre-war levels if Iran cements its hold over the chokepoint. The warnings come from several unrelated sources as the war continues to drag on, with some recovery in traffic but nowhere near pre-February 28 levels. Meanwhile, Big Oil is warning that the looming supply shortage is about to hit global markets in weeks.
> “No matter what happens, the Iranians will control the Strait of Hormuz for the foreseeable future,” Amos Hochstein, senior national security and energy advisor to President Biden, told CNBC last week. “It doesn’t even matter what the deal says. Everybody in the region believes that.”
> While the negotiations drag on, expectations that Iran will remain in de facto charge of the Strait of Hormuz appear to be strengthening. “Any end to the conflict that leaves Iran exercising operational control and influence over the Strait will result in appreciably lower flows through the waterway in our view,” RBC Capital Markets’ Helima Croft said in a recent note, as quoted by CNBC.
I agree the US goes full recession as soon as the confidence falls out from under the AI bubble and all of this investment leading to GDP growth ends, but I also don’t believe the US economy (even assuming reduced GDP to energy correlation over the last two decades) can sustain growth and will lead to contraction with oil prices at or above the $150-$200/barrel price band if persistent. The below prediction predicts a near term (July) recession call at less than $100/barrel.
Well one was just commenting that they don't observe meat prices - I don't mind that at all though I have seen non-meat groceries go up as well (just less so than the meat).
Don't compete with China. They're merchantilist for one, and if you want environmental standards in manufacturing, you can't negotiate free trade agreements with one party states.
He can't take a worse deal than the Obama deal he spent years criticizing then personally destroyed, and the Iranians don't seem very inclined to give him anything better.
reply