Bolen C (Page 27)

Iranian-US tensions are boiling after Trump threatened to bomb Iran following its rejection of direct talks over a new nuclear deal. He also ordered the Pentagon to move six B-2 stealth bombers, which CNN assessed to be 30% of its stealth bomber fleet, to the Indian Ocean island base of Diego Garcia.

The Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei responded by promising strong retaliation if the US attacks. One of his chief advisors, Ali Larijani, warned that Iran would have “no choice” but to build nukes if the US or through it Israel bombs the country.

Although the US intelligence community’s latest Annual Threat Assessment found that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon”, there are long-standing concerns it could do so quickly with its program’s alleged rapid breakout potential.

This makes Iran’s nuclear program no different in principle than Japan’s, which reputedly could begin churning out nukes in a matter of months if it so chose, but neither the US nor its regional allies consider Japan to be a threat.

The US’s renewed bombing campaign against Iran’s Houthi allies in Yemen may be partially intended to send a message to the Islamic Republic that the Trump 2.0 administration does indeed have the political will to initiate military action if Iran refuses to enter talks.

Trump might hold off on bombing for now due to the likelihood that Iran could inflict unacceptable retaliatory damage to US regional bases and allies.

Furthermore, diplomacy hasn’t yet been exhausted since Iran didn’t reject indirect talks of the kind that Russia offered to mediate after reportedly being asked by the US to do so, which was discussed here.

It would thus seemingly be premature for the US to seriously consider bombing Iran at this juncture, but the option isn’t off the table if indirect talks fail to reach a deal. Iran lacks the leverage for a fair deal with the US, however, so it’ll either have to accept a lopsided one or prepare for a major war that it might well lose.

Iran is a proud civilization-state that’s loath to subordinate itself to anyone, hence the difficulty in getting it to agree to sovereignty-eroding curbs on its nuclear program that would effectively make it a second-class country in this regard, all while abandoning any chance of acquiring nuclear weapons in the future.

From Iran’s perspective, this could embolden Israel into one day launching a large-scale conventional or even nuclear war against it, which Iran believes has only hitherto been deterred by dangling a sword of Damocles nuclear weapon threat.

That said, while Iran could inflict severe retaliatory damage to US regional bases and allies (first and foremost Israel) if it’s attacked over its refusal to agree to a Russian-mediated lopsided deal, it cannot inflict such damage to the US nuclear triad and would thus likely be destroyed.

Iran couldn’t count on Russia intervening to help it either since their newly updated strategic partnership doesn’t include mutual defense obligations and Moscow doesn’t want war with Washington or Jerusalem.

Even though the US could survive a major war with Iran, it no doubt prefers to avoid one. So long as US demands remain limited to drastically curbing Iran’s nuclear energy program and don’t expand to include curbs on its support for regional allies or its ballistic missile program, then creative diplomacy could yet prevail.

For that to happen, Russia would have to devise a set of incentives for Iran that the US approves and Iran then agrees to, but that’s still a long way off and Trump might strike first if he loses patience.

This article was first published on Andrew Korybko’s Substack and is republished with kind permission. Become an Andrew Korybko Newsletter subscriber here.

Continue Reading

Erik Prince argues that the most important defense lesson from the Ukraine war is how profoundly the “democratization of precision weapons” transforms war and causes serious modifications in defense and foreign policy.

For Prince, an assistant to the US Pentagon under the current administration and the founder of Blackwater, robots, cruise missiles, and other precision weapons with AI that are now frequently used on any front line or insurgent causes like the Yemeni Houthis, are excellent equalizers.

According to Prince, they challenge regular US defense capabilities and cost modern armies unsustainable. In addition, Chinese mass production of missiles overpowers any US military force in the North Pacific Ocean and the points north.

Russia, a rival country in the region, adapted and defeated US high-tech weapons with a particular skill in digital warfare. Russia’s military has fared much better than it did during the Ukraine war.

In response to this wings trend, Prince urges a perfect rethink of US military plan in an appointment with Hillsdale College President Larry Arnn and in a statement to Hillsdale individuals. Following are the exams:

LA: I want to briefly discuss Ukraine. You appear to be well-versed in that, as well as in what does and is going on there. What are your thoughts on it?

EP: I believe that President Trump has the guts to send that conflict to an end. There is a 0 % chance that the Ukrainians will retake all of their property. They ought to have reached a resolution a time and a half ago.

Right then, they seem to be engaged in a war of attrition. They’ve been reintroduced to literal World War I-style, ditch warfare-style techniques, but also with the addition of precise drones and precision rockets to make it even more destructive for infantrymen trying to survive.

The Russians are utterly determined to claim Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and, I believe, Mariupol, which are regions with standard Russian tongues, and they already have Crimea. They don’t give up on that.

In a war of attrition, mathematics still matters, and I believe an imperfect harmony is preferable to a shiny battle. In terms of population, Russia has significantly more people and significantly more weapons than the Ukrainians can produce. And the defence sector in Western Europe and America is far too expensive and far beyond.

I believe that America should be given a stark reminder that our munitions don’t do so well there. They’re never in very high demand. Some of the items may work for a month or two before Russian electronic warfare discovers a way to jam the transportation, command link, or anything else to render them useless.

And the foolish officials say,” Oh, we’re degrading the Russian troops and we’re destroying all this technology.” No, the Russian military is now much better and more deadly than they were when they first started. It might take them an hour, an hour and a half to fire back with ordnance if you shot at the Russians when they went in in February 2022.

It’s more like two or three minutes today. So their period time of communication between a battery receiving the fire and a battery receiving the fire with precise positions to take up is much shorter. Yes, they’ve become a bit smarter.

LA: You anyone identify this information?

EP: A lot of it is available resource. A lot of this information is being analysed fairly well by the RUSI, the Royal United Services Institute in London. I have a ton of relationships in strange places where I interact with people and hear from first records.

But yeah, the US government has not taken the necessary lessons from [Ukraine], the motion, that the nature of war has drastically changed as a result of the use of precision and drone warfare in that battle space.

It represents a reform of perfection strike. It’s as shocking as Genghis Khan’s use of rods on horses, in my opinion.

LA: Is it accurate to say that we can’t defend our plane companies?

EP: Well, the Houthis, right, the Iranian proxy in Yemen have been firing a lot of missiles at ships, right? They claim to have shot down US ships with a billion dollars worth of US missiles, which is bad math because you’re using not one but two$ 1 million missiles to shoot down a$ 20, 000 to$ 50, 000 drone.

However, they claim to have spent a billion dollars on that, but that figure is actually$ 5 billion because, if the charges were from the 1990s when they purchased that weapon, they would have to have spent five times as much to replace it.

Any aircraft ship, whatever location is currently in danger, may be targeted by dozens and dozens of precise arms. However, it’s just a matter of arithmetic.

If the US Navy has to wage a war to protect Taiwan and you drive an aircraft carrier close to those [ Chinese ] missile batteries, they can continue to shoot missiles until they run out of them to shoot down, which causes real problems.

That is a pretty good job done by the Chinese. Our weapons cost eight to ten times as much, and we only have a limited number of them.

LA: We didn’t appear to add more quickly.

EP: [ There are ]ways]. A top professional and I were the only ones we spoke to about this. He claimed that they must shift from a government-led security specialist mentality to one centered on cars. They ought to learn” Freedom’s Forge,” which explores how American business actually influenced the outcome of World War II.

Then you visit an automotive supplier or manufacturer who has an understanding of a complicated legislature in quantity. And they are expected to lower prices annually rather than increase them. There is a lot of electrical production capacity and know-how that can produce excellent weapons at an increasingly affordable price.

What does this mean for the United States ‘ method in LA? The Navy, the Air Force, and some men are all involved in strength forecast in the modern United States, which might begin with the First World War.

What does it mean for the future of our defense and foreign policy if those large aircraft carriers carry all of those planes but are dangerous, cheap, and can be killed by something less cheap?

EP: That submarines have more significant roles in terms of scattered heat power, dispersed combat power, and fight projection power into submarine, semi-submersible, or other more difficult-to-kill vessels. Innovation counts, as does thoughts.

Curiously enough, remember that when President Ronald Reagan decided to build two battleships, he actually removed them from storage and returned them to complete combat service in the 1980s.

They were essentially impervious to present missiles because they were designed to withstand 15 and 16-inch gun hits, which was an oddity. Any of these boat weapons, drones, or other such weapons had flimsyly fall off a ship.

Also a water movement missile, which is intended to break a ship’s hull, was so powerful that it wouldn’t have mattered. But perhaps you return to a really old technology.

LA: Some of them are also present.

EP: Yes, they’re still in store. That’s a lot of material to try to rust ahead.

Continue Reading

Is China prepared to invade Taiwan in a manner similar to D-Day?

Following the emergence of photos and videos of large new Taiwanese ships designed for land-to-sea defense operations, that has undoubtedly been the voice of some of the monitoring. The fact that China conducted a two-day military exercise in the Taiwan Strait on April 1, 2025, has only heightened these concerns.

The intriguing thing about these musings about a possible conflict involving China, which has one of the most advanced militaries in the world, is that they are supported by references to technology that was first used by the Allies on June 6, 1944, in particular the Mulberry Harbours, floating piers, on the beaches of Normandy.

Using the World War II case, as an analyst on the history and geography of the Mulberry Harbours, allegedly reveals a lot more than it does, in terms of the current political situation. In fact, the proper situation in China and Taiwan is radically different from what the new Chinese ships are technically similar to their historical predecessors.

On the Pacific before, concern?

Perhaps the most urgent safety concern for countries in the Asia-Pacific area is the possibility of a Taiwanese invasion of Taiwan, an area that the Chinese Communist Party considers to be part of its territory.

During the presidency of President Xi Jinping, Beijing has been ratcheting up the violent language against the government in Taipei. Taiwan’s label as a rogue or separatist province is, for some, a clear indicator of an intention to enter and place the island within the boundaries of Taiwanese sovereignty, even though one reading of Xi suggests that his rhetoric is part of a strategic plan to burnish Chinese power worldwide.

The Trump administration showed early signs that the country’s national security was in danger, even though Washington’s intentions regarding Taiwan’s protection are still ambiguous, much like the president’s best policy positions toward Beijing.

Any Chinese invasion of Taiwan would imply attempting an incredibly difficult military operation that is generally speaking a risky proposition, aside from the geopolitics. Seaborne invasions frequently resulted in higher deaths or even complete failure.

For instance, the Gallipoli landings in World War I on Turkey’s coastline caused the largely Australian and New Zealand forces to withdraw after a large casualty and little territorial gain. The island-hopping by American forces to stop Japan’s advance in World War II achieved corporate objectives, but at a higher cost to the population.

The administrative challenge of continuing to cone troops and supplies to support a push out from the bridgehead is not just the fights on Day 1. The boats come into play at that point.

About those boats from World War II…

Winston Churchill, the prime minister of the United Kingdom, was skeptical that a takeoff on the Flemish coast would help the United States launch a top against Nazi Germany. The administrative puzzle was Churchill’s and his generals ‘ primary concern.

They argued that German would sometimes sabotage European ports or keep control of them, and that ports would not allow the raising of tanks, weapons, soldiers, and other necessities.

By designing a series of floating bridges that were fixed to superior anchors, The Mulberry Harbours addressed the issue. Boats may dock at these bridges and unload the required cargo.

An inner circle of masonry caissons that were dragged across the stream and sunk into position, as well as an external breakwater for scuttled ships, protected the piers. The Mulberry Harbours incorporated innovative wharf design with improvisation.

Although the technology has advanced, the idea of an operating need for administrative assistance of a beachhead breakout is still present in today’s images of Taiwanese invasion barges.

However, any invasion’s landscape is completely unique. The Mulberry Harbours participated in a continent-conquering war from an area during World War II. However, a Taiwanese invasion of Taiwan would be the opposite of moving from a globe to an area.

Chinese characteristics, tremendous power politicians

Even though Mulberry Harbours were inventive, they were only the start of a longer political approach.

The exchange of US military would through Operation Bolero over the Atlantic culminated with the D-Day war. Simply put, the United Kingdom turned into a sizable inventory, primarily for US military and products.

The Mulberry Harbours made it possible for these people and weapons to cross the English Channel. The prediction of US power over the Atlantic Ocean and Europe was completed with this move. I interpret this as a pics moving from its southern waters to distant waters in another region of the world.

China’s estimate is incredibly diverse. Ships undoubtedly did aid an invasion of the Taiwan Strait. However, China recognizes Taiwan as a part of its close lakes and wants to protect those waters from international competition.

Beijing believes that since World War II, the US has a military presence merely off its coast, adding another group of far-off US waters to its global reputation.

China is surrounded by a US defense base in Okinawa, Guam, and the Philippines, from its point of view. By imposing a blockade on Taiwan, China could stifle its ambitions, and it could also close a gap in the network.

China, of training, doesn’t just keep an eye on its nearby waters. It has also established a military base in Djibouti, established an ocean-going defense army, and expanded its Belt and Road Initiative to include areas of economic and political acclaim across the Indian, Pacific, Arctic, and Atlantic waters.

Chinese invasion boats may be deployed very early in the country’s transition from close to distant waters. Likewise, once the United States had secured its Caribbean, Atlantic, and Pacific near lakes, the Mulberry Harbours were deployed.

a component of a procedure

An interesting way to examine the new Chinese war barges and consider the size of geopolitics are traditional comparisons and technical issues.

China-Taiwan tensions are just another contemporary example of a local theater being a part of a larger world process of energy projection, just like the World War II case. So, the similarities to Mulberry Harbours are not with the technologies itself but rather with its function in a system of traditional political change.

The recent resurgence of the war barge technology may indicate the start of a new conflict.

Ironically, China would be using Mulberry Harbour-style technology to secure its place in the eastern Pacific at the same time as the Trump presidency is questioning the proper price of the US presence in Europe, which was established through World War II and, at least in part, through the use of Mulberry Harbours.

Utah State University’s recognized professor of social science is Colin Flint.

This content was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the text of the content.

Continue Reading

Donald Trump’s” Liberation Day” tariffs have now been more clearly understood, and how they will impact other trading partners, including the United States itself.

The US government claims that these import tariffs will lower the country’s trade deficit and tackle what it perceives as cruel and non-reciprocal trade practices. Trump predicted this did occur.

long remembered as the rebirth of America’s economy and life.

The “reciprocal” tariffs are intended to establish costs equal to half of what tariffs, money manipulation, and other-country tariffs are supposed to impose on US exporters.

A tax number that may apply to the majority of products was provided by each country. Steel, metal, and engine vehicles, which are already subject to new tariffs, are renowned industries free.

The smallest base price for each nation is 10 %. But many countries received higher numbers, including Vietnam ( 46 % ), Thailand ( 36 % ), China ( 34 % ), Indonesia ( 32 % ), Taiwan ( 32 % ) and Switzerland ( 31 % ).

The total tariff on Chinese imports is 54 %, which is in addition to the current 20 % tariff. Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom are among the nations that have been given 10 % taxes.

For the moment, products from Canada and Mexico are free from the reciprocal taxes, but they are still subject to a 25 % tax under a separate professional order.

The estimates behind these calculations are open to dispute, even though some nations do impose higher taxes on US products than the US does on their exports and the” Liberation Day” tariffs are claimed to only be half the mutual rate.

For instance, non-tariff measures are extremely difficult to estimate and” content to many uncertainty,” according to a recent study.

Retaliation and GDP effects

Different nations are now possible to impose retaliatory tariffs on US goods. The EU, China, and Canada, which are the top exporters, have all pledged to do the same.

I use a global type of the manufacturing, trade, and consumption of goods and services to measure the effects of this tit-for-tat business standoff. Institutions, academics, and consulting firms use similar modeling tools to evaluate legislation changes, which are known as” computable general equilibrium versions.”

The earliest model resembles a scenario where the US imposes bilateral and other fresh tariffs and other nations impose equivalent tariffs on US goods. The table below illustrates estimated GDP changes brought on by US mutual tariffs and other nation hostile taxes.

The tariffs decrease US GDP by US$ 438.4 billion ( 1.45 % ). GDP per household falls by$ 3,487 annually as the country’s 126 million homes are divided. that is greater than any other nation’s related decreases. ( All figures are in US dollars. )

Mexico ( 2.24 % ) and Canada ( 1.65 % ) both experienced the largest proportional GDP declines, with these countries exporting more than 75 % of their goods to the US. The cost of living in Mexico is$ 1, 192 per year, while American households are$ 2, 467 annually.

Vietnam ( 0.99 % ) and Switzerland ( 0.2 % ) are two other countries that have experienced relative large GDP declines.

Some countries profit from the business conflict. These typically have relatively low US tariffs ( and, as a result, US goods also get fairly low taxes ). The GDP increases most significantly in Brazil and New Zealand ( 0.29 % ). New Zealand families earn more money by$ 397 annually.

The rest of the world’s agglomerate GDP, with the exception of the US, falls by$ 62 billion.

At the global level, GDP decreases by$ 500 billion ( 0.43 % ). The well-known tenet that business war reduce the world economy is confirmed by this outcome.

GDP has no retribution.

What would happen if additional countries didn’t heed the US tariffs, according to the modeling in the following scenario. The tables below shows the changes in the GDP of some of the states.

The largest equivalent declines in GDP are those countries that are subject to fairly high US tariffs and export a large portion of their goods to the US. These include China, Mexico, Vietnam, Thailand, Taiwan, Switzerland, South Korea, and Canada.

Countries with comparatively lower fresh tariff gains, such as the UK, which sees the most GDP growth.

Because the tariffs cause an increase in US consumer prices and production costs, they reduce US GDP by$ 149 billion ( 0. 9 % ).

The rest of the world’s overall GDP is down by$ 155 billion, more than twice the amount of the same amount before retribution. This suggests that the rest of the world is mitigate costs by retaliating. Retaliation also results in a worse results for the US.

Sand was dust in the cogs of global trade during the Trump administration’s prior tax announcements. The mutual levies stow a strop in the sand. In the end, the US might suffer the most financial losses.

At Auckland University of Technology, Niven Winchester is professor of economics.

The Conversation has republished this essay under a Creative Commons license. Read the original post.

Continue Reading