33
“We do not have enough to safely sustain operations, and I don’t think the White House is aware of that.” (www.cnn.com)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/usa@lemmy.ml
19 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 8 points 3 months ago (16 children)

The problem for the US is the logistics. They already spent a lot of stocks in Ukraine before taking on Iran. The industrial capacity in the US is not able to replenish weapons anywhere close to the rate they're being used. They have to ferry the weapons half way across the world, and they can't protect their staging bases because Iran can hit them with missiles all across the region. And it's very difficult to do any sort of a ground invasion of Iran because it's a huge mountainous country. I simply don't see how the US can keep the war going realistically here.

On top of all that, the global energy crisis from the closure of Hormuz and now Bab el-Mandeb is hitting the US as well. Gas prices are already back to $4 on average, and it's the one thing the US public actually responds to politically. The reserves are starting to run dry as well, and when that runs out shit will really hit the fan. And I think that's actually the biggest lever Iran has here. They have the US by the balls here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (15 children)

    Winning is not the objective here, it’s market manipulation, and the Trump administration can continue to do this. Indeed, if they stop soon, his inner circle will stop making huge profits

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 4 points 3 months ago (13 children)

    I mean sure, they are obviously making money off insider trading, and now even blatantly selling early access to Trump's tweets. But you can't just run a war on vibes. If you don't have fuel, missiles, drones, etc., then your physical capacity to continue the conflict comes to an end, and that's the problem the US faces here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 3 months ago (12 children)

    I think any large country, and the USA has a lot of resources, can easily run a loosing war indefinitely, should the leadership decide that is best.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago*

    Not indefinitely. The minute those reserves run dry all bets are off and y'all are in the rapids with no paddle. No fuel fucks the domestic economy on a level that is almost impossible to overstate and the war economy might as well not exist. The US army is the biggest polluter in the world by far for a reason, all that power projection requires gargantuan logistics chains, aircraft carriers, shipping of personnel, fuel for weapons. There's also not a guarantee that allies will still have enough reserves to sell to the US or the willingness to take dollar payments when they can see that they can't project power and the economy is heading for collapse.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 3 points 3 months ago* (9 children)

    I disagree. The US lacks industrial capacity, and it can't refine rare earths on its own right now. You can't just snap your fingers and magic these things into existence. You have to establish supply chains, build factories, train workers, and all that is a decades long process. The US being a big country, did have a ton of weapons stockpiled, but a lot of that got used up over the past 4 years in Ukraine. Even large countries can eventually run out of stocks if the outflow exceeds production, which is precisely what has happened to the US now.

    The difference with Iran is also that it's not some small poor country that can't fight back. This is a whole new type of war for the US where the adversary can hit American assets directly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 3 months ago (8 children)

    While you are absolutely correct about the points you made, the war is not dependent on these.

    The logic is not military, but from the point of view of a scam artist who has every incentive to continue.

    It will not matter if USA forces die by the thousands achieving nothing; it does not matter if the oil hits empty for domestic use. Nothing matters but profits for a very few.

    Quite literally the USA could be reduced to sail boats with troops armed with only swords, and be killed out at sea. As long as the USA can bomb in the area, with any aircraft: money can be had

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 4 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    I disagree for the simple reason that Iran can fight back. Iranians have now pushed the US occupation forces all the way back to Jordan, and they're getting clapped there too, so now they're pulling even further west to Israel. And Iran has already demonstrated they can hit Israel as well. So, we already see how Iran cleared the shit out of the Gulf over the past couple of month successfully. All the US forward radar stations, staging facilities, warehouses, barracks, are gone now.

    There is quite literally no way for the US to mount any sort of an effective ground invasion right now. And they're afraid to fly jets into Iran as well at this point because Iran has been taking them down at an incredible rate. So, the US is reduced to lobbing missiles into Iran which they have a very limited supply of and cannot make more.

    And since Iran is able to hit Israel as well, US assets there will be eliminated the same way they were everywhere else. That's the reality. Part of the psychological warfare of the empire is to convince people that it's all powerful and invincible and that it can do whatever it wants. That's just propaganda you've internalized.

    You can't manifest a war of attrition here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    I hope the USA forces are moved back to be mostly harmless; but the war will not stop as long as the Trump circles can make huge amounts of money from market manipulations.

    And I have leaned to never underestimate these things. There are always missiles to fire too. Even if supplies are low. This war can last until the end of his presidency.

    Not only that:

    A threat of a nuclear attack, repeated several times, and an actual explosion, will make Trump and his cronies hundreds of billions of dollars if they stretch out the events. He has nothing restraining him.

    This crises is still a long time from ending. And be worse later.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Again, explain to me how the US prosecutes this war in material terms though. I'm not debating whether Trump and his circle are making money and might want to keep the war going. I'm talking about the physical reality we live in where you have to produce weapons, establish logistics, supply troops, protect your assets from attack, and so on. How does the US do these things?

    I can guarantee you that the US economy will not survive the closure of the Persian Gulf until the end of his presidency.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    How does the US do these things?

    Badly, and with nuclear threats . But it will do them. I do not dispute it will loose in a conventional way.

    I think where we differ is you expect a stop in hostilities after the USA is beaten; and I feel since the reason for this war is only market manipulation; the war will continue, however it can

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 3 months ago

    I mean that's all been tried already in the first month. The US was seriously considering using nukes, but it wouldn't solve the problem. And where we differ is that I expect the US economy will crash and the US will have a USSR style collapse. It's really important to separate the base from the superstructure here. All these things like market manipulation and other machinations require a stable foundation at the bottom, and that's been eroded for many decades now. And no amount of financial tricks can change the material reality because you can't just wish things into being in the real world.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    I don't think he can maintain stability at home through an energy crisis. Oil is going to run out and the country will become ungovernable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    I think the USA is remarkably stable; yes there will be vast hardship and many bad things will happen. But I do not see anything to take advantage of this weakness, good or bad.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    It's not really remarkably stable, it's stable in an expected way due to its relative wealth. The vast majority never really have to worry about rationing food or fuel or energy. Giving your children hunger for dinner is not an experience most yankees have.

    That changes rapidly without easy access to gasoline and diesel.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    Sure, but what happens when the reserves are literally dry, the country swiftly implodes and the stock market blows up and takes the dollar with it? Eventually they have to come down from their numberwang speculative grabathon and grapple with the real economy, the one where you have to manage actual resources and labor.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent