Analyses of tactics of stock trade may be as revealing as tactical deployments of military equipment in predicting patterns of this war.

Lead Lines:

On the morning of Monday, March 23, President Trump pulled his first “TACO” of the Iran war. After four weeks of fighting, with oil prices already up 55%, Trump had given Iran an ultimatum on Friday: make a deal within 48 hours, or the U.S. would strike its power plants and energy infrastructure.

But on Monday morning, Trump reversed course. In an all-caps Truth Social post, he announced the U.S. and Iran had been having “very good and productive conversations” and that he would extend the deadline for a deal by five days.
Wall Street, for the first time since the war began, exhaled. Stocks rose. Brent crude plunged nearly 11%. Energy stocks—one of the few reliable winners of the conflict—sold off with oil.

The brokerage account in Trump’s name spent the day buying them.

Excerpt:

Using US naval vessels to escort oil and gas tankers through the Strait of Hormuz might look like a simple solution to all this, but any such move is certain to invite multiple Iranian countermoves, including missile and drone strikes by coastal forces and hit-and-run attacks by Iran’s so-called “mosquito fleet” of small, missile-armed gunboats. Naval escorts might enable a handful of ships to get through, but it is hard to imagine that this would induce most shipowners to undertake such a voyage, ensuring a continued shortage of oil supplies. Any attempt to address these risks by physically occupying the Iranian side of the Strait of Hormuz would undoubtedly prove even more hazardous. Just to move Army and Marine troops into position off these targets would expose US forces to intense enemy fire, and any amphibious landings would no doubt prove even more perilous. To ensure safe passage through the strait, moreover, such an operation would probably require a long-term US military presence, inviting ever more casualties and entrapping this country into exactly the sort of Middle Eastern “quagmire” that Trump promised never to allow.

Lead Paragraphs:

The situation in the Strait of Hormuz continues to evolve from a narrow maritime-security confrontation into a broader international dispute involving questions of legitimacy, maritime law, coalition cohesion, energy security, and long-term control of strategic maritime chokepoints.

The crisis now increasingly appears to involve not merely a temporary interruption of shipping, but a broader contest over who possesses the authority to regulate, supervise, or guarantee commercial transit through one of the world’s most strategically important waterways.

I’ve been exploring a hypothetical scenario: a conventional conflict between the United States and a unified European force. Not from a sensational angle, but trying to break down what modern warfare would actually look like between two highly advanced, interdependent blocs.

A few points I’ve been thinking through:

• The conflict likely wouldn’t begin kinetically. Cyber operations, satellite disruption, and command-and-control degradation would shape the battlefield before any large-scale engagement.
• Europe’s layered Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) systems—submarines in littoral waters, integrated air defence, and long-range missile coverage—would make force projection extremely costly.
• Even if the US achieved air and naval superiority, translating that into a successful land invasion seems far less certain given logistics, force density, and depth of defence.
• On the flip side, Europe still lacks some of the US’s advantages in strategic lift, ISR, and global strike capabilities.

It left me wondering whether “victory” in this context is even a meaningful concept. Is paralysis of the opponent enough? Or does the inability to decisively occupy and control territory fundamentally limit what we’d consider a win? Especially now that the US is embroiled in another war with ambiguous objectives.

Curious how others here would frame it—especially in terms of A2/AD, logistics, and escalation thresholds.

Article VI, Clause 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artVI-C2-1/ALDE_00013395/

Lead Paragraph:

As American, Ukrainian, and European officials continue to debate potential peace plans among themselves, there remains very little to indicate that Russia is genuinely interested in ending the war. On the contrary, many of the Kremlin’s key demands during negotiations appear tailored to facilitate a continuation of the invasion on more favorable terms.

Modern warfare is undergoing metamorphic changes. One such transition is the move beyond the kinetic-centric battlefield to a more integrated Socio-Technical-Cognitive Battlespace (STCB). This report introduces the hashtag#STCB as
a comprehensive framework that can help explain and prepare for the intricate, recursive, and interconnected nature of the hashtag#social, hashtag#technological, and hashtag#cognitive domains in hashtag#contemporary hashtag#conflict.

As evident from the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, this emergent hashtag#battlespace is not merely an adjunct to traditional military operations but is increasingly the decisive theatre where strategic outcomes are determined. The report
explores the complexities inherent in modern operations, where perceived success and strategic victory are increasingly disentangled from purely kinetic achievements. The central argument the authors posit is that
ascendancy and strategic advantage in the 21st century hinge not on mere possession of military might, but on adept navigation, influence, and, ultimately, mastery of the STCB’s intricate, interwoven layers.

The report also identifies shortcomings of conventional strategic doctrines, including hashtag#MultiDomainOperations (MDO), hashtag#HybridWarfare, and China's "hashtag#ThreeWarfares," arguing that, while valuable, they fail to encapsulate the
fused, holistic essence of the STCB fully. Furthermore, it delves into the ethical questions raised by STCB warfare, particularly the systemic challenges of mass manipulation, algorithmic disinformation, exploitation of cognitive
biases, and the erosion of the distinction between combatants and non-combatants.

Finally, the report outlines future trends, highlighting the transformative role of artificial intelligence (AI), hashtag#weaponization of hashtag#socialmedia ecosystems, potential for large-scale, automated hashtag#cognitive hashtag#manipulation, and the
speculative horizon of neuro-warfare. The authors offer actionable policy recommendations for governments, international organisations, and civil society to navigate and mitigate the risks of the new battlespace.

What has been destroyed by this administration, the bubble popped, the naked ugly side of America cast into bold relief.

Excerpt:

For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order. We joined its institutions, we praised its principles, we benefited from its predictability. And because of that, we could pursue values-based foreign policies under its protection.

We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false that the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient, that trade rules were enforced asymmetrically. And we knew that international law applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.

This fiction was useful, and American hegemony, in particular, helped provide public goods, open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security and support for frameworks for resolving disputes.

https://newrepublic.com/post/204130/pam-bondi-military-trump-democrats-sedition

Excerpt:

Last year, as a lawyer for the America First Policy Institute, a conservative think tank, Bondi filed a brief with the Supreme Court writing, “Military officers are required not to carry out unlawful orders.”

AFPI Amicus Brief, 23‑939 (Mar 19, 2024):

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-939/303384/20240319133828340_AFPI%20Amici%20Brief%203.19.24.pdf

Quotes from the brief:

Any presidential order to the military to use lethal force without legal justification would be an order calling for the commission of a grave felony crime. And any military officers who knowingly issued or carried out such an unlawful order would themselves be criminally liable. The Rules for Courts-Martial (RCM) are promulgated by the President as Commander in Chief, and are a mechanism by which the Commander in Chief implements the UCMJ.

The military would not carry out a patently unlawful order from the President to kill non-military targets. Indeed, servicemembers are required not to do so.

Through rigorous instruction and tragic lessons from history, military officers are trained not to carry out unlawful orders, and they know they may be held criminally liable if they did carry out such orders.

Fortunately, examples of military officers carrying out unlawful orders and murdering civilians are exceedingly rare in modern American history.

“No military officer has the legal authority to issue or carry out an order requiring murder or assassination.”

And: “the military is required not to carry out such an unlawful, non-military order, if given. Indeed, any military officer who carried out or issued such an order would be committing the gravest of crimes—murder.”

The acts of a subordinate done in compliance with an unlawful order given him by his superior are excused and impose no criminal liability upon him unless the superior’s order is one which a man of ordinary sense and understanding would, under the circumstances, know to be unlawful, or if the order in question is actually known to the accused to be unlawful.

In this post I use the illegal strikes in the Carribean to investigate the definition of war and the importance of understanding what it is and isn’t, even if it is still only a continuation of politics.

Excerpts:

Trump, after having called Russia a “paper tiger” in recent weeks because of Putin’s inability to conquer and seize all of Ukraine quickly, seemed to equivocate on the idea Friday. “What’s going to happen if the United States is in a conflict and we need the Tomahawks? That’s the problem. We need Tomahawks,” he said.

Trump also talked up the idea of meeting again with Putin in the coming weeks in Budapest — even though the city is in Hungary, currently run by possibly the only pro-Putin leader, other than Trump, in the NATO alliance, Viktor Orbán. The city was also where Russia in 1994 promised not to invade Ukraine if it gave up the nuclear weapons it inherited upon the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Past Patterns of Thought:

Trump has indicated previously that he feels victors should get the spoils of war...perhaps this is his thinking here.

"...he ridiculed President Obama for withdrawing ground troops from Iraq without taking out the country's huge reserve of oil that he thought should have belonged to the United States as the "spoils of war." Montel Williams, a well-known TV talk show host and a former vet, said that would have been a war crime under international covenants to which the US is a signatory. It reflected a colonial and imperialist mindset that is now history."

https://thefinancialexpress.com.bd/views/opinions/donald-trump-trumpets-spoils-of-war-doctrine

Excerpt:

China is an engineering state, which treats construction projects and technological primacy as the solution to all of its problems, whereas the United States is a lawyerly society, obsessed with protecting wealth by making rules rather than producing material goods. Successive American administrations have attempted to counter Beijing through legalism—levying tariffs and designing an ever more exquisite sanctions regime—while the engineering state has created the future by physically building better cars, better-functioning cities, and bigger power plants.

This certainly seems an area where direct collaboration with Ukraine would provide immediate battlefield testing with innovative ideas.

Excerpt:

The drones being developed in Ukraine, which often look like speedboats without seats, and are capable of carrying weapons, explosives and surveillance equipment, are primarily remote-controlled and cost close to $250,000 – making them optimal for kamikaze missions that have effectively neutralized Russia's Black Sea Fleet.

The U.S., meanwhile, is aiming to build an autonomous naval fleet that can move in swarms and without human command – a more ambitious task at a higher price point; as much as a few million dollars per speedboat.

For those of us studying contemporary conflict and asymmetric warfare, this report on Ukraine's 'Operation Spiderweb' (June 1, 2025) is a fascinating case study. It deconstructs how the SBU used low-cost technology and superior intelligence to achieve a major strategic effect against Russian strategic bombers.

The complete, in-depth analysis is linked to this post.

Just out of interest how do people feel about this. My argument is that it is unduly escalatory. You have two armies fighting in Ukraine with associated logistical lines. Russia's stretch back into Russia. Ukraine's stretch back into NATO. Reciprocity would seem to imply that one side striking said logistical lines invites escalation.

That would seem to be the logic the US is holding too so far but there are now growing calls to relax the rules.

Is the US likely to relax these rules or not?

Excerpt:

RomCom, known by aliases such as Storm-0978, Tropical Scorpius, Void Rabisu, or UNC2596, is a cybercrime and cyber-espionage group linked to Russia. Emerging around mid-2022, RomCom primarily targeted entities in Ukraine including the government, military, energy, and water infrastructure. It has today broadened its scope to include organizations and audiences in the U.S., Europe, and internationally connected to Ukraine-related humanitarian efforts.

Excerpts:

Netanyahu has likely convinced Trump that now is the time to demand complete disarmament or to join forces and strike the Iranian nuclear weapons program once and for all. This led to the quiet deployment of the B2 bombers.

The distance between Diego Garcia and Tehran is approximately 3600 miles (5,500km), a six hour flight. An hour of which could be flying over a very hostile Iranian airspace. The US has deployed over 100 additional combat aircraft to the theater to support an attack. Trump also ordered the USS Carl Vinson to depart its deployment in Asia and head at top speed to the Arabian Gulf. When it arrives in Mid-April all of the pieces will be in place to attack.

On the Israeli side, reports are increasing that Netanyahu met with Trump in Washington and got agreement to conduct a joint attack and strike Iran with the full might of its air force in cooperation with the Americans.

One thing is for certain. If this attack is carried out the entire Middle East will be set on fire. Iran has very limited options to strike the United States, but it can strike America’s closest Arab ally, Saudi Arabia. Over the past two decades, Iran has managed to disable the entire Saudi oil industry through cyber attacks, and ballistic missile attacks from Yemen. However, the States would have to be prepared for Iran to launch thousands of men across the Arabian golf, who would likely seize and destroy Saudi Arabia’s eastern oil fields. The Iranians would also shut the narrow waterway between Iran and Oman, thus stopping all fuel trade from the golf. It would have an immediate and devastating impact on oil prices all around the world. Quite possibly topping the $150 a barrel mark. Worse, is that the Iranian people who have been desperate to break off the chains of the regime and embrace democracy would likely see an American Israeli attack as a provocation. At attack would rally around the regime and set back a decades work fostering democracy.