As expected. The only thing that truly surprises me is that it took three months before we got here.
I've already seen the Deadline broadcast. It hasn't been recorded yet, but I've seen it, because I've seen it for twenty years. Two experts, a moderator who nods slowly, and an analysis that was finished before the first bomb fell.
And notice the construction when you watch, because it is in its own way perfect.
If the strait remains closed, Trump has destabilised the region. If it opens, it would have happened anyway, and the price was too high.
If oil prices rise, ordinary people are paying for his hubris. If they fall, it's a disturbing signal of Western dominance in the Middle East.
If the regime survives, the attacks have failed and only strengthened the hardliners in Tehran. If the regime falls, the attacks have created a power vacuum worse than everything that came before.
A country can lose its air defence, its navy, its radars and most of its offensive capacity and still "have the upper hand" in the studio at 22.30. Because what "the upper hand" means is not determined in the Strait of Hormuz. It's determined in the analysis's starting point, and the starting point is fixed and has been fixed for a long time -
The US loses, and Iran wins any minute now.
That's how it sounded when Soleimani was killed, and World War III was two weeks away. That's how it sounded again and again, every time reality went the other way, and every time without anyone in the studio afterwards being asked to explain why. 🤷
It's not analysis. An analysis has an outcome it can be wrong about. This has none. You can feed the Machine victory or defeat, open straits or closed, falling or rising prices, and it excretes the same conclusion, because the conclusion never depended on reality.
The experts are never wrong.
It's reality that keeps being wrong about them.
🤓
Anyways.
We must hope it succeeds.
That would be Good.
