Conrad Black

The isolationists have a reasonable argument. And while I think they are wrong, the proof is in the shellacking. But this is another strawman argument.

The claim that the MOU cost Republicans the midterms is certainly debatable. But the argument is not that Americans punished Republicans because Trump's pursuit of an offramp with Iran was, itself, unpopular. Gas prices and the prospect of another Middle East quagmire were unpopular.

The MOU argument is that it gave Iran a two-month grace period, during which there were virtually no strikes and the regime was permitted to export 80 million barrels of oil, putting roughly $6 billion into its coffers and buying itself another six to ten months of runway. Then, having replenished its war chest, it could return to what had been its strategy all along: inflicting oil-shock inflation on ordinary Americans through higher prices at the pump and in the grocery store.

The IRGC used the isolationist right and the Democrats as the ICBM to deliver the warhead of energy-price shocks directly into the heart of America. The factions opposed to the Iran campaign, despite having no intentional coordination and often acting for entirely different reasons, ended up working to the regime's benefit.

The argument that the MOU cost Republicans the midterms is that, had the US tightened the screws rather than offered an offramp the regime had no intention of taking in good faith, it could have maintained the pressure, broken the regime's back, declared victory and moved into a containment phase. Instead, it gave the IRGC time and money to regroup and continue the economic warfare it had been waging against the American public.

Think of a prizefighter pummeling his opponent and just as he is about to deliver the knockout punch, he decides to give the other fighter a nice long breather in the middle of the round, allowing him to recover before the fight resumes. The breather enabled the opponent to last another few rounds. That, in essence, is the MOU argument.

Intelligent people can disagree. But we should at least be clear about what we're actually disagreeing with.

Premier Wab Kinew’s call to abolish the Indian Act of 1876 has usefully exposed the unresolved contradictions in what is termed “Reconciliation.”

The related label “First Nations” is itself imprecise. Many of the groups in question are small, historically fluid communities rather than nations in any conventional sense. Ritual acknowledgments of unpronounceable and largely unknown groups before public events further illustrate the gap between symbolic practice and institutional reality.

A central unanswered question remains: how many people of authentic Indigenous ancestry actually prefer to live under hereditary forms of governance, and how many would prefer meaningful cultural continuity combined with full participation in the broader Canadian economy and society. The incentives of existing leadership structures are clear. The preferences of the wider population have never been systematically tested.

It's time to stop with the symbolic deference, and start serving the interests of Indigenous Canadians.

This may sound controversial in the post-Iraq era, but the American people are not historically averse to war. For better or worse, war is and will always be an integral part of that great nation’s origin, history, culture and mythos. Roughly one in four U.S. presidents reached the rank of general, and more than two-thirds served in the military. Servicemen and women are still revered as heroes in most parts of the country and thanked sincerely and at every opportunity for their service. But Americans do not like to lose. Their non-negotiable preconditions for war are that it be just and that it be won. The Iran conflict is just, and in order to preserve his legacy, which history will treat far more kindly than contemporary assessments do, Donald Trump must win it.

The truth about Iran and the midterms

conradblack.substack.com/p/part-4-the-t…

If you take a look at the full picture, some of your observations are valid. But the regime is teetering on the brink of financial collapse.

Iran's oil-export revenue, previously worth approximately $45 billion annually, is being strangled. Oil accounts for roughly 40% of government revenue, and projections show that oil export income will fall to zero by mid-December.

Iran's economy is projected to contract by 5.4% this year, with inflation approaching 70%. Roughly 80% of Iranians oppose the Islamic Republic. And flooding the streets with imported Iraqi death squads to pacify peaceful opposition, while leading the country over the cliff of cataclysmic economic disaster, is not doing wonders for its popularity.

Iran's only effective weapon of retaliation is to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, its own most vital trade route. It is a desperate strategy that amounts to embargoing and laying siege to itself.

The regime has played all its cards. Meanwhile, the US, for admirable humanitarian reasons, has refrained from inflicting maximal damage on the regime to avoid harm to the civilian population. But it retains the ability to escalate dramatically at any time, including through the destruction of essential infrastructure, roads, bridges and electrical grids.

A cost assessment shows that the United States has incurred approximately $47 billion in military costs and 23 deaths, only 11 classified as resulting from hostile action. The projected cost of sustaining the operation is around $30 billion annually, less than half of one percent of federal spending, with no ground invasion or occupation. With US bases located within Iran's strike zone evacuated, casualties should be limited.

Global oil production is adapting. Gulf ports, pipelines and alternative export routes are expanding, and Middle East exports have recovered to more than three-quarters of pre-war levels.

Iran's ability to finance its network of foreign proxies is also coming under enormous pressure as its principal source of foreign currency disappears.

For perspective: Iran has a roughly $300 billion economy and is losing access to an oil-export stream worth $45 billion a year. The United States has a $33 trillion economy and can sustain an ongoing military operation, with no boots on the ground, for approximately $30 billion annually.

Who wins that war of attrition?

Name me one military conflict in the history of modern warfare, between advanced combatants, that has been more successful. The only contenders are the Six-Day War and Desert Storm, and both involved either higher death tolls, higher expenditure, or both.