DeansMusings

In my last article I had speculated on three options the US had when a ceasefire was first declared. Of those, they exercised the second option -  `The Blockades and negotiations continue’. I had stated:  This will be an endurance test between the ability of Iran’s economy to survive without oil revenues and price rises in the rest of the world Iran war 2026 - Part 1 The US assumption behind their counter blockade, was based on two assumptions: 1. Iran will be deprived of oil revenue which will collapse their economy. 2. If Iran cannot store the oil they are extracting, they have to stop extraction, which will render their oil wells unusable for months (in some cases longer).   These assumptions have been amplified by President Trump’s tweets saying for e.g. that `in three days, the Iranian oil industry will blow up’ referring presumably to the collapse of oil wells, if production is stopped. There have also been several statements about Iran `being broke’, specifi...

 In this series, a criticism I often get in the feedback I receive, is that I am confident about a Russian victory and believe they are performing better than Ukraine. My view, through this series, based on data from both sides was prescient : - While Russia did not have a plan B, after their initial advance in 2022 and the failure of the Istanbul       talks, Russia was also not going to collapse /run out of equipment /implode economically, in 2022 and   2023 – that assumption was NATO’s strategic error.   - The Ukrainian counter offensive failed and the Kursk incursion was   mistake. - Russian armaments production was outpacing losses and was able to equip new formations & - Russia was at peak strength in 2025 and its position relative to Ukraine would only improve, making it   necessary for Ukraine to seek a peace deal in 2025. Russia would achieve its territorial objectives by the end of 2026. Over time, data from both sides began ...