I was not surprised to see The Guardian noting this overnight:
Donald Trump has extended his deadline for Iran to open the strait of Hormuz by 10 days to 6 April after saying talks are “going very well”.
The president made the statement on Thursday in a social media post, saying: “As per Iranian Government request, please let this statement serve to represent that I am pausing the period of Energy Plant destruction by 10 Days to Monday, April 6, 2026, at 8 P.M., Eastern Time,” Trump said on his Truth Social platform.
I watched Trump's media performance yesterday at the organised exercise in sycophancy that his regime likes to describe as Cabinet meetings, and thought I was looking at a very frightened man. The enormity of what he has threatened to do has, I think, dawned upon him, and that he has rowed back from it is unsurprising.
I also doubt that there are any substantive talks in progress between the USA and Iran. It is very apparent that I am far from being of that opinion. The reason is obvious: there would appear to be no strategic advantage to Iran in being engaged in such a process at present, when it has a very clear upper hand in this war, which it still appears capable of maintaining despite the onslaught it has suffered.
For Trump, something almost unknown is happening: he is not getting what he wants. The ultimate spoiled man-brat has demanded, and Iran is refusing to give. Totally unaware that this might happen, Trump has issued his threats, and nothing has changed. Now he is out of his depth because his experience has left him unprepared for this possibility, and others are preparing cover for it, including by making claims about talks in which he is not in any way directly engaged. The feeding of misinformation to a 'leader' to prevent a tantrum is a well-known management technique, after all. Ken Galbraith discussed it 60 years ago in 'The New Industrial State'. I think this is happening. Trump believes that misinformation and is relying on it. In itself, that is dangerous.
The question is, where does this lead? Talks that are not taking place cannot serve as the excuse Trump will eventually need for inaction, which I believe he has now realised is the only possible course of action he can adopt. At some point, that will become apparent. I just hope that when it does, another excuse for backing away from an escalation can be created for him.
The reality is that Trump has discovered the US military-industrial complex is not as powerful as he or we thought, making the US empire very vulnerable. Alongside that, its real major ally, in the form of Israel, is also losing its power to intimidate. If the US ceases to roar, as seems likely, Israel will no longer be able to bite.
Four weeks ago, when this war started, writing those words would have been unimaginable. The expectation was that Iran would crumble, having run out of weapons as a result of the onslaught it faced long before it could put an effective block on traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. Now they appear to be the only reasonable conclusion to reach based on the evidence of what is happening, and the apparent terror that is shaping Trump‘s behaviour.
It remains almost impossible to predict what will happen as a result, but one thing can be said: everything appears to have changed.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
John Meirscheimer, Scott Ritter, Larry Elliott, Col Douglas Macgregor et all respected US commentators (regular interviews on YouTube) have been saying this for the past year. Trump has been conned into this by Bibi and the lobby. Iran too big a country and has too many missiles to be taken by force, it’sin their interest to prolong this. The Empire is on the way out.
Speaking of empires on the way out, I’ve just seen this article in this morning’s National https://www.thenational.scot/news/25972285.britain-must-move-away-defence-reliance-us-mps-warn/
It begins:
“BRITAIN must “move away” from its reliance on the United States for defence and security, MPs and peers have warned, amid continued transatlantic tensions.
In a report published on Friday, the Westminster Parliament’s Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy (JCNSS) said the UK should continue to collaborate with the US “where practical”.
But it warned the Government should prepare for a “worst-case scenario” in which Europe could no longer rely on US support in a crisis”.
Given what’s going on at the moment, I dread to think what that “worst-case scenario” would be.
The Report later says: “As well as creating a more European-focused Nato, the committee recommended the Government pursue stronger relations with “middle powers” such as Australia, India and Canada.
The recommendation follows a speech by Canadian prime minister Mark Carney at Davos in January, in which he called for “middle powers” to work together in the face of “an era of great power rivalry”.
It seems to me that the problem with that is it would require Britain admitting to being a middle power.
Apologies if this is too far O/T
Any Defence system is developed over very long timescales, from initial statement of need to entry into service.; think in decades. Politicians on both sides of the Atlantic will come and go a number of times, so defence policy needs to take account of this. Trump has, in my view, now destroyed the trust needed for the UK to rely on US for anything.
It is also worth noting that defence policy needs to support the UK’s Foreign policy aims. Thus the UK needs to be realistic about what it could do, and what it must do. The current wars are also showing the need to rethink what equipment is actually needed.
For example, I saw reference to the YKJ-1000 Hypersonic Missile costs $100,00o and is stored and is operated from a standard 20ft transport container. Range 500–1,300 km (310–808 miles). Speed Mach 5–7. Data obtained using DeepSeek.
Apparently it is being manufactured now by the Beijing-based private aerospace company Lingkong Tianxing Technology. This seems to me to be game-changing in so may ways. Do we have a capability to neuter this weapon? This extremely low price is achieved by using automotive-grade chips, civilian-grade materials, and existing mass-manufacturing supply chains rather than expensive, specialized military components. (Is this its Achilles heel?)
(Note: I have change my name from Rich to Rich S in line with the policy changes)
It’s rather like the board game “Risk” but one where Trump can only throw 1s 2s and 3s on his dice whilst Iran keeps throwing 4s 5s and 6s.
🙂
“I also doubt that there are any substantive talks in progress between the USA and Iran. It is very apparent that I am far from being of that opinion.”
? replace of with: alone in
That was written at 6am. Apologies. Nuevonbthe A1
I fear that we are about to see the desperate thrashing around of an overindulged bully who has lurched into a charm of his own making. Iran is playing by different rules and the same asymmetric methods that are reaping havoc on the unfortunate Russian front line troops will cause a bloodbath when Trump sends the Marines in.
Basic geography is on Iran’s side and the population is being pushed unwillingly into the arms of the Revolutionary Guards to defend their homeland.
The only question is how can the US get out and who is going to tell Trump before he unleashes armageddon? I wish I could be more optimistic.
Chasm not charm!!!!
A note of caution about the ‘respected’ commentators. Mearsheimer is quite good on the Middle East but IMO he doesn’t seem to understand Russian speaking Ukrainians may not want to belong to the Russian Federation. Alexander Stubb, Finnish President, has a U-tube video ‘Why Mearsheimer is wrong”-about Putin and his aims. As Stubb was involved in some of the events, it is worth a watch.
Scott Ritter was an arms inspector and one of the first to say Saddam Hussein did not have nuclear weapons. He is, however, convicted of sexual offences. This may not affect his strategic judgement. However, days before the Russian invasion he claimed there would be no invasion, but if there was, Europe would just roll over and the Russian forces were superior to NATO forces. All wrong.
Colonel Macgregor has a good record a tactician. But he has VERY right wing ideas, so much so that the Senate would not approve Trump’s nomination to be ambassador to Germany.
Alexander Marcouris is another commentator. Formally on RT advocating Brexit, he now runs a site which one could fairly say is pro-Russian and anti-US. There are reasons to oppose much of American foreign policy of course, but any judgement needs to be balanced. A number of people post on his site ‘thank you for telling us the truth that main stream media will not”.
I suspect that is part of the appeal ‘that we know more than you lot out there”.
As for Netanyahu’s influence on US policy, I would broadly agree. Whether it will bring down the empire, i don’t know.
I agree with everything said here and just wanted to add that I have been very surprised to see the range of commenters out there siding with both Russia and Iran in these two conflicts. To me, the similarities between Russia’s attack on Ukraine and the US/Israel attack on Iran seem obvious and numerous. Both illegal, both claimed, falsely in my opinion, as self defence, and both stupendously mis-judged. I have almost felt as though I’m going mad watching people who support Russia 100% in its attack on Ukraine pointing out the illegitimacy of the US attack without an ounce of irony. It makes me question the analysis the likes of Mearsheimer et al deliver on Iran given how wrong I believe they are on Russia.
I have for some time thought that leaders like Putin and Trump, who are utterly self interested to the point of narcissism, make such mistakes exactly because of who they are. Leaders who lack empathy lack the emotional imagination to consider how those they try to victimise could oppose them. Of course those with empathy would probably also not launch wars of choice at all, but the point is they cannot conceive the opponent has agency to oppose and not just succumb. JD Vance and others have recently been arguing that empathy is weakness. How wrong they are.
The historic assumption was that overwhelming might will win. What Ukraine and Iran have shown is that numeric and equipment superiority is not a guarantee of success. Both have shown that the defensive force is far more motivated to keep going and has knowledge of the area to exploit weaknesses. The result is that a substantial theoretical power differential does not translate to success.
Further, as hostilities continue, the defending force can maintain its desire to defend for longer on the basis of protecting ‘their country’, while the citizens of the invading force may more readily sour on the expense of war and question its necessity, and only a strict control over the media averts that.
The hope is that more countries recognise this core difference in will and ultimately learn that invading another country, particularly ending up in a drawn-out war, is likely to be more costly than they expect, and are deterred from creating new hostilities.
Trump has a bloody nose on this one, and with this Pete Hegseth has done more to prove Trump is NOT the ‘anointed by Jesus’ than perhaps anything else Trump has backed to date. Of course, since they have been entirely unclear about their military objectives, it is only a matter of time before Trump declares ‘job done’, claims victory, and walks away from the mess claiming everything worked out ‘perfectly’. The only question is how many of MAGA see through that (unfortunately many won’t).
They may also have realised that the US Marines on their way in ships will have to travel through the Straits of Hormuz if they wish to invade Kharg Island.
Could be ‘interesting’.
Prof Robert A. Pape of Chicago believes that Trump, his acolytes, the US military are falling into what he calls the escalation trap in a similar way the US did with Vietnam. They have underestimated Iran, the bombing, decapitation, regime change have not worked. Sending over 20000 troops to the region is more escalation by the US.
Talks are supposed to start. Pape warns the Vietcong were happy to talk for five years and did not budge. Iran will say that they will not talk to Kushner/Witoff and realistically would you trust the word of the US now?
Pape says the hard core Trump support will accept US troop deaths etc and continue to back Trump. He has been attending rallies etc and researching.
His concern is the mid term elections and who actually takes their Congress seats in Jan 20227. Bannon is saying ICE will protect the vote by keeping the ballot boxes in their custody.
Economically the lack of helium, sulphur, nitrogen, aviation fuel, gas, refined oil etc is having an instant impact on the Asian economy. It will hit the West shortly.
Will the West choose to properly make the long term pivot to sustainability? Neoliberlism has shown it is incapable of change.
Of course we can afford the change if we have the will to do so.
Richard :’ US military-industrial complex is not as powerful as he or we thought, making the US empire very vulnerable. Alongside that, its real major ally, in the form of Israel, is also losing its power to intimidate'<p>
But as you say – it’s unpredictable. Trump shows signs of retreating, but he is sending more troops – so he may well double down and go for broke.<p>
On R4, there was some academic who had studied the first world war – which was never intended as such – and was going to be over ‘by Christmas’, and showed how a small war can so easily spread out of control.<p>
Trump is the last person you would want to be where he is in this situation. Lets hope that TACO remains true.