The Guardian reported this headline last night:
US pauses Iran attacks for second night after Trump advised to halt bombing
Top military officials say campaign has reached its limit of effectiveness and warn of dwindling stocks of munitions
The report itself added:
Senior officials in the Trump administration are reported to have told the president about dwindling munitions stockpiles that could hamper a sustained military campaign in the region.
Axios reported on Sunday that Adm Bradley Cooper, the top US military commander in the region, had told Trump the US military campaign had reached the limits of its effectiveness.
There is, of course, more to the halt in combat operations than this, but the fact that this is reported is of interest for three reasons.
First, the weaponry is running out. Modern manufacturing and budgets cannot keep up with the capacity of modern warfare to destroy armaments.
Second, it is reported that the military has also advised that there are few targets left to bomb unless an invasion is being considered, and it clearly is not.
Third, as a result, this war is grinding to a halt again, as is that in Ukraine.
Several thoughts follow.
First, Trump's rhetoric and capacity to act have not, as ever, coincided.
Second, if this ability to deplete munitions well before physical violence delivers what those starting it think to be desired outcomes is real, and it seems to be, what does this say about any state's ability to now wage war?
Third, why in that case have we become so paranoid about increasing defence spending when it is clear that the prospects of war, let alone successful war, are actually quite low unless we assume very high degrees of irrationality on the part of those promoting it?
Fourth, should we not, instead, be learning the lessons from this and be reflecting on how to resolve conflict in very different ways, or even to end the reason for it arising? Do we, and does NATO, or any other alliance of which we are a supposed part, need to rethink the whole concept of security anew in that case when it is apparent that war, as currently technically delivered, can clearly resolve nothing?
Would it not, in other words, be advisable to be more than a little curious about alternative diplomatic, foreign and defence policies at this moment in a world where pathways to peace are essential if we are to resolve the bigger issues that we face, such as climate change, the real threat from which is clearly growing by the day?
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!
While I agree wholeheartedly, I don’t think Trump thinks there’s any profit in peace.
Thanks, you just put this into my head!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ythCSNqa3gA
Very good
Perhaps war (particularly this war, initiated and strategised so incompetently, by such an evil deranged man) is the best illustration of the truth of MMT.
It isn’t money Trump’s government has run out of, but weapons, and material resources.
Correct
“dwindling stocks of munitions”………on the US and Israeli side. Which begs the question, although the USA claims to have “run out of targets” what is the stock of missiles & drones on the Iran side? What might Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States (on the front line as it were) be saying to the USA? What has Russia supplied to Iran in terms of fibre-controlled drones? The “big stuff” might be over, but I suspect there is a long tail to this which will play out not just in the Persian Gulf but the Red Sea and Lebanon and Syria (both of which Israel has invaded for “security reasons” – how does invading a neighbour improve your “security” I wonder).
I think you are right
The fat lady is a long way from singing as yet
A most timely and significant post. Thank you. All that you say takes me back to President Eisenhower’s valedictory warning of the danger of the military/industrial complex. We seem to be seeing this played out right now with ridiculous claims that defence spending must increase significantly at the expense of public welfare and public services. In my view, the question that needs to be constantly asked of those promoting these claims is why? What will another military white elephant like aircraft carriers and a replacement for Trident actually achieve in an era of asymmetric war and cheap but effective drones? This then leads on to another related question: who will profit from the increased spending? I am sure we all know only too well. As Private Eye frequently documents, the revolving door between the military (and ex-ministers) and the arms industry reveals just how we, as taxpayers, are being taken for fools. Now, however, as both Trump and Putin have shown, there are clear limits to the efficacy of modern warfare. This obsession with increased defence spending is as pernicious as the household budget falsehood yet we are currently being deafened by the calls from the political class (and mainstream media) for more and more money for “defence”. There is also a deeper set of questions: just what are we defending, why should the pubic accept sacrifices to defend a system that has done so much harm to them and what would happen if the public turned a deaf ear to all those calls (especially those that suggest conscription)?
Much to agree with
“Would it not, in other words, be advisable to be more than a little curious about alternative diplomatic, foreign and defence policies at this moment in a world where pathways to peace are essential”<p>
Very much so Richard – but our politicians are sending out no signals whatsoever that they appreciate diplomatic alternatives to war are essential<p>
The reason is pretty obvious – as in 1984, we always need an ‘enemy’ to keep the population in line – and to continue the flow of money into the military industrial complex
I hate to say it, but uch to agree with
My concern in addition to the comments above is that considering some of the fundamentalist nutters that surround Trump, a limited nuclear option becomes a reality.
Once upon a time I had a job with connections to the US nuclear deterrent. An American civilian contractor to the US Navy told me there were plenty of Americans who would be happy to see the Middle East turned into a “glass carpark”.
From where I’m looking, the POTUS is simply the monkey. There’s a whole psse of organ-grinders, some of whom don’t believe in climate change, others think themselves insulated enough not to care, and all are making tons of money. But the chaos is designed, and not a by-product.
I agree with Martin E that the increase in “Defence” spending, as proposed by our new PM, no doubt to be facilitated by his war-mongering Chancellor, will chiefly enrich the arms manufacturers and their shareholders. I agree with Richard that the effectiveness of war is in question, which raises the often used term of the “war” in Gaza. It is of course no such thing, and if it is, it has failed, since the Palestinian cause is not diminished, only the population of the Palestinians. As a Genocide though, it is progressing endlessly, seemingly with the full approval of Burnham and his cabinet of Labour Friends of Israel supporters. It would seem that a chief purpose of increased weapons manufacture is to facilitate genocide, not only in Gaza, but increasingly in Lebanon. I am aware that other genocides are in progress.
I understand that arms provision is slewing to the mass-production of drones. We are seeing this in Iran, in Sudan and of course Ukraine. Advances in AI, and the emergence (already) of rogue entities which have broken all constraints and attacked other AI outfits with a ferocity way beyond the most experienced hackers’ ability leads me to speculate that one real (if seemingly far-fetched) danger is the possibility of AI controlled killer drones operating outwith human oversight. Or the more feasible threat of cyber attacks, driven and controlled by AI, which in themselves could be quite devastating.
I dare say that plenty of government spending will be directed this way, along with all the tanks, planes, aircraft carriers, and nuclear submarines which are rapidly becoming irrelevant but which we “need” to project the size of the government’s cojones.
Diplomacy may well be the only answer. Though its present use seems to attacking the ICC.
I would suggest that in conjunction with this post, people read Aurelien – ‘And It Goes On… We don’t get to say when it stops’. Either on Substack or Brave New Europe:
https://braveneweurope.com/geopolitics/aurelien-and-it-goes-on-we-dont-get-to-say-when-it-stops/
This is an analysis of essentially why the west is so far from reality when dealing with current conflicts – Ukraine and Iran – and why the west has no control over the outcome of either.
It is very good.
A few points as I write this on the run:
Aurelian makes more than a few excellent points – then again he does have a brain the size of a small planet.
Resilience is critical, which in the military context requires depth of capability, both offensive and defensive. Offensive capability means firepower – for decades the West has focused on manoeuvre, the deployment and movement of relative mass aimed at dislocating the enemy and decisively defeating them.
The Russians and Iranians fully understand resilience, especially firepower. Resilience comes at a cost, which both Russia and Iran are willing to bear and which gives them a significant degree of depth. Neoliberal western societies do not understand resilience in our wonderful world of just in time. This is not restricted to the realm of military affairs.
Aurelian references missile defences. There is trouble brewing in the US – Congressional hearings possibly incoming. The kill rate of the Patriot PAC 3 missile defence system has proved to be disappointing. The kill rate was stated to be 90% against ballistic missiles. Theodore Postol, a professor of science and international security at MIT, was recently interviewed on the YouTube channel of Professor Glenn Diesen, the Norwegian political scientist. Postol’s analysis of footage of missile attacks in Israel and the Gulf States postulated an actual hit rate of 3%. Patriot – decent against fast jets and low velocity rockets such as MLRS or HIMARS, but not so good against medium range ballistic missiles and completely useless against hypersonic missiles. PAC 3 – $4 million per missile. PAC 2 comes in at $1 million per missile, but is even less capable.
Diesen is a very knowledgeable YouTube host and the people he interviews are usually able to give a first class perspective of the current state of global politics https://www.youtube.com/@GDiesen1
Your point on resilience is well made. However, it has not worked out so well for Russia. It has burned through most of its tanks (12,000+ gone) and dead & injured are running at more than 40,000 per month, By end August the total will be 1.5 million. One reason why North Korea is sending troops (& I suppose to give those that survive some combat experience – useful for north-south reunification). Aurelian’s assertion that “the west can never fight an attrition war against Russia” goes against the facts. Ukraine is fighting an attrition war – which has e.g. eliminated most of Russia’s tank stockpile. I could continue at length size of Russia (is that an advantage if you have to protect very distributed assets?) vs Ukraine. etc. Where I agree is that it is difficult to see how the Russia – Ukraine war will finish. Developments in Crimea (cut off & no fuel) may provide some clues.
I have not been able to think of a nation which has recently won a war which actually benefited its ordinary citizens. Any suggestions?
None.