No, in the sense that he people who set oil prices and government policy alike can trade in those prediction markets. I'm all for the markets, very democratic and libertarian (not that I'm one), but policy makers, executives and other people from whom a conflict of interest by a prediction market translates into disaster for real people should be restricted from participating in these markets.
In this case however you can pretty much do the same thing with other financial instruments like future contract on oil. Either way, I agree decision makers shouldn't be allowed to trade (and I think are forbidden in most countries).
You can do the same with proper financial instruments, but there are insider trading laws that prevent those people with insider knowledge from profiting, but these markets have no such restrictions.
They randomly shoot in all directions but they also managed to hit some things (e.g. the US installation in Kuwait and a US radar) that are probably actual legit targets. But yes, hotels, apartment buildings, (civilian) airports, container ships etc. are high on the list of things hit.
The CBC hasn't done any good reporting in the last decade that I can tell. They just copy-paste from news agencies based on their ideological principles or something.
You can definitely get some color on YouTube. Iran is fighting back but that's not what's going to decide the war (e.g. the damage to Israel or to the Gulf states). They are taking a lot more damage then they're dishing out and the scale of their counters goes down every day. The straits are a very different story since it doesn't take much to threaten the ships to the extent nobody wants to take a chance. One drone, or mine, or a missile, and the straits are closed. Even if the US and Israel are able to pretty much completely suppress Iranian attacks on Israel and the Gulf states the straits might remain closed.
Everyone says there's no historical examples but there is no exact parallel either. I wouldn't argue based on historical precedence here.
The challenge is that regime is large and armed and they can hide and weather the storm. They'll hide in hospitals, and mosques, and schools and amongst civilians.
Getting them and disrupting their organization to a point where a popular revolt can take over seems ... lessay hard.
What needs to happen is that some parts of the military, who are a bit less fanatic, switches sides. The probability of that is very hard to gauge. There are stories of some defecting but hard to know if it's true or not.
> What needs to happen is that some parts of the military, who are a bit less fanatic, switches sides.
Then they need to drive the rest out of the country, and then keep them out forever, regardless of whatever chaos, instability, and misery arise within the country.
Not really. Most people will just switch sides. There aren't that many people for whom fighting to the death with other Iranians is a goal. If the 10% can control the 90% today then the 90% will have no problem controlling the 10%.
Do you know many people that live in Iran today? You're making bold claims about their loyalty and aspirations, though if that's first or second hand I'd be very interested to hear more.
Historical precedent is important with regards to predictability. We have no idea if simply bombing them to hell will be enough for regime change, while we do know that there is some lower bound of military involvement on the ground that would have likely success with that goal.
Personally I don't see how an air campaign alone can lead to any regime change we'd actually want to see. We are all being told the Iranian public is a cohesive unit with a strong majority wanting to go back to 1978, I don't buy it.
The only likely outcomes I see, if the regime is changed at all, is a military coup with even worse people coming in, a very bloody civil war, or a faction in the country we never hear about taking over quickly by promising the world to the public. For the last one, I'd expect that to be a group more akin to the Nazis than some group that actually means well for Iranians.
The UK population was _very_ weary of Churchill and his decision to involve the UK in WW2. You had the UK nazi party that was lobbying the industrialists, and the moscow-aligned communist party that was putting pressure on the laborers. Churchill would have lasted at most half a year after Dunkerque, and and much more pro-nazi PM could have been named. But the German airstrike campaign radicalised the UK population. Because the fucking Nazis couldn't bear to have decisions like 'who to bomb' taken by non-nazi, they replaced all the capable men with idiots yesmen.
So 90% of British wanted were being brutally oppressed on the eve of WW2 and called on the Nazis to bomb the UK so they can overthrow the government? Not only that but weeks before the Nazi attacks the UK government mowed down protestors with machine guns on the streets?
Got it.
I'm not seeing any parallels.
There can be some "rally to the flag" effect but the Iranian population by large is not going to suddenly like their government.
But to turn the story around a little. Do you see Americans rallying around Trump if the Iranians attack some high profile US targets?
No. 80% of the British wanted to avoid war with Germany, for different reasons, and 15% even voted for someone whose main campaign idea was an alliance with them. The bombing campaign radicalised the vast majority of British voters, even those in less affected areas.
(Btw, the only recent documented instance of machine gun mowing down people is Saudi police mowing down Somali workers).
60% of the Iranian population polled were against the bombing during the 12 day war, bombing that, unlike this one, didn't break too much civilian infrastructure (targeting desalination plants is something I thought even Russia wouldn't do, but well, I shouldn't hold US army and Tsahal to the same standards). And that's with most observers saying that only 20-25% of the population support the regime in 'normal' time.
You had thousands dead, 50k people in prison waiting for the death penalty, a leader on his deathbed, and rather than waiting for the internal tensions between army branches to break the regime, the US chose to martyr the almost dead, suffering leader, consolidating his successor power, and eliminating and opposition in the more laical army. Nice fucking job. Now the army and the clerical police are aligned.
Even when you organize and plan correctly a regime change, a few unlucky breaks and you create a Lybia. Going there gung-ho was truly a spectacular choice, and managed to put Komenei son in place without any power struggles that could have been instrumentalized.
I can argue both sides but under the assumption (which I think is true) that 80%-90% of Iranians want to remove the regime there's some possibility of success. That said there's also the possibility of screwing things up completely and getting the entire population to fight you as an invader.
One thing for sure, it's not going to look like Russia invading Ukraine. The Iranians don't have the resolve or the support or the capabilities that Ukraine had and has. It will look more like Iraq in terms of the ability of the military to put up any resistance.
The problem with "boots on the ground" isn't that it can't succeed. The problem is it has zero support from the American public. People feel about this a lot more strongly than the other topics dividing the public.
Iranian polls show that 20-25%
Iranians living in Iran support the IRGC, but due to how the questions were formulated, you can't know who would support a regime change.
Polls after the 12 day bombing campaign in 2025 showed that 60% disapproved the bombing. That means you probably have at least a 40% base of support for active overthroing, growing, to change the regime, which is larger than the current supporters. Maybe you could have done something with it. Wait until the previous Komenei died of his cancer instead of martyring him, and wait for the new nomination and the protests that would follow to strike (decapitation of the morality police, species to open the prisons, etc).
The way it was done just feels like the US wanted chaos and death, not meaningful change.
The core of the problem is that the US stepped back under Obama from being the guarantor of global order. The world needs policing and deterrence is the sad reality otherwise everything goes to hell.
Why did Russia attack Ukraine? Why is China threatening to attack Taiwan? Without the US (and the west more generally) Russia would retake half of Europe and China would have taken Taiwan. If you think there would be world peace you are so very much mistaken (speaking of propaganda). If you goal is to speak Russian and Chinese and live in those sorts of regimes then that's very much aligned with the US and the West just stepping back and not using force ever.
> The core of the problem is that the US stepped back under Obama from being the guarantor of global order.
That is not the core of the problem. We can go a bit further:
- Obama was a reaction to overstepping under Bush. As a 'guarantor of global order' the US created a lot of disorder with Iraq and Afganistan. That is actually more in line with what historically the US understands under 'the global order': the US does what it wants to do and calls it the global order.
- also the relative standing of the US since the end of the 90s is falling, because of the rise of other countries. That was widely expected and forecasted. What was also expected is that empires on their way out don't act rationally, because there is ample historical precendent to that. And so here we are.
You're not wrong but neither am I. Both of these factors are relevant as is the break up of the USSR. And maybe even climate change. And globalization?
I'm not sure I would use the term "empire" to refer to the USA. It was for some time the world's only "super power" and it is still by far the strongest and most able to project power conventional military.
Whether or not it's "on its way out" - history will tell. Maybe? If it is I would claim this is more about internal forces than geopolitical ones (or internal forces influenced by geopolitics). Maybe that's also typical.
I would still say that when there is no policing the world goes to hell and there's not going to magically be "peace" by the USA not intervening. And yes, Iraq and Afghanistan were not great examples of how interventions can be followed by political gains. But- those interventions may have acted as deterrence anyways. Iraq took Kuwait by force. With no intervention why wouldn't they take all the Gulf states? It's easy to critique what happened but we also don't know what alternatives existed.
Keeping the world a peaceful place seems to require at least the threat of violence. Definitely given the composition of the world today. A threat that's never acted upon loses credibility. Too many Putins in this world who would invade and murder others at the blink of an eye if they feel that can gain them something.
> I'm not sure I would use the term "empire" to refer to the USA.
the UN was created in New York mostly by the US, the dollar is the world's reserve and international trade currency, the main distinguishing point of other countries foreign politics is their relationship with the US, there are US army bases all over the world, english is the lingua franca (yes, partly carried over from the British empire, but still) etc.
> I would still say that when there is no policing the world goes to hell
and with the current policing it's going to hell too.
> there's not going to magically be "peace" by the USA not intervening
yes of course
> Iraq took Kuwait by force.
That was in 1991 and it was indeed the right reaction at the time but as the realists say it is quite doubtful we would see the same reaction in an oilless region.
> But- those interventions may have acted as deterrence anyways.
No. By the US ignoring the rules they helped to establish (2nd Iraq war) they helped to codify 'might makes right' as the only real rule and as a consequence both Israel and Russia knew they won't be stopped by the international rule based order. So we got Russia bombing and annexing parts of Georgia in 2008 (no reaction), annexing parts of Ukraine in 2014 (no reaction) and starting an all-out war in 2022 (finally some reaction but too little too late and now the US is more a friend of Russia anyway), and Israel genociding and expanding their lebensraum without any consequences whatsoever.
Israel is very much a different story. Hamas initiated the last war like Russia initiated their war on Ukraine.
Israel, as a country, ignoring the fringe right, has had no desire to either have war or expand its borders. Israel simply wants to live in peace. Something the Palestinians and the Arab countries have been unwilling to accept.
You're also conveniently forgetting that pretty much the entire western world joined in post 9/11, that there was a large coalition against Iraq, and against ISIS in Syria. All those countries that were fine with using force against something that ranges from low threat to little threat to their citizenry are quick to lynch Israel when it does the same.
Attacks on Israel are also ignoring those supposed rule based world (from 1948 and onwards) and are universally recognized as war crimes (e.g. Hamas and Hezbollah firing rockets into Israeli population centers).
Maybe in your circles (obviously) there's a different story. But it's false. It's at the very least a simplistic narrative that ignores facts that don't fit in it. That's not to say Israel has necessarily always been 100% right but to equate it with Russia being 100% the aggressor is completely wrong.
> Israel, as a country, ignoring the fringe right, has had no desire to either have war or expand its borders.
Oh please, this is a straight lie. I'm pretty sure you are familiar with Area C, for example.
> Hamas initiated the last war like Russia initiated their war on Ukraine.
It was Israeli Army that bombed unknown tens of thousands of civilian
to death and destroyed the vital infrastructure for millions. It's for a reason we call it a genocide (while of course you called it war, because Palestinians lives don't matter). But anyway that's a nice example of how the rules don't apply to you if you don't like them and about the very selective enforcement by the international community, especially the US.
A great example of this was Obama asking Congress permission to bomb Syria after Assad used chemical weapons. A permission they delayed voting on until Russia ended up resolving the issue.
Quite the difference to how Trump's foreign adventures occur.
Wars are hard to predict and the economy is hard to predict. There's easy money in the making for those who are sure the oil price is going to continue way up.
The blog you reference has inaccuracies. Drones are generally not shot by THAAD is a glaring one. It's very much not 2-3 million dollars to $50k. Helicopter gunships shoot down drones with bullets these days is very common and there are other economic means of bringing them down.
Most of the heavy lifting in suppressing these attacks is done by other drones patrolling the skies and attacking anything that tries to fire. Those also don't use extremely expensive munitions.
"Iran produces approximately 500 of these drones per day and holds a stockpile estimated at around 80,000 units.". Both these are false today. I'd also question if they were true when Iran was attacked. These figures don't pass the smell test and either way any stockpile is an instant target.
Everyone seems to be an expert today.
It's obviously not great that the Hormuz straits are more or less closed. We've seen in Yemen that a ragtag force can be massively attacked and still manage to fire at ships on a much larger body of water. That said we didn't really see if they can sustain it for months under heavy attack which is a possible premise here.
There are some pipelines bypassing the straits but their capacity is much smaller. It's also about 20% of the world supply so definitely other suppliers can make up for some of the loss at a cost.
I'm not an expert. But the current oil price reflects what the experts think best. And that price is still below what it was for about half of 2022. And fluctuating. What will matter is the price over months.
> The blog you reference has inaccuracies. Drones are generally not shot by THAAD is a glaring one
It's obvious that the author doesn't mean THAAD but Patriot, which are indeed used against drones. You can tell that by the missle cost the author mentions, which is 1/10th of the THAAD missle. As the argument is a cost effectiveness argument the logic holds, just replace THAAD with Patriot.
Even though Ukraine offered their cost effective solution, they have a war to fight so any serious capacity increase will probably take months if not years and these things are not static and are quickly shaped on the battlefield so the Gulf states and Israel and USA will need to develop talent that is on the battlefield, like Russia and Ukraine did.
> Helicopter gunships shoot down drones with bullets these days is very common and there are other economic means of bringing them down.
> Everyone seems to be an expert today.
Pot meet kettle?
Speaking as a former helicopter gunship weapons and tactics instructor (WTI), this is a VERY broad generalization. Sure, a gunship can shoot down a drone with 20mm or 30mm but you have to get pretty close. And first you have to find it.
Other factors
1. target altitude
2. air superiority (MANPADS is a real threat over land)
3. marksmanship
It might be more effective to throw AIM-9s on helos and target drones that way...but depending on the generation of missile those run ~$300k each and the inventory is limited.
In Israel helicopters are routinely taking down these drones. There are many videos of them chasing them down. There was an incident where some houses were hit by that cannon fire as well. They are finding them (presumably with radar).
You're probably more of an expert than me so educate me on how this works. But it is working.
But yes, some drones are also being taken down with air to air missiles.
[EDIT: at least the videos from Israel] Those drones are typically shot down over your territory so air superiority and MANPADS are less of an issue.
My main point was it's not the $2M THAAD missile taking down a $50k drone.
Wow, proximity fused 30mm. Never heard of that, but I've been out for a while and technology has really accelerated in the last 3-4 years.
Thanks for sharing.
And yes, find and fix with a strategic radar platform. It's tough to set up DCA (defensive counter-air) lanes with helicopters; they're slow and most need to refuel on the ground (an argument could be made for using H-60's. Some variants can refuel in the air).
Depending on the threat picture, it could be feasible to set helos up to defend naval assets or use them like Israel has been to defend land-based high-value assets.
Israel is a pretty small country as I'm sure you know. The northern border is about 60km wide. As I understand it the big problem with drones coming from the north is that they are programmed to fly through valleys and the topography is mountainous which makes them hard to detect. Drones from Iran or Yemen have large stretches of open flat desert and have to cross very large distances. Another purely speculative thought is that the F-35s act as an airborne radar to help with detection.
Israelis get advanced warning for (most) drone attacks and have to go into shelters/safe rooms just like with missiles. There is a specific/different kind of warning.
AFAIK in the big attack last year these Shaed drones were shot down by jets with air-to-air missiles.
I served in the IAF on that northern border (not a pilot or anything like that but a somewhat relevant role) so at least I'm familiar with the topography and distances.
The other thing coming into play in Israel these days is the laser system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Beam I think it already shot down at least one drone.
Also- Thanks for your service and for the "insider" perspective.
Absolutely agree there's both some dubious suppositions and hand-waving there. The real question is I suspect how much pressure the GCC can withstand and how much pressure they can apply to Trump directly given business ties etc. If they lose a serious chunk of desalination capacity for example the situation becomes dire extremely quickly. For Dubai simply not having a decent supply of fresh food would alone be an economic catastrophe, every day this drags on is doing reputational damage that'll take years to fully recover from long after the hotel facades are patched up.
It's intended as my informed opinion as a response to the parent less informed opinion with questionable sources.
I'm not the one writing a blog and pretending to be an expert. I have some knowledge and I can write what I want.
I know THAAD is against ballistic missiles and not against drones. I know Israeli helicopters have been bringing down drones. So I write that. It's true and I don't need to "source it". This isn't Wikipedia.
I don't think this is generally true for the guitar. There are even songs that have notes intentionally out of tune (e.g. Scar Tissue by the Red Hot Chili Peppers).
Agree with the OP that the characteristics of the guitar, including its "out of perfect tune", is what gives its music its unique characteristic. It's not a bug it's a feature. There might be some people with perfect pitch who get annoyed but for most people that's "colour" and the sound they expect and associate with their favorite music. If you played those songs on an "ideal" guitar they would not sound right.
Outside of people like van halen also pretty much no one is exploring the entire neck on a single song. So the issue of the guitar not being perfectly intonated is irrelevant since they are using just a piece of its range.
A lot of simple songs are just open "cowboy" chords for sure. But those are played on the first frets while the guitar is typically intonated at the 12th fret and tuned with open strings. I would expect those first frets to be fairly "out" vs. the open strings.
If they are out most people don’t have the ear for it. A lot of people don’t even bust out their tuners and just tune off fretted note on previous string.
There is a lot more Claude Code can do for you that an AI chat bot can't because it a) has tool access b) has access to your source code.
- Root cause and fix failures.
- Run any code "what if scenario".
- Performance optimizations.
- Refactor.
There's no reason why you shouldn't (and you should) read all the code and understand it after Claude does any work for you but the experience vs. the "old" SO model of looking for some technical detail is very different.
I also have good experience with wearing ear protection in a quiet room. But I haven't been disciplined enough about it. My probably wrong rationale is that part of the issue is hearing loss and reducing the volume retrains your brain to be able to process smaller signals.
reply