Your articles are generally very informative and a pleasure to read, but you seem to be a bit short on the strategic details on this one, if all the other hot takes are any indication of the state of play.
Particularly the potential for this war to have a very wide range of international ramifications on nations like India and Japan and other middle powers like Türkei.
Also, the aggressors have low stockpiles of missiles and interceptors, apparently, and this will severely limit the ability for sustained conflict longer than about a month, maximum, if other commentators are correct.
I have even heard US strategic bloggers saying this could turn out to be one of the worst decisions for the Israeli US exceptionalists ever. As there is no credible off-ramp, or any reason why Iran should not fire everything they have at their enemy, and that considering the vast numbers of missiles and drones stock piled by Iran, Israel could be crippled by striking desal plants and energy platforms just off the coast. Plus many more scenarios.
Perhaps you can skim "Collapse Intelligence Agency"s substack article for an incredible piece, of details and potential problems.
As for what will happen, time will tell.
Really appreciate your articles, all the same.
Even your pro-AI stuff is a good contrast against the gloomy AI stuff.
Yes, the ramifications are indeed farther-reaching. The three countries you mention are examples. I decided against adding that because I think the impact of these potential ramifications is dwarfed by the unknowns within the region.
I did mention the stockpiles, but I decided against saying anybody is short on anything, because that information is classified, so any claims of one side or the other falling short is misinformation. We will only be able to compare stockpiles as the war actually unfolds.
I think the off-ramp take from these strategic bloggers misses the point. Israel knows there is no off-ramp with Iran; there never was. As Iran exists for the purpose of eliminating Israel, there can only be two outcomes: Iran's regime falls, or Israel disappears. The 12-day war was not a war, it was a battle. The war between Iran and Israel started in 1979.
Thanks for your kind words and criticisms nonetheless!
I wish I could share your optimism with regards Iran's future Tomas, but I fear a protracted civil war or military coup seems the most likely outcome, as neither Trump nor Netanyahu cares about the Iranian people's freedom or prosperity and have made zero plans for it. Also, Trump did not succeed in regime change in Venezuela. He removed Maduro and his wife only; the regime is still otherwise entirely intact! A fact the Venezuelans are painfully aware of. Nothing Trump has ever done or will ever do will advance democracy or freedom for anyone.
The Venezuelan regime is mostly intact, but much more amenable to the US! That was the genius of it.
A military coup in Iran might be better than continuing the current regime—after all, most Gulf countries are kingdoms, and they're more amenable to Western interests and better managed internally.
Civil war would be terrible for Iranians, but I don't know how bad they would be for the West. Syria turned out well for the West. Libya is not a threat.
The big "if" is in your last sentence "But only if the current regime falls". This is wishful thinking. There has been no historical case of regime change through air power. Without boots on the ground from the US, it will be nearly impossible to impose a 'democratic' or pro western regime. The best they can hope for is a more pragmatic leadership, and the worst, a Libyia type scenario with a continuation of a humbled Islamic Republic is, in my opinion, the most likely.
And escalating the war in the Gulf is a desperate, but rational, move by the Islamic Republic, hoping to create a world disruption and inflation that the US cannot withstand for a long time, as very few of its citizens see the point of this war.
Nothing has changed in Venezuela, apart from USA stealing its Oil, but then that’s all USA wanted, oh! apart from access to its mineral wealth. Thing is Venezuela is controlled by the cartels, whilst they may let companies enter to expand their Oil and mineral sector, once the investment from production becomes profitable they’ll take control again just like they have in the past. Now what’s the saying, oh yes, “Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me, just ask the fools at ExxonMobil🤔
"China had collected anti-US friends in Russia, Iran and its proxies in Syria, Lebanon, Hamas and the Houthis, Venezuela, Cuba, and a host of satellites considering whether to join them or not"
This kind of statement requires a lot more careful phrasing, to what actual extent really is China a friend/ally of Russia, Iran or Venezuela? Such that attacking those countries is rolling back their strategic influence, as opposed to striking their trade partners?
"If China won’t come to the rescue of its allies, and its weapons can’t stop the US, who will want to side with them?"
Doesn't this sentence immediately contradict the content of the above one? To what extent, really, was Iran using CHinese weapons, such that we would say they are "on their side?" If they aren't "coming to their rescue" and in fact isn't even weighing whether or not to do so, then how were they even remotely military friends or allies in the first place rather than just trading partners with no other commitments?
Putting these statements next to each other is really weird. The relationship between say, Iran and Hezbollah is not similar to China : Iran. Iran's govt can be bad. Hezbollah and Hamas can be bad. China's govt can be bad too, but this is just taking propaganda at face value. They can be separately bad, not everything has to be a global Axis of Evil, and you might indeed find it easier to prevent evil in one quarter by not necessarily linking it to evil in another. If you have decided that a regime is a threat, attacking their oil suppliers makes them more likely to increase the threat to you.
Below are specific agreements to back the friendship between the countries I mentioned, from Grok. The collaboration was not just economic. It was in security, military armament, and military coordination. On the weapons side, Iran recently bought notably Chinese defensive systems: HQ-16, HQ-17AE, HQ-9B, and YLC-8B. China was short of a mutual-defense pact with any of these countries because it's not stupid. It doesn't want to get mired in a foreign war. But these agreements were more and more comprehensive over time. Let them continue, and they could only strengthen.
There are many bad governments that are not part of this alliance, eg: Afghanistan, Burma (although they are getting closer to China), Equatorial Guinea, Chad, Sudan... I am calling out the ones that were getting closer to China.
Russia:
- Comprehensive Strategic Partnership of Coordination for a New Era (2019): Deepens coordination across politics, economy, security, and international affairs.
- "No Limits" Partnership Joint Statement (February 2022): Declares friendship with "no limits" and "no forbidden areas of cooperation," opposing U.S.-led alliances and color revolutions; reaffirmed in joint statements (e.g., 2024–2025) emphasizing anti-containment coordination.
- Ongoing summits (e.g., May 2025) produce dense agreements on defense, technology, energy, and multilateralism (BRICS, SCO), but no mutual defense pact.
Iran:
- Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (launched 2016, formalized via 25-year Cooperation Program signed March 2021): Covers economic investment (up to ~$400 billion in energy, infrastructure, transport), oil supply at discounts, trade, and security/intelligence cooperation; includes Belt and Road integration. The implementation began ~2022; includes military/defense elements (training, research, joint exercises) but not a formal alliance.
- Trilateral strategic pact with Russia (signed January 2026): Strengthens military cooperation among China, Iran, and Russia (e.g., joint naval drills), but remains non-binding.
Venezuela:
- All-Weather Strategic Partnership (upgraded 2023): Highest tier of China's bilateral partnerships; signals long-term cooperation in politics, trade, energy, and security.
- Hundreds of agreements since Hugo Chávez era (1999 onward), including ~600 cooperation projects; focus on oil-for-loans, infrastructure, and energy (e.g., joint ventures with CNPC/PDVSA).
- High-Level Joint Commission (established early 2000s) oversees political/economic ties; recent pacts (2023–2025) deepen strategic alignment, but no formal military alliance.
Cuba:
- Community with a Shared Future (agreed 2022, accelerated via Joint Declaration September 2025): First such framework with a Latin American country; promotes all-round cooperation (political trust, economic, Belt and Road, security).
- Long-standing ties since 1960 diplomatic recognition; multiple agreements on trade, biotechnology, infrastructure, cybersecurity (e.g., 2023 bilateral cybersecurity pact), and cultural exchanges.
Hmm, there’s USA’s gunboat diplomacy, and there’s everyone else’s, two wrongs, or in USA’s case multiple wrongs, don’t make a right, they’re just a thieving and waring nation, I cite
John Perkins’s “The New Confessions Of An Economic Hitman — How America really took over the world”
David Vine’s “The United States Of War — A Global history of America’s endless conflicts, from Columbus to the Islamic State”
Naomi Klein’s “The Shock Doctrine — The rise of Disaster Capitalism”🤔
I do note, despite the number of all these agreements, that what you listed is all economic or defensive. Bilateral agreements on "defense" and "security" can accurately be considered non-military if attacks on one party don't actually oblige any kind of response by the other. As you note, they aren't signing mutual defense agreements, because that would be dumb, but precisely that they see them as dumb, is that not evidence that what is going on here is not some grand anti-US military plan, but rather specifically limited agreements that are essentially economic? They aren't selling them nuclear weapons, or ballistic missiles, or attack drones (Iran makes all/most of these themselves, as far as I know), despite how helpful that would be for defeating America/Israel, because they don't actually want an escalation (and the retaliation). Contrast this with Iran's support of Hezbollah, where a direct strategic goal is (attempting to) being accomplished: Iran wanted Hezbollah to attack Israel, they were military allies, they weren't just selling them arms for profit. Iran and Hezbollah were allies in a culpable way, in a way that a 3rd party that was attacked by either could credibly retaliate against both. This is absolutely not the case with China.
This is not a pedantic difference. This is not being naive about "where these agreements could lead." These are normal economic agreements between countries, and a nation with a billion people making stuff is going to have these deals. Obviously yes, any nation will attempt to use these agreements to develop strategic benefits as well, but if we (the US) treat them as evidence that China is now friends with Iran and Hezbollah, and therefore cheering their attacks on us, that makes them far more likely to work harder to develop those strategic advantages (to our detriment) because that's why one gets strategic advantages, to counter the enemies that are trying to roll up your advantageous international agreements.
This is an self reinforcing arms race dynamic. They're escalating, so we have to escalate back. Sure, I totally understand, but if we have and end-goal of "not having a war with a nuclear power" it very much actually depends on "are they escalating, rather than just trading?" and also "even if they are escalating, is it response to our escalations, and could we cooperate to de-escalate?"
Sorry to be so picky about this. Strategically, attacking Iran because they are actual allies with Hezbollah et al. is completely valid. But I don't see any reason to play into overly hawkish China segment by extending this analogy to Iran:China.
Great article Tomas... I am generally pessimistic when bombs are flying, but the Iranian people are a unique asset...higly educated, clearly wishing for freedom, and now the door has been opened. The fact they do not have an independent way to defend themselves short of American/Israeli support is a big hole to fill.
The IRGC and the tiered Iranian military either lays down their arms for immunity or they remain defiant. I don't know the answer, but now add that Iran has made all their neighbors enemies, they have committed an absurb act of hari kari. This act of war against their only friends in the region has rarely been seen in modern warfare.
I still believe the time had come to disable this regime. Diplomacy was never in their vocabulary. In the end, although not yet clear in the fog of war, I still strongly support and believe we will help to create a new, freer Iran.
Excellent summary, thank you for sharing this. It's so difficult to find a clear headed assessment of the situation, even from supposed news organizations.
Good overview, but the "Why Israel & the US Attacked Iran Again" list has one glaring omission: increasingly unpopular US president's desperate need to distract from domestic issues by asserting power where it is the least limited (military action abroad).
Your articles are generally very informative and a pleasure to read, but you seem to be a bit short on the strategic details on this one, if all the other hot takes are any indication of the state of play.
Particularly the potential for this war to have a very wide range of international ramifications on nations like India and Japan and other middle powers like Türkei.
Also, the aggressors have low stockpiles of missiles and interceptors, apparently, and this will severely limit the ability for sustained conflict longer than about a month, maximum, if other commentators are correct.
I have even heard US strategic bloggers saying this could turn out to be one of the worst decisions for the Israeli US exceptionalists ever. As there is no credible off-ramp, or any reason why Iran should not fire everything they have at their enemy, and that considering the vast numbers of missiles and drones stock piled by Iran, Israel could be crippled by striking desal plants and energy platforms just off the coast. Plus many more scenarios.
Perhaps you can skim "Collapse Intelligence Agency"s substack article for an incredible piece, of details and potential problems.
As for what will happen, time will tell.
Really appreciate your articles, all the same.
Even your pro-AI stuff is a good contrast against the gloomy AI stuff.
Thanks a lot.
Thanks for your constructive criticism!
Yes, the ramifications are indeed farther-reaching. The three countries you mention are examples. I decided against adding that because I think the impact of these potential ramifications is dwarfed by the unknowns within the region.
I did mention the stockpiles, but I decided against saying anybody is short on anything, because that information is classified, so any claims of one side or the other falling short is misinformation. We will only be able to compare stockpiles as the war actually unfolds.
I think the off-ramp take from these strategic bloggers misses the point. Israel knows there is no off-ramp with Iran; there never was. As Iran exists for the purpose of eliminating Israel, there can only be two outcomes: Iran's regime falls, or Israel disappears. The 12-day war was not a war, it was a battle. The war between Iran and Israel started in 1979.
Thanks for your kind words and criticisms nonetheless!
I wish I could share your optimism with regards Iran's future Tomas, but I fear a protracted civil war or military coup seems the most likely outcome, as neither Trump nor Netanyahu cares about the Iranian people's freedom or prosperity and have made zero plans for it. Also, Trump did not succeed in regime change in Venezuela. He removed Maduro and his wife only; the regime is still otherwise entirely intact! A fact the Venezuelans are painfully aware of. Nothing Trump has ever done or will ever do will advance democracy or freedom for anyone.
The Venezuelan regime is mostly intact, but much more amenable to the US! That was the genius of it.
A military coup in Iran might be better than continuing the current regime—after all, most Gulf countries are kingdoms, and they're more amenable to Western interests and better managed internally.
Civil war would be terrible for Iranians, but I don't know how bad they would be for the West. Syria turned out well for the West. Libya is not a threat.
The big "if" is in your last sentence "But only if the current regime falls". This is wishful thinking. There has been no historical case of regime change through air power. Without boots on the ground from the US, it will be nearly impossible to impose a 'democratic' or pro western regime. The best they can hope for is a more pragmatic leadership, and the worst, a Libyia type scenario with a continuation of a humbled Islamic Republic is, in my opinion, the most likely.
And escalating the war in the Gulf is a desperate, but rational, move by the Islamic Republic, hoping to create a world disruption and inflation that the US cannot withstand for a long time, as very few of its citizens see the point of this war.
That is indeed the fear. But Venezuela is actually very promising here.
Did you see how Lebanon now has declared Hezbollah illegal? Without a full Israeli invasion.
Did you hear that a bomb might have killed the 88 leaders gathered to choose a replacement for Khamenei?
I don't rule out regime change here actually, but as you say civil war is perilously possible.
Nothing has changed in Venezuela, apart from USA stealing its Oil, but then that’s all USA wanted, oh! apart from access to its mineral wealth. Thing is Venezuela is controlled by the cartels, whilst they may let companies enter to expand their Oil and mineral sector, once the investment from production becomes profitable they’ll take control again just like they have in the past. Now what’s the saying, oh yes, “Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me, just ask the fools at ExxonMobil🤔
"China had collected anti-US friends in Russia, Iran and its proxies in Syria, Lebanon, Hamas and the Houthis, Venezuela, Cuba, and a host of satellites considering whether to join them or not"
This kind of statement requires a lot more careful phrasing, to what actual extent really is China a friend/ally of Russia, Iran or Venezuela? Such that attacking those countries is rolling back their strategic influence, as opposed to striking their trade partners?
"If China won’t come to the rescue of its allies, and its weapons can’t stop the US, who will want to side with them?"
Doesn't this sentence immediately contradict the content of the above one? To what extent, really, was Iran using CHinese weapons, such that we would say they are "on their side?" If they aren't "coming to their rescue" and in fact isn't even weighing whether or not to do so, then how were they even remotely military friends or allies in the first place rather than just trading partners with no other commitments?
Putting these statements next to each other is really weird. The relationship between say, Iran and Hezbollah is not similar to China : Iran. Iran's govt can be bad. Hezbollah and Hamas can be bad. China's govt can be bad too, but this is just taking propaganda at face value. They can be separately bad, not everything has to be a global Axis of Evil, and you might indeed find it easier to prevent evil in one quarter by not necessarily linking it to evil in another. If you have decided that a regime is a threat, attacking their oil suppliers makes them more likely to increase the threat to you.
Hi Brian, thanks for your comment.
Below are specific agreements to back the friendship between the countries I mentioned, from Grok. The collaboration was not just economic. It was in security, military armament, and military coordination. On the weapons side, Iran recently bought notably Chinese defensive systems: HQ-16, HQ-17AE, HQ-9B, and YLC-8B. China was short of a mutual-defense pact with any of these countries because it's not stupid. It doesn't want to get mired in a foreign war. But these agreements were more and more comprehensive over time. Let them continue, and they could only strengthen.
There are many bad governments that are not part of this alliance, eg: Afghanistan, Burma (although they are getting closer to China), Equatorial Guinea, Chad, Sudan... I am calling out the ones that were getting closer to China.
Russia:
- Comprehensive Strategic Partnership of Coordination for a New Era (2019): Deepens coordination across politics, economy, security, and international affairs.
- "No Limits" Partnership Joint Statement (February 2022): Declares friendship with "no limits" and "no forbidden areas of cooperation," opposing U.S.-led alliances and color revolutions; reaffirmed in joint statements (e.g., 2024–2025) emphasizing anti-containment coordination.
- Ongoing summits (e.g., May 2025) produce dense agreements on defense, technology, energy, and multilateralism (BRICS, SCO), but no mutual defense pact.
Iran:
- Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (launched 2016, formalized via 25-year Cooperation Program signed March 2021): Covers economic investment (up to ~$400 billion in energy, infrastructure, transport), oil supply at discounts, trade, and security/intelligence cooperation; includes Belt and Road integration. The implementation began ~2022; includes military/defense elements (training, research, joint exercises) but not a formal alliance.
- Trilateral strategic pact with Russia (signed January 2026): Strengthens military cooperation among China, Iran, and Russia (e.g., joint naval drills), but remains non-binding.
Venezuela:
- All-Weather Strategic Partnership (upgraded 2023): Highest tier of China's bilateral partnerships; signals long-term cooperation in politics, trade, energy, and security.
- Hundreds of agreements since Hugo Chávez era (1999 onward), including ~600 cooperation projects; focus on oil-for-loans, infrastructure, and energy (e.g., joint ventures with CNPC/PDVSA).
- High-Level Joint Commission (established early 2000s) oversees political/economic ties; recent pacts (2023–2025) deepen strategic alignment, but no formal military alliance.
Cuba:
- Community with a Shared Future (agreed 2022, accelerated via Joint Declaration September 2025): First such framework with a Latin American country; promotes all-round cooperation (political trust, economic, Belt and Road, security).
- Long-standing ties since 1960 diplomatic recognition; multiple agreements on trade, biotechnology, infrastructure, cybersecurity (e.g., 2023 bilateral cybersecurity pact), and cultural exchanges.
Hmm, there’s USA’s gunboat diplomacy, and there’s everyone else’s, two wrongs, or in USA’s case multiple wrongs, don’t make a right, they’re just a thieving and waring nation, I cite
John Perkins’s “The New Confessions Of An Economic Hitman — How America really took over the world”
David Vine’s “The United States Of War — A Global history of America’s endless conflicts, from Columbus to the Islamic State”
Naomi Klein’s “The Shock Doctrine — The rise of Disaster Capitalism”🤔
Thanks for all the other info!
I do note, despite the number of all these agreements, that what you listed is all economic or defensive. Bilateral agreements on "defense" and "security" can accurately be considered non-military if attacks on one party don't actually oblige any kind of response by the other. As you note, they aren't signing mutual defense agreements, because that would be dumb, but precisely that they see them as dumb, is that not evidence that what is going on here is not some grand anti-US military plan, but rather specifically limited agreements that are essentially economic? They aren't selling them nuclear weapons, or ballistic missiles, or attack drones (Iran makes all/most of these themselves, as far as I know), despite how helpful that would be for defeating America/Israel, because they don't actually want an escalation (and the retaliation). Contrast this with Iran's support of Hezbollah, where a direct strategic goal is (attempting to) being accomplished: Iran wanted Hezbollah to attack Israel, they were military allies, they weren't just selling them arms for profit. Iran and Hezbollah were allies in a culpable way, in a way that a 3rd party that was attacked by either could credibly retaliate against both. This is absolutely not the case with China.
This is not a pedantic difference. This is not being naive about "where these agreements could lead." These are normal economic agreements between countries, and a nation with a billion people making stuff is going to have these deals. Obviously yes, any nation will attempt to use these agreements to develop strategic benefits as well, but if we (the US) treat them as evidence that China is now friends with Iran and Hezbollah, and therefore cheering their attacks on us, that makes them far more likely to work harder to develop those strategic advantages (to our detriment) because that's why one gets strategic advantages, to counter the enemies that are trying to roll up your advantageous international agreements.
This is an self reinforcing arms race dynamic. They're escalating, so we have to escalate back. Sure, I totally understand, but if we have and end-goal of "not having a war with a nuclear power" it very much actually depends on "are they escalating, rather than just trading?" and also "even if they are escalating, is it response to our escalations, and could we cooperate to de-escalate?"
Sorry to be so picky about this. Strategically, attacking Iran because they are actual allies with Hezbollah et al. is completely valid. But I don't see any reason to play into overly hawkish China segment by extending this analogy to Iran:China.
Great article Tomas... I am generally pessimistic when bombs are flying, but the Iranian people are a unique asset...higly educated, clearly wishing for freedom, and now the door has been opened. The fact they do not have an independent way to defend themselves short of American/Israeli support is a big hole to fill.
The IRGC and the tiered Iranian military either lays down their arms for immunity or they remain defiant. I don't know the answer, but now add that Iran has made all their neighbors enemies, they have committed an absurb act of hari kari. This act of war against their only friends in the region has rarely been seen in modern warfare.
I still believe the time had come to disable this regime. Diplomacy was never in their vocabulary. In the end, although not yet clear in the fog of war, I still strongly support and believe we will help to create a new, freer Iran.
Excellent summary, thank you for sharing this. It's so difficult to find a clear headed assessment of the situation, even from supposed news organizations.
Good overview, but the "Why Israel & the US Attacked Iran Again" list has one glaring omission: increasingly unpopular US president's desperate need to distract from domestic issues by asserting power where it is the least limited (military action abroad).
Possible