Lincoln strangled the South until courage could no longer compensate for empty warehouses, broken railroads, and worthless money. Trump is doing the same thing to Iran — but without the invasion.
Lincoln strangled the South until courage could no longer compensate for empty warehouses, broken railroads, and worthless money. Trump is doing the same thing to Iran — but without the invasion.
The Problem was Anaconda would not have worked with The Federal Army Winning Battles.
Well, I address that, don't I? Anaconda was attempted with radically inferior technology and no satellite or air cover whatsoever (unless you count an occasional hot air balloon). There was no way to destroy the South's limited production capacity except physical seizure, whereas we know exactly what Iran has, where they have it, and how to blow it up, sometimes with weapons that travel 14,000 miles to do it. So the principle remains, but the details may vary.
In any case, I doubt very much that an invasion would help. We are at pains to leave economic infrastructure intact (if temporarily unusable) for the free Iran to come, should it come. An invasion would require a very different approach, be very difficult to pull off in Iran's terrain (unless it was limited to a few islands, or perhaps to Khuzestan). It would take far longer, do far more collateral damage, and greatly harm any chance of a domestic rising. It would also be politically untenable in the U.S.
So a modern Anaconda Plan is both called for and, with vastly superior technology, likely to be more effective than marching to the sea.
Well okay, but I think the President is concerned that we inflict the minimum necessary harm on an incredibly pro-American population, not turn them against us, and deliver these assets as intact as possible to them. This potentially avoids the civil war we got in Iraq and Afghanistan, and potentially avoids Iran being carved up into hostile spheres of influence as it has been in the not-distant past.
In an ideal world world, Iran would be an incredibly strong, wealthy, free ally after this is over.
Really? So when Putin threatens to nuke Great Britain, we must immediately go to war because there's no possibility then of peace? When Iran says it will annihilate us, no more discussion is possible? When China occasionally threatens to nuke Los Angeles, the relationship is forever over? When the EU says it will "never" accept Trump's trade terms, we have to stop trading with Europe? (And by the way, they ratified Trump's trade deal a few weeks ago, the one they said they'd never do.)
Really? Only Donald Trump's words are fatal and final? Everyone else on Earth gets to say whatever they feel like for whatever reason suits them, but Donald Trump uniquely must shut up and we're all doomed because he posted something on Truth Social.
That's some serious TDS right there. And hypocrisy.
The difference is that our country was stronger after the Civil War; whereas we do not stand to gain anything from the Iran war and its destruction of the petrodollar could result in the same hyperinflation suffered by the South during the Civil War b
It's hard to see what your first sentence has to do with either the Civil War-era blockade or the current one. There was no blockade AFTER the war. When the war broke out, the United States had one of the smallest navies in the western world and grew it dramatically over the course of the war, much as was the case in World War II. The United States entered this war with the world's most powerful navy (by a ridiculously wide margin) and has actually brought about hyperinflation in Iran.
In any case, the petrodollar is close to irrelevant at this point. It's not going away, but it is no longer the basis of dollar dominance, so if it did, it might cost a bit at the margin but it wouldn't change anything. This is not 1979 anymore.
My point was more broadly about the wars themselves, and viewing the blockade as just another action to needlessly prolong a foolish war undertaken on behalf of Israel. Although it would have been better to have avoided the Civil War, I think most Americans would agree that our country emerged from the Civil War stronger and more unified. There is no upside to our country in continuing aggressive action against Iran. At the very least, it will provoke further action by Iran against our troops and assets in the region. It also needlessly exacerbates the Strait of Hormuz problem that is causing financial distress all over the world—including in particular here in our country. It is deeply unpopular war for a reason.
Good stuff! My only concern is that 'We The Serfs' understand what is transpiring with Iran and the attendant 'increase' in costs here, and that 'We ALL' turn out to 'turn out' those that would derail the MAGA agenda!
I sent this on to my group of eight, my three older siblings and all our spouses, all eight 100% MAGA. We’ve all been married 40+ years, watched the ‘24 returns together and have plans to all get together in Naples for watching ‘26 election returns
That's just dumber than a box of rocks.
If you didn't read the article, why bother to comment?
Lincoln strangled the South until courage could no longer compensate for empty warehouses, broken railroads, and worthless money. Trump is doing the same thing to Iran — but without the invasion.
The Problem was Anaconda would not have worked with The Federal Army Winning Battles.
Well, I address that, don't I? Anaconda was attempted with radically inferior technology and no satellite or air cover whatsoever (unless you count an occasional hot air balloon). There was no way to destroy the South's limited production capacity except physical seizure, whereas we know exactly what Iran has, where they have it, and how to blow it up, sometimes with weapons that travel 14,000 miles to do it. So the principle remains, but the details may vary.
In any case, I doubt very much that an invasion would help. We are at pains to leave economic infrastructure intact (if temporarily unusable) for the free Iran to come, should it come. An invasion would require a very different approach, be very difficult to pull off in Iran's terrain (unless it was limited to a few islands, or perhaps to Khuzestan). It would take far longer, do far more collateral damage, and greatly harm any chance of a domestic rising. It would also be politically untenable in the U.S.
So a modern Anaconda Plan is both called for and, with vastly superior technology, likely to be more effective than marching to the sea.
We are at pains to leave economic infrastructure intact (if temporarily unusable) for the free Iran to come, should it come.
I Have A Problem With That! If you are gong to war...Go To War.
Well okay, but I think the President is concerned that we inflict the minimum necessary harm on an incredibly pro-American population, not turn them against us, and deliver these assets as intact as possible to them. This potentially avoids the civil war we got in Iraq and Afghanistan, and potentially avoids Iran being carved up into hostile spheres of influence as it has been in the not-distant past.
In an ideal world world, Iran would be an incredibly strong, wealthy, free ally after this is over.
Really? So when Putin threatens to nuke Great Britain, we must immediately go to war because there's no possibility then of peace? When Iran says it will annihilate us, no more discussion is possible? When China occasionally threatens to nuke Los Angeles, the relationship is forever over? When the EU says it will "never" accept Trump's trade terms, we have to stop trading with Europe? (And by the way, they ratified Trump's trade deal a few weeks ago, the one they said they'd never do.)
Really? Only Donald Trump's words are fatal and final? Everyone else on Earth gets to say whatever they feel like for whatever reason suits them, but Donald Trump uniquely must shut up and we're all doomed because he posted something on Truth Social.
That's some serious TDS right there. And hypocrisy.
👏👏👏 A tremendous article and a fascinating and insightful historical analogy, Dr. Martin
America 250 Film Club 🇺🇸🫡❤️🤍💙🎆🎇🍿🎥🎬📽️🎞️ This Edition: The War Between the States
* Gods and Generals
* Gettysburg
* Glory
* The Outlaw Josey Whales
* The Red Badge of Courage
* Lincoln
* Ken Burns: The Civil War
* Gone With the Wind
* The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
* Field of Lost Shoes
* The Great Locomotive Chase
* The General
* Blue and Gray
* North and South
* The Horse Soldiers
* Shenandoah
* Andersonville
* Pharaoh’s Army
* Cold Mountain
* The Conspirator
* Ride with the Devil
* Major Dundee
* The Undefeated
* Rocky Mountain
* The Free State of Jones
* How the West Was Won
One of your best. And timely.
Thanks!
The difference is that our country was stronger after the Civil War; whereas we do not stand to gain anything from the Iran war and its destruction of the petrodollar could result in the same hyperinflation suffered by the South during the Civil War b
It's hard to see what your first sentence has to do with either the Civil War-era blockade or the current one. There was no blockade AFTER the war. When the war broke out, the United States had one of the smallest navies in the western world and grew it dramatically over the course of the war, much as was the case in World War II. The United States entered this war with the world's most powerful navy (by a ridiculously wide margin) and has actually brought about hyperinflation in Iran.
In any case, the petrodollar is close to irrelevant at this point. It's not going away, but it is no longer the basis of dollar dominance, so if it did, it might cost a bit at the margin but it wouldn't change anything. This is not 1979 anymore.
My point was more broadly about the wars themselves, and viewing the blockade as just another action to needlessly prolong a foolish war undertaken on behalf of Israel. Although it would have been better to have avoided the Civil War, I think most Americans would agree that our country emerged from the Civil War stronger and more unified. There is no upside to our country in continuing aggressive action against Iran. At the very least, it will provoke further action by Iran against our troops and assets in the region. It also needlessly exacerbates the Strait of Hormuz problem that is causing financial distress all over the world—including in particular here in our country. It is deeply unpopular war for a reason.
With respect, I could not possibly disagree more completely with every single point you just made.
The royal we? Really? How utterly arrogant. Buzz off.
Good stuff! My only concern is that 'We The Serfs' understand what is transpiring with Iran and the attendant 'increase' in costs here, and that 'We ALL' turn out to 'turn out' those that would derail the MAGA agenda!
Awesome analysis
Thanks!
I sent this on to my group of eight, my three older siblings and all our spouses, all eight 100% MAGA. We’ve all been married 40+ years, watched the ‘24 returns together and have plans to all get together in Naples for watching ‘26 election returns