Impact of War on Iran to the United States

In the short term I believe this will make President Trump a lame duck long before the mid-term elections. The reason is the unpopularity of the war and the economic fallout from it are going to make the Democrats a virtual lock to take back both houses of the the US Congress. That will probably cause the Republicans to finally attempt to rein him in to try to staunch the bleeding. It probably will not happen soon but I suspect we will see it happen after most of the primaries are complete. It will be after that time when incumbent Republican politicians will no longer be in danger of being replaced for the November election and when they will need to do something to increase their chances during that election. 

As well, the US can pretty much kiss all of the alliances in the Middle East goodbye, except for Israel. The Gulf States will probably not cut ties completely, because they do not currently have viable alternatives, but I would bet a sizable chunk of money that they will begin to look to China to assist them. Their alliance with the US was to serve as a deterrent to Iran from doing exactly what it has been doing for the last nine days but that deterrent only works if the US does not attack Iran first. China will have no problem in turning the Persian Gulf into a Chinese lake and I suspect, after the war ends, the people of the United States would say "Let them have it."

In the longer term the US will be weakened by the war diplomatically. However, that has been happening for quite some time and it predates the election of Donald Trump in 2016. His election then and again in 2024 has accelerated that trend but we need to be careful not to overstate it. As well, there could be a case made that this war could hasten the time when the US Dollar ceases to be the reserve currency but if so that is a long time away and many things could happen before then so we can safely dismiss such arguments for now. It is not going to happen before the end of the decade and speculating on what will happen on a longer timeline is like trying to figure out what the weather is going to be like a year from now. 

The two main rivals to the US are Russia and China. 

One thing that everybody has to remember about Russia is it is a country with an economy the size of Italy's and it is shrinking. The once great Russian (Soviet) armed forces, which everybody thought would be able to roll through Western Europe with ease back in the 80s, has made absolutely no progress in four years of war with Ukraine. Indeed, there is some evidence that they have suffered some very substantial setbacks on the battlefield in recent weeks and many credible analysts have indicated that they have blown through all of their reserves of tanks and armoured vehicles. As well, the same analysts are indicating that they have lost around 1 million men during that four years and are suffering a recruiting crisis. In other words, they have pretty much "bled themselves white" since the war started. This all bodes ill for Vladimir Putin's ambitions for the rest of Europe. If they have a hard time against Ukraine, they will have an even harder time against NATO. Yes, they are in a bit of disarray because of Donald Trump but that really is not relevant. The Russians are going to take years, if not a decade or so, to rebuild their strength enough for any more adventures in Europe, those same Europeans are taking steps to rearm and will reach their targets before the end of the decade and Donald Trump will be gone, replaced by a President that will probably try to rebuild the alliances and trust that Donald Trump as squandered in the last few months. (And Putin will probably be gone and Russia may do what it has done for centuries, replace a leader who turned away from the West with one who turns toward it.)

Considering this, if the Russians did not have nuclear weapons, their threat to Western Europe would not be taken as seriously as it is currently. But they will be of no help because if they try to "nuke" any part of Western Europe they will have to deal with a potential nuclear retaliation from the US, Britain and France.

Some are saying the the war has weakened the US enough to allow China to take Taiwan. (I even heard one fool say they could take Japan *headshake*). The problem with that is even after this war the US will have the most powerful military in the world. That is not going to change anytime soon. Any attack on Taiwan will be different from what we are seeing in the Middle East. The Taiwan Strait is not wide but it is wide enough that any invasion force would be at the end of a very tenuous supply line, which could easily be cut for a time by the Taiwanese themselves and permanently cut with the assistance of the US. They still have 11 carrier groups that would pay merry hell with the amphibious ships that China would have to use to invade Taiwan. If they successfully cut that supply line then the invasion of Taiwan fails and the Chinese know it. That fact has not been changed by the events of the last 10 days.

Economically China's progression towards replacing the US as the largest economy has slowed to a crawl. It could speed up again, particularly if they gain more influence in the Middle East, but we probably will not see that happen for the foreseeable future and there are just too many variables at play to conclude it will happen at this point. I personally believe it will but that is just my gut talking. I have no solid evidence to back it up and at any rate I also do not believe it will happen soon. 

So the US is going to come out of this war more diminished than it already was when it started the war. We are going to see some shifting of influence and alliances away from the US in the Middle East but they will not come out so diminished that either Russia or China will be in a position to take real advantage of that. The great power struggle that we have been seeing for the last few years will continue without any resolution, one way or another, for the foreseeable future.

They Really Are That Stupid

I have been trying to wrap my head around the events in the Persian Gulf for a week. Really, no one has seen this kind of thing before. Benjamin Netanyahu has been trying to convince successive American presidents to attack Iran for decades but none of them have been stupid enough to do so. They realized that attacking and militarily defeating a country the size of Western Europe, with a population of around 90 million people is a virtually impossible task. Then Mr. Netanyahu met Donald Trump and all of that changed. Some are asserting that the Israeli PM has some Epstein dirt on Donald Trump but I do not believe that. I think Donald Trump is just that stupid. In all likelihood PM Netanyahu appealed to Donald Trump's narcissisms and the rest is history.

The other piece of stupidity is the Israeli PM's belief that they could have ended this war in a few hours by taking out the Iranian Supreme Leader. That man was 86 years old. The plan to succeed him was well established. I stated in a post in June, during the first attack on Iran by Israel, that Israel just seems to underestimate Iran, its leadership, its will to fight and its people. At this point it is almost looking pathological.

So how does this end? Damned if I know.

Here are a few things we do know:

• The US and the Israelis have a limited number of interceptor missiles. They are already showing signs that they are running low.
• The US and Israel have a massive number of offensive ordinance but even that is finite and not quickly replaced. The consensus I see from some of the experts is they have between two to six weeks of ammunition left
• It is unknown the exact number of missiles and drones the Iranians have, which should have stopped any notion of attacking them from the beginning. Like last June this war is going to come down to who runs our of ammo first. The people who planned this war should have taking that into account.
• The Strait of Hormuz is closed and the international insurance industry will make certain it stays that way until the war ends and there are assurances that ships will once again be able to go through it without being threatened with being attacked.
• Energy prices are increasing and that will be the X-factor going forward. 
• Iran is taking a beating but so are the US bases in the Gulf and Israel. 

The American and Israeli current strategy (Their strategy seems to change on a daily basis) seems to be to level Iranian cities as quickly as they can. The Iranians seem to have the same approach but they have decided that this is going to be a marathon instead of a sprint so they are moving slower. Some have argued that this is a sign of them running out of ammunition, and that could be true but it is just as possible that this is all part of the plan. After all, if your strategy was to use ballistic missiles and drones against your enemies, and those enemies have a supply of anti-missile missiles, then you would work to deplete that supply before launching the real weight of your attack. That is what I would do and I am just some guy tapping away on a keyboard in Canada. I am certain if I could figure this out someone who makes a living developing military strategy could also figure it out.

Long-term what will happen? That depends on how this all ends but here are some possibilities.

If the Iranians do not suffer a strategic defeat, and it is possible they will suffer such a defeat, then they will survive and develop nuclear weapons before the end of the decade. They do not need many. Their principle enemy is Israel, which could be destroyed as a functioning state by three to five 100 kt warheads. So Iran would only need 50, assuming as hit rate of 10%, to destroy Israel. They will probably announce they have them by 2030 and the power dynamic in the Middle East will change forever.

Israel is not going to come out of this war in a good place. Just the shear amount of destruction to its cities and military, political and social infrastructure will require huge amounts of money and resources to repair. Before this war many Americans were coming to realize the oversized influence Israel has on its politics, and not liking it, and that is probably only going to become worse. That could preclude them from providing all of the aid Israel will need to rebuild as quickly as they would need to. As well, there is a chance that Israel will actually suffer a strategic loss in this war, probably equal to the chance of Iran suffering such a loss, in which case Israel could go through an existential crisis.

As for the US, that is more complicated and deserves its own post, which I will publish in the coming days.

Different Approaches to Canada/US Relations, Part 2

Pierre Poilievre gave a major foreign policy speech last week and it demonstrates perfectly the two approaches that I described in my previous post. 

Quickly, the two approaches are: Work with the Americans but push to maintain our sovereignty and distinctiveness or take a more "subordinate" approach to the US, generally following their lead with less concern about sovereignty and distinctiveness. For decades the Canadian approach to US relations has been a mix of these two approaches with the Liberals tending to favour the first approach and the Conservatives tending to favour the second.

Mr. Poilievre's speech was very critical of Donald Trumps words and actions towards Canada and it had several themes and ideas that were similar if not identical to those expressed by the PM at Davos. However, where the PM stressed the need for Canada and other middle powers to work together to navigate the post-American world Mr. Poilievre maintained that Canada should work harder to strengthen ties with the US. A perfect contrast.

I stated in my previous post that the PM gave a rather extreme speech in Davos. He said a great deal out loud that many foreign policy experts and professionals have been saying behind closed doors for decades. That is, and I am paraphrasing, the international system is an anarchic system where whether the rules apply to a certain country is a function of its relative power in the world and that Canada and other middle powers need to begin make decisions with that in mind instead of hoping what rules that do exist will protect them from those bigger powers.

Pierre Poilievre seems to disagree with that assertion, or if he does agree his solution is not to work with other middle powers but to tuck Canada even further under the US's protective wing. As I stated in my previous post, considering the current US policies and goals of the administration and the fact that Donald Trump disappearing from the scene would probably not see changes in all of those policies and goals would mean that any government looking to improve relations with the US would also have to go to extremes to do so. What that looks like is anybody's guess, which is one reason why Mr. Poilievre did not go into details.

Mr. Trump wants to make Canada a part of the US or at least a vassal state, taking orders from Washington. His history has proven that he does not compromise so it would be an all or nothing proposition for him. The Trump administration is using several economic tools in his attempt to make that happen and it is still a question of how much would a Conservative government go to appease the President.

Personally, I really do not want to find out.

Different Approaches to US/Canada Relations

I, like many, watched Mark Carney's speech in Davos. I am not going to address the specifics of his speech but I am going to attempt to put it into a broader context.

Many believe that it was just a rebuke of Donald Trump, which it certainly was, but it was much more than that. It was a very articulate and rather extreme expression of one of the two approaches that have dominated Canada's relations with the United States for decades.

The first approach is the one PM Carney expressed rather forcefully. That is, the United States is our neighbour and our friend but they are so large there is an ever present threat that they will swallow Canada just by its very existence. Therefore, there needs to be a constant effort to push back on that to maintain our sovereignty and our distinctiveness.

The second approach is to be somewhat more subordinate to the United States. They are the dominant country on the planet, financially, militarily and culturally, so trying to fight that is futile and besides making us more like them can only be beneficial to Canada and its people.

Of course, that is a simplification of the complex interplay between the two approaches. No government has ever chosen to follow one approach over the other but all governments have chosen to give one more weight in their dealings with the US.

The Liberals tend to choose the first approach. Think of PM Pierre Trudeau and his much more conciliatory approach to relations with the Soviet Union and Communist China of the 1970s and 80s. Think of Jean Chretien telling George W. Bush that Canada would not participate in the second invasion of Iraq in 2003. 

The Conservatives tend to favour the second approach. Think of the Diefenbaker government giving into pressure from the Kennedy Administration to scrap the Avro Arrow and buy the Bomarc Missiles, missiles that were obsolete before we bought them. Think of the Canada/US Free Trade Agreement or think of the trial balloons, from both Brian Mulroney and Stephen Harper, of adopting a common currency with the US. Only to see both never to mention that idea again when those balloons were shot down by Canadians with extreme prejudice.

Again, that is not to say they exclusively follow these approaches. The Chretien government negotiated the NAFTA and sent troops to Afghanistan after 9/11. The Mulroney government took the lead in negotiating the treaty that banned CFCs and they took the lead in the efforts to bring down Apartheid in South Africa, breaking with the Reagan Administration in both cases.

So Mark Carney's speech was just another example of the first approach and it was consistent with the Liberal's preferred approach to Canada/US relations. What was remarkable about it was how extreme of an example it was of that approach. As someone who has followed Canadian foreign policy for over four decades I was shocked by that speech, not because what he said was wrong but because I never believed a Canadian PM would articulate such a position in public.

Then again, Donald Trump, and his actions towards Canada, has created the conditions where the Canadian government would have to go to extremes to defend our sovereignty. The corollary to that is if we were being governed by the Conservatives they would probably have to go to extremes in their preferred approach.

That prospect scares the hell out of me as I have always preferred the first approach. This is not a partisan dig at the Conservatives by the way. I have always appreciated that governments of every stripe have balanced the two approaches in such a way that we have had decades of peace and prosperity with our southern neighbours. I have often disagreed with specific policies and decisions but overall I have been satisfied with how governments have handled the Canada/US relations.

Unfortunately, Donald Trump has eliminated the balanced approach as an option. He demands complete subordination from Canada, either as the 51st or a vassal state so we are left with having to choose a single approach. Therefore we either have to push back on that hard, as PM Carney is doing, or we have to give in to his demands. I am glad that PM Carney has chosen the approach he has chosen.

Well the Canadian Auto Industry Is Not Up to the Task

In a previous post I asked if the Canadian business class was up to the task of taking advantage of all of the new opportunities being presented by Mark Carney's efforts to expand and diversify markets for Canadian goods and services. I expressed doubt they would be and it would appear I am correct with regard to the Canadian auto industry.

My reasoning is they are beginning to make noise about having the government eliminate or at least delay the requirement to eliminate the sales of gas powered cars by 2035. That requirement has been in the books for over a decade and the Trudeau government gave the industry a couple of decades to meet it.

Those calls have become a little more louder with the Americans eliminating a large number of green house gas emissions requirements in the US, including measures that impact the US auto industry.

The reasoning I have heard is that with the US eliminating the requirement Canada no longer needs them and that pretty much sums up my distain for the Canadian business class.

As usual, they are falling on the old habit of depending on the US market for their business even though the actions of the Trump Administration is disintegrating the North American auto industry. They just cannot help themselves. The evidence is mounting, almost daily, that the US market is no longer a reliable one and will become increasingly unreliable as time goes on. As well, even if Donald Trump were to drop dead today it would not change much because his ideas about tariffs have been embraced by MAGA and will not go away quietly even after he is gone.

Therefore, if the Canadian auto industry wants to continue to be a viable industry they are going to have to expand their access to markets in Europe and Asia. The problem is those countries are toughening environmental requirements, not loosening them. So if the Canadian auto industry fails to meet those requirements they will not be able to sell their cars in those markets. They will be frozen out on environmental grounds. To be clear these will not be tariffs they will be bans on Canadian made automobiles on environmental grounds, i.e. no sales at all.

So the Canadian auto sector should be looking to accelerate their efforts to replace the sale of gas powered cars, not asking the government to loosen requirements. 

It is almost a state of nature that governments trail behind private businesses. There are many examples of that. However, we are seeing an exception. The Canadian government has embarked on a quest to completely change who Canadians can sell their goods and services to and our industry appears to be oblivious to this, falling back onto old but increasingly nonviable habits. 

It is both sad and infuriating.

Polls and Election Speculation

Liberals are celebrating great polling recently and some are speculating that we will be having a spring election.

Some will remember that when the CPC were 20 points up on the Liberals that I expressed profound doubt in the veracity of the polls because there was no election speculation to go along with the lead. After all, when a minority government, with less seats than the current minority government, goes 18 months without an election despite being down by that much then the polls were obviously untrue. It's true that Pierre Poilievre has no political acumen but even he would have finally figured out how to take advantage of great polling, given the amount of time he had to do so, if the polls were right. They were not and the fact the polling gap was closing before the election of Donald Trump, the resignation of PM Trudeau and the election of Mark Carney as Liberal leader pretty much proves that.

Which brings us to the great polling the Liberals are enjoying. The interesting thing is they are being accompanied by the media speculating about the Carney Liberals calling a snap election to take advantage of them. Does this mean we can assume the polls are correct this time? 

No.

Polls in between election campaigns are hopelessly unreliable. Hell they are only slightly more reliable during election campaigns but that is only because the polling companies use their polls as marketing tools so they have to be as close to the final election results as possible to maximize their effectiveness. So no campaign means the polls are garbage that can be safely ignored.

So why is the media speculating about an early election? 

First, because it sells. The media care about nothing more than clicks. It has been like that for quite some time. It is also why news media outlets are always skating near the edge of doom. No one wants to actually pay for that shit and they are increasingly acting on that lack of desire.

Second, the main stream media gave up actually informing consumers of their products on substantive issues a long time ago. And I mean before the internet became all pervasive. So if the media has to choose between election speculation and actually providing us real information about government programs and policies they will take speculation 100% of the time.

Third, the media does not have the best interests of the Liberal Party of Canada in mind. It has been like that since Jean Chretien was PM. They have been actively working to undermine the party since then and the election speculation is all about that. Right now Canadians are concerned about the orange blob who occupies the White House. They are also impressed with how Mark Carney is handling that situation. That is leading to his personal polling numbers being quite impressive and they are the only ones I actually believe, although they are probably overblown. The reason is I actually have conservative members of my family indicating they like him and what he is doing. These are the same relatives who never said a good thing about the Liberals for decades.

So something needs to be done to try to bring those numbers down. Telling Canadians that Mark Carney is planning on calling a snap election is one way to do that. No one wants an election and if the Liberals were to actually call one they would see their polling advantage evaporate very quickly. So a way to take advantage of that is to say the Liberals are planning to call a snap election, although not in so many words, which is why it is all speculation right now.

So my advice to you is to ignore it. It is all noise.

Is Canada's Business Class Up To The Task?

I have written in this space before that Canada is a first rate country with a fourth rate business class. Their way of making money is to establish branch plants for the big US multinationals and to pull stuff from the ground to sell as raw material. They rarely process that raw material into a value added product, being content to sell the raw material to another establishment, usually in the US, and buy back the finished product at a markup.

The actions of the US administration and the actions of the Carney government are putting big monkey wrenches into that approach to making money. The US is no longer reliable and even if Donald Trump were to drop dead tomorrow, it will not be reliable ever again. At the same time, Mark Carney is traveling around the world making trade and investment deals with anybody who is interested and judging by the number of deals he has announced it would appear that many are interested in what Canada has to offer.

So now our business class is going to have to step up. The government is creating the conditions for them to make money a different way than in the past. They just need to have the business acumen and courage to take advantage of them.

I am not holding my breath that they will. The old approach is too ingrained in our business class for them to change. However, they could surprise me.

We will have to wait and see.

The F-35 or the Gripen?

Personally I would prefer Canada buy the Super Hornet but that is not an option.

In all of the arguments around which aircraft to buy the key issue is always, "which aircraft has the greater capabilities?" Proponents of the F-35 indicate that it is the more capable aircraft of the two and they are correct.

Unfortunately, that is the wrong question. The question is which aircraft can best meet all of the operational needs the Canadian Air Force? 

The F-35 cannot meet all of the requirements. This particular airframe was developed for a specific mission, namely the deep penetration of hostile airspace, to take out high value targets, and return alive. For this it is very well suited but for other tasks not so much. Which is the reason that most users of the F-35 have other 4th generation fighter and strike aircraft to back them up. Hell, even the US has not even suggested retiring any of the F-Teens aircraft and the cost of the F-35 is not the only reason why.

So can the Gripen meet the requirement? Not completely. It is a capable aircraft but it is still lacking, although if Canada is only going to buy one type the Gripen comes closest to being able to meet all of the operational needs of the Air Force.

Then you have to look at the politics. The simple fact is the US is no longer a reliable ally so buying aircraft from them is a huge risk, particularly when said aircraft requires the frequency and intensity of maintenance the F-35 requires. It is true that part of the deal to purchase the F-35 is the maintenance of them and that the supply chains for the manufacture and maintenance of them include Canadian companies. However, watching the current administration trample all over agreements when it suits them does anybody really believe the maintenance deals and supply chains are safe? If they are not then the Canadian Air Force would be left with a large number of useless pieces of junk very quickly.

On the other hand the Swedes have made all sorts of promises regarding the manufacturing of the Gripen here in Canada. It all sounds great but one of the reasons why they have made these promises is because they want to build the Gripens for the Ukraine war away from the combatants. The problem is, if the deal goes through, the first Gripens would not roll of the assembly line until the late 2020s, maybe early 2030s. By then the war in Ukraine will probably be concluded one way or another and that could change plans really quick.

So what is the answer? As I stated above most F-35 users have other aircraft to complement them and that is the approach the Canadian Air Force should take. We have already agreed to buy 16 F-35s from the US and that agreement should be honoured. However, Canada should not agree to buy any more, instead filling out the balance of their requirement with the Gripen. 

This approach would best meet all of the operational requirements of the Air Force while mitigating the risks associated with buying both airframes. It would provide the Canadian Air Force with its own deep penetration capability, which is very important in the changing geopolitical landscape, while better meeting all of the other requirements as well.

Some would argue that maintaining two aircraft would lead to logistical issues but I am old enough to remember when the CAF had the Voodoo, Starfighter and CF-5 and they had no problems with logistics. They can do it again and with the big influx of money going to the CAF maintaining two logistical chains would be a good way to spend that money.

I do not know how this will all finally shake out but I am hoping that someone in authority will start thinking outside of the self-imposed box they seem to have put themselves in and consider the idea of buying both types.

A short note on why I prefer the Super Hornet. We already use an earlier version of the Hornet so the transition would go alot smoother. As well, I remember when Canada purchased the Hornets. It was a competition between the F-16 and the F-18 in the early 80's. Canada eventually settled on the F-18 and one of the reasons was it has two engines. When we have to send a couple of fighters up to the Arctic to play with some Russian Bears they have to cross some of the most forbidding terrain in the world. If an aircraft loses its engine there you not only lose the aircraft but the pilot also has a very low chance of survival even if they successfully and safely eject from the plane. Having two engines mitigates that risk. If one fails the other will allow you to limp home. Of course, the instances of engine failures in modern aircraft is very low so it is not a huge issue but it is not negligible and it would only take the loss of one Gripen or F-35 to engine failure to create all sorts of questions of why we did not buy aircraft with two engines.