"What If the U.S. Navy Isn’t in a Hurry to Reopen the Strait of Hormuz?"

 

That's the intriguing question posed by John Konrad in a lengthy article yesterday.

The Strait of Hormuz is twenty-one miles wide. Two shipping channels, each two miles across, separated by a two-mile buffer. There is no alternative. Saudi Arabia’s East-West Pipeline to Yanbu and the UAE’s pipeline to Fujairah can handle maybe five million barrels combined. The math doesn’t work. The bottleneck is not political. It is geological and hydrographic.

Every TV analyst in America is talking about minesweepers and carrier strike groups. They are asking the wrong questions. The binding constraint on Hormuz was never a minefield or insurance. It is the US Navy’s willingness and ability to reopen it.

Every talking point suggests the White House and Navy are working hard to reopen the strait but progress is slow. A new posts on Truth Social suggests we may have to considet a new hypothesis.

“I wonder what would happen if we “finished off” what’s left of the Iranian Terror State, and let the Countries that use it, we don’t, be responsible for the so called Strait?” wrote President Trump in a psot this morning. “That would get some of our non-responsive “Allies” in gear, and fast!!!”

. . .

The United States now controls the on/off switch for the Strait of Hormuz. Not through naval firepower. Through insurance.

Read the latest MARAD advisory carefully: U.S.-flagged, owned, or crewed commercial vessels operating in these areas should maintain a minimum standoff of 30 nautical miles from U.S. military vessels.

And read this part of the DFC announcement again… “coordinated with US Central Command.”

They cannot pass without the Navy permission.

The green light has not appeared.

. . .

Now connect the dots.

Strike Iran, and Europe either bends or goes dark in an energy crisis.

The European shipping community and political establishment spent the past year dismissing, undermining, and mocking every Trump maritime initiative. They scoffed at the USTR tariffs. They laughed at the SHIPS Act. They blocked the IMO exemptions. They refused to take American maritime policy seriously.

Now their energy supply runs through an insurance facility controlled by Washington.

“Let their navies figure it out.” Except everyone knows they cannot. European naval forces are too small, too slow, and too poorly equipped for sustained convoy escort operations through a contested strait. All the European navies combined could not send more than three ships at a time to defend the Red Sea. An entire German task force sailed around Africa to avoid it.

Eventually Europe will have to capitulate to get the U.S. Navy, and the U.S. insurance backstop, to fully reopen the Strait.

What does “capitulate” look like? The IMO carbon tax. Greenland. Tariff concessions. The SHIPS Act. Every maritime policy priority that Europe and China have been blocking for the past year.

. . .

Look at what the Navy is doing. Or rather, not doing.

The U.S. Navy is in no rush to solve this problem. They are methodically, deliberately, taking their time ... Someone at the top told them to take their time. That signal has to be coming from the White House.

Every day, approximately 1,000 trapped vessels are not available for charter. Every day, European energy dependence deepens. Every day, the DFC reinsurance facility becomes more central to the global shipping system. Every day, the case for concessions on tariffs, the IMO, Greenland, and the SHIPS Act becomes harder for Europe to refuse.

And what does the Navy get for playing along? Support for battleships and stronger allies willing to spend money building their own destroyers when it becomes clear to the world how weak their navies have become.

. . .

I am not arguing that Trump planned this from the beginning ... What I am arguing is that the administration has, whether by design or adaptation, assembled the tools to exploit this moment.

There's much more at the link.  Highly recommended reading.

It's a fascinating thesis, and on the surface it looks entirely rational as a way to solve a whole bunch of problems in one fell swoop.  I agree with the last sentence cited above.  I'm sure President Trump did not intend his actions in Iran to produce this conundrum . . . but it would deal with an awful lot of Gordian knots all at once, wouldn't it?

Peter

Not false advertising - just different transatlantic meanings

 

I enjoyed a BBC article on the various ways and means British workers had used to wake up in time for their jobs.  Here's how it begins.

During Britain's industrial revolution, new factories faced a need for strict timekeeping – including far more specific start times for workers.

A worker arriving even five minutes late could hold up an entire assembly line, losing their employers' profit. They needed a means to wake up on time, especially in the darker winter months, and while early alarm clocks existed at this time, they were far too expensive for a typical worker.

Factories tried using whistles and bells to wake and summon workers, but they often proved unreliable. Instead, an entire profession dedicated to awakening people sprouted up: knocker uppers.

These human alarm clocks would work their way down streets and sometimes whole neighbourhoods knocking or tapping on windows, or shooting peas at them, says Arunima Datta, associate professor of history at the University of North Texas. "They would stand there until they got a response from their clients, they wouldn't move."

In fact, jobs akin to knocker uppers have been used in many other societies around the world, says Datta, especially in Muslim communities during the holy month of Ramadan, when people needed to wake up early to pray and have their first meal before dawn.

Throughout history, people have had plenty of other inventive ways of waking up, from simply keeping roosters to clever candle clocks that dropped needles into metal trays every hour. 

Learning how these past societies slept and woke up could even help us improve our own sleep – and awakenings – today.

There's more at the link.

I had to smile at the mention of "knocker upper".  In England, that expression meant a job that woke up workers so they could get to their jobs on time.  In the USA, however, to "knock someone up" means to make them pregnant.

My mother always used to smile broadly when she heard the expression.  During World War II, she was in England "keeping the home fires burning" for my father, who was fighting the war overseas.  She acted as a "knocker upper" for her colleagues from time to time:  they took turns at waking each other up to be on time for their jobs.

When the first American troops arrived in Britain in 1942, they were enthralled to learn that there were actually job openings for "knocker-uppers".  In fact, some of them tried to apply for part-time employment as such at the Labor Exchange, thinking the expression meant in Britain what it did in the USA.  You can imagine their disappointment when they learned it had nothing to do with sex!  The British thought the Yank servicemen were weird, but funny, and used to joke with them about it.  "Yes, I'm a knocker-up, mate, but not that kind of knocker-up!"

I'm still amused by the thought.

Peter

Facing reality over Iran

 

I'm getting more and more fed up with politicians, commentators, journalists and so-called "experts" all saying that President Trump's decision to strike Iran was misguided, wrong-headed and stupid.  The same goes for all the European and other nations refusing to provide support, military or otherwise, for the joint US-Israeli campaign in that country.

The blunt fact of the matter is that for almost half a century, the West has wrung its hands, expressed dismay and shock, and uttered pious platitudes every time Iran did something evil.  Whether it was murdering tens of thousands of their own citizens, or exporting terrorism to many parts of the world, or bombing Israel, nothing Iran did elicited a suitably strong response from the West.  All they did was talk.  They did not act.  With every incident, they kicked the can further down the road, for future politicians and leaders to do something about it - but they never did.

President Trump and his leadership team recognized that the can could not be kicked any further.  The time had come to act, to stop Iran potentially wreaking havoc all over the world.  The key moment of decision probably came during negotiations in Switzerland in late February.

Iranian officials told their US counterparts during crunch talks last month that the Islamic Republic possessed enough enriched fuel to build 11 nuclear bombs, President Trump’s special envoy claimed Monday night.

“Both the Iranian negotiators said to us directly with, you know, no shame, that they controlled 460 kilograms of 60% [enriched uranium],” Steve Witkoff told Fox News host Sean Hannity, “and they’re aware that that could make 11 nuclear bombs, and that was the beginning of their negotiating stance.”

Witkoff and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner engaged in three rounds of indirect talks beginning in Oman Feb. 6 and concluding in Geneva, Switzerland Feb. 26 in what turned out to be a last-ditch effort to prevent US military action against Iran.

“Jared and I opened up with the Iranian negotiators telling us they had the inalienable right to enrich all their nuclear fuel that they possessed. That’s how they opened up,” Witkoff recounted.

“We, of course, responded that the president feels we have the inalienable right to stop you dead in your tracks,” he continued.

“They then went on to say that beyond the inalienable right to enrich, that that was going to be their starting point. And Jared and I just sort of looked at ourselves flummoxed and said, ‘Well, we’re really in for it now.'”

Witkoff, 68, made worldwide headlines ahead of the Geneva talks when he claimed Iran was “probably a week away from having industrial-grade bomb-making material.”

The special envoy expanded on those remarks Monday: “I know this: They have 10,000, roughly, kilograms of fissionable material. That’s broken up into roughly 460 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium, another 1,000 kilograms of 20% enriched uranium …They manufacture their own centrifuges to enrich this material. So, there’s almost no stopping them. They have an endless supply of it.

“The 60% material ... can be brought to 90%, that’s weapons-grade, in roughly one week, maybe 10 days at the outside. The 20% can be brought to weapons-grade inside of three to four weeks.”

“They were proud of it,” Witkoff went on. “They were proud that they had evaded all sorts of oversight protocols to get to a place where they could deliver 11 nuclear bombs.”

Witkoff also claimed that he and Kushner, on behalf of the US, offered to provide Iran nuclear fuel for the next decade on the condition it was not used for any weapons program.

“They rejected that, which told us at that very moment that they had no — no notion of doing anything other than retaining enrichment for the purpose of weaponizing.”

With the US-Israeli war against Iran entering a fourth day, Witkoff described Tehran’s negotiating position as “silly,” but added: “They thought they could strong-arm us.”

There's more at the link.

Of course the Iranian leadership thought they could strong-arm President Trump!  They'd been doing it to Western nations, jointly and severally, for decades - why should this time be any different?  And so they presented the President with the one threat that he could not, dared not, leave unaddressed.  How do you kick the reality of nuclear weapons down the road?  You daren't . . . otherwise that reality might blow up in your face.

Think how easily Iran could smuggle a couple of nuclear warheads across our borders, perhaps concealed in container shipments from China, or carried by members of its diplomatic corps and/or terrorist groups that are already active in South America.  What would a US president do if he tried to rein in Iran in future, only to be told that unless he backed down, two or three US cities would be vaporized?  Can you imagine what a left-wing progressive President would do under those circumstances?  If you think Obama or Biden or another of their ilk would have stood up to that threat, I have this bridge in New York City I'd like to sell you.  Cash only, please, and in small bills.

No.  There are many reasons why the US and Israel might have refrained from acting as they did . . . but every one of them is trumped (you should pardon the expression) by the overriding threat of nuclear geopolitical terrorism.

As soon as Iran took that stance in Switzerland, it kicked the can right off the road and made its own destruction inevitable.  That's the bottom line.

I think that one day, the rest of the world might be very, very grateful to President Trump for taking the stance he did.

Peter

Back from the hospital

 

The caudal injection seems to have gone OK, apart from a fair amount of pain during the procedure.  The doctor informed me that the mass of scar tissue in the area - the cumulative result of a bullet wound many years ago, followed by two spine surgeries after my disabling injury in 2004 - made it difficult to pass between the lumps to get at the caudal cavity, and resisted the needle, hence causing added pain.  However, once he got in there, it went well.

I'm back home now with a numb butt and vague feelings of posterior resentment.  This, too, shall pass.  Thanks for all the prayers and good wishes!

Peter

Another day at the hospital...

 

By the time this post auto-publishes, I'll be on the road to a local hospital for a procedure known as a caudal epidural injection.  It's designed to inject medication to control nerve pain into the caudal space, a hollow channel running up through the base of the spine.  It's an interim treatment for severe back pain and associated limitations on mobility.  If it works, it'll buy me time to prepare for the major back surgery that I'm going to need relatively shortly.  If it doesn't work, well, I won't be any worse off (apart from a punctured coccyx and a sore butt!  The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune have nothing on the scalpels and needles of sadistic surgeons . . . )

I'm not looking forward to the procedure, but I don't have any alternative to it right now, so here's hoping.  Prayers for medical success would be appreciated.  I'm not sure who's the patron saint of injections through the butt into the spine, but if there is one, I'll gladly invoke their intercession!  (Saint Sebastian was shot through by arrows:  do you think he might qualify?)

Peter

The challenge to writers and content creators

 

Ted Gioia points out the real challenge to making an impact in the writing and publishing world - not just authors, but journalists, essayists and thinkers in general.

As journalists lose their jobs, more publicists get hired. The result is that there are now seven times as many publicists as journalists. The rise of AI agents will only make this worse, much worse.

The entire media ecosystem is breaking down. Around three-quarters of journalists now block publicists who are (they believe) spamming them. I get so many pitches from PR people that I can’t even begin to deal with them.

I’m fortunate that I’ve found other ways of getting access to useful information—but that’s more a workaround rather than a real solution. In the meantime, all the noise coming from the publicity world isn’t good for anyone. As a result, many deserving musicians, authors and other creatives can’t get any attention, no matter how talented they are.

There are many causes, but the single biggest one is the decline in paid jobs for journalists. And the underlying reason for that is obvious: Google and Facebook stole all the ad revenues that previously supported journalism. Fix that and so many other problems go away End of story.

. . .

[Timothy Chalamet] grasps the reality that culture is now evaluated on cash flow, not creativity. He’s no fool. He works in Hollywood, where you always pay as you go.

Yesterday the New York Times inadvertently called attention to this same hypocrisy.

Times publisher AG Sulzberger bragged that the newspaper now employs 2,300 journalists—twice as many as a decade ago.

That sounds like good news. But I’m left wondering how the numbers of writers can double while the Times’ coverage of opera, ballet, jazz, books, etc. has collapsed during that same period.

Once you dig into the numbers, you see that the Times also scorns these idioms. In their world, ballet and opera have been superseded by word games and cookie recipes.

There's more at the link.  Mr. Gioia goes on to link those issues to the parlous state of fiction writing today:  you can read about that at the link, if you're a writer.

I find it hard to argue against his points.  So much of the writing we read today in news and social media is half-educated, poorly expressed, and reliant upon slang and profanity to convince readers, rather than make well-informed points and persuade them.  I suppose that may be why "shock jocks" like Nick Fuentes or Keith Olbermann have so many followers:  they entertain rather than inform, and try to rouse emotions rather than discuss issues rationally.

Trouble is, I don't see any solution on the horizon when I look at the state of American education today.  We're turning out semi-educated half-wits for the most part.  They've never been taught how to think - only what to think;  and the news outlets that publish them are telling people to shut up and do as they're told, and not think for themselves.  The results are clearly to be seen in our younger politicians.

Not a happy thought.

Peter

Memes that made me laugh 303

 

Gathered from around the Internet over the past week.  Click any image for a larger view.

What is artificial intelligence? Here are some answers.

 

Following several recent articles about artificial intelligence (AI) and its impact on our jobs, our society and our future, a number of readers have contacted me asking for more information on a very basic level.  For example, what is AI?  Is it, in fact, intelligence - or just a computer program acting as if it were intelligent?  Does AI mean that we're living in something like the Matrix's simulated reality?

Let me offer two relatively easy-to-understand avenues for further reading.  First, Fox News has a category called Artificial Intelligence.  It contains current and recent news articles dealing with the subject, plus a sidebar of basic information about what AI is, how it works, its history and its dangers.

Second, Wikipedia has a more academic article about AI.  It's not as easy to read or understand, but it repays careful attention.  Of particular value are the links it provides to articles and Web sites that further explain aspects of AI.  I don't trust Wikipedia as a sole-source authority, but I think it's a great start for further reading.

I recommend both links for further reading.  Hope this helps.

Peter