That’s a big IF that isn’t happening, but what IF?
Analyst Suggests Two Months
The Wall Street Journal reports Two Months for Gulf Oil Output to Fully Return After War Ends, Analyst Says
If the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran ended today, it would take two weeks to restore shipping traffic in the Persian Gulf to normal and another two months to get oil production back to normal levels, said Anas Alhajji, a well-known oil-market analyst and managing partner at Energy Outlook Advisors. And that’s an optimistic scenario.
Alhajji said it is possible that groups with access to cheap drones could continue wreaking havoc on shipping through the Strait of Hormuz after the war ends. “Everyone I know is concerned,” Alhajji said. “Decentralized military activities by the Iranian regime and its cronies in the region, especially in Iraq, can inflict serious damage using low-cost methods.”
Debate Over War
Please consider A War by Any Other Name
President Trump’s decision not to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force against Iran has unleashed a chorus of circumlocution from Republican lawmakers.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R., Mo.) argues that only committing ground troops to the fight would qualify as war “in the constitutional sense.” Mr. Hawley is an intelligent man who completed a bachelor’s degree from Stanford, a law degree from Yale and a clerkship with Chief Justice John Roberts. If he has a credible legal basis for the claim that the military campaign the U.S. is waging against Iran doesn’t qualify as a war under the Constitution, he should lay it out.
Rep. Randy Fine (R., Fla.) makes a different argument. “It’s not a war,” he says. “The way you are officially at war is Congress declares war, and we haven’t declared war.” This is the logical equivalent of insisting that the sky isn’t blue until we say it is—and about as persuasive.
House Speaker Mike Johnson could win an award for military euphemisms. “We’re not at war right now,” he contended last Wednesday. “We’re four days into a very specific, clear mission—an operation.” In fairness, Mr. Johnson made this statement before the president announced that the aim was Iran’s “unconditional surrender,” which is what the Allies demanded of the Axis powers during World War II. A question for the speaker: Does the president’s new goal move the needle from “operation” to “war”? Or will our conflict with Iran remain, for you and your colleagues, a war by any other name?
These evasions seem motivated by Republicans’ unwillingness to acknowledge that Mr. Trump has plunged the U.S. into a war that Congress neither declared nor authorized.
It’s easy to dismiss my concerns as an obsession with constitutional niceties that modern conditions have rendered obsolete. But congressional consideration of the case for war is a precondition for a sustainable foreign policy. With public debate, the people have a chance to understand the pros and cons of putting American interests and lives at risk. Even if the public loses the argument, at least Americans can see that elected officials have represented their views. The alternative—ignoring public sentiment—widens the gulf between the people and their government.
When presidents make mistakes in the use of military force, the absence of congressional buy-in leaves them with nowhere to turn. When wars go badly, the president’s party pays a price, even when its elected representatives don’t participate in the decision to go to war. Because congressional Republicans’ fate is so intertwined with Mr. Trump’s, they may eventually rue their decision to block a public debate on Iran.
No Intelligence
Is 70 Percent Good Enough?
The answer is no.
Moreover, Iran, Iraq, and Kuwait won’t be at close to 100 percent either.
Foreign Presidents Need Permission from Trump to Be President
Complete or the Beginning?
Q: You said the war is ‘very complete.’ But your defense secretary says ‘this is just the beginning.’ So which is it? TRUMP: You could say both
Trump Says ‘I think the war is very complete, pretty much’
Please note Trump Says ‘I think the war is very complete, pretty much’
Great. When do we send in the troops? Or is the surrender idea over?
A Refresher Course on Soon
Yesterday, a reporter asked Trump if the war with Iran would be over this week. Mr. Trump said, “No. soon, very soon.”
Today, the Wall Street Journal reports Hegseth Says ‘We Will Not Relent’ Until Iran Is Defeated
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Iran is “badly losing” in the war and that Tuesday’s airstrikes would be the most intense yet of the campaign against the regime.
“We will not relent until the enemy is totally and decisively defeated, but we do so on our time line and at our choosing,” Hegseth told a joint press conference with Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
Earlier, Iran’s foreign minister said negotiations with the U.S. were off the table, after President Trump said the war will be over “very soon” but that the U.S. military campaign still has further to go.
The Meaning of Soon
AI: Soon generally refers to a short, subjective period in the near future, typically ranging from a few minutes to several days, depending on the context.
Alice: Within a week.
Trump: More than a week.
Hegseth: “Our time line and at our choosing”
The Meaning of Complete
Q: What does very complete mean?
A: Just the beginning
Who’s to Blame?
March 9, 2026: Trump Points the Finger at Steve, Pete, Marco, and Jared for the War
It was inevitable Trump would blame others. And how soon is very soon?
What’s Clear and What Isn’t?
Clear: Trump blames Steve Miller, Marco Rubio, Jared Kushner, and Pete Hegseth.
Clear: Very complete means just the beginning
Not Clear: The meaning of very soon.
Not Clear: Whether Trump backs down or sends in ground troops.
Not Clear: The total cost
I hope that clears things up.
I expect to provide still more clarity as soon as Trump changes definitions. That’s likely to be very soon.
Meanwhile, please note that normal is just around the corner IF the war ends today.
Comments
Log in or sign up to join the conversation.