I think the most important and consequential argument in your post is how weak the West has proven. And not only with Iran... there's Russia and, especially so, China, which has observed from the quasi-sidelines the quasi-zero-tolerance-for-pain that the US has shown and the zero political engagement that Europe has proved capable of (once again). And how easy it is to pit Europe and the US against each other. For me, this Iran affair proves not only the weakness of the West as a political coalition, as a geopolitical entity.... but also two other matters: real power in the West (the US) is in businesses and politicians will always do what businesses want; and the decline of a whole idea of high politics, diplomacy, balance of powers... Something new is coming.
PS: It's astounding to see European powers, for example the Meloni-Macron 'reconciliation', still acting as if they matter and as if they are an entity to account for and to count on. Europe is a mere vassal, terrorised by the return of fascism and Nazism, which their incompetence has revived. The US should think carefully about whether to leave it on its own, once and for all (not that sticking to it would change outcomes). I suggest you listen to "You'll be back": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5JAjAR_AjY.
Everything has been clear since the end of the nineteenth century.
Thanks Karl, and you are correct. I had hesitated between "elimination" and "assassination". I think I instinctively opted for the former because I see the killing of Iran's nuclear scientists as an act of self-defense on Israel's part. Assassination carries a connotation that in this case I do not share -- for me this is not like the assassination of Kennedy, or Martin Luther King. But you're right, "elimination" is a euphemism. Perhaps "killing" would have been the more objective term.
Lets be clear and precisse: the dictionary says: "Assassination is the deliberate, premeditated murder of a prominent individual—such as a political leader, activist, or public figure—typically executed by sudden or secret attack . Unlike common murder, it is usually driven by political, ideological, or financial motives rather than purely personal vengeance."
And not only the scientists, also most of the political leadership in Iran were assassinated. Dire pane al pane e vino al vino.
Dr. Annunziata's, your piece reaches several reassuring conclusions, and each one invites a number. Take them in order. As usual, I will stick with my domain. Energy.
Your writing predicts the war will not accelerate renewables. This is testable, and the test is already in. In the exact window described, EU battery-electric registrations rose 48.9 percent in March year on year and passed 20 percent of the market, while France's petrol and diesel registrations fell 40.3 percent. Europe registered over 500,000 EVs in the first quarter, up 33.5 percent. More than 30 countries set monthly EV sales records in March. Beyond cars, UK heat pump sales rose 51 percent and solar 54 percent in three weeks, and the US drew more power from renewables than from natural gas across March for the first time. The IEA's own director, no alarmist, expects the shock to accelerate renewables. To forecast no acceleration during the strongest quarter of clean-energy adoption on record is a bold reading of the data.
Then the "reprieve as oil prices fall." Falling from what, exactly? Brent sat near $72 before the war, passed $100 on March 8 for the first time in four years, and at the peak was driven above $120, with Dubai crude hitting a record $166. It is now back near $72. A reprieve is not evidence the danger was small. It is evidence the danger was large enough to need relieving.
"You wouldn't know it from global growth" is the next claim. You would, if you looked. Global oil inventories drew down 246 million barrels across March and April. The strait's near closure removed an estimated 14 million barrels a day from supply. Pakistan moved to a four-day work week, and a protester died in the Comoros over fuel prices. The world coped by draining reserves and rerouting through pipelines that carry nine million barrels a day against the twenty the strait handles. Surviving an emergency is not the same as the emergency being minor.
The sharpest tension is internal. Dr. Annunziata. You write that the West "caved because it was slightly uncomfortable," then calls the resulting deal a sign of US weakness. Both cannot hold. If the discomfort was slight, the cave is inexplicable. If the cave was rational, the discomfort was not slight. Higher fuel prices, by most accounts, were exactly what pressured Washington to end the war.
Which brings us to "the capricious gods of climate change." Leave the theology aside; nothing here turns on it. The point is older and narrower. A distant horizon rarely moves the dull, and history is a long catalogue of leaders who could not see past the next quarter, often because the next quarter is what they are paid on, to the cost of an economy lashed to combustible imports. But that was never an argument against the transition. It was a confession about who was paying attention. The slow need the lesson delivered in cash, on a forecourt, with a tanker that does not arrive. The war merely sent the invoice the incurious always swore would never come, itemized, in euros. The exposure had been in plain view for years. Some people simply needed a war to read it.
None of this requires a position on Iran or the wider geopolitics, and you Dr. Annunziata may well be right about all of it. The energy arithmetic is different. It is not a question of judgment. It is arithmetic, and it already has an answer. The only open question is how long the comfortable will take to read it.
I think the most important and consequential argument in your post is how weak the West has proven. And not only with Iran... there's Russia and, especially so, China, which has observed from the quasi-sidelines the quasi-zero-tolerance-for-pain that the US has shown and the zero political engagement that Europe has proved capable of (once again). And how easy it is to pit Europe and the US against each other. For me, this Iran affair proves not only the weakness of the West as a political coalition, as a geopolitical entity.... but also two other matters: real power in the West (the US) is in businesses and politicians will always do what businesses want; and the decline of a whole idea of high politics, diplomacy, balance of powers... Something new is coming.
PS: It's astounding to see European powers, for example the Meloni-Macron 'reconciliation', still acting as if they matter and as if they are an entity to account for and to count on. Europe is a mere vassal, terrorised by the return of fascism and Nazism, which their incompetence has revived. The US should think carefully about whether to leave it on its own, once and for all (not that sticking to it would change outcomes). I suggest you listen to "You'll be back": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5JAjAR_AjY.
Everything has been clear since the end of the nineteenth century.
I have suffered through a performance of Hamilton years ago...once was enough....
"the elimination of leading scientists"..... Marco, they were not "eliminated", they were assassinated. Thanks.
Thanks Karl, and you are correct. I had hesitated between "elimination" and "assassination". I think I instinctively opted for the former because I see the killing of Iran's nuclear scientists as an act of self-defense on Israel's part. Assassination carries a connotation that in this case I do not share -- for me this is not like the assassination of Kennedy, or Martin Luther King. But you're right, "elimination" is a euphemism. Perhaps "killing" would have been the more objective term.
Lets be clear and precisse: the dictionary says: "Assassination is the deliberate, premeditated murder of a prominent individual—such as a political leader, activist, or public figure—typically executed by sudden or secret attack . Unlike common murder, it is usually driven by political, ideological, or financial motives rather than purely personal vengeance."
And not only the scientists, also most of the political leadership in Iran were assassinated. Dire pane al pane e vino al vino.
Fair enough.
Il fine giustifica i mezzi.
Dr. Annunziata's, your piece reaches several reassuring conclusions, and each one invites a number. Take them in order. As usual, I will stick with my domain. Energy.
Your writing predicts the war will not accelerate renewables. This is testable, and the test is already in. In the exact window described, EU battery-electric registrations rose 48.9 percent in March year on year and passed 20 percent of the market, while France's petrol and diesel registrations fell 40.3 percent. Europe registered over 500,000 EVs in the first quarter, up 33.5 percent. More than 30 countries set monthly EV sales records in March. Beyond cars, UK heat pump sales rose 51 percent and solar 54 percent in three weeks, and the US drew more power from renewables than from natural gas across March for the first time. The IEA's own director, no alarmist, expects the shock to accelerate renewables. To forecast no acceleration during the strongest quarter of clean-energy adoption on record is a bold reading of the data.
Then the "reprieve as oil prices fall." Falling from what, exactly? Brent sat near $72 before the war, passed $100 on March 8 for the first time in four years, and at the peak was driven above $120, with Dubai crude hitting a record $166. It is now back near $72. A reprieve is not evidence the danger was small. It is evidence the danger was large enough to need relieving.
"You wouldn't know it from global growth" is the next claim. You would, if you looked. Global oil inventories drew down 246 million barrels across March and April. The strait's near closure removed an estimated 14 million barrels a day from supply. Pakistan moved to a four-day work week, and a protester died in the Comoros over fuel prices. The world coped by draining reserves and rerouting through pipelines that carry nine million barrels a day against the twenty the strait handles. Surviving an emergency is not the same as the emergency being minor.
The sharpest tension is internal. Dr. Annunziata. You write that the West "caved because it was slightly uncomfortable," then calls the resulting deal a sign of US weakness. Both cannot hold. If the discomfort was slight, the cave is inexplicable. If the cave was rational, the discomfort was not slight. Higher fuel prices, by most accounts, were exactly what pressured Washington to end the war.
Which brings us to "the capricious gods of climate change." Leave the theology aside; nothing here turns on it. The point is older and narrower. A distant horizon rarely moves the dull, and history is a long catalogue of leaders who could not see past the next quarter, often because the next quarter is what they are paid on, to the cost of an economy lashed to combustible imports. But that was never an argument against the transition. It was a confession about who was paying attention. The slow need the lesson delivered in cash, on a forecourt, with a tanker that does not arrive. The war merely sent the invoice the incurious always swore would never come, itemized, in euros. The exposure had been in plain view for years. Some people simply needed a war to read it.
None of this requires a position on Iran or the wider geopolitics, and you Dr. Annunziata may well be right about all of it. The energy arithmetic is different. It is not a question of judgment. It is arithmetic, and it already has an answer. The only open question is how long the comfortable will take to read it.