Trump seems to be conspicuously motivated to present his questionable adventure with the B2 bombers striking Iran’s nuclear facilities as a resounding success. Everybody seems to dismiss it, attributing it to his normal egomania, but I do wonder if there’s more to it.
For instance, Netanyahu could have framed the situation in terms where only an American nuclear strike at the underground facilities, and a decapitation nuclear strike at Tehran, would guarantee the end of Iranian nuclear programme, and the Islamic regime there. Trump would have been very disinclined to see things this way and proposed an alternative scenario, where he uses conventional bombs to disable the nuclear facilities, and only decapitates Iran if they prove disinclined to make any kind of a deal.
So, even if those conventional strikes achieved next to nothing, which in fact seems to be the case, Trump would try very hard to present them as a complete success, so that he wouldn’t have to resort to a nuclear strike, because that’s a can of worms he doesn’t want to open.
There now seems to be some kind of a very questionable ceasefire in action, but the entire thing doesn’t look over to me.
The Russians, on the other hand, are making more of a progress in Ukraine. They don’t seem to be in much of a hurry, and their actions are constrained by aversion to losses and the geopolitical chess game, because the sooner they deal with Ukraine, the sooner they will have to deal with the unfortunate next Slavic country to be thrown at them by NATO. So, they are doing this very slowly, hoping that the degradation of the West will do most of their work for them without them having to resort to either nuclear weapons or mass battles with huge losses. The things are proceeding slowly, but apparently due to choice rather than necessity. I, however, don’t share their optimism. Putin wants to avoid nuclear war even at the cost of deterrence, but anyone who knows anything about game theory can tell you that this is a terrible strategy that actually encourages further encroachment to the point where it in fact causes the thing it meant to prevent.
The current situation is highly unpredictable, since too many clowns are running the circus, and Putin played certain moves contrary to conventional logic, which is not a good thing. His response to the bombing of the “Bears” on airfields, which are intentionally exposed so that the other side can count them and see their activity via satellite imagery in real time, and are therefore considered inviolable by both sides, should have been either nuclear, or a super-destructive conventional strike at the NATO intelligence and command&control centres that orchestrated the attack. That would be the tit-for-tat expected in the game, and would inform the other side that further encroachment will not be tolerated, thus reducing the risk of escalation. By not responding in an immediate and nasty enough manner, Putin sent a very dangerous signal, essentially encouraging further encroachment. It’s as if he’s actually trying to encourage the other side to start the nuclear war. Either his Christianity went into his head, turning the other cheek and that kind of stuff, or he actually wants a nuclear exchange to take place, but he wants the other side to appear guilty. It’s weird. Too many poorly judged, unconventional strategic moves have been taking place from both sides, resulting in a situation that is volatile as it is unpredictable.