September 2026 - Helobubbas - mcs13.brattland.org

USAF Rotorheads
by mgbrattland＠gerlecreek.com 08 Sep '26

08 Sep '26

https://usafrotorheads.com/ CDR Mike Brattland, USN (Ret.) <mailto:mgbrattland@gerlecreek.com> mgbrattland(a)gerlecreek.com <mailto:mgbrattland@brattland.org> mgbrattland(a)brattland.org Admin/Moderator SanDiegoCarGuys List & Calendar of Events <mailto:sandiegocarguys@brattland.org> sandiegocarguys(a)brattland.org 619 454-0496 '38 Willys 2 Dr Sedan Webmaster for <http://www.brattland.org/> www.brattland.org <http://www.overthehillgang.com/> www.overthehillgang.com <http://www.overdrivehotrodnews.com/> www.overdrivehotrodnews.com <http://www.gerlecreek.org/> www.gerlecreek.org <http://www.helobubbas.com/> www.helobubbas.com <http://www.prowlers.org/> www.prowlers.org <http://www.gerlecreek.com/> www.gerlecreek.com <http://www.ford6vcarburetion.com/> www.ford6vcarburetion.com <http://www.westcoastwillysclub.com/> www.westcoastwillysclub.com <http://www.nssha.org/> www.nssha.org

1 0

HC-7 Sea Devils Website
by mgbrattland＠gerlecreek.com 08 Sep '26

08 Sep '26

http://www.hc7seadevils.org/new/index2.html Lots of historic information long kept by former HC-7 members on the website including a lot of great helicopter photos. Some of the content is restricted to members, but much of it is not...fyi.mgb CDR Mike Brattland, USN (Ret.) <mailto:mgbrattland@gerlecreek.com> mgbrattland(a)gerlecreek.com <mailto:mgbrattland@brattland.org> mgbrattland(a)brattland.org Admin/Moderator SanDiegoCarGuys List & Calendar of Events <mailto:sandiegocarguys@brattland.org> sandiegocarguys(a)brattland.org 619 454-0496 '38 Willys 2 Dr Sedan Webmaster for <http://www.brattland.org/> www.brattland.org <http://www.overthehillgang.com/> www.overthehillgang.com <http://www.overdrivehotrodnews.com/> www.overdrivehotrodnews.com <http://www.gerlecreek.org/> www.gerlecreek.org <http://www.helobubbas.com/> www.helobubbas.com <http://www.prowlers.org/> www.prowlers.org <http://www.gerlecreek.com/> www.gerlecreek.com <http://www.ford6vcarburetion.com/> www.ford6vcarburetion.com <http://www.westcoastwillysclub.com/> www.westcoastwillysclub.com <http://www.nssha.org/> www.nssha.org

1 0

Soviet sub threat
by randall abshier 07 Sep '26

07 Sep '26

For us old HS/HSL helo types, this would be bad news! Not sure today’s HeloBubbas get much ASW training with all their other missions demands. Not sure how many of today’s helos have ASW sensors/equipment still installed. Europe/NATO better get their ASW programs going. Eventually we will need too. https://www.foxnews.com/world/russias-quieter-nuclear-submarines-threaten-n… Sent from my iPad

1 0

Re: Putin's latest demands
by Terry McKearney 07 Sep '26

07 Sep '26

…and… He knows/thinks the US will tire of supporting Ukraine and is willing to take the gamble that the Europeans won’t come to the Ukrainians’ aid in anything like the scope that we have. He’s pretty sure that Witkoff/Kushner/Trump will make Zelensky fold, at least on the concessions he needs. The Secretary of Energy was on CNN’s Sunday show yesterday and casually threw in that part of the oil price problem is that Ukraine has been bombing Russian oil refineries and taking that resource off the world market. Wonder what that means in terms of this administration’s commitment to Ukraine? From: Marc Liebman <marc(a)marcliebman.com> Date: Monday, September 7, 2026 at 10:54 To: 'HeloBubbas' <helobubbas(a)helobubbas.com> Subject: [Helobubbas] Putin's latest demands WARNING - EXTERNAL EMAIL This Email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. https://understandingwar.org/research/russia-ukraine/russian-offensive-camp… While some might say reading this that Putin is delusional and living in an alternative world, he’s crazy like a fox. Remember, one of his long-term war aims is destroying NATO. Ukraine is merely a steppingstone to doing that. Right now, he has nothing to gain by agreeing to a peace treaty of any kind that doesn’t give him control of Ukraine. Anything short of that will lead to his supporters questioning why did Russia invade in the first place. Second, he sees an opportunity to link the Iran conflict to his war with Ukraine and put more pressure on the U.S. His read of Epic Fury is that Russia can survive that sort of onslaught and the U.S. doesn’t have enough weapons to conduct that kind of campaign against Russia. While the country could survive, I don’t think the Red Army and Air Force will. Any involvement of NATO in the Ukraine War will lead to an air campaign that isolate Red Army units so they can be destroyed piecemeal. If the Red Air Force tries to intercede, it will face an adversary against which it cannot compete, given the number of F-35s in NATO inventories. Bottom line is that Putin is a wounded, cornered animal. On one side he is fighting a war he cannot win. On another, he has an economy that has serious financial problems and his source of money is shrinking. Another limit is manpower. Russia is running our of military age males. And last, Ukraine’s drone war against the Russian Army’s logistics infrastructure and Russian oil is limiting the Red Army’s ability to sustain itself in the field, maneuver and ultimately fight. Unlike Hitler, Putin does not believe he will go down in a blaze of glory. He thinks he can win and Russia can again be the third dominant world power. Hence his positions. Marc Liebman https://www.marcliebman.com https://www.facebook.com/marcliebmanauthor/ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_sDoFQM5wupNaCeGIvKL1g Author of: Cherubs 2 Raider of the Scottish Coast Big Mother 40 Carronade Render Harmless Death of a Lady Forgotten Last Battles Inner Look For a Few Francs Moscow Airlift Predators The Simushir Island Incident Fight We Shall Flight of the Pawnee Prices of Opportunity Failure to Fire Insidious Dragon The Red Star of Death Member of: The Author’s Guild Military Writers Society of America Association of Texas Authors North American Snowsport Journalists Association -- _______________________________________________ Helobubbas mailing list -- helobubbas(a)helobubbas.com To unsubscribe send an email to helobubbas-leave(a)helobubbas.com

2 1

Putin's latest demands
by Marc Liebman 07 Sep '26

07 Sep '26

https://understandingwar.org/research/russia-ukraine/russian-offensive-camp… While some might say reading this that Putin is delusional and living in an alternative world, he’s crazy like a fox. Remember, one of his long-term war aims is destroying NATO. Ukraine is merely a steppingstone to doing that. Right now, he has nothing to gain by agreeing to a peace treaty of any kind that doesn’t give him control of Ukraine. Anything short of that will lead to his supporters questioning why did Russia invade in the first place. Second, he sees an opportunity to link the Iran conflict to his war with Ukraine and put more pressure on the U.S. His read of Epic Fury is that Russia can survive that sort of onslaught and the U.S. doesn’t have enough weapons to conduct that kind of campaign against Russia. While the country could survive, I don’t think the Red Army and Air Force will. Any involvement of NATO in the Ukraine War will lead to an air campaign that isolate Red Army units so they can be destroyed piecemeal. If the Red Air Force tries to intercede, it will face an adversary against which it cannot compete, given the number of F-35s in NATO inventories. Bottom line is that Putin is a wounded, cornered animal. On one side he is fighting a war he cannot win. On another, he has an economy that has serious financial problems and his source of money is shrinking. Another limit is manpower. Russia is running our of military age males. And last, Ukraine’s drone war against the Russian Army’s logistics infrastructure and Russian oil is limiting the Red Army’s ability to sustain itself in the field, maneuver and ultimately fight. Unlike Hitler, Putin does not believe he will go down in a blaze of glory. He thinks he can win and Russia can again be the third dominant world power. Hence his positions. Marc Liebman https://www.marcliebman.com https://www.facebook.com/marcliebmanauthor/ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_sDoFQM5wupNaCeGIvKL1g Author of: Cherubs 2 Raider of the Scottish Coast Big Mother 40 Carronade Render Harmless Death of a Lady Forgotten Last Battles Inner Look For a Few Francs Moscow Airlift Predators The Simushir Island Incident Fight We Shall Flight of the Pawnee Prices of Opportunity Failure to Fire Insidious Dragon The Red Star of Death Member of: The Author’s Guild Military Writers Society of America Association of Texas Authors North American Snowsport Journalists Association --

2 1

FW: Drone progress
by Michael G. Brattland 07 Sep '26

07 Sep '26

MGBrattland Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S23 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone -------- Original message --------From: Harold Brattland <habrattland(a)arvig.net> Date: 9/7/26 8:51 AM (GMT-08:00) To: Subject: Drone progress First photo of AF DC-130 outfitted to carry and launch Teledyne Ryan's model 154 later named AQM-91 outfitted for parachute landing or Mid-Air Recovery System (MARS) by CH-3E MARS equipped helicopter. Initial flights were from Hollman AFB NM, project team later moved to Edwards AFB, CA, in 1970 to be part of 6514th Test Squadron. Recovery loads on CH-3E caused development of CH-53C MARS system for AQM-91 MARS recovery. Later, CH-53 MARS used for recovery of cruise missiles and other UAV missiles. There is an AQM-91A hanging in the AF Museum Hanger,at WPAFB.OH. https://aviationweek.com/sites/default/files/styles/crop_freeform/public/20… -- untitled p { margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1px } body { font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal }

1 0

USNA class of '96
by mgbrattland＠gerlecreek.com 05 Sep '26

05 Sep '26

https://x.com/SECNAV/status/2096229402132513102?s=20 Did not know Speaker of the House is former Naval Officer and Naval Academy grad

2 2

Fwd: SITREP OpEd | Chinese military analysts can’t wait for the US Navy’s battleship era | 04 SEP 26
by Michael G. Brattland 05 Sep '26

05 Sep '26

MGBrattland Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S23 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone -------- Original message --------From: "andy.cain" <andy.cain(a)comcast.net> Date: 9/5/26 6:50 AM (GMT-08:00) To: Mike Brattland <mgbrattland(a)gerlecreek.com> Subject: Fwd: SITREP OpEd | Chinese military analysts can’t wait for the US Navy’s battleship era | 04 SEP 26 Original source. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/2026/09/03/chinese-military-analysts-ca… from my Galaxy-------- Original message --------Date: September 4, 2026 at 7:40:46 PM MDTSubject: SITREP OpEd | Chinese military analysts can’t wait for the US Navy’s battleship era | 04 SEP 26 @font-face { font-family: "MS Gothic"; } @font-face { font-family: "Cambria Math"; } @font-face { font-family: Calibri; } @font-face { font-family: Aptos; } @font-face { font-family: "Aptos Display"; } @font-face { font-family: "Microsoft JhengHei"; } @font-face { font-family: "@Microsoft JhengHei"; } @font-face { font-family: "@MS Gothic"; } p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Aptos, sans-serif; } a:link, span.MsoHyperlink { color: rgb(70, 120, 134); text-decoration: underline; } span.EmailStyle17 { font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: windowtext; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; } .MsoChpDefault { } @page WordSection1 { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 1in; } div.WordSection1 { page: WordSection1; } Chinese military analysts can’t wait for the US Navy’s battleship era A PLA assessment of the proposed Trump-class ships probes for weaknesses. U.S. President Donald Trump announced the creation of the “Trump-class” battleship on Dec. 22, 2025. (Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images) The U.S. Navy has experienced some considerable setbacks in recent months, from a power failure on a destroyer in the South China Sea to morale issues aboard the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln. Still, the service has been buoyed by a nationwide recognition that shipbuilding has too long been neglected and the current administration seems to have a variety of innovative maritime strategy concepts, encompassing a new vision for the fleet. Among these ideas, none have been more controversial than the proposed Trump-class battleship. Proponents argue that this new capital ship would bring concentrated fighting power with new high-tech weapons and large magazines that could fight independently and also withstand substantial punishment in battle. With its currently planned nuclear propulsion, moreover these behemoths could patrol for extended periods without the need to refuel. Critics have taken aim at the project’s enormous expense, as well as the feasibility of the proposed design that is characterized as over-ambitious. Into this roiling debate, it is instructive to survey a rather different perspective: What do the Chinese make of this project? An Aug. 21 article in China National Defense News [中国国防报] provides some initial insights into how America’s chief global rival is assessing this potentially major change in direction for the U.S. Navy surface fleet. This article, published in an official paper of the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) does note that the ship could have the advantages that “large vessels can continue to execute certain combat missions even when communications are jammed, and their hulls offer superior damage resistance compared to small or medium-sized ships.” It notes that smaller, distributed platforms could overly “rely on stable data links.” In addition, it’s worth observing that this rendering does note that the planned U.S. battleship would have nuclear propulsion, and would possibly also carry nuclear-armed missiles. Nevertheless, the Chinese analysis, mirroring many Western evaluations, is suffused with ample skepticism. For 15 Trump-class battleships built between 2028 and 2056, the costs would amount to $275 billion, with the lead class carrying the price tag of $23.4 billion. The report says that cost is 55% higher due to the change from conventional to nuclear propulsion and terms this price as “exorbitant.” Illustrating some familiarity with nuclear power issues, the analysis adds that “nuclear waste disposal and vessel dismantling following retirement are not included” in the $275 billion estimate. “Unfinalized designs and insufficient technological maturity” are also flagged as potential major problem that may cause delays and cost overruns. Potentially carrying rail guns, hypersonic weapons, as well as lasers, this critique seems quite valid. As the PLA assessment states: “This ‘build the platform first, install equipment later’ approach could increase the risks.” The piece cites the examples of the both the Zumwalt-class destroyer and the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) as relevant examples of recent problematic programs. Notably, the Chinese article is also particularly attuned to potential shifts in the basic U.S. Navy warfighting doctrinal paradigm. The article observes: “This design differs from the Distributed Maritime Operations concept that the U.S. Navy has been advancing in recent years. The theory of distributed maritime operations emphasizes the dispersal of detection, command, and strike capabilities across multiple nodes … to mitigate the impact that damage to a few large vessels would have on the entire formation.” In a closely related point, the PLA article also broaches the question of whether large surface combatants are simply too vulnerable to quiet submarines, hypersonic missiles, and “drone swarms.” Apparently quite aware of major difficulties in U.S. shipbuilding, the Chinese military assessment adds that leading American shipyards “are currently facing average delays of five years, with the delivery cycle for a single ship extending from approximately five years in the early 2000’s to about eleven years today.” Noting that the new battleship program could have cascading results for other high priority U.S. Navy programs, the article concludes: “Assembly of nuclear-powered battleships … could further slow the construction of aircraft carriers and submarines.” These Chinese strategists are no doubt aware such a delay would further impact the Asia-Pacific naval balance. China itself has indicated interest in nuclear-powered surface vessels. Thus, they have thoroughly investigated the newly renovated Russian battle cruiser Admiral Nakihimov. Yet it is would be foolhardy to invest in such ambitious platforms for the U.S. Navy at a time when the service confronts so many shipbuilding challenges and when the nation also faces an inevitable process of belt-tightening. Perhaps some of America’s allies can experiment with the new battleship concept. But the U.S. Navy will be well advised to go toward its time-tested strengths, especially in undersea warfare, but also in the emergent domain of drones. Overall, America’s sea service must bring its force structure into alignment with a new strategy appropriate to the multipolar world that involves reducing expensive “presence” missions and embracing more cost-effective hedging. That will most likely mean a less high-profile role for surface combatants and thus recognizing the reality that the Trump-class battleship will most likely never get built. Certainly, this Chinese military article implies that at least some Chinese strategists are eager for the U.S. to pursue that extravagant project, knowing that it is folly and would thus weaken Beijing’s chief rival. Lyle Goldstein is director of the China Initiative at Brown University’s Watson School and concurrently serves as director of the Asia Program at the think-tank Defense Priorities. The information contained in this message may be confidential and privileged and additionally may be sensitive law enforcement material. Unless you are the intended addressee (or authorized to receive for the intended addressee) you may not use, copy, or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply E-mail and delete the message. This document is pre-decisional in nature and qualifies as an inter-agency/intra-agency document containing deliberative process material. Under exemption 5 of section (b) of 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Freedom of Information Act), this material is EXEMPT FROM RELEASE TO THE PUBLIC.

1 0

FW: What does Donald do next?
by mgbrattland＠gerlecreek.com 04 Sep '26

04 Sep '26

From: andy.cain(a)comcast.net <andy.cain(a)comcast.net> Sent: Friday, September 4, 2026 1:20 PM To: Mike Brattland <mgbrattland(a)gerlecreek.com> Subject: FW: What does Donald do next? ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Andrew Fox from Fox On War <mrandrewfox(a)substack.com <mailto:mrandrewfox@substack.com> > Date: Thu, 3 Sept 2026 at 09:33 Subject: What does Donald do next? To: > <https://eotrx.substackcdn.com/o/decfe297546d78fa/p.gif?token=eyJtIjoiPDIwMj…> His war in Iran has failed to topple the regime and has burned through American strength. Every remaining option is ugly. ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ Forwarded this email? Subscribe here <https://substack.com/redirect/2/eyJlIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9tcmFuZHJld2ZveC5zdWJzdGF…> for more You’re a paid subscriber — thank you. Today’s post is free for everyone (so you can share it widely), but your subscription is what funds the work that makes Fox On War different. _____ <https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=2661554&post_id=213976951…> What does Donald do next? His war in Iran has failed to topple the regime and has burned through American strength. Every remaining option is ugly. <https://substack.com/@mrandrewfox> Andrew Fox Sep 3 <https://substack.com/@mrandrewfox> <https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=2661554&post_id=213976951…> <https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=2661554&post_id=213976951…> <https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=2661554&post_id=213976951…> <https://open.substack.com/pub/mrandrewfox/p/what-does-donald-do-next?utm_so…> <https://open.substack.com/pub/mrandrewfox/p/what-does-donald-do-next?utm_so…> READ IN APP Six months after Donald Trump promised a “little excursion”, the Iran war has reached a point at which spectacle meets economics. To recap: American and Israeli strikes killed Ali Khamenei and senior leaders. Iran’s succession system worked: Mojtaba Khamenei (or his cypher) took power, and the regime hardened around the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The hoped-for uprising never arrived. Trump’s Venezuela model, removing the man at the top and pressing his successor into compliance, foundered on a system designed to survive decapitation. The operation was tactically brutal and politically barren. <https://substack.com/redirect/46310546-2b2c-4dd2-97c5-c619ba30a7ab?j=eyJ1Ij…> Tactical success was real, although Washington has traded global readiness for an enemy that can still impose costs. CENTCOM claims that more than 85 per cent of Iran’s weapons industrial base was damaged or destroyed, while its air force and air defences were rendered largely irrelevant. However, Iran can still fire missiles and drones, exposing the gap between target destruction and strategic effect. <https://substack.com/redirect/215ddc92-0a35-4ba8-b2af-ddda56425e1a?j=eyJ1Ij…> As I have covered in depth, America may have expended more than half the pre-war stocks of four critical munitions and missile interceptor stocks are now globally strained. Senior commanders now warn that barely a quarter of the US Navy’s destroyer fleet is deployable, with more than 50,000 personnel tied to CENTCOM. Iran hit back far harder than anyone expected. The cost is already being counted in American bodies. By 21 August, 18 US service members had died in connection with the war, and 757 had been wounded, with the Pentagon describing most injuries as traumatic brain injuries. Iranian strikes have also exposed how vulnerable America’s fixed regional posture had become. Satellite analysis found at least 228 structures or pieces of equipment damaged across 15 US military sites by mid-April, including accommodation and air defence systems, as well as the headquarters of the 5th Fleet in Bahrain, although restrictions on commercial imagery mean the true figure is almost certainly higher. The damage extends across the Gulf economy. ACLED recorded 172 attacks on non-military infrastructure by the end of July, more than 70 per cent of which caused damage or fire. A Congressional Research Service assessment put early damage to Gulf oil and gas infrastructure above $25 billion; the attack on Ras Laffan alone removed an estimated 17 per cent of Qatar’s LNG export capacity, equivalent to roughly 3 per cent of global supply. On the American side, Hormuz is the campaign’s clearest indictment. The strait carried roughly a fifth of the world’s traded oil before the war. Trump recently boasted that 24 vessels had passed in one day; around 130 did so daily beforehand. Occasional escorted surges do not amount to freedom of navigation. The global bond sell-off is the first convincing sign of the inflationary crash I have warned about since the start of the war: US ten-year yields briefly climbed above 4.8 per cent, while British ten-year borrowing costs approached 5.3 per cent. Debt anxiety is also driving the move, so the war is an accelerant rather than a sole cause, but the inflationary mechanism is now visible and looming on the horizon. So, what are the realistic options now? Trump’s first course is to maintain the blockade and his campaign of economic isolation. The theory is that deprivation will collapse the regime or force another agreement, which, of course, Tehran will observe only as long as it is useful. Iran’s rulers transfer the cost onto their population and retain the guns to enforce it. Washington can reduce its exposure by restoring Hormuz through escorted passages and possibly state-backed insurance. Food and medicine must be protected. Even then, this course consumes further American global military readiness, while Iranian families absorb the shortages. The second course is to leave at a decision point Trump can sell as victory. This is the least damaging option. A narrow armistice should make sustained commercial passage through Hormuz the trigger for phased suspension of the American blockade. Possible IAEA access to Iran’s enriched uranium would provide a second verifiable condition. Trump could claim that American force broke much of Iran’s conventional striking power and compelled the reopening of the world’s most important energy chokepoint (omitting that it was open before the war and a decent operational plan would not have seen it closed in the first place). The nuclear problem would survive, as would Israel’s readiness to strike again. The third course is the one Trump’s language now gestures towards. On Tuesday, he asked when Iranians would “rise up and fight”, while declining to say whether America would arm them, having urged them onto the streets in January this year, promising help, and instead leaving some 40,000 to be slaughtered by the regime. Trump may still hope for a coup; a seizure of power by regime insiders who may be more amenable to “a deal”. Another option is a return to the plan of arming Kurdish or other domestic factions or exiled groups to begin an externally supported insurgency inside a country of 90 million. Previous plans stalled when the expected defections failed to materialise, and Kurdish factions were divided, while Iraqi and Turkish leaders resisted American plans. However, the IRGC and Basij retain the largest coercive apparatus within Iran itself. The regime is pre-empting possible organisers and continues to hang detainees from January’s protests; Amnesty says at least 78 protesters and dissidents remain under death sentence. An armed uprising could very easily become a civil war in which civilians supply most of the dead. This course of action would be an injection of uncontrollable chaos, without guaranteed outcomes, and at huge risk of loss of innocent life, all based on the premise that literally anything else is better than the current regime. On the other side of the equation, Tehran’s campaign has the same brutally simple purpose it has had since the start of the war: survive Trump. Its leaders can conserve what remains and wait for an American president who might restrain Israel, given American polls showing catastrophic and terminal collapse of support for the Jewish state on both sides of the political aisle. A dash for a nuclear weapon is likely to become more attractive at the first opening, because the regime has learned that latency did not deter attack. Israel will watch for that move, seek strategic independence from the USA before its military options are constrained, and look to preserve its air corridor through Syria, even as its effort to block Turkish military infrastructure there creates another dangerous contest. The moral diagnosis is unambiguous: the Islamic Republic is an evil and malign regime which holds hostage nearly 90 million people and a civilisation with thousands of years of history. Its removal is desirable. The unresolved question concerns the means to remove it. Air power can destroy headquarters and open space for dissent; it cannot conjure a legitimate national leadership or guarantee that the IRGC fractures in the right direction. An American policy aimed at political change must keep Iranians connected and expose the security apparatus. Economic coercion should focus on those who sustain it, with humanitarian channels kept open. Grand promises of liberation create obligations that Trump is currently showing no signs of meeting. The twenty-first century so far gives many lessons on the risks of regime change. Trump and the Pentagon should have had that political design in place before the first aircraft left the runway or carrier deck. He needed to know who could govern and how the coercive state would be dismantled without smashing Iran itself. He had no answer, and everyone is now paying for the omission. He may stumble into a half-decent armistice, which would be preferable to extending this shambles in search of a better headline. The likely outcomes remain far below the victory he promised. On 13 January, Trump told Iranian protesters to seize their institutions because “HELP IS ON ITS WAY”. Many Iranians have already received the lethal bill for that sentence. Hopefully, at the second time of asking, promised American support will arrive on time. As always, my work on Iran remains free. All I ask is that you share it and subscribe. Thank you! <https://substack.com/redirect/2/eyJlIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9tcmFuZHJld2ZveC5zdWJzdGF…> Subscribed You can now follow me on your social media of choice: * <https://substack.com/redirect/c22cd1d5-a206-4f5c-a263-1423fc53fa19?j=eyJ1Ij…> Instagram * <https://substack.com/redirect/dc703a4c-975b-4999-be34-0eb6b82d19c8?j=eyJ1Ij…> YouTube * <https://substack.com/redirect/54178987-432e-46f9-8055-9b6b9f9d2e4e?j=eyJ1Ij…> Facebook * <https://substack.com/redirect/b66ee4d4-81bb-40f9-a54d-3146133c4dda?j=eyJ1Ij…> TikTok * <https://substack.com/redirect/077cdd28-ee26-4045-8147-7771965639fc?j=eyJ1Ij…> LinkedIn Or visit my homepage at <https://substack.com/redirect/13a11642-01e8-4b2c-960b-739b009557db?j=eyJ1Ij…> www.andrewfox.online This post went to the whole list, but your subscription is the reason it exists. Paid readers cover the cost of travel, fieldwork and the hours of research it takes to turn that into something more useful than a hot take. Thank you. If you know one person who’d value this kind of reporting, feel free to forward it — you’re the reason this community grows. If you’d like to back this work for the long haul, you can switch to an annual plan in one click in your account settings. If there’s anything I can do to make this subscription more valuable to you, just let me know by reply. <https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=2661554&post_id=213976951…> Like <https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=2661554&post_id=213976951…> Comment <https://open.substack.com/pub/mrandrewfox/p/what-does-donald-do-next?utm_so…> Restack © 2026 Andrew Fox 548 Market Street <https://www.google.com/maps/search/548+Market+Street?entry=gmail&source=g> PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104 Unsubscribe <https://substack.com/redirect/2/eyJlIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9zdWJzdGFjay5jb20vc2lnbnV…> <https://eotrx.substackcdn.com/o/a3969046d4816619/p.gif?token=eyJtIjoiPDIwMj…> <https://email.mg1.substack.com/o/eJxMkEnO4yAYBU8TlhajgQVnQQyf3SgGLIYkvn0r8e…> -- Albie Fox 07876443221

1 0

Iran and the straits
by Marc Liebman 02 Sep '26

02 Sep '26

If one listens to the U.S. media, one would think nothing is going through the straits of Hormuz. If you watch the What’s Going On With Shipping podcast and read this, you get a totally different story. https://understandingwar.org/research/middle-east/iran-update-september-2-2… Marc Liebman https://www.marcliebman.com https://www.facebook.com/marcliebmanauthor/ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_sDoFQM5wupNaCeGIvKL1g Author of: Cherubs 2 Raider of the Scottish Coast Big Mother 40 Carronade Render Harmless Death of a Lady Forgotten Last Battles Inner Look For a Few Francs Moscow Airlift Predators The Simushir Island Incident Fight We Shall Flight of the Pawnee Prices of Opportunity Failure to Fire Insidious Dragon The Red Star of Death Member of: The Author’s Guild Military Writers Society of America Association of Texas Authors North American Snowsport Journalists Association --

1 0