Dean
Flairless
Variously accused of being a hilarious insufferable reactionary post-modernist fascist neo-conservative neo-liberal conservative classical liberal critical theorist Nazi Zionist imperialist hypernationalist warmongering isolationist Jewish-Polish-Slavic-Anglo race-traitor masculine-feminine bitch-man idiosyncratic party-line Fox News boomer. No one yet has guessed a scholar, or multiple people. Add to our list of pejoratives today!
User ID: 430
Most things worth targeting that were reportedly hit, as in that the Iranians made pubic boasts about, were more or less static targets. There are only so many ammo depots, supply sheds, airfield buildings, and so on. And given that the American decision to go to war was reportedly done a couple of months before the war, most things were going to be where not only where they had been a few months prior, but years or decades prior. Iran has presumably been working it's intelligence assets for as long, as opposed to starting from scratch.
There is also a point that one of the major changes of the last 25 years in the world is the rise of high-fidelity commercial satellite imagery. It's not exactly a great power capacity today, and while I doubt anyone will know relative amounts, there was at least media coverage of allegations of Chinese commercial imagery going to Iran.
One higher-profile Iranian success was that doesn't seem to have necessarily been supported by Russian intel, for example, was the US AWACs destroyed on the ground by a combined UAV and missile attack. That was a very expensive aircraft and is legitimately a strategic win... but using UAVs is a poor weapon choice for catching one on the ground given the time-distance delays. Holding back on firing the ballistic missiles to attack the target until the UAVs arrive is a good indicator that the Iranians didn't know the target was on the ground, because that would have been the exact sort of target to justify ballistic missiles alone for speed's sake.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying nothing relevant came from Russia. It's just that you may have a stronger opinion of the amount / value / impact than has so far been may be warranted, as opposed to Russian intelligence support serving a supporting / confirming sort of what the Iranians already had. This wouldn't even be an unreasonable conclusion to take from publicly available information. There are a lot of interests to a lot of players to play up the impact of Russian assistance- and not just for the Russians or even Iranians- as part of the information environment conflict.
Dean
Flairless
23hr ago
Which, interestingly, was probably one of the under-recognized dynamics of Iran that the war changed. Iran was in the middle of a multi-decade effort to develop power projection capabilities, from blue water naval elements to drone carrier concepts. It sank, and the US sank it so quickly I've gotten the sense people felt it didn't matter, but there's a difference between nascant and insignificant.
Iran hadn't gotten any sort of reputation as a naval power because there wasn't exactly a 'opportunity' to test the emerging capability, but it was a capability that was progressing and could have, hypothetically, had things like an Iranian naval detachment inconveniently escorting Iranian tankers to China during a US-Taiwan scenario and any attempted US blockade. Among other more direct things in regional proxy or not-so-proxy conflicts with Israel.
If Iran does revert back to a North Korea model of minimal power projection capability for the next decade or three, still just limited to drones or missiles from its own territory or proxies, that would be a non-trivial divergence to what Iran was trying to move towards. It's not the sort of difference most people would notice / acknowledge / credit, because there's no real weight to an alternative not seen, but such is the nature of growth trajectories denied.
Dean
Flairless
23hr ago
Nightmare? Aren't you editorializing a little bit? It's usually bad epistemology to cite your own spin as evidence.
It's a common pejorative for some of the more hyperbolic war coverage of the anti-US sort. Nightmare for oil markets, nightmare for Trump's election prospects, etc. It's a verbal tic of a particular sort of position, sort of like people who went straight to 'quagmire' to describe the conflict, or 'invasion' to describe the air raid campaign.
Basically the Iran conflict counterpart to the 'Put is DONE' meme variants in the Ukraine war, and about as well thought out.
For those interested, I'd recommend the William Spaniel (the Lines of Map guy) video posted today reviewing what we know, don't, and some other context.
One of the points he's made is that a lot of the current reporting of the moment is basically circular reporting of of some Iranian... 'claims' is too strong, since some aren't even claims of what is in the deal, but more like aspirations for future negotiation that implicitly confirm they aren't in the deal. He made a plausible case that some of the Iranian early release is to shape the information environment, though whether it's intended for the international environment (to frame things as a victory without caveat) or an internal audience (trying to sell the deal to hardliners) isn't something he takes a position on.
As for the rising critiques that the end-of-the-war deal is just Obama's deal but worse, I will just note that no one has ever presented evidence claiming that Obama's deal entailed significant destruction of the Iranian defense-industrial base.
Dean
Flairless
1d ago
'Helped' is a bit of a catch-all. Most US and Gulf military assets hit were on bases that have been in the region for decades.
Dean
Flairless
4d ago
Does anyone else feel like we're heading for a good old-fashioned, 2008-tier, financial crash? I recall people bringing up the possibility ever since Covid bucks started rolling out, but even though we were due for one, and even though the money printer was going brrrrr, the crash has so far failed to materialize.
Of that nature? Not really, since the financial crisis was mechanically distinct. A big economic doldrums? Sure, but then I would have thought most people had that priced in even before the Trump tariffs last year, let alone the Strait of Hormuz closure this year. What did people think the western demographic trends implied for global economics?
We're in the start of the broader first world demographic retirement wave, where many Western (and 'western' Asian) countries aren't just older on average, but the generation than makes it older is starting to retire and leave the work force. For example, here was the demographic pyramid of Germany in 2023.. The retirement age in Germany is 67. That disproportionately wide bar that was 60-64 three years ago is now 63-67 now. They are starting to transition out of the work force, taking their accumulated expertise and economic inputs with them and turning into retirees instead who draw more from the public purse. That next ten years will be even larger cohorts of the demographic-industrial base. Germany is not unique.
The implications of demographic age-out have never been optimistic. Fewer workers contributing to taxable economic growth, higher expenditures for the welfare state dominating public spending that could otherwise go to economic investments, loss a large amounts of highly-trained and experienced knowledge to be replaced by less experienced younger demographics who have often suffered from youth unemployment dynamics due to worker protections benefiting the now-retiring or policies to import specialists from abroad. I wouldn't go so far to say inherently recessionary, but if you remove part of the foundations of your economic growth, you are going to have less economic growth, which was the longer-term impact of the great recession in many places.
And this was before various macroeconomic disruptions and trade flow changes that have ended the neoliberal consensus. COVID 19 alone was enough that many countries were already relooking supply chains that had prioritized cost-efficiency over reliability. Well, that change was and is going to lead to slower economic growth. The Trump tariffs were part of an effort to fundamentally reshape the global economic system by reducing the role of the US as consumer of last resort for other country's exports, and it is still shaking out as the European Union gears up for a trade war with China as it doesn't want to absorb all the redirected Chinese exports that the US used to import. The US-Iran War has led to the eyebrow-raising twin blockades of the US blocking Iranian exports that mostly went to China, and Iran blockading everything else which mostly goes to also China (and also other asian countries). The consequence is global energy prices raising for everyone, but not raising the same for everyone, with the biggest cost-increases headed for the energy-import-dependent manufacturing-export countries, epecially when national stockpiles currently being released dry up.
And even this is before other, easily foreseeable, major macro-economic disruptions that could happen in the future. The Russia-Ukraine War has progressed beyond pushing Russian oil onto the black market as expanding Ukrainian long-range strike capabilities decrease what Russia can push onto the sea at all. A PRC invasion of Taiwan is liable to destroy the high-end chip economy for a decade, and that's before the PRC and US target eachother. The European Union could have significant structural crisis in the next few years if Euroskeptic parties on the rise in France and Germany take over in one or both. Expanded naval trade piracy / 'taxation' at various Eurasian maritime chokepoints, mass migration destabilizations... heck, even (or especially) AI, which may not be a net-negative, is going to lead a lot of economic disruption and/or ruin in its wake.
The global economy was already going to have to undergo uncomfortable economic dislocations of where growth occurred just from demographic age-out. It just so happened to be occuring concurrently with the transition away from the post-cold-war global neoliberal order, which prioritized cost-minimization over other considerations. The de-prioritization of cost-minimization was always going to further complicate global finances. There just so happen to be another half dozen economic asteroid events approaching as well, for various reasons.
Why do you think it would not work?
The decade-plus of two Democratic Presidential Administrations and their politically appointed Justice Departments coordinating and executing security state abuses and lawfare against Trump, rather than curtailing it or holding the people doing so to account?
It's not like Trump never gets fair court proceedings.
You do not need to 'never' get fair court proceedings for the court proceedings you do get to be far more unfair to fair, particularly when lawfare strategies use the process as the punishment.
Heck, he's won a fair few cases in the Supreme Court during this presidency.
And for their conduct, major establishment Democrat politicians have publicly and repeatedly advocated packing the courts, with greater party establishment support each election cycle.
Dean
Flairless
12d ago
Oh, heavens no. Your church would have had much better reasons to kill me.
Come on, if they junked all that stuff because it was bad no-no wrong, they can't sneak it through the back door now that everyone likes playing dress-up in cherry-picked traditions.
Certainly they can, for the same reason that you can proudly attend a Church that has done the same. Individual responsibility protects you from culpability in the sins and poor policy choices of your denomination as much as they can selectively ignore policy choices hundreds of years prior.
Particularly if we acknowledge that many theological disagreements of centuries were past were not purely of a theological nature, but often proxies for the more secular political disagreements and conflicts of the era. The Catholic Church was a religious domination. It was also a highly influential, and not-so-rarely highly intrusive, political institution at all levels of European society with complex relationships across the political hierarchies. These were not mere trivialities, but a central dynamic of the social order. Theological disputes not-so-rarely following along those lines is just a consequence of the culture war of its era. Many of the fractures not just of protestantism from catholicism, but within protestantism itself, derive from the widespread awareness of secular corruption and abuses cloaked in Church authority.
Again, sectarian shittalking is fine as it goes. But if you want to pin poor policies of the past to people who weren't there to influence them, they (and anyone else) can do the same for you. Splinters and logs and all that.
But just saying, as a far outside observe, if I were forced to guess who had the better insight into heaven between a denomination that threw the baby out with the bathwater, or a denomination responsible for the inquisition, crusades, and- in its more noble, modern institutional form, pedophile priests...
Well, if I did have to make the guess under the premise that adherents are accountable to the failings of their clergy centuries before, it would be an incredibly easy decision.
Dean
Flairless
13d ago
Well, as a Catholic, imagine my expression 🤨when a Presbyterian starts talking about the Blessed Virgin. Hey, didn't you guys have an entire hissy-fit over Mariolatry during the Reformation?
Has anyone ever responded with 'No, that was centuries before my time, and by a totally different people?'
I like me a good sectarian shittalk as much as anyone, but I've hard enough blaming people for the sins of their own fathers, let alone the sins of someone else's fathers.
Dean
Flairless
13d ago
I think most observers would put the deathknell of Republican respectability politics closer to 2012, and the Democratic Party's campaign against Mitt Romney.
Dean
Flairless
13d ago
He'll get taxed at a Federal level, but not a state level. The protection he gets by moving isn't from the IRS, but the CDTFA.
Dean
Flairless
13d ago
As to why stay in Buenos Aires vs someplace in Uruguay/Chile/Paraguay/Southern Brazil, it's probably a combination of politics and (zero bias here) Buenos Aires being the best city to be in South America.
Will not dispute, 100% objective evaluation.
Anyone who disagrees can feel free to donate to an anonymous vacation fund of my choosing.
Does his being found in contempt of court factually change whether he violated a court's ruling?
If not, what purpose does the question serve other than as a deflection to addressing the claims of fact presented and disputed by gattsuru? You are certainly appealing to vague possibilities ('very rare', 'weird technicalities' 'basically every single accusation... is a misunderstanding of something by idiots'), but you're not actually disputing the claims presented by gattsuru. You're not even claiming that your language of frequency even applies to this case- even if corruption of this sort is very rare, that has no bearing on a case that can be drawing attention for being rare. It would be akin to disputing accusations of medical malpractice because most doctors don't commit medical malpractice. The appeal to statistical rarity is irrelevant if the challenge is based on a dependent rather than independent factor.
Gattsuru is making a direct position on a matter of laws and facts here. You seem to disagree. On what grounds that apply to this case? What is gattsuru's misunderstanding in this matter? What is the weird technicality that applies to this case law?
Yah. Strivers who actually minmax have to know what to minmax, which is still preferable to would-be minmaxers who don't know how or what to minmax. Even if you cannot get someone to understand or appreciate why a habit is good, it is still better for them to develop the habit than to not. There is never going to be a shortage of ambitious / selfish / lazy people wanting good jobs; it is still better if their average baseline competance is higher than lower, if only so that don't get in the way of other people's good work.
And this holds true even for the insufferable strivers. For the non-insufferable sorts, and even the non-strivers, developing good habits and skill sets is even more valuable. It would be an incompetent education policy that disregards the people who can be taught because there are poor actors who won't internalize the lessons. The world, and a profession, doesn't get better the more less-capable people it inducts.
Dean
Flairless
21d ago
Anecdote, but there's a decent number who use it to see if their kid actually likes programming or STEM-adjacent stuff since the school programs are garbage and self-driven learning is very hit-or-miss, a smaller number who just insist their kid do something as an after school program to get them out of the house and FIRST is something that's still air-conditioned, and a lot of kids who get into it because it's an in-school program and less dumb than most of the other electives.
I'd just add that it's basically the sort of 'disguising good training / education as fun' pipeline that provides early exposure and participation to engineering design challenges in a way that most school curriculum aren't set up to do. Even when it's adult-led it's closer to apprenticeship than school work.
In most contexts or countries, a shop-class works on a 'teach how to use the tools and follow instructions' principles. Curriculum and grading standards are, well, standardized across iterations, oversight is high for safety reasons, and projects for personal design are typically bounded. You are typically doing a series of building steps to a pre-defined end, with an intent of teaching basic skills to demonstrate a culmination. It is usually very much start to finish.
The FIRST competition format is substantially different, since teams are attempting to design (and then implement) their own solution to a problem set that can be approached in significantly different ways. This means they have to work backwards starting with defining their end-state, identifying what they need to achieve to get there, and only then trying to figure out how to do it.
This isn't a natural skill set to many adults, let alone kids with even larger skill gaps and less training.
The dedicated strivers exist, and they're really obnoxious when you run into one that's made themselves a drive coach, but it's not the only entry point.
It also doesn't invalidate the benefits to participants. Bad coaches exist in practically any organized sport, but bad coaches don't negate the benefits of children having a hobby that gives them a peer group to bond with, structured competition to succeed and fail in, and clear demonstrations of inputs to results to build a sense of agency. Even if the child is only doing it because the parents want that resume padding, it is still good for the children, and the future adults those children grow up to be.
Dean
Flairless
25d ago
Truly the second worst part of it was how mind-numbingly boring it could be. You can be a vatnik or a joo poster or whatever else all you want as long as you can mind your manners, but at least be an interesting about it. Interesting people can be interesting when invested in their hobby horses. They shouldn't make people's eyes glaze over predictable and predicted repetitions.
Dean
Flairless
26d ago
No_One would never have eaten humble pie. The reason I started posting on this forum was seeing No_ones post about stealth and radars that is cribbed straight from anti-US pro-russian slop about how X band radar reflecting off mountains or clouds can defeat frontal stealth and how IRST proves US stealth is inferior so Russia wins automatically. His responses involved special pleading of "you and i aren't privy to the inner workings of UAC AS the technology is secret so thats how we know it works" type of wishful thinking. Its pure cope straight out of ArmchariWarlord or BigSerge except without the tells of self-insert heroism or dour prose that makes those idiots at least amusing to read. No_ones takes were pure regurgitations of the lowest effort leavings of NCD without the courtesy of logical follow through supposedly the standard of this board or at least being amusingly wrong which is the standard of the internet.
I will almost miss his favorite conspiracy theory about Euromaidan, which hinged on false-flag protestors shooting into the crowd to turn the crowd against the police, which was coupled with his most adamant refusal that there was no way the Ukrainian security state opposed to the protestors would ever be the ones managing those false-flag attacks in order to provide the police a pretext for the crackdown the security state had been lobbying for (because no nationalist would ever do such a thing, donchaknow).
Dean
Flairless
27d ago
If we're doing a retrospective, it feels worth noting that around about now was about the time that predictions from years ago were estimating that the early-war Russian advantages in various pre-war stockpiles and early-war industrial mobilization would be petering out. The technological adaptations of drones shaped how it would work out in practice, and the north korean armories selling their shells changed the fighting season math, but the general trajectory of Russia's military-industrial expansion facing diminishing returns as western economic mobilization caught up was projected years ago.
The two big developments of the last year and a half have been the manpower and American dynamics.
Manpower was supposed to be Russia's trump card, and many people- both sincere supports and concern-trolling- argued that Ukraine needed to make major politically costly decisions to expand intake and fill out the trench lines. The spoiling factor was that drones have gotten so ubiquitous and slow that fully-manned front lines have been liability compared to partially manned lines supported by drones. Worse, or better, this coincided/enabled/exploited the Russian discovery/adaptation of their manpower-intensive infiltration tactics. Massed offenses were less effective than sending infiltrators between lines and trying to build up forces behind a Ukrainian line. This was manpower intensive due to how many would get caught, but pushed the line on the map more.
The net result, though, has been that it diminished the criticality of the very-real Ukrainian manpower issues (which were more restricted on infantry than drone users), while pushing the Russian manpower issue into its weakest dynamic, the replacement costs. The all-volunteer contract model required and requires ever-increasing amounts of money, money the central government tried to push off onto the provinces which had their own limits. Well, economic challenges are real, and there are reports that Russia has been trying to put in the mechanics for various degrees of drafting to supplement numbers. Except a draft for Ukraine has been an incredibly sensitive issue for the Kremlin since the first mobilization sparked an exodus, which is why the nominal numeric superiority to overwhelm the Ukrainians has been far less overwhelming than anticipated. Manpower political costs is one of Putin's signature issues as a strategic procrastinator, and will continue to drastically limit Russia's ability to utilize it's nominal trump card.
Which leads to the industrial dynamics. Even if there was a conscription wave now, it would be less useful than it would have been a year or two ago, as a lot of the relevant cold war kit has already been mobilized.
Conscript waves in repurposed civilian vehicles and other makeshifts are not as useful as conscript waves might have been in reactivated soviet-era armor before there were as many or as good drones. As the war has progressed, a lot of the soviet inheritance of vehicle parks have been depleted, and those reactivations were what fueled the core of Russia's claims of massively expanded industrial capacity. Part of the proof that sanctions weren't working was that Russia was able to produce tanks regardless, but as the stock of refurbishable vehicle types closes, those reactivations aren't being replaced by 'new' system production. There are certainly many vehicles left to go, but per the logic of prioritizing reactivating your highest payoff systems first, it's diminishing returns.
Industrial news hasn't all been in Ukraine's favor, which is where the American issue comes in. The American Trump administration cut down aid to Ukraine, carrying out pre-existing deals but not seeking to expend political capital on major aid packages. Worse from a Ukrainian perspective, the Iran War has expended many of the air-defense assets they would have preferred to receive themselves, and even put them in a bidding war against the oil-rich gulf states for the foreign military sales that remain. Russia's constraints don't mean a Russian collapse.
But even this front has a few more-than-slightly silver linings for the Ukrainians. While the Americans stopped donating to Ukraine, this was because the Trump administration transitioned to selling to the Europeans who would donate to Ukraine. Rather than the total cut-off the pro-Russian thought leaders fantasized in, this has resulted in a far more stable 'floor' for American enablers to Ukraine, since Donald Trump likes making money and the aid-skeptic camp was split from the aid-opposition camp once it was no longer a matter of charity. Ukraine itself is getting in on this air defense spending surge as a major prospective exporter of license agreements and training, even as the Iranians are like the Americans going to be rebuilding their drone and missile inventories rather than selling as many to Russia for Ukraine.
And while the Europeans are paying the fiscal costs for transferring American arms to Ukraine, this has led to both rationalization of purchases ('what has best cost-benefit' rather than 'Americans, spend more') and coincided with the EUropean rearmament programs. Both the US and European states are well into efforts to expand their defense industrial basis, and while the current and near term means 'less free stuff for Ukraine,' it can expand the longer-term support chains. This is an area where Ukraine has some real value to trade, since it's own indigenous development programs offer it knowledge / capacity to trade for European and American support and investments elsewhere, making other forms of aid more politically palatable as 'trade' or 'investments' rather than 'charity.' Which itself has just gotten more resilient, as the Hungary election as seen Putin's primary proxy in EUropean politics fall, with Hungary no longer blocking the sort of financial aid packages that keep Ukriane afloat on a fiscal level.
Overall, where 2025 was a giant ambiguous ? that Russia was putting its hopes on for getting the US out of the Ukraine coalition, the last year and change have been both volatile but also measured in aggregate. American support has been curtailed, but remains significant and has probably established a reliable 'floor' which it ebb above depending on context and interest. Ukraine successfully navigated the changes in its political soft-power position in the US and in the 2025 ceasefire negotiations in a way that neither compelled it to give up defensive territory or saw the Trump administration blame it for the failure, both of which were Russian failures consistent with Putin's strategic procrastinator tendencies. And finally, Europe has more or less (willingly and unwillingly) shouldered many of the costs to continue support to Ukraine fiscally and with longer-term material support.
I wouldn't say it's a 'good' position to be in- major industrial war is never good- but Ukraine certainly seems in far more stable a position than it was a year ago.
Dean
Flairless
1mo ago
However, for those willing to sift through it, there is a lot there to like. Act two is easily the best part of it, with the qunari a fantastic depiction of the genuine appeal of fanatical religious asceticism. Sometimes I hear people wonder what drives people to support the Taliban, and the answer I want to give every time is, "play DA2". The Arishok and the qunari are deeply repulsive to liberal values. They preach strict conformity, obedience, and discipline. But they exist in a context where everything else is falling apart. In comparison to Kirkwall, they have solidarity with each other. They do not tear and bite at each other, as everyone else does. Each person works for the good of the whole, and each person is looked after. What hardship exists is shared, and when successes are achieved, they are also shared. The qunari have an aura of righteousness - they sit there above the strife, perhaps the only non-hypocritical faction in the city, issuing judgements of the degeneracy around them. They are an island of order in a sea of chaos and you can understand why people would choose them. You cannot choose them yourself, of course, but the Arishok's respect matters to me, and I care about winning it.
I appreciate that you made that emphasis of the appeal of ascetisim, because while I fully agree on how the Qunari present a coherent society that takes care of its own, the game also does a good job on letting you scratch a little deeper to see that, no, the Qunari are just as dysfunctional and failing a society as everyone else.'
The Qunari in DA2 are a shipwreck remnant because the supreme military authority of the state had to lead the pursuit for a relic-book, which in turn means the rest of the Qunari state is working without one of its three key leaders. The Qunari maintain a 100% non-defection rate by categorically re-categorizing all defectors as no-longer-Qunari, and thus not acknowledging or dealing with the issues driving the desertions. The Qunari, supposedly the most rational and scientific of all the peoples of the continent, are also the most primitive and superstitious when dealing with the subject of magic, indulging in superstitions such as cutting out the tongues of mages to prevent their words from spreading demonic possession, when everyone else inn the setting has known it doesn't work like that for millennia. Even in the penultimate act of Act 2, the takeover of the city, the Qunari variously are willing to walk away from the coup-that-could-cause-a-world-war if they get a book and a prisoner, or let their supreme leader fight a one-on-one duel to the death to decide.
The Qunari are interesting society, and they work well in part because they can point to how bad the rest of the setting is, but they're beyond fananticism and just stupid in their own right. But that contrast / pointing at the ills of the others really does demonstrate the appeal of ascetism, even if the proposed alternative is even worse.
Dean
Flairless
1mo ago
I have similar vibes on DA2, including empathy for Gamlen. Who- despite being the character encouraged to be viewed with contempt- is a bit of a tragic character in his own right who was the unfavored child who none the less shared what he had when his long-absconded sister showed up asking for aid.
For ME3, I think the Rannoch arc is one of those where it gets much, much better if you let a ME2 character die. Namely, Legion. With Legion, the Geth are cast as extremely sympathetic 'we didn't mean to do that / we don't want conflict.' Without Legion, the ME3 Geth are just as much the original victims, but far more menacing.
It comes with a various distinctions, some by the nature of the initial seizure, some by the nature of the redevelopment package that we do not know, and then some by virtue of who is paying the cost of the money.
For example- frozen funds already belonged to someone's ledger when they were frozen, and depending on the nature of a ledger that person may be expecting them back. If, say, the funds frozen were part of an IRGC slush account, then there's a non-trivial chance that the IRGC will expect to get it back, and pull strings accordingly in Iran. While the IRGC certainly has a large hand in the civilian economy, it is not what is generally considered a healthy hand, and so this would be part of a reconstruction fund less likely to be for reconstruction and more for economically dead investments (be they arms or just patronage-graft).
Second, but also well beyond the ability of current facts to be clear on, the construct of a 'redevelopment fund' can imply restrictions on how certain money is used. An example of the concept here is what the US did with Venezuela oil proceeds after this January's intervention. The money went into bank accounts for use by the Venezuelan government, but only for uses approved by the US government, which in turn was very inclined to let Venezuelan oil money buy things from the US, but less inclined to approve purchases of weapons from Iran. While it is true that money is fungible, Iran's economy isn't in a state where $300 billion is behind the cushion to be swapped in, so a $300 billion fund is not the same as freeing up $300 billion in the rest of the budget, especially if/when the rest of the budget serves strategic goals like economic autarky such that no matter what is bought with the fund, you'd still have a political requirement to maintain domestic production anyway.
Third, there are currency strength (and convertibility) implications depending on whose money is being involved, though this gets back into the nature of a fund (and the frozen assets). While the frozen assets themselves aren't liable to be in the nigh-useless Iranian rials, the point here is that whatever they are stored in would be compared against the US dollar. The US dollar is and remains the worlds reserve currency, and while Iran really wishes it were not so Iran would also, all other things being equal, prefer something like the US dollar to, say, reclaimed Russian rubles, which would be purchasing only from the relatively inflationary Russian market.
Fourth, there is a considerable difference to the countries releasing frozen assets to releasing assets rather than a direct transfer- namely, how it works from their treasury balance and budget purpose. Generally, frozen assets are not held by the holding state in a way that provides the same monetary utility as money in an expenditure account. This is why the Europeans were garnering attention with the proposed war loan to Ukraine backed by Russian frozen assets- that was an atypical use, because frozen assets are frozen to the state holding them too. But because this isn't on the balance sheet, there's no particular expenditure with releasing the assets either. Congress doesn't need to write an authorization of $300 billion against the US treasury, and the US government doesn't need to assume $300 billion in new debt, that would be incurred if it were a direct transfer.
There are more that could be made, but then again I suppose someone could also insist they're distinctions without a difference / cope / etc. To me, the more relevant part of the rumored reparations / redevelopment fund is that the rumor was based on an aspiration, not a confirmation, and that aspiration in turn was deliberately using language that would resonate with the Iranian hardliner claims that war termination would require reparations as well as sanctions relief. The Iranians have held these to be distinct things, even if someone in the western audience doesn't view it as important, and so the potential conflation in the form of a redevelopment fund could be a way of trying to frame / sell the deal to the Iranian domestic (hardline) audience.
Which, in turn, begs the question as to why, since a glorious-victory-on-all-fronts deal wouldn't need to conflate categorically distinct things. To me that suggests- though hardly proves- there are policy concessions that the Iranian 'leakers' suspect the hardliners will find far less palatable, and this messaging piece is trying to get ahead of that (among other things).
More options
Context Copy link