Why did POTUS suddenly pivot from "unconditional surrender" to a deal at any cost in Iran?
— Blake Scholl 🛫 (@bscholl) July 18, 2026
TL/DR it's the interceptors, stupid.
- it takes Lockheed >two years and $5-15m to make a missile interceptor
- i.e., $10k drones take a $5m missile to defeat
- our forecast was that a)…
Why did POTUS suddenly pivot from "unconditional surrender" to a deal at any cost in Iran?The U.S. industrial base defeated Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany, two industrial powers. It was, honestly, a stunning industrial victory.
TL/DR it's the interceptors, stupid.
- it takes Lockheed >two years and $5-15m to make a missile interceptor
- i.e., $10k drones take a $5m missile to defeat
- our forecast was that a) the population was going to rebel and b) we’d quickly take out the missile launchers
- But: Iran murdered 50k protesting citizens before our forces were in place; we didn’t defeat the launch capability as fast as expected
- we were facing down dwindling interceptor supplies
- 50% of patriots are gone and 80% of Thaad interceptors are gone. They cannot be replaced in a relevant timeframe
- if we actually ran out of defenses, US and allies in the region would be slaughtered— and the US would be facing a historic defeat
- we're already rationing interceptors, which is why our soldiers died in Jordan last night and why there are no more Patriots in Ukraine.
- in this context we try to make any deal you can — regardless of cost. Pretend it’s about gas prices if we must.
So we are losing this war. Badly. And what really lost the war was the fucked up defense supply chain that can’t make munitions in a relevant cost or timeframe
— and we have no technology that defeats the enemy in an economically sustainable way.
This is why advanced anti drone and advanced missile defense is so critical. Personally I am bullish on directed energy intercept, particularly space-based directed energy.
Regardless of specific technology, we must be able to build interceptors faster and cheaper than any enemy can build offensive weapons.
Against China right now we lose. Badly. It isn’t even close.
Fortunately we are learning this lesson against Iran not against China—and there is still time to pivot and fix the US industrial base, but only barely.
McNamara used the lessons of postwar recovery in Vietnam. We bombed the bejeesus out if them, had superior weaponry and technology, all of it cheaper and easier to produce than modern interceptors, and…
Well, the rest is history. We invaded Iran, smashed it up, sent pallets of cash (literally) and then … left.
We invaded Afghanistan with superior technology. They didn’t even have drones. And we… left.
The reason interceptor are expensive is that they have to do a complicated job. Drones will always be cheaper. Anti-aircraft guns in WWII were effective. But planes were plentiful, and got through anyway. Defensive systems can always be overwhelmed by numbers. Armies have relied on that simple tactic for millennia.
“Regardless of specific technology, we must be able to build interceptors faster and cheaper than any enemy can build offensive weapons.”
Wish in one hand, piss in the other. Which fills up faster? So the solution is to weaponize space and use “directed energy weapons”? Which we pinky swear will only be used defensively? Even if we start the war, as we did in Iran?
Sure. That’ll work. Magical thinking will always overcome reality, right?
Any analysis of the "supply of weapons" problem that doesn't start with "management of weapons" isn't worth much. Hegseth has *much* to answer for in front of Congress.
ReplyDelete