[su_spoiler title=”Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise. ” open=”yes” style=”fancy” icon=”arrow-circle-1″]
Julian Macfarlane NEWS FORENSICS
Traducir—Translate!
Make fonts bigger>>>
[wpavefrsz-resizer]
For want of a nail Dateline Feb 24, 2026
Larry Johnson points to indicators that the US is NOT going to war with Iran.
While it is true that Donald Trump has deployed the largest force of US combat aircraft to West Asia/the Middle East since George W Bush did it in early 2003, there are two other key indicators that are not yet lighting up, which would signal an attack is imminent — i.e., NOTAMS and US embassies ordering some or all of its employees to depart the country. As of February 23, only US Embassy Beirut has ordered non-essential employees to depart, while the US embassies in the Gulf states remain intact.
The US Navy’s most expensive ship, the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford, sent to the coast of Iran, has lost its combat capability. It turns out the carrier is experiencing plumbing issues—the toilets are spewing like fountains, and the ship urgently needs to be docked for repairs.
The carrier group sent to Iran has lost its combat capability because its lead nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), has encountered plumbing problems. Serious problems, and they’re present throughout the ship. According to Western media reports, there are virtually no working toilets, and those that do exist have queues of 45 minutes to an hour.
Carrier’s broken toilet
There are over 4,600 people on board, the toilets are running low, and queues can last up to 45 minutes. They can’t fix the system at sea.
Thus, the US Navy’s main strike ship, which the Pentagon planned to play a key role in the strikes on Iran, has been hit by a “fecal apocalypse.” The aircraft carrier isn’t currently in the mood for strikes; it will likely undergo repairs in a Greek port. The demand for plumbers in Greece has skyrocketed. It’s claimed that if the carrier’s sewer system isn’t repaired soon, the ship will simply drown in its problems.
If you go to X, you will see a LOT of stuff on how the sailors are serving their country —as you can see. This article says the Ford will have to dock for repairs in Greece, No, Crete…. But, hey, it’s a Russian article! Which I quote just to show how MSM news gets around, a little distorted (Haifa not Greece) but good pictures .
The US Navy says:
However, 1945 says.
So much for advanced technology. Stealth jets that are not stealthy and don’t have radars. Air defense missiles that don’t work against advanced missiles. Tanks that drown in mud…. Now, carriers that sailors won’t sail on.
Toilets? You can tell a country by the quality of its toilets — and its water.
The other carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln, has its problems, too. Yup, water.
Water, water, everywhere,
Nor any drop to drink
Rime of the Ancient Mariner . S.T. Coleridge
Like the Ford’s toilet problems, Abe’s water problem is a long-standing issue. And also like the Ford, the Abe is long overdue for maintenance.
In addition, the carrier lost its main replenishment vessel — the Big Horn— which ran aground in Oman. Note to Navy: ships travel on water, not on land.
Now the Abe must rely on other vessels, undermanned with commercial crews, and old and vulnerable.
What could go wrong?
Everything?
Add to this, Reuters reports that China is gifting Iran with the CM-302 – the export variant of China’s heavy YJ-12 ‘carrier killer’ anti-ship cruise missile, with a 250-500kg warhead, speeds of Mach 3-4 at elevations as low as 5m, and 290km range— also advanced autonomous anti-jamming and EW .
The YJ-12 in cool blue “camo’
And China’s MizarVision has been entertaining viewers with beautiful images of every US base and its assets.
Some pundits think a war would give Trumpty Dumpty a boost. Nope. Only a very short successful war. Not one where your carriers sink, leaving just a brown, smelly stain on the ocean. Trump’s polls are the lowest ever — for both terms— but they could go even lower, umm…down the pipes.
When did US politics become a sewer….? Oh…forever?
Donnie —just flush and move on.
Or maybe just eschew the war thing.
For Want of a Nail (1629)
For want of a nail, the shoe was lost; For want of a shoe, the horse was lost; For want of a horse, the rider was lost; For want of a rider, the battle was lost; For want of a battle, the kingdom was lost, And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.
We need help in getting new subscribers. Please crosspost, and feel free to post urls on other blogs or X or other platforms. Every time someone does that, I get a new subscriber.
ADDENDUM:
Simplicius Spins the Bottle
Dateline: FEB 23, 2026
Simplicius is entertaining as usual. I like that he likes SciFi. It seems he likes games too. But I think he over-simplifies.
The longer that Iran equivocates, the more the US is able to “set its feet” in a perfect strike posture to inflict maximum damage. Iran is forced to make a huge, risky bet on the possibilities that either:
1. some kind of deal is reached and the US calls off the attack,
or 2. the US chooses a very ‘limited’ attack to ‘blow off some steam’ as periodically seems necessary for the US MIC.
We may learn soon which of the choices for this game-theoretic model would have been optimal, but I still personally lean toward Iran making the right decision simply because there are signs of buckling in Trump’s knees, and I am still skeptical about the US’s “maximalist” intentions, not to mention its capabilities.
And we might also say that a civilization that has survived thousands of years should probably be given the benefit of the doubt on its decision-making. But I could be proven wrong.
That is from Simplicius’ latest article, which I recommend you read, not because it says anything new – but because it rehashes consensus views. But beware any article that uses “game-theoretic”.
Two main points?
America: strong, biggest military buildup since Iraq
Iran: weak
Iran has two (bad) choices.
I get the feeling that Simplicius knows little about “game theory”.
Related to this phenomenon, there are many known game-theoretic dilemmas that lead people to make safe choices when hedging between risk and cooperative uncertainties, even if those safe choices open the possibility for far greater risks down the line. Those that may be familiar with the sci-fi novel The Traitor Baru Cormorant might remember the “Traitor’s Dilemma”.
It describes a group of governors who want to overthrow a despotic autocracy which rules over them, but are unable to act because they are faced with this strategic paradox: if they all act in coordination, they can easily overthrow the ‘empire’, but if any one of them jumps the gun alone while expecting others to join him, they risk being the only one that took action, which would result in their being labeled a traitor with the ensuing consequences. It’s a strategic dilemma that results in paralysis because you can never be certain that others will join you.
Such iterations of the Prisoner’s Dilemma and the Nash Equilibrium, which assume:
a zero-sum struggle
rational actors
self-interest
Game theory got popular after the movie, A Beautiful Mind, but few people understand it, nor why it often fails—yet everyone talks like they know what it means. Everyone has seen the movie, right? Like “Professor” Jiang. But “game theory” can be confusing — as we can see in this article.
It is particularly inapplicable in geopolitical conflicts which are:
complex
usually involve multiple equilibria
are structured by irrationality due to cultural, religious and political heuristics.
An additional factor is that very few geopolitical conflicts are actually zero-sum struggles!
For example, you will notice that Putin’s strategies do not assume zero-sum results as opposed to American and European thinking which is always win-lose.
S. mentions public wonderment at why Putin doesn’t take control of the Black Sea.
In the case of Russia, many have long complained about how Putin “cucks out” and “plays it safe” due to his belief that not upsetting the apple cart too much will maintain the status quo and lead to eventual victory, whereas taking far more decisive yet riskier action up front could regain total initiative from the aggressor. The safer choice leads to a kind of perceived slow strangulation of Russia that is game-theoretically deemed a safer play than an explosively decisive action that could potentially win the game outright, but just as quickly invite devastating consequences.
The best example being the idea of Russia directly striking US aerial assets—like surveillance drones in the Black Sea, etc.—as a final “red line” declaration. This could lead to the US backing off all its ISR assets, giving Russia a much easier free ride to victory henceforth; or it could lead to a flashpoint where the US chooses to respond kinetically against a weakened, vulnerable Russia with its hands full.
The choice to “play it safe” and allow US’s ISR assets to give Ukraine eyes and ears seems cautiously pragmatic, but invites great long-term risks for Russia, which include a gradual ‘mission creep’ of US military brazenness that will grow to test Russian boundaries and limits in increasingly dangerous ways.
Putin has not been “playing it safe”. Rather, he has a long-term strategy, not focused on winning in Ukraine but on rebuilding Russian society and restoring Russian culture. His goals are unambiguous. He has been very successful. The US may be playing a game, confident that it is just a game and not existential.
Putin, however, looks at the existential challenges.
Likewise, Iran.
Be that as it may, despite what S. seems to be saying, the Iranians are actually in a stronger position as time goes on.
Simplicius suggests – as others do – that Iran should have launched a pre-emptive strike if it was certain of American intentions….
If Iran was absolutely certain that US has chosen to truly wipe it off the map, it would obviously be in Iran’s existential interests to strike first and hard, to take as much wind out of the aggressor’s sails as possible right off the bat.
Of course, the US has demonstrated its intentions over and over again since it overthrew Iran’s first elected government year ago in 1953. Then, as now, it was about oil.
If Iran just attacked, invoking the Caroline Test:
a.) It would alienate global support by establishing Iran as an aggressor not willing to negotiate, taking into account Western dominance of information space.
b) It would be ineffective. Bombing empty bases does little unless there are aircraft or missile batteries there to be destroyed. Runways, for example, can often be repaired in a matter of hours or days. Wait a bit, and you can do a lot more damage.
c) The war is not just with the US but with Israel.
Time gives Iran a chance to prepare. Each day, it grows stronger. In the 12 Day War, it demonstrated its capabilities, despite Israeli terrorism in the beginning. Now the US and Israel have just tried terrorism again. In the meantime, the US continues shooting itself in the foot. As S notes, Fuckabee’s Christian Zionist rant upset the entire Islamic community. And Israel’s treatment of Carlson upset Americans, even some MAGA people.
US Airlifts to Mideast
Shivan has an excellently detailed analysis, which you can find on X, indicating that the US military “buildup” is not as impressive as it seems, and also adds to my argument (b) above.
How bigly is the airlift to Mideast? How many tons did 250–265 flights deliver? Bar napkin calculations
Total weight delivered: ≈14.58 million kg, or ≈14,580 metric tons (say, 15,000mt).Muwaffaq Salti is the primary launch point for the war on Iran.
Hence delivery of ≈58% of 15,000mt to MS. 70+ attack aircraft are parked at MS, incl. SEAD aircraft.
Putting almost 60% of your (non naval)( offensive capbiltiy in one place is almost as bad as putting the rest of it on two carriers (leaving aside submarines)
Fun fact: US military sealift ship (e.g., Bob Hope class), can carry 25,000 to 35,000mt; merchant bulk carrier, 50,000mt to 80,000mt; container ship, 50,000mt to 150,000mt. A fraction of Bob Hope class delivered.
In other words, a single massive strike on Muwaffag Salti could (theoretically) put almost 60 % of the USAF assets out of commission. Resupply would take at least two weeks, probably longer.
If carrier operations in the Red Sea are any indication, drone swarms and cruise missiles will exhaust AD resources in a short time, forcing the carriers to withdraw, despite extra ammunition taken on board at the expense of space for cruise missiles.
If this is 40-50% of all US air power, I have bad news for fanboys–not enough for any REAL action other than, indeed, hurling everything at whatever the reconned Iranian AD is and hoping for effect. US never conducted real SEAD other than bombing the crap out of mighty Iraqi AD. In Vietnam, that didn’t work out that well. To put it mildly. Hoping, of course, against all hope, that DJT will find at least a rudimentary backbone, but with Epstein Files dominating alternative media agenda and his Israeli masters having him cornered–he will perform TACO and will strike Iran
Martyanov’s idea of TACO is Trump giving in to the Zionist lobby. LOL….
Let’s wait for the State of the Onion Address
As for “Game Theory,” it’s Spin the Bottle — you don’t know the outcome.
I will say that I found S’s article somehow confusing. He is very certain he thinks Trump is under the control of Israel, which means he must attack no matter what. A version of “bothsidesism”? False balance? He also writes….
There is real wrong or right in such systems with uncertain outcomes, and a multitude of variables. There are only game-theoretic models and conjectured opinions on what may or may not be the best course of action.
In the case of Iran, there are many other variables that make it presumptuous to declare Iran’s “passivity” as cowardly or misguided. For instance, we don’t know the scope and tenor of the various backdoor negotiations that could be giving Iran unique insight into the US’s true intentions, which we are not privy to. Iran could be basing its decision on the hints of secret deals that most internet commentator’s simply wouldn’t have in their risk-reward equations.
Simplicius should change his handle to Complexius.
War, war, war… What did we do before? Wasn’t life such a bore?
February 16, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps began carrying out naval drills in the Hormuz Strait, which, however, was closed for just a few hours…
On the same day, the US began sending more warplanes to the Middle East.
At least 18 F-35As left Laken-heath Air Base in the UK for Muwaf-faq Salti in Jordan and a dozen F-22s left Langley Air Force Base with a stopover in the UK.
This was in addition to 48 F-16 Fighting Falcons from Italy, Germany and the US and two E-3 Sentry AWACS from the UK.
Simultaneously, the USS Gerald R. Ford arrived near the Strait of Gibraltar, to join the USS Abraham Lincoln, which internet chatter says is experiencing “technical issues”.
CVN / USS Abraham Lincoln: Experiencing “technical issues”.
However, an Iranian delegation led by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi held a second round of indirect talks with U.S. representatives, headed by Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, in Geneva on February 17.
Araghchi said
Good progress was made compared to the previous session, and this round was conducted in a more constructive atmosphere.
From now on, we will proceed based on the guiding principles and move towards drafting the text of a possible agreement.
The boss is getting fed up. Some people around him warn him against going to war with Iran, but I think there is 90% chance we see kinetic action in the next few weeks,” one Trump adviser said.
SouthFront, for whom I just did a video, thinks that the US will strike within a week. Larry Johnson thinks the same thing.
William Schryver also thinks so. But his take is qualified.
The US has never faced modern mobile air defenses.
But here is the bigger problem: Iran will be able to almost immediately detect US aircraft and Tomahawk launches — and, depending on where in Iran is being targeted, from launch to strike will take anywhere from 30 minutes to 3+ hours.
Iranian SRBMs can hit US bases in the region within 5-7 minutes.
Therefore, Iran can very conceivably achieve multiple significant strikes against US targets long before US munitions hit ANY targets in Iran.
Maybe US SEAD/DEAD is all that is claimed. But it is entirely conceivable that the strike package won’t have anywhere to land when they get back to their bases.
JASSM
Let us keep in mind that the US appears to be counting on subsonic Tomahawks and JASSM cruise missiles that are vulnerable to interception. The Israelis were unable to intercept Iranian hypersonic missiles in the last days of the 12 Day War, and those missiles have improved.
If the Chinese and Russian anti-stealth radars work as advertised, the F35s and F22s won’t be of much use.
Invisible you? No way.
A lot of this is hard to say since weapons systems are always overhyped.
The point is, no one knows.
So we still face various scenarios.
Scenario 1
A rapid all-out strike, starting with “decapitation” attacks and attacks on air defense systems. Problem? Iran expects something like this and is preparing with Chinese and Russian help. A lot of its systems are mobile and move around.
Trump, however, may be convinced that the US military and Israel together can destroy Iran before it can retaliate in any meaningful way
Despite the Iranians having demonstrated that they could overwhelm Israeli defenses with precision strikes on infrastructure in the 12 Day War, some Israelis may want another go— this time with full military support from the US, hoping they can destroy Iranian defenses, decapitate the Iranian leadership, and stir up ethnic strife.
The Israelis point to hundreds of Iranian casualties in the 12-day War and very few Israeli civilian casualties. However, most Iranian casualties were in the first days, many of them from internal terrorist attacks rather than direct confrontation of the kind now looming.
Also, as a matter of principle, the Iranians targeted only military infrastructure.
War criminal Netanyahu inspecting Iranian strike.
From the Israeli point of view, principles make you weak.
This is confusing for everyone but specially for the Donald.
What matters for Trump is what he wants to believe at any given moment, not what is actually the case, facts, contradictions, whatever—ergo— the Iranian people are just waiting to be “liberated” by US missiles and bombs from the thrall of the Mullahs.
He also, of course, wants to believe the US is No.1 – so its military must be unstoppable. After all, America won two world wars, didn’t it? Why not a third?
Scenario 2
Seven out of 10 American voters don’t want war with Iran. Iran has warned that this time, it will go all out and Americans will die.
The Russians and Chinese are giving Tehran a lot of technological support. “Stealth” is not necessarily an advantage this time – in fact, it could end up being a disadvantage if you end up in the wrong place at the wrong time.
American bases are vulnerable. Carriers too.
Therefore, total war with Iran could mean American casualties at a level not seen since Vietnam – not to mention the destruction of Israel.
Trump doesn’t care about such quibbles — just about losing ordinary Americans in the Midterms and maybe the Zionists and their money at the same time. So in Scenario 2, “negotiating” buys time, hoping that people will get tired of the story and stop paying attention, so he can arrange a face-saving “deal” and withdraw naval forces to threaten Greenland or somewhere they won’t fight back.
He can then market himself as the “Great Negotiator” in the Elections. “See, I avoided/stopped a war”.
Scenario 3
Israel attacks – whatever the US thinks. This is some people’s idea anyway.
Such an attack forces the US into a proxy war. Who is proxy for whom?? A good question.
Iran launches missiles against which Israel has no defense. The US steps in at the last moment to “save Israel”, as it did in the 12 Day War. But this time, the Iranians may not give B2s a free pass as William Schryver eloquently argues they did —
Thank you Grok!
Somehow, we’ve looped back to Scenario 1. Sorry….
The thing is that if Israel has no defense against Iran’s missiles – neither does the US, whereas Iran does have such defenses, which means that the only scenario that makes sense – rationally– is #2.
But, as I have written, when has US policy, particularly that of Trump, been rational?
This is the Age of Unreason.
But does Israel want to attack — really?
My guess is that Trump, the least adult child, is playing a dangerous game of chicken. No, the Nash Equilibrium does not apply.
I also need help in getting new subscribers. Please crosspost, and feel free to post urls on other blogs or X or other platforms. Every time someone does that, I get a new subscriber.
Dunno about the music but the lyrics are interesting.
In Cat Game Theory, there are no choices — just tuna.
We need help in getting new subscribers. Please crosspost, and feel free to post urls on other blogs or X or other platforms. Every time someone does that, I get a new subscriber.
BEFORE you leave, PLEASE pay attention to this alert. INDISPENSABLE information!
[t4b-ticker id=”1″]
[/su_spoiler]
Print this article [bws_pdfprint display=’print’]
[su_note note_color=”#f1efef” radius=”0″]The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post, although, if we publish them, we obviously find them noteworthy and highly valuable. [/su_note]
Julian Macfarlane is a Tokyo-based media and strategic analyst. He edits News Forensics (Substack column). Julian is assisted in his writing by two highly proficient felines, Chappy and Ichi.
Julian Macfarlane
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License • 
