Video Summary
destruction of regional radars sharply reduces warning time and leaves u.s. bases vulnerable
picket vessels and airborne awacs are critical but limited solutions for early warning
ballistic and hypersonic missiles shift the advantage away from traditional naval power
aircraft carriers are harder to target but remain at risk from terminally guided missiles
iran could realistically pressure the u.s. to withdraw from the gulf region; regional alignments may shift toward russia and china
With key radars destroyed, warning time for incoming missiles and aircraft is drastically reduced, making it harder to allocate air-defense assets and leaving bases highly exposed; AWACS provide some cover but must be kept airborne continuously and operate at distance.
A picket vessel is deployed up-threat to give early radar warning of incoming attacks; historically used to protect carrier groups, pickets buy minutes that allow combat air patrols and defenses to be allocated effectively.
These missiles are harder to intercept, especially in the terminal phase, shifting the advantage to states that possess them and undermining traditional sea power and force projection from carriers and surface ships.
Jermy argues it's realistic: sustained attrition of U.S. detection and defense capabilities, rising domestic opposition, and regional recalibration toward other powers increase the plausibility of a U.S. pullback.
He cites miscalculation and complacency among leadership, inefficient military spending (poor value for money), reliance on quantitative metrics like bomb counts, and weak strategic thinking against an ideologically driven adversary.
"What does that mean? And if you were responsible for this, how would you interpret this?"
The conversation centers around the military implications of the Iran war, particularly the destruction of US radar systems in the region. This loss poses significant concerns for US military personnel on the ground, impacting their ability to detect and respond to threats.
Air defense relies heavily on a layered defense strategy, where radars and defense systems work together to detect incoming threats early. Commodore Jermy explains that if the radar systems are down, the personnel are left with very few warning signals, making it exceedingly difficult to allocate air defense resources effectively.
The absence of these radars not only reduces the warning time available to ground forces but also increases the vulnerability of American bases. This situation leaves American troops feeling exposed and anxious.
"A picket is a vessel that is up threat—towards where you expect the threat to come from."
Picket vessels play a pivotal role in naval defense by providing advance warning of incoming threats. These ships are stationed at a distance to detect threats early and relay that information to the main forces, allowing them to prepare and respond.
Jermy discusses the historical context, referencing the Pacific War, where the US developed ships capable of radar detection to protect aircraft carriers from surprise attacks. The principle remains relevant in current military strategies, underlining the importance of advance notice for effective response.
"I would say at the moment the American system—the American bases are close to naked."
Jermy asserts that the current state of American defenses is precarious, especially following the loss of critical radar systems. The inability to detect threats early compromises the effectiveness of air defense systems and increases the difficulty of managing incoming missiles.
Although there are AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System) aircraft providing some level of radar coverage, their distance from the ground forces limits their effectiveness, necessitating constant airborne presence for adequate defense.
The discussion highlights that, despite some redundancies in the system, the military situation on the ground is much more dire, with increasing risks associated with missile technology.
"It's not impossible that they missed it, and it seems to me they've missed other things as well."
Reflecting on strategic decisions, Jermy expresses skepticism regarding US leadership's foresight in recognizing the risks of the situation in Iran. He notes that the military personnel likely had a clearer understanding of the implications of such risks before operations began.
He posits that if the leadership underestimated the dangers or miscalculated their defenses, it highlights a significant flaw in strategic thinking. The notion of American military dominance may lead to complacency and a dangerous underestimation of threats from adversaries.
Jermy warns that such strategic errors could prove catastrophic not only for military personnel on the ground but for the overall position of the United States in global affairs.
"The advantage has shifted to those with ballistic and hypersonic missile capabilities."
The evolving nature of warfare highlights a fundamental shift due to the increasing difficulty in intercepting ballistic and hypersonic missiles. This transition means that nations possessing these advanced missile technologies now hold a significant advantage.
The U.S. Armed Forces, historically air and maritime heavy with a relatively smaller land army, are now facing challenges that make their air and naval forces less deployable and require more cautious operations. This situation effectively diminishes America's ability to project power globally.
Recent movements of the USS Ford aircraft carrier illustrate these changes. Initially deployed to the Mediterranean to provide defensive capabilities for Israel, there are reports of potential redeployment to the Red Sea due to security concerns involving Saudi Arabian pipelines. However, operating in the Red Sea is fraught with risks, as previous attempts have led to withdrawal from the area.
"The Iranians have created a system of governance where everyone, from foot soldier to Ayatollah, is replaceable."
The ongoing geopolitical situation is complicated further by the Iranian mindset, which views the conflict as an existential struggle, driven by theological beliefs that frame it as a fight for justice against oppression.
This perspective underscores the Iranian willingness to embrace martyrdom, leading to a governance and military structure that emphasizes the replaceability of personnel. This is notably different from Western perspectives, where high-level leaders are often considered irreplaceable.
There is skepticism regarding the effectiveness of U.S. allies responding to assistance requests related to the closure of critical strategic waterways, as this poses significant risks of retaliation.
"An aircraft carrier has the ability to move, which makes it much more difficult to target."
The discussion revolves around the risk to aircraft carriers and their ability to withstand attacks. While carriers are difficult to target due to their mobility, concerns remain about the impending threat from advanced missile systems.
The potential for ballistic and hypersonic missiles to strike a moving target like an aircraft carrier raises questions about the effectiveness of existing guidance systems. The effectiveness of missile systems largely depends on their terminal phase guidance, which determines the accuracy of strikes against mobile naval assets.
It's acknowledged that while one missile may not sink an aircraft carrier, it could inflict considerable damage, effectively rendering the vessel non-operational for its intended missions.
"Any vessel, not just a carrier, is under threat if these missiles can be terminally guided."
There is a significant discussion around the vulnerability of naval assets, particularly focusing on not just aircraft carriers but all surface ships, including amphibious and replenishment forces.
The effectiveness of modern missiles poses a threat to these vessels, revolutionizing the dynamics of naval warfare.
This vulnerability affects the ability of the U.S. to project air power from the sea, making operations more dangerous than in the past.
Commodore Jermy notes that American military forces may struggle to execute power projection safely, indicating a transition in maritime strategy and operational security.
"I do think it's a realistic goal for the Iranians to force the U.S. to completely withdraw from the region."
The conversation shifts to the broader geopolitical implications, particularly in the Gulf region where the Iranians express a desire for U.S. military forces to exit.
This withdrawal is seen as increasingly plausible as the Iranians assert their capability and intent to reduce American influence.
Jermy draws a parallel to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, highlighting how both situations may lead to escalated demands and objectives from the parties involved.
He suggests the potential for a reevaluation among Middle Eastern states regarding their security partnerships, indicating a shift towards seeking alliances with China and Russia over the U.S.
"The American public's support for the war is shifting, with 60 to 70% of Americans against it."
The U.S. military is grappling with logistical challenges and declining public support for engagement in the ongoing conflict.
As casualties increase, American attitudes toward military involvement may sour further, leading to perceptions of strategic failure.
Jermy highlights the distinct differences between the current situation and past conflicts, such as Vietnam, due to the broader implications on global security and economy.
He argues that if Gulf Arab states reassess their reliance on American military support, this could significantly alter regional dynamics and alliances.
"It seems to me that this is exactly the case. It's a very contorted argument."
The discourse touches on European nations’ responses to the conflict, particularly their cautious alignment with U.S. military objectives.
There is a clear recognition of the challenges and potential harmful consequences of the ongoing military campaign on the global economy, leading to mixed support among European nations.
Jermy proposes that European governments should consider distance from overt support of U.S. actions to avoid deeper involvement that could exacerbate the situation.
He warns against the tendency of European nations to follow American leads without critical evaluation, suggesting a need for a more independent strategic approach.
"Nobody regrets his decision not to go into Vietnam, but people do regret Tony Blair's decision to side with the Americans in Iraq."
The discussion highlights significant historical moments where leaders made choices about military involvement, particularly the Vietnam War and the Iraq War.
Harold Wilson's refusal to engage in Vietnam is viewed positively, contrasting with Blair's involvement in Iraq, which remains contentious.
The concept of the "special relationship" between the US and the UK is questioned, suggesting that this relationship should not dictate reckless military commitments.
Respecting national interests over a perceived special relationship can actually strengthen alliances, as evidenced by the recent actions of the Spanish government.
"The war in Iran is drawing a lot of monetary resources into the region, and we are seeing European leaders reconsider their strategies."
There's a growing sentiment among European leaders, including the Belgian Prime Minister, acknowledging the inability to defeat Russia and the necessity of dialogue.
Political dynamics in Hungary and the broader European context show hesitation regarding continued military engagement.
The financial implications of ongoing conflicts, such as the significant funds allocated to the war in Iran, concern regional stability and public resource allocation.
The US's situation in South Korea is perceived as an embarrassment as it shows shifting priorities and a lack of military capacity to support multiple fronts.
"America spends as much as the next seven nations combined, yet maintains a military significantly smaller than Russia's and China's."
The discussion reveals inefficiencies in US military spending, which does not correlate with effective military capacity.
The complexity of military power is broken down into three key components: energy, industrial capacity, and strategic thinking.
There is an indication that the Western military establishment is experiencing poor value for money with its expenditures, further complicating the geopolitical landscape.
"Russia is probably the great beneficiary of the war, and they could serve as key mediators in resolving the ongoing conflicts."
Both Russia and China are posited as crucial mediators in the conflict, particularly regarding the situation in Iran.
The complexity of US support for Ukraine makes it difficult for them to engage Russia in a mediating capacity.
The need for European leaders to recognize the changing dynamics and consider strategic partnerships with Russia and China is emphasized to resolve the conflicts.
The potential irony of the US seeking mediation from Russia, after previously opposing them, signals a shift in diplomatic strategies.
"This situation will likely be viewed as the worst foreign policy miscalculation in American history."
The discussion forecasts a grim historical reflection on current US foreign policy decisions under Trump's administration.
The potential repercussions and future implications of these miscalculations are underscored, suggesting a profound impact on America's international standing.
The irony surrounding the timing of these events coincides with significant anniversaries in American history, underscoring the weight of these decisions.
"The danger is that it will seek to escalate... what happened in Vietnam with the operation of Rolling Thunder is the use of incredible firepower to achieve nothing."
Commodore Steve Jermy discusses the difficulties the White House faces in navigating the current military situation with Iran. He draws parallels to the Vietnam War's "Operation Rolling Thunder," where overwhelming firepower failed to yield positive results.
He emphasizes that the U.S. needs to understand the complex theology influencing Iran's government rather than relying on outdated military strategies based on game theory.
Jermy expresses concern that the current administration isn't showing signs of such understanding, highlighting a lack of innovative military thinking in the face of an advanced adversary.
"You can't numerate things and just assume that because you've dropped a number of bombs that that's a very good key performance indicator."
He critiques the reliance on metrics such as bomb counts, arguing that these are not reliable indicators of success in military campaigns. Instead, true success should be judged by the desired outcomes rather than quantifiable metrics alone.
Jermy wonders how these military strategies will unfold politically, particularly among decision-makers in Washington, and if concerns about the administration's handling of the situation are being considered.
"We have a war that is existential for Israel, existential for the Iranians, and existential for the Trump White House."
Jermy raises the alarming possibility of nuclear escalation, suggesting that either Israel or the United States might use nuclear weapons to intimidate Iran into submission.
He highlights that such an action would not likely deter Iran, which views the conflict as existential, and instead could further damage the reputations of the U.S. and Israel on the global stage.
He calls for common sense to prevail among U.S. leaders to prevent even greater catastrophes than the current state of affairs.
"The thing with air bases is not so much the suppression of the runway but the suppression of the kit and the people."
Jermy explains that maintaining the safety of aircraft is critical for U.S. military operations in the region. Vulnerabilities at air bases can severely limit combat readiness due to potential damage from enemy attacks.
He recounts his experience in Afghanistan, demonstrating how even non-catastrophic damage can render aircraft ineffective, emphasizing the need to ensure that aircraft can remain safely operational.
The shift towards using advanced Iranian missiles poses a significant threat to U.S. forces and Jermy speculates that aircraft may have to be withdrawn from current bases that are at high risk of attack.
"If they start firing projectiles from Cyprus at Iran, they're making Cyprus a direct target for the Iranians."
The conversation emphasizes the precariousness of operating military assets from locations such as Cyprus, which could draw immediate retaliation from Iran.
Jermy warns that Cyprus lacks defenses against advanced missiles, increasing the risk of escalation and conflict in the region. He raises concerns about the implications of such a geopolitical move for the British bases stationed there, highlighting the intertwined risks of broader conflict spilling over into neighboring regions.
"I’ll be changing the name of the Substack and I'm also launching a YouTube channel after Easter."
Commodore Steve Jermy is planning to rebrand his Substack and will introduce a YouTube channel shortly after Easter. This indicates an evolution and expansion of his outreach efforts.
He encourages his audience to keep an eye out for these new platforms as they will serve as important channels for his insights and analyses.
"Everybody keep out a watch for Steve Jermy’s Substack and YouTube channel which are upcoming."
The conversation underscores the importance of effective communication with audiences by urging them to stay informed about the upcoming Substack and YouTube channel.
This move aims to alert followers to new content, ensuring that they can engage with his work and insights promptly.
