The Superfeed
The Ricochet Podcast3 Whisky Happy HourBeyond the PollsGLoP CultureDaily SignalThe Erick Erickson Show3 Martini LunchChicks on The RightFederalist Radio HourCall Me Back - with Dan SenorHillsdale DialoguesThe Glenn ShowThe Radio Free Hillsdale HourGray MattersFirst Things PodcastThe Report Card with Nat MalkusWhat the Hell Is Going OnParsing Immigration PolicyFreedom to LearnNot Dead YetHeritage ExplainsThe Learning CurveThe American IdeaMadison’s NotesMom WarsConservative Crossroads with Henry OlsenThe Conservative Woman’s GuideLaw Talk with Epstein, Yoo & CookeGiving VenturesWho Funds that?The Back of the BookThe Kevin Roberts Show with Larry O’ConnorThe LibertarianMartini ShotThe Dave Carter ShowThe Powerline ShowIn DissentHeard at HeritageSmart Girl PoliticsJames Lileks’ The DinerCase in Point: The Legal Show on the Hottest Legal Cases in Politics and CultureJobMakersOne on One with Robert DoarHubwonk
HostsOrganizations

Become a member.Become a Ricochet member.

Looking for better conservative conversation? Join Ricochet for just $5/month. Think of it as your neighborhood bar: familiar faces, lively debate, and room for a different point of view. Plus: listen to most of our podcasts ad-free.

  1. Main Feed/
  2. The Iran Distemper
November 9, 2026 at 2:30 PM

The Iran Distemper

Ben Sears
@BenMSYS

To read this bio, please join Ricochet.

Join to bookmark22likesJoin to like14comments

The enemy was dispatched militarily in a matter of weeks. They persist in firing on civilian tankers, but otherwise pop up infrequently and are quickly disabused. We’ve laid Iran under siege. As it rates, they’re getting a minuscule amount of oil out of the country through Pakistan, but are otherwise shut down, watching drill sites atrophy and become unusable.

Meanwhile, there’s more oil coming out of the region than before the war—kinetic military action, and with none coming from Iran, that means neighboring countries are exporting enough to make up for and exceed the amount once sold by the Ayatollahs. I suspect that pleases our allies. Further, new routes have been explored and found practical or not, as needs dictated. The system is more resilient.

We have engaged from a distance. This isn’t Vietnam or Afghanistan. This isn’t even Bosnia. There’s no Charlie firing on our soldiers and Marines from jungle depths, no IEDs, no tiger pits. One of the few reported engagements on the ground was a successful rescue mission of a downed pilot involving a makeshift airport built behind enemy lines. The military has been exceptional.

Twenty-three servicemen have fallen. Eight hundred and sixty-five have been wounded. This is not an action without costs, nor are those lost and wounded to be forgotten, but it is a staggeringly low amount of casualties for a military operation lasting nearly a year. In peacetime, the military suffers between eight hundred and eleven hundred casualties per year. Per USAFacts.org, “Eighty-four percent of these deaths were due to accidents, illness, and suicide or self-inflicted wounds.” The same source states that “Since 1980 less than 10%” are attributable to “hostile action.” Were per-year statistics presented out of sequence and without labels, it would be nearly impossible to identify the year including the nine-month Iran conflict among the others.

On October 26 of this year, National Security Journal ran the following headline: “Everyone Sees This Coming: Donald Trump Is Getting Ready to Strike Iran Again and Tehran Is Getting Ready to Respond.” The article teases with:

Saudi, Pakistani and Turkish officials are in Tehran trying to head off another war, as U.S. officials tell CNN American forces could launch a major offensive within four days of an order. Iran’s foreign minister says any scenario is conceivable, while the White House says no strikes will come before the midterms.

We have day-to-day conflict. Iran is firing on shipping nearly every day, but to little effect. We have boxed them in, denied them all but the smallest outlet for aggression, and are waiting them out. So much so that National Security Journal deems it headline-worthy that we are going to attack. They mistakenly refer to what is widely predicted from a distance of days—that in itself is telling—as the beginning of “another war.” But such is the nature of this quagmire that we aren’t often at war so much as swatting away blows and waiting. We're at war, and this attack is the continuance of the one initiated in February. The enemy was so crippled early on that one journal, whose business is advertised in the title, sees fit to, at least colloquially, refer to what happened as being over and what they see coming as something new.

The most successful complaints about the war have been economic, specifically regarding the price of gas and specifically coming from the left. They claim to be upset by this. I hate to be blunt, but I don’t believe them. I don’t believe that the cost of gas troubles them one whit. When Trump left office in 2021, the national average price of gas was $2.39. Under the Biden Regency, the average was $3.46. For Trump's second term I have the average at, again, $3.46—note that some sources claim $3.87. Trump’s second-term average spiked at $4.48. High, but not as high as Biden’s spike at $5.47.

Under the Biden Regency, I was told that high gas prices were not a drag on the economy by people who were prepared to vote for a continuance. The idea that rising transportation costs affect the cost of every good in one way or another was scoffed at. The circumstance under their guy is fine while the same circumstance under another is evidence of incompetence? I do not believe them.

The Iran war, the quagmire or forever war of the last nine months, has been a disaster in every way except all the ways that are quantifiable. Our military performed and continues to perform exceptionally. The summoned distemper over gas prices is a farce. The regime that calls for the destruction of the Great Satan and preaches apocalyptic cleansing for the world, that chants “Death to the USA,” entered negotiations with us by telling Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff that they had enough enriched uranium to have eleven nuclear weapons within ten days and would continue enriching more. That threat has been dealt with. Iran tried briefly to hold the Strait of Hormuz hostage, a presage of what a nuclear Iran would have no doubt been capable of doing: to dictate oil prices to the world. Traffic still moves through the Strait, and with alternate pathways explored, the Strait is diminished strategically.

Someone began a tribal chant that this war was a disaster, and the faithful picked it up. That noise certainly damaged the president. Given the midterm results, I suspect the Democrats wouldn’t have had things play out any other way.

[Originally printed at American Thinker on 11/6/26]

Recommended by MembersThis post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet's members.

Discussion (14)

Sign in to commentSign in
  • To read this bio, please join Ricochet.

    RufusRJones@RufusRJones·9h

    We can't let Iran get a nuke.

    Their objective is to have tons of missiles to protect their nuke program.

    They don't care about their own people.

    Steve Yates said the most important thing: "you break it you bought it" doesn't apply. Iran has been threatening everyone for 50 years. Their own people can't do anything about it. Cover the whole thing with fuel- air explosives enough to stop them and then invade. That's the only way you can make your weapons get to the good Iranians.

  • To read this bio, please join Ricochet.

    Ben Sears@BenMSYS·9h
    ReplyingtoRufusRJones

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    We can't let Iran get a nuke.

    Their objective is to have tons of missiles to protect their nuke program.

    They don't care about their own people.

    Steve Yates said the most important thing: "you break it you bought it" doesn't apply. Iran has been threatening everyone for 50 years. Their own people can't do anything about it. Cover the whole thing with fuel- air explosives enough to stop them and then invade. That's the only way you can make your weapons get to the good Iranians.

    I've never taken to the "you break it you bought it" idea. "If you don't want something broken, don't provoke attack because we'll break all your stuff and leave you much worse off," does better as a detriment in the long run, especially if paired with "and we'll open channels to allow for the free flow of arms to whichever of your political opponents we hate worse." If we cripple the state, the innocent population is ideally saved from poverty, but there are international organizations we fund to do that sort of thing. Our choice can't be to accept being threatened with nuclear annihilation—or even to accept some more mundane threat from drugs over the borders or state sponsored attacks on our industry—or adopt an entirely new welfare population.

    If we can help after a military conflict, we should. But our ability to do that should not be a consideration on whether or not to defend ourselves.

  • To read this bio, please join Ricochet.

    Ekosj@Ekosj·9h

    The stated objective, as I understand it, was to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. I support that goal whole heartedly. But that goal remains elusive. The Iranian's nuclear ambitions remain. Trump keeps asserting that any day they'll make a deal. Yet no deal appears. That means the goal has yet to be achieved. And Trump emerged from midterms a very lame duck. From an Iranian bunker, this looks like a pretty good outcome.

  • CHARTER MEMBER

    To read this bio, please join Ricochet.

    cdor@cdor·8h
    Edited

    We lost the messaging, not the war. Trump's biggest mistake may be not working harder to explain the situation last February and since. Rubio is tremendous at explaining Iran's attempt to surreptitiously build a monstrous inventory of ballistic missiles and drones that would have enabled them to hold the world hostage and drive up the price of oil permanently. I would have loved to see the President task Rubio with giving our electorate a constant barrage of reasons for the kinetic action of the past eight months. Instead of blaming the war for this past election, I would love to hear J.D. Vance explain why the diplomacy that he lead, failed so miserably.

    From Grok:

    Regular has fallen roughly 36 cents over the past month and is down about 16 cents in the last week.

    Diesel remains elevated (still near its recent highs) and is about $2.16 more per gallon than regular.

    Prices vary widely by state (e.g., lower in the South/Texas, much higher in California, Hawaii, and the West Coast).

    Sources: AAA Fuel Prices (daily national average) and GasBuddy (station-reported data). EIA weekly averages lag slightly and were around $4.15 (regular) / $6.29 (diesel) for the week of November 2.

    The price of gas no longer appears to be about the Iranian war, if it ever was.

    What is done cannot be undone, but with determination and unity on our side, it can be overcome. This is not even close to the worst mid-term drubbing a party in power has received.

  • CHARTER MEMBER

    To read this bio, please join Ricochet.

    cdor@cdor·8h
    ReplyingtoEkosj

    Ekosj (View Comment):

    The stated objective, as I understand it, was to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. I support that goal whole heartedly. But that goal remains elusive. The Iranian's nuclear ambitions remain. Trump keeps asserting that any day they'll make a deal. Yet no deal appears. That means the goal has yet to be achieved. And Trump emerged from midterms a very lame duck. From an Iranian bunker, this looks like a pretty good outcome.

    How lame he is will be determined. Some of it will depend on his own party. The Republicans do not have a history of being good fighters, so Trump will have his hands full.

+9 more comments
Join the conversation

You're seeing five of 14 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.

Trending

Get the Ricochet app

Download on the App StoreGet it on Google Play
  • •
  • •