> is that we have leaders who actively believed the downplaying of Irans military capabilities

We've been hinting about these capabilities for decades [0]. A lot of what is being brought up now is stuff a number of us touched on during the Obama years.

None of this is really hidden either - it would be brought up in think tanks and even undergrad classes if you attended a target program.

Civilian leaders have always had a hands-off approach to Defense and NatSec policy - once you show them how close to a polycrisis everything is they quickly defer responsibility. It's actually pretty similar to working in a corporate environment - it's all about managing upwards.

[0] - https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/middleeast/29missil...

▲

jopsen 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> it's all about managing upwards

That might not work with the current administration. Which probably a/the problem.

▲

alephnerd 2 hours ago | parent [-]

It still does/is. Most of what I'm seeing with Iran is similar to what was discussed back in the early 2010s.

There hasn't been significant churn in the NatSec space aside from political appointees, and core policymakers like Doshi, Maestro, Allison, Colby, and even Hill have worked with administrations irrespective of party affiliation.

▲

jopsen an hour ago | parent [-]

The outcomes is very different from 2010, how so?

	▲	alephnerd 31 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> The outcomes is very different from 2010 Not really. What we're seeing today is similar to what was being discussed in 2010 [0]. Heck, this failed missile attempt confirms capabilities that were being discussed in 2010 [1]. [0] - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2010/4/22/us-iran-strike-stil... [1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/middleeast/29missil...