These are very jingoist terms focused more on domestic political reactions than anything happening on the ground.

All conflicts, with the exception of genocidal or total war style conflicts - end with some kind of settlement, in which each side makes concessions, and then tries to sell it as a victory to their domestic audience.

This will be no different, which is why people are already lining up to spin everything and argue about who is the real winner or loser. That they have no problem expoliting the conflict for domestic political gain makes it clear that no one takes this war very seriously.

If there was a real winner or loser, no one would need to argue about it, it would be clear to everyone, since the loser would be under occupation, and that's not going to happen here, neither to the US, nor to Iran. This entire war is two sides shooting missiles and bombs at each other from a safe distance.

▲

komali2 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> safe distance

Iranian people are being killed, so no. Cynically if you mean Iranian leadership, they're also being killed, so no.

American leadership and the Americans living in the seat of imperialism, sure.

	▲	carefree-bob 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Sure when Iran is being bombed, that is not a safe distance when it comes to receiving fire. But there are also US, Israeli, Kuwaitis, mariners being hit by Iranian missiles. The proportions are not the same, but this isn't a situation of only one side landing blows. Iran is also landing blows and putting up a fight. But the point is that the missiles are being shot from a distance. There is no invasion. When Iran hit Dimona or Kuwait, it wasn't sending troops there, it was firing off long range drones and missiles. I never claimed the war has zero casualties, but I very much doubt the number of casualties will be even within an order of magnitude of a full scale ground invasion. It will be in the thousands, not hundreds of thousands.