Unquestionably.

As weird as this sounds, militarily and strategically, Iraq was a relative "success". I mean not to the thousands or millions harmed or killed by US actions and all the damage done along the way, but Iraq now does a US-friendly regime and it exports oil to the US and a bunch of allies. Should we have done it? No. Was it worth the price? No. But was it a complete failure? Also, no.

Unlike Iraq, there's no way to invade Iran. it's surrounded by mountains on 3 sides and ocean on the third. It's a country is ~93 million people with a regime and a military specifically designed to resist US bombardment and interference. The chokehold it has on the Strait of Hormuz is currently being demonstrated. And there's nothing the US can do about that.

If the leaked terms of the 15 point plan are true (and that's a big IF) and any end to hostilities looks remotely like that, Iran is going to end up in a substantially better position than they had under the JCPOA and sanctions will also likely end. That's now the price of peace.

And in doing that the US has worsened and likely will redefine its relationship to every country from Spain to Japan.

It is the biggest own goal in US history.

▲

ethbr1 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> And there's nothing the US can do about that.

1. Send Marines to seize Kharg island via long range air assault from 2 ARGs + land bases

2. Flood Kharg-adjacent mainland with tactical aviation to eliminate short range artillery and rocket systems

3. Fortify position on Kharg island and declare all oil revenue will be placed in US-controlled holding account, with release to Iran contingent on cooperation (re: Why occupy Kharg? Because then you have actual money in an account as leverage, while calming international oil prices and consumers, not just a blockade, which antagonizes international oil consumers)

4. Declare a buffer demilitarized zone around the Strait of Hormuz

5. Land Marines in buffer zone if necessary to monitor

~50% of the revenue to pay the Iranian military comes from oil exports. Therefore, the Iranian regime doesn't survive without oil export revenue. 90% of Iranian oil is exported through Kharg.

It's an aggressive plan, but it's feasible.

Especially because Iran has no ability to repel an invasion of the island or retake it once it's occupied.

Their only possible reaction would be to bombard troops there, destroying their own export infrastructure in the process.

Which would depend on how close to the mat the current regime wants to take this, as that would also seal their eventual downfall.

▲

red-iron-pine 9 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

there is no way the USMC would be able to hold Kharg and the buffer zone without extensive casualties. the buffer zone would be a full-fledged combat zone, non-stop. you'd see Ukraine-at-its-worst levels of drone strikes, and the US military is not equipped to deal with that, not yet.

the Iranian missile stockpile may be drained thin, but their army and conventional equipment surpluses could absolutely maintain a consistent and aggressive pushback.

> Their only possible reaction would be to bombard troops there, destroying their own export infrastructure in the process.

it's already destroyed mate. and keeping it up and running would be a tall order when the Iranians are right there.

> ~50% of the revenue to pay the Iranian military comes from oil exports.

this is a country that convinced children to charge through minefields during Iran-Iraq; you think pay is going to stop them? or that China and Russia wouldn't give them ample weapons?

there is no winning play here

▲

ifyoubuildit 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"Their only possible reaction would be to bombard troops there, destroying their own export infrastructure in the process."

Right, so if that's their only possible reaction, isn't that a bad thing for everyone? It looks like they've made it clear they're not going down without bringing everyone else with them, and why would they? What options do they have?

▲

franktankbank 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> they've made it clear they're not going down without bringing everyone else with them

Isn't that exactly what you would say even if you didn't mean it?

	▲	ethbr1 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You'd think everyone would have learned by this point that none of the belligerent major world powers mean what they say anymore. Definitely not Russia, China, and the US. They all transparently see diplomacy and messaging around it as a tool of war. Small surprise when others do too.
	▲	ifyoubuildit 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I mean they seem to have made it clear by their actions. They're in an existential situation, so its not like there is any reason to hold anything back. If your opponent is trying to turn you into Libya, then whatever you do just has to not fail as badly as that for it to be the right move. You basically become a cornered animal.

▲

master_crab 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don’t disagree with any of your assessments, but I don’t know if it’s a bigger mistake than Iraq…yet. That war was a 10 year (longer if you bc point ISIS) debacle that cost trillions.

Let’s wait a few years before saying this mistake is bigger first.

However, one point that I agree with that might lead to this war being worse: the Gulf are showing some serious buyers remorse with sticking in the US orbit. Both the uselessness of America’s strategy and the almost clear prejudice Trump shows towards the Arabs vs Israel in the decision tree of this conflict is unsettling for the Gulf states.