> If Iran could veto the war at the start, they would have.

Sure, because nobody likes the unknown prospect of dying or knowing exactly how far this war will ultimately go. However, this has all made the IRGC a lot stronger and has given them a lot more power.

> But they've also lost massive amounts of military and industrial investment

Investment made for exactly the purpose it's being used. They are also massively depleting the US and Israel's munitions. The math is really bad. The missiles and drones are pretty cheap and quick for Iran to manufacture and they've spent decades setting that up because of this very scenario. Meanwhile, the US hasn't had to exercise it's supplies and we already see they are running low as more and more explosives appear to be making their way through the Iron Dome. But also, the massive amount of damage that's been to US bases throughout the region.

> to say nothing of decades of leadership.

Iran's leadership doesn't work like a lot of other nations. The big mistake Trump made was assuming taking out the supreme leader was all it'd take for them to crumble. The government is a lot more complex and not fully invested in one powerful man. And it's this way exactly because of the threat of attack by the US.

This is why after both the US and Israel got to the point where they couldn't figure out who was running Iran, Iran was still continuing attacks on US bases and Israel.

Much like the US government and military, there's not a single politician or general you could take out that would cause a collapse in command. Unlike the US government, they have a very large government body that can pick and choose new leaders pretty quickly. It took them, what, 2 weeks to pick the next supreme leader?

I'm sure Iran didn't want this war, but I'm also sure the IRGC has reaped massive amounts of benefits because of it.

These are all very predictable results and the reason no president has been dumb enough to directly attack Iran. It's been reported that generals were advising against this attack. But even people without US intelligence could have predicted these outcomes.

▲

JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> this has all made the IRGC a lot stronger and has given them a lot more power

It's consolidated their rule over a weaker state. Whether that counts as "stronger" and "more power" depends on scoping.

> Investment made for exactly the purpose it's being used

I strongly doubt Iran built a navy so it could be potted in harbor. Same for their launchers, many of which got off a handful of shots at most.

> They are also massively depleting the US and Israel's munitions

Sort of. On the other side, we're seeing a defense-industrial renaissance in the U.S. and Israel, including around cheaper anti-drone defenses [1].

> the massive amount of damage that's been to US bases throughout the region

Massive is hyperbole. Expensive, difficult-to-make equipment has been destroyed. (In large part because we refuse to pay for base hardening.) The worst hit, however, remains more operational than the least-hit Iranian facilities.

> government is a lot more complex and not fully invested in one powerful man

Correct. But the people at the top weren't numpties. Losing talent is losing talent. It doesn't capitulate a well-built system. But it does degrade it. (These are, however, long-term costs.)

> I'm also sure the IRGC has reaped massive amounts of benefits because of it

Perhaps. We won't be able to say definitively until after the dust settles. We've been targeting IRGC heavy equipment and industry, specifically, which means their wealth may have plummeted precipitously, even if they've consolidated power.

[1] https://www.wsj.com/world/america-downs-cheap-drones-with-mi...

▲

cogman10 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> Perhaps. We won't be able to say definitively until after the dust settles. We've been targeting IRGC heavy equipment and industry, specifically, which means their wealth may have plummeted precipitously, even if they've consolidated power.

Well, I do agree. But I also think that to get to the point where the IRGC doesn't ultimately benefit will mean a very large amount of bloodshed and investment. And by that, I mean the equivalent of dropping nukes on Tehran worth of damage. Ultimately anything short of that will give them a lot of opportunity to rebuild.

I don't think the US can topple them simply be continually bombing. They'd need a pretty massive amount of ground troops deployed or inhumane destruction.

I guess I still hold out hope that Trump pulls out before we get to either point.

If it does go to either point, the world will be royally screwed in terms of oil. Iran isn't going to go down without a massive amount of destruction of oil production throughout the region which is going to wreck the world.

▲

JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> by that, I mean the equivalent of dropping nukes on Tehran worth of damage

As I've argued, I think we've already left the IRGC weaker–if more consolidated–than it was a few months ago. But levelling it further would just require what Trump has said he wants to do: destroy the local power and water infrastructure.

▲

cogman10 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't think that destroys the IRGC, it destroys the civilian population.

They might be weaker in the sense that they'll have less soldiers, but as far as a government goes, it will empower them like we've never seen. It will cement their power as the entire population is going to completely support them.

Much like how Hamas still exists even though Gaza has been leveled.

	▲	JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> don't think that destroys the IRGC, it destroys the civilian population The IRGC controls vast swaths of Iran's economy. They absolutely hurt when e.g. their cement plants are bombed. And the region's nuclear option, strikes on water infrastructure, looks like it's nearing the table. At which point we're potentially looking at multiple borders shifting in the long run. > It will cement their power as the entire population is going to completely support them Doubtful once the rally-around-the-flag effect has dissipated. But a lot can be done in a short amount of time, granted. > Much like how Hamas still exists even though Gaza has been leveled Well, yes. But it's a shadow of its former self. Poorer. More vulnerable. Less powerful in all material respects. More consolidated over a smaller area, though with less-tenuous grip even there. Irrelevant on the international geopolitical field. If you're saying Hamas is today more powerful than it was before October 7, sure, IRGC will be "more powerful" in the same way.