> 1. Assure there will not be forces

It's not israel's place as the aggressor to "assure" anything. Lebanon (and Palestine) have *at least* as much right to be safe from israel as israel has to be safe from them.

"Assuring" as used by you here should be taken in the same context as a controlling abuser "assuring" their spouse never disobeys them, or afrikaaners "assuring" that South Africans of other races have no power.

> 2. Acquire a bargaining chip ahead of a future peace agreement with Lebanon

Yes, this is territorial expansion as mentioned above.

> 3. Signal to the Iranian axis and the rest of the Middle East that it has won this war

Why would israel signal that Iran has won this war? Seems like they'd want to avoid attention on that.

Your post makes a lot of bold claims (lack of support post-attacks, current missile production numbers, large portion of internal security folks killed). From where did you get that info?

> I'm not sure that we are worse than a few weeks ago

By every measure I can find, we are worse off: everything costs more, I am at greater risk of attack at home and abroad; the theocracy in Iran has moved to consolidate power similarly to the theocracy in israel; more Iranians support the regime since they're all being attacked together; the global standing and trust of the USA is further diminished; allies have been shunned and insulted; war crimes are now OK according to the USA; billions have been wasted; stocks of interceptor missiles and other weapons are dangerously depleted; the USA and israel look like losers on the world stage now. Oh yeah, and a bunch of innocent people (including lots of children) were killed in the bombing. And that's all right now, no "wait and see".

Are there any measures which indicate we're better off? Even if we assume the ones you listed were true, they are outweighed by all the damage listed above, and aren't particularly valuable to the USA, which generally did not suffer from random Iranian missile strikes or invading Iranian internal security forces prior to this war.

There's nothing the US can do any more to stop Iran developing a nuclear weapon. They have just proved that peace talks don't work, negotiations don't work. The only way to defend yourself from America is to have the actual capability to nuke Washington DC from afar. And Iran has a right to defend itself, so it will develop that capability.

What would be the consequences? The same thing that already just happened? America punished them, killed their head of state as revenge for not having a nuke yet.

Change relative to before the war… where ships could just pass freely. So that's a loss.

I'm likely misunderstanding what you're trying to say.

Can you elaborate on how, exactly, ships would be able to evade the toll booth, if they have to pay the toll in any case?

Because on the surface of it, it sounds to me like Iran is tolling the straits. Which is fine. The fee is small enough that I'm not opposed to paying it given the alternative. I understand why the world is willing to pay. Ok. I get it.

But it's hard for me to view this as a win for us. So I'm probably missing something? (Or at least, I hope I'm missing something.)

You should mention that USA does not believe in the freedom of navigation.

Before starting the war with Iran, USA has instituted a blockade of Cuba, intercepting the oil tankers going there and causing thus a severe fuel shortage in Cuba.

Iran blocking the Strait of Hormuz was just doing the same that USA has begun doing. So USA has no moral authority to say that Iran should respect "the freedom of navigation", which is a thing that USA does not respect.

This is such a made-up idea.

The various treaties about freedom of passage exist precisely because, before the last 200 years, everyone did whatever they wanted with straits and other natural chokepoints, including closing them at will. Freedom of navigation is not an obviously natural right nor one universally accepted, before colonial powers effectively invented it and enforced it with guns. If somebody shows up with bigger guns, it might well disappear again.

Also, I wish the expression "close but no cigar" could be banned on the internet. Unless you're a professor of international relations at a renowned university, you simply don't get to gatekeep what reality is - particularly when making up arbitrary principles like these.

> Iran doesn’t control the straight though. It just has the ability to launch missiles at ships and such. There is a difference.

There really isn't a difference. They can turn off the flow at will, they're the only ones who can, nobody can stop them. They control it.

That's veto power, what other kind of control do they need?

> Sounds good - and the US can bomb Iran. Might makes right.

Might doesn’t make “right” but it determines geopolitical realities.

> Iran doesn’t control the straight though.

Then why was Trump demanding that Iran “open the fuckin’ Strait”?

“Transit volume through the Strait of Hormuz remains a fraction of what it was before the Iran conflict”

https://maritime-executive.com/article/traffic-through-strai...

its not particularly might makes right, but bargaining knowing that war is costly. iran could attack every ship that goes through the strait, but that would cost iran both in actual missiles/drones, and an opportunity cost of getting its own ships through, missing a potential toll, and missing potential benefits from being neighbor to rich states. Not to mention that the shots mean that other countries will want to respond

even with might, most conflicts end in a negotiated settlement, and that approximates what each side of a conflict thinks would be the result of fighting the war, plus or minus some bargaining range. its still expensive for the mighty to fight the war, and better for everyone to accept the result of war without fighting

see: the youtube channel "lines on maps" aka "william spaniel" to hear it from an expert in the field of crisis bargaining

[dead]

Iran is liked about as much as the US and certainly more than Israel.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/iran/america-has-lost-arab-wo...

Iran has fomented discord in a number of countries, most notably Syria and Lebanon. I think they are “rational” in the sense that they are pursuing their goals of eliminating US influence over the Middle East - but many other states in the MidEast would see that goal as “irrational” in itself.

> They proved time and again over the course of the past few years that they were not only pragmatic, but also a much more rational actor than Israel and the US

When? When they drip fed Hezbollah's missiles into Israel's air defences? When they left their ships in port to get bombed? When they convened an in-person meeting at the Supreme Leader's residence? When they didn't even reprimand Hamas after October 7th?

Iran has acted according to its regime's interests. But I wouldn't say they prosecuted their goals rationally, pragmatically or even particularly effectively.

Oh absolutely. But being an idiot with proxies isn't really reason to threaten total war. You go after the proxies and maybe hit ports and production facilities in Iran that arm them. Then commit to keep doing that every time the proxies act up. Nobody needs to liberate Lebanon or Yemen. And nobody needs to try and change the regime in Tehran.

I am not talking about stakes; I am talking about territory.

Uh if you say so. Can you point me to the rule stating that I need to keep engaging in a discussion I am not interested in having?

> bombs work and settle the issue

If you want evidence that bombs do not settle the issue, you can consider the current Iran war. The US and Israel have dropped a rather impressive number of bombs on Iran. As far as I know, most of them worked. But whatever issue the leaders of the US and Israel thought they were going to settle is most definitely not settled. The regime has changed from Ayatollah Khamenei to Khamenei, the US’s military position is dramatically worsened, and, while Iran has a lot of rebuilding to do, they are arguably in a strategically stronger position than they were before. Maybe you think Iran’s continued existence “can’t happen period”, but Iran still exists and the US’s ability to anything about it is very much in doubt.

This is very rich given that the US, is the only country to use nukes, and Israel has illegal nukes and wont even accept inspection. Nobody charged anyone to cross a strait until your pedophile leaders decided to kill a head of state and bomb a school full of children

> I guess Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Iraq, and Qatar don’t exist lol

All of those countries except Iraq facilitated this war, the weapon launches were overwhelmingly from land bases on their territory. If they want to talk with Iran about discounts for expelling american airbases, I'm sure they could find an audience.

they can destroy whatever they want, but are unwilling to move ships in, and unwilling to put boots on the ground.

if the US/israel believed their own propaganda, they'd be doing both of those things.

> US and Israel don’t go around just announcing everything they’re doing. They don’t need propaganda

Why does Trump talk so much then? It would be lovely if stopped.

> I guess Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Iraq, and Qatar don’t exist lol. They’re not just attacking ships in one tiny area - ships have to pass through bidirectionally which affects trade for everyone. Stop trying to defend this stuff.

You must have a real problem with the concept of the Panama Canal.

Weird, from the outside it seems like bombing civilians and infrastructure is more inflammatory and antagonizing than some words/propaganda.

The US creates "Red Menace", "Terrorist", "Axis of Evil" or "whatever the imperialist excuse of the day" b-roll.

The US 'forced' them to do this by agreeing in principal that Iran could charge that toll (along with 9 other points).

The question isn't whether the US can destroy Iran, it obviously could(as evil as that would be). The question is does the US want to pay the price of continuing the war more than the price of agreeing to those points, and would Iran pay the price required to fight back if it does not get the US to capitulate on those points.

I can tell you what will happen to any boat that doesn't pay the extortion (toll) and enters the straight. So realistically it doesn't matter if it's in breach of maritime norms, who's going to restart attacks on Iran to enforce those norms if the US capitulated on it?

> Exercising control and staying in power amounts to them hanging 19 year old kids.

If you're going to play the utilitarian card, you need to actually compare the numbers.

How many kids does Iran government execute every year?

How many kids have died in that one single school that was hit by US? How many more of that will happen if the war continues?

Technically this war might be "won" by carrying out this threat--just as it could be "won" by using nuclear weapons--but the long-term strategic damage done to the winner by using those means would perhaps spawn a new phrase with more a sweeping strategic connotation than "Pyrrhic". "Trumpian" springs to mind.

It was working just fine, until Bibi decided he wanted to be remembered as "the guy who completed Israel" so he needed a distraction to try and finish Hezbollah. It will work just fine once Trump is cut to size and the adults get back in the room.

"They" care about as much about the sufferings of their own people that Trump cares about "his people". Very, very little.

If those cards can inflict damage to their enemies, that's what matter.