| |
| ▲ | woodruffw 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's simpler than this: Israel benefits from Iran needing to spend large amounts of money on its own infrastructure and civilian needs, rather than on military development. Getting a larger country (the US) to create those money sinks (in the form of a broadly unserious conflict) achieves that outcome. (The irony being that this is Iran's strategy w/r/t Hormuz as well.) | | |
| ▲ | mikewarot an hour ago | parent [-] | | > Israel benefits from Iran needing to spend large amounts of money on its own infrastructure and civilian needs, rather than on military development. Yeah, but the rest of the world is now going to pay for that, and more, with the $2million toll on oil through the Straight of Hormuz. | | |
| ▲ | woodruffw an hour ago | parent [-] | | Yes, to be clear that wasn't a normative (as in "this is good") appraisal. |
|
| |
| ▲ | t-3 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Netanyahu avoids domestic issues and stays in power through the continuation of the conflict. Israel continues to receive US money and weapons, and can continue to run a wartime economy, which has been lucrative for many. | |
| ▲ | Spooky23 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It’s not a win for Israel. It’s a win for him. The stronger Iran is, the more you need him. Netanyahu is Trump like - his core constituency is whack job Americans and the Israelis whom they firehose money at. The commentators and idiots running the government miss the forest for the trees. Iran is radically stronger than they were, even with the destruction rained down. The entire American military supremacy story is toast. The strategy of them and North Korea with respect to ballistic missiles and drones works. It’s Vietnam with missiles and drone. The US slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, “never lost a battle”, yet got whooped. | |
| ▲ | QQ00 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | more like weaker iran than ever, now that the central command are gone, no leader at the top and no high level generals, the power at the hand of mid level thugs of the IRGC. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > no leader at the top and no high level generals, the power at the hand of mid level thugs of the IRGC One could argue a junta makes for a stronger Iran than the previous gerontocratic autocracy. Of course, we don't know. And I think it's silly to say Iran is stronger today than it was at the start of the war. But relative to America? At least in the region, I'd say one could argue that sensibly. | | |
| ▲ | t-3 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | It is stronger. The weapons capabilities only matter if people are willing to man them. The obvious interference in otherwise organic protests and the threats and the multiple bombings during negotiations united the people against outside threats. Without an enemy, they will fight each other as long as sanctions pressure is continued and internal conflicts are amplified. |
| |
| ▲ | varjag 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Certain figures are gone but political and military organization appears mostly intact. Iran also emerged as potent enough to deliver stalemate to combined force of CENTCOM and Israel. Its standing certainly had improved next to the lows after decimation of its proxies and the fall of client regime in Syria. | |
| ▲ | iugtmkbdfil834 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | The argument is interesting, because it happens to repeat administration's assertions. It also is interesting, because the argument itself attempts make peace with the idea that wiping out central command & leadership did not put US in a more favorable position in general. I guess I will just point out that 'weaker than ever' is doing a lot of work here without being specific on what strength means here. I don't want to put words in your mouth. It is quite ridiculous to watch though. There are ( well, were ) reasons as to why IC was very vocal about not doing what Trump admin's decided to do. And now they are looking to find a reason, any reason that can deflect the blame.. Why? No one likes a loser politician.. not even Trump's electorate. And it is hard to spin lost war AND higher gas prices AND higher inflation. |
| |
| ▲ | anukin 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Stronger how? The central command is gone. | | |
| ▲ | swat535 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm Iranian, now living in the west. Allow me to chime in.. So Iran doesn't have a central command, they've developed a mosaic system where the 30+ chains operate autonomously. It is also multi-layered (IRGC, Artesh, Basij, etc). The multi-layered design was developed after the revolution, when they realized that the regime should be protected in case of internal mutiny. IRGC specifically was put in place to protect the regime and it only responds to the Supreme Leader. Neither the president or the parliament control it. The mosaic system was started few years back after the assassination of Qasem Soleimani (though it possibly dates further, I can't confirm this). The biggest mistake US & Israel did was underestimating Iran, specifically their defensive capabilities. They've prepared for this war for 47 years, _literally_ praying for it. You had Abbas Araghchi on TV literally inviting American army into Iran for a ground invasion. What the West doesn't understand is that you can't really dismantle an ideology by dropping bombs on civilians. It didn't work in Afghanistan, it didn't work in IRAQ and it's not working with IRAN. The Shia martyrdom culture is misunderstood. I was not being hyperbolic when I said they have been praying for this war. Their motto is "Every day in Ashura, every land is Karbala". Anyway, I'll land it here for now. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashura
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karbala | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > They've prepared for this war for 47 years, _literally_ praying for it Is there an apocalyptic religious movement in Iran? Similar to American Evangelists hoping for Armageddon? | | |
| ▲ | evanjrowley 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | There is a potential for bias among Iranian converts to Christianity, but for those whose stories I've listened to, the common answer is yes, there is an apocalyptic religious movement in Iran. | |
| ▲ | jameshilliard an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Is there an apocalyptic religious movement in Iran? It's more of a Jihad/Martyrdom ideology that's driving them. > Similar to American Evangelists hoping for Armageddon? That's a rather different issue, and luckily one that at least causes a lot less problems in practice. Sam Harris has some decent material on why this is(a lot of it comes down to important differences in doctrine). |
| |
| ▲ | jameshilliard 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The biggest mistake US & Israel did was underestimating Iran, specifically their defensive capabilities. They've prepared for this war for 47 years, _literally_ praying for it. You had Abbas Araghchi on TV literally inviting American army into Iran for a ground invasion. Iran would be highly unlikely to be able to prevent a ground invasion from the US since Iran's convention military capabilities are not particularly strong(hence why Iran often fights through proxies or other non-convention means). They can obviously cause a lot of damage but they would obviously lose that war if the US decided they had to remove the regime by force. > What the West doesn't understand is that you can't really dismantle an ideology by dropping bombs on civilians. It didn't work in Afghanistan, it didn't work in IRAQ and it's not working with IRAN. The problem is more that those with the ideology have all the weapons in Iran, so even though the regime and their ideology may be extremely unpopular it's still quite difficult to change things when the fanatics are the ones in power. > The Shia martyrdom culture is misunderstood. I was not being hyperbolic when I said they have been praying for this war. Yeah, unfortunately this likely is going to end up resulting in a ground invasion being inevitable at some point as Iran seems to be unwilling to abandon their goal of destroying Israel and nuclear weapons program. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 15 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > they can obviously cause a lot of damage but they would obviously lose that war if the US decided they had to remove the regime by force I'm genuinely sceptical of this. If America literally invaded Iran, there is a good chance Chinese production comes to back them up. At that point we're fighting with a long logistics chain on someone else's territory (giving them advantages of knowing the land, having local sympathies and having a greater reason to fight) while getting pelted by asymmetric-warfare tactics we can't meaningfully reciprocate. > unfortunately this likely is going to end up resulting in a ground invasion being inevitable at some point Why? Just remove their ability to destroy Israel. Keep taking out their nuclear programme from time to time and have the Congress ratify the JCPOA in case they come back to the table. | |
| ▲ | iugtmkbdfil834 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Ngl, anyone arguing for a ground invasion of Iran will have a hard time convincing US population. I get that president's war powers are pretty expansive, but everything has limits. | |
| ▲ | macintux an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > They can obviously cause a lot of damage but they would obviously lose that war if the US decided they had to remove the regime by force. That is far from obvious. A command structure scattered around a huge country should be able to outlast U.S. willingness to throw bodies into a shredder. | | |
| ▲ | onemoresoop 19 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | It’s easy to look at Ukraine for example. Since drones came into the picture it’s way harder to do a successful ground invasion. Russia has unimaginable losses and they still haven’t reached their strategic goal. | |
| ▲ | awesome_dude 31 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | The Vietnamese proved that it's not the bombs you can throw at the country - it's whether you have hearts and minds on your side. The Americans learnt from that and went to Iraq claiming to have hearts and minds on their side - but quickly discovered that, in fact, they did not (and still do not). The Americans need to take stock of their own actions in this conflict - they put Trump in the white house, they allowed him to be influenced by other governments, they gave him the power to get involved in the conflict. |
|
| |
| ▲ | yubblegum an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why do people buy this bs is beyond me. Let's review actual warfare and its requirements. Logistics. You can mosaic your heart out but you need to provide arms, food, water, electricity, medicines, parts, fuels ... for each of these high level cells. None of that is "distributed" or "independent" or quite frankly given the kleptocracy that is IRI is even given. All that the so called mosaic has achieved is that when the leadership cadre was killed this did not affect a loss of operational readiness as each high level cell had independent command authority. Read that again: operational readiness. US military could trivially end this shit show. The question is why is this strange war being dragged on like this. For example, we are told "they have dug out the entrances to the missile cities". Now besides the fact that most of those videos of the missile cities scream CGI, even assuming they do exists, this nation is supposed to have a fucking "space force" and was reading license plates back during cold war from outer space. Are we to believe Centcom is incapable of burying those entraces yet again? The "who would have thunk it!" b.s. about the Strait of Hormuz. Of course, everybody and their mommy knew this was a strong possibility. Equally, most knew if US used its bases in the area the host nations would be targeted. I am convinced part of this shit show is to make Arabs sweat. US "provokes" IRGC and some parts of Arab infrastructure is smoked. "They need to all agree to be on board with Abraham Accords" said the Orange front man, the other day. The "we now toll Strait of Hormuz". Aha. Let's see: we live in a planet where great powers started and fought world wars to decide exactly this sort of matter: who controls what parts. Are we to assume that the funky IRI regime and the IRGC have now achieved what world powers achieved after sacrificing tens of millions of casualties with just some stupid surface to surface missile batteries in northern shores of the Persian Gulf? Bullocks, as they say in the isle of perfidy. From where I sit, US removed all obstacles for the succession of Khamenei's "gay" son. The other day one of these cheeky IRI embassy twitter accounts (who have a pretty good propaganda chops these days) were self congratulating since the Orange frontman who used to m.c. "pro wrestling matches" said "I'd be honored to meet him!". Will he bring a cake in the shape of a 'Pink' Dildo? One wonders. https://www.nytimes.com/1987/01/11/us/mcfarlane-took-cake-an... If the United States permits IRI to actually have a control over the well being of the entire global economy, then folks, you must realize this is all a plan that we are not privy to. There is no way, none whatsoever, in any reasonable reality, where a middle tier nearly bankrupt, socialy unstable, and isolated theocracy can have the lever to dictate terms to Superpowers armed with atomic weapons. IRI dictating terms to whoever needs the spice to flow from the Persian Gulf -- and that includes China, India, Japan, S. Korea, EU ... -- without the great powers saying 'no you dont' simply does not compute in any rational universe. As to Karbala and Ashura. Well, 2023 came by and then "ready to die" martyrs of the fabled "Shia" weren't exactly lining up to fight Israel. Also, I can not think of any slogan that does more to cheapen the martyrdom of Hussein son of 'Ali than to claim that anywhere, anytime and anyone is equivalent to where, when, and who of the actual Karbala. p.s. US was already worried in 70s about the Shah of Iran controlling the Persian Gulf. One of the reasons they got rid of him, as a matter of fact. Read this short story that was published in 1976 in New York magazine. This was the psyops back then ! that was used to scare the Gulf Arabs to accept US bases. It's a fun read. The Shah takes over the Persian Gulf and controls the Strait of Hormuz. Atom bombs are involved ... https://iranian.com/History/2002/October/Crash/index.html |
| |
| ▲ | avidphantasm 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They have proven to the world they have a deterrent akin to a nuclear weapon, but they can actually use it. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 14 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > they have a deterrent akin to a nuclear weapon Far from akin to. It's a good deterrent. Tehran still isn't Pyongyang. | |
| ▲ | etiam an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not denying they're getting great leverage from that. I still don't quite understand why the shortcut is supposedly so irreplaceable. | | |
| |
| ▲ | nemomarx 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | They seem to be heading towards control of the strait, and the tolls from that could be a pretty good pickup for whatever new government forms? | | |
| ▲ | gizajob 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not sure how the gulf states on the other side of the strait are going to feel about that. |
|
|
|
