| ▲ | ericmay an hour ago | |||||||
It's also less clear because you aren't really getting much reporting in western media about day-to-day life in Iran (curious isn't it?). You're certainly correct that the level of pain tolerance varies between countries and governments, but we tolerated a lot of oil and gas pain during Russia's invasion of Ukraine (I support Ukraine then and now), and if you take your thoughts here to their conclusion you're in my view implying Iran can take more pain than the US can. What is the conclusion then? The conclusion is that the US military is completely irrelevant because any activity which seems to affect some sort of consumer or industrial good means the US just can't stomach $5/gallon gas for the MAGA trucks and thus we are incapable of fighting a war to support Ukraine or Taiwan for example because gas prices will go through the roof. | ||||||||
| ▲ | lokar an hour ago | parent [-] | |||||||
I think (based on reading people who seem well informed) that what matters in Iran is the commitment of the elites in power and loyalty of the security forces. Authoritarian governments can suppress popular will for a long time before collapsing. For US military power, it seems like the lesson is we can do two things: - inflict a great deal of physical damage quickly, without any domestic support. - fight a sustained conflict for an extended period of, with domestic support. It seems they planned for the first, not the second. Both world wars, the Korean and Vietnam wars all inflicted great costs (loss of life, costs to the government budget, and costs to consumers), but were maintained for quite a while. But they all had significant popular support. | ||||||||
| ||||||||