In the Vietnam war the US didn't win because it couldn't, no matter how much force was employed. Here same thing: we can't depose the Iranian government without a land invasion (which is too costly) and nothing else keeps them from having control of the strait.

▲

lazyasciiart a day ago | parent | next [-]

> In the Vietnam war the US didn't win because it couldn't, no matter how much force was employed. Here same thing

Yes, that is the point everyone has been trying to make.

▲

Tangurena2 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The US was fighting the wrong war in Vietnam. The Vietnamese wanted independence since the 1920s. The US didn't. The French didn't (the second time). The Japanese didn't. The French didn't (the first time).

▲

ericmay 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's not really the same thing. I really do not at all understand why folks see any sort of military intervention that isn't over in 5 minutes as "the next Vietnam". Venezuela was going to be the next Vietnam too. It's like "the next 2008" all over again espoused as a traumatic, quasi-religious point of view. Rather interesting from a cultural evolution standpoint - seems to be that some folks can't shake a trauma so they just keep going back to it even when it's no longer important or relevant for current decision making or situations.

The public being against the war is just about where the comparison between the war in Iran and Vietnam loses meaning.

The United States doesn't need to depose the current Iranian government on its own. An economic blockade could do that, or at worst simply deprive the Iranian government of the means to financially carry out war. As Iran is now finding out, the Strait wasn't quite the leverage that they, and pundits and internet commentators thought it was, and now the US isn't even interested in negotiating which is causing Iran to lash out. It'll be a slow, but certain death to the economy and such an event and blame rests squarely on the shoulders of those in charge of Iran and their idiotic and undemocratic beliefs. The world can't be held hostage and won't be. Though of course the fact that the United States yet again has to go police the world is a bit like a reservoir that slowly refills. There's only so much we're going to be able to do and we're seeing ongoing populist MAGA and DSA backlash against the war. The next crises the US may not be able to respond to politically and then we're in relationship trouble.

▲

ceejayoz 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> An economic blockade could do that, or at worst simply deprive the Iranian government of the means to financially carry out war.

This sounds like the sort of "quasi-religious point of view" you're slamming, considering it's been tried repeatedly already without great success.

▲

ericmay 9 hours ago | parent [-]

No, it doesn't sound like that.

We haven't ever tried this level of economic isolation with Iran. The closest would be North Korea. If you wanted to attempt to make it sound as though I was parroting a quasi-religious point of view, you would want to argue (which I haven't because it's incorrect) that I'm looking at what happened with North Korea (a regime that exists to terrorize the world thanks to communist regimes in China and the Soviet Union) and that I'm saying all blockades or economic sanctions will work just like that, which is, of course, nonsense, just as comparing Iran to Vietnam today is.

▲

ceejayoz 8 hours ago | parent [-]

> The closest would be North Korea.

This is your best example? The now nuclear power that's resisted the approach you advocate since the 1950s?

See? Quasi-religious.

	▲	ericmay 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No that's incorrect - what would be quasi religious and similar to this obsession with Vietnam would be for me or someone else to use North Korea's economic isolation as an example in the same strong fashion. I'd encourage you to re-read my comment to see how I drew that distinction.

▲

NetMageSCW 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

How’s that working against Russia?

	▲	ericmay 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Pretty well I think? Are you up to date with the Russian economic situation? Or are you suggesting the EU and US stop sanctions since they aren't effective?

▲

sofixa 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Exactly, which makes this a stupid war to start in the first place.

Also, to be clear, a land invasion isn't "too costly". It's suicidal because we're talking about a massive country that has been preparing for decades, has a terrain advantage and literally more than a million fanatics ready to die for the regime. You'd need millions of soldiers deployed, and are looking at some Operation Downfall level expected losses.

	▲	ericmay 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I'm not suggesting we should even consider invading Iran - mostly because we don't need to, but these numbers you are throwing around seem a bit off the mark without either a time horizon or some other qualifier. Also... a million fanatics ready to die for the regime? Maybe. Maybe some of them value their lives. We've dealt with fanatics multiple times whether that's Japanese willing to die for the emperor or Muslim extremists throughout the Middle East trying to get their 72 virgins. Nobody in the US is scared of dealing with fanatics. Been there, done that. Iran is more mountainous and the terrain is a challenge but the major population centers aren't hidden in bunkers in the hills. Iran is also not landlocked, and unlike, for example, Afghanistan, we would be dealing with a population that has familiarity with the modern world and has at times even protested en masse against the current government of Iran. Again, none of that is to suggest we should or politically could "invade Iran", and of course I don't think it's necessary to achieve any of our goals, but let's not put Iran on a pedestal either.