> Iran's strategy is what caused the GOP their worst electoral disaster in living memory.

I think that is only a win if you have an extremely american centric perspective of this conflict.

So they did that. Then what? Do you really think that is going to translate into anything significant on the battle field? It might have some marginal benefits but it probably won't matter in the big picture for Iran.

▲

Matl an hour ago | parent [-]

So they should sit around and let the US and Israel 'destroy Iranian civilization' I guess? Is that your suggestion?

They're weaker than the countries attacking them. So causing inconvenience so that pressure will be put on the US to end the war by countries the US might listen to.

Is that strategy going to work? Not sure. But does it have a chance of working? Maybe.

▲

bawolff an hour ago | parent [-]

> So they should sit around and let the US and Israel 'destroy Iranian civilization' I guess? Is that your suggestion?

I'm just saying it isn't going to win them the war. The president broadly controls what the us military does. He doesn't need congress or the senate.

You seem to be mixing up "wanting to win" with "actually winning". Of course Iran wants to win this conflict, but that doesn't mean they are actually winning.

> They're weaker than the countries attacking them.

Yes, getting into conflicts from a position of weakness is generally a bad plan. Succesful countries plan for this sort of thing well before the conflict starts which results in the conflict not happening in the first place.

Iran had strategies in place for this, but they ended up backfiring.

>Is that strategy going to work? Not sure. But does it have a chance of working? Maybe.

Imposing costs on your opponent is a tried and true strategy that almost certainly could work. However Iran actually has to impose real costs instead of just propaganda wins. It seems like they were doing this best earlier in the war and now have run out of steam.

	▲	Matl 31 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> Imposing costs on your opponent is a tried and true strategy that almost certainly could work. However Iran actually has to impose real costs instead of just propaganda wins. The price of oil, US midterm results, Gulf countries scrambling, that certainly doesn't look like they haven't imposed real costs. > Yes, getting into conflicts from a position of weakness is generally a bad plan. Succesful countries plan for this sort of thing well before the conflict starts which results in the conflict not happening in the first place. If by 'getting into conflicts' you mean 'getting invaded by the US and Israel' then sure. That just seems to be saying 'don't get invaded, sucker' which, while sound advice doesn't actually work out if someone's intent on invading you. The Iranians are not trying to 'win' as such, but rather impose enough cost on the attackers that continuing the war no longer makes sense for them. The truth is, you're not seemingly saying much of anything besides 'Iran bad'.