> 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 an hour 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'.

▲

bawolff 9 minutes ago | parent [-]

> 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.

Israel and USA have been intent on invading Iran for decades. But they didn't. Then suddenly they did. That didn't just happen randomly. Iran took a bunch of foreign policy risks that backfired spectacularly making them vulnerable to invasion. If they made different decisions, or if they just got luckier, they wouldn't have been in a vulnerable position and this wouldn't have happened.

In many ways, the art of war starts long before the battles start. The things Iran could have done differently to affect the outcome of this war would probably have to have been done back then. It is a bit too late for them now.

> 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.

Yes, that is how all wars where the sides aren't evenly matched work.

But all they have to show for it is slightly higher prices at the pump, and its unclear they will even be able to maintain that going forward. It isn't looking good for them.

> The truth is, you're not seemingly saying much of anything besides 'Iran bad'.

I'm just saying they are losing and don't seem to have good prospects going forward. If by bad, you mean in the sense of their strategic position - then yes, iran's strategic position is very bad.

	▲	Jtsummers 2 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		[delayed]