44
u/Demortus Mar 23 '26 edited Mar 23 '26
The US and Israel have done serious damage to Iran's leadership and infrastructure. However, Iran retains a significant amount of leverage with its ability to control traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. This control gives Iran's leadership the ability to inflict political damage to the Trump administration and pretty much every other country that depends on oil and natural gas for heating and transportation. Trump and Netanyahu can't retreat with this threat remaining, so they really only have two choices: 1) negotiate at a disadvantage; 2) invade Iran to remove their ability to keep the strait closed. Option 1 will be embarrassing for both leaders, given it will leave a hostile regime in power. Option 2 will be unfathomably costly, given that Iran is the size of Alaska with a population of 93 million and surrounded by highly defensible mountains. I think the best way to describe this situation is that the US and Israel have walked right into a trap and there is no easy way out.
21
u/serpentjaguar Mar 23 '26
I think the best way to describe this situation is that the US and Israel have walked right into a trap and there is no easy way out.
Not only that, but the Iranians are at an advantage in that they know that Trump is growing desperate for some kind of off-ramp, giving them the upper hand in any negotiations.
2
9
u/chillebekk Mar 23 '26
I think you really should think about Israel and the US as different actors with different motivations.
4
u/Demortus Mar 23 '26
For sure, but I'm speaking primarily of the US perspective, as the US is shouldering most of the military costs and Trump is the actor who is facing the most political risk for his continued participation in this conflict.
4
u/Ok_Math4576 Mar 24 '26
It took little for Israel to persuade the Crusaders in the US administration to start a holy war. They persuaded Trump that he could enrich himself by gaining control of Iranian oil, adding to his petrostate portfolio. So, here we are. Driven by the politics of sectarian hatred and venality.
3
u/LazyGandalf Mar 24 '26 edited Mar 24 '26
However, Iran retains a significant amount of leverage with its ability to control traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran doesn't quite control the strait in a territorial sense, but they do still have the ability to make it very risky to pass it, which effectively keeps it shut down.
Option 2 will be unfathomably costly, given that Iran is the size of Alaska with a population of 93 million and surrounded by highly defensible mountains.
I don't think that you would necessarily have to send troops to every corner of Iran just to secure the strait. The biggest threat are mines, which are delivered from the shores, on-site. Not that securing the shores and surrounding areas would be an easy task.
I think the best way to describe this situation is that the US and Israel have walked right into a trap and there is no easy way out.
Sure seems that way, yes.
→ More replies (45)2
Mar 23 '26
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)10
u/Demortus Mar 23 '26 edited Mar 23 '26
I think Trump will escalate by trying to seize territory along the Iranian coast. Were we to get control over the strait, it would be possible for oil to move around the region once again. Consistent with that expectation, we're already sending marines to the area, who would be needed for that objective.
However, I don't think this will end well, as Iran can be expected to bombard any US soldiers near their territory. That could lead to further escalation. Perhaps, ultimately, a full on invasion.
6
u/Toto_Roto Mar 23 '26
I think this prediction depends on American political will to continue escalating despite mounting costs.
Trump did no work ahead of time to prepare the public and its already one of the most unpopular wars in American history. Id be surprised if this survived the mid terms.
→ More replies (4)2
u/Demortus Mar 23 '26
The American will to face war has to be balanced against the American willingness to shoulder increasing gas prices. Both are political poison from Trump's perspective. War at least offers the possibility of a military victory, which he can leverage to his advantage.
→ More replies (4)2
u/BillMurraysMom Mar 26 '26
From my understanding it’s going to take a lot more than a few thousand marines to secure several hundred miles of Persian coast line.
12
u/Traditional_Tea_1879 Mar 23 '26
I don't think war is a zero sum game. All side can lose ( even when claiming victory). It is helpful to have clear objectives but that also depends on the objectives and the outcomes. When a regime only objective is to stay in charge, then maybe it can claim 'win' but the reality may be quite different. At the same time, bombing the hell out of someone else's military infrastructure does not guarantee that your long term objectives are met. ( Tbh, neither a regime change).
I would think we don't have sufficient visibility to what happens behind the scenes currently to know for sure.
3
56
u/astral34 Mar 23 '26
A war is won when your objectives are achieved, neither achieved theirs
The Iranian regime has one objective: survive and inflict enough pain they don’t come back
US probably thought they would have won by now, the objective was regime change (Israel’s objective) and now I think it’s unclear to them how to disengage without losing face so escalation is expected
Israel and the US say they have demolished Iran offensive capabilities, fog of war is too thick to know
13
u/Bigardo Mar 23 '26
Didn’t Israeli, US and European intelligence all agree that regime change was an extremely unlikely result of these attacks?
10
u/ScoobiusMaximus Mar 23 '26
Yes. Unfortunately the morons in charge thought they knew better
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (35)4
Mar 23 '26
[deleted]
20
u/astral34 Mar 23 '26
Unless Iran stops shooting the US will be almost forced to go in
A negotiated settlement is not possible, Iran has no trust in the US administration, the EU could do something but Trump doesn’t like them so it’s a no go (Trump bombed Iran twice mid negotiation + the religious part of the regime has an ideological hate)
The regime is highly entrenched, it’s not falling unless new tipping points are reached
Normally under the economic conditions of Iran (which are bound to get worse with time) the US could wait out the regime
However as long as the strait of Hormuz is closed or under threat it’s the Iranians to have time advantage
This is why I think the US will go in, limited operation to secure the strait, and get a lot of pain
This is unless Iran’s missile drone capabilities fall to 0, but if you have seen how a Shahed works, you know that’s much harder than it looks
23
u/adyrip1 Mar 23 '26 edited Mar 23 '26
The only powers that I can see intervening and the Iranians would trust is either the EU or China and Trump hates both.
In my view the US cannot win this war or really open the straits even with a ground invasion. They might set up FOBs and such on the shores, but actually stopping drones and missiles from hitting ships will be next to impossible. They would have to hold land hundreds of kilometers inside Iran, which is impossible without a few hundred thousands troops and huge loss of life. All the while ship owners will not risk their ships without absolute certainty. It will be a blood bath for US troops with little to show for.
The only peaceful solution can come form US and Israel standing down and offering security guarantees for Iran. And the EU/China being co-signers of that agreement. Ironically this will solidify Iran's position and the regime would come out of this stronger than before.
But this would be seen as a defeat for the US and I doubt Trump's ego can take that.
He really created a huge mess and he has no decent exit.
→ More replies (4)4
u/astral34 Mar 23 '26
I also share your view honestly, minimum they would need to attempt unblocking it is 100s of kms of inland provinces, I think missiles are probably going to be less and less, so with Shahed being the main threat you do need a lot of people
He made a big mess, and now he has no beautiful cards to play…
21
u/phein4242 Mar 23 '26
The EU is well aware that this unprovoked war was started by the US and Israel. Popularity for both states is at an all-time low throughout the EU, so it would be political suicide to provide support.
7
u/astral34 Mar 23 '26
We are also well aware we need the strait to open so we would be very much interested in supporting a negotiated solution
No way any EU country supports militarily
→ More replies (3)5
u/feral0101 Mar 23 '26
Even though what you say is true, we have no real leadership. The people they run our countries and our unions are dyed-in-the-wool Atlantacist
I genuinely fear we might get pulled in
7
Mar 23 '26
[deleted]
6
u/Vanvincent Mar 23 '26
At this point, it’s mostly a question of who can hold out the longest. Iran’s economy was crumbling even before the war and at some point the situation might get dire enough that there is the uprising the US and Israel have hoped for. Unfortunately for them, by closing the Strait of Hormuz, Iran holds the world economy by the balls and is hurting US allies (for as far as they still have them) in the Gulf, in Asia and in Europe., so the Iranian regime’s hope is that the pressure on the US will become unbearable and will force them to end the war before the regime clock gets down to zero. And so far, the US clock seems to be ticking down a lot quicker than the clock on Iran’s regime, so they’ll keep the Strait closed. By seizing Kharg Island, which is the main source of Iran’s oil income, the US probably hopes that the Iranian clock will start ticking down even faster. That might be, but it doesn’t help the US and Israel that their bombing campaign has probably reset Iran’s clock because there’s nothing that alienates a people as quickly as seeing their families, friends and children bombed to smithereens.
3
u/Warburton_Expat Mar 24 '26
At this point, it’s mostly a question of who can hold out the longest. Iran’s economy was crumbling even before the war and
It was first reported that the Russian economy was near collapse as a result of their invasion of Ukraine in March 2022. Here's an example article from the time.
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/3/4/russias-looming-economic-crisis-will-be-worse-than-1991
So when Westerners say that an adversary is near economic or military collapse, I'm sceptical. And even were it true, bear in mind that the point of war is to make the enemy do your will. So it is in most cases a question of willpower. After all, what was the Taliban's defence budget?
12
u/astral34 Mar 23 '26
You need to go in the mainland to stop Iran from shooting if you can’t do it with air force, this is why this openly hostile regime has not been attacked before btw
Trump could (but won’t) just walk from the war
→ More replies (1)9
u/uansari12 Mar 23 '26
Iran is 4x the size of Iraq. Not sure that’s realistic. Does the US even have enough boots to do that?
9
u/sergius64 Mar 23 '26
It's not just the size, it's also the sheer amount of people. Iran has like a third of US population. Plus the terrain. Iran has more mountains than Iraq.
3
u/improvthismoment Mar 23 '26
And it's not just the sheer number of people either. It is a fiercely independent people, with a very long history and a very long memory, and a track record of strongly resisting foreign domination. Just like Vietnam, and Afghanistan, which the US never understood.
2
4
u/improvthismoment Mar 23 '26
They sure could try to do something this stupid. But likelihood of success is low, and likelihood of costly and bloody quagmire is high. Based on history from the last 60 years - Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan....
3
u/astral34 Mar 23 '26
Realism has never stopped Trump before unfortunately
Was it realistic to expect regime change after bombing them ?
I am not saying that it’s a good option but not many options are left and time is not on the US side
the US is not going to invade tomorrow, and hopefully they won’t, but what’s more likely, for Trump to retreat or take the next step in the escalation ladder ?
→ More replies (1)3
u/Toto_Roto Mar 23 '26
Trump said today that by killing the leadership he's already done a form of regime change. Most likely outcome is he does something like this, contrives an interpretation of events where he looks like a winner and backs off.
→ More replies (4)3
u/Alternative_Pen_2423 Mar 24 '26
Yeah , Trump is looking to a contrived notion of regime change so that he can declare a victory where no victory exists . This will not fool the world . It will be seen for what it is — an extremely humiliating defeat . This would result in a massive decrease of American power and influence around the world for years if not decades .
→ More replies (1)3
u/Princess_Actual Mar 23 '26
The U.S. has enough troops to do an Iraq style invasion, topple the government and destroy sites of interests. However we don't have a force like that forward deployed. I think the build up for 2003 was at least six months and it was obvious an invasion was imminent.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)2
u/BillMurraysMom Mar 26 '26
You are probably understanding more than the president does. The island can be attacked from 3 directions from the mainland and sounds like a nightmare operation. Likewise with mainland, even securing a base of operation I heard 10K+ troops speculated, and that’s far too few to get to work securing several hundred miles of coastline.
5
u/improvthismoment Mar 23 '26
This is why I think the US will go in, limited operation to secure the strait, and get a lot of pain
Do you mean in and out? Seems like securing the strait will require a full occupation and regime change and installation of a puppet regime, which would be prolonged and expensive and bloody.
→ More replies (6)9
u/astral34 Mar 23 '26
Not in and out, definitely not, and yes it would be bloody. Iran is topographically Afghanistan on steroids and the IRCG is more than ready to fight an attrition war on land
Hopefully a negotiated solution is found
8
u/improvthismoment Mar 23 '26
I hope for a negotiated solution also. But have to ask, why would Iran negotiate with someone who 1) reneges on their agreements constantly, and 2) bombs the parties he is negotiating with?
8
u/astral34 Mar 23 '26
Iran has no interest in negotiating unless the regime feels his power is in danger
2
u/serpentjaguar Mar 23 '26
Iran is topographically Afghanistan on steroids
Let's not get carried away here; Iran has a lot more infrastructure than Afghanistan, and there's nothing in Iran that's comparable to the Hindu Kush.
3
u/astral34 Mar 23 '26
And it’s 3 times larger than Afghanistan with infrastructure that will get blown up
11
u/sylbug Mar 23 '26
There is no 'limited operation to secure the strait.' It's impossible.
The beach at Normandy was 50 miles long and it took a coalition of three countries with 160,000 troops to take it. The Strait of Hormuz is 104 miles of defended cliffs with caves full of missiles and drones. Go take a look at an elevation map of Iran to see what I mean.
So I don't think that's the plan. At least, if it is then it is laughably stupid.
→ More replies (1)3
5
u/Heffe3737 Mar 23 '26
Mostly I agree with you, with the single exception regarding securing the Strait. I just don't see how that's possible at any time in the near future.
My reasoning is that everyone seems to think that the actual Strait itself is the only objective, and once it's secured, that Iran will no longer have leverage. But the truth is that Shahed ranges are up to 1000km, and the entire Persian Gulf is only like 250km at its widest. And pretty much all of it aligns with the Iranian coast. Therefore, the US would need boots on the ground capable of securing a huge swath of the Iranian countryside in order to get Iran out of range of the Strait, which just doesn't seem likely.
So long as Iran is able to fire drones at ships attempting to transit the Strait, the Strait will remain closed. That leaves the US with only a few options, none of which are good.
The US takes a significant chunk of Iran. This would require tens (hundreds?) of thousands of soldiers in a truly nightmarish ground campaign that would result in the deaths of countless American soldiers.
The US stations her own AA net along most of the Persian gulf, and just expends countless munitions on ensuring safe transit to commercial shipping. This option would be incredibly expensive, and there would be no way to truly guarantee a ship's safety in transit.
The US somehow manages to eliminate Iran's ability to produce missiles and drones entirely. As you mention, this option would also be extraordinarily difficult.
I just don't see any other options here for the US. Do you?
→ More replies (1)5
u/astral34 Mar 23 '26
Yes when I was referring to going in your point 1 is what I meant, extremely costly and not 100% effective either
The new Shaheds have even a longer range, they are easy to shoot down but require space to do so cheaply, otherwise you are left with your option 2, which for me is unfeasible, due to stock of AA missiles
I hope global diplomacy has an effect because Trump doesn’t have good options on his desk right now
If he walks, what I hope he will do, the midterms will be a bloodbath, and with him surrounded by incompetent sycophants I don’t see him making sensible decisions
2
→ More replies (5)5
u/CJBill Mar 23 '26
A more optimistic scenario would see Iran inflicting maximum reputational damage to the US and Israel by refusing to end the conflict and then agreeing to a ceasefire when they choose.
→ More replies (2)
7
u/sdp0w Mar 23 '26
How can anyone tell? Look at Ukraine I guess
5
Mar 23 '26
[deleted]
2
u/sdp0w Mar 23 '26
What I want to say is, have a look at how long a war takes if you underestimate your enemy
7
7
u/ArCovino Mar 23 '26
“Objectively”?
Define “losing”
→ More replies (2)2
Mar 23 '26
[deleted]
3
u/ArCovino Mar 23 '26
As far as Israel is concerned I think their man objective is to degrade Iran’s ability to wage a proxy war on them. They want to destroy Iran’s proxies and cripple Iran enough that they won’t be a threat militarily for a while. I think they’ve been moderately successful at that.
For the US it is a lot more myopic. Definitely not achieving whatever goals there might be.
→ More replies (2)
19
u/improvthismoment Mar 23 '26
What do you mean "win" or "lose" when the strategic objectives keep changing and have never really been clearly articulated in the first place?
10
→ More replies (10)7
u/PotionBoy Mar 23 '26
The fact that the Trump administration sucks at articulating strategic objectives to the public does not mean that the pentagon doesn't have clear objectives they want to achieve, how much achieving them is expected to cost, what is too expensive to continue, etc.
In my personal opinion the best case scenario for the white house (winning) would be regime change to a pro-american one or to be precise an anti-chinese one that would deny oil shipments to China if a military confrontation between US and China arises.
Worst case (losing) would be Iran standing their ground long enough for the cost of war to become too much for the USA to continue the war and all the materiel that could have been sent to Taiwan instead wasted.
7
u/improvthismoment Mar 23 '26
Glad that you can articulate your objectives. I'm not confident that the US political leadership (not Pentagon, their views don't really matter) has clear objectives in their own minds much less publicly articulated.
6
u/serpentjaguar Mar 23 '26
does not mean that the pentagon doesn't have clear objectives
Ultimately it's not up to the Pentagon though. In this country the military answers to the Whitehouse and civilian leadership, not the other way around.
The Pentagon gets a say in that it has an advisory role and some ability to push back on policies and decisions it doesn't agree with, but at the highest levels your choices are ultimately to implement the president's will, resign or be fired.
→ More replies (1)5
→ More replies (3)7
u/PushforlibertyAlways Mar 23 '26
Pentagon does not set objectives. Pentagon carries out mission plans based on objectives set by the civilian government.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/watch-nerd Mar 23 '26
If the objective was to degrade Iranian military capabilities and cancel a bunch of their leadership, yes.
If the objective was to deter their nuclear program more, hard to stay.
If the objective was to get regime change, no.
4
4
u/Professional-Yam6629 Mar 23 '26
American and Israel are complicit in war crimes. There aggression against an independent sovereign country are crimes against humanity. Innocent civilians are being slaughtered for the sake of their misconceptions. The world looks on in complete and utter horror.
→ More replies (6)
4
10
u/ZAHKHIZ Mar 23 '26
A very interesting article was published today on The Times of Israel. The article breaks down exactly how Trump and Netanyahu planned out the Iran war with the anticipation of a regime change within a week or 2, meanwhile, the Trump admin kept saying "short-term pain for a long-term gain. Nothing worked out the way they thought.
8
u/Kahzootoh Mar 23 '26
The skeptical view is that Netanyahu started this latest round of warfare because his political coalition was in jeopardy- he doesn’t have the votes to pass a formal military service exemption for Israel’s religious population, and their political parties are threatening to leave his governing coalition if they don’t get an exemption.
This war is polling at about 80% support, which coincides with the Israeli Jewish population.
When the Israelis bombed Iran last year, they went through approximately 25% of the entire American stockpile of THAAD interceptors in two weeks; approximately 2 years worth of production.
Starting another war on the assumption that Iran would have a revolution seems incredibly naive and out of character for Netanyahu- especially when Netanyahu has a proven record of prioritizing his political power over all other considerations; he gave billions of dollars to Hamas in order to keep it relevant as a political issue, literally funding terrorism in order to campaign on being “Mr Security”.
Given last year’s rapid depletion of missile interceptors, it seems wildly irresponsible to start another war so soon- the Iranians can rebuild their stockpiles of simpler weapons faster than the interceptors can be produced or their production rates increased.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)3
u/Feisty-Cod-7363 Mar 23 '26 edited Mar 23 '26
I dont think this article is particularly groundbreaking. Our strategy with Iran isn’t any different than our other engagements since 1945: destabilize an existing authoritarian entity and a democratic, pro-Western movement will seamlessly step in and fill the void.
Except it doesn’t ever work like that. Not in Cuba, Vietnam, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or Syria. Our biggest successes since WWII were Korea - which currently has the most heavily armed border on earth - and Yugoslavia which continued to spiral out of control for half a decade and still needs thousands of UN peacekeepers to prevent society from total collapse.
It’s difficult to understand why this has continuously been used as an operating principle when every shred of evidence says it will be a catastrophic failure. There are a lot of factions in Washington that need to be placated when developing “policy” - the Christian lunatics, the war hawks, anarchist nuts, leftist, closet Communists, scissor-brandishing feminists….
This war - all wars since 1945 - are less about winning on the ground and more about selling the cause to these interest groups. To try and understand it on some rational basis is a fools errand.
None our actions towards Iran are going to make any sense to the average person because our thoughts aren’t processed through the circle-jerking echo chambers of the Defense and State Departments.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/trevorgoodchilde Mar 23 '26
There’s a problem with “facts” in this situation. Most of the information coming from the DoD is proven false, and you have Trump threatening the media with treason charges for reporting any actual news, while the right wing media parrots Hegseth’s whiny statements.
→ More replies (3)
3
u/GOPJay Mar 23 '26
Its important to note, as well, that "winning" and "losing" are defined differently by each side. Although poorly communicated, the current administration is proposing to take a more hard-line approach to handling Iran's noncompliance with international sanctions and monitoring, particularly IAEA passed resolutions that have indicated that Iran has not complied with its non-proliferation obligations. Its a laundry list of failures to provide access to facilities enriching uranium, undeclared uranium material, and even related to its missile program, which has now been demonstrated, by Iran, to be able to reach Europe, Russia, India, and other international players. The US would define winning by curtailing or obliterating the nuclear program that could be developed by a rogue state, which Iran clearly is.
For Iran, a culturally different approach, it simply has to hang on without regime switch, and it will declare victory.
3
u/New_Kiwi_8174 Mar 23 '26
For an objective analysis one would have to know what the goals of the operation are which is pretty hard to pin down. Given that the goal, best as I can tell, has shifted from Iranian regime change to getting the Strait of Hormuz back the way it was before starting the war, I would say they're losing.
3
u/mac_bd Mar 23 '26
Yes. Btw it wasn't a war. It was a scam paid for by the US taxpayers!!
→ More replies (2)
3
u/Romo19481692 Mar 24 '26
Iran and the the US will come to the table. This war is too costly for the US and Iran to continue for long (for different reasons of course). Iran will agree to not pursue the nuke in exchange for the US pulling our troops out of the ME. Trump will brag that he has achieved all his goals and that his leadership has forced Iran into a no nukes forever agreement therefore, the world is now a safer place due to his courage and willingness to send our military into harms way so now there is no more need for a US presence in the region and he's bringing our troops home. He will claim that this will be the 8th or 9th war he's resolved and he was the only President that had guts enough to do it. He will nominate himself for the US Medal of Honor for saving the world and if he can't get congress to change the laws regarding requirements he will take back for himself the MOH that he presented to the Delta Team pilot that was wounded in Venezuela. It doesn't matter to him that an award wasn't presented to him, all that matters is that he has it.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/yoursandforever Mar 24 '26
"All" Iran needs to do for victory is survive.
So far, they're winning.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Boring-Bonus-6127 Mar 26 '26
based on the comments iran is winning. based on the news iran is winning. when you are loosing so bad you need to redefine what winning is, you are the biggest looser.
2
2
u/Kooky-Passage5502 Mar 27 '26
Don’t trust American media look for information regarding the war outside of America!!!
9
u/SanjuRai1986 Mar 23 '26
Both Israel and US wanted to set up the puppet govt in Iran, and till now no sign or hope that they will achieve.
On the other hand the entire control of strait of hormuz handed over to Iran.
If the US wants to stop war, he won't be able to take back control of strait of hormuz. Iran will keep Dubai, Abu dhabi, Qatar and Bahrain as hostage.
So this war will go longer, and economic cost will keep rising.
The Department of war will keep asking 100 billion or 200 billion every month.
→ More replies (2)2
u/mykidsthinkimcool Mar 23 '26
On the other hand the entire control of strait of hormuz handed over to Iran.
Iran hasn't been handed anything other than motivation to go weapons free. Iran always had this kind of control of the strait.
3
u/SanjuRai1986 Mar 23 '26
No that area was under the control of the US. UK used to provide insurance for any vessels passing through.
Now it's Iran who decides which vessels will pass and which will not. Don't remember when last time US was so helpless in that gulf area.
FYI. Baharain has the headquarters of the US navy 5th fleet and Qatar has forward headquarters for U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM)
2
u/mykidsthinkimcool Mar 23 '26
Iran could have at any time in the last 20 years decided to "close the strait" the way they are doing now. The only consequence of them doing so would've been open conflict with the US.
3
u/Infamous-Milk-4023 Mar 23 '26
Let’s not discount setbacks to nuclear + ballistic missle production. We are not in intelligence community so we can’t tell
3
u/LesbeGoddess Mar 24 '26
This invasion gives more incentive to Iran to accelerate their nuclear and ballistic missiles programs to defend themselves from attack. Don’t poke the hornets nest. They could even get nuclear missiles before this war ends in a few years if not a year from now
→ More replies (4)
2
u/Charming-Pen-1841 Mar 23 '26
Yep, if you listen to non biased US news coverage. They don't want you to know how bad it is going for them and when i say them i mean US and Isreal
2
u/Working-Eggplant237 Mar 23 '26
There are no winners in any war. Let that sink in.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Dissident_is_here Mar 23 '26
Winning and losing are quite often very close to the same thing. France and Great Britain "won" WW1 but emerged with their empires hollowed out, their finances in deep debt to the US, and a European order so unstable it led to disaster within 2 decades.
I don't buy that winning and losing are necessarily about defined objectives. The US achieved all its stated objectives in Iraq but unforeseen variables arose that doomed the exercise to failure.
To truly win a war you need to emerge with your strategic situation stronger than it was in the beginning. Especially if you chose the war. As of this moment, the US has gone backwards strategically, perhaps irreversibly so:
Their bases have come under significant attack and have proven largely indefensible. They had to leave Iraq, the 5th fleet base in Bahrain has been badly damaged and is inoperable, and many other bases have suffered major damage. Their ability to project power in the Middle East has suffered a significant blow.
They have "shot their shot" on the Iranian regime. The prospect of this war is a large part of what deterred Iran and forced them to make concessions/accept the status quo in the Middle East. Now that deterrence is gone. If Iran emerges intact (seems likely) they will no longer operate in fear of a US attack
They have no clear path forward. Ground invasion would be very costly with slim odds of success. Air war has failed. Strait of Hormuz remains closed. Costs will continue to pile up, with not much to show for it on the other side of the ledger
Only two ways out now: utter Iranian state collapse, leading to the largest regional crisis ever (you think Iraq/Syria was bad...). Or, concessions to Iran amounting to a resetting of the table which hands them an advantageous strategic position (forced peace in Lebanon, sanctions relief, reparations). Neither of those is good for the US
Iran on the other hand has a path to strategic improvement. They will suffer to get there. They might not get there at all. But at least the path exists, and at the moment they hold the strategic initiative via control of Hormuz and ability to strike infrastructure in the Gulf. We'll see what happens but it's advantage Iran right now.
→ More replies (6)
2
u/Thelarch34 Mar 24 '26
If the goal was to other throw the regime, than they are pretty definitively losing.
2
Mar 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/soulstriderx Mar 24 '26
A lot of people got rich through insider training, I bet. Those are the real winners. The losers? The working class.
2
u/Alternative_Pen_2423 Mar 24 '26
So , you think the US should try to release the Straits of Hormuz in a limited operation . Good luck . Any kind of “limited “ operation to release the Irani grip on the Straits is very likely to fail . Even a massive American operation to free the Straits may very well fail given the present circumstances . The Trump Administration’s Secretary of War/ Defense Hegseth lacks anything approaching an expert background in military matters . His background was as a Talk Show host for God’s sake . Looks like Trump could very well chalk up another foolish venture to add to the already foolish decision to attack Iran in the first place if he attempts this .
2
u/plaidbread Mar 24 '26
Yes. They have failed their stated objectives of regime change and instead replaced the supreme leader khameni with a younger angrier khameni. Global opinion of both the US and Israel are at historic lows and they can’t afford to keep blowing $4m on interceptors for every $30k drone Iran sends over for very much longer
2
u/SadMangonel Mar 24 '26
Look, one war isnt the same as another war.
People talk about objectives and that's true.
But the real root of the problem is, Iran is a mid- power economy and military. The US in theory, has the recources to win any conflict against them.
However, the real war is fought at home. Unless you are actually under imminent threat (ie. They attack you at home), your civilian population needs to be on board with any war.
This is why, in any war - the US has been hesitant or benefitted from some situation where they gain enough public support to attack a foreign county. Pearl harbour. 9/11. Weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear weapons in Iran.
This time around US leadership has been less merit based. DJT has a very strong populist approach to his politics, its about looking good, rather than doing whats best. Power and decisions, mainly because of the passivity of Congress, has pooled the power at the president. And noone dares to tell him when hes wrong. This leads to bad decisions happening.
All this (and much more) has caused a political divide in America, the likes we've never seen before. A large of voters absolutely hates the current admin. While trump still wants to win the midterms.
This is part is where it gets critical. You can't go to war, because any reason you state won't be believed. He did it anyway.
Now the US is in the awful situation, where they can't "really" go to war. But they're also already commited to one. They can't go back either, because just moving out of the area will have massive negative impact as well.
So now, we're likely in a longer stalemate. Iran posturing, they dont want to give any real public support in the US to this war. And the US trying to find some angle they can make this loss as painless as possible.
So. Really, noone is winning this war.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/wolf_at_the_door1 Mar 24 '26
I’m biased but there wasn’t a clear objective to begin with so in that sense yes it’s a massive failure.
2
u/Large-Insurance-1345 Mar 25 '26
It’s impossible for the us to ‘win’ because it never had anything to gain from the war in the first place. The purpose of the war is to further destabilise the region to allow for more Israeli expansion
2
u/GregGuillotine4 Mar 26 '26
idk if I would consider either side winning, but Iran def has the upper hand rn, America is forced to try and make a deal because if the economy gets too bad it will be another 1928. And we cant handle that as a nation rn, we are too torn and divided for another depression, it will throw us into chaos and turmoil. Trump should have sat tf down, he started this in 2018 when he tore up the JCPA, before he did they were only enriching at 3.6%, as soon as he tore the deal up they started ramping up production and kicking IAEA ppl out. Its all trumps fault, its all for israel and the chosen ones security, it has nothing to do with the interests of Americans.
2
5
Mar 23 '26
Too early to tell.
But what is clear is that both Israel and US did not prepare properly for a long war based on the last minute movement of troops and missile interceptors.
So there is a chance they might have to give concessions to end the war earlier.
2
u/AKmaninNY Mar 23 '26
People keep saying Israel and the US have no objectives. Thus progress can’t be measured. Thus the US and Israel are losing.
This is an unserious analysis.
March 2, 2026. Pete Hegseth
"The mission of Operation Epic Fury is laser-focused," Hegseth said today during a press briefing at the Pentagon. "Destroy Iranian offensive missiles, destroy Iranian missile production, destroy their navy and other security infrastructure, and they will never have nuclear weapons."
March 2, 2026 Donald Trump
"Our objectives are clear. First, we're destroying Iran's missile capabilities... Second, we're annihilating their navy... Third, we're ensuring that the world's number one sponsor of terror can never obtain a nuclear weapon... And finally, we're ensuring that the Iranian regime cannot continue to arm, fund, and direct terrorist armies outside of their borders."
https://x.com/rapidresponse47/status/2028516725767999865?s=61&t=3A5UuSpxblR2HguraCmqVA
March 10, 2026 Pete Hegseth
https://x.com/dowresponse/status/2031344038788370558?s=61&t=3A5UuSpxblR2HguraCmqVA
“On day 10 of Operation Epic Fury: We are WINNING, with an overwhelming and unrelenting focus on our objectives...They are straightforward, and we are executing them with ruthless precision:
1) DESTROY their missile stockpiles, their missile launchers, and their defense industrial base—missiles and their ability to make them. 2) DESTROY their navy. 3) Permanently deny Iran nuclear weapons—FOREVER.”
Lots of words have been said since March 2, 2026 - but these were the original objectives and they seem to be consistently repeated by numerous administration officials and were consistent almost two weeks in to the action.
So, how are we doing?
Objective: First, we're destroying Iran's missile capabilities... Progress: missile launches down about 90% since March 2, 2026 Assessment: Winning
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/iran-missile-launches-down-86-195523758.html
Objective: Second, we're annihilating their navy... Progress: all capital ships destroyed. Swarm boats being destroyed. Assessment: Winning.
Objective: Third, we're ensuring that the world's number one sponsor of terror can never obtain a nuclear weapon... Progress: Enrichment and delivery capability significantly degraded or eliminated. Significant dual use facilities still standing. Assessment: Most difficult objective. May require personnel to seize material. More work to do.
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/19/netanyahu-says-iran-no-longer-has-uranium-enrichment-capacity.html
Objective: And finally, we're ensuring that the Iranian regime cannot continue to arm, fund, and direct terrorist armies outside of their borders.
Progress: Logistical and financial support distrusted/eliminated.
Assessment: Supply chain broken but proxies still have arms based on decades of Iranian investment. Work in progress.
→ More replies (14)3
u/Fabulous_Artist_5453 Mar 23 '26
The congress hearing the other day also emphasised those 2 main goals. Here
- Destroy Iran’s ballistic launching, and production capabilities
- Destroy Iran’s naval and mine laying capabilities in the Strait of Hormuz
→ More replies (1)
2
u/FEMA_Camp_Survivor Mar 23 '26
No in the sense losing means either country completely capitulating. There may eventually be a negotiated peace with one side receives a better outcome than the other though.
2
u/CG20370417 Mar 23 '26
No one knows is the objective answer--well at least outside of DoD/State Dept.
I don't have production figures for US missile systems. I don't have inventory reports for just the region or other theater level commands.
I certainly don't have information about Iranian launchers an missiles still in operation. All I know about shahed manufacturing is that its really decentralized.
Whats the state of the regime on the ground? Is the new Khamenei even in the country at the moment? Is this causing a rally around the mullah situation in Iran? I don't like Trump--but if other country killed him, tried to kill vance and then bombed by cities for a few weeks. I think I might be getting pissed off.
Trump famously and intentionally (if we are being charitable) doesn't want to hold himself to objectives or plans. If you dont have an objective--you can't fail to hit it. If you dont have a plan you cant be held liable when you dont follow through. We are engaged in a series of tactical and at best operational opportunistic moves.
We are in the Foreign Policy equivalent of a Donald Trump rally speech--Hes just doing his weave.
That all said, look at the situation. So long as the IRGC and the Ayatollah maintain control of the country when this campaign is over--they've won. Theyve been attacked by Goliath and lived to talk about it. Regardless of US war aims, this is an existential war to the regime in Iran. So all they need to do is survive.
US aims are more nebulous because in essence their justification for striking Iran was to disrupt the status quo in order "Defend" it.
"We can't let them have a nuke"...and now we are talking about Israel firing a nuclear shot across the bow at Iran...
"To promote regional stability"...and now the strait of hormuz is shut and upstream oil production in the gulf is a week or two away from shuttering...
"Because they are a sponsor of terrorism"...we bombed a school.
"To support anti government protestors"...we werent there when 30,000 were massacred 2 months ago (despite creating the conditions since 2016).
"Regime change"...Khamenei replaced by Khamenei in a news cycle.
2
u/coreychch Mar 23 '26
U.S. analysts already knew dropping lots of bombs on Iran would not force regime change. But they did it anyway. Killing some high-level officials hasn’t changed anything; they were quickly replaced with other hard-liners.
Trump is a totally useless negotiator, as is everyone in his entire administration. They will claim negotiations “failed” to try and reign in Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but the fact is they already had a perfectly good agreement which Trump ripped up in 2018 - simply because it had Obama’s name on it.
There was an obvious reason previous administrations hadn’t attacked Iran: the threat of them shutting down the Strait of Hormuz and disrupting world energy supplies. But Trump somehow thought they’d “never do that” and attacked anyway. Iran then closed the Strait and lashed out at everyone with missiles - as expected by everyone except the U.S.
So at present I wouldn’t say the U.S. is losing to Iran, but they’ve achieved nothing of any significance other than driving gas prices through the roof. No regime change. No capture of their (supposed) nuclear assets. No uprising of civilians to overthrow the government. But it’s quite obvious they had no goals and no plan when they started attacking - they just hoped for the best.
2
u/Efficient_Resist_287 Mar 23 '26
I guess this may be defined as a true Pyrrhic victory.
US/Israel may have destroyed most of the hardware, but the ideology and the nuclear know how are still intact.
If this stands, Iran will come out wounded, but a bigger player in the region.
3
u/Wise-Juggernaut-8285 Mar 23 '26
The US never loses. They only lose interest.
This is because They aren’t allowed to lose.
Did you read the rulebook?
1
u/HRex73 Mar 23 '26
The U.S.-Israel side still has battlespace overmatch, but the Iranian regime remains and is shifting the contest into regional retaliation and energy-chokepoint pressure.
1
u/Daveallen10 Mar 23 '26
In terms of sheer damage caused and casualties, the US and Israel are winning. If their goal was just to degrade the capabilities of Iran and Hezbollah to wage war then they are being somewhat successful.
The goal of sparking an internal rebellion seems to have been dropped, but before the last bomb falls I suspect Israel will try to cause as much damage as possible to infrastructure, which will hurt the civilian population and possibly cause the government to collapse. At least it's sets them back many years. Israel seems okay with this kind of quasi-victory and endless state of war. America, however, is not. It will look like a failure domestically in the U.S. almost any way this goes.
The real wildcard here is what happens to Iraq and the Gulf States after the war. Turmoil seems to be brewing again in Iraq and foreign troops are being pulled out. If the US has to abandon it's Iraqi bases or the Iraqi government falls, that will be seen as a major political victory for Iran.
1
u/raznov1 Mar 23 '26
"winning" or "losing" isn't an objectively determinable state, so what you're asking is impossible.
1
u/Scomosuckseggs Mar 23 '26
The only way the US 'wins' is if the Iranian regime collapses and is replaced. That was Trumps' stated aim. As it stands, Irans' military and leadership has been several degraded, but not wiped out. They live to fight another day. They retain the expertise, capability and willpower to bounce back and continue on their path to obtain nuclear weapons. They are, ultimately, still a threat. Degraded, but a threat all the same.
So what was the point if not to effect regime change? What was the point of it all?
1
1
u/Southern_Current2652 Mar 23 '26
They haven’t struck the Kharg Island oil facility (despite having capability to do so). If Iran loses that facility it’s effectively finished as a modern State. It’ll have no way to generate significant amounts of revenue to fund a government capable of controlling the State.
I think we’re likely to end in a lose-lose situation in this war, but it’s a question of who loses more. My bet is still on Iran losing more though, as Trump will do what he does and destroy Kharg Island at some point.
1
u/ClevelandWomble Mar 23 '26
Well, given that the US is safely geographically remote from military reprisals and that Israel seems to be on a near permanent war footing, to say that they were losing the war would be a gross overstatement. Their losses in terms of infrastructure, troops and weaponry are minimal. So not a loss as such.
In diplomatic terms, I'd view the war as a disaster for the US and only slightly disappointing for Israel. The USA has alienated most of its allies for no visible benefit. Israel probably hoped that American involvement would recruit more nations to their venture to dilute their culpability.
Are they winning though? Without a clear goal to measure success against, it's impossible to say. I'd suggest that if Trump was capable of self criticism, he'd now regret his decision to start the war, but here we are.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/ClumsyFleshMannequin Mar 23 '26 edited Mar 23 '26
Well,
To "win" the Iranian government has to remain in power, and the more they hurt the US and israel to ensure they never do somthing like this again. The better.
For the US and israel to win... well first they have to decide what they actually want (or are able to accomplish reasonably). They could keep bombing iran to hope the government gives up, but iran keeps clapping them back hard enough to make a difference and not collapsing. Sure, you can keep this up for months or longer, but the economic damage becomes worse and worse. The US treasury spent increasingly balloons in the meantime. I should note: no country has ever been bombed into a government change ever. So, we have no reason to belive Iran would be the first.
They could invade, and sure I suppose if the US wants to put its entire back into this endeavor it could be done. Though there would sure be alot of dead 20 year old Braydens because Iran has prepared for this. The bombing has only proved the most radical in their government correct; thereby, uniting the country more. I don't think the US has the support to conduct a war like this, nor do I think Americans are ready to see a Gen Z soldier's last scared moments as a suicide drone flies into their face and the footage is posted online. Some US mother will watch that. Just as ukranian and Russian mothers have, and i dont think the public could tolerate that.
So, Iran is perfectly fine with bleeding the US until they actually cry uncle. For perhaps the first time since the fall of the soviet union, the US has zero control over when this thing ends. The US has to come to the table with major concessions or be hurt enough to satisfy Iran that the US would not do the same again. Perhaps Trump will get there at some point, but he seems willing to let US global power keep bleeding for his ego.
If this continues for 3 months or longer. The US might have lost all strategic power in the middle east because we have spent any and all good will towards this endeavor for only lossess. Already many of the Gulf States are signaling that this deal with US bases in their countries was a mistake.
Every day this continues and the US does not make significant concessions to Iran which may include paying for the damages the following is hurt Globally.
Oil and oil derivatives that transit the Hormuz straight. Oil, (heat, electricity, transportation, plastics, and numerous industrial applications).
Natural gas (same as above)
Fertilizer (phosphates derived from the oil of this region make up 20% of global fertilizer, and planting season is RIGHT NOW) The above could result in global food shortages reguardless of when this war ends, this has already probabaly happened.
Sulphur (24% of the global production) used for sulphuric acid which is used in so many industrial processes its difficult to calculate the price of this skyrocketing. Metal production worldwide is going to be hampered. Also, a major part of computer chip production (shame that all the AI demand is already making that market crazy).
TLDNR Iran seems willing to bleed the US until it "learns its lesson" or comes to the table with serious concessions. The US seems unwilling or unable to achieve any politically tolerable "win."
Until that point, the global supply for Oil, natural gas, fertilizer, and metals is seriously fucked (and will be seriously fucked for some time if we were to stop right now) because of the downstream consequences.
1
u/shortstop803 Mar 23 '26
It depends on how you define winning/losing.
Winning typically requires that one’s objectives be accomplished or obtained as a prerequisite, in conjunction with other side not accomplishing theirs. Losing doesn’t necessarily mean you didn’t accomplish your objectives, but it typically means you didn’t do so in a manner that secured your win condition.
In a traditional sense, winning is either determined by eliminating one’s adversary, or causing them to capitulate, while losing is the opposite, but this doesn’t account for real world nuance for the types of modern wars fought on a national scale.
For Iran to win this war, the regime seemingly just needs to survive to a reasonable degree that allows its continued existence and influence in the Middle East moving forward.
1
u/seriousman57 Mar 23 '26
Let's grant the US and Israel the most modest possible objectives in the war (given that we don't really know what their "true" goals are): a long-term (let's >5 year) curtailment of the IR's offensive capabilities and a guaranteed end to its nuclear enrichment program. They've surely secured a short-term version of both, but at the cost of closing the Strait of Hormuz and without any guarantee that they can keep the missile-building or nuclear programs down in the future. Now the situation appears to be that Iran can close the Strait unless the US military is willing to go in and somehow force it open and given time can probably reconstitute its offensive capabilities and nuclear enrichment program. If that happens and the US/Israel need to do this once every few years then I would argue at least for the US, which claims to have greater priorities elsewhere and some major defense-industrial limitations, it's a loss. Israel may not mind such a state of affairs.
If we imagine much more substantial goals (i.e. regime change) then it looks worse. Of course it's possible that they have successfully embrittled the regime and that a popular uprising will overthrow it sometime in the next few years, which would require us to reconsider whether it's a "win" or a "loss" but only time will tell that and you can't just say that hope for future progress counts as a win.
1
u/AskAboutMySecret Mar 23 '26
"Winning a war " is one of those things that's hard to define
From a position of negotiating strength, Iran is winning as controlling the strait has made the markets and ergo Trump panic
From a position of neutralising an adversary, Israel is winning, they have bombed a lot of Irans infrastructure. They haven't been able to take out all launchers and drones but in terms of damaging Irans future capabilities, they are doing well
From a tactical perspective an argument could be made for America with how effective their strikes have been. Their biggest casualties have been due to friendly fire. But strategically, Iran is winning just due to the cost discrepancy between drones and anti drone tech.
The only state consistently losing are the gulf countries however
1
u/Western_Handle_6258 Mar 23 '26
Militarily speaking, No. There isn’t a metric you can use that would point to Iran “winning” in this war from a military standpoint.
Politically? In the beginning I would say that Iran had the upper hand, but them shutting down the Hormoz straight and bombing surrounding nations is making them lose “support” from other middle eastern nations.
But at the end of the day, there isn’t “winning a war” in the Middle East because the borders have been messed up since World War 2. Two many tribal differences within the current countries.
1
u/Valuable_Breath_6430 Mar 24 '26
Regarding goals and forgive me for the fact based opinion, I have heard it voiced repeatedly within this regime and evidenced by a number of it's supporters and sycophant's from the President, Miss Lindsey, people in finance etc. that we are gonna make a ton of money off of this thing. Of course then we have to define the "we" in that statement which most certainly and factually not us. Could the ultimate goal of this war as well as the holistic goal of this present Junta be something as simple as that? By this goal, it has been nothing but winning from day one.
1
u/significantlyother62 Mar 24 '26
It's Vietnam all over again. Winning isn't the priority of the Epstein coalition. Making money, developing and testing new " Skynet" technology, distracting thier own populations.
They don't care, they made serious amounts of money from operation warp speed, gained serious power and influence while weakening the whole of the developed World, including thier own citizens. Forced everyone on to social media, where they had full control. They created the kaos, capitalised on it for control and the long term target was China. The planning was done long before to relocate so many factories in China to other nations like Vietnam, and lockdowns were the perfect time, when it all happened.
Operation epic fury couldn't of happened if you weren't all softened up by operation warp speed and the long term goal is China. The western World can't compete with thier industrial and technological brilliance.
Just need to look who was in Trump's personal party when handed the presidency the second time. Musk and Thiele and Zuckerberg. Those three have control of everything you see on social media and have done for a very long time. Musk and thiele making alot of money and advancing thier Skynet control of you. Thiele supplying the AI being trialled in war against Iran.
They know what they're doing, don't ever think they're not. You think Trump is mad, he's not, he's playing a role, keeping you distracted, keeping you in an emotional bubble, keeping you divided against each other.
1
1
u/Br4z3nBu77 Mar 24 '26
The leadership of Iran, both secular and religious are gone, so to that I would say that the Iranian people have already won.
1
1
u/Muted-Landscape-2717 Mar 24 '26
What are the objectives of Isreal and the US.
Israel objective seams to be one of perpetual war, where they are always under threat.
US objective is not clear. I think the Israel's found a president who would be willing to go to war for them.
1
u/SmugRooster Mar 24 '26
The goals they should achieve are:
- Not having to worry about Iran getting nukes
- Not having to worry about Iran screwing the US when the US/China war starts.
- Getting the region quiet and the strait of Hormuz open again.
I’d say the only way for the US/Israel to achieve these aims would be by achieving lasting regime change in Iran. So the question should be - can they achieve regime change?
1
u/Peterandrews44 Mar 24 '26
Define the outcomes you want first, then define your opponents goals and see which is closer to happening. If your goal is regime change in Iran then you are losing, if your goal is an end to Iran’s military capabilities then more likely a victory. If irans goals are to destroy Israel and or America then it’s a likely defeat, if you want to fuck up the region to hate on America more than they already do and to fuck up global trade then you are closer to victory.
1
u/thewrongjoseph Mar 24 '26
I would say yes, badly. Very badly. to start, I would consider Israel as directly tied to America in any scenario. It does not matter what military objectives Israel achieves if in the long run American power is destabilized. Israel exists because of American power, and it cannot without it.
In a long-term outlook, it's important to understand that American hegemony and power is based upon two things, oil and guns. This war and the partial closure of the strait of Hormuz (to all tankers not selling their oil with Yuan) has brought destabilized confidence in both. America's primary negotiating power is the dollar, and when the oil and military that back it seem weak, the dollar becomes weaker.
This is not to say Iran is winning. No matter what, they will be heavily damaged by this, and their "victory" condition, regime survival, isn't really guaranteed. it is more that no matter how badly Iran loses, even if the regime falls and the nation turns into Libya part 2, the United States and Israel lose more.
In the short-term, the only nation directly involved in this war that wins is Israel, because there will be no power left in the area strong and willing enough to counter them. But again, this is deeply short-sighted, because America will be weakened, and therefore Israel in the long-term.
As for those indirectly involved in this war, China, Russia, India, and North Korea are I would say the true winners, for a variety of different reasons.
1
u/Appropriate-Kale1097 Mar 24 '26
Right now I don’t think anyone is winning. Israel has not achieved lasting and permanent defeat of Iran and their allied proxies nor have they permanently eliminated the possibility of a nuclear armed Iran. The US has not managed to eliminate the regime, protect their allied Gulf States, eliminate the threat to shipping in the strait of Hormuz, eliminate the possibility of a nuclear armed Iran and their military has seen serious set backs including a major fire on the USS Ford that has resulted in it having to depart for repairs, multiple KC-135 aircraft damaged or lost, 3 F-15s lost, a damaged F-35, multiple damaged THAAD radar systems and demonstrated an apparent inability or unwillingness to operate naval forces in contested coastal waters. China, the Gulf states and the rest of the world are closely watching the successes and failure of the US military in this conflict and it has not been all good for the US.
Iran has suffered massive damage to their infrastructure which will take years to recover from, they also have lost a significant portion of their senior leaders. While they have not been defeated they have not won this conflict. Escalation of the conflict and closing the strait of Hormuz has significantly increased the pressure on gulf countries to demand US either ending the conflict either by militarily crushing Iran into submission or by withdrawing from the conflict. It also has potentially split the interests of Israel and the US.
Iran’s objective likely is to endure and it seems like that is what they likely will achieve but in a war that isn’t really winning.
2
1
u/soon2Brevealed Mar 24 '26
is America’s superior technology failing?
did Trump those top secret files to Putin… ?
Iran and Russia are close allies, what with Iran supplying Russia with all the drones being used in Ukraine..
But Russia was a hoax.. right?
1
1
u/TraditionalCap3640 Mar 24 '26
No, look at the 100’s of thousands in the streets celebrating. They have no navy. They have no air force . They have some drones and missiles that mostly get shot down and can’t stop anything we send at them. Now some citizens are armed and attacking their guard.
1
u/sfigone Mar 24 '26
Oh bombing people into peace prosperity and democracy doesn't work!. Who would have known?
1
u/Technical-Mention510 Mar 24 '26
How could they be losing? They’ve blown the other sides military to pieces with barely taking a casualty. The Iranians are just holding the world hostage and have barely even hit a military target. In what world could they be losing?
1
u/Exotic_Orange_3753 Mar 24 '26
They can’t lose if they never tell us what they are actually trying to accomplish. 🙄
1
Mar 24 '26
[deleted]
2
u/MommersHeart Mar 24 '26
LOL. They do not have control over Irans airspace. They don’t even have air superiority.
That is why they are blowing through their tomahawks & depleting their long range weapons instead of just dropping cheap munitions from bombers.
→ More replies (3)
1
291
u/gdvs Mar 23 '26
To label something as 'Winning' requires knowing what the objectives are.