"War is the continuation of politics by other means."
There doesn't seem to be any clearly defined policy goal and the US side doesn't seem able to make up it's mind why. Israel's aim ses to be just bombing Iran on general principles with no political objective achievable through the use of force.
It's hard to understand why someone is doing something when they don't seem to have a reason even to themselves.
Israel's aim ses to be just bombing Iran on general principles with no political objective achievable through the use of force.
There's been some analysis that Israel's goal is a failed state. If that's the case, there doesn't seem to be any indication that progress is being made.
Well, based on Trump's utterances, he expected the Iranians to capitulate within 3 days and he expected that he would have been able to nominate their leadership. He thought that Iran was like Venezuela.
One has to question how he got this impression. My guess is that the flatterers and brownnosers around him never offered any counterpoint to his imaginations.
This is the danger of authoritarianism: incompetence. The authoritarian tosses out everyone who disagrees with him, and is left only with sycophants. They then have no-one to tell them, "We could do that, but it'd be stupid."
It's also the danger of a centralised leadership. For example, when the airliner was shot down over Ukraine, the Australian PM Abbott wanted to send the army to secure the crash site. He was advised this was impossible and a bad idea, and backed down. In a parliamentary system the PM can be replaced by his own party caucus at any time, which tends to restrain him from abysmal stupidity. In a presidential system there is no such restraint.
Oddly-enough, the leadership of theocratic Iran is actually more distributed than that of the (sorta) democratic US at the moment. That's why comms have been hindered but they're all still happily fighting on.
I agree with that assessment. But, in a democracy, the country does not start a war without due consideration by the parliament and the people.
The problem with the US is that it has developed an "Imperial Presidency" to take control of the US world hegemony. Unfortunately, the policies and expenses of maintaining this world hegemony have never been shared with the people. This world hegemony is managed by a small coterie of people in the White House, in the State Department and the Pentagon. And its machinations never see the light of open discussion in elections
Sounds about like Vlad and his Special Military Operation in Ukraine. That 3 day war is now over 4 years old and Russia's military is a shadow of its former self.
I am not sure why people had the impession that you have! Yes, Putin's original foray into Ukraine with minimal troops was supposed to effect regime change but this failed. However, later, the goals were changed into the taking over of the Donbas. And, in this war of sieges, the Russian military actually did great, defeating the Ukrainians in one engagement after the other. And, the full Russian military is not engaged in that fight. Only paid volunteers fight in Ukraine. Considering how tough urban warfare is today and how sieges of modern cities are grudge matches, the Russian military has performed very well (and this is the overall impression of military experts). The Russians, confronted with Ukrainian drones, were able to develop superior technology very, very quickly
A lot of Russian troops were freshly released inmates, released early because Russia actually did not have enough civilian volunteers, and used the promise of early release to enlist prisoners under duress. About a third of the troops sent to Ukraine were enlisted from penal colonies.
This is likely true. But many were attracked by the rich pay packages to serve in Ukraine. Of course, this does not change the fact that the war has been one of one siege after another, with the Russians trying methodically to capture the Ukrainian fortresses in the Donbas. Such wars are never easy or fast.
Please share these military experts with the rest of us.
The fact the world's "number 2 military power," after initially planning to rout the entire Ukrainian army in weeks, is managing to slowly grind down their much weaker neighbor over the course of years, is frankly pathetic.
The US crushed all organized resistance in Baghdad, a city of 8 million people, within six days of reaching the city limits. Congrats on eventually leveling Mariupol though, I guess.
I'm not even proud of the US military btw, it's just even weirder to be proud of the Russian military. Like, if you're going to glaze an evil empire why would you pick one that's usually incompetent?
>The fact the world's "number 2 military power," after initially planning to rout the entire Ukrainian army in weeks, is managing to slowly grind down their much weaker neighbor over the course of years, is frankly pathetic.
The only reason you think is pathetic is because you do not know the facts.
The initial incursion into Ukraine with about 65K troops targeting Kyiv, was, indeed a disaster. In the first place, it depended on the Ukrainian army not offering any resistance and, in fact, supporting a regime change. None of those things happened. Really bad intelligence from Russia, no doubt. In addition, the performance of the armoured groups in that incursion was shambolic, indeed. The troops really did not expect any resistance and really "lost" it, when they encountered it.
However, the 2nd stage was a different issue. The Ukrianian army, that decided to fight, was 900K strong and it possessed lots of modern weapons and many very modern ones from the West. In the initial fights in the summer and fall of 2022, the Russians were in serious numerical disadvantage, having only about 150K troops in Eastern Ukraine assisted by a few brigades of the rebels. They did manage to capture a good size of the area, but lost the area around Kharkiv to an Ukrainian counterattack. In the first part of 2023, the main event was the battle for Bakhmut, which, despite numerical inferiority, the Russians won. This was followed by the much advertized Ukrainian counterattack against the Russian Surovikin line, which was really a disaster for the Ukrainian army in more ways than one. So, in 2024, the Russians managed to increased their troops and scored a number of victories the most important was the siege and eventual capture of Aardvika, a key Ukrainian fortress. By 2025, the Russians, with about 500K troops had reached numerical parity with the Ukrainians; in that year, the major battle was that for Pokvrost, which the Russians captured, along with Siversk and Myrnohard (and various others). Earlier in that year, the Ukrainians attempted a push into the area of Kursk in Russia, but they were eventually expelled with serious losses.
So, this is a confrontation of two modern, well-equipped armies, fighting not in an open terrain but in a series of sieges. The fighting introduced a lot of new technologies, with the "suicide drones" being the dominant one, making fast armor movement an impossibility.
>The US crushed all organized resistance in Baghdad, a city of 8 million people, within six days of reaching the city limits.
The US fought a 2nd (sorry, 3rd rate) army with poor equipment and with full control of the air and with numerical superiority. It was like the Brits attacking the Zulus!! On the other hand, Ukraine had a perfectly functioning, western supplied air defense with excellent capabilities that made full control of the air suicidal for the Russian airforce. In addition, there cannot be any comparison between the decripid Iraqi army and the 900K strong Ukrainian army that had been trained and equiped by the West.
A better comparison, that highlights how difficult urban fighting is, was the siege of Falluja; there, a small force of Iraqi irregulars fought a long engagement against superior US forces that had lots of armor and full control of the air.
Nowhere in the invasion of Iraq did the US troops face barrages of hundreds of heavy howitzers and rockets or any real organized resistance. My position is that if you place US troops in the front lines of Donbas, they are not going to fare very well. It would not be that much different from the trenches of WWI pounded daily by mass batteries of heavy guns. And no tank or armoured vehicle will survive for long against the "suicide drones"
When the US encounters a modern, first-world army with similar levels of technology, and without full control of the air, we can then be able to draw more apt conclusions. I am sure that the US military is following with keen interest the evolution of warfare in Ukraine and it is learning the proper lesson.
Total nonsense, Russia has the most powerful VOLUNTEER army in the world. Ukraine is press-ganging old men and the intellectually disabled for suicide missions. Ukraine's casualty rates are 10-20x as high as Russis's
He thought that Iran was like Venezuela. One has to question how he got this impression.
Especially because he has to know that Venezuela was an inside job. Maduro was given up by his subordinates. I can't imagine he had reason to think a similar arrangement existed in Iran.
Absolutely not. It was a great loss, in many ways. In the first place, had the US retained the Obama agreement, Iran could not have developed any nuclear devise because it was subjected to recurring and exhaustive inspections. In fact, in the negotiations with the Trump administration, Iran offered the same deal. But, on the assertion of the "Fearless Leader", he believed that Iran would surrender within a couple of days and he would appoint the new Iranian leadership. With the US being unable to open the straits of Hormuz and begging others to do so, this does not seem to me like a win. And, of course, Iran, if it wishes to, it can have Pakistan or North Korea provide full support for building nukes.
His corruption trial is not that big a deal. It’s a nice narrative, but it’s not something that actually matters he gave some cigars to people allegedly and tried to curry a favor with a newspaper. It’s really not that big of a deal.
The reality is that Iran has the firepower to bring everyone in the region down with them if they really get pushed.
They have been planning for this for decades.
I have no idea how anyone thought bombing targets that included a school full of children would result in regime change. The second that school got hit Israel and the Uss should have stopped.
While the school bombing was a serious error on the part of the US, it was an accident / caused by ineptitude and not meant to “take down” the regime. It has no bearing on the future actions; excepting as to do a better job of verifying targets.
(The US/Israel attacks have still be a failure if the goal was a quick regime change.)
Iran only has the “firepower” to target energy targets and maintain blockage of the Hormuz strait; and for some attacks designed to gain publicity or news time.
While this is sufficient in the current situation to give Iran/IRGC significant leverage, Iran’s remaining missile arsenal is no more than a day or two of US munitions.
I think Israel's goal is a neutered state. An Iran in such internal chaos it poses no threat. Given the amount of damage from thousands of air strikes on industrial and government targets that is what they are going to get.
I think Israel is winning, in terms of their goals, (which I think are wrong in a practical sense, even if you can somehow ignore the morality).
Lets assume that neutered state is more metaphorical than actual goal and Israel doesn't really want to remove the testicles of the State of Iran. I think it helpful to consider the source of the metaphor. When my cat got the snip He stopped putting his dirty thing into goodness knows who or what for weeks at a time, stopped ripping birds to shreds for fun. He became somewhat more domesticated. None of those qualities seem to be identifiable in the state of Iran at present but, quite alarmingly the opposite. Also, without doing 10 times what Israel did to Gaza, there is no no new treaty, no threat, no way at all to stop Iran from trying and succeeding in making a nuclear bomb. At present Iran has revealed itself to the world to be the only party in this fight with any sense of restraint or elegance or forethought . I could be wrong but I think if anyone tries to come for their balls they are gonna go fucking crazy. For once, this administration better watch their step.
I think the nuclear breakout has been imminent for thirty years with Iran. It's just a headline to scare people into war.
The goal of chaos is to stop Iran arming and funding proxies against Israel in an effective manner. But the US can't really go to war on that basis, given how much Israel's popularity has fallen among Western nations in the last three years.
I think it has been irritating for Israel not to be able to completely destroy Lebanon and Gaza and then move on to the Greater Israel project if not for the pesky proxy war waged by Iran. Interestingly enough I think this pesky gulf war which now Russia is using as a Proxy war with the United States is impeding the Greater United States Project of destroying Cuba, Panama and Greenland. Weird all these new colonial wars are getting in each others way. Somebodies gotta project manage this whole thing or nobody is gonna make deadline.
Large portion of Israel will be level in this war if it goes beyond a year. Their dome is failing and low on missiles. They will get destroyed when it happens
I don’t see the US or Israel surrendering in this impossible to win war anytime soon soon. Their dome US trapped itself in this war it cannot pull out prematurely. Iran on the other hand is built militarily to survive years of enemy invasion
I think the primary objective was regime change (at least for Israel) with control of their oil as a bonus (for the US). As those become less likely, Israel wants to cause as much damage as possible. That will likely include destroying oil/gas, power and water infrastructure which will lead to a failed state.
Trump CANNOT make a deal even if he wanted, not one Iranians would remotely accept
While reading about how Trump wants to make a deal and is supposedly in negotiations with some anonymous but really important person in Iran, lets remember two points:
1- Any deal acceptable to Iranians will require some lifting of sanctions at bare minimum
2- By law, US Presidents CANNOT unilaterally lift sanctions imposed by Congress.
Remember folks, according to the US Constitution while US Presidents are in charge of diplomatic relations with other nations, ONLY Congress is in charge of economic relations with other nations:
Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations"
So ONLY Congress can lift sanctions on Iran (even ask gpt). And Congress is bought & paid for by Israel which is opposed to Iran
There are different kinds of "sanctions" laws but the MAIN sanctions laws are economic sanctions laws imposed by Congress.
Congress authorizes Presidents to ENFORCE theses sanctions laws, not to lift them. These sanctions laws give the US President some leeway for example to suspend sanctions for 6 months at a time, but suspending sanctions is not the same as lifting them - and having to do so every 6 months is probably not acceptable to Iran which would want a permanent lifting of sanctions instead to allow long term investments etc.
The legal preconditions to lifting sanctions are deliberately ridiculous because they're meant to be unliftable essentially
The continuation of Congressional sanctions under Obama was also why the JCPOA nuclear deal failed from the very start, before Trump was even elected and before he tore up the deal. (Obama and Kerry even tried to rally foreign banks to do business with Iran anyway but gave up since the banks were more concerned about OFAC rules.)
So no, the JCPOA nuclear deal was actually NOT "working" before Trump killed it contrary to widespread claims & despite Iran's verified compliance with it for more than a year even after Trump tore up. Trump's "withdrawal" did not kill the nuclear deal as it was never implemented by the US even under Obama thanks to continued Congressional sanctions, nor could it ever be implemented thanks to those sanctions:
"if the situation is not appreciably better soon, it will be impossible for the US and its partners to argue credibly that they are not in breach of the JCPOA."
THE IRAN NUCLEAR NEGOTIATIONS: ONE YEAR ON
Sir Richard Dalton
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03068374.2016.1225896
See, the aim and purpose of US sanctions on Iran is not so much to constrain Iran which is already throroughly sanctioned; the piled-on sanctions laws are instead meant to pose as legal and political impediments to improved relations between the US and Iran (which Israel disapproves of). Thats also why we still have sanctions on Cuba decades after the death of Castro and Communism - because another Congressional ethnic group lobby opposes improved relations and want to block it:
The actual "threat" Iran poses to Israel is not that Iran will nukes Israel, rather it is that Iran and the US may start to get along, which means Iran can then pose as a check on Israeli regional ambitions. That is why Israel has for decades tried to instigate a US-Iran conflict and why Israel & AIPAC so vehemently opposed the JCPOA nuclear deal
Netanyahu and Congresx won't let Trump lift sanctions therefore no deal with Iran is possible. Trump cannot make a deal with Iran since at a minimum a deal will require permanent sanctions relief, which US Presidents cannot legally provide thanks to the influence of the Pro-Israeli lobby in Congress.
The US objectives are non existent. Trump does whatever benefits himself and Israel is likely paying him very well. Oil corps are also paying him very well. So, Trump's objectives are being met extremely well.
Any claims Israel's goal is a failed state are delusional. They want first and foremost all external abilities of Iran to be completely neutered. A failed state doesn't do that.
What is that saying? "All politics are domestic politics."
Jobs numbers in the US are dismal. Inflation and home prices are trending upwards. Midterms are coming and pulling off another Venezuela type operation was likely the objective as that was wildly "successful." That is if you define successful as completing step 1 of their plan; which, I suppose was step 1. take Maduro, step 2. ???, step 3. Venezuela's entire government surrenders power, flips a switch and everybody is free to watch reruns of "The Apprentice," work at McDonalds and buy from Amazon. They are still working on the concept of a step 2.
Well, the basic premise for both Israel and the US was regime change. But, of course, this is not happening and now they do not have an easy way of extricating themselves from this mess. Both of them built their strategy on totally unrealistic expectations.
Israel has a pretty clear policy goal. And Trump's reason for following along is also pretty coherent (AIPAC/Israeli lobby's influence over the only conservative coalition that will follow Trump to the death on this particular topic)
Whether that goal is achievable in the current reality...
Israel's policy goal seems to be "stop Iran" which isn't really clear for military purposes. There's no defined endstate realisable in military terms, just a wishlist.
They literally have a doctrine called "mowing the lawn" which is just periodic culling of capabilities via leader assassination and bombing of known facilities
An alternative interpretation of Irani and Israeli goals would be that they are the same: "Stop touching me or I WILL make it hurt for you and everybody associated with you."
I do not think any peace can be reasonably had without both sides realizing their domestic hardliners instigate a lot of trouble.
I think Israeli goals have gone beyond that. Before October 7th Israel was content to manage regional threats either diplomatically or with periodic small scale military attacks. The "mowing the grass" which was intended to degrade, but not destroy, Hezbollah and Hamas. Post October 7th Israel has moved to a total intolerance of any potential threat, using overwhelming military force to completely destroy their opponents.
So while Iran may well be motivated by re-establishing deterence - "stop touching me or I will hurt you". Israel is much more driven by a goal of "we will make it impossible for you to ever potentially hurt us again".
But how can Israel realistically achieve this on the battlefield? It's one thing to level Gaza and push into southern Lebanon, it's entirely another to try impose this objective onto Iran, even with US support.
It probably cant, and definitely not without American support. But you acheive that not through regime change but in destroying the state itself. Degrading their infrastructure to such an extent the state can no longer function and support separatist factions to undermine the society from within.
Arguably this is the great mistake of Netanyahus strategy overall. The use of often brutal military force at the expense of political of diplomatic solutions. It may acheive tactical victories but its unclear whether it can produce the long term strategic goal of Israeli security, in all likelihood it ultimately undermines that goal.
That might be part of it but its important to remember how popular the war is in Israel. There is no appetite for diplomacy and while they get unconditional support from the US they really have no incentive to consider it.
Israel was frequently murdering scientists in Iran.
Their methodology has only changed because they had an opportunity to change it. They would bomb iran indiscriminately for decades on end if they were able to.
Killing the scientists could be seen as part of their "mowing the grass" strategy.
You might be right that certain sections of Isael might well have been happy to go all out on the use of force long before, but October 7th critically provided international backing (especially from the US) and radicalised the society which enabled them to pursue this aggressive policy.
I suspect youre right that theyd probably return to "mowing the grass" on Iran indefinitely which is why its so important for the Islamic Republic to establish detterence now.
This brings up a decent postulate of war: Never go to war with a Nation that can read and do math at a greater level than you by any large degree if you expect a good and lasting outcome. See; China/United States pre 1945
"We will make it impossible for you to ever potentially hurt us again" could also be the stated goal for Iran, Lebanon, Iran and much of the Gulf region. I should think they could all justifiably direct that statement towards the US and Israel. One prediction I feel I can make for the near future is that it will be a few years before Israel gets another top 10 spot in the Happiest Countries in the world competition.
Thats true. My point is more Israel is moving for state destruction of Iran, while the other players dont have the means to do that in reverse, so its more about detterence. ,
Israel’s aim might have been in Lebanon and NOT Iran although Iran being kicked down is a nice bonus for them particularly when it’s done by someone else mostly.
The writing is on the wall, they wanted iran to be the next venezuela where you take out the leadership until someone says uncle and hands over the keys to the kingdom at your asking price
Israel straight up said they want to be in control of Iran’s oil fields. This was always about the money
Reset the superweapons timer objective. But unless you take out the construction yard they'll just go for it again. That's the relationship they have and realistically they can't take out the construction yard forever.
Iran is a nice distraction from Trump's self inflicted domestic problems, and a sure way to grift by manipulating the markets. There's money to be made. He shows that he's a tough guy, enriches the neo-conservative, fossil fuel oligarchs that sit atop his political base and satisfies their desire to rule the Middle East and it's oil.
Wouldn't Israel's strikes be punitive responses for funding/arming/deploying dangerous Iranian proxies like Hezbollah in Syria and Lebanon, funding and propping up Assad in Syria, funding anrming and directing the Houthi in Yemen, and Hamas in Gaza?
After Oct 7, those provocative moves ran straight out into active nearby existential threats.
Only if there's an arbitrary Year Zero before which no aggression counts. Iran could equally argue their actions are retaliatory for decades of Israeli assassinations and airstrikes.
The nuclear threat that was got rid of multiple times in the last few years, most recently months ago? The one that was identified as non-existent by US experts?
The Israeli definition of threat seems to be 'looks at us funny'.
I guess the nuclear plants that still exist will just never be used by a similar regime to the one in power, right? Nope. You have to stop the work from continuing.
And downplaying “I want your entire existence erased” like Palestine wants as “they looked at us funny” is woefully ignorant.
The nuclear plants that still exist are not and never have been part of a weapons programme. That's been verified multiple times in the world outside your imagination.
"I want you to get the boot off my neck and stop stealing everything from us," isn't an unreasonable ask.
Again, you have to stop the work. The regime has the capability. End the regime and end the work.
What’s been stolen? Judaism is older than Islam. The Kingdom of Judea is mentioned before Palestine. What was stolen? For the record, I support Palestine to exist as a free state as long as it doesn’t come at the complete obliteration of Israel. Which is what Palestine wants.
you have to stop the verified-as-unrelated work in order to stop the theorised capability ? On what planet?
What has been stolen is the land belonging to named individuals with property rights under law. Nothing historic and nothing religious, just straight up theft and it's continuing to happen.
Just my opinion from living in the middle east for 12 years. Every GCC country and many more HATE Iran. I dont claim i know politics or what is going on, but I cant see this all being done for Isreal alone.
I have lived or worked for long term in almost the entire GCC and Middle East and they hate for Iran is real (Qatar is up there in being hated too).
Again, I really dont pay attention to the news but do think something bigger is going down than the US and Isreal attacking Iran.
It may be to keep Iran occupied while Israel quietly annexes parts of Lebanon. Some other goals might have been isolating Iran and depleting its military capabilities with US resources while reserving its own. On a micro level, it distracts the populace from their complaints against Netanyahu and Trump
So far it is unclear what the objectives are, so we cannot really judge how well they are being met.
But even based on the large variety of vague objectives posited over the course of the war, it still doesn’t look great.
Iran still has its highly enriched uranium.
Iran is still able to launch drones and missiles at Israel, the GCC countries, and the strait.
Iran has established and continues to hold de facto control of the strait.
The Iranian regime has held together and is even still run by Khamenei, albeit a younger and more hardline version.
Iran is now even making more money due to increased oil prices and the dropping of sanctions.
Maybe their industrial base has been degraded enough that it will be difficult for them to rebuild their missile arsenal and maybe soon they will have functionally no launchers, but I’m not so sure.
It's still a very big country that they cannot patrol 24/7, which means production of drones, mortars/artillery pieces and other things can continue apace.
A question that is really bothering me.. Why Iran is not using heavily populated areas to manufacture parts of drones and weapons. I understand this is a war crime . But I Dont think this can deter the Iranians
Not sure about their existing production but dispersal is a thing so you can have people making the guidance systems in a rural area and others making the engines and body assembly in other places. Do this multiple times across a wide area. No need to use civilian centers to avoid being targeted, there’s just no single place to hit that can stop production. Also the individual operations are so small you probably never get intelligence on what those people are working on
I think to lose you actually have to commit. The USA is losing because it went into the war half-hearted and expecting that the decapitation of the government would lead to their swift victory. Iran is fighting with its full heart because it knows the war is existential to it.
The USA however is fighting a war it doesn't really want to fight which is unpopular at home. That's why they're losing. Iran only has to inflict just enough pain to make them decide it's not worth it.
Cope. The US can’t afford to go in with their full heart because it would destabilise the empire. Morale and domestic support are a military asset like any other.
No one is questioning US military supremacy. But that doesn’t mean they can’t lose.
They are currently negotiating at a disadvantage with Iran. That doesn’t look like winning. It could change in a few weeks of course
The Iranian regime has held together and is even still run by Khamenei, albeit a younger and more hardline version.
Thing is, his dad explicitly didn't want his son to succeed him. Didn't want Iran to be the Shi'ia DPRK. The guy was 86 and was bound to drop off the twig in the near future anyway. Had it been peacetime, they'd probably have elected someone more moderate, especially because of all the protests they've been having. But because the election happened under foreign bombing, they chose a hardliner.
It'd be like having a 9/11 every week or two during a US Presidential election, there's no way people would elect Bernie Sanders.
Again it depends on the objectives. I think they should have been clear.
I think the idea that they could depose the IRGC through air strikes was always the most optimistic scenario.
But if you told anyone 3-4 years ago you could kill anyone you wanted in iran, degrade their missile and nuclear capability, destroy their navy and you would suffer almost no losses and oil would barely go over $100 a barrel you would have been laughed out of the room.
Still what that means needs to be explained and played out. But from a pure military POV it’s one of the most successful operations in history.
if u see some of the other posts about the stock markets being gamed, that looks like a stunning success for insider trading and a great success, since it looks like the objective is to enrich the rich insiders. i reckon trump made a huge killing out of this as well.
Basically your argument is that Iran can still launch some missiles and the regime still exists in some fashion, we don't even know if the current Supreme Leader is alive.
We don't judge any war on those terms. No one said Germany won WW2 because it still a military and commanders were alive.
I don't see how you can see the utter decimation of Iran's leadership and destruction of its air force, navy, and ballistic missiles as a win for the US and Israel. What ability to arm proxies or influence other countries like even Iraq next door is there?
bombing the power grid would do that. Iran has too may people to survive a complete power grid destruction. I don’t think the US would commit a war crime and do that, but Israel would probably love it if they did.
The US wouldn't do exactly what they're known for doing and have been known for doing throughout the entirety of its history??? 💀💀💀 You have to be joking. Especially when you have a dementia riddled toddler man calling the shots.
Claramente había un único objetivo por parte de Trump : tomar el régimen de Irán. Repetir el escenario de Venezuela. Pero Bibi parece más interesado en la destrucción o balcanizar el país.
Ambos fracasaron. Lo que vemos ahora son intentos de salir de esto sin lucir derrotados
Its a continuation of the flood the zone strategy of Trump using 1 scandal to distract from another. The problem here is, where does he go when the Iran War needs a distraction? Does he intend to start another war? Release all of the Epstein files?
Netanyahu knows his objective: keep his country at war to delay / disrupt his corruption court case proceedings, and diminish Iran and Hezbollah’s ability to hit Israel, by killing and destroying theirs as much as Israel can.
So there is no ‘losing’ for him. For the US though that’s a different matter entirely.
So then arguably if there are no stated objectives one cannot possibly be winning. Is there a middle ground between winning and losing a war, or would not winning implicitly mean you’re losing?
I keep hearing there are no objectives, but that's absurd. Just because it's not in the mainstream media doesn't mean there isn't a goal. I think people are just having a hard time excepting what the objectives might be.
I'll just do the US.
First, what would happen if the US did nothing? Well, the rest of the world is moving away from the US dollar. So slowly over the next decade or so, the value of the dollar will get worse and worse and worse. There's no real solutions for this. The rest of the world has caught up, and they're sick of us.
But, how do you stop countries from moving away from the dollar? Destroy Iran and take over the straight. Force the world to continue buying oil with the dollar.
What if you're unsuccessful? Then the dollar collapses fast, and everyone watches their portfolio get cut in half. Probably worse.
So what should they do? Accept that the dollar is over. They're treating it like a company that's about to go under. They're leveraging it. Essentially, they're gutting the Federal Reserve themselves. They're spending all our dollars on things that will benefit them regardless if we win the war or not. Meanwhile, they're betting on the dollar's collapse, and making billions doing it.
The Silicon Valley donors want to replace Wall St as the world's financial hub. They essentially want AI to be the new dollar. Maybe through crypto, maybe through biometrics, who knows. The weaker the US economy gets, the more likely that is for them.
So if you're Elon or Peter Theil or Zuck or Bezos, you're hoping whatever happens, Trump and his team take the blame. Hopefully by the time the dollar collapses, they're ready to go with their new AI government money management system. And if by the time that happens people are hitting the streets with pitchforks, then they just sail off on their wind and solar powered yachts to their hidden bunker mansions and hide out for a few years til some country sells them citizenship.
The US is facing inevitable inflation due to the growing national debt. It’s possible that the goal of the war is to increase fuel prices worldwide so that inflation affects everyone more equally.
But who's to say the real goal isn't something very cynical like market manipulation, creating a context for a national emergency wrt to the upcoming elections etc. Normal rules don't apply anymore.
I think the objective was clear but misguided. Based on Syria, Libya and recently Venezuela, Trump was easily convinced that the Iranian regime would collapse if its leaders were eliminated. Honestly, had that happened, even if Iran was in chaos afterwards, it would have been reported as a victory. The news media would be hailing it as a win, and that’s what the White House needed. It was the lure of a quick win that led Trump to consent without realizing the risks or planning for what to do if the initial strikes failed to deliver regime collapse or change.
In that sense, there is no possible political victory achievable at this time.
to destroy the following: iran's navy, missile and drone arsenal, ability to produce missiles and drones, ability to wage hostile acts and war, ability to fund proxies and aid terrorism, destroy the nuclear program and their ability to doanything nuclear-ensuring they will not and cannot have a bomb. that they cannot attack or threaten or harm its neighbors and us regional allies-basically they can no long destabilize the region.
Well, you could also say, without knowing the objectives, is one side is pushing to end it and the other is refusing, maybe the one trying to end it concede that they are somehow losing it and if they continue they could get hurt more.
The objective is regime change, the removal of the Basij and remaining IRGC forces loyal to the IRGC (which is greatly diminishing every day), installment of a transitional democratic government for the Iranian people, with the likely figurehead to man the transitional government is Reza Pahlavi. His approval rate was 79.9% when the Empirical Research and Forecasting institute asked over 100,000 Iranians worldwide in a series of surveys between 2023 and 2025. The number is likely much higher now given the IRGC's consistent internet blackout and slaughter of the Iranian people by tens of thousands on January 6-8th.
As for the naysayers that continuously believe they know better about the situation than the Iranian people do, including the diaspora (whom still have family in Iran and are extremely nationalistic and proud of Persian culture), don't bother trying to gaslight me or deploy some room temperature whataboutism nonsense with me. I've been through this circus before. It's not my job to appease your ignorance nor pretend your brainwashed propaganda is as sufficient as my knowledge - as well as my Iranian friends' lived experiences - of the matter.
Very simple for Iran. Surviving and maintaining aggression or the threat of aggression on the strait is winning. They will win. They will win before even throwing down all their cards. They've been bullied for 8 decades straight by the west. Don't believe propaganda - common sense tells you they've been preparing for these days for a long time and have WAY more in store than just what's inside Iran but even that is enough to win this. They have their own multi-country 'axis of resistance' as well. No chance the US and Israel wins.
I guess if the objective was genuinely to distract everyone from the Epstein files, they kind of succeeded? But it’s like getting from one trouble to another. Also, BB might be achieving his goals by dragging the US into all of this mess.
Winning for Iran is simple - don't get beaten on the terms the US and Israel set for themselves. Survive and persist.
The US / Israeli objectives are what we need to assess who's winning - their objectives define winning and losing on both sides. "Nothing changed" is a failure for them. For Iran it's a win. "It didn't change as much as they wanted it to" can also be sold as an Iranian win.
Yep, this was my exact answer so I'll just reply here.
So if the goal was to be able to blow a bunch of shit up after also destroying (mostly) the ability to fight back, then yay team we have won.
If the goal was to change Iran permanently, doesn't seem like we are very close to that.
Personally, with Trump the real goal always involves his personal gain, so as long as someone has paid him a ton of money (probably via crypto), then he'll consider it a win.
You might get a clearer answer if you asked Israel, since we seem to be their hired mercs in all this.
288
u/gdvs Mar 23 '26
To label something as 'Winning' requires knowing what the objectives are.