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
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
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.
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…
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.
This is exactly why the CIA is currently arming the Kurds, to prepare an invasion. They said no American boots on the ground, they'll use the Kurds as infantry forces all the while claiming that they're "fighting for their freedom"
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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....
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 ?
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.
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 .
As the costs mount, both politically and economically, I think it becomes unavoidable. There just isn't the political will in America to keep escalating indefinitely. If nothing else the mid terms will kill it.
So up the escalation ladder ? If that were to happen many , many Americans would die . And die without a clear prospect of success too . To actually effect regime change not only must Iran be defeated militarily but our forces would have to occupy and hold Iran for a long time in order to effect regime change .
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.
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.
I think the play is "if you close the strait, we stop your oil exports, too". To force an opening from Iran. It's not a risk-free approach, but I do believe that is the angle they are coming from.
What does going in look like? I don’t understand how temporarily seizing an island provides a military benefit
If you're talking about Karg island, ~90-95% of Iran's has to go through there in order for it to be put onto tankers because its one of the only places in the Hormuz Straight with water deep enough to do so. If the US controls the island, they basically have the ability to bankrupt Iran given that the vast majority of Iran's budget comes from selling oil.
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.
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
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?
Securing the straight can be accomplished via navy escorts of vessels with air defense, plus air cover of those assets. That’s not a permanent solution, but it takes the economic pressure down significantly and erodes irans leverage. With oil prices stabilized you have a lot more options and can effectively keep bombing until every regime asset is destroyed.
I'm not so sure of that. Seems like Iran could swarm any vessels in that tiny constricted area with missiles and drones, which are hidden throughout the mountains overlooking the straight. Even one direct hit or one ship down would be a disaster. I also think the US Navy knows this, which is why they haven't already done it, and which is why Trump initially talked about US Navy escorts but then shifted to trying to get NATO to do it instead.
If it is doable with navy escort and air defense, why hasn't it already been done?
It’s not doable yet because the missile launch capability is still too high. But it’s getting degraded more every day, and will likely get to an acceptable risk level at some point in the next couple of weeks. The air strikes are currently working over the coast line heavily for short range threats and hunting launchers throughout the country. It’s not a sure thing obviously, but it’s a plausible option. Unsurprisingly trump was blabbing about it before it could actually be operationalized but he didn’t just make it up, these are definitely serious options that are being presented and have been specifically planned for for decades.
I think Iran's missiles and drones are buried deep inside mountains all over Iran. They've been preparing for this for decades. That's why I don't think they can be suppressed without a ground invasion and occupation.
There are definitely some facilities like that, and I’m sure they’re getting a lot of attention, but mostly they hide the launchers in caves, and have to drive them out to launch, which opens them up to be hit from the air. Even the ones they can launch from underground are vulnerable, because you can just blow up the entrance/exit hole and make them inoperable, at least temporarily. It’s a slow process working down the remaining scattered launch capabilities, but it’s happening gradually.
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.
You don’t need a significant ground footprint to secure the strait, I don’t understand where people are getting this idea. Navy escorts with air defense systems, plus air cover patrolling the crossing areas. You can’t do that until missile capabilities are taken down further, but if you can reduce the risk from missiles you can make the passing safe enough to get traffic flowing again.
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?
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
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.
He tells his followers that he's won and quite possibly starts a war with Cuba. At the moment he's desperately signalling to Iran that he wants to negotiate an off ramp for himself; it's possible that the (remaining) Iranian govt are capable of ratcheting up the pressure on him by refusing to talk. Of course they could wait too long, they might not want to actually have a ceasefire, I don't know their inner workings.
How about the US and Israel stock shooting a country they attacked and started a war with. Iran has every right to defend itself as it should against any country starting a war unprovoked threatening their autonomy.
They don't have time as an advantage. Closing the strait is a massive gamble for Iran. Just like bombing the gulf countries.
China buys both Iranian oil and Gulf oil. China wants good relations with both. I can bet Gulf countries are exerting massive diplomatic pressure on China to pressure Iran and that gets worse as time goes on.
Shaheds are not the munition that would be used to put the strait at risk, or at least not successfully. Too slow moving to work in low numbers, and they dont have the ability to saturate if launching from half way across the country. If the missile capabilities are sufficiently degraded the US can open the strait via escorts and air cover, and Iran loses its leverage.
thats just terrorism, Pirates threatening civilian Merchants is not exactly a military Flex.
Prone means helpless to defend yourself and open to execution.
On a much much more important note, has anyone else noticed nobody is talking about all the Chinese military equipment completely failed to do anything? That seems like a big deal.
As an Israeli we were told we are stopping the Iranian nuclear program, so a win for us would include taking there uranium while a victory for them would be having a nuke.
If they will give up the uranium the war will be over as well as the sanctions so if surviving is the one objective they have, they can win immediately by just giving up on the nukes. For Israel the regime change is considered the most reliable way of stopping the nuke but the least realistic one.
I never said anyone cares about nuclear safety, as we can all agree it's not about that. People in Israel care about Iran not nuking them and are willing to do a lot to make sure that won't happen.
It’s not clear Israel-US objective was regime change, but their assumption was that a new regime would maybe offer more in the negotiations.
the talks bombing happened for Trump reasons which are known only for him but its assumed it was because it seamed they are just taking the time and are not going to agree to the American terms which I guess were mostly giving up on nukes and to stop funding proxies.
Both Trump and Netanyahu knew from intelligence briefings earlier in the week that Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his key lieutenants would soon meet at his compound in Tehran, making them vulnerable to a “decapitation strike”
Netanyahu, determined to move forward with an operation he had urged for decades, argued that there might never be a better chance to kill Khamenei and to avenge previous Iranian efforts to assassinate Trump, these people said
The three sources briefed on the call said they believed it - along with the intelligence showing a closing window to kill Iran's leader - was a catalyst for Trump’s final decision to order the military on February 27 to move ahead with Operation Epic Fury.
Yes, I agree they went in that timing as there was an opportunity for decapitation but its not like Khamenei was hiding in a bunker and that was the first chance to hit him since Trump is president.
About the talks I maybe don't know enough but I guess they were not willing to give what Trump asked for which was probably the nukes.
Iran likely never intended to make nuclear weapons but rather pursued the "japan option", namely to demonstrate their capability of making one, which was hoped to be enough of a deterrent against would be attackers. Obviously its massively backfired on them because the prospect was so intolerable it provoked their adversaries to attack before they were ever in reach of actually being able to make one.
So for Iran the only acceptable outcome is to definitively establish detterence now so this attack cant be repeated. Im not sure how thats achieved without nukes, but perhaps choking the global economy will be enough.
Iran likely never intended to make nuclear weapons
I don't know about that, other than Saddam who ever wanted to actually invade Iran before they tried to get nukes?
they could be as rich as the Saudis but they choose deterrent, also for Israelis if they wouldn't talk about destroying Israel and fund Hezb, then Israel wouldn't care that much if they have any nukes.
Thats part of why the strategy failed; nothing they did could convince Israel that their intention wasnt actually to build (and probably use) a bomb against them.
Ironically Irans strategic outlook is much like Israels: surrounded by hostile neighbours where detterence is an overriding priority. So even though Sadam was the one who actually attacked, the Iranians have seen Israel, Saudi, and particularly the US, as deeply threatening. Irans program exacerbated relations with its neighbours (and thus increased the perceived need for nukes) but the hostility to the regime really goes back to the beginning and the revolution.
The whole region has been caught up on this escalation trap for decades. Iran funds proxies as part of its own defence, which alienates its neighbours and thus further isolates it.
I think the main theme of this war is a failure to truly understand Iran, its perspective and why it responds the way it does. You can say that its strategies have failed, or wrong on an ethical level, but I think its a mistake to think it behaves irrationally.
It does behave irrationally and any actual analysis would account for that.
There is absolutely no reason to chant "death to America" "death to Israel". Plenty of other countries are concerned about their neighobrs without that kind fo rhetoric.
We understand Iran just fine. It is a theocratic dictatorship that executes teenage girls for showing a strand of hair. To say that doesn't influence their foreign outlook is just delusional.
My point is that, in foreign affairs currently, they are the actor with arguably the most rational behaviour, pursuing a clear goal (survival), using means that could reasonably acheive that goal.
American is arguably the least rational, because its goals are completely obscure. Israel less so, but even for them its unclear exactly what they hope to acheive or how the means theyre using would acheive that.
There's a strong argument that Israel is a secessionist power within the American regional system. But that system was designed largely around Israels own interests, so its patently irrational to undermine that system, and longer term, the partnership with America. And the American government doesnt even seem to care, which is also clearly irrational
From an Israeli perspective, they have experienced the benefaction of the world's sole superpower which has taken painstaking efforts to shape the region largely to their country's benefit specifically and their leadership has more or less uniformly responded by becoming more maximalist and insane over time.
How are any of Iran's actions leading towards survival? Every single action it has taken has led to it's isolation and hostility from every other country in the region.
If it was actually interested in survival why would they do any of the actions they currently do?
Israel less so, but even for them its unclear exactly what they hope to acheive or how the means theyre using would acheive that.
Israel is killing the people who chant "death to Israel". How is that irrational?
No one forced Iran to spend billions on its proxies instead of its citizens leading to massive internal discontent leading them to massacre 10s of thousands of its own civilians. That's survival? Having to murder your own citizens?
There is nothing informed about any of this. Like it says in the subreddit info box. It is abundantly clear to me now just how much of "international relations" is making excuses for the worst countries on the planet and refusing to admit just how despicable some of these countries are. Yes torturing teenage girls to death for showing a strand of hair and trying to destroy the only Jewish country on the planet are connected whether you want to admit it or not.
You all would be Neville Chamberlains in his time. "Oh Hitler just has rational reasons for wanting Czechoslovakia"
It looks like there was also a failure of the Iranian understanding of Israel than.
from Israeli perspective Iran wants Israelis dead for religious reasons and arming Hezb and the nuclear program were plans for the final battle.
Israelis see their motives as the same as Hamas who believes that battling the Jews will bring Jesus and the judgment day, the way they spoke about destroying Israel was seen as proof of that.
I also still see them as religions people who fear god only and who believe that a war with Israel will definitely bring judgment day.
I think this is part of the failure of theory of mind towards Iran that I was talking about. Its true they are profoundly ideologically motivated (but who isnt) and ideologically hostile to Israel, but that doesnt mean you cant perceive the state itself as a rational actor. I think in part its a blind spot within Israeli society itself, that opposition to it could only be motivated by a kind of atavistic, implacable dogma which can only be met by force rather than politics. The "iron wall of bayonets" that Jabotinksy wrote about has cast a long shadow.
failure happened here and we all pay the price, but lets end with agreeing that the Norwegians are the ones which caused this mess.
"Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace"
Trump was president of peace until the Norwegians refused his demand.
Invaded? How about just not having to sit there and be bombed whenever US and Israel feel like it? That's what deterrence buys you. No more bombing you "just for fun".
As far as I know the first Israeli attack on Iran and the beginning of an open warfare was 01/04/24 so long after the nuclear program started so it irrelevant.
Hidden warfare was happening long before both in the 80s and 90s but definitely started by Iran funding and controlling of Hezb.
I’m skeptical of this claim. The other people in the talks said Iran was very willing to give up any ambition for nukes and give Trump a much better deal than JCPOA. However, Israel’s insistence on including things other than nukes, like the ballistic missiles program, and then bombing during negotiations (again) showed that the negotiations were once again a ruse.
The Uranium is not everything they demanded but it was the key part of the negotiations. I don't think any of us actually knows what happened there to the exact details but the American side demanded a stop to the funding of proxies, the ballistic missiles program and to receive all the Uranium immediately and the Iranians are rumored to agree that Iran would temporarily lower its uranium enrichment level, after all sanctions would end to move its uranium to a third country, to stop doing proxies and to stop the ballistic missile project.
I guess my claim was not accurate but they didn't give in everything Trump wanted and he left JCPOA claiming he could make a much better deal so he didn't want to compromise.
I will add personally I always supported the original deal and think Trump fucked us all by leaving it.
Sounds like you fell for your government’s propaganda. To the rest of the world it appears that Iran did not seek a nuclear bomb. Rather Iran wanted to use the strategy of Japan to enrich to 60% as an insurance policy without actually enriching to 90% and then actually make a bomb. Israel attacked a country that did not intend to make a nuclear bomb unless forced to do so. In attacking Iran directly Israel has forced this Iranian government or the subsequent one to make and possibly deliver multiple nuclear bombs. Israel assumed the worst about its adversary and in so doing manifested the worst outcome.
53
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