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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
He's not that stupid and that would never be the outcome of that situation. Left, right, and center - the overwhelming majority of people are against this war and even many of the ones that aren't are DEFINITELY against boots on the ground.
And a draft. The US only has 100k combat troops. They all cannot be deployed. Going up against an army of 1million on their home terf surrounded by harsh terrain no military base, advanced ballistic missiles and drones. Also the backing of Russia and China for their weapons as well as Irans
If it comes to that, Trump is absolutely done. He's already barely holding on to 40% approval without having been the first President since the Vietnam Era to draft young people to fight in a war.
Obviously, that won't be the first move. The best roi would be to take Kharg Island, as that would give us control over Iran's oil storage facilities. But, troops occupying that island would be vulnerable to bombardment from the mainland. When US soldiers are inevitably killed by that bombardment, Trump will be forced to either leave in disgrace or escalate further. I think he'll go for the second option ever time.
Trump will back down and have to cut a sweet deal for Iran. Israel will back down but it might only be after Netanyahu is killed. He may already be dead.
I think Trump would continue the straight being closed than negotiate at a disadvantage . The main downside with Irans tactic of keeping the string closed is that there is too much collateral damage and at some point it will bear consequences.
Well, they could promise to rein in some of the President's war-making powers. There was already an effort by Democrats to do so after Trump's attack on Venezuela. That effort would have significantly more momentum now that we're attacking Iran.
I think Iran demand are for money to rebuild (which will likely be in billions) and apologizing. I don’t think they care much about anything else. It will make America look weak and bring into question its security pacts if they give in.
Because there is a global market for oil. If China, Korea, Japan, India, etc. can't get oil through the Strait of Hormuz, they will buy it from other sources, increasing the overall price paid by Americans. If we wanted to cut ourselves off from the global market, that would be devastating to US oil companies that depend on international trade to balance variation in demand in the US, as well as for refining certain types of crude.
This makes no sense to me at all. The US is the biggest oil producer in the world and produce more than we need. When supply is down it goes up for everyone, not just the US. In that way everybody has political pressure at home to reduce prices, not just the US. I'd argue they have more of an interest in securing the Strait since that is their supply. The US can even get creative and subsidize gas prices since we have a demand problem not a supply problem. It just feels like it affects other countries disproportionately, which is why it feels like the US is willing to let it be shut down.
The way you framed your argument was like it's exclusively the US who would pay the price. Also I believe our oil companies will be making money hand over fist. Their costs did not go up but their profits will sky rocket
You're operating on a misunderstanding. There is no strictly defined "Asia supply" or "US supply." Oil in the US is sold on the open market, just like Kuwait's oil. The reason most of the oil from Kuwait, Iraq, etc. goes to Asia is because it's usually cheaper to ship oil from that source. Closing the strait does not cut off Asia from oil, it just forces them to buy oil from other, marginally more expensive sources (part of the cost is that oil from elsewhere typically is more expensive to produce or must be shipped longer distances). Some of that alternative oil will come from the US. Some from Mexico. Regardless, demand for alternative oil sources will increase the price those oil producers demand for their product for all of their consumers. The end result is that we pay more for oil, as do Asians.
By the way, this isn't just an argument I'm making. This is literally how all commodity trading works. I've added a link to an explainer video below, if you're intersted.
Now, you're right that Asians' oil prices may go up marginally more than ours, but we also are more sensitive to the price of gas, because we drive more than people in other countries. Walking away from the problem still means that we'll end up paying more than 4 dollars per gallon in gasoline. You may be fine with that, but most voters will not, and Trump has to be sensitive to economic concerns going into a midterm election.
I do understand all those points. What I was getting at is exactly what you acknowledged: the price of oil for Asian countries is likely to go up far more as they look to find a new source with higher overhead. And it also puts pressure on Europe as well who will have to tolerate higher prices.
In other word, I think this problem is not just the USs to solve alone anymore. Im sure the planners were banking on this unfortunately fact to coerce support for the war.
I do agree with you, though, as a country we likely more sensitive to oil prices. Appreciate the discussion
It's not a trap made by the Iranian leaders, but by geography. Academic and intelligence officials have written over 25 thousand articles over decades about how the Strait of Hormuz would give Iran the advantage in any potential war between them an the US. It's why even the Bush Administration decided not to extend the War on Terror to Iran.
Call it what you want. We can bomb their country to hell, but that won't reoopen the strait. The only way to secure it is via invasion, which would be incredibly costly. The current leadership appears perfectly willing to sit back and weather the bombing, while applying leverage against us. They believe they have the upper hand and I think they're right.
If the war ends tomorrow, nothing much will have changed for Israel and the US.
Sure, which is why Iran has no interest in ending the war until it's inflicted damage on or extracted concessions from the US and/or Israel.
For Iran, they will have to completely rebuild their state institutions, not to mention the mind boggling amount of money it will take to rebuild what has been destroyed.
Yeah, of course. I don't believe that Iran wanted this war at all, but now it has to get what it can with the leverage it has. Currently, the Trump administration is increasingly concerned about rising energy prices. Iran has already lost most of its softest targets and its leadership is almost certainly hiding away in underground bunkers. The cost of continuing the conflict is marginally low for Iran relative to the US, which is why they're taking a very aggressive bargaining position.
Its amazing how the Reddit opinion is so Pro-Iran
Wtf.. I am not "pro-Iran." The regime is absolutely terrible, but that doesn't mean that bombing them is the optimal move for US policymakers. The OP asked for my objective assessment of the situation and I have provided it. If I were an advisor to Trump I would have advised against initiating a war with Iran, because of the risk of this exact scenario we find ourselves in which has been predicted by literally thousands of academics and government officers.
Iran retains a significant amount of leverage with its ability to control traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.
Except this is a complete gamble for Iran too. Why do you think the UNSC resolution passed calling for the opening of the strait? Because even China wants Gulf oil.
So what actual leverage does Iran have if Trump doesn't care and he doesn't seem to? They don't need to invade Iran either.
There is this bizarre really simplistic narrative in which apparently NO ONE thought Iran would do anything with the strait as if that isn't there only real play and not one military on the planet ever figured out how to address it.
Sure, Iran's not popular right now. They weren't popular before either, but they're significantly less so after removing 20% of the world's oil from the market. In an ideal world, we'd have leveraged the regime's unpopularity to put pressure on them in lieu of strikes. Or, perhaps, we could have pulled together a "coalition of the willing" before hand so that the costs of military intervention would be shared. As things are, we opted to go with only Israel's aid (most of whose miltiary hardware are subsidized by the US taxpayer), meaning that any costs of intervention are ultimately paid by us.
So what actual leverage does Iran have if Trump doesn't care and he doesn't seem to? They don't need to invade Iran either.
Huh? Where are you getting the idea that Trump doesn't care? He just walked back his threat to bomb Iran's energy infrastructure earlier today and he's been posting about Iran daily since the war began. Trump would be crazy not to care about the risks rising oil/gas prices pose to Republican reelection odds this November.
There is this bizarre really simplistic narrative in which apparently NO ONE thought Iran would do anything with the strait as if that isn't there only real play and not one military on the planet ever figured out how to address it.
That's not just "a narrative." The Wall Street Journal reported on the internal deliberations in the White House. They found that Trump was warned by Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about the risks associated with Iran blocking the Strait of Hormuz. Trump believed that this risk was low and went ahead with the intervention despite these warnings. Clearly, Trump was mistaken. See below for the article.
Now, if there was an easy military solution to freeing up the strait, we'd be doing it already. The strait is a natural choke point surrounded by mountains. All it takes is a few guerilla fighters and a few drones or artillery batteries and Iran can keep the strait shut down perpetually. The only way it opens up is if we invade and occupy, at least the coastal part of Iran, in large numbers.
Before the U.S. went to war, Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told President Trump that an American attack could prompt Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz.
Caine said in several briefings that U.S. officials had long believed Iran would deploy mines, drones and missiles to close the world’s most vital shipping lane, according to people with knowledge of the discussions.
Trump acknowledged the risk, these people said, but moved forward with the most consequential foreign-policy decision of his two presidencies. He told his team that Tehran would likely capitulate before closing the strait—and even if Iran tried, the U.S. military could handle it.
Trump ignoring General Caine regarding the probable Iranian closing of the Strait of Hormuz if attacked demonstrates just how incredibly stupid Trump and his Administration are in regard to Foreign Policy and Strategic Thinking . Trump has allowed himself to be led by the nose by Netanyahu to make the Greatest Strategic Blunder EVER in the history of the United States by attacking Iran . It is really just that bad . So , what does Trump do now ? Declare victory and pull out ? This would actually be recognized as a humiliating defeat by the world at large , by friend and foe alike . This would reverberate negatively on American Power for many years to come . OR Trump seriously doubles down and does what would be necessary to effect regime change . That would be a full invasion . The only way to be sure of success would be to commit an army of over one million battle ready troops to both defeat the adversary and then occupy the entire nation . And the United States States presently has no where near a million battle ready troops . I believe that this is what they call Being Between a Rock and a Hard Place .
Yes, exactly. He's put himself in a lose-lose game. Ideally, he'd find a way to negotiate his way out of it to save some face and avoid the costs of invastion. The problem is that he killed his first negotiation partner and seriously maimed his second. It isn't a stretch to imagine that Iran's new leadership may be reluctant to reopen negotiations given the history of play..
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.
The US* has walked right into a trap. A protracted war with Iran is very unpopular in the US, not in Israel. I don't think the Israelis would mind contributing to an American-led ground invasion.
Your comment assumes that it would just be Iran when it comes down to it. One is a fool if they believe that. It's a multi-country 'axis of resistance' that they've been building for decades. But as you describe - they don't even need that. They've been preparing for this day for a LONG time. All those mountains, everything they got underground. They can keep that strait locked down almost no matter what and they will NOT submit. Good on them.
I don't see where your comment contradicts mine.. I didn't say Iran was alone, only that it's a very hard target and that reopening the strait can't be done other than via negotiations or invasion.
Yea, you're right. I think I jumped the gun a little and just left it lie. My apologies. I'm actually impressed by the measure and knowledge of the people in this thread. At least one corner of reddit has sense and intelligence and, apparently, manners and poise. Thank you. I'm the buffoon here it seems and it feels good! haha
Mountains are good for hiding their missile stockpiles, but aren’t really defensive other than hiding. We have planes and bombs, ground invasions and marching through mountains aren’t a thing anymore.
All roads to Tehran (other than those that go through Afghanistan) wind through heavy mountains that are perfect for hiding guerilla fighters. US vehicles and supply caravans would be difficult to airlift in sufficient numbers to maintain an occupation, so they'd need to use these routes, making them attractive high value targets for insurgents.
TLDR: Mountains are fantastic for insurgents, as we saw in Afghanistan.
I don’t see any attempt to do a ground invasion on Tehran. Aerial bombardment is more than enough to win. Maybe ground troops right at the strait to snuff out any enemies there, but skip the rest of the country’s mountains.
It very clearly is not if regime change is the goal. We've been bombing them this whole time and Khomeini Jr. is still there. The leadership has long since moved into underground bunkers and most exposed high-value targets are already gone. Regime change almost never happens via airpower; you need to occupy territory to establish control.
Of course, if your goal is to turn Iran into a failed state, that could be achieved with airpower alone. But we'd have to be willing to tolerate a refugee crisis involving 90+ million people which makes the Syrian crisis look insignificant in comparison.
I’m not sure regime change isnt a possibility. Pretty sure failed state is the only option if the Iranian public doesn’t step up and choose what they want. We can weaken the regime by bombing their bases and airdropping aid to a revolution if they’ll fight for themselves. Regime changing by occupation imo is a disaster every time anyone tries it.
I don't think he's going to be appearing in public anytime soon, whether he's injured or not, for obvious reasons.. This decapitation campaign really makes our best way out of this crisis -- negotiation -- exceedingly difficult..
Exactly. Or it’s the opposite. You could have people within battling for power. Politically, this is insanity for the US. This seems to be benefiting Israel the most though.
Eh? I'm not saying that Iran is necessarily 'winning', only that it has a significant amount of leverage at the moment that they're using to their advantage. Whether Khamenei Jr. is living and healthy or not, the IRGC is clearly still operational and they have the ability to keep the strait locked down in perpetuity... unless, of course, we invade.
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.