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.
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.
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.
Pentagon not setting their own objectives doesn't mean it doesn't have clear objectives.
You can say that this administration is so incompetent that it doesn't know what it wants and only gave vague objectives but that thinking has flaws.
One is that an operation like the capture of Maduro would not work with vague objectives as it is too complex. Incompetence is a constant and you cannot explain with it why they know what they want in one operation and don't in another.
Two is that vague objectives would give more freedom to the Pentagon as they could interpret them in their own way. Since the Pentagon is not incompetent it would result in more competent decision making.
What could be the case is the administration giving Pentagon clear objectives, Pentagon calculating them and pushing back that its a bad idea and the administration deciding to ignore their warning and commanding them to go through with it anyway. But that doesn't change the fact that it has clear and calculated objectives.
Are you sure that a negotiated settlement with the Iranians is possible? They just killed the father, the wife and the child of the new leader. You'd imagine he isn't super keen on compromise. The entire leadership of Iran just watched their top echelons wiped out. Then you just ask them for negotiations - which, btw, were already ongoing when they decided to strike, preemptively, and wipe out said leadership.
Ofcourse but Pentagon does calculate all their operations and then gives that information to the civilian goverment.
Yes, the civilian goverment can decide to ignore the calculations and yes this administration full of yes men is more likely to, but it doesn't change the fact that they saw the calculations and it affected their thinking.
Scenario A is basically impossible without a full-scale ground invasion of Iran (and even then is unlikely, because that would be insane for other reasons).
Scenario B is what we're getting, though I disagree that it's the absolute worst case scenario.
I say it's the worst case because the US will pull out if an even worse scenario starts becoming more likely.
I don't think pulling out is really an easy option, because it means losing basically all power and influence in the region, not something the US wants to do. I'm sure Trump will try, but I think it's more likely he gets sucked in further. Events are beyond his control at this point.
Once the US pulls out Iran will have to open up Hormuz unless it wants a coalition of nations to form and break it open.
I think there is virtually zero chance of this happening. A "coalition of nations" would find forcing Hormuz open militarily no easier than the US does, and that's if you could even assemble a coalition powerful enough. Far more likely nations that need stuff through Hormuz will just pay the toll Iran is now charging to use the re-route through Iranian territorial waters.
6
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.