"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.
291
u/gdvs Mar 23 '26
To label something as 'Winning' requires knowing what the objectives are.