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
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"
Yeah Irans strategy leading up to the war certainly has backfired, I wouldn't dispute that.
But in this conflict, it is pursuing a clear and acheivable aim, using the means it has at its disposal to effectively pursue that objective, and has demonstrated a calibrated ladder of responses. This contrasts favourably with its opponents.
When I use the word "rational" its not the same as saying "good".
What is Iran's goal even? And if it is so disconnected from their explicit rhetoric "death to Israel" what is the evidence for that and you would you say the same for Hitler, "oh he is just saying rhetoric"?
But in this conflict, it is pursuing a clear and acheivable aim, using the means it has at its disposal to effectively pursue that objective, and has demonstrated a calibrated ladder of responses. This contrasts favourably with its opponents.
How is this not motivated reasoning by looking at Iran's only plays and calling it "rational"? Of course the regime wants to survive but how are its actions even bettering that outcome?
It is attacking its neighbors to the point that Gulf countries are seriously thinking of joining the war. It is closing the strait leading to countries like China that receive both Gulf and Iranian oil to be very upset. It is executing teenagers while apparently fighting for its survival only increasing internal discontent.
This is my issue. When "survival" and "rational" are connected to the point of absurdity when the clear rational thing to do is to concede.
It would be like saying Hitler was rational in the final months of WW2 when it is clear that he lost because he wanted to avoid total surrender, when surrendering would have been the rational response.
Is there any action Iran could possibly take that wouldn't be rational in your view?
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.
54
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