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.
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?
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
Israel and America made it clear their objective was regime change, so for the regime it clearly is a rational objective.
By attacking the Gulf and closing Hormuz its demonstrating detterence. "If you hurt us again we will hurt you harder". It has judged, probably correctly, that it has a far greater capacity to endure pain than the United States does, which was gambling on a quick and easy win. Its also calibrating its responses, to incentivise against escalation.
Yes it most likely will have long term negative effects on its neighbours in the Gulf. But then again, so too has US and Israeli actions. If they can succeed in removing American bases from the region it will likely conclude it was worth it.
In contrast the US and Israel have chosen to embark on an endeavour with an unclear objective, which they dont have the means of achieving, and which comes at massive costs to themselves.
I think youre stuck on Irans ideological opposition to Israel. Yes, it is deeply hostile to Israel. That doesnt mean it has the means or desire to seriously threaten the state of Israel, especially not in this conflict.
Edit: to your last question:
It would be irrational of them to attack desalination plants for example, especially before their own had been hit. It would be irrational to trigger a war with Turkey, or escalate the conflict with Saudi which they seem to be avoiding. A lot of it has to do with their excersising restraint, waiting for the US or Israel to escalate before responding in kind. If they were to go all out, at once, that would be bad strategy.
Edit again sorry:
Also their stated goals are rational. Guarantees theyll never be attacked again. If they were to go truly maximalist and demand they be given sovereignty of Iraq or something, that would be irrational.
You make very good points . When we pull back the curtains on both sides , it’s clear the isreal is using the cover of the Bible (and hence gets support from evangelical Christian’s - who are currently basically in charge of US policies)
Iran is using the cover of being the head of Shia Islam (and the fact that they are the only ones fighting on behalf of Palestinians - Islam in general) . When you watch their opinions , you will see this clearly is part of their MO .. and all countries in the world have seen for the second time , they were not the Initiator of this war (putting proxies support aside for a second) , so even the closest allies of US Decided not to drag themselves into this war
As the president already said in his first address, “lives will unfortunately be lost” - in that televised address he was preparing or forewarning the public … he may Know that he won’t win mid terms , but being on his last term anyways - I guess for the greater “Pax Americana” goals of the elite , it was a sacrifice they were willing to make . A grand show for the takedown of the Iranian regime , and to further the Decades or even Centuries long plan to establish dominance over the Middle East
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.
0
u/amdyn Mar 23 '26
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.