Iran Super Thread- Merged

[Altair]

If that were war crimes, Clinton, Bush, Obama would be on the hook.

Examples?

Im not doubting you, i just dont know specific examples.

For the record, if a bridge has military utility, moving troops and the like, it's a valid target. If infrastructure is solely of a civilian nature it's a war crime.

 

[QV]

I edited the last as you posted.

I'll take the position with confidence that the US will only intend to take out dual use infra. That's my starting point.

 

[Altair]

If that were war crimes, Clinton, Bush, Obama would be on the hook.

• Under Clinton:
  • During the 1999 Kosovo War / NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, NATO struck bridges, electrical grids, broadcasting facilities including Serbia’s state TV headquarters, factories, and transportation infrastructure.
  • NATO argued these supported Serbian military operations.
  • Human rights groups and some legal scholars questioned attacks on civilian broadcasting and power infrastructure.

I would say no

• Under Bush:
  • During the 2003 Iraq War, the U.S. targeted communications systems, electrical infrastructure connected to command-and-control, roads, bridges, oil facilities, and government buildings.
  • The “shock and awe” campaign aimed to cripple Iraq’s ability to govern and fight quickly.
  • There were also major controversies over civilian casualties, damage to water/electric systems, and whether some strikes were disproportionate.
  • Bush-era counterterrorism operations also included drone strikes and attacks outside conventional battlefields.

I would tentatively say no.

• Under Obama:
  • U.S. operations against Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant included strikes on oil facilities, cash depots, roads, bridges, dams, and economic infrastructure used to finance ISIS operations.
  • The administration explicitly defended targeting “war-sustaining” infrastructure tied to ISIS revenue generation.
  • In Iraq, Obama also authorized strikes around critical infrastructure like the Mosul and Haditha dams to prevent ISIS from controlling them

Ya, that's a war crime.

 

[Altair]

I edited the last as you posted.

I'll take the position with confidence that the US will only intend to take out dual use infra. That's my starting point.

Dual use is fair play.

 

[QV]

It's not out of options. It's just options.

 

[Kirkhill]

I edited the last as you posted.

I'll take the position with confidence that the US will only intend to take out dual use infra. That's my starting point.

The problem with the "dual use" formulation is that a bridge can transport a truck and a tank. If you take out a bridge because a tank will cross it the tank will cross at another bridge. Therefore all bridges are dual use and legitimate targets.

Likewise with power stations powering homes, hospitals and command centres.

Dual use justifies us spending military dollars on civilian infrastructue. It also justifies our enemies employing military force against civilian infrastructure funded by military dollars.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Anonymous sources are worthless. Journalism passed the point of no ethical return long ago (eg. asking for rebuttal with insufficient time before going to press).

'Deepthroat' enters the chat

 

[McG]

The problem with the "dual use" formulation is that …

There is only a problem if you don’t know LoAC and attempt to model it from single aspects in isolation from all others. Proportionality always matters.

 

[HavokFour]

Here you go -

U.S. intelligence says Iran can outlast Trump’s Hormuz blockade for months — The Washington Post

A confidential intelligence community assessment delivered to the White House also finds that Iran retains a substantial missile and drone arsenal.

stocks.apple.com

Alternative.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/05/07/cia-intelligence-iran-trump-blockade-missiles/

Archive

Iran still has:

75% of it's mobile launchers.
70% of it's missile stockpile.

 

[KevinB]

If the west helps they will be getting into the backseat of the bus driven by the drunks, nowhere near the steering wheel.

Best to stay off and hope the drunks dont kill anyone before they crash.

Well that seems to be working so well now?

Make a coalition, build up a credible force for invasion, move appropriate assets into theatre for defense of the area — all the things that made sense to have in place prior to the kickoff of the current season.

Militarily Iran is easy to conquer, hard to occupy. Yes there is a difference.

There is only a problem if you don’t know LoAC and attempt to model it from single aspects in isolation from all others. Proportionality always matters.

In theory, but let’s face it, the victory writes the rules, or at least interprets their meaning.

A lot of infrastructure can be legitimately targeted due to the nature of the Iranian government. At least from the point of view of anyone who has a say in the situation.

We justified dropping nukes on Japan to save allies lives, we justified the Dresden Fire bombing. Yes this isn’t the 1940’s, and I do not see anyone in the West advocating for casually carpet bombing Iran, but there is the ability to destroy or interdict various infrastructure used by the Regime with a low level of collateral damage to the civilian population.

Russia has used incendiary weapons on civilians in Ukraine - I don’t see anyone stopping them.

But at the end of the day, I think @Brad Sallows is correct when he says a lot of the senior figures in the Regime has little interest in losing their lives for the cause. Capitulation in the face over overwhelming force aligned against them I beleive would a likely COA if they believed that force would be used.

The question everyone should be asking is not why we got in this mess - that can happen later — but how to get the world out of it at a better place.
Leaving the current system in place in Iran isn’t doing that.

 

[Brad Sallows]

You know you're out of options when you need to move on to war crimes.

They aren't necessarily war crimes. "Military advantage" can be almost anything that gets you closer to your aims. "Proportionality" is just a subjective attempt to be reasonable about what is done to secure military advantage.

If a government is determined to go down like Hitler in the bunker or the militarists in Japan, then the latitude for what constitutes "military advantage" is going to be extraordinarily broad. There's no "nyah, nyah, we can hole up like moles and there's nothing left that you can reasonably do so you lose". (If there is such a rule, or rather if anti-war activists and people who merely want to see Trump fail manage to successfully insist that there is, then LOAC is dead. It can't be an impediment to victory.)

I reiterate that the results of precise attacks on infrastructure from the air will be a lot less damage than what would be visited on the country by a ground invasion, if a serious ground invasion were made - probably by a couple of orders of magnitude.

 

[HavokFour]

US military strikes Iran’s Qeshm port and Bandar Abbas, Fox News reporter says

The U.S. military on Thursday carried out ‌strikes on Iran’s Qeshm port and Bandar Abbas, a Fox News reporter said in a post on X, citing a ⁠senior U.S. official.

www.reuters.com

The official said the strikes do not mean a restarting of the war or an end to the ceasefire announced on April 7, according to the ‌post.

Umm, what would be the difference?

 

[Altair]

Well that seems to be working so well now?

That is firmly Trump and Bibi's fault.

Make a coalition, build up a credible force for invasion, move appropriate assets into theatre for defense of the area — all the things that made sense to have in place prior to the kickoff of the current season.

You know the time to make a coalition? Before you launch a war. And that's only if the parties agree to join. What sane western leader wants to join this? You will learn the next step in the operation via a tweet. Only for that to flip the next day, via another tweet. Only for that to change in a presser.

Imagine a Starmer or Carney needing to respond as to whether their forces will be involved in the death of a civilization, or bombing bridges and power plants?

That's the reality. They join trump, they are passengers along for the ride, and need to explain to their populations the madness coming out of the white house while their men and women in uniform are coming home in body bags.

No, there is no sane western leader joining this reality TV war. Especially after Trump has

Talked 51st state to Canada

Threatened to conquer Greenland

Threatened NATO

Launched a trade war on allies

Launched a war on Iran without consulting anyone.

No, trump is a once in a generation president that decided America doesnt need anything from the world. So they dont get help. They want to do some regime change? Fine, go march on Tehran. By themselves.

 

[McG]

least interprets their meaning.

A lot of infrastructure can be legitimately targeted due to the nature of the Iranian government.

I’m not making an assessment about what is or is not a war crime. Only noting that we have tools and principles to determine what right looks like. Overly simplistic analogies that only consider a single aspect of LoAC in isolation will results in wrong decisions that can go wrong in either direction.

The question everyone should be asking is not why we got in this mess - that can happen later — but how to get the world out of it at a better place.

The first challenge will be getting everyone to agree on what the right end state looks like and on how to get there. Many nations won’t agree that regime change is necessary, and Trump has burned every bridge he would need to sell a solution that prioritizes US desires. If he needs to build a coalition, he may need to accept someone else’s vision for the end state.

Depending on the answers to to that first challenge, the next difficulty may be convincing other nations that they really should play a role in cleaning up Trump’s mess after putting up with 1 1/3 years of his belligerence & abuses.

 

[Brad Sallows]

You know the time to make a coalition? Before you launch a war.

There was never going to be a coalition including any relevant European nation with Israel as the second-ranking partner in a war against an Islamic country. France, Germany, and UK are probably at the head of a long list of European countries with substantial fractious Muslim minorities containing young men willing to be extraordinarily violent. They are political prisoners in their own homes, incapable of even policing some neighbourhoods and unwilling to offend mere protestors. Coalition negotiations with European countries strong enough to matter would have been dead-end wastes of time, with information leaks as an unwanted bonus.

Launched a war on Iran without consulting anyone.

Israel was consulted. Two makes a coalition. Small, but powerful. US plus Israel might be more militarily effective than US plus any amount of Europeans thrown into the pot.

Fine, go march on Tehran. By themselves.

And for the rest of the world : Fine, solve whatever problems are spun off that affect you. By yourselves.

Fanciful notions about Trump's America notwithstanding, Iran's government might be the closest approximation to Hitler's that we have today - by a long lead. Tyrannical, fanatical, militarily governed, expansionist, anti-Jewish, indifferent to the burdens inflicted on the people, and generally all-around shit-disturbing. And some people are having a hard time not talking up its prospects as if they admire it or want it to succeed.

 

[Altair]

There was never going to be a coalition including any relevant European nation with Israel as the second-ranking partner in a war against an Islamic country. France, Germany, and UK are probably at the head of a long list of European countries with substantial fractious Muslim minorities containing young men willing to be extraordinarily violent. They are political prisoners in their own homes, incapable of even policing some neighbourhoods and unwilling to offend mere protestors. Coalition negotiations with European countries strong enough to matter would have been dead-end wastes of time, with information leaks as an unwanted bonus.

Sure, whatever. Trump should shut up about it.

Nobody here should bring it up.

It was never going to happen and the odds have only gone down since.

Trump and Bibi launched this stupid quagmire themselves, they can find their way out the same fashion.

Israel was consulted. Two makes a coalition. Small, but powerful. US plus Israel might be more militarily effective than US plus any amount of Europeans thrown into the pot.

The USA was consulted...

And for the rest of the world : Fine, solve whatever problems are spun off that affect you. By yourselves.

They have. But they can still point the finger at who is to blame for this. In this case, Bibi and Trump.

And it's nice to see the davos effect. I never thought I would see Germany and Italy telling Trump off but here we are. Middle powers getting together and saying the obvious, in this case, Iran is humiliating Trump.

Fanciful notions about Trump's America notwithstanding, Iran's government might be the closest approximation to Hitler's that we have today - by a long lead. Tyrannical, fanatical, militarily governed, expansionist, anti-Jewish, indifferent to the burdens inflicted on the people, and generally all-around shit-disturbing. And some people are having a hard time not talking up its prospects as if they admire it or want it to succeed.

Iran is run by terrible people.

So it's all the more pathetic that the one chance to get the job done right and the Israelis and Americans bungle the job so spectacularly that Iran is not only standing months later, but are trying to dictate terms because they think that they are winning.

Meanwhile the global economy is about to go into fuel shock, inflation will spike and millions will starve and for what?

A few Iranian ships at the bottom of the sea, and a dead 89 year old.

Yay. Big success. I cannot wait for the parade.

 

[ytz]

Well that seems to be working so well now?

Make a coalition, build up a credible force for invasion, move appropriate assets into theatre for defense of the area — all the things that made sense to have in place prior to the kickoff of the current season.

Militarily Iran is easy to conquer, hard to occupy. Yes there is a difference.

How and why?

For everybody else this is way, way worse than Iraq in 2003. "Freedom fries" seems cute in hindsight.

Iraq was the gift that kept on giving with ISIS. Now you're asking countries who saw how that went to sign on to an even bigger blunder (from their perspective)?

And for what? So that in 20 years, another POTUS can just say their troops were standing around doing nothing?

I don't think Americans understand the depth of anger in Europe right now. And quite a few probably don't care or even think Europe deserves it. Fair enough. But it's quite frankly audacious to go from "We're invading Greenland," in January, to, "Y'all need to suit up and join us in Iran."

Europe has its hands full anyway supporting Ukraine, the war that America seems to have forgotten.

 

[ytz]

Quite frankly I do think others would have signed on if there looked to be a reasonable chance of success and if there seemed to be a plan. But right now it really looks like the Trump administration just wants bagholders and fall guys so they can cut and run. Anybody signing up risks being blamed for the Trump Administration's failures.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Iran is run by terrible people.

The US is run by terrible people. Iran is run by people somewhere between Hitler and Stalin. Even Putin isn't that bad.

 

[Altair]

Quite frankly I do think others would have signed on if there looked to be a reasonable chance of success and if there seemed to be a plan.

This war is the more unpopular than Iraq. At the end of Iraq. Now. And those are opinions of Americans. It's WORSE internationally.

Sir, the west are democracies. Who wants to commit political seppuku? Who wants to bet their political career on Trump and Bibi? One of them has a warrant for war crimes. The other aspires to join him.

But right now it really looks like the Trump administration just wants bagholders and fall guys so they can cut and run. Anybody signing up risks being blamed for the Trump Administration's failures.

It's going to be quite a thing to see in 10-15 years when the world points at this moment in history as to why they still refuse to join the US on their foreign adventures

The damage to americas soft and hard power due to one man and his band of merry yes men is nearly impossible to calculate.

I feel bad for future presidents but elections have consequences.