Iran Super Thread- Merged

[brihard]

I feel like this describes me pretty well right about now...

View attachment 100924

Schrodinger’s strait.

Trump is reportedly not happy with developments and is back to bluster and threats.

Iran-US war live: Trump threatens to ‘take over’ Iran if Strait of Hormuz is closed

US president’s threats come as Vance joins other US officials in Zurich to hammer out peace deal terms with a battery of Tehran's leaders

www.independent.co.uk

And a longer, more comprehensive Sunday morning read from WaPo.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/06/21/trump-confronts-new-hurdles-bid-peace-deal-with-iran/

No paywall: https://archive.is/ZtJL8

Trump’s most present conundrum is that he’s now getting pressed on Israel in Lebanon, and Iran is threatening to again pull a lever that Trump has shown exceeds his pain threshold. Iran has shown they can survive existing U.S. actions taken to back deterrence, so the U.S. may need to come up with a new deterrence strategy. Bombing as we saw it wasn’t opening the Strait, and an open Strait seems to be the single key objective at this point.

We could see a bumpy week. As has been and remains the case, watch Israel, watch for any signs of them telegraphing deescalation in Lebanon, and watch for indications of Netenyahu’s willingness (if any) to shift gears and play ball with Trump. They’re communicating some willingness to cooperate with a ‘ceasefire’ with Hezbollah, but Iran’s demands are much more maximalist than that and include Israeli withdrawal. Not sure if Iran will be willing to flex at all. And if Israeli troops keep dying, I don’t personally think Israel will hold back from major reprisals. A lot hinges on Iran’s willingness and ability to constrain Hezbollah here.

 

[Altair]

While I find this debate about Israel interesting, I didn't want to chime in. This quote above made me stop, however.

It seems to me that when , as a young country with a history of about 80 years, you have been attacked on three occasions by your (then more powerful) neighbours, with a view to eradicate you, and then suffered constant biting at the ankle from these neighbours "dogs", that in and of itself would lead any country to view itself as under siege and turn you bellicose.

Listen, i understand the position Israel is in.

But those sets of circumstances do not lend itself to other western democracies.

And Israel, due to their bellicose nature tend to do things that only make their situation worse, example, settlements.

This is also out of step with other western liberal democracies.

So i think its fair to exclude them from the mindset of a typical western liberal democracy when they prove themselves to be a massive outlier in terms of western liberal democracies.

 

[suffolkowner]

Listen, i understand the position Israel is in.

But those sets of circumstances do not lend itself to other western democracies.

And Israel, due to their bellicose nature tend to do things that only make their situation worse, example, settlements.

This is also out of step with other western liberal democracies.

So i think its fair to exclude them from the mindset of a typical western liberal democracy when they prove themselves to be a massive outlier in terms of western liberal democracies.

they could remove the settlements in the WB like they did in Gaza. That worked out well
wouldnt want to kidnap the leaders of foreign countries or anything
or siphon money out of the country and promote hostile misinformation
Israel might not be Norway but its a lot closer than the alternative

 

[Brad Sallows]

Service fees, dont ya ken?

Beside the point. My point is that whatever it is called, I doubt it lasts.

They dont have a choice.

How does that work? The US administration is denying that it is proposing to directly give Iran $300B. So by what means are others to be compelled to give or invest?

I'm not saying Iran gets out of this unscathed, obviously they got wrecked.

Yes, and that's what most people aren't grasping, or perhaps not grasping sufficiently. There is a line with a slope, S. There are a lot of other lines with slopes < S, some << S. Those lines represent the growth over time of the productive powers of nations, with the US's being "S". (It is about more than just the "E" in DIME; productive power represents not only the raw economic and resource potential at hand but also the ability to employ it at scale and to high degrees of technical complexity.) Most of those lines increase over time, but Iran's just got displaced abruptly down. Bastiat's "Broken Window" essay explains the concept underpinning why this matters.

Almost everything the US expended was a consumable, including weapons systems. The US didn't lose any factories or bridges. Iran did lose assets in the non-consumable category. Iran has lost. People are too wired to the politics, which long-term don't matter.

Winners, end of story.

Losers, long-term, I expect. Perhaps it becomes like N Korea; perhaps its "Wall" falls, perhaps its need to constantly rebuild and its self-inflicted desire to pay proxies just keeps its useful growth rate low enough that it becomes one of the irrelevant nations.

 

[Altair]

Beside the point. My point is that whatever it is called, I doubt it lasts.

Don't know how it can be stopped.

How does that work? The US administration is denying that it is proposing to directly give Iran $300B. So by what means are others to be compelled to give or invest?

Long term disruptions of the Strait will cost more than 300b. In terms of what hurts the gulf states less, I imagine 300b is the smaller number.

Yes, and that's what most people aren't grasping, or perhaps not grasping sufficiently. There is a line with a slope, S. There are a lot of other lines with slopes < S, some << S. Those lines represent the growth over time of the productive powers of nations, with the US's being "S". (It is about more than just the "E" in DIME; productive power represents not only the raw economic and resource potential at hand but also the ability to employ it at scale and to high degrees of technical complexity.) Most of those lines increase over time, but Iran's just got displaced abruptly down. Bastiat's "Broken Window" essay explains the concept underpinning why this matters.

Almost everything the US expended was a consumable, including weapons systems. The US didn't lose any factories or bridges. Iran did lose assets in the non-consumable category. Iran has lost. People are too wired to the politics, which long-term don't matter.

In terms of goals, the USA didn't accomplish any of its stated objectives. Thats a loss. Tactically, sure, the USA won every engagement.

But if that's the metric we use for success, the USA "won" in vietnam and "won" in Afghanistan.

Losers, long-term, I expect. Perhaps it becomes like N Korea; perhaps its "Wall" falls, perhaps its need to constantly rebuild and its self-inflicted desire to pay proxies just keeps its useful growth rate low enough that it becomes one of the irrelevant nations.

Long term, who the hell knows.

Short term, Iran accomplished every one of their stated objectives and then some, winners.

~Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat~

Sun Tzu

As true 2500 years ago as it is today.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Don't know how it can be stopped.

Don't pay. If Iran interferes with shipping, punish it.

Long term disruptions of the Strait will cost more than 300b. In terms of what hurts the gulf states less, I imagine 300b is the smaller number.

Possibly. Slippery slope applies dealing with tyrants and aggressive nations. Big problems are most easily solved while still small. Appeasement is a strategic error. An exception is to buy time to prepare to halt it and reverse it.

In terms of goals, the USA didn't accomplish any of its stated objectives. Thats a loss. Tactically, sure, the USA won every engagement.

Three yardsticks to choose from. What the belligerents declare for themselves, what others try to impose, what really matters in the long term.

But if that's the metric we use for success, the USA "won" in vietnam and "won" in Afghanistan.

Vietnam, they kind of did. Militarily they won. Politically they threw the victory away by choice. Communism advanced a little further in SE Asia, but mostly stopped, and we can see around the world that particular tide is receding. Other US-backed regimes recognized they were going to have to moderate because the US was unlikely to pull anyone else's chestnuts out of a fire after the experiences in South Korea and South Vietnam. The US could afford the cost of the war much more than the Soviet Union could afford the cost of propping up the North; long-term, the USSR went down and flushing their much more limited resources away was one of the contributing factors.

Short term, Iran accomplished every one of their stated objectives and then some, winners.

Nothing has been accomplished. There is a ceasefire and a negotiated plan to negotiate.

~Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat~

Sun Tzu

As true 2500 years ago as it is today.

We have different views on what ancients might have thought about the strategies which eventually unseat tyrants. I am confident Iran is measurably worse off right now, will not get much if any relief on a scale that matters, and will continue to decline.

As long as Iran backs Israel's enemies, anything Israel might legitimately do to Iran's proxies and the regions they can control may legitimately be done directly to Iran. See also, photos of Gaza.