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.