Iran Super Thread- Merged

[Colin Parkinson]

That theory of victory brings an immense amount of risk with it. The Saudis could lose a lot of key infrastructure even in the course of a tactically successful attempt to do what you describe. What you describe is an existential risk to the Houthis, and they would likely respond accordingly. Iran has proven that threatening sufficient destruction of long-lead energy infrastructure can serve to deter military action. The Houthis don’t need to land many or frequent hits to make this extremely costly not just for Saudi, but for any economy directly or indirectly dependent on Red Sea energy trade flows. A lot of the Hormuz dynamics are equally in play here.

What makes you think they won't try to destroy Saudi infrastructure in a slow drip method? I will be blunt, I don't think the "forever war" is sustainable anymore. Iran is struggling, the internal power fights show that clearly, they have far less means to support their allies now than ever before. You can not appease them, even the insanely generous deal the US offered was not good enough for the IRGC. The only thing your method achieve is a short respite, while the IRGC rearms themselves and their proxies for the next round and then repeat all of this again.

 

[brihard]

What makes you think they won't try to destroy Saudi infrastructure in a slow drip method? I will be blunt, I don't think the "forever war" is sustainable anymore. Iran is struggling, the internal power fights show that clearly, they have far less means to support their allies now than ever before. You can not appease them, even the insanely generous deal the US offered was not good enough for the IRGC. The only thing your method achieve is a short respite, while the IRGC rearms themselves and their proxies for the next round and then repeat all of this again.

You forget that for years those waterways were open and not threatened, nor were refineries and LNG terminals getting plonked by drones and missiles.

Iran and the Houthis are both rational actors. If they’re shooting at and smashing stuff it’s because they assess it makes sense to, and the cost benefit analysis, factoring in retaliatory action, makes sense.

I believe that the world has seen a real shift in threat picture given how relatively cheap and potent long range strike weapons have become. The math has changed somewhat but significantly on mutually assured economic destruction, and advanced western states can no longer impose their will militarily with impunity; stuff that matters to use is now much more readily hittable by the other guy. And yes that means that suddenly some belligerent parties have more leverage than they used to.

Up until earlier this winter that leverage was mostly kept in check by mutual desire not to suffer the costs of war, but Trump screwed that up with his half-baked war on Iran. So now they and other belligerents have shrugged and started hitting back in ways they could not before, and we’re seeing a mismatch between high volume cheap strike weapons versus limited number exquisite air defenses that were more calibrated against the threats of fire or ten years ago.

The pendulum will swing back in the fullness of time, but for now the balance of power is sitting on a stool with an unexpectedly wonky leg. “We’ll beat the fucking shit out of them” isn’t as one-sided a proposition as it was up to just a few short years ago. Parties who are overly reliant on that strategic thinking are learning about these shifts the hard way now. And the world economy is collateral damage.

 

[Brad Sallows]

And yes that means that suddenly some belligerent parties have more leverage than they used to.

The heart of the matter.

"We're going to behave like bandits, as we have done for years, and if we think you threaten to extinguish us, we'll behave even more like bandits."

Might as well deal with the bandits decisively the first time. No point going through a series of appeasements and escalations a la 1930s and still ending up at the same point. "Challenge accepted."

 

[RangerRay]

I’m starting to think the only thing that will end this is a full scale invasion of Iran, which will be an even bigger quagmire.

 

[Altair]

I’m starting to think the only thing that will end this is a full scale invasion of Iran, which will be an even bigger quagmire.

Optimistic of you, thinking this will end.

It wont end.

Dem president comes into office, makes a deal.

GOP president comes into office, tears up deal, bombs Iran.

So on and so forth.

 

[brihard]

The heart of the matter.

"We're going to behave like bandits, as we have done for years, and if we think you threaten to extinguish us, we'll behave even more like bandits."

Might as well deal with the bandits decisively the first time. No point going through a series of appeasements and escalations a la 1930s and still ending up at the same point. "Challenge accepted."

“Deal with them decisively” like blockade their ports, decapitation a bunch of their political and military leadership, sanction all their trade, and bomb the hell out of them for a few months?

That’s not a bad idea, and I’m surprised it hasn’t been thought of before. It just might be worth a try.

 

[dapaterson]

“Deal with them decisively” like blockade their ports, decapitation a bunch of their political and military leadership, sanction all their trade, and bomb the hell out of them for a few months?

That’s not a bad idea, and I’m surprised it hasn’t been thought of before. It just might be worth a try.

Think of how many times you can announce victory and a peace treaty!

 

[Altair]

Think of how many times you can announce victory and a peace treaty!

Two ways to think about it.

One-With 20ish victories and peace declarations, a nobel peace prize should be a shoe in.

Two-Claims to have ended 8 wars globally. Cannot end the one he started.

 

[brihard]

Think of how many times you can announce victory and a peace treaty!

It’ll definitely eliminate any of the annoying barriers they’ve put up for maritime trade.

 

[McG]

“Deal with them decisively” like blockade their ports, decapitation a bunch of their political and military leadership, sanction all their trade, and bomb the hell out of them for a few months?

None of that is decisive. I think decisive is boots on mainland ground, not bluster of greater consequences followed by the same level of force as what came before.

Even the threat of ground invasion can be a pressure. But the US public narrative has signalled they won’t go to the effort of forcing their will … they want victory through fires. It’s “death before dismount” at a strategic level. When the enemy knows you are not prepared to enter decisive engagement, then the enemy knows you can be waited out.

 

[KevinB]

None of that is decisive. I think decisive is boots on mainland ground, not bluster of greater consequences followed by the same level of force as what came before.

Even the threat of ground invasion can be a pressure. But the US public narrative has signalled they won’t go to the effort of forcing their will … they want victory through fires. It’s “death before dismount” at a strategic level. When the enemy knows you are not prepared to enter decisive engagement, then the enemy knows you can be waited out.

Or until you use a bigger nastier bomb.

Russia found using incendiary and fuel air explosives against civilian centers worked well on the Chechens.
The world did nothing.
The world did nothing when the Russians did it in the Ukraine.

Someone else will probably start doing it.

 

[Altair]

None of that is decisive. I think decisive is boots on mainland ground, not bluster of greater consequences followed by the same level of force as what came before.

Even the threat of ground invasion can be a pressure. But the US public narrative has signalled they won’t go to the effort of forcing their will … they want victory through fires. It’s “death before dismount” at a strategic level. When the enemy knows you are not prepared to enter decisive engagement, then the enemy knows you can be waited out.

Because there is a massive disconnect between the will of the American government and the will of the American people. The American people by and large don't support this war, they don't support the execution of the war, and would probably prefer if this was all wrapped up already.

Congress is barely on board as it is. How do you recommend that the USA escalate to the point of an untold amount of casualties and Americans dying in snuff videos daily on Reddit?

 

[brihard]

None of that is decisive. I think decisive is boots on mainland ground, not bluster of greater consequences followed by the same level of force as what came before.

Even the threat of ground invasion can be a pressure. But the US public narrative has signalled they won’t go to the effort of forcing their will … they want victory through fires. It’s “death before dismount” at a strategic level. When the enemy knows you are not prepared to enter decisive engagement, then the enemy knows you can be waited out.

Anyone advocating a ground invasion and the subsequent necessary occupation to resolve this strategic dilemma is, most charitably, an abject imbecile who should lose their Command and Conquer privileges.

A ground invasion would indeed be decisive, but not in the way the U.S. administration would want, or U.S. voters would reward. We would see high res drone video of a lot of Americans getting killed, and the shattering of any remaining illusion that the U.S. military (particularly its logistical train) is immune from the changes in firepower the Ukraine war has brought to the forefront.

 

[McG]

How do you recommend that the USA escalate to ...

I am not recommending anything. I am stating that lines of effort taken to date have not been decisive, and that the continued application of long range fires is not going to result in anything decisive.

Anyone advocating a ground invasion and the subsequent necessary occupation to resolve this strategic dilemma is, most charitably, an abject imbecile who should lose their Command and Conquer privileges.

Anyone saying that it is now time for the US to deal with Iran decisively is either advocating the ground invasion or a nuclear solution ... or they don't really mean "decisive".

 

[brihard]

I am not recommending anything. I am stating that lines of effort taken to date have not been decisive, and that the continued application of long range fires is not going to result in anything decisive.


Anyone saying that it is now time for the US to deal with Iran decisively is either advocating the ground invasion or a nuclear solution ... or they don't really mean "decisive".

Yup. The ugly reality is the U.S. is probably in a predicament without a likely strategic win. It will probably be an eventual exit with concessions.