USA Goes to War Against Iran
Time for a dedicated thread to the war.
How long will it last and what will be the probable outcome?
I think a so far unachieved objective is hopes the Iranian people would revolt this was certainly my main hope. Its hard to know whats going on but it seems the timing was too poor and it was a couple months too late. The timing of the attack right after iran destabilized dealing with them was pretty sus. maybe it was copium they might be up to some good trying to save Iranians
I dont think this chapter is done yet. The Revolution is DOA, and the Mullahs have been sidelined. The current regime may be even meaner than the previous, but they have no real legitimacy. Just brute force and terror. And the economic problems that have destabilized Iran over the last few years are only going to get worse. We will see what the future holds.
All that being said, CCP China (and increasingly nations like France and Spain) do seem to be doing what they can to help The Regime stay in power. As they opportunistically see an opportunity to cut favorable deals for themselves with a desperate Regime at the expense of the Iranian people. So shouldn't be too much cause for optimism; but shouldn't be zero either.
I see a tendency to excuse the war as the result of realpolitik and hawkish foreign policy. Criticism of the war is then hand-waved aside under the notion that the critics are doves or politically motivated (aka "anyone who disagrees with me are lefties").
The problem with that argument is that if the current status quo becomes the outcome of the war, the Iranian regime won.
The hardliners have wanted to close or take over the Strait for decades. Ali Khamenei probably kept them in check for a while, but his time was limited anyway. Once that constraint was gone, it didn’t take long for the IRGC to fill the vacuum.
So the war was more like a catalyst than the root cause of where things ended up. Even without it, the regime likely would’ve found some other justification to take control of the Strait of Hormuz.
Either way, the situation is what it is. So what’s the plan for dealing with the new normal over there? Obviously, regime change or forcing the Strait open militarily are options, but no one really wants to go down that road. So what's the plan going forward with the new normal?
I dont think this chapter is done yet. The Revolution is DOA, and the Mullahs have been sidelined. The current regime may be even meaner than the previous, but they have no real legitimacy. Just brute force and terror. And the economic problems that have destabilized Iran over the last few years are only going to get worse. We will see what the future holds. All that bein
What a great outcome for the Iranians. Almost as if this was a predictable and mostly preventable outcome.
The hardliners have wanted to close or take over the Strait for decades. Ali Khamenei probably kept them in check for a while, but his time was limited anyway. Once that constraint was gone, it didn’t take long for the IRGC to fill the vacuum.So the war was more like a catalyst than the root cause of where things ended up. Even without it, the regime likely would’ve found some
Right. Just forgive and forget. Move on pretending mistakes weren't made.
Actually, this has been studied by serious people. And it seems the largest constant with governments being overthrown from within, including Iran in 1979, is having a very large disaffected young male population. And Iran's population pyramid is even more inverted than the Western world. Simply put, there aren't enough young men, relative to total population size, to have a
OK. So Trump was dumb to think a revolution was a serious possibility?
The hardliners have wanted to close or take over the Strait for decades. Ali Khamenei probably kept them in check for a while, but his time was limited anyway. Once that constraint was gone, it didn’t take long for the IRGC to fill the vacuum.
Do you think maybe they shouldn't have assassinated Khamenei in that case?
Really weird post from you. It wasn't like he died from natural causes and then hardliners took over. They're in a war and the straight of Hormuz is their leverage.
Is it your opinion that if Khamenei was left alive and they were attacked that the straight wouldn't be closed?
What did they win? Iran will continue to be a hopeless, depressed, economically degraded client state of CCP China that no one else wants to invest in, and whose best and brightest will continue to flee to better places. Same as Gaza, Lebanon, and Yemen. Even children of regime officials cant wait to take the first plane ticket out (often to live in the Great Satan), and the
The Iranian theocracy doesn't define winning as the country and its people being in a better position than before the war. By that standard, Iran is losing and the outcome could never have been otherwise.
The Iranian theocracy defines winning as retaining power without losing economic leverage or the ability to exert regional political influence in the long term.
The hardliners have wanted to close or take over the Strait for decades. Ali Khamenei probably kept them in check for a while, but his time was limited anyway. Once that constraint was gone, it didn’t take long for the IRGC to fill the vacuum.So the war was more like a catalyst than the root cause of where things ended up. Even without it, the regime likely would’ve
Both the short and the long answer is the same: There is no plan.
It will be a series of responses, and people will claim it was a plan.
The Iranian theocracy doesn't define winning as the country and its people being in a better position than before the war. By that standard, Iran is losing and the outcome could never have been otherwise.
The Iranian theocracy defines winning as retaining power without losing economic leverage or the ability to exert regional political influence in the long term.
Well stated.
Kelhus cannot compute that winning might be anything other than a sharp increase in GDP or military victory over some other people.
He probably has other definitions too, but we won’t go into those now.
The Iranian theocracy doesn't define winning as the country and its people being in a better position than before the war. By that standard, Iran is losing and the outcome could never have been otherwise.
The Iranian theocracy defines winning as retaining power without losing economic leverage or the ability to exert regional political influence in the long term.
They are in a better position than they were in before the war. They'll exact tolls from the straight, oil prices are higher, sanctions are being lifted, the US and Israel are weakened and they've established themselves as major regional powers.
Sure, buddy. Anything that lets you bootlickers think you're saving face. Fact is Trump was told this exact thing would happen because it's Iran's only leverage. Trump did what Trump does.
"It is what it is," just lmao.
So what’s the plan for dealing with the new normal over there? Obviously, regime change or forcing the Strait open militarily are options, but no one really wants to go down that road. So what's the plan going forward with the new normal?
No one really wants to go down that road?
The new plan is for the world to pay $2 million aya tolls until Trump caves on all their points, declares victory for opening the strait, a problem that didn't exist in February, and the bootlickers cheer Trump's shrewd negotiation tactics.
The hardliners have wanted to close or take over the Strait for decades. Ali Khamenei probably kept them in check for a while, but his time was limited anyway. Once that constraint was gone, it didn’t take long for the IRGC to fill the vacuum.So the war was more like a catalyst than the root cause of where things ended up. Even without it, the regime likely would’ve found some
why are you guys taking it for granted that the hardliners are in charge?
2 examples
The Iranian theocracy doesn't define winning as the country and its people being in a better position than before the war. By that standard, Iran is losing and the outcome could never have been otherwise.
The Iranian theocracy defines winning as retaining power without losing economic leverage or the ability to exert regional political influence in the long term.
They lost Syria, are in the process of losing Lebanon, and Hamas has been degraded to a bunch of teenagers running around with assault rifles; and relations with the GCCs are severely degraded.
One would have to take a VERY long term half glass full perspective to see them as having not lost significant capacity to exert regional political influence.
This is what is the most bizarre about some of these responses. Just completely ignore the fact that the problems we have now we didn't have before Israel decided to drag the US into another war.
But hey, when you can rationalize everything with ''it is what it is'', why care about problems at all?
The cease fire and Israel's immediate bombing of Lebanon after the announcement of the cease fire are obvious evidence that the U.S. and Israel are very much independent actors. If the Israeli government really had the ability to convince the U.S. do whatever it wanted, then the ceasefire would not have happened, and if the Trump administration had complete control of Israeli government, the bombing in Lebanon would have not happened.
The reality is that toppling the Iranian regime is a much higher priority for Israel than it is for the U.S.
They lost Syria, are in the process of losing Lebanon, and Hamas has been degraded to a bunch of teenagers running around with assault rifles; and relations with the GCCs are severely degraded.
One would have to take a VERY long term half glass full perspective to see them as having not lost significant capacity to exert regional political influence.
Hamas had been dramatically weakened long before the U.S. started a war against Iran.
They are in a better position than they were in before the war. They'll exact tolls from the straight, oil prices are higher, sanctions are being lifted, the US and Israel are weakened and they've established themselves as major regional powers.
I don't agree. The people certainly are not in a better position, and I don't think the country is either. The Iranian theocracy arguably is winning, but only in the sense that I mentioned previously.
This is blatantly disingenuous. As you well know, the president of Iran is subordinate to, and effectively under the control of, the supreme leader. The current supreme leader has been widely reported to be, and is widely believed to be, a hardliner.
I don't agree. The people certainly are not in a better position, and I don't think the country is either. The Iranian theocracy arguably is winning, but only in the sense that I mentioned previously.
If sanctions are lifted and GDP is higher then that translates to the people being better off. The bombed hospitals and universities can be rebuilt.
This is blatantly disingenuous. As you well know, the president of Iran is subordinate to, and effectively under the control of, the supreme leader. The current supreme leader has been widely reported to be, and is widely believed to be, a hardliner.
the only person being disingenuous is yourself. not to mention ignorant. literal Reformists aka the opposition to the hardliners, are negotiating with the West right this very moment.
and we dont know anything about the current supreme leader nor if he is even alive.
The cease fire and the Israel's immediate bombing of Lebanon after the announcement of the cease fire are obvious evidence that the U.S. and Israel are very much independent actors. If the Israeli government really had the ability to convince the U.S. do whatever it wanted, then the ceasefire would not have happened, and if the Trump administration had complete control of Isra
Perhaps, but the $950 million bets on oil prices going down just before Trump's announcement makes it very likely that there was no ceasefire and it was a ruse by Trump to make his kids a bunch of money. I think that's a far more likely scenario than an earnest ceasefire proposal.
Perhaps, but the $950 million bets on oil prices going down just before Trump's announcement makes it very likely that there was no ceasefire and it was a ruse by Trump to make his kids a bunch of money. I think that's a far more likely scenario than an earnest ceasefire proposal.
Iran has acknowledged that there was a ceasefire.
the only person being disingenuous is yourself. not to mention ignorant. literal Reformists aka the opposition to the hardliners, are negotiating with the West right this very moment.
and we dont know anything about the current supreme leader nor if he is even alive.
Victor,
Yes or no, has the president of Iran historically been subordinate to the supreme leader?
Yes or no, has the Iranian government claimed that the supreme leader is still alive and still in charge?
Yes or no, is the person who the Iranian government claims is the supreme leader widely believed to a hardliner?
My only point was that it was weird for you to argue that hardliners are not in charge given your typical practice of uncritically accepting every statement from any anti-Western government. If you want to argue that the Iranian government is lying and that Motjaba Khameini is incapacitated or dead, then fine. I don't know the answer any more than you do, but you very well could be correct. Trump has been claiming for a while now that Khameini is incapacited or dead, although Trump's statements on this sort of thing count for exactly nothing in my book.
