5 ms·

I mean thats Iran's play right? Its worked before (see 1980s https://www.strausscenter.org/strait-of-hormuz-tanker-war/ https://www.strausscenter.org/strait-of

I mean thats Iran's play right? Its worked before (see 1980s https://www.strausscenter.org/strait-of-hormuz-tanker-war/ https://www.strausscenter.org/strait-of-hormuz-tanker-war/), and it'll probably work again. Especially as Iran has different values on loss. The other issue that is less said is that the USA probably doesn't have the capacity to keep bombing in this way. They are using all the fancy missiles first, but haven't made a safe path to do unguided cheap bombing. This is Russian level stupidity, and shows the danger of letting "true believers" organise things over actual planners who've done this before. more over, allies can't keep up that level of air defence. It _could be_ bullshit that iran has a whole load of ballistic and drones spread all over the place, but frankly the US can't afford to find out if thats the case. Sure the US could escort tankers, but that would mean much higher risk of casualties. Given that the USA is reasonably self sufficient in oil, thats probably a hard sell. Also, does the US have enough stock of ship born anti-missle systems? Sure it has the expensive stuff, and the Phalanx at last resort, but does the USA have the stomach to have a ship sink? I fear what happens after that.

exabrial 8mo ago
That's my assessment. By threatening and targeting bystanders, Iran tries to make any military action against them costly to those not involved, who will naturally apply pressure to whomever is taking the action.
- RobertoG 8mo ago
  So, the USA and Israel started a war with Iran when they were in the negotiating table and the Iranians were accepting all the nuclear demands. In the first unprovoked attack they killed an important religious leader of a big part of the population of the area (not only Iran) and a bunch of civilians (160 children in a school between them). But the assesment is that 'is Iran who is threatening and targeting bystanders'. No surprise that we are in the mess we are.
  - chasd00 8mo ago
    look at the stats of what the UAE has defended against, what is the purpose of those attacks? They make no sense to me. Iran attacks on the UAE 186 ballistic missiles 812 drones this article even states that the UAE has been attacked more than Israel itself which, again, blows my mind. The UAE is, wisely IMO, choosing to stay out of it but i mean how much can they take? https://www.axios.com/2026/03/03/uae-iran-missiles-strike-israel https://www.axios.com/2026/03/03/uae-iran-missiles-strike-is...
    - Gud 8mo ago
      The UAE is hosting multiple US military bases and is absolutely a valid target.
    - watwut 8mo ago
      > UAE has been attacked more than Israel itself which, again, blows my mind. UAE is closer and so it is harder for them to intercept attacking missiles and drones. Israel is further and thus harder target. They have more time to destroy the attacking drone or missile, making such attack more wasteful. Second, the goals are likely American soldiers stationed there and the defense systems themselves. Intercepting missiles can run out and Iran likely wants them to run out.
  - jameshilliard 8mo ago
    > So, the USA and Israel started a war with Iran when they were in the negotiating table and the Iranians were accepting all the nuclear demands. They were not accepting all the nuclear demands[0]. > In the first unprovoked attack they killed an important religious leader of a big part of the population of the area (not only Iran) and a bunch of civilians (160 children in a school between them). Calling the attack "unprovoked" is just wildly inaccurate, Iran has for years funded terrorist proxies to attack both Israel and US interests in the region. > But the assesment is that 'is Iran who is threatening and targeting bystanders'. No surprise that we are in the mess we are. Iran deliberately targets their own civilians as well as 3rd party countries.[1] I think the massacres and not the nuclear program were however what finally pushed the US and Israel into a war with the regime itself as a primary target as the massacres opened up an opportunity to potentially take out the regime once and for all. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/23/world/middleeast/iran-us-nuclear-talks-war.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/23/world/middleeast/iran-us-... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iran_massacres https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iran_massacres
- chasd00 8mo ago
  > By threatening and targeting bystanders, Iran tries to make any military action against them costly to those not involved, who will naturally apply pressure to whomever is taking the action. i'm no geopolitical expert but the most likely outcome of bombing bystanders is more enemies and fewer bystanders.
chasd00 8mo ago
Why would the US and Israel resort to unguided cheap bombing? That’s how you end up with wide scale civilian deaths. They’ll use more and more jdams vs stand off weapons as air superiority has been mostly established. There’s also been a significant drop in missile attacks as more and more launchers are destroyed. https://understandingwar.org/research/middle-east/iran-update-evening-special-report-march-3-2026/ https://understandingwar.org/research/middle-east/iran-updat...
- watwut 8mo ago
  > Why would the US and Israel resort to unguided cheap bombing? That’s how you end up with wide scale civilian deaths. It is cheap and neither cares about civilian deaths. That is why. Both countries show it both in rhetoric and action. The leadership literally brags about not caring about civilian deaths.
  - edgyquant 8mo ago
    There is basically no country in the world who cares more about civilian deaths than the US. Get out of your bubble
    - watwut 8mo ago
      First, USA literally officially does not care about it right now. That is the stated official politics. Hegseth, Vance and Trump are proud and open about it. Hegseth was referring to literally this war when he was saying they will not care about things like civilian deaths. Second, the number of civilians deaths caused by USA was going up due to drones usage. That is prior Trump, in administrations that kind of cared at least a little. And that was at the time when media sorta kinda cared. Nowdays, media do not care at all. Third, Israel is not just ok with genocide, but wants it to happen. And USA is one of the leading countries in the project of helping them. I am not singling out America here, it is not JUST America. But America is very consistent in that.
      - jameshilliard 8mo ago
closewith 8mo ago
> They are using all the fancy missiles first, but haven't made a safe path to do unguided cheap bombing. Global media is reporting B-52s over Iran, which implies complete air supremecy and complete Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses, so this, on the face of it, seems to be untrue.
- mrguyorama 8mo ago
  It could also signal a command that is less risk averse than the past. We lost B52s bombing Asia back in the day because even old SAM systems are a danger to them, maybe the Trump admin is just fine with losing a handful of irreplaceable old workhorses. I don't think the DoD ever planned to use those B52s in a war against China either, which this is essentially all in concert of.
- 8note 8mo ago
  i doubt it. you dont have verification on that without boots on the ground, and consistently not being shot down. iran could easily be keeping air defenses hidden in caves waiting for the right opportunity
- KaiserPro 8mo ago
  It appears that now there are b-52s making their way over. So this seems to back up the claim of ait superiority.
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
raincole 8mo ago
This war will end with regime change in Iran one way or another. Whatever the 'play' is won't change that. > but haven't made a safe path to do unguided cheap bombing Do you seriously believe it? That we're not going to see the US/Israel bombers over Iran?
- RobertoG 8mo ago
  I think it could finish with regime change in the USA.
- thecopy 8mo ago
  Air power alone has _never_ achieved regime change.
  - edgyquant 8mo ago
    Libya begs to differ
    - orwin 8mo ago
      What do you mean, Lybia happened 2 days after France met with Libyan rebels leaders and one of Ghadafi's son, the first strike targeted ground installations so that the rebels could take over. It was carefully planed for a swift takeover, way, way more than what is happening there, and it still ended up being a cluster fuck. The rebels were the fucking ground groups. Here, it will probably be Iraqis, like during the first gulf war. Hopefully less people will die, but clearly this is a terrible decision.
- KaiserPro 8mo ago
  Up until this afternoon, I hadn't seen evidence of non-long range munitions. Lots of cruise missiles, but not short range guided bombs. It appears that b-52s are being flown over to the middle east now, which means they must be fairly confident of air superiority
kcb 8mo ago
There's already videos of US/Israeli jets over tehran dropping guided bombs.
aurareturn 8mo ago
Its worked before (see 1980s https://www.strausscenter.org/strait-of-hormuz-tanker-war/), and it'll probably work again. Especially as Iran has different values on loss. One of the lessons learned: The oil market is likely to adapt to disruption in the Strait of Hormuz. Initially, the Tanker War led to a 25 percent drop in commercial shipping and a sharp rise in the price of crude oil. But the Tanker War did not significantly disrupt oil shipments. In fact, Iran lowered the price of oil to offset higher insurance premiums on shipments, and the real global oil price steadily declined during the 1980s. Even at the its most intense point, the Tanker War failed to disrupt more than two percent of ships passing through the Persian Gulf.[x] This seems relevant to the global stock/oil market overreaction.
- KaiserPro 8mo ago
  > This seems relevant to the global stock/oil market overreaction. This is true, but as with the start of the tanker wars: > Initially, the Tanker War led to a 25 percent drop in commercial shipping and a sharp rise in the price of crude oil. currently something like 90% of shipping is stopped. But your general point about moving around it is valid, assuming that Iran doesn't attack refineries and distribution points. Last time Iran had to use artillery to attack shipping, this time they have better weapons

exabrial 8mo ago

That's my assessment. By threatening and targeting bystanders, Iran tries to make any military action against them costly to those not involved, who will naturally apply pressure to whomever is taking the action.

RobertoG 8mo ago
So, the USA and Israel started a war with Iran when they were in the negotiating table and the Iranians were accepting all the nuclear demands. In the first unprovoked attack they killed an important religious leader of a big part of the population of the area (not only Iran) and a bunch of civilians (160 children in a school between them). But the assesment is that 'is Iran who is threatening and targeting bystanders'. No surprise that we are in the mess we are.
- chasd00 8mo ago
  look at the stats of what the UAE has defended against, what is the purpose of those attacks? They make no sense to me. Iran attacks on the UAE 186 ballistic missiles 812 drones this article even states that the UAE has been attacked more than Israel itself which, again, blows my mind. The UAE is, wisely IMO, choosing to stay out of it but i mean how much can they take? https://www.axios.com/2026/03/03/uae-iran-missiles-strike-israel https://www.axios.com/2026/03/03/uae-iran-missiles-strike-is...
  - Gud 8mo ago
    The UAE is hosting multiple US military bases and is absolutely a valid target.
  - watwut 8mo ago
    > UAE has been attacked more than Israel itself which, again, blows my mind. UAE is closer and so it is harder for them to intercept attacking missiles and drones. Israel is further and thus harder target. They have more time to destroy the attacking drone or missile, making such attack more wasteful. Second, the goals are likely American soldiers stationed there and the defense systems themselves. Intercepting missiles can run out and Iran likely wants them to run out.
- jameshilliard 8mo ago
  > So, the USA and Israel started a war with Iran when they were in the negotiating table and the Iranians were accepting all the nuclear demands. They were not accepting all the nuclear demands[0]. > In the first unprovoked attack they killed an important religious leader of a big part of the population of the area (not only Iran) and a bunch of civilians (160 children in a school between them). Calling the attack "unprovoked" is just wildly inaccurate, Iran has for years funded terrorist proxies to attack both Israel and US interests in the region. > But the assesment is that 'is Iran who is threatening and targeting bystanders'. No surprise that we are in the mess we are. Iran deliberately targets their own civilians as well as 3rd party countries.[1] I think the massacres and not the nuclear program were however what finally pushed the US and Israel into a war with the regime itself as a primary target as the massacres opened up an opportunity to potentially take out the regime once and for all. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/23/world/middleeast/iran-us-nuclear-talks-war.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/23/world/middleeast/iran-us-... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iran_massacres https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iran_massacres
chasd00 8mo ago
> By threatening and targeting bystanders, Iran tries to make any military action against them costly to those not involved, who will naturally apply pressure to whomever is taking the action. i'm no geopolitical expert but the most likely outcome of bombing bystanders is more enemies and fewer bystanders.

chasd00 8mo ago

Why would the US and Israel resort to unguided cheap bombing? That’s how you end up with wide scale civilian deaths. They’ll use more and more jdams vs stand off weapons as air superiority has been mostly established. There’s also been a significant drop in missile attacks as more and more launchers are destroyed. https://understandingwar.org/research/middle-east/iran-update-evening-special-report-march-3-2026/ https://understandingwar.org/research/middle-east/iran-updat...

watwut 8mo ago
> Why would the US and Israel resort to unguided cheap bombing? That’s how you end up with wide scale civilian deaths. It is cheap and neither cares about civilian deaths. That is why. Both countries show it both in rhetoric and action. The leadership literally brags about not caring about civilian deaths.
- edgyquant 8mo ago
  There is basically no country in the world who cares more about civilian deaths than the US. Get out of your bubble
  - watwut 8mo ago
    First, USA literally officially does not care about it right now. That is the stated official politics. Hegseth, Vance and Trump are proud and open about it. Hegseth was referring to literally this war when he was saying they will not care about things like civilian deaths. Second, the number of civilians deaths caused by USA was going up due to drones usage. That is prior Trump, in administrations that kind of cared at least a little. And that was at the time when media sorta kinda cared. Nowdays, media do not care at all. Third, Israel is not just ok with genocide, but wants it to happen. And USA is one of the leading countries in the project of helping them. I am not singling out America here, it is not JUST America. But America is very consistent in that.
    - jameshilliard 8mo ago

closewith 8mo ago

> They are using all the fancy missiles first, but haven't made a safe path to do unguided cheap bombing. Global media is reporting B-52s over Iran, which implies complete air supremecy and complete Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses, so this, on the face of it, seems to be untrue.

mrguyorama 8mo ago
It could also signal a command that is less risk averse than the past. We lost B52s bombing Asia back in the day because even old SAM systems are a danger to them, maybe the Trump admin is just fine with losing a handful of irreplaceable old workhorses. I don't think the DoD ever planned to use those B52s in a war against China either, which this is essentially all in concert of.
8note 8mo ago
i doubt it. you dont have verification on that without boots on the ground, and consistently not being shot down. iran could easily be keeping air defenses hidden in caves waiting for the right opportunity
KaiserPro 8mo ago
It appears that now there are b-52s making their way over. So this seems to back up the claim of ait superiority.

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

raincole 8mo ago

This war will end with regime change in Iran one way or another. Whatever the 'play' is won't change that. > but haven't made a safe path to do unguided cheap bombing Do you seriously believe it? That we're not going to see the US/Israel bombers over Iran?

RobertoG 8mo ago
I think it could finish with regime change in the USA.
thecopy 8mo ago
Air power alone has _never_ achieved regime change.
- edgyquant 8mo ago
  Libya begs to differ
  - orwin 8mo ago
    What do you mean, Lybia happened 2 days after France met with Libyan rebels leaders and one of Ghadafi's son, the first strike targeted ground installations so that the rebels could take over. It was carefully planed for a swift takeover, way, way more than what is happening there, and it still ended up being a cluster fuck. The rebels were the fucking ground groups. Here, it will probably be Iraqis, like during the first gulf war. Hopefully less people will die, but clearly this is a terrible decision.
KaiserPro 8mo ago
Up until this afternoon, I hadn't seen evidence of non-long range munitions. Lots of cruise missiles, but not short range guided bombs. It appears that b-52s are being flown over to the middle east now, which means they must be fairly confident of air superiority

kcb 8mo ago

There's already videos of US/Israeli jets over tehran dropping guided bombs.

aurareturn 8mo ago

Its worked before (see 1980s https://www.strausscenter.org/strait-of-hormuz-tanker-war/), and it'll probably work again. Especially as Iran has different values on loss. One of the lessons learned: The oil market is likely to adapt to disruption in the Strait of Hormuz. Initially, the Tanker War led to a 25 percent drop in commercial shipping and a sharp rise in the price of crude oil. But the Tanker War did not significantly disrupt oil shipments. In fact, Iran lowered the price of oil to offset higher insurance premiums on shipments, and the real global oil price steadily declined during the 1980s. Even at the its most intense point, the Tanker War failed to disrupt more than two percent of ships passing through the Persian Gulf.[x] This seems relevant to the global stock/oil market overreaction.

KaiserPro 8mo ago
> This seems relevant to the global stock/oil market overreaction. This is true, but as with the start of the tanker wars: > Initially, the Tanker War led to a 25 percent drop in commercial shipping and a sharp rise in the price of crude oil. currently something like 90% of shipping is stopped. But your general point about moving around it is valid, assuming that Iran doesn't attack refineries and distribution points. Last time Iran had to use artillery to attack shipping, this time they have better weapons