33 ms·
Miscellanea: The War in Iran
- aerodog 7mo ago[flagged]
- tobiasdorge 7mo ago[flagged]
- lostlogin 7mo agoUser > showdead
- pocksuppet 7mo agoEveryone should have this option turned on.
- bigyabai 7mo agoAs someone with it on, I'm very glad off is the default.
- cucumber3732842 7mo agoThe majority are spam and rage baiting but a large enough amount to be concerning seem to be simply middle of the road opinions by otherwise fairly normal users who have strayed to far from the group in terms of some combination of tone or politics.
- andrewflnr 7mo agoFor those, we have a vouch button. But a dead comment doesn't send anyone to jail, so I agree that it causes less harm to hide a few harmless comments than to let everyone see some of the vile nonsense and/or blatant spam that gets flagged or hellbanned.
- pocksuppet 7mo agoThe spam comments are easy to skip over. Having them visible costs nothing.
- sam_lowry_ 7mo ago"Bret Devereaux" sounds more like of French origin, but if the author self-identifies as jew, this is useful meta-information, even if expressed in terms that are culturally unacceptable in US.
- manfromchina1 7mo ago> More relevantly for us, Iran is 3.5 times larger than Iraq and roughly twice the population. Worth noting that at the time of invasion of Iraq they had about 25 million people per gemeni. They now have about 46 mil people per wikipedia. All else equal, we are comparing 25 mil to 93 mil and not half of 93 mil to 93 mil.
- 3eb7988a1663 7mo agoExcellent catch. I also used this as an opportunity to reference the now archived[0] CIA Factbook[1] which does put the 2003 Iraq population at 25 million. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47114530 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47114530 [1] https://worldfactbookarchive.org/archive/2003/IZ https://worldfactbookarchive.org/archive/2003/IZ
- aa-jv 7mo ago[flagged]
- macintux 7mo agoI'd be curious about a citation for the "lose half of their babies" statement. This review of the data & papers has some grim numbers, but nothing remotely that dramatic. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7903104/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7903104/
- MomsAVoxell 7mo agoFrom over a decade ago .. its still happening: https://gh.bmj.com/content/6/2/e004166 https://gh.bmj.com/content/6/2/e004166 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/d-iq/dv/d-iq20121018_02_/d-iq20121018_02_en.pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2773049224000035 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S277304922... But of course, it depends who you ask. American institutions cannot be trusted, obviously.
- 7mo ago
- bawolff 7mo ago> And I do want to stress that. There is a frequent mistake, often from folks who deal in economics, to assume that countries will give up on wars when the economics turn bad. But countries are often very willing to throw good money after bad even on distant wars of choice. On the other hand isn't this how the russian revolution happened? An economic crisis due to a prolonged war leading to a revolution? While i wouldn't bet money on it, it seems at least possible that something similar could happen to Iran.
- gostsamo 7mo agoActually, there are lots of revolutions in Europe after WWI, but keep in mind that in this case the populations were blaming their governments for starting or participating in an unnecessary war with monumental casualties. In this case, the Iran government has two useful scapegoats and any casualties could be easily ascribed to the idiots bombing girl schools and not to the idiots sending millions to their deaths under artillery fire.
- bawolff 7mo agoWhile possible they could scapegoat this, hasn't the rallying cry for Iranian protests prior to this been "Neither Gaza nor Lebanon, my life for Iran" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neither_Gaza_nor_Lebanon,_My_Life_for_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neither_Gaza_nor_Lebanon,_My_L... - i think we are already at the place of the population blaming the government for its foreign policy consequences, at least in some segments.
- GolfPopper 7mo agoI would not wager money on a revolution coming from this war, either. But if a revolution does come as a result of the war, it seems at least as likely to be in the United States as in Iran.
- nwellnhof 7mo agoI think a revolution caused by this war is more likely in countries like Egypt. The Arab Spring was triggered by a rise in food prices after all.
- yanhangyhy 7mo agoThe reason for the Iran war is very simple: Israel’s instigation, a potential strike against China, and Trump’s political immaturity.
- Synaesthesia 7mo agoThe purpose of the war is to destroy the Axis of Resistance, Iran, Hezbollah and its allies, the only force standing in the way of US/Israeli hegemony in the region.
- geraneum 7mo agoThat’s a purely ideological way of looking at the situation which IMO is not sufficient. As the article states, this war was not unprovoked either, regardless of whether the provocations warrant such a response. Iran is seeking its own hegemony. Now, this does not negate your point on the hegemonic approach of US in the region. I think this war can be viewed as a power struggle between a regional and global power that’s developing into a struggle dominance and survival. edit: typo
- roenxi 7mo agoIs anyone going to mention what these provocations are? I've yet to figure it out after 6-12 months. Pretty much everything going on seems to involve the Israelis aggressively expanding their borders or viciously attacking anyone who might oppose their expansion. I've lost count of the number of negotiators they've killed. Trump has averaged something like 1 bombing run on Iranian leadership ever 2 years. Iranian provocations must be quite effective at making him see red.
- geraneum 7mo ago> Is anyone going to mention what these provocations are? Sure, it’s not hard to find. These started long before Trump. You should look beyond the last few months’ news cycles. Iranian government’s issues with Israel are of ideological nature (according to the regime) and their open support (financially and militarily) of a part of Palestinian resistance and Hezbollah. Iran has been active at Israel’s borders for years. Their heavy involvement (including sending troops) in Syria’s civil war is another one to name. All of these are the ones that Iran openly admits to. You can’t explain these away with Israel’s expansionist tendencies because that’s not been a threat to Iran. No serious analyst believes that Israel wants/can to expand into even Iraq, let alone Iran! The hostilities towards US and vice versa are a whole different topic. Now to be clear I’m not siding with Israel on this and not saying that caring for Palestinians is not right, just answering your question and naming a few examples. Now, it’s all happened during many decades and not sure if it matters anymore who started it because it’s become a total shit show that is very hard to reconcile. You might find it surprising that during Iran-Iraq war, Israel was the only country in the region who helped Iran against Iraq (which had the backing of the Arab countries including Palestinians).
- Synaesthesia 7mo agoHe writes that the region is not very important to the USA. It's not, but it is a strategically important area, not only in terms of its location, at the nexus of Asia, Africa and Europe, but also because of the oil there. Now the US is not dependent on Middle Eastern Oil, but Japan, China and other countries are. So controlling the region will mean a lever of power over those regions.
- fruit2020 7mo agoSo it’s not about nuclear weapons?
- yanhangyhy 7mo agoits always oil and 'freedom'
- bluealienpie 7mo agoIt was never about nuclear weapons, Netanyahu has been saying Iran was one week away for over 30 years. Europe goes along as an excuse to support politically unpopular war to maintain US support for Ukraine.
- fruit2020 7mo agoWhat would you expect Europe to do? It’s not like they openly support this war. The Iranian diaspora supports it, there is the secularism element, but the US doesn’t care about the Iranian people anyway
- decimalenough 7mo agoThe diaspora is happy about the regime being targeted. They will be much, much more ambivalent if the US starts targeting power infrastructure and innocent people in hospitals etc start dying en masse.
- lenkite 7mo ago
- avereveard 7mo agoIt seems there's a flawed reading coming from a single point in time analysis Region instability had ben regularly threatening freedom of navigation in the last five years And USA may not consider the individual country strategic, but cares deeply about freedom of navigation, because the single market is basically the pillar for their hegemony. Sarah Paine lectures give overall better lenses to look at this engagement.
- decimalenough 7mo agoAs the article discusses in detail, if the US actually cares about freedom of navigation, the war was a massive own goal because it looks extremely likely to grant the current Iranian regime de facto control of the Strait.
- avereveard 7mo agoIran already had the strait in ransom, directly and indirectly with proxy receiving weapons. You don't get to ignore that part and call this a own goal, since inaction led to the same effective results.
- ardit33 7mo agoWhat are you talking about? The strait was open, and tankers were not paying tolls as they do now. They held the threat of closing it, as a deterrent of an attack, and once attacked, they did just that. You either live in a parallel universe, or are just spewing here propaganda.
- avereveard 7mo agohttps://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/19/politics/houthi-red-sea-attacks/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/19/politics/houthi-red-sea-a... Lol there were routine attcaks every time things weren't going their way. Whos been in a parallel universe? And never said closed. I said ransom.
- georgemcbay 7mo ago> Please understand me: the people in these countries are not important, but as a matter of national strategy, some places are more important than others. I assume/hope this was meant to say "the people in these countries are not [un]important"? (or just "are important") As an entirely secular person, I believe every innocent human life is important.
- lmm 7mo agoHe's speaking from a military, America-first perspective (which I suspect may be somewhat affected, because he is hoping to convince people who sincerely think that way). The people in these countries are not strategically important.
- red_admiral 7mo agoTrying to parse the whole sentence, especially the "but" afterwards, the most reasonable explanation is that there is a "not" missing.
- pas 7mo agoHe emphasizes relative importance, he doesn't claim that the actual people are not important.
- triceratops 7mo agoI think he meant to write "not unimportant". His proofreading isn't perfect and he has typos or missing words in a lot of his work. I'm a fan of the work itself.
- hrldcpr 7mo agoThe typo is fixed now.
- righthand 7mo ago> They did not and now we are all living trapped in the consequences. They (rich and well connected) did, but they won't have to suffer the consequences, everyone else will. The Pedo of the United States is now a billionaire that will walk away in 4 years shrugging his shoulders laughing all the way to the bank with them. Not one person that could stop it, did stop it. Legislature is sitting on their thumbs pretending not to work for Israel and selling us out to big tech and defense spending. All the Baby Boomers are in the south enjoying the sunshine and shrugging their shoulders.
- underdeserver 7mo ago[flagged]
- pocksuppet 7mo ago> I don't understand what this article has to do with Hacker News. The continuing slow collapse of the United States is extremely relevant to all things technology and business. The source of all our funding may be cut off. It's important to monitor what's going on there.
- Sniffnoy 7mo ago> Right off the bat this guy is wrong. Nobody in their right mind would bet that the regime would collapse swiftly. That "nobody in their right mind" would bet this does not, in fact, contradict his assertion that somebody did!
- ggm 7mo agoRight off the bat your response raises questions because if the US leadership knew from day one this was a protracted fight then they stand having made entirely contradictory statements regarding their intent and expectations in that regard.
- Hikikomori 7mo agoLying is second nature to them.
- nowaytheydid 7mo ago> then they stand having made entirely contradictory statements regarding their intent and expectations in that regard Time Traveler, rushing to a computer after seeing a Skyrim for Sale poster and seeing this post: "WHAT YEAR IS IT!!!??"
- ajewhere 7mo agoI stll dont understand what you are doing 10000 miles away from the presumed borders of your country, and even more why on earth you think you have the right to dictate to 90 million people (let aside the rest of the world) how to govetn themselves. I suppose it is some right given to you from above, now where have I seen this before..
- khhu2bnn 7mo agoThe amazing part to me is just the perceived invincibility this small circle within the US administration has. You can find dozens of articles with a search limited to Feb 1~Feb 27, plenty of analysis warning of the risks that have now become reality, everything - the strait, no revolution, further radicalization, critically low US stockpiles, abandoning other US partners, gulf destabilization, etc. In the fantasy imagination of some people, they really think you can take out some military targets of another country and then the oppressed masses will magically revolt, as they completely ignore the failed revolution just a month prior. Surround yourself with enough of these people while excluding and firing those who don't and this is what you get.
- pm90 7mo agoIts what happens when you surround yourself with incompetent yes men.
- GJim 7mo agoI don't think that is the whole picture. I suggest a significant cause is Trump's arrogance and only listening to the advice he wants to hear.
- aa-jv 7mo agoIts what happens when your nation state has been raised on an unhealthy diet of warrior narcissism.
- orwin 7mo agoIt's not all. I tried as much as I could not commenting on it, but the delusions of _a lot_ of hn users on the subject, even a few whose opinion I respect, were unreal. People who are not MAGA btw. And I'm not sure most of those realise how delusional they were, even now. They will probably rewire their memory to forget what they believed 3 weeks ago, compress the time they were wrong. I initially thought the 'manufacturing consent' part of the war was botched, unlike Irak, but now to me it seems that people are much more susceptible to propaganda disguised as 'almost true' information on social media, and I am afraid I might be in the same boat.
- littlecranky67 7mo ago[flagged]
- scott_w 7mo agoThen I’d suggest you read the article because he absolutely mentions it, twice in fact.
- krige 7mo agoAs a consolation prize we can mention the unknown amount of unarmed civillians bombed by US+Israel forces instead.
- bluealienpie 7mo agoNor the hundreds of thousands murder by Israel in a genocide, which is why his strategic analysis doesn't see the gulf states are at risk of collapse if they engage Iran on what is perceived to be on Israel's behalf.
- littlecranky67 7mo agoSo the US can't help stop a slaughter because they don't help stop all slaughters in the world, is that your logic?
- aa-jv 7mo agoThe US doesn't stop a slaughter unless it is strategically relevant to the US' special interests - and it does promote slaughters if they are strategically relevant to the US' special interest.
- littlecranky67 7mo agoIs the motivation to stop a slaughter really important if that stops it?
- aa-jv 7mo ago
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- hackandthink 7mo agoThat all makes a lot of sense. Mr. Devereux is being more realistic this time than he was at the start of the war in Ukraine. My takeaway from the war in Ukraine is: it’s going to get worse and last longer than anyone ever imagined.
- pas 7mo agoI remember his protracted war posts, and ... indeed there's still a war going there, and fortunately it did not even get into the anticipated guerilla phase. Can you elaborate a bit on what was unrealistic? (Maybe you have different posts or claims by him in mind?)
- hackandthink 7mo agoI checked the blog, You have a point. Brett Devereux was more cautious. "If you are trying to follow the War in Ukraine, I strongly suggest watching the War on the Rocks podcasts for the times they bring in Michael Kofman." I’ve been caught up in “guilt by association” here. Michael Kofman always struck me as a cheap propagandist. (but I should shut up now)
- gherkinnn 7mo agoPaying WoR subscriber here. Kofman likes to talk a lot and can't interview others because of it. He is also clearly pro-Ukraine. But I never saw him as a cheap propagandist. Not even an expensive one. Despite his obvious allegiance, he regularly criticised UAs actions and never went for any of the hurrah-hurr-durr delusions you had anywhere else. During the siege of Bachmut he repeatedly and clearly said that UA has nothing to gain from holding out. I remember him openly critical of the sacking of the defence minister, candidly describing the problems in UAs recruitment, never hyped up drones, avoided predictions and after that first fiasco with Trump and Vance last year he did not hold back criticism towards Zelensky and not once can I remember him painting the Russians as morons. On the contrary, in one episode he dismisses any sort of essentialism and related chauvinism, this was when refuting the idea that broad parallels can be seen between Napoleonic and today's Russia.
- totierne2 7mo agoNext country to invade is monopoly/risk for 10 year olds inside 70 year old presidents.
- wecwecwe 7mo agoBret mocks the JCPOA, but the west found a way to work with the Kingdom of Consanguinity and Public Executions. What gives?
- kybernetikos 7mo agoHe wasn't particularly scathing about it - in the article it's presented as a decent solution to a difficult problem, just that in his opinion too much was paid for it - but that being so it should have stayed in place.
- orwin 7mo ago(are you talking about Qatar or Saudi Arabia?)
- D_Alex 7mo ago>Iran would have to respond and thus would have to try to find a way to inflict ‘pain’ on the United States to force the United States to back off. But whereas Israel is in reach of some Iranian weapons, the United States is not. This is too complacent for my liking. Every rusty trawler is a viable launch platform for Shahed type drones (operational range ~2500 km per Wikipedia). Nearly every US oil refinery and LNG terminal are on the coast. And then there are floating oil platforms (e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perdido_(oil_platform) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perdido_(oil_platform)) The article then says: >One can never know how well prepared an enemy is for something. And: >And if I can reason this out, Iran – which has been planning for this exact thing for forty years certainly can. I'll leave it here for y'all to ponder.
- lmm 7mo ago> Every rusty trawler is a viable launch platform for Shahed type drones And where exactly are you planning to operate that trawler out of? Or are you going to send it across the Atlantic on its own (well, with a couple of tankers accompanying it, but never mind that) and hope no-one pays attention? > operational range ~2500 km per Wikipedia I think you either added an extra zero or were looking at the hyped prototypes rather than the models in actual use. The Shaheds have ranges in the hundreds of miles, not thousands.
- citrin_ru 7mo ago2500 km is a realistic range of you follow the war in Ukraine. Kyiv is frequently attacked with Shahed drones and it is far from frontlines.
- beloch 7mo agoA few thoughts. 1. The straight of Hormuz is crazy because of the sheer amount of options Iran has to threaten shipping. It's so narrow that they can even hit ships with artillery fire. No need for missiles or drones at all! Lobbing kinetic shells may sound primitive, but anti-missile defences are designed to deal with large projectiles with minutes or hours of warning, not shell-sized projectiles that hit within seconds. If a U.S. war-ship enters the straight, they could be struck by fire from artillery that's been concealed for decades before they know they're under fire. It's also worth noting that Shahad drones have a larger range than the size of Iran, and they're hidden all over the country. Any ship transiting Hormuz or any ground force trying to land in Iran could face drone attack from anywhere in Iran, or all of it simultaneously. A few drones are easy to intercept, but give Iran a juicy enough target and they could make the decision to simply overwhelm it. Drones are a heavily parallel capability. 2. There are only a couple of lanes deep enough for large ships in the straight. So far, no ships have been sunk outright, and that's probably a deliberate choice on Iran's part. If they sink a ship at the right spot, the straight could become barricaded. Clearing that barricade under threat of fire would be a far worse pickle than what we're seeing now. 3. The critical question to ask is, "How does the U.S. end this?" Just continuing to bomb Iran is phenomenally expensive and likely won't accomplish much. This is a regime that has been preparing for an American invasion since they overthrew the CIA-installed Shah 47 years ago. They probably never seriously expected to win an air-war against the U.S. and have obviously planned for an asymmetric conflict. The U.S. is not going to win this one without phenomenal amounts of blood, treasure, and will, but all of these are in short supply. A ground invasion of Iran would likely be worse than Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam rolled into one. The U.S. can't win this war because they simply can't pay the price. Unfortunately, the straight of Hormuz gives Iran the ability to prevent Trump from simply TACO'ing out and proceeding to invade Cuba. Iran could keep the straight closed even after the U.S. withdraws their forces, and likely will to make sure everybody knows they can control the world economy at will. They're going to expect a peace settlement, and it won't be cheap. 4. This conflict lights a fire under the behinds of all nascent nuclear states. Iran would not have been invaded if they'd managed to build nuclear weapons. Even Iran is more likely to develop nuclear weapons now. Contrary to what some think, Iran isn't going to give up their enriched uranium and end their program just because the U.S. promises not to attack them again. Something like the JCPOA only works if some level of trust is possible, but Trump personally burned that. The best the U.S. is likely to get in negotiations is a superficial promise not to develop nuclear weapons, backed up by absolutely nothing. If the U.S. decides to end the program by force, the result will also be uncertain. Say the U.S. locates and extracts Iran's HEU from those underground facilities. How will they ever be certain they got it all without occupying the whole country?
- johnohara 7mo agoThe Straight of Hormuz is open to any country willing to pay $2M per voyage. Any country except the U.S. and Israel. The most important aspect of the "toll" is that Iran prefers payment in yuan, not dollars. If Iran succeeds in nationalizing the Straight and is successful in enforcing the toll, it represents a very serious threat to the dominance of the U.S. Dollar as the world's reserve currency for trading energy.
- ardit33 7mo agoNo one in the US asked for this. Such a dumb move from the current administration.
- duskdozer 7mo agoThe traders with a five-minute preview of trump's tweets beg to differ
- beej71 7mo agoI've often wondered why the stock market oscillates while Trump is in office. If I just knew a little in advance...
- eigenspace 7mo agoWho could have possibly guessed that when voting for fascists, they'd start doing the same thing as all the other fascists.
- dsign 7mo agoYou can’t say that. Trump is very inconsistent and a consummated liar, so plenty of people didn’t believe on his promises to deliver fascism. And plenty of people did believe on his promise to end wars. /s Whether your little black heart wishes concentration camps or you’re just hoping your paycheck goes a bit further, voting for a con man is a terrible idea.
- solatic 7mo agoAuthor seems to not care about the prospect of the Iranian regime developing nuclear weapons, putting those weapons into the hands of its terrorist proxies, and sitting back while those proxies turn Western Europe and Palestine into radioactive wastelands (yes, Palestine, because it is not possible to restrict the fallout to just Tel Aviv, and the regime has shown itself to be far more anti-Israel than pro-Palestinian, the prospect of Palestine being a radioactive wasteland for a century is an acceptable price for destroying Israel). The US and the rest of the West should, apparently, just accept this as inevitable historical destiny, because $5/gallon gasoline or putting boots on the ground are apparently so utterly reprehensible. Author's analysis, as critical as he is of American presidents breaking their promises, is completely absent of analysis of what would happen if American presidents broke their promises to never allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. Never mind that JCPOA had a sunset clause that would allow Iran to resume nuclear enrichment to weapons-grade after the sunset clause. The author's analysis pretty blatantly exposes reality: the West is losing because it does not have the political stomach to win. Instead of deciding that maybe society should try to develop that political stomach, instead of paying attention to a Trump who got elected in large part on mantras about how America was losing and it needed to start winning, no, Author says this was all a horrible idea and implicitly we should just sit back while our enemies progress along the road of putting nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists.
- bryanlarsen 7mo agoDonald Trump obviously doesn't care either, because every action he has taken during his two terms has increased the risk of Iran developing nuclear weapons. JCPOA was highly flawed, but it was a lot better than nothing, which is what Trump traded it for. If Trump was serious about stopping Iran's nuclear program, he would have made taking Isfahan a top priority of the initial strikes.
- spwa4 7mo agoThat doesn't change in the least the argument the OP made. The UN's IAEA has declared that Iran deceived them, didn't follow the agreements, and even accused them of violating the agreements with the intent to build a bomb. As to Trump's motivations, they don't change this calculus. Iran intended to nuke their neighbors, and Israel, not just before Trump came to power but literally before the first Bush became president. And the full situation is even worse: right after the mullah's came to power in a leftist revolution in 1979, they begged for US and Israel's help to stop Saddam Hussein from nuking them. They got that help ... and then figured that nukes are a great idea. Here's what the mullahs are most afraid of btw. The biggest threat to their power, the biggest problem for their central-London villas: https://x.com/NarimanGharib/status/2036761330359615897 https://x.com/NarimanGharib/status/2036761330359615897 This local opposition to them has systematically worsened over time, btw. So I wouldn't put it past the mullahs to nuke Iran itself, eventually. It also means that Iran's islamic regime is threatening everyone, for the simple reason that if they make a single concession loosening their grip on Iran, they'll be lynched, one by one, in the streets, by people they went to school with. That is how much Iran's regime is "winning".
- spwa4 7mo ago[flagged]
- Starman_Jones 7mo agoRegarding the first half of your comment, I believe that the article addresses both your recommendations.
- spwa4 7mo agoReally? The only thing that comes close is the sentence about Iran's regime collapsing "on cue", and let's be honest, the only attention that factor gets is a sound-byte dismissal with barely a reference to what happened in January.
- Starman_Jones 7mo ago> But a ‘targeted’ ground operation against Iran’s ability to interdict the strait is also hard to concieve. Since Iran could launch underwater drones or one-way aerial attack drones from anywhere along the northern shore the United States would have to occupy many thousands of square miles to prevent this and of course then the ground troops doing that occupying would simply become the target for drones, mortars, artillery, IEDs and so on instead.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- eigenspace 7mo ago"Just" taking Karg Island, 300 km of coastline, and 4 other tiny islands leaves the US occupying forces as sitting ducks under constant bombardment and drone attacks from the Iranian mainland. US service members would be constantly getting killed, causing inevitable escalation and deeper and deeper incursions. It's a quagmire. This stuff is the exact same reason Israel constantly feels the need to peel more territory off their neighbours after each war. "We're getting bombed near the borders, so we need to push our borders out to keep the border regions safe", which of course just creates a new, even bigger border region.
- niemandhier 7mo agoA war continuous until one side has caused the other more suffering than it can take. When dealing with the Middle East we keep underestimating the amount of hardship the people I these countries can endure or be forced to endure.
- GolfPopper 7mo ago"Qui vincit non est victor nisi victus fatetur" -Ennius, Annales, XXXI Translation: "The victor is not victorious if the vanquished does not consider himself so”
- Bender 7mo agoAdding they can hang out in bunkers that are 500 meters under the mountains for decades. US leadership come and go every few years and they know it. They need only wait them out. There are no bunker busters or nukes in existence that I am aware of that can do anything to the missile cities. I would love to be proven wrong by their actions ideally without sacrificing 15k ground troops which I believe is the current count on the ground not counting the 50k naval forces.
- williamdclt 7mo ago> A war continuous until one side has caused the other more suffering than it can take. The article is in large parts about how that's not true. It makes the point that the very existence of the Iranian regime hinges on its opposition to the US, to capitulate would mean for the leaders to lose all support, be overthrown and likely die: so there's no level of suffering that it "can't take anymore". And similar in the US, the leadership cannot survive politically to a capitulation. Hence endless escalation on both sides.
- lokar 7mo agoThe Iranian regime is unlikely to capitulate fully. They don't want to end up like Syria and Lebanon, where Israel can just bomb them at will. Trump has more flexibility. Really all he needs is an endpoint that FOX News is willing to describe as a US victory. He cares more about image and perception than reality. So, in that space, there is probably room for some negotiated outcome.
- redwood 7mo agoAmazing to me how impatient people are. It was six to seven months between the 12 day war in June and the mass uprising seen in December/January which was ruthlessly crushed. It will likely be a while between the end of this war and the next mass uprising. But every uprising that happens against a massively weakened regime means there's more chance of real change. Totalitarian regimes fall in ways that are hard to predict, but gradually and then suddenly.
- winton 7mo agoCrazy how impatient people are while millions of people suffer, thousands die, and prices go up around the planet.
- redwood 7mo agoThe biggest beneficiary of this whole thing will be the shift to renewable energy. I am surprised to see the greens up in arms about it all.
- foobarian 7mo agoI was just thinking how much this situation benefits China and their solar power industry.
- crazygringo 7mo agoThe ends don't necessarily justify the means. And it might just as well be a shift to nuclear energy instead, which greens are traditionally against.
- gherkinnn 7mo agoThe ability of a state to run on energy pulled out of thin air is an obvious strategic benefit. Surely the resources required to build and maintain solar panels, turbines, dams, and nuclear reactors are logistically more stable than oil has proven to be.
- rustyhancock 7mo agoFor all his faults and there are many. The no more wars aspect of Trump's campaign actually made me mildly optimistic. I'm not an American so I'm not sure if the voting base actually believed him.
- andrewflnr 7mo agoNo one who understood what Trump is believed him. You shouldn't have either.
- rustyhancock 7mo agoI think that's overly pessimistic most (?all) politicians betray voters but seeing shades of grey or bright sides isn't a bad thing.
- andrewflnr 7mo agoLol. You're not in the US so I'll forgive your ignorance. Trump has managed to make himself an exception to any rules about looking for the bright side. If he appears to give you a reason for optimism, wait for him to reveal the novel way he'll ruin it. Between his corruption, his desire for power and status, and his raw stupidity, he poisons everything he touches. I'm looking for the bright side, believe me. A couple times I thought I might have seen one. You know, like you did with your hope that he wouldn't start any wars. But the pessimistic view keeps making all the correct predictions.
- SubiculumCode 7mo agoThis kind of amateur analysis is not worth being front page of HN. Its not that it doesn't make a few good points, but overall, it just isn't high grade strategic analysis because it lacks a lot of information by the post's own admission.
- dmichulke 7mo agoCan you point out a better source or the major points that become invalid due to other circumstances?
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- giraffe_lady 7mo agoNah it's good. It shows exactly how far you can get with just a modest understanding of what strategy actually is at the level of nation states plus publicly available facts from the news. Especially in the heavily jingoistic american context, where all of the focus is implicitly on the military means and technology and execution, but people have lost sight of, maybe can not even state plainly, what the point of a military is, what considerations are part of deciding to use it to accomplish a goal. If you're going to accomplish a strategic goal with a military action, that goal had better be achievable through military action and this one plainly isn't. A historian can see it, a blogger can see it, a programmer can see it. Why wasn't it seen by people whose job is ostensibly to see it?
- SubiculumCode 7mo agoIt doesn't even consider potential primary objectives, especially when viewed alongside the recent actions in Venezuela: 1. If US was to replace Iran as the one to control exports of oil through the strait, then thos would gain huge leverage on China via control of energy exports from Iran, Middle East more generally, as they have already done in Venezuela. 2. Making it clear that partnership with Russia and China will not provide security, which was shown to be worthless. This counters “The East is rising and the West is declining”, a go-to Xi Jinping line. 4. Securing South America for near-shoring production, decoupling of supply chains from China. Iran, China, and Russia have lots of 5. Disrupting Iranian ability to support Russia against Ukraine via manufacturing of drones in Iran and in Venezuela. Whether these points are actually part of the strategy, I do not know, but they have been raised by others in the space, and seemed absent in the article.
- znnajdla 7mo agoNo one seems to discuss the worst case scenario for this war. In the best/average case the world takes an economic hit. But I can think of one really big black swan event which no one seems to even consider (except Nassim Taleb). This war could trigger regime collapses all over the Arab world and put populist leaders in charge who rise to power on the basis of Gaza genocide fury. That would be catastrophic to Israel: they could face Iran from the air and Arab ground forces from multiple directions. In fact there are already signs that Egypt is moving towards that, troops are moving in to the Sinai. There is a real chance that Israel could cease to exist.
- pphysch 7mo agoThis is exactly why the Saudi leadership have been quick to debunk Western propaganda about the Saudi's itching to join the war, despite Iran's strikes on GCC territory. The domestic blowback in the GCC states would be fatal to the political system. The GCC elites there are living well, with escape plans, but the people know they are viewed as subhuman "arabs" by the Israelis, and are in line for the Gaza Method (which is currently being deployed in the West Bank and Lebanon).
- manyaoman 7mo ago> This war could trigger regime collapses all over the Arab world and put populist leaders in charge who rise to power on the basis of Gaza genocide fury. It would be a black swan if this didn't happen.
- dingaling 7mo ago"That would be catastrophic to Israel: they could face Iran from the air and Arab ground forces from multiple directions. " Israel has little to fear from Iran in the air, the IRIAF has been destroyed and ballistic missile launches have tapered off. In terms of Arab ground armies, only Egypt and Saudi pose much of a threat; the others are small, unintegrated and inexperienced and rely heavily on Western contractor support. And if Israel, which has the most combat experienced air force in the World, somehow did struggle to defend against those forces, they always have the Samson Option of nuclear-tipped missiles from silos and submarines.
- amarant 7mo agoThere are a few passages in there that in isolation are not very notable, but taken together are kind of interesting: >But countries do not go to war simply to have a war – well, stupid fascist countries do, which is part of why they tend to be quite bad at war – they go to war to achieve specific goals and end-states. >Again, it is not a ‘gain’ in war simply to bloody your enemy: you are supposed to achieve something in doing so. There are a few other passages to similar effect, but for brevity, these two will do to illustrate the point: the author seems to be subtly implying that America is a "stupid fascist nation". Actually, the way he keeps clarifying the obvious, I think he expects a good amount of his readers to be "stupid fascists". I cannot say I wholly disagree with his assessment!
- the_af 7mo ago> the author seems to be subtly implying that America is a "stupid fascist nation" He does nothing of the sort. I can clarify for you: the mention of fascist countries being bad at war is a link to another article by the author, which explains that fascist countries such as Mussolini's Italy and Nazi Germany were very bad at a war even while they mythologized and romanticized it, and derived their "sense of nation" out of symbolic struggle and might. The article you linked to describes many fascist or fascist-like nations, like Putin's Russia, but does not mention liberal democracies such as the USA. I recommend you read it. So why did the author mention that article in this context? Because he wanted to explain that countries -- unless they are fascist countries -- have strategic goals for going to war, and so does the US in this case, and therefore it's warranted to look into those goals and whether they have a chance of being met. Again, I recommend you read the article in question (the one about fascists being bad at war) before jumping to unwarranted conclusions.
- amarant 7mo agoWe read the article rather differently it seems. My reading is that he's pointing out the lack of goal for America here. Or at the very least the lack of a realistic goal. As he points out, it was clear 40 years ago that the stated objective stood very little chance of being achieved, which in turn makes one wonder if that was even a real objective at all. And having a stated objective is quite different from having a real objective. Hitler had various stated objectives for all his wars (Lebensraum, fostering the Ubermensch, and rescuing Germans from the supposed oppressions of the Jews, which of course never existed and was purely a fiction to justify unspeakable horrors). If you take Hitler's words at face value, they were all motivated and not at all stupid wars. But you'd be very stupid to take Hitler's words at face value, especially with the benefit of hindsight! I think the same arguments are applicable to trump. He has stated several goals, none of which are reasonably achievable. Take trumps words at face value and the war makes sense, but he has shown himself to be a pathological liar, so you'd be an idiot to believe him, especially when his statements lack any connection to the real world. Given how he tends to argue, it wouldn't surprise me at all if trump thinks that "bloodying your enemy" is a win in a war. That's how he works. That's how he handles trade. Doesn't matter if tariffs damage America, so long as they also damage other nations, it's a win. Of course he thinks that way about war too! The end state trump is looking for is damage to Iran. He'll have it. But the rest of the world (including USA) will suffer tenfold. He doesn't care. Because he's a stupid fascist leader. Thus, we end up with the conclusion that America had no real reason to start this war, and starting it anyway is an action historically only done by stupid fascist countries, therefore America is a stupid fascist country. It's a fourth order implication, which admittedly is not at all clear, and might not have been intentional. I'm severely biased of course, I generally hold last week's turd in higher regard than I do trump (turds make great fertilizer!). So grain of salt and all that...
- Iuz 7mo ago> That said, this post is going to be unavoidably ‘political,’ because as a citizen of the United States, commenting on the war means making a statement about the President who unilaterally and illegally launched it without much public debate and without consulting Congress. And this war is dumb as hell. Proceeds to not mention the Epstein files at all. No comment here mentions it either. All that mess and all those deep connections that were unraveling... I’m not a US citizen, but has that already been forgotten? Do people not consider that they might be relevant in some way to this situation? Or is raising that possibility now generally viewed as a conspiracy theory?
- draw_down 7mo ago[dead]
- amarant 7mo agoA core trait of my personality can be summed up as "always look on the bright side of life". To that end: This war seems more than likely to drive up oil prices not only in the near term, but in the medium and long terms too! In addition, petroleum usage seems likely to become dependant on sucking Iran's proverbial dick, a notion that very few people in The West will find palatable. Optimistically then, perhaps this will finally light a fire under everyone's asses to switch to renewable energy sources! Wether it's wind, solar or hydro, a underappreciated property of renewable energy is the energy sovereignty they provide. Once deployed, international trade can stop completely, and you'll still have electricity to heat your homes, cook your food, and drive your car. No more being dependant on dubious regimes like Iran for your day-to-day. Admittedly this is true for coal, too, but I think we've already established that it cannot economically compete, so that should play out in favour of renewables in the long run.
- 1minusp 7mo agoI'd love to believe this, but very recent history has shown (in the US at least) that we are moving backwards and trying to resist renewable energy.
- brightball 7mo agoEconomics will always win in the end. At the rate that costs are dropping for solar, it should just be a matter of time. Biggest concerns are usually placement and durability to bad weather.
- bdangubic 7mo ago> Economics will always win in the end. This may have been true in the past but the economics of today is "whether this is good for 1% of the population" and not in general, yes? If I can buy cheap solar panels from China (or say for the sake of argument someone "friendlier" like Germany) but that gets slapped with tariffs or other means the "administration" (bought by the 1% crowd) has at their disposal to prevent this from happening. If we lived in a free market this would be true for sure but we don't (by we I mean USA :) )
- MrDrDr 7mo agoThat this was so predictable, is the hardest thing to process. A friend shared this video by Jiang Xueqin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y_hbz6loEo&t=2s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y_hbz6loEo&t=2s I find this guys hard to take seriously, his logic is erratic and often just absent. But his prediction has been frighteningly spot on regarding Iran. Towards the end he predicts American boots on the ground - and them turning into American hostages. I found that last part truly unbelievable until I heard Trump will have moved 3000 marines to the region by Friday.
- MrDrDr 7mo agoN.B. The video is from May 2004 (during the Biden administration)
- _DeadFred_ 7mo agoThis guy is a weirdo that believes Jesuit illuminati run the world (listen to the end of his Breaking Points interview), his qualification is a BA in English, he teaches at the high school level, and holds discussions with manosphere figures like Sneako. Not sure I'd elevate what he says just because he has a good online presence and really don't understand why he would be at the time of this post in the top comment in this discussion.
- probably_wrong 7mo agoI think you are missing the parent comment's point. The point is not "this guy is a genius" but rather "this war was so predictable, even this weird guy could pinpoint with frightening accuracy how this war would happen two years before it started".
- rfwhyte 7mo agoThe only counterpoint to the article's central thesis I really have is that frankly I don't think there even was a "Strategy" for this war beyond the fact it will distract the American populace from the Epstein files and somehow enrich Trump and his political cronies. That's it. That's the whole damn "Causus belli" for this so called "Special military operation." It isn't intended to accomplish any specific geo-strategic goals, it doesn't have a plan or purpose, it's just a convenient distraction and way for some already very rich folks to get even richer. This is honestly my major issue with the whole "Geo-strategic analysis industrial blogger / YouTuber complex" in that I think they far too often ascribe deeper meaning and geo-strategic planning or purpose to state actions when they can far more easily be interpreted through the lens of the political capture of nations and institutions by the wealthy elites, their greed / self interest and their monological desire to preserve the status quo and thus their own political / economic power. Nations very seldom do pretty much anything these days because it would be of benefit to their nation or people, they almost exclusively only do things that benefit the wealthy elites who control them. This war, like all wars throughout human history, is a class war, in that the lives and livings of us regular folks are being sacrificed at the alters of power and profit, all so certain rich folks can get even richer and keep their boot on our necks.
- throwaway2037 7mo agoThe blog post said that the Iran war costs the US at least 1 billion USD per day. The US is incredibly rich and can afford the cost. What I don't see being discussed: What if the US (and Israel) does not put troops on the ground in Iran, but continues relentless, daily aerial bombing... forever (1/2/3 years)? I am not saying that you can control a country from air superiority only (this has been widely discussed by military strategists -- it cannot), but you can endlessly bomb their military assets. What would happen? Honestly, I don't know. I don't think it has been done in the last 50 years of war. (Please provide counter examples if you know any.)
- fartfeatures 7mo ago"There are a lot of people who say that bombing can never win a war. Well, my answer to that is that it has never been tried yet, and we shall see." - Sir Arthur Harris The response is as applicable now as it was then. Time will tell.
- mcmoor 7mo agoThis same blog really chastises that statement and tries to debunk it. I don't really see anything wrong with that article so until then, I guess I believe airpower can never win a war https://acoup.blog/2022/10/21/collections-strategic-airpower-101/ https://acoup.blog/2022/10/21/collections-strategic-airpower...
- bgnn 7mo agoThat's one way to make sure people living under aerial bombing firmly support a regime defending their sovereignty, hence legitimizing the islamic republic. Example: Taliban, with boots on the ground, didn't get any weaker at the end.
- mythrwy 7mo agoMany of their military assets are underground out of reach of bombers. And you need somewhere to stage out of. Probably not the Gulf bases that are being wiped by missiles and drones at the moment. The aircraft carriers have been having issues and are being pushed back out of missile range. So it becomes more difficult and expensive to keep the bombing up.
- yahway 7mo ago[dead]
- yyyk 7mo agoYea, the US joined in in 2025, what should it imply about a future war? The assumption that Iran doesn't know who's bombing it sounds rather dubious. If anything, it should be very much in their interest to assume away US involvement unless 100% proven, given fighting an additional enemy tend to be very bad and US is so powerful. Unless... Maybe the strategic balance creates a situation where it's advantageous for Iran to pull US in regardless of non-involvement. They don't do well against Israel alone (see rather low damage of 4 separate large scale attempts at attacking Israel directly), but US is so much easier to pressure via the Gulf. Indeed, this scenario doesn't quite need Israel. So US risked getting pulled in not due to attacking in June 2025, but because the cheque given to the Gulf was starting to expire, the power balance was objectively swinging in favor of Iran at the location where Devereaux sees as the most important part of the Middle East. Now, say there are powerful states who feel they are in a decent position now but also that the strategic balance would slip away. What do they tend to do? Devereaux can consult his WW1 history.
- Aerbil313 7mo agoIt's Israel. This war doesn't make any sense for US to be involved in. It makes every sense for Israel to have the US involved in.
- udioron 7mo ago> Iran was big and hostile, but relatively unimportant. How unimportant was Bin Laden?
- adamtaylor_13 7mo agoI think culturally he was important to a lot of folks in the 40-60 year old range, but the cultural take of the younger (20-30 year old) demographic really feels like all of Iraq was a huge waste of lives, time, and money. Was he important? Genuinely curious because all I know is cultural vibes.
- gus_massa 7mo agoBin Laden was not from Iran.
- udioron 7mo agoExactly. You missed the point.
- warkdarrior 7mo agoBin Laden was from Saudi Arabia.
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago"...it is not possible for two sides to both win a war. But it is absolutely possible for both sides to lose; mutual ruin is an option. Every actor involved in this war – the United States, Iran, arguably Israel, the Gulf states, the rest of the energy-using world – is on net poorer, more vulnerable, more resource-precarious as a result."
- csmpltn 7mo ago[flagged]
- booleandilemma 7mo agoThat's the internet for you. People read a wikipedia article or two and think they're an expert. I remember another article on here talking about beekeeping and suddenly everyone was a beekeeping expert. It's kind of amusing to watch, if nothing else.
- gverrilla 7mo agoI find it quite amusing. Moderation? LMAO. This is peak HN.
- CrzyLngPwd 7mo agoIt's not a war in Iran. It's an unprovoked war by the USA and its handler, Israel, against Iran. People are being killed, by choice, by the USA and Israel, and the USA and Israel are irreversibly destroying their own personas on the world stage. Even US hostage Merz is starting to stutter about it. Everywhere that isn't the USA or a USA vassal, they call the USA and Israel "The Epstein Coalition". That's how it is viewed. Think about it. That's how appalling it is. Downvote me, I have no fucks to give; the field is barren.
- sillyfluke 7mo ago>Even US hostage Merz is starting to stutter about it. Is he stuttering into an iron dome? "Volkswagen may turn car factory into Iron Dome hub with Israel partnership" https://www.business-standard.com/world-news/volkswagen-israel-missile-defence-osnabrueck-plant-jobs-air-components-126032500259_1.html https://www.business-standard.com/world-news/volkswagen-isra...
- TheGuyWhoCodes 7mo agoYes, lets complain about building anti missiles defense systems.
- jaco6 7mo ago[dead]
- jameshilliard 7mo ago> It's an unprovoked war by the USA and its handler, Israel, against Iran. Iran via their proxies have waged war for years against the US and Israel, the war is in no way unprovoked.
- epsters 7mo agoJoe Kent [1] offered a possible way out of this - however slim the odds might be. Trump's one quality that may save us all from this quagmire is his ability to do a complete 180 on his previous committed path - "TACO" as his detractors like to call it. Like he did with ICE in Minneapolis, or in Yemen last year when he quit his bombing campaign after one month. If he could be convinced to just declare victory over Iran and move onto the next crisis of his creation - maybe send ICE to Cuba or invade Puerto Rico. He has the personal power to pull it off and his base will probably back him. Getting the Iranians to de-escalate and back to negotiations will be a challenge (after the second time he bombed them in middle of negotiations). The real problem will be restraining the Israelis who will likely do everything in their power to scuttle any deal and will do things to further drag the US and other countries in the region and the world into their war. Another problem will be getting to through to Trump who seems to be cocooned in a reality distortion field cast by Fox News, the Israel Lobby and Israel-firsters in his administration. If enough people in his base and dissenters in his administration and the government can speak up and get through to him he might be convinced to change course. The Democratic Party for their part seem to be quite unanimated in all this. It looks like they're playing a cynical double-game, hoping Trump gets further caught up in a web of his own making. I wonder if it will weigh on them at all if another school gets blown up or another thousand people die while they slow-walk the vote on the next war powers resolution. [1] - Interesting interview between Kent and Saagar Enjeti https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XMyC2Cr7X0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XMyC2Cr7X0
- anon84873628 7mo agoOf course, find a way to blame Democrats. As if they're not trying to protect the scraps of everything else the Republicans have ruined. The reality is that plenty of Democrats are "animated" about the war.
- jcranmer 7mo ago> Trump's one quality that may save us all from this quagmire is his ability to do a complete 180 on his previous committed path - "TACO" as his detractors like to call it. If you haven't been paying attention, Trump has declared victory and called it quits roughly every other day for the past several weeks. It hasn't stuck, principally because Iran is the main actor that can decide whether or not to call it quits, and they have no reason to call it quits until they believe that Trump is actually serious in calling it quits. One of the most surreal things is the sheer disconnect going on. The energy sector and everyone who's impacted are basically running around going "the strait's gonna be closed for months, we're turbofucked." The finance people are betting that the crisis will be over if not tomorrow then next week at the latest. And Trump et al are acting as if the crisis ended yesterday. > I wonder if it will weigh on them at all if another school gets blown up or another thousand people die while they slow-walk the vote on the next war powers resolution. The Democrats are the minority party. They don't control the agenda of legislative votes. But sure, blame them for the things they don't control, rather than the Republicans who want to avoid embarrassing their dear leader even as he leads his party to what looks to be utterly crushing defeats in the next elections with some of the most historically unpopular policies ever.
- mlmonkey 7mo agoPeople often call this war "dumb". IMO: this war is just the next step in the 1200-year old Shia-Sunni conflict. The Sunnis hate the Shia, and vice versa. Ever since 1979 when Khomeini came to power, the Sunnis have been on edge. The terrorist attack on Mecca shortly after made matters worse ( https://www.brookings.edu/events/terrorism-in-saudi-arabia-past-and-present/ https://www.brookings.edu/events/terrorism-in-saudi-arabia-p... ). At first they thought they'd get Saddam to take out Iran; but that brutal war ended in a stalemate. Saudis and Kuwaitis gave billions to Saddam for this, and when it ended, they demanded refunds for a job not done. This caused Saddam to try and take over Kuwait to wipe out his debts, which in turn freaked the Saudis out. They turned to the US to save them; which in turn pissed Osama off, who was riding tall after kicking the Soviets out of Afghanistan. Gulf War 1 happened, but that didn't placate Osama. Then USS Cole, Khobar Towers, 9/11 happened and US got dragged into the MiddleEast again, this time finally taking out Saddam. When Trump got reelected, the Saudis and Qataris saw their chance to take out their archenemy Iran. They wined and dined him, invested billions into his and his family's shady schemes, gifted him a brand new jet. In that part of the world, every gift comes with strings attached. So, it was only a matter of time before the US would start trading blows with Iran. And guess what? MBS is now pushing Trump to put boots on the ground: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-on-brink-of-ground-invasion-in-iran-as-saudi-strongman-makes-astonishing-pitch-in-secret-call/ar-AA1ZjQLs https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-on-brink-of-groun... The problem with the rulers of Iran was that they did not see the writing on the wall, and continued to poke at Israel via Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthies. They had already lost Syria (with the ouster of Basher Al Assad); they could have just cut their ties with Hamas and Hezbollah and made peace with Israel.
- cheema33 7mo ago> IMO: this war is just the next step in the 1200-year old Shia-Sunni conflict. US and Israel attacked Iran because of Shia-Sunni issues?
- mlmonkey 7mo agoYou need to think beyond first order effects. Saudis want to get rid of Iran, for Shia-Sunni reasons. Israel wants to get rid of Iran because of the 3 Hs. Enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that; that's why KSA and Israel mended fences (for now). Now Saudis cannot take on Iran at all; heck, they can't even take on the Houthis. So ... they found the 800lb gorilla (USA) and convinced it that those mean Iranians had made stupid faces at him. Iran, meanwhile, showed colossal stupidity and arrogance by supporting these 3 Hs. Houthis, I can understand; they are going after Saudis mainly. But Iran had no dog in the Israel-Palestine fight!
- EternalFury 7mo agoForce is supreme until you use it, then everyone knows it has limits.
- Animats 7mo agoThe war should be over by March 31st. Netanyahu has a deadline. He is facing a snap election. If the Knesset doesn't pass a budget by March 31st, Israel votes 90 days later, and Netanyahu is not expected to win. Worse for Netanyahu, he's on trial for corruption charges, and once he's out of office, he's probably headed for jail. The war was intended to give Netanyahu's popularity a boost, but that did not work out. [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/netanyahu-seeks-avoid-snap-vote-iran-war-gives-no-boost-polls-2026-03-25/ https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/netanyahu-seeks-av...
- andrewflnr 7mo agoThis toothpaste is probably not going in the tube by March 31, even if Netanyahu tries to scrape it back in.
- YZF 7mo agoThe elections would happen by default in October: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Israeli_legislative_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Israeli_legislative_elect... The budget will likely be approved in parliament. Netanyahu has a solid majority and his partners are not interested in triggering elections. I'd be very surprised if that wasn't the case. Netanyahu survived many worse political crisis. I'll be happy to see him gone but he always pulls out some magic trick from his hat. The biggest factor will be whether the Arab parties will unite and actually get their people to go and vote. That they didn't in the last elections is how Bibi got to form the government again. Even if that happens this becomes tricky because you'll likely end up with a minority government. 90 days vs. October isn't that much of a difference either and a lot can change in 90 days.
- genxy 7mo agoJesus, I had no idea that the Arab vote in Israel was so cruicial and that voter turn out is so low. Mid fifties for the 2022 election?
- names_are_hard 7mo ago
- flyinglizard 7mo agoThe article doesn't understand the real geopolitical implications at play. JCPOA was due to expire beginning in October 2025, so it was not a permanent solution. Iranian nuclear proliferation was closely monitored by Israel and others as a top priority, and there's little doubt that this was the end game: no one could explain the vast enrichment activity in hardened, dug-in facilities otherwise (if you claim "Iran never had a military nuclear program!" while faced with the evidence of multiple scattered military-grade facilities, a missile program and nuclear material enriched to above-civilian grade then you're simply an idiot). The Iranian combination of a huge missile and drone programs and effect on the Middle East through proxies (de-facto controlling Iraq through the Shia militias and Iran affiliated government, Syria through Assad, Lebanon through Hezbollah and Yemen through the Houthis) meant it had geopoltical control of the entire area. Iran attacked oil infrastructure before; namely Aramco facilities in Saudi Arabia back in 2019. So it's a weapon it was willing to wield even before this war. Iran was a key player in the Chinese/Russian axis (Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Russia, China) that was a global threat to Western interests. There are persistent reports that Saudi Arabia wanted this war to happen, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the Gulf states supported that as well, because nothing threatens them more than Iran. Iran getting nuclear weapons would throw the entire region into a nuclear arms race, so it was much more than the survivability of Israel alone. Saudi Arabia would pursue one, then Egypt (because of the former), and no one knows where it would stop. I don't think this war was good, but doing nothing was even worse. I trust Israel more than I trust the US to have sound strategy on how this war ends. Israel is entrenched enough in Iran to be capable. My bet? it will most likely end with a Venezuela situation, where the IRGC remains in place but with different people with different priorities. Iran keeps losing more and more infrastructure by the day, in Iran and outside (like what's going on with Hezbollah). Assuming Iran can go on like this for a long time with their population suffering (remember the economy was in ruins and there was a serious draught even before this war started) is not realistic. They are playing the Middle Eastern bazaar-style negotiation, but there's not much behind it. As for Israel: it's enjoying a huge economic boom with defense industry having record backlog (Israel just overtook UK!), massive R&D activities with companies like Apple and Nvidia (see Jensen's latest memo on his unwavering support of Israel and plans to build a 12,000 employee campus in addition to whatever Nvidia has in Israel). Amazon, Google, the works. Very unlikely that trade relations between US and Israel would deteriorate - there's simply no sound reason to do so, unless someone like Mamdani wins the presidency runs a Trump-style amok just with opposite beneficiaries. P.S. no tears will be shed in Israel for Qatar, either. Qatar is the primary sponsor of anti-Israeli (not to say anti-Jewish) propaganda right now.
- CamperBob2 7mo agoIt sounds like the idiots are now shelling Iran's nuclear power plant: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/bushehr-nuclear-plant-hit-again-as-pentagon-deploys-82nd-airborne-day-25-of-iran-war-escalates/ar-AA1ZkyH3 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/bushehr-nuclear-plant-h...
- grumple 7mo agoI agree with most of the sentiment in the OP with a few key disagreements. OP repeatedly says Iran is not very important (not strategically important). This is clearly not true for a few reasons: 1) They control the flow of oil, as we're seeing now. 2) They provide a huge amount of funding to hostile forces throughout the middle east - Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, pro-Iran militias in Iraq. This destabilizes the entire region, including important partners beyond Israel (Saudi Arabia, UAE). Their support for the Assad regime in Syria and Hezbollah, who killed nearly half a million Syrians during the civil war there, also created a huge refugee crisis throughout Europe that has led to a rise in far-right parties who are reacting to the failed integration of these refugees. 3) They provide drones to Russia and instructions for how to build those drones. 4) They provide oil to Russia and China, two major geopolitical adversaries. 5) They are among the most significant propagandists that use social media to destabilize the west - having been caught repeatedly manipulating social media platforms like Reddit, Instagram, Twitter/X. There are also some strategic benefits to the current war, especially if you're a narcissistic kleptocrat running the US: 1) We've already seen the market manipulation. 2) Every bomb dropped is a bomb taxpayers must replace; that money goes right to defense contractors 3) Then consider the American oil companies: they stand to make a lot more money from this, as their products are now more scarce and more valuable. The US, as a net exporter of oil (we import low quality oil because we're good at refining it; we export the good stuff), will make more money. 4) The disruption of the Persian Gulf hurts Russia and China far more than it hurts the US and EU. There are some US allies and neutrals who get hurt (those in east Asia, gulf oil states). But it's not a balanced impact - we definitely come out on top in the current situation in my view. 5) Electric vehicles are starting to look a lot better. Who's Trump's bff and biggest financial backer, again? Does he operate in that space? I think the overall impact of the attacks on Venezuela and Iran sum to an attack on the hostile Russia-Iran-China axis, with the benefit of hurting some of their minor allies as well. It seems too perfect that we attack the two largest non-allied oil suppliers in quick succession for it to be coincidence. It might not be Trump's plan, but it seems like a long-standing plan to achieve a favorable geopolitical environment.
- nl 7mo agoI think the correct way of viewing this war is around internal White House power games. I don't think Trump himself particularly cares about Iran (or indeed Israel) - as in I don't think he has strong heartfelt views or moral convictions that cause him to act one way or the other in the strategic sense. But there are those in the White House who do. My impression from afar is that JD Vance wouldn't have been very supportive of this war, but his faction lost some power after the success of the Venezuelan adventure. I think that particular move was Marco Rubio, but I'm not sure he would have been crazy enough to make the jump from that working to thinking that war with Iran was a good idea. It doesn't seem to have been Stephen Millar's idea either. So maybe it was a bunch or fairly random people from the pro-Netanyahu faction in the WHite House (not sure of names? Maybe Hegseth?) who really believed that this would be a quick bombing attack to take out the Supreme Leader and degrade some Iranian military capabilities, and it would be quickly over? Maybe it was just Pete Hegseth trying to seem extra macho and people actually listened? Writing it down makes it clear how very confusing this it. Maybe no one actually wanted this and they just went along because no one was actively saying it was dumb?
- fblp 7mo agoOf those options I'd guess Hedgseth as he seems to be the one cheering the war and also using Christian rhetoric. Trump has also suggested he may have relied on Hedgseths advice to scapegoats Hedgseth in recent days..
- nl 7mo agoYes reading more of recent news coverage I think this is the likely explanation.
- heresie-dabord 7mo ago> Maybe no one actually wanted this and they just went along because no one was actively saying it was dumb? It is possible that the current war launched by the US Department of War by the chairman of the Board of Peace is the result of the Abilene Paradox.[1] However, this vile collection of idiotic thugs more likely reached a Dunning-Krugerian consensus that this would be a quick and easy win. They all think themselves smarter and even nobler than everyone else. They are however simply more remorselessly corrupt than most people imagined. [1] _ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox
- vfclists 7mo agoWhy is a "War on Iran" being labelled as a "War in Iran" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47525839 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47525839
- globalnode 7mo agoive got opinions about this that id like to share but theyll likely be censored (your loss).
- AYBABTME 7mo agoI think this analysis is missing the big picture. (1) reducing oil shipments to China is good posturing for the US; hence Venezuela and Iran ahead of 2028. These are shaping operations. China suffers more from these conflicts than the US. (2) Iran isn't the only one who can control passage throught the strait. All gulf countries can do so. If Iran can cheaply cut off passage, so can Saudi Arabia and UAE and everyone else there. They all have a long term mutual need in keeping this strait open. All these recent analysis of conflicts in isolation, which always assume a lot of self-interest in disliked politicians, seem to make the analysts and authors blind to a much more probable and sensible grand strategy. Russia invading Ukraine and failing, has been the greatest strategic gift Russia could give to the US against China in setting the stage for shaping a defence of, and deterring an offensive on, Taiwan. Russia lost the ability to defend its proxies at a cost asymetrically small to the US. Hamas broke rank and allowed Israel to eventually decapitate Iran's proxies and air-defense step by step instead of all at once, setting the stage for the opportunity of the current war. And Russia being distracted also gave the US carte-blanche in Venezuela, not only via distraction but by proving that Russian air-defense isn't the thread it was thought to be. The remaining strategic tension, in my humble opinion, is whether the US depletes its stockpiles too much without a caught up manufacturing capability, so that a Taiwan conflict becomes easy to win by default for China (via a blockade which would essentially be a cold war with few deaths and minimal damage) or if the weakened China (due to oil constraints) would be simply unable to attack in 2028, the strategic window when it can do so. The situation, in my eyes, is evolving in a state where only two modes become dominant and both are slightly better for Taiwan.
- tw1984 7mo agolove your very cute assumption that China is going to sit there and do nothing. you must be living in the Disneyland?
- ux266478 7mo agoChina's foreign policy has been rooted in non-interventionism since the time of Jiang. The only thing happening is Disneyland is belief that this is going to change because gas prices spiked above 10RMB/L
- olalonde 7mo agoSomething the author didn't mention: what about building more pipelines to bypass the strait? If this war really cost 2B$ per day, why not allocate some of that money to finance pipelines across the gulf states? Might be worth it long term, especially if Iran plans to permanently impose a toll.
- brokegrammer 7mo agoAnother great resource is this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIS2eB-rGv0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIS2eB-rGv0 It talks about how: - It's much more expensive to shoot down a Shahed drone than to build one. - Iran could decide to attack water filtration plants in the Gulf countries. - It's almost impossible to win a ground invasion without spending a ton of money because of the mountains. Basically, even if the US wins this war, the entire world economy will suffer tremendously.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- jaco6 7mo ago[dead]
- retentionissue 7mo ago>but more Americans sympathize with Palestinians than Israelis for the first time in American history. Dangerous stuff there pal, AIPAC coming for ya now. /s Other than that, this whole thing is very well written and thought out. I found myself bobbing my head in agreement repeatedly. I also must point out this gem: "There is a great deal of ruin in a nation." – Very well said.
- nix-zarathustra 7mo ago>"There is a great deal of ruin in a nation." That is a quote by Adam Smith when one of his students lamented at the "ruin of the nation" when the American patriots had won their independence.
- retentionissue 7mo agoThanks, didn't know that.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- Ms-J 7mo agoAnother failed war with the USA fighting to the death for israel. Why does this happen? It is because israel blackmails American politicians. It would be better to show all the dirty shit to the public than for the world to die for israel. They even have missiles targeting the USA in case "they feel over run"! They are an enemy to the world.
- xg15 7mo ago> Neither is the Middle East [an area of vital security interest to the United States] > So long as [the Suez Canal and the Gulf] remained open the region does not matter very much to the United States. I feel his assumption there can't be correct. Just look at the amount of military bases the US has built in the region, or the sheer number of wars there that the US was involved in. I can't imagine that a country would spend that kind of resources, money and lives for an area it deems not of vital strategic importance.