5 ms·

A 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 h

A 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 ago
Adding 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 ago
  The 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.
  - mememememememo 7mo ago
    Can FOX bamboozle my local gas station too to drop 40% on the price?
    - lokar 7mo ago
      No, but they can explain that has nothing to do with the war. It's because Newsom won't allow new oil drilling off the CA coast. And I expect that (or something like it), will in fact satisfy core MAGA voters.
      - mememememememo 7mo ago
        Good point! Maga is like a religion. Trump is the god. So by definition he can't be wrong. I'm in another country so not fooled but at same time I don't get to vote in US so I don't matter.
ReptileMan 7mo ago
[flagged]
- pphysch 7mo ago
  > Return them to stone age until the leadership becomes reasonable. Worth reflecting on this sentence. What is "reasonable" supposed to entail here? ETA: "Become secular" is a wild demand from theocratic regime that wants to "Kill Amalek and Build the Third Temple".
  - ReptileMan 7mo ago
    Give away the enriched uranium, become secular. Edit: Sometimes the only answer to the weaker side claiming that something is impossible is Vae Victis. I am sure that there are enough powerful people in Iran that wouldn't mind secular state if they are the one to lead it. It is not as if their kids are not wild partying in europe anyway.
    - the_af 7mo ago
      > Give away the enriched uranium, become secular. TFA explains why this is impossible for Iran.
      - ReptileMan 7mo ago
        Once again - it is impossible for a very select few. There are a lot of generals that could stage a coup. Or colonels. They just summary execute those above them and say new rules bitches.
        the_af 7mo ago
        TFA argues that the Iranian regime works "bottom up", and there's no "select few" group of leaders that can be removed or changed that would topple the regime or make it change course. TFA argues that the US fundamentally misread the situation (it also argues that Israel didn't misread it but also doesn't care what happens in Iran, they just want to destabilize it for short-term gains, mainly benefiting Netanyahu; but that this war is also a mistake for Israel longer term). > The Islamic Republic of Iran is not a personalist regime where the death of a single leader or even a group of leaders is likely to cause collapse: it is an institutional regime where the core centers of power (like the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps or IRGC) are ‘bought in’ from the bottom to the top because the regime allows them access to disproportionate resources and power. Consequently if you blow up the leader, they will simply pick another one [...] > But power in the Iranian regime isn’t wielded by the Supreme Leader alone either: the guardian council has power, the council of experts that select the Supreme Leader have power, the IRGC has power, the regular military has some power (but less than the IRGC), the elected government has some power (but less than the IRGC or the guardian council) and on and on. And this bunch of people cannot easily change course, TFA convincingly argues, because: > And so that is the trap. While the United States can exchange tit-for-tat strikes with Iran without triggering an escalation spiral, once you try to collapse the regime, the members of the regime (who are making the decisions, not, alas, the Iranian people) have no reason to back down and indeed must try to reestablish deterrence. These are men who are almost certainly dead or poor-in-exile if the regime collapses. Moreover the entire raison d’être of this regime is resistance to Israel and the United States: passively accepting a massive decapitation attack and not responding would fatally undermine the regime’s legitimacy with its own supporters, leading right back to the ‘dead-or-poor-and-exiled’ problem. So they cannot yield power and they cannot stand down because their whole legitimacy (of sorts) rests on being belligerent towards Israel and the US. If they flinch, the worst case scenario for them is to lose power and get killed. TFA calls this a "trap" for both the US and Iran. It's a situation they are locked in now, both sides forced to escalate because backing down spells political doom for whoever does it, but escalating is still bad for both of them.
jjcc 7mo ago
you miss the asymmetry here: If there's a country goes thousands miles from far away to invade the US, then American can endure much more to fight than the invading country. The balance will be the opposit. The often missing asymmetry reflects something deep in the mindset of large portion of western population.
- niemandhier 7mo ago
  Economic collapse means hardship. Inflation means hardship. Iran is the first conflict in many years that might inflict tangible suffering on the American people.

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 ago

Adding 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 ago
The 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.
- mememememememo 7mo ago
  Can FOX bamboozle my local gas station too to drop 40% on the price?
  - lokar 7mo ago
    No, but they can explain that has nothing to do with the war. It's because Newsom won't allow new oil drilling off the CA coast. And I expect that (or something like it), will in fact satisfy core MAGA voters.
    - mememememememo 7mo ago
      Good point! Maga is like a religion. Trump is the god. So by definition he can't be wrong. I'm in another country so not fooled but at same time I don't get to vote in US so I don't matter.

ReptileMan 7mo ago

[flagged]

pphysch 7mo ago
> Return them to stone age until the leadership becomes reasonable. Worth reflecting on this sentence. What is "reasonable" supposed to entail here? ETA: "Become secular" is a wild demand from theocratic regime that wants to "Kill Amalek and Build the Third Temple".
- ReptileMan 7mo ago
  Give away the enriched uranium, become secular. Edit: Sometimes the only answer to the weaker side claiming that something is impossible is Vae Victis. I am sure that there are enough powerful people in Iran that wouldn't mind secular state if they are the one to lead it. It is not as if their kids are not wild partying in europe anyway.
  - the_af 7mo ago
    > Give away the enriched uranium, become secular. TFA explains why this is impossible for Iran.
    - ReptileMan 7mo ago
      Once again - it is impossible for a very select few. There are a lot of generals that could stage a coup. Or colonels. They just summary execute those above them and say new rules bitches.
      - the_af 7mo ago
        TFA argues that the Iranian regime works "bottom up", and there's no "select few" group of leaders that can be removed or changed that would topple the regime or make it change course. TFA argues that the US fundamentally misread the situation (it also argues that Israel didn't misread it but also doesn't care what happens in Iran, they just want to destabilize it for short-term gains, mainly benefiting Netanyahu; but that this war is also a mistake for Israel longer term). > The Islamic Republic of Iran is not a personalist regime where the death of a single leader or even a group of leaders is likely to cause collapse: it is an institutional regime where the core centers of power (like the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps or IRGC) are ‘bought in’ from the bottom to the top because the regime allows them access to disproportionate resources and power. Consequently if you blow up the leader, they will simply pick another one [...] > But power in the Iranian regime isn’t wielded by the Supreme Leader alone either: the guardian council has power, the council of experts that select the Supreme Leader have power, the IRGC has power, the regular military has some power (but less than the IRGC), the elected government has some power (but less than the IRGC or the guardian council) and on and on. And this bunch of people cannot easily change course, TFA convincingly argues, because: > And so that is the trap. While the United States can exchange tit-for-tat strikes with Iran without triggering an escalation spiral, once you try to collapse the regime, the members of the regime (who are making the decisions, not, alas, the Iranian people) have no reason to back down and indeed must try to reestablish deterrence. These are men who are almost certainly dead or poor-in-exile if the regime collapses. Moreover the entire raison d’être of this regime is resistance to Israel and the United States: passively accepting a massive decapitation attack and not responding would fatally undermine the regime’s legitimacy with its own supporters, leading right back to the ‘dead-or-poor-and-exiled’ problem. So they cannot yield power and they cannot stand down because their whole legitimacy (of sorts) rests on being belligerent towards Israel and the US. If they flinch, the worst case scenario for them is to lose power and get killed. TFA calls this a "trap" for both the US and Iran. It's a situation they are locked in now, both sides forced to escalate because backing down spells political doom for whoever does it, but escalating is still bad for both of them.

jjcc 7mo ago

you miss the asymmetry here: If there's a country goes thousands miles from far away to invade the US, then American can endure much more to fight than the invading country. The balance will be the opposit. The often missing asymmetry reflects something deep in the mindset of large portion of western population.

niemandhier 7mo ago
Economic collapse means hardship. Inflation means hardship. Iran is the first conflict in many years that might inflict tangible suffering on the American people.