5 ms·

Yes, winning a war means achieving your political objectives. For example Iran wins this war even if they maintain the status quo. And they are on track to get

by H8crilA 6mo ago

Yes, winning a war means achieving your political objectives. For example Iran wins this war even if they maintain the status quo. And they are on track to get even more, like obtaining ownership over the strait.

kasey_junk 6mo ago
Then by the stated aims going in the US “won” both wars in Iraq.
- dlisboa 6mo ago
  Some of them. These were the stated objectives as per general Tommy Franks: * Depose's Saddam government Accomplished. * Identify, isolate, and eliminate Iraqi WMDs Failed. They were never there. * Find, capture, and drive out terrorists from Iraq Failed. Iraqi-based terrorism increased in the aftermath. * Collect intelligence related to terrorist networks, and to "the global network" of WMDs Failed. North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006, years after the invasion. The US accuses Iran of trying for them to this day. Chemical weapons were used by ISIS. * End sanctions Accomplished. * Deliver humanitarian support to the Iraqi people, including the displaced Failed. There were more displaced people due to the war than before and a higher need for humanitarian support which took years to complete. * Secure Iraq's oil fields and resources, "which belong to the Iraqi people" Accomplished. Somewhat, US and UK based companies, plus China, now runs a lot of their oil fields. Iraqi GDP per capita is one of the lowest in the region. * Help the Iraqi people "create conditions for a transition to a representative self-government" Arguable. Parts of the country want to secede and have armed groups. Representation and turnout is not amazing, but I guess not even in Western countries it is.
  - abenga 6mo ago
    > Secure Iraq's oil fields and resources, "which belong to the Iraqi people" The cynical read of this statement (extract resources from the invaded countries in order to enrich the American capital class) is the primary aim for all these conflicts.
    - dlisboa 6mo ago
      That's not cynical. Trump has done the world a great benefit by transparently saying out loud what was hidden US policy for decades.
dlubarov 6mo ago
The notion of owning or monetizing an international waterway is fundamentally incompatible with customary international law. Iran can try it anyway if they're not worried about international law, but that was always an option for them, war or not. The timing of performing this extortion now seems to be mainly about scoring war propaganda points.
- jacquesm 6mo ago
  > fundamentally incompatible with customary international law So is bombing countries on a whim. If you want to take the high ground you have to make sure you don't first poison it with your own stupid mistakes. Iran can make a pretty credible play for reparations, and if the belligerents are unable or unwilling to pay up then Iran can selectively blockade the strait for their vessels and cargo. It is one of those little details that was 100% predictable going into this.
  - dlubarov 6mo ago
    Not exactly "on a whim" after Israel has been attacked by at least a hundred thousand Iranian rockets and drones.
    - jacquesm 6mo ago
      Yes, and before you know it we're at the Balfour declaration. But none of that matters in the context of the situation on the ground (and, crucially, in the water) today which was entirely predictable (except by Trump, Hegseth & co). You either plan for that eventuality or you don't start the war. Note that we're talking about the US and Iran, not about Israel, though obviously they are a massive factor here it is the US that is in the hot seat, both Israel and Iran were doing what they've been doing for many years.
      - xorcist 6mo ago
        > except by Trump, Hegseth & co Do not underestimate the current administration. They have other reasons for this conflict, and so does Netanyahu.

by H8crilA 6mo ago

kasey_junk 6mo ago

Then by the stated aims going in the US “won” both wars in Iraq.

dlisboa 6mo ago
Some of them. These were the stated objectives as per general Tommy Franks: * Depose's Saddam government Accomplished. * Identify, isolate, and eliminate Iraqi WMDs Failed. They were never there. * Find, capture, and drive out terrorists from Iraq Failed. Iraqi-based terrorism increased in the aftermath. * Collect intelligence related to terrorist networks, and to "the global network" of WMDs Failed. North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006, years after the invasion. The US accuses Iran of trying for them to this day. Chemical weapons were used by ISIS. * End sanctions Accomplished. * Deliver humanitarian support to the Iraqi people, including the displaced Failed. There were more displaced people due to the war than before and a higher need for humanitarian support which took years to complete. * Secure Iraq's oil fields and resources, "which belong to the Iraqi people" Accomplished. Somewhat, US and UK based companies, plus China, now runs a lot of their oil fields. Iraqi GDP per capita is one of the lowest in the region. * Help the Iraqi people "create conditions for a transition to a representative self-government" Arguable. Parts of the country want to secede and have armed groups. Representation and turnout is not amazing, but I guess not even in Western countries it is.
- abenga 6mo ago
  > Secure Iraq's oil fields and resources, "which belong to the Iraqi people" The cynical read of this statement (extract resources from the invaded countries in order to enrich the American capital class) is the primary aim for all these conflicts.
  - dlisboa 6mo ago
    That's not cynical. Trump has done the world a great benefit by transparently saying out loud what was hidden US policy for decades.

dlubarov 6mo ago

The notion of owning or monetizing an international waterway is fundamentally incompatible with customary international law. Iran can try it anyway if they're not worried about international law, but that was always an option for them, war or not. The timing of performing this extortion now seems to be mainly about scoring war propaganda points.

jacquesm 6mo ago
> fundamentally incompatible with customary international law So is bombing countries on a whim. If you want to take the high ground you have to make sure you don't first poison it with your own stupid mistakes. Iran can make a pretty credible play for reparations, and if the belligerents are unable or unwilling to pay up then Iran can selectively blockade the strait for their vessels and cargo. It is one of those little details that was 100% predictable going into this.
- dlubarov 6mo ago
  Not exactly "on a whim" after Israel has been attacked by at least a hundred thousand Iranian rockets and drones.
  - jacquesm 6mo ago
    Yes, and before you know it we're at the Balfour declaration. But none of that matters in the context of the situation on the ground (and, crucially, in the water) today which was entirely predictable (except by Trump, Hegseth & co). You either plan for that eventuality or you don't start the war. Note that we're talking about the US and Iran, not about Israel, though obviously they are a massive factor here it is the US that is in the hot seat, both Israel and Iran were doing what they've been doing for many years.
    - xorcist 6mo ago
      > except by Trump, Hegseth & co Do not underestimate the current administration. They have other reasons for this conflict, and so does Netanyahu.