5 ms·

> why would the US concede? Because it has no way of achieving its objectives.

by marricks 6mo ago

cmilton 6mo ago
I don't think that has stopped anything so far, but I appreciate your optimism.
firesteelrain 6mo ago
[flagged]
- PierceJoy 6mo ago
  To whom, and to what? A military threat to the continental US, sure. To US allies in the region, and to the global economy, it appears Iran is a much bigger threat than we were lead to believe, and still are. If anything, they're justifiably more emboldened now than ever.
  - throwaway173738 6mo ago
    If you keep picking fights with someone don’t be surprised if they learn how to fight. There’s literally a line in Sayings of Spartans about teaching your enemy to fight by making war with them.
- alfiedotwtf 6mo ago
  You must not be paying attention… So far, Trump said that the Straight of Hormuz closed is cutting off China’s oil supply and isn’t important to the US, the US doesn’t need allies, but after Trump got zero help from Europe he then proceeded to ask China of all countries to help in the straight?! Knowing people travelling near and through the Straight, Iran has all the cards. “Iran is of little threat” doesn’t hold water when the US can’t even send ships though to protect container ships
  - firesteelrain 6mo ago
    I don’t think the US signed up to protect Chinese or Indian ships through the Strait. Also, it’s not blocked. https://www.citriniresearch.com/p/strait-of-hormuz-a-citrini-field https://www.citriniresearch.com/p/strait-of-hormuz-a-citrini...
- acjohnson55 6mo ago
  All those ships stuck on either side of the Strait of Hormuz and their insurers would beg to differ.
- NomDePlum 6mo ago
  [dead]
- feb012025 6mo ago
  For the sake of peace... yes ;)
- goatlover 6mo ago
  Then why was Trump threatening their annihilation prior to accepting the ceasefire around their proposal?
- SideQuark 6mo ago
  Iran was little threat to the US before the US attacked. Now the US likely has earned itself more decades of terrorists, while simultaneously losing its military and political support from other countries. If the US objective was self destruction or massive face plant, it is certainly getting closer to its objective.
  - BobbyJo 6mo ago
    This ignores the possibility that we have set their nuclear program back to starting from scratch.
    - SideQuark 6mo ago
      It ignores we already had that, in 2016, with experts from all over the world doing inspections and agreeing it worked. Then Trump blew up the deal against the wishes of the rest of the free world, claiming he’d make a better deal, which he got zero from. Advisors, both hand picked and military, told him this would be the outcome, which he ignored. We have not set their program to zero. They now have, and will continue to have, people trained in the knowledge of how to rebuild it. They now have massively more incentive to do so. Countries in the region now have more reason to help. Countries the world over have more incentive to contain US idiocy, as yet again we screw their economies for made up reasons. As do their allies, and the raft of allies the US has lost over this idiocy will hurt US for decades, likely never to be repaired. This is why Iran has won. The US has so destroyed brand US that it’ll never regain trust anywhere, economically, militarily, or morally.
      - BobbyJo 6mo ago
        > It ignores we already had that, in 2016, with experts from all over the world doing inspections and agreeing it worked. Then Trump blew up the deal against the wishes of the rest of the free world, claiming he’d make a better deal, which he got zero from. Advisors, both hand picked and military, told him this would be the outcome, which he ignored. 1) JCPOA was in effect for barely more than two years. Iran's nuclear work prior started way back circa 2000. It was killed before we can say anything about its effectiveness. 2) IIRC, JCPOA didn't prevent Iran from developing nuclear tech. It only limited capacity. They were free to do all the R&D they wanted. 3) Iran was doing weaponization work prior to the deal which they didn't disclose. So taking them at their word on the subject is probably not a good idea. Trump pulling out from the deal was dumb, because it probably was slowing weaponization down, but the idea that the deal was stopping Iran from developing weaponization tech is not supported by the aims of the deal itself. > We have not set their program to zero. They now have, and will continue to have, people trained in the knowledge of how to rebuild it. Very close to it. Lots of facilities were destroyed, and I believe a majority of their scientists were killed. > They now have massively more incentive to do so. Debatable. I can see it going either way. > Countries in the region now have more reason to help. Countries the world over have more incentive to contain US idiocy, as yet again we screw their economies for made up reasons. Nearly all the countries in the region want Iran gone. They are a destabilizing force for all their neighbors. > As do their allies Iran has pretty much 0 official allies. Their only allies come in the form of "we hate the US too, so we will help you be a thorn in their side" > This is why Iran has won Won what? If that's winning, then I'll take losing. > The US has so destroyed brand US that it’ll never regain trust anywhere, economically, militarily, or morally. This remains to be seen I think. Honestly, if Europe kicks us out I'll be happy personally. I look forward to the day the US isn't running the oceans as a toll road for the globe and everyone handles their own backyards. I think we are far enough past WW2 that the world no longer needs a nanny.
- majormajor 6mo ago
  The most deadly attack on US soil from the Middle East didn't come from nukes. How sure are you that we're reducing net total future threats in the Middle East under Trump?
derektank 6mo ago
More accurate to say that the US is not willing to pay the price to achieve its objectives I think (depending on who/when you’re asking what exactly the objectives are of course).
bluGill 6mo ago
The US has mostly achieved their objectives (as best as I can tell - the strategy isn't exactly coherent) - Iran has much less missiles, and much less ability to produce them.
- marricks 6mo ago
  If there was any outside visible thread of reasoning for this war it was "Iran seems like it could have regime change" and I haven't heard anything saying they're more likely to have a different form of government. I doubt the revolutionaries sympathizers within Iran liked their children being murdered or infrastructure getting destroyed. All the US has done is a repeat of the same thing they've done for half a century: start a war and immediately get more enemies within the middle east. Perhaps the only change is now the US's allies are distancing themselves faster and further than ever before.
  - bluGill 6mo ago
    There was a lot more - since mid last summer the US and Iran have been talking. There was some progress on nuclear issues. However Iran refused to discuss their ballistic missile program or funding for the likes of Hezbollah. Just based on that alone it is no surprise that the US got fed up. However you have to pay a little more attention to see that even though it is public.
    - ImPostingOnHN 6mo ago
      Sometimes you want someone to do something, but you don't have authority to order them around, and you are bad at persuasion and dealmaking, so you don't get what you want. If you're not ok with walking away at that point, maybe put a better offer on the table?
      - bluGill 6mo ago
        I fail to see a better offer. Support for those trying to kill jews is not something I can accept. I don't like any option for dealing with it, but walking away is still evil.

> why would the US concede? Because it has no way of achieving its objectives.

cmilton 6mo ago

I don't think that has stopped anything so far, but I appreciate your optimism.

firesteelrain 6mo ago

[flagged]

PierceJoy 6mo ago
To whom, and to what? A military threat to the continental US, sure. To US allies in the region, and to the global economy, it appears Iran is a much bigger threat than we were lead to believe, and still are. If anything, they're justifiably more emboldened now than ever.
- throwaway173738 6mo ago
  If you keep picking fights with someone don’t be surprised if they learn how to fight. There’s literally a line in Sayings of Spartans about teaching your enemy to fight by making war with them.
alfiedotwtf 6mo ago
You must not be paying attention… So far, Trump said that the Straight of Hormuz closed is cutting off China’s oil supply and isn’t important to the US, the US doesn’t need allies, but after Trump got zero help from Europe he then proceeded to ask China of all countries to help in the straight?! Knowing people travelling near and through the Straight, Iran has all the cards. “Iran is of little threat” doesn’t hold water when the US can’t even send ships though to protect container ships
- firesteelrain 6mo ago
  I don’t think the US signed up to protect Chinese or Indian ships through the Strait. Also, it’s not blocked. https://www.citriniresearch.com/p/strait-of-hormuz-a-citrini-field https://www.citriniresearch.com/p/strait-of-hormuz-a-citrini...
acjohnson55 6mo ago
All those ships stuck on either side of the Strait of Hormuz and their insurers would beg to differ.
NomDePlum 6mo ago
[dead]
feb012025 6mo ago
For the sake of peace... yes ;)
goatlover 6mo ago
Then why was Trump threatening their annihilation prior to accepting the ceasefire around their proposal?
SideQuark 6mo ago
Iran was little threat to the US before the US attacked. Now the US likely has earned itself more decades of terrorists, while simultaneously losing its military and political support from other countries. If the US objective was self destruction or massive face plant, it is certainly getting closer to its objective.
- BobbyJo 6mo ago
  This ignores the possibility that we have set their nuclear program back to starting from scratch.
  - SideQuark 6mo ago
    It ignores we already had that, in 2016, with experts from all over the world doing inspections and agreeing it worked. Then Trump blew up the deal against the wishes of the rest of the free world, claiming he’d make a better deal, which he got zero from. Advisors, both hand picked and military, told him this would be the outcome, which he ignored. We have not set their program to zero. They now have, and will continue to have, people trained in the knowledge of how to rebuild it. They now have massively more incentive to do so. Countries in the region now have more reason to help. Countries the world over have more incentive to contain US idiocy, as yet again we screw their economies for made up reasons. As do their allies, and the raft of allies the US has lost over this idiocy will hurt US for decades, likely never to be repaired. This is why Iran has won. The US has so destroyed brand US that it’ll never regain trust anywhere, economically, militarily, or morally.
    - BobbyJo 6mo ago
      > It ignores we already had that, in 2016, with experts from all over the world doing inspections and agreeing it worked. Then Trump blew up the deal against the wishes of the rest of the free world, claiming he’d make a better deal, which he got zero from. Advisors, both hand picked and military, told him this would be the outcome, which he ignored. 1) JCPOA was in effect for barely more than two years. Iran's nuclear work prior started way back circa 2000. It was killed before we can say anything about its effectiveness. 2) IIRC, JCPOA didn't prevent Iran from developing nuclear tech. It only limited capacity. They were free to do all the R&D they wanted. 3) Iran was doing weaponization work prior to the deal which they didn't disclose. So taking them at their word on the subject is probably not a good idea. Trump pulling out from the deal was dumb, because it probably was slowing weaponization down, but the idea that the deal was stopping Iran from developing weaponization tech is not supported by the aims of the deal itself. > We have not set their program to zero. They now have, and will continue to have, people trained in the knowledge of how to rebuild it. Very close to it. Lots of facilities were destroyed, and I believe a majority of their scientists were killed. > They now have massively more incentive to do so. Debatable. I can see it going either way. > Countries in the region now have more reason to help. Countries the world over have more incentive to contain US idiocy, as yet again we screw their economies for made up reasons. Nearly all the countries in the region want Iran gone. They are a destabilizing force for all their neighbors. > As do their allies Iran has pretty much 0 official allies. Their only allies come in the form of "we hate the US too, so we will help you be a thorn in their side" > This is why Iran has won Won what? If that's winning, then I'll take losing. > The US has so destroyed brand US that it’ll never regain trust anywhere, economically, militarily, or morally. This remains to be seen I think. Honestly, if Europe kicks us out I'll be happy personally. I look forward to the day the US isn't running the oceans as a toll road for the globe and everyone handles their own backyards. I think we are far enough past WW2 that the world no longer needs a nanny.
majormajor 6mo ago
The most deadly attack on US soil from the Middle East didn't come from nukes. How sure are you that we're reducing net total future threats in the Middle East under Trump?

derektank 6mo ago

More accurate to say that the US is not willing to pay the price to achieve its objectives I think (depending on who/when you’re asking what exactly the objectives are of course).

bluGill 6mo ago

The US has mostly achieved their objectives (as best as I can tell - the strategy isn't exactly coherent) - Iran has much less missiles, and much less ability to produce them.

marricks 6mo ago
If there was any outside visible thread of reasoning for this war it was "Iran seems like it could have regime change" and I haven't heard anything saying they're more likely to have a different form of government. I doubt the revolutionaries sympathizers within Iran liked their children being murdered or infrastructure getting destroyed. All the US has done is a repeat of the same thing they've done for half a century: start a war and immediately get more enemies within the middle east. Perhaps the only change is now the US's allies are distancing themselves faster and further than ever before.
- bluGill 6mo ago
  There was a lot more - since mid last summer the US and Iran have been talking. There was some progress on nuclear issues. However Iran refused to discuss their ballistic missile program or funding for the likes of Hezbollah. Just based on that alone it is no surprise that the US got fed up. However you have to pay a little more attention to see that even though it is public.
  - ImPostingOnHN 6mo ago
    Sometimes you want someone to do something, but you don't have authority to order them around, and you are bad at persuasion and dealmaking, so you don't get what you want. If you're not ok with walking away at that point, maybe put a better offer on the table?
    - bluGill 6mo ago
      I fail to see a better offer. Support for those trying to kill jews is not something I can accept. I don't like any option for dealing with it, but walking away is still evil.