4 ms·

Wars are about objectives. The USA managed to accomplish none of its objectives. Iran forced USA to concede and call for ceasefire before US could achieve objec

Wars are about objectives. The USA managed to accomplish none of its objectives. Iran forced USA to concede and call for ceasefire before US could achieve objectives. That’s the definition of defeat. Iran won by not losing and holding out. Iran has more leverage at the end of this war than it did at the start. Iran has proven that it has the capability to catastrophically disrupt global economy.

shash 6mo ago
That analysis requires discovering what the US’s objectives were. Not sure we can…
- samrus 6mo ago
  The main one was stayed to be regine change. That didnt happen
- dmoy 6mo ago
  Well if the objective was just about distracting from some domestic issue, then maybe it doesn't matter from Trump's perspective.
- selcuka 6mo ago
  Some might argue that the US's (or the POTUS's) objective was simply to disrupt the financial markets.
  - MisterMower 6mo ago
    And that benefits them… how?
    - selcuka 6mo ago
      Not sure, but any event, positive or negative, will benefit those who know the exact timing in advance.
  - samrus 6mo ago
    This sounds like goalpost moving. Like if you fail to acheive regime change, just say whateber the consequences of your failure were had been your objectives from the start. According to "some" who might "say"
    - selcuka 6mo ago
      You speak like you and I discussed this before, and you remember where the original goalposts were. Many analysts suggested that the attack was a smoke-and-mirrors, and the actual goal has always been financial. Similar to the tariffs story. According to that opinion the outcome of the attempt is irrelevant. Regardless of whether the regime have changed or not, the goal is still achieved.
      - samrus 6mo ago
        "Some", "many analysts" Come on man. The goal was regime change. They said its regime change. They were chasing the high of the maduro kidnapping. But then they ended up replacing Khamenei with Khamenei like they replaced the taliban with the taliban in afghanistan. Its fucking embarrassing
- fernandopj 6mo ago
  Discovering? It was announced a thousand times, maybe you dismissed because none of them were easily achievable? Opening the Strait, renouncing nuclear program, renouncing ballistic program, regime change. Even Israel will be forced to retreat from Lebanon. Iran won by choking the Strait and telling USA and Israel they could endure far longer than their aggressors could endure a few missiles and domestic support drop. A Pakistani-made taco was not in my radar for today.
  - abustamam 6mo ago
    I dismissed them because the president and the Pentagon could not seem to articulate the objectives of the war in a way that was cohesive with one another. Also,the Strait was open before the war.
    - stingraycharles 6mo ago
      Yeah obviously opening the strait wasn’t an objective. I think what you’re suggesting is that the mentioned reason - denuclearization of Iran - is unlikely to be the real reason, which may have been something like distraction.
  - runako 6mo ago
    Opening the Strait was not a goal of this action; the Strait was open before this war started. They are trying to sell as a win a return to the status quo ante.
    - blitzar 6mo ago
      I think you will find that Biden closed the straights and that it was going to be reopened and China was going to pay for it. (/s?)
    - frollogaston 6mo ago
      Right. So the objectives for US were regime change in Iran and end of nuclear program. Iran wanted sanctions dropped and continued nuclear program.
- yoyohello13 6mo ago
  [flagged]
- scythe 6mo ago
  A lot of stuff leaked today: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/07/us/politics/trump-iran-war.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/07/us/politics/trump-iran-wa...
- tristanj 6mo ago
  I explained the primary cause of this war here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47684632 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47684632 This war is happening today, to exchange a future nuclear war with Iran with a conventional war today. The US and Israel can fight a conventional war with Iran. They cannot fight a nuclear one. In a nuclear war, Israel would be destroyed by nuclear missiles in the two days. The possibility of a nuclear Iran is an existential crisis for Israel, and Israel will do anything possible to prevent Iran from gaining nukes. That is why we have this conventional war happening today, (with unclear goals), to prevent a nuclear one in the future. This war was unavoidable btw, it was going to happen sometime this year or next.
  - pphysch 6mo ago
    What do you make of Netanyahu claiming that Iran was weeks from a nuclear bomb, 20-30 years ago? What do you make of US/Israel assassinating the supreme leader that had declared a fatwa against nuclear weapons? > This war was unavoidable btw Wars of choice, thousands of miles away from the nearest US city, are extremely avoidable, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
  - finebalance 6mo ago
    > This war was unavoidable btw, it was going to happen sometime this year or next. Iran was, as per the latest reports I've read, complying with terms and not enriching uranium to weapons-grade or close to weapons-grade. Are there credible reports suggesting otherwise?
    - tristanj 6mo ago
      Those reports are old. IAEA inspectors have not been able to access any of Iran's nuclear facilities since the start of the 12 day war on June 13, 2025. Currently, nobody knows what Iran is doing with their nuclear material.
      - consp 6mo ago
        If only there was an agreement in place to help with that. Oh wait, that got canned by someone when started this nonsense.
smcnc 6mo ago
More leverage with less conventional firepower? Objectives of reducing conventional military threats and nuclear weapons seem less now, no?
- computerex 6mo ago
  1. The strait had freedom of navigation before, now Iran controls it. 2. It was suspected Iran would shut the strait in a conflict. Its ability to enforce the closure was question. Iran has now proven it can enforce control of the strait and American can’t do anything about it. 3. The negotiation plans mentions nothing of denuclearization. Iran doesn’t even need a nuclear deterrence now they have proven that closing the strait works so well. 4. The regime didnt collapse, leader replaced by the more hardline son. Command and control continued to function despite attempted decapitation. 5. Iran inflicted billions of dollars worth of damage to US assets forcing US soldiers to flee and reside in hotels. 6. Despite taking a pounding by America for over a month they can still target and destroy local targets as retaliation as they proved yesterday by striking large Saudi petrochemical plant and striking in the heart of Israel.
  - smcnc 6mo ago
    US soldiers get hotels when fleeing? Wtf lol
    - Sebguer 6mo ago
      You keep making comments making it sound like you have a better view of the world than the people you're responding to, but just making personal attacks. The person you're responding to, for that specific point, is referring to: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/01/us/politics/troops-iran-hotels.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/01/us/politics/troops-iran-h...
      - smcnc 6mo ago
        “Flee and reside in hotels” not equal to relocate and continue mission. The major operational staff at these bases still work there. Support was relocated not fleeing.
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
blix 6mo ago
What action can Iran take today that they couldn't take a year ago? No one who has been paying attention should be surprised that Iran can shut down the straight. It has been a known factor for decades. They have less leverage. The have so much less that they are forced to openly use their last and most powerful card for their survival, when they never have had to before. That is a position of weakness, not strength.
- amritananda 6mo ago
  >The have so much less that they are forced to openly use their last and most powerful card for their survival That is not their most powerful card. Their most powerful card is mining the Strait of Hormuz and taking out all GCC desalination and oil infrastructure. That would result in a global depression, and probably end the Gulf countries as we know them.
  - blix 6mo ago
    Destroying the gulf states would dramatically reduce the importance of the Strait, which would make mining it or otherwise shutting it down somewhat pointless anyway. It is a bit of mutually assured destruction, but the USA is probably in the best position of anyone to weather that storm. I suppose it is more powerful in an absolute sense than just temporarily shutting down the Strait, but like Russia's nukes, I think the threat is more useful than the play itself. Unless they are just looking to take others down with them.
    - eradicatethots 6mo ago
      [dead]
  - kortilla 6mo ago
    Maybe recession but not depression. Oil prices have been this high before.
- mcntsh 6mo ago
  > What action can Iran take today that they couldn’t take a year ago? Remove of sanctions, ability to monitize traffic through the strait, guarantees against aggression and a cessation of military bases in their region. IMO, a much stronger position than they were in a year ago.
Tangurena2 6mo ago
[dead]

shash 6mo ago

That analysis requires discovering what the US’s objectives were. Not sure we can…

samrus 6mo ago
The main one was stayed to be regine change. That didnt happen
dmoy 6mo ago
Well if the objective was just about distracting from some domestic issue, then maybe it doesn't matter from Trump's perspective.
selcuka 6mo ago
Some might argue that the US's (or the POTUS's) objective was simply to disrupt the financial markets.
- MisterMower 6mo ago
  And that benefits them… how?
  - selcuka 6mo ago
    Not sure, but any event, positive or negative, will benefit those who know the exact timing in advance.
- samrus 6mo ago
  This sounds like goalpost moving. Like if you fail to acheive regime change, just say whateber the consequences of your failure were had been your objectives from the start. According to "some" who might "say"
  - selcuka 6mo ago
    You speak like you and I discussed this before, and you remember where the original goalposts were. Many analysts suggested that the attack was a smoke-and-mirrors, and the actual goal has always been financial. Similar to the tariffs story. According to that opinion the outcome of the attempt is irrelevant. Regardless of whether the regime have changed or not, the goal is still achieved.
    - samrus 6mo ago
      "Some", "many analysts" Come on man. The goal was regime change. They said its regime change. They were chasing the high of the maduro kidnapping. But then they ended up replacing Khamenei with Khamenei like they replaced the taliban with the taliban in afghanistan. Its fucking embarrassing
fernandopj 6mo ago
Discovering? It was announced a thousand times, maybe you dismissed because none of them were easily achievable? Opening the Strait, renouncing nuclear program, renouncing ballistic program, regime change. Even Israel will be forced to retreat from Lebanon. Iran won by choking the Strait and telling USA and Israel they could endure far longer than their aggressors could endure a few missiles and domestic support drop. A Pakistani-made taco was not in my radar for today.
- abustamam 6mo ago
  I dismissed them because the president and the Pentagon could not seem to articulate the objectives of the war in a way that was cohesive with one another. Also,the Strait was open before the war.
  - stingraycharles 6mo ago
    Yeah obviously opening the strait wasn’t an objective. I think what you’re suggesting is that the mentioned reason - denuclearization of Iran - is unlikely to be the real reason, which may have been something like distraction.
- runako 6mo ago
  Opening the Strait was not a goal of this action; the Strait was open before this war started. They are trying to sell as a win a return to the status quo ante.
  - blitzar 6mo ago
    I think you will find that Biden closed the straights and that it was going to be reopened and China was going to pay for it. (/s?)
  - frollogaston 6mo ago
    Right. So the objectives for US were regime change in Iran and end of nuclear program. Iran wanted sanctions dropped and continued nuclear program.
yoyohello13 6mo ago
[flagged]
scythe 6mo ago
A lot of stuff leaked today: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/07/us/politics/trump-iran-war.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/07/us/politics/trump-iran-wa...
tristanj 6mo ago
I explained the primary cause of this war here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47684632 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47684632 This war is happening today, to exchange a future nuclear war with Iran with a conventional war today. The US and Israel can fight a conventional war with Iran. They cannot fight a nuclear one. In a nuclear war, Israel would be destroyed by nuclear missiles in the two days. The possibility of a nuclear Iran is an existential crisis for Israel, and Israel will do anything possible to prevent Iran from gaining nukes. That is why we have this conventional war happening today, (with unclear goals), to prevent a nuclear one in the future. This war was unavoidable btw, it was going to happen sometime this year or next.
- pphysch 6mo ago
  What do you make of Netanyahu claiming that Iran was weeks from a nuclear bomb, 20-30 years ago? What do you make of US/Israel assassinating the supreme leader that had declared a fatwa against nuclear weapons? > This war was unavoidable btw Wars of choice, thousands of miles away from the nearest US city, are extremely avoidable, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
- finebalance 6mo ago
  > This war was unavoidable btw, it was going to happen sometime this year or next. Iran was, as per the latest reports I've read, complying with terms and not enriching uranium to weapons-grade or close to weapons-grade. Are there credible reports suggesting otherwise?
  - tristanj 6mo ago
    Those reports are old. IAEA inspectors have not been able to access any of Iran's nuclear facilities since the start of the 12 day war on June 13, 2025. Currently, nobody knows what Iran is doing with their nuclear material.
    - consp 6mo ago
      If only there was an agreement in place to help with that. Oh wait, that got canned by someone when started this nonsense.

smcnc 6mo ago

More leverage with less conventional firepower? Objectives of reducing conventional military threats and nuclear weapons seem less now, no?

computerex 6mo ago
1. The strait had freedom of navigation before, now Iran controls it. 2. It was suspected Iran would shut the strait in a conflict. Its ability to enforce the closure was question. Iran has now proven it can enforce control of the strait and American can’t do anything about it. 3. The negotiation plans mentions nothing of denuclearization. Iran doesn’t even need a nuclear deterrence now they have proven that closing the strait works so well. 4. The regime didnt collapse, leader replaced by the more hardline son. Command and control continued to function despite attempted decapitation. 5. Iran inflicted billions of dollars worth of damage to US assets forcing US soldiers to flee and reside in hotels. 6. Despite taking a pounding by America for over a month they can still target and destroy local targets as retaliation as they proved yesterday by striking large Saudi petrochemical plant and striking in the heart of Israel.
- smcnc 6mo ago
  US soldiers get hotels when fleeing? Wtf lol
  - Sebguer 6mo ago
    You keep making comments making it sound like you have a better view of the world than the people you're responding to, but just making personal attacks. The person you're responding to, for that specific point, is referring to: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/01/us/politics/troops-iran-hotels.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/01/us/politics/troops-iran-h...
    - smcnc 6mo ago
      “Flee and reside in hotels” not equal to relocate and continue mission. The major operational staff at these bases still work there. Support was relocated not fleeing.

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]

blix 6mo ago

What action can Iran take today that they couldn't take a year ago? No one who has been paying attention should be surprised that Iran can shut down the straight. It has been a known factor for decades. They have less leverage. The have so much less that they are forced to openly use their last and most powerful card for their survival, when they never have had to before. That is a position of weakness, not strength.

amritananda 6mo ago
>The have so much less that they are forced to openly use their last and most powerful card for their survival That is not their most powerful card. Their most powerful card is mining the Strait of Hormuz and taking out all GCC desalination and oil infrastructure. That would result in a global depression, and probably end the Gulf countries as we know them.
- blix 6mo ago
  Destroying the gulf states would dramatically reduce the importance of the Strait, which would make mining it or otherwise shutting it down somewhat pointless anyway. It is a bit of mutually assured destruction, but the USA is probably in the best position of anyone to weather that storm. I suppose it is more powerful in an absolute sense than just temporarily shutting down the Strait, but like Russia's nukes, I think the threat is more useful than the play itself. Unless they are just looking to take others down with them.
  - eradicatethots 6mo ago
    [dead]
- kortilla 6mo ago
  Maybe recession but not depression. Oil prices have been this high before.
mcntsh 6mo ago
> What action can Iran take today that they couldn’t take a year ago? Remove of sanctions, ability to monitize traffic through the strait, guarantees against aggression and a cessation of military bases in their region. IMO, a much stronger position than they were in a year ago.

Tangurena2 6mo ago

[dead]