4 ms·

I disagree. Iran was about to lose. If this ceasefire had not happened, the US and Israel would bomb all of Iran's electricity and fuel facilities. That's what

I disagree. Iran was about to lose. If this ceasefire had not happened, the US and Israel would bomb all of Iran's electricity and fuel facilities. That's what was supposed to happen today, and is what forced Iran to the negotiating table with an hour to spare. Without electricity, there is no modern life. There is no ability to communicate, pay salaries, run a business, have running water, etc. Without fuel, there are no logistics; there is no capability to transport an army. Nor is there an ability to transport food, people will starve; it would cause an enormous civilian crisis, and this would cause massive riots bigger than the ones seen in January. The Iranian government would have no ability to coordinate a response, and Iran would collapse within a week. The country would devolve into chaos, into paramilitary factions, and a civil war would start, similar to in Syria. The US and Israel have been sitting on this the entire time. They don't want to do it, because it would cause near permanent economic damage to Iran. Once Iran showed it had no ability to prevent the US/Israel from doing a indiscriminate bombing campaign, it was clear the US and Israel could always win this war through this outcome.

krainboltgreene 7mo ago
> The US and Israel have been sitting on this the entire time. They don't want to do it, because it would cause near permanent economic damage to Iran. That is such an incredible interpretation of the situation that basically requires you to ignore basically every economic problem being faced from this insanity currently and in the near future. Sure, the US an Israel were just "too concerned" about the Iranian economy to do war crimes.
- jatora 7mo ago
  Yes? How is it a misinterpretation?
nicbou 7mo ago
They did not manage to bomb Germany, North Korea, or North Vietnam into submission and they tried for years. Winning through bombing alone has never worked.
- tristanj 7mo ago
  No, it would achieve the three primary goals of this conflict. It would cause catastrophic economic damage to Iran, and given how politically unstable Iran currently is (millions of people rioted earlier this year), the regime would not survive the oncoming civil unrest. It would be a humanitarian disaster, but from the US/Israel's point of view, it would be a victory. An Iran with no electricity has no capacity for industry, and has no ability to manufacture missiles, drones, or have a nuclear program. Without ability to manufacture missiles, Iran would be unable coerce people to buy into it's Hormuz transit toll system, and the strait would reopen. This weakened Iran would have no ability to produce nukes, close the strait, and make missiles; for at least a decade while they recover economically.
  - phs318u 7mo ago
    Turning Iran into another Afghanistan would not have been a win for anyone with a memory longer than the last two election cycles.
    - tristanj 7mo ago
      It's still a victory. It postpones Iran's nuclear and missile capabilities by a decade, and kicks the can down the road so another administration can come back and clean up the mess again.
  - ElProlactin 7mo ago
    Putting aside the fact that the humanitarian disaster you envision would not produce the simple result you expect, it's quite disturbing that you have completely glossed over the fact that destroying Iran's ability to produce electricity is a war crime. Committing an act of genocide against a country of 90+ million people would be the death of the US as we know it.
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
    - 7mo ago
techterrier 7mo ago
It never had any ability to prevent an indiscriminate bombing campaign, and never did. And nobody ever thought otherwise. It only ever had to prove it could keep the strait closed. Which it did. And now the americans are going away, and they can get back to hanging students from cranes. The USA has failed to achieve any of its strategic goals, and is going home, defeated.
- tristanj 7mo ago
  The conflict is far from over, this ceasefire is unsustainable as neither side wants to agree to the demands of the other. A ceasefire mostly benefits the US, since it can bring in more military assets across the globe. Ships and troops are still weeks away from arriving & being able to participate in combat operations. A negotiated settlement is preferable to total destruction of the Iranian economy, and large destruction in the middle east, by all parties involved. I expect the conflict to resume after two weeks, or later this year, after midterms.
- jimbob45 7mo ago
  …except very few died. The Iranian and US casualties and entire ME casualties since the operation started combined are less than 15% of the Iranian citizens slaughtered a month before this all started. Do we not care about deaths anymore? Avoiding war and death is a win for everyone.
esseph 7mo ago
If the US ended up damaging power plans and desalination plants, that would mark a clear inflection point in the number of "friends" the US has militarily, economically, and politically. Sure, Israel would still be a big fan, and maybe Saudi Arabia, but otherwise the US would become a pariah. It would be damaging to Iran and potentially hundreds of thousands or millions would die. That's a lot of blood debts. There is no way the US would walk away from that situation into a better outcome.
7952 7mo ago
The Iranian military is very decentralised and designed specifically with American capabilities in mind. So am not sure they would collapse. And a defending force is far less dependent on logistics in the short term. Also, Iran has a culture of sacrifice. Iran and the US exist in a state of equilibrium of opposite strategies. The US is unwilling to risk its troops and sees sacrifice as weakness but otherwise applies maximal pressure. And Iran is willing to sacrifice its citizens and sees that as noble. And outside of a black swan event there is little hope of change. Each side sees its enemies greatest military strength as a moral weakness and will keep fighting. Whilst conversely believing that sacrifice/maximal remote force may someday work. Iranians are not going to pivot because their culture has been forged as a response to exactly this kind of pressure. Nor will America suddenly see the sacrifices of thousands of it's men as virtuous. So things probably just revert back to the same equilibrium. The point is that America blowing up power plants and Iran absorbing casualties is just an extension of the status quo.

krainboltgreene 7mo ago

> The US and Israel have been sitting on this the entire time. They don't want to do it, because it would cause near permanent economic damage to Iran. That is such an incredible interpretation of the situation that basically requires you to ignore basically every economic problem being faced from this insanity currently and in the near future. Sure, the US an Israel were just "too concerned" about the Iranian economy to do war crimes.

jatora 7mo ago
Yes? How is it a misinterpretation?

nicbou 7mo ago

They did not manage to bomb Germany, North Korea, or North Vietnam into submission and they tried for years. Winning through bombing alone has never worked.

tristanj 7mo ago
No, it would achieve the three primary goals of this conflict. It would cause catastrophic economic damage to Iran, and given how politically unstable Iran currently is (millions of people rioted earlier this year), the regime would not survive the oncoming civil unrest. It would be a humanitarian disaster, but from the US/Israel's point of view, it would be a victory. An Iran with no electricity has no capacity for industry, and has no ability to manufacture missiles, drones, or have a nuclear program. Without ability to manufacture missiles, Iran would be unable coerce people to buy into it's Hormuz transit toll system, and the strait would reopen. This weakened Iran would have no ability to produce nukes, close the strait, and make missiles; for at least a decade while they recover economically.
- phs318u 7mo ago
  Turning Iran into another Afghanistan would not have been a win for anyone with a memory longer than the last two election cycles.
  - tristanj 7mo ago
    It's still a victory. It postpones Iran's nuclear and missile capabilities by a decade, and kicks the can down the road so another administration can come back and clean up the mess again.
- ElProlactin 7mo ago
  Putting aside the fact that the humanitarian disaster you envision would not produce the simple result you expect, it's quite disturbing that you have completely glossed over the fact that destroying Iran's ability to produce electricity is a war crime. Committing an act of genocide against a country of 90+ million people would be the death of the US as we know it.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
  - 7mo ago

techterrier 7mo ago

It never had any ability to prevent an indiscriminate bombing campaign, and never did. And nobody ever thought otherwise. It only ever had to prove it could keep the strait closed. Which it did. And now the americans are going away, and they can get back to hanging students from cranes. The USA has failed to achieve any of its strategic goals, and is going home, defeated.

tristanj 7mo ago
The conflict is far from over, this ceasefire is unsustainable as neither side wants to agree to the demands of the other. A ceasefire mostly benefits the US, since it can bring in more military assets across the globe. Ships and troops are still weeks away from arriving & being able to participate in combat operations. A negotiated settlement is preferable to total destruction of the Iranian economy, and large destruction in the middle east, by all parties involved. I expect the conflict to resume after two weeks, or later this year, after midterms.
jimbob45 7mo ago
…except very few died. The Iranian and US casualties and entire ME casualties since the operation started combined are less than 15% of the Iranian citizens slaughtered a month before this all started. Do we not care about deaths anymore? Avoiding war and death is a win for everyone.

esseph 7mo ago

If the US ended up damaging power plans and desalination plants, that would mark a clear inflection point in the number of "friends" the US has militarily, economically, and politically. Sure, Israel would still be a big fan, and maybe Saudi Arabia, but otherwise the US would become a pariah. It would be damaging to Iran and potentially hundreds of thousands or millions would die. That's a lot of blood debts. There is no way the US would walk away from that situation into a better outcome.

7952 7mo ago

The Iranian military is very decentralised and designed specifically with American capabilities in mind. So am not sure they would collapse. And a defending force is far less dependent on logistics in the short term. Also, Iran has a culture of sacrifice. Iran and the US exist in a state of equilibrium of opposite strategies. The US is unwilling to risk its troops and sees sacrifice as weakness but otherwise applies maximal pressure. And Iran is willing to sacrifice its citizens and sees that as noble. And outside of a black swan event there is little hope of change. Each side sees its enemies greatest military strength as a moral weakness and will keep fighting. Whilst conversely believing that sacrifice/maximal remote force may someday work. Iranians are not going to pivot because their culture has been forged as a response to exactly this kind of pressure. Nor will America suddenly see the sacrifices of thousands of it's men as virtuous. So things probably just revert back to the same equilibrium. The point is that America blowing up power plants and Iran absorbing casualties is just an extension of the status quo.