4 ms·

It really does seem like this war of choice was[1] an absolutely boneheaded idea. It's the kind of thing (and specifically, the lack of consequences or measure

by munk-a 4mo ago

It really does seem like this war of choice was[1] an absolutely boneheaded idea. It's the kind of thing (and specifically, the lack of consequences or measures to prevent it from being repeated in Cuba or Greenland) that highlights how broken American politics are right now. 1. Not even in retrospect - intelligence agencies knew this was a significant risk and I'd bet your average person on the streets would have come to the realization that it was a bad idea if they thought about it for like a week.

amelius 4mo ago
We're talking about 4D chess here /s
jmyeet 4mo ago
Closure of the Strait of Hormuz is one of the most modeled events in military circles. There are probably thousands of military exercises on it, intelligence estimates, strategic papers and so on. Up until this war, it was unknown if Iran could keep the Strait closed against direct US military pressure. Well, now we know. There doesn't appear to be a single serious person in the US military, intelligence community or policy support organizations who thought this was a good idea. It was purely political. The administration seems to have listened solely to and relied entirely upon Benjamin Netanyahu and Mossad. Israel has been trying to get this war with every president since Reagan [1] and they've all said "hell no". Until this one. What's more interesting is that it's been clear what a disaster this almost immediately so we've had ~2 months where it was clear that the US has militarily lost and a negotiated settlement was the only outcome. This would mean the end of economic sanctions and, for anti-Iran hawks in the US and Israel, a spectacularly worse deal than the JCPOA that got torn up. Yet the administration seems more willing to let the world ban than split with Israel. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/JC56Ltg5zDE https://www.youtube.com/shorts/JC56Ltg5zDE
- CMay 4mo ago
  War is never a good idea, but Iran didn't care and they have been waging war for 40 years. Do you just let them perpetually build strength internally while funding terrorism externally? They have been spreading extremism and instability in the region for decades. They surrounded Israel with militants and attacked them. We knew they could disrupt shipping through the strait, that is a large part of the purpose behind "drill baby drill", stopping Venezuela from invading Guyana where we have oil infrastructure, and increasing oil investment into Venezuela, along with reopening some oil drilling off California. We also knew we likely couldn't justify the risks and costs of sending in a large invasion force for multiple reasons. If a decent deal couldn't be made, then at least you remove an oil supplier from China and you mow the grass to limit the threat Iran poses in the near future. Even if the strait remains in conflict for years, in the long-term that is a good thing, because it forces an acceleration of bypassing it as an issue which means Iran loses a big button to push in the future. Meanwhile, with oil prices higher, that is historically good for oil investment which is excellent for Venezuela so more of the fuels that countries rely on come from our hemisphere. We're not new at this game.
  - jmyeet 4mo ago
    Let's summarize the history here: 1. The British were stealing Iranian oil (ie the Anglo-Persian Company, which is now BPl; 2. Iran democratically elected Mossadegh who said Iranian resources would be for Iranians; 3. The British freak out. MI6 twice goes to the newly elected Eisenhower administration to get them to intervene. They are rebuffed the first time so the British come back with a fabricated story about how this is communism somehow and the Eisenhower administration takes the bait; 4. Eisenhowever overthrows the democratically elected government of Iran to install the Shah as an autocrat (he was previously a figurehead pretty much); 5. The Shah takes the oil and basically gives it to the Americans so the British didn't even get what they wanted; 6. The Shah was a brutal dictator that included Savak, a secret police that had a history of violence, represseion and disappearing people; 7. By the late 1970s it was becoming clear that the Shah's regime would fall. The Americans were worried that the Communists would win and Iran would fall into the Soviet sphere of influence so got their puuppet in the region, Saddam Hussein, to expel Khomenei from Iraq in the hopes that the Isalamic fundamentalists would win; 8. The fundamentalists did win. Iran was punished for expelling the American puppet with crippling economic sanctions. Additionally, Saddam Hussein was armed and prompted to go fight a war with Iran. The Iran-Iraq war lasted years, killed over a million people (iranians and Iraqis) and basically had no other change in borders or regimes in the region; 9. After 9/11. Iran gave material aid to the US including rounding up hundreds of al-Qaeda fighters; 10. Despite 15 of the 19 hijackers being Saudi, Osama bin Laden being Saudi and al-Qaeda getting material support from Saudi princes and Saudi madrasses (religious schools), Iran got lumped in with Iraq and North Korea as the "Axis of Evil". The reason for this were the hawks in the US administration who believed that George HW Bush messed up not overthrowing Saddam Hussein in 1991. They had prior to 9/11 urged the Clinton administration and Congress to invade Iran; 11. Iraq was invaded because the neocon hawks, particularly Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, won the policy debate. It is highly believed they thought they would be overthrowing Iran too; 12. North Korea managed to stave off attacks by developing a nuclear weapon. That was the true lesson of the Global War on Terror: only a nuclear weapon will guarantee your survival; 13. Despite that the second Ayatollah, Khamenei, issued a fatwa against developing a nuclear weapon, something which still stands to this day, in 2003; 14. Obama negotitated (with European allies) the JCPOA, a program to inspect Iranian nuclear sites, in exchange for sanctions relief. There is no proof the Iranians ever violated the agreement. They even kept abiding by it for up to a year after Trump tore it up to appease Israel; 15. Israel committed too many hostile acts to enumerate, including the bombing of an embassy in Damascus, targeted assassinations within Iran, the murder of Iranians overseas, etc, pretty much all of which Iran just took on the chin; 16. The US and Israel started an unprovoked war last year, which included killing the Iranian negotiators. This war went so badly that hostilities ended after 12 days. It was widely suspected at the time that supplies of anti-missile munitions were getting critically low. Iran basically acted in good faith here that the Americans would negotiate in good faith; and 17. The Iranians were wrong. America did not act in good faith and started another unprovoked war at Israel's urging that included, for some reason, blowing up a middle school with almost 200 10-12 year old girls in it and killing an 87 year old man who had refused to develop a nuclear weapon (ie Khamenei) who also refused to go into a bunker because his people didn't have the same protections. That strike also killed a whole bunch of his family and the new Ayatollah's family. 18. This brings us to today. From Iran's position, the US cannot be trusted and does not negotiate in good faith. The uS will not restrain Israel in any way, which is an issue given Israel's insatiable appetite for blowing up babies. So Iran has concluded that the only way to guarantee their sovereignty is to make the economic pain so dire that th eUS never thinks about doing this again. This has been clear for months now and Trump is choosing Israel over the economic pain that has been inflicted and is still coming. Millions will likely starve in the coming year. But sure, keep repeating your State Department talking points.
- mctt 4mo ago
  This reminded me of a comment from CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou; "It was my experience at the CIA where literally every Israeli prime minister since the 1980s would come to Washington, which they do all the time, and no matter who happened to be in the White House, they would say 'Please bomb Iran, please bomb Iran, please bomb Iran.' And every president would say 'We're not going to do that.' Until this president..." [39:15] https://youtu.be/Dztm-FpDC0s?t=39m8s https://youtu.be/Dztm-FpDC0s?t=39m8s

by munk-a 4mo ago

amelius 4mo ago

We're talking about 4D chess here /s

jmyeet 4mo ago

Closure of the Strait of Hormuz is one of the most modeled events in military circles. There are probably thousands of military exercises on it, intelligence estimates, strategic papers and so on. Up until this war, it was unknown if Iran could keep the Strait closed against direct US military pressure. Well, now we know. There doesn't appear to be a single serious person in the US military, intelligence community or policy support organizations who thought this was a good idea. It was purely political. The administration seems to have listened solely to and relied entirely upon Benjamin Netanyahu and Mossad. Israel has been trying to get this war with every president since Reagan [1] and they've all said "hell no". Until this one. What's more interesting is that it's been clear what a disaster this almost immediately so we've had ~2 months where it was clear that the US has militarily lost and a negotiated settlement was the only outcome. This would mean the end of economic sanctions and, for anti-Iran hawks in the US and Israel, a spectacularly worse deal than the JCPOA that got torn up. Yet the administration seems more willing to let the world ban than split with Israel. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/JC56Ltg5zDE https://www.youtube.com/shorts/JC56Ltg5zDE

CMay 4mo ago
War is never a good idea, but Iran didn't care and they have been waging war for 40 years. Do you just let them perpetually build strength internally while funding terrorism externally? They have been spreading extremism and instability in the region for decades. They surrounded Israel with militants and attacked them. We knew they could disrupt shipping through the strait, that is a large part of the purpose behind "drill baby drill", stopping Venezuela from invading Guyana where we have oil infrastructure, and increasing oil investment into Venezuela, along with reopening some oil drilling off California. We also knew we likely couldn't justify the risks and costs of sending in a large invasion force for multiple reasons. If a decent deal couldn't be made, then at least you remove an oil supplier from China and you mow the grass to limit the threat Iran poses in the near future. Even if the strait remains in conflict for years, in the long-term that is a good thing, because it forces an acceleration of bypassing it as an issue which means Iran loses a big button to push in the future. Meanwhile, with oil prices higher, that is historically good for oil investment which is excellent for Venezuela so more of the fuels that countries rely on come from our hemisphere. We're not new at this game.
- jmyeet 4mo ago
  Let's summarize the history here: 1. The British were stealing Iranian oil (ie the Anglo-Persian Company, which is now BPl; 2. Iran democratically elected Mossadegh who said Iranian resources would be for Iranians; 3. The British freak out. MI6 twice goes to the newly elected Eisenhower administration to get them to intervene. They are rebuffed the first time so the British come back with a fabricated story about how this is communism somehow and the Eisenhower administration takes the bait; 4. Eisenhowever overthrows the democratically elected government of Iran to install the Shah as an autocrat (he was previously a figurehead pretty much); 5. The Shah takes the oil and basically gives it to the Americans so the British didn't even get what they wanted; 6. The Shah was a brutal dictator that included Savak, a secret police that had a history of violence, represseion and disappearing people; 7. By the late 1970s it was becoming clear that the Shah's regime would fall. The Americans were worried that the Communists would win and Iran would fall into the Soviet sphere of influence so got their puuppet in the region, Saddam Hussein, to expel Khomenei from Iraq in the hopes that the Isalamic fundamentalists would win; 8. The fundamentalists did win. Iran was punished for expelling the American puppet with crippling economic sanctions. Additionally, Saddam Hussein was armed and prompted to go fight a war with Iran. The Iran-Iraq war lasted years, killed over a million people (iranians and Iraqis) and basically had no other change in borders or regimes in the region; 9. After 9/11. Iran gave material aid to the US including rounding up hundreds of al-Qaeda fighters; 10. Despite 15 of the 19 hijackers being Saudi, Osama bin Laden being Saudi and al-Qaeda getting material support from Saudi princes and Saudi madrasses (religious schools), Iran got lumped in with Iraq and North Korea as the "Axis of Evil". The reason for this were the hawks in the US administration who believed that George HW Bush messed up not overthrowing Saddam Hussein in 1991. They had prior to 9/11 urged the Clinton administration and Congress to invade Iran; 11. Iraq was invaded because the neocon hawks, particularly Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, won the policy debate. It is highly believed they thought they would be overthrowing Iran too; 12. North Korea managed to stave off attacks by developing a nuclear weapon. That was the true lesson of the Global War on Terror: only a nuclear weapon will guarantee your survival; 13. Despite that the second Ayatollah, Khamenei, issued a fatwa against developing a nuclear weapon, something which still stands to this day, in 2003; 14. Obama negotitated (with European allies) the JCPOA, a program to inspect Iranian nuclear sites, in exchange for sanctions relief. There is no proof the Iranians ever violated the agreement. They even kept abiding by it for up to a year after Trump tore it up to appease Israel; 15. Israel committed too many hostile acts to enumerate, including the bombing of an embassy in Damascus, targeted assassinations within Iran, the murder of Iranians overseas, etc, pretty much all of which Iran just took on the chin; 16. The US and Israel started an unprovoked war last year, which included killing the Iranian negotiators. This war went so badly that hostilities ended after 12 days. It was widely suspected at the time that supplies of anti-missile munitions were getting critically low. Iran basically acted in good faith here that the Americans would negotiate in good faith; and 17. The Iranians were wrong. America did not act in good faith and started another unprovoked war at Israel's urging that included, for some reason, blowing up a middle school with almost 200 10-12 year old girls in it and killing an 87 year old man who had refused to develop a nuclear weapon (ie Khamenei) who also refused to go into a bunker because his people didn't have the same protections. That strike also killed a whole bunch of his family and the new Ayatollah's family. 18. This brings us to today. From Iran's position, the US cannot be trusted and does not negotiate in good faith. The uS will not restrain Israel in any way, which is an issue given Israel's insatiable appetite for blowing up babies. So Iran has concluded that the only way to guarantee their sovereignty is to make the economic pain so dire that th eUS never thinks about doing this again. This has been clear for months now and Trump is choosing Israel over the economic pain that has been inflicted and is still coming. Millions will likely starve in the coming year. But sure, keep repeating your State Department talking points.
mctt 4mo ago
This reminded me of a comment from CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou; "It was my experience at the CIA where literally every Israeli prime minister since the 1980s would come to Washington, which they do all the time, and no matter who happened to be in the White House, they would say 'Please bomb Iran, please bomb Iran, please bomb Iran.' And every president would say 'We're not going to do that.' Until this president..." [39:15] https://youtu.be/Dztm-FpDC0s?t=39m8s https://youtu.be/Dztm-FpDC0s?t=39m8s