5 ms·

There is nothing straightforward about the option you describe. The necessary buildup would take several months and would happen within range of Iranian drones

There is nothing straightforward about the option you describe. The necessary buildup would take several months and would happen within range of Iranian drones. Neither Iraq nor Pakistan seem to be particularly likely to grant a permission to the US to stage a large-scale land operation against Iran from their own territory. Both have large populations partly sympathetic to the mullahs, the political destabilization caused by taking the side of "infidels" against the "faithful", plus suffering Iranian drone retaliation, would be just too costly for them. "First, a large scale bombing campaign, targeting Iranian infrastructure." The US already did that and emptied its arsenals to dangerously low levels. Were they replenished? Probably not yet, this is what we are discussing here; the military-industrial complex in America has grown fat and complacent and cannot quickly increase production beyond the very low level optimized out by post-Cold-War MBAs. "Combat losses to the US would be minimal." Uncertain. The US could probably swallow its pride and go to Kyiv to shop for anti-drone know-how and technology. In that case, the combat losses would be lower. If people like Vance and Trump cannot do that, I would rather expect the US losses to be at least in lower tens of thousands. A million cheap FPV drones can do a lot of dirty work, and this is probably the stuff that China can send to the IRGC quite quickly.

tristanj 5mo ago
You misunderstand. You underestimate the depth of the campaign. The strategy calls for a total dismantling of Iran's infrastructure, including oil generation, fuel processing, electrical generation, and industrial capacity. Similar how the allies won WWII against Germany and Japan by destroying their industrial capacity. Iran would be paralyzed without fuel and electricity, GDP would collapse by 90%, and within days, there would be large social unrest. The IRGC would be too distracted managing unrest to mount a concerted response. The US and allies would spend the next few weeks amassing forces, then would invade along multiple axises (from the east and west). Pakistan would join the war, as it is obligated under the Saudi/Pakistani mutual self-defense treaty. Forces would then remove the nuclear material, clean up Iranian missiles that target ships in the strait, and the US would leave.
- bigyabai 4mo ago
  If that strategy was the only strategy, then it would have already been done, there would be no desire for diplomatic resolution here. Optics-wise, banking on social unrest has failed, and if the US escalates it to a Dresden situation then the Gulf States will have their own critical services attacked in reprisal. Part of the reason why we're even seeing negotiations is because the US has no free win button. The escalation ladder is still wide open for both sides. It doesn't take a four star general to understand why a ground invasion sucks. By the time Marines land in Bandar Abbas, the HEU is halfway to an underground vault in Magnitogorsk. The remaining job of securing UF6 rubble, locating spare centrifuges and dismantling their enrichment loop is pointless. There is no option to "remove the nuclear material" that reasonably deters Iran from attaining nuclear weapons. The JCPOA was a more workable framework than this blockade has proven to be.
  - tristanj 4mo ago
    Lots of issues > If that strategy was the only strategy, then it would have already been done No, it's not done because the US is averse to combat losses. The US will win a ground war against Iran, there's no question here. But it will do so at significant loss, in the thousands of lives. Trump is politically savvy enough to not desire this option. > banking on social unrest has failed The social unrest strategy was never implemented. It was hinted at happening, Iranians were told to wait until told to resume protesting, but the green light was never given. > By the time Marines land in Bandar Abbas The marines can't land at Bandar Abbas, a cursory look at the geography shows it makes no sense to land here; a ground invasion would start from Pakistan or Iraq. > the HEU is halfway to an underground vault in Magnitogorsk. Why would Iran voluntarily give up its Uranium stockpiles to Russia? There is no strategic benefit. > The remaining job of securing UF6 rubble, locating spare centrifuges and dismantling their enrichment loop is pointless. False, it is not possible to build a nuclear weapon without a significant amount of accompanying infrastructure; there is enormous strategic value to destroying Iran's nuclear infrastructure. > There is no option to "remove the nuclear material" that reasonably deters Iran from attaining nuclear weapons. False, doing so would set back the Iranian nuclear program by ten to twenty years; which is long enough for another president to revisit the issue. While in the country, the US would also dismantle the Iranian missile stockpile, destroying thousands of missiles that could target neighboring countries. And JCPOA has its own issues, JCPOA was fundamentally flawed, it never addressed the Iranian missile problem, which is equally as large an issue as the Iranian nuclear problem.

tristanj 5mo ago

You misunderstand. You underestimate the depth of the campaign. The strategy calls for a total dismantling of Iran's infrastructure, including oil generation, fuel processing, electrical generation, and industrial capacity. Similar how the allies won WWII against Germany and Japan by destroying their industrial capacity. Iran would be paralyzed without fuel and electricity, GDP would collapse by 90%, and within days, there would be large social unrest. The IRGC would be too distracted managing unrest to mount a concerted response. The US and allies would spend the next few weeks amassing forces, then would invade along multiple axises (from the east and west). Pakistan would join the war, as it is obligated under the Saudi/Pakistani mutual self-defense treaty. Forces would then remove the nuclear material, clean up Iranian missiles that target ships in the strait, and the US would leave.

bigyabai 4mo ago
If that strategy was the only strategy, then it would have already been done, there would be no desire for diplomatic resolution here. Optics-wise, banking on social unrest has failed, and if the US escalates it to a Dresden situation then the Gulf States will have their own critical services attacked in reprisal. Part of the reason why we're even seeing negotiations is because the US has no free win button. The escalation ladder is still wide open for both sides. It doesn't take a four star general to understand why a ground invasion sucks. By the time Marines land in Bandar Abbas, the HEU is halfway to an underground vault in Magnitogorsk. The remaining job of securing UF6 rubble, locating spare centrifuges and dismantling their enrichment loop is pointless. There is no option to "remove the nuclear material" that reasonably deters Iran from attaining nuclear weapons. The JCPOA was a more workable framework than this blockade has proven to be.
- tristanj 4mo ago
  Lots of issues > If that strategy was the only strategy, then it would have already been done No, it's not done because the US is averse to combat losses. The US will win a ground war against Iran, there's no question here. But it will do so at significant loss, in the thousands of lives. Trump is politically savvy enough to not desire this option. > banking on social unrest has failed The social unrest strategy was never implemented. It was hinted at happening, Iranians were told to wait until told to resume protesting, but the green light was never given. > By the time Marines land in Bandar Abbas The marines can't land at Bandar Abbas, a cursory look at the geography shows it makes no sense to land here; a ground invasion would start from Pakistan or Iraq. > the HEU is halfway to an underground vault in Magnitogorsk. Why would Iran voluntarily give up its Uranium stockpiles to Russia? There is no strategic benefit. > The remaining job of securing UF6 rubble, locating spare centrifuges and dismantling their enrichment loop is pointless. False, it is not possible to build a nuclear weapon without a significant amount of accompanying infrastructure; there is enormous strategic value to destroying Iran's nuclear infrastructure. > There is no option to "remove the nuclear material" that reasonably deters Iran from attaining nuclear weapons. False, doing so would set back the Iranian nuclear program by ten to twenty years; which is long enough for another president to revisit the issue. While in the country, the US would also dismantle the Iranian missile stockpile, destroying thousands of missiles that could target neighboring countries. And JCPOA has its own issues, JCPOA was fundamentally flawed, it never addressed the Iranian missile problem, which is equally as large an issue as the Iranian nuclear problem.