7 ms·
> Iran war will also probably still be going on in 5 years The Russia/Ukraine war has a goal, to make Ukraine either part of Russia or a client state. What's
by malfist 3mo ago
> Iran war will also probably still be going on in 5 years
The Russia/Ukraine war has a goal, to make Ukraine either part of Russia or a client state.
What's the goal of the US/Iran war? So far it seems like the goal is to mostly return to the status quo prior to the war. I can't imagine that could continue 5 years because there's just not an objective. Of course, I could easily be mistaken.
- mcphage 3mo ago> What's the goal of the US/Iran war? What's the goal?! The US/Iran war has a ton of goals! Every day a new goal, each as improbable as the last.
- anjel 3mo agoAs with Ukraine, it's a David and Goliath kind of conflict and in both conflicts, the temptation for Goliath to escalate by leveraging scale is predictable, tempting and frought.
- malcolmgreaves 3mo agoIran is not David in this case. They’ve shown that their drone warfare is just a little bit under what the US military can provide. Remember that they destroyed a quarter of a trillion dollars radar installation. And the US has spent billions on munitions. The US can’t actually keep going in this war.
- Terr_ 3mo agoI once compared the historic GDP values, and IIRC if Iraq-vs-US in 2003 is 1x baseline, then Iran-vs-US today is 7x. Plus Iran (today) has 2x the population and 3x times the land area than Iraq (today).
- WillPostForFood 3mo agoWithout diminishing the huge cost Iran has been able to inflict on US radar, quarter of a trillion is off by more than two orders of magnitude, maybe three. There are 1-2 confirmed radar system confirmed hit, a couple more suspected hit or damaged. But that is going to be hundreds of millions in damage, nowhere close to 250 billion,
- Terr_ 3mo agoNot only that, but even the status of the goals is insane. Right now Republicans are just flipping a coin every day to decide whether each "goal" is (A) a critical need where only Dear Leader can save us or (B) a glorious victory for Dear Leader who has solved everything forever. We saw the same with the the mutually-incompatible and shifting "goals" of the illegal taxes on American buyers (tariffs.) Some of those "goals" were being pre-declared as achieved simply by announcing the policy. (Narrator: "They weren't.")
- Zardoz84 3mo agoparafraseando Babylon 5 : - We ended poverty - When did this happen? - Simply, we changed the dictionary
- segbrk 3mo agoThat’s exactly why it could continue indefinitely. A war with no goal can’t be won. Nor can it be abandoned without bruising powerful egos.
- runako 3mo agoPer the spec of the last 25 years, they will let it run until the party in control of the White House changes. The new party will be responsible for the exit & cleanup phase.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- jandrese 3mo agoThe Trump administration forgot all of the lessons of Vietnam.
- pjc50 3mo agoThe goal is a very simple one: make Trump look good. It wouldn't be the first war in history to be driven by pure vanity of an absolute ruler.
- isleyaardvark 3mo agoIt's to distract from the Epstein files.
- salemh 3mo ago[dead]
- forshaper 3mo agoThere hasn't been a clear goal for an American war since the first Gulf War.
- AlexCoventry 3mo agoThe goals for intervention in the Serbia/Bosnia conflict were clear and noble, IMO.
- kingleopold 3mo agoclear goal is making trillions to war profiteer friends, is this too hard to see for the public?
- Fizz43 3mo agoThe public loves that narrative but it collapses under scrutiny.
- streetfighter64 3mo agoThe military industrial complex is a "narrative"? If anything the public does not understand it enough. But please, do scrutinize it. What is the goal of all of the USAs wars in the middle east, if not to funnel taxpayer money into the pockets of shareholders of weapons companies? The latest one for example, in Iran, is clearly just because Trump can profit off of it, and because Israel wants to destroy all of their enemies in the region. And of course, Israel is a great consumer of USAs military technology (which they buy with "aid" i.e. taxpayer money from USA itself).
- strulovich 3mo agoThis is not a very charitable explanation, it takes politicians at their word during a war. (One should not do that, and you can refer to Putin’s language at 2022 as a parallel example to Trump’s) The initial US goals clearly were: 1. Regime change 2. Denial is of nuclear weapons It’s also clear these goals were not achieved. So the US changed tactics and goals. (Same as Russia no longer plans on capturing Kiev it seems) Most likely the US is stalling for time due to oil markets and has the same intentions as before, limited only by current capability.
- dreamcompiler 3mo agoI think regime change is likely to happen within two years. Just not in Iran.
- AlexCoventry 3mo agoAccording to The Economist, the Iranian theocracy is no longer in power, the IRGC is. Still, not the regime change Trump was hoping for, that's for sure. > Khamenei’s killing has accelerated Iran’s transition from a theocracy to an ambitious nationalistic state dominated by military men. The irgc appears to wield power with few constraints. Clerics who challenged its influence—including former Presidents Mohammad Khatami and Hassan Rouhani—were conspicuously absent from the [funeral] processions. https://www.economist.com/interactive/middle-east-and-africa/2026/07/08/is-donald-trump-serious-in-declaring-the-ceasefire-with-iran-over https://www.economist.com/interactive/middle-east-and-africa...
- protocolture 3mo ago>IRGC Forgive me its been a while since I read about Irans political structure, but my understanding is that the IRGC is supposed to take over in times of succession crisis, and sort of take any measures to guarantee the islamic revolution. The test is supposed to be that they hand back power sometime after the crisis. If you assume Khamenei Jr is still unwell, and there's still a spot of bother regarding what his succession would look like, and the civilian government is still a bit in shambles, the IRGC taking over seems very easy for them to justify. Whether they hand that power back willingly is another matter that remains to be seen. The problem here is that Trump bombing Iran is going to keep them in power longer. The IRGC being in charge is going to keep Trump bombing them. I dont see a way out of that spiral on either side.
- bad_haircut72 3mo agoOnce you've lost something (I think sooner or later, Iran will succeed in sinking a big US ship) then even if you cant win, you also cant leave else its an admission of defeat - so it drags on and on and on.
- TSiege 3mo agoI'm not sure the US would behave as rationally in that scenario as you hope
- dctoedt 3mo ago> I think sooner or later, Iran will succeed in sinking a big US ship Sinking or even just seriously damaging a U.S. aircraft carrier — approx. 5K people in crew + airwing, billions of dollars in ship and aircraft — might trigger a Pearl-Harbor or 9/11 fury among the American public. No U.S. president could get away with even a "proportionate" response, let alone doing nothing. Think of the Tonkin Gulf incident in 1965, which led to the U.S.'s widened involvement in Vietnam on the basis of grossly-distorted reports about alleged attacks — which never happened — on U.S. destroyers (which are comparatively small ships). [0] If Iran were to actually sink a U.S. aircraft carrier, then Trump-Hegseth-Miller might well nuke Tehran in response. We sure as hell don't need anything like the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914 by a terrorist. It triggered a cascade of some of the stupidest and costliest government decisions in history. Belgrade, Vienna, St. Petersburg, Berlin, Paris, London, they all effed it up almost beyond belief. WWI cost millions of lives and untold billions in resources that could have been put to far better use. Iran sinking a U.S. carrier could be a similar trigger. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident
- bad_haircut72 3mo agoYeah exactly, thats how you win wars, you force the enemy to do things they dont really want to do.
- m000 3mo ago
- ApolloFortyNine 3mo agoWell at this point the goal is for Iran to stop randomly blowing up innocent cargo ships. Or firing missiles at airports and cities in retaliation. [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/iran-war-live-us-says-iranian-strikes-bahrain-kuwait-failed-2026-06-03/ https://www.reuters.com/world/iran-war-live-us-says-iranian-...
- csbrooks 3mo agoThat sounds like it would be a return to the status quo.
- QuercusMax 3mo agoIf that's the goal then the US and Israel are doing their best to stop it from happening. Iran is responding to provocations. Stop provoking them, no more blown up ships.
- lenerdenator 3mo agoIran has shown a willingness to do these things through proxies regardless of anyone else before. Furthermore, if they want to deal with the US or Israel, then they should target American or Israeli assets. Not third party ships manned by citizens of neutral nations who just want to get to port and remit cash to their families back home.
- QuercusMax 3mo agoRunning a blockade is a risky proposition; it's not something that happens by accident. A lot of these "neutral" countries either host US military bases, US companies, or are otherwise aligned generally with the US.
- lenerdenator 3mo agoAre they sailing under the flags of nations who are combatants in this war, yes or no?
- 27183 3mo agoInitially it's unclear what the goal was. But now the goal must be opening the strait of Hormuz ASAP. There's going to be serious economic fallout if that doesn't happen[0]. It remains to be seen how realistic that goal actually is. Iran has big advantages in their favor. [0] https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/08/business/iran-oil-trump-strait-of-hormuz https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/08/business/iran-oil-trump-strai...
- _trampeltier 3mo agoCan we agree on "the strait was open before the war" so it can't be a goal for the war.
- 27183 3mo agoNo, unfortunately, because circumstances change. It was unbelievably stupid to attack Iran, and everyone involved knew this might happen, but now that it has happened it needs to be dealt with one way or the other.
- andrewflnr 3mo agoIt wasn't a goal for starting the war, but it sure is one now.
- roenxi 3mo agoIt can't be, because if that was the goal they'd just stop attacking. The strait was open until they sneak attacked Iran. Everyone seems to be in agreement that as part of a ceasefire the strait will open. Iran has shown no particular interest in closing the strait except as a war tactic. The US clearly does not have the power to control or open the strait militarily, its been months now. They appear to be outclassed. If the goal was opening the strait, then Trump would direct the US military to stop attacking and then the strait would open up. Peace is the only path they have to open the strait and there is every reason to think negotiation would succeed in having the strait open in a matter of days. By process of elimination, the war goal either seems to be some sort of relatively indirect attack on China's energy security or simple support of Israel in Lebanon by keeping the Iranians out of it. Or maybe Trump has also reached the tipping point into senility; a scenario which seems increasingly likely.
- tbrake 3mo ago> What's the goal of the US/Iran war? kneecaping china by cutting off a huge source of its oil imports. Russia will not be able to make up the difference.
- ExoticPearTree 3mo agoAll countries are affected, not just China.
- lenerdenator 3mo ago> What's the goal of the US/Iran war? It varies. Which is the problem. I can think of a few: 1) Severely kneecap the Iranians' nuclear ambitions. This one might actually be working to an extent. 2) Severely kneecap the Iranians' military ambitions in the Middle East as a whole, particularly with respect to Israel. This remains unknown. Their neighbors seem content to give them a pass for launching missiles into their infrastructure, possibly on the grounds of shared religion. Maybe they'll get tired of it. 3) Cause regime change in Iran. Not happening now. Might not happen in the foreseeable future.
- bluGill 3mo ago3 happened. The new boss is the old bosses son though so it wasn't a useful change.
- protocolture 3mo ago>1) Severely kneecap the Iranians' nuclear ambitions. Every time someone hits them, they learn that they wouldnt be hit if only they had a nuclear weapon.
- lenerdenator 3mo agoIf that's their takeaway, then we should probably keep up the pressure.
- Varelion 3mo ago> What's the goal of the US/Iran war? Distract from the Epstein files. If you think anything else you: 1 - Haven't been paying attention since 2008. 2 - Are giving the administration way too much undeserved credit.
- post-it 3mo agoI'm not sure anything is a distraction from the Epstein files. I don't think the administration cares about the Epstein files. What would be the fallout if they were all released? We already know that a lot of wealthy people were raping children. It's not like the US is going to prosecute.
- fwip 3mo agoDepends on who's in it.
- Varelion 3mo agoAn open secret as to who is.
- Varelion 3mo agoSomeone's name appears on it more than the word "God" does on the bible, according to the press. I think a tangible confirmation of that, and the deeds that occurred, and the fact Epstein was a Mossad agent with Russian ties would send a lot of things crumbling. Did Bondi not say on camera that if the list was released "the system would collapse"?
- 9dev 3mo agoSo why exactly is the department of justice in contempt of congress and a judge right now, refusing to release them? Why are the names of perpetrators in the files censored, while those of victims remained clear? Why has not a single person been prosecuted since the files were released?
- post-it 3mo ago
- wnevets 3mo ago> What's the goal of the US/Iran war? To make certain people money by shorting the oil market. There is a reason why these "peace" deals are always announced on Fridays.
- ashdksnndck 3mo agoI never got the logic of this conspiracy theory. If you’re trying to make money insider trading off some events, wouldn’t you want markets to be open when the events occur? You’d like to be able to enter and exit your position immediately before and after any news breaks. Markets being closed when a deal is announced makes it less efficient to trade on that news.
- holoduke 3mo ago[flagged]
- streetfighter64 3mo agoYou're calling it a "conspiracy theory" despite loads of evidence of insider trading, both traditional and crypto, by Trump and his cronies? Do you think the Trump-Epstein connections are just a "conspiracy theory" as well?
- ashdksnndck 3mo agoThere are two fairly different stories here: 1) Someone in the administration is leaking news soon before it’s announced, enabling insider trading. This is obviously supported by the evidence from markets. 2) The administrating is scheduling world events as part of a larger conspiracy to do enabling insider trading on specific predefined dates. Markets moving a few minutes early doesn’t provide evidence that this is happening. Statements like: “There is a reason why these ‘peace’ deals are always announced on Fridays” imply the second (and aren’t even objectively true).
- kylehotchkiss 3mo agoWrite off depreciation on military hardware?
- MyHonestOpinon 3mo agoThe US had the power to start the war. The US doesn't have the power to stop the war.
- pphysch 3mo agoIt absolutely does, it can simply choose to not bomb Iran after Iran enforces regulations on its (shared with Oman) waterway. Bombing Iran for a month because Iran fired on 4 ships that were violating its SoH rules is wildly disproportionate and optional.
- TSiege 3mo agoThis is not necessarily true. Yes the strait of hormuz is technically in their territorial waters, but it has been recognized as an international water way until recently. Every country with a port on the other side of the strait is going to lose access. This might not be a tolerable situation to those allies of ours and they also have the ability to force the war to drag on. Maybe we walk and pull out from our bases in those countries. maybe they suck it up and live with paying tolls. but maybe they bomb a port in iran and iran strikes a us base in response
- kakacik 3mo agoRegognized by whom? This is very one sided view, obviously US sided. This kind of shit or excuses could not be pulled if we would be talking about gulf of mexico for example. US is not center of the world and rest of the world means >95% of mankind, rest of the world is pretty fed up with that unfair treatment and things are changing. Very slowly, but steadily.
- bluGill 3mo agoNearly everybody recognized it as an international waterway. Iran did not official but they acted liked it was international.
- 3mo ago
- 37374848 3mo agothe goal of the war in iran is to produce a regime change that will prevent them from having nukes targeting israel islamic iran with nukes makes israel untennable and the us puppets in the gulf too the us will be forced to physically invade now that the first strike failed the us in its current form will not tolerate an existential threat to israel
- selimthegrim 3mo agoPakistan has nukes and I don't see the Gulf/Levant quaking in their boots
- 37374848 3mo agoIt has no way to deliver them to Israel, and it is in itself a US vassal
- pphysch 3mo ago> the us in its current form will not tolerate an existential threat to israel It seems to be tolerating Netanyahu and Ben-Gvir just fine! Imagine the different place Israel would be if it pursued Oct 7 as a criminal act instead of a pretext to commit genocide. Enormous strategic blunder by the Netanyahu regime. Israel would not be a global pariah state and it's entirely possible that regime change in Iran would have succeeded. But you are never going to regime change a people who know with certainty that they will be butchered/raped/tortured by their supposed "saviors" the Israelis. There is literally nothing worse than surrendering to Israel.
- 37374848 3mo agothe prevalence of secular jews in the state department makes them completely unable to read islamic countries. it's the third time this happens in a decade by punching islamic regimes you create a feedback loop of islamic eschatology the only way out now is forward ie boots on the ground. this is gonna happen whether dems or reps are in power
- 3mo ago
- onlyrealcuzzo 3mo ago> The Russia/Ukraine war has a goal, to make Ukraine either part of Russia or a client state. No, it has a goal to keep Putin in power. The Iran war happened to move people's interest from a certain set of files about a certain group people onto something else. It succeeded by that standard, but now has created the mess that you can't just start a war with a country to distract your voters and not suffer any consequences from it. Iran was not thrilled to be bombed to play a part in this distraction.
- holoduke 3mo agoSomeone making Putin the image of Russia clearly doesn't understand the country and inhaled to much propoganda. Sorry
- throwaway27448 3mo ago> The Russia/Ukraine war has a goal, to make Ukraine either part of Russia or a client state. Or at least the Donbas... I can't imagine they'd want a border pressing up against nato without a rump state in between.
- 0x073 3mo agoIf it's continue 5 years, the country connected to this war in this region will go fast downstairs and maybe even end in a broken state. I don't sympathies with any monarch country there, but no one wants more unstable countries, especially in the Arabic region.
- __turbobrew__ 3mo ago> What's the goal of the US/Iran war? Distraction from Epstien Files
- yodsanklai 3mo ago> What's the goal of the US/Iran war? I'm just a layman, but the goal seems obvious to me. First it's not US/Iran but US + Israel / Iran. From Israel's point of view, I assume the goal is the preemptive destruction of Iran's military capabilities (especially nuclear weapons).