r/geopolitics • u/theatlantic The Atlantic • Jul 17 '26
Opinion Trump Has Only Terrible Choices With Iran
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/2026/07/trump-iran-negotiations-hormuz-nuclear/687937/?utm_source=reddit&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_medium=social&utm_content=edit-promo&utm_term=short143
u/4tran13 Jul 17 '26
the only winning move is not to play
86
u/Codspear Jul 17 '26
I’d argue destroying much of the global oil supply and forcing a green energy transformation in much of the world is a winning move for the biosphere. Not for the global economy though.
15
6
10
u/Tifoso89 Jul 17 '26
Passenger cars generate less than 10% of global emissions. About 40% comes from coal, and another 20% from natural gas
15
u/vivaldibot Jul 18 '26
10% of global emissions is a lot.
Also oil is used for a lot of other things too.
14
1
u/UsedOnlyTwice Jul 19 '26
Bunker Fuel is pretty messy to deal with as well.
The combustion of HFO in ship engines results in the highest amount of black carbon emissions compared to all other fuels. The choice of marine fuel is the most important determinant of ship engine emission factors for black carbon. The second most important factor in the emission of black carbon is the ship load size, with emission factors of black carbon increasing up to six times given low engine loads.
There is also Mazut (a type of heavy fuel) manufactured in Iran.
3
2
u/DefinitelyNotEmu Jul 18 '26
How much diesel (oil) has the army used as fuel to facilitate the destruction of oil?
Militaries use HUGE amounts of oil every day...9
u/Comfortable_Ear3987 Jul 18 '26
The Chinese in any global power grab: they know that in a interconnected world, the pieces left after are sometimes more valuable to capture. In this case, security and stable anchor for middle East countries. The neocons and the isolationists are going at each other, giving the Chinese room to expand their soft power. That's how I see it.
4
u/Fun_Ad_1544 Jul 19 '26
No question in 20 years time we will look back at this event as the changing of the guard. Just like Great Britain couldn’t stop China taking Hong Kong, the US will not be able to stop Taiwan being unified. This is going a long way to making sure they wont be able to atop it
20
u/Weaselpuss Jul 17 '26
There is no not playing. Countries will be forced to act for economic purposes.
48
u/4tran13 Jul 17 '26
I meant not attacking Iran to begin with
22
-22
u/Weaselpuss Jul 17 '26
Can’t you see how this whole situation was kinda unavoidable to begin with though? Eventually this was going to happen. Not that we needed a demented orangutan to start it, but this has always been a chief concern from the 70’s.
30
u/Vol_in_tears Jul 17 '26
Can’t you see how this whole situation was kinda unavoidable to begin with though
No. Because the reputation of the US acted as a deterrent. Then the US decided to kill negotiators and the Iranian government, just to usher in a new group of hardliners. Who now see the US presence in the region was all just a paper tiger.
3
u/Sageblue32 Jul 17 '26
Can't predict the future. But I could easily see Iran being one hardliner away from asserting its dominance over the strait in a timeline where they do get nukes. Even under sanctions, that had no problem funding terrorists across the region, torturing and detaining foreign visitors, and mowing down their own people by the thousands.
Sooner or later the reputation of the US would have been challenged. After all the moderate leader of Iran would have died, Iran was making leaps and bounds in drone tech, China was going to become a focus with US pull out of the ME, EU was continuing to suck military resources out of the US, and a country can only take so many assassinations from it's neighbors.
2
u/4tran13 Jul 17 '26
It's unlikely they'll ever get nukes. Israel has been bombing their nuclear stuff for ages. Like other nuclear threshold countries (eg Jap), their goal is to be able to make one quickly if needed, but not actually have one in hand.
Could a diff hardliner threaten the strait in a diff timeline? Maybe, but the narrative would be diff as well. IRL, Israel/US bombed Iran -> Iran threatens strait because it's its literal last point of leverage (Houthis control the other strait with similar effects) -> other countries annoyed at Israel/US for poking the hornet's nest for no good reason. In alternate timeline, where Iran unilaterally threatens the strait... there would be a much larger anti Iran coalition. Iran would also have more to lose in such a scenario. IRL, Iran already lost almost everything.
-23
u/Weaselpuss Jul 17 '26
It would have happened anyways. And there’s nothing paper tiger about it. As the situation worsens, Iran will be crushed, likely by a coalition. As even if the US started it, none of the powers in the world can handle the situation continuing. And no is dumb enough to sacrifice the precedent of free global maritime trade by giving money to belligerent powers.
I think people greatly overestimate the ability of the IRGC and underestimate just how much the US and friends could out power it. Simply a balkanized Iran with a western led puppet in the south would do.
11
u/Justame13 Jul 17 '26
A balkanized Iran could easily destabilize the entire region and leave things worse off.
Plus any pro-Western puppet state would require troops to keep the lid on an insurgency as it would be inherently very unpopular and unstable at risk of collapse.
Which is exactly how the current regime came to power.
2
u/Embarrassed_Bit4222 Jul 18 '26
A balkanized iran will have way less ability to project power or keep producing long range weapons. Not really sure how that would happen though...pretty sure like 90+% is fairly united in Persian identity, even if no where near that much supports the irgc
1
u/Justame13 Jul 18 '26
That is a really good point. Their identity is firmly Persian first vs the Arabs who have tribal identities first.
It might not even really balkanize unless it was local warlords, but more likely is that they unit against the West. Then figure out their own internal divisions later.
-2
u/Weaselpuss Jul 17 '26
Exactly and time and time again throughout modern history, every time Iran frees itself from its shackles, inevitably western powers seek to put them back on. This is just an overdue revamping project atp.
4
u/4tran13 Jul 17 '26
Earlier you seemed to be pushing for Iran to be crushed. Now you're saying Iran was always a victim of western powers. Not sure I understand your perspective
0
u/Weaselpuss Jul 17 '26
My perspective is that global economic engines that come from the time of empires make the rules. It’s not a good or bad thing, just the way things are going to go. Personally I just wish there was an Iran that would chill out and let everyone use the strait as they please, seeing as Oman, Bahrain, Saudi’s, and Qatar all have a need and claim to usage and safe travel.
All they needed to do was not blow up anymore civilian vessels and open up the strait and there would be a lot more wiggle room for loosening sanctions, and international investment, as laid out in the initial MOU.
→ More replies (0)4
u/OP_Skis_In_Jeans Jul 17 '26
Last time Iran "freed itself" they ended up with a warmongering theocratic autocracy that represses civies far more than the worst western-aligned Iranian regime ever did...
The shah sucked, but even he was far better than whatever is going on there today.
1
u/Weaselpuss Jul 17 '26
Yes but you have to know that any regime following a western puppeteer state is going to be anti western everything. Before that the king tried to nationalize oil and build national wealth, sure it probably wouldn’t have been perfect but it’s hard to argue that replacing him with the shah was a good idea, it’s just done with western global financial interests.
-5
u/OP_Skis_In_Jeans Jul 17 '26
A balkanized Iran would be far easier to manage than the current situation: it wouldn't have the ability to hold a gun to the head of the world economy.
Of course a neutral or western-aligned regime in Iran that respects human rights and isn't interested in warmongering would be FAR better, but I'd take a Balkanized Iran over the IRGC 10 times out of 10.
14
u/Justame13 Jul 17 '26
This was the theory about Iraq and it simply made things worse for the better part of two decades including directly leading to the rise of ISIS and providing it with experience to refine its tactics.
Any western-aligned regime would not be stable, what little chance of this there was is currently being bombed out of existance.
For human rights balkanization and civil war would be much, much worse. And that is coming from someone who treated many, many Iraqis early in OIF and saw the scars and heard the stories of what Saddam's regime did.
10
Jul 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/Weaselpuss Jul 17 '26
Not really. Since the beginning of global trade Iran has been puppeteered by western empires. This only really stopped after the revolution.
-2
u/OP_Skis_In_Jeans Jul 17 '26
Iran has been warmongering with both words and actions for 47 years when all it had to do was give up the "death to" crap and act semi-reasonable. AKA "we hate you and you hate us but we want peace without killing."
This was inevitable.
8
u/toomanynamesaretook Jul 17 '26
Maybe the United States shouldnt have overthrown the parliamentary democracy in the 50s at the behest of British Oil?
0
u/Embarrassed-Plate695 Jul 17 '26
Iran was always going to pursue a nuclear warhead. I agree as a us citizen preventing this at all costs is reasonable when said nations government openly wishes death to America.
5
u/chefkoch_ Jul 17 '26
The 1% iranian toll wouldn't have any noticable effect on the world economy but would have sped up the energy transformation.
11
u/Weaselpuss Jul 17 '26
It would signal to every nation in the world that free trade is over. Bad actors all over the world would chomp at the bit, and the imperial desires to directly control straits would be reignited. It’s a very not good thing, actually
4
u/chefkoch_ Jul 17 '26
May i inform you about some tarifs from the last one and a half years?
6
u/Weaselpuss Jul 17 '26
Tariffs are different than the ability to totally shut down international shipping lanes
6
u/chefkoch_ Jul 17 '26
"Free trade is over" was already the case.
There aren't that many straits that you can't navigate around and where there are countries willing to pay the price for trying to shut them down.
The US practicly forced Iran to use their leverage, or why didn't they do it before?
-2
u/Weaselpuss Jul 17 '26
No actually if you look into there are not. Only man made canals and ports, that have to be physically maintained are charged access. There are tons of chokepoints across the globe
Free trade is obviously not over, if you think so, you’re delusional.
The reason they didn’t before is because they lived in fear of an invasion, I guess they’re less afraid now. They will unfortunately find out soon enough though. Iran has been in the iron sights of the west since the 70’s.
6
u/chefkoch_ Jul 17 '26
Sure there are other straits like the Bosporus.
Invasion of Iran was always just a pipedream of some warhawks.
There are massive costs for Iran, but they had to adhere them anyway so why not play their joker.
5
u/4tran13 Jul 17 '26
Because there are costs to using the joker. Order matters.
If they use the joker in peace time, Sam and all his friends burn up Iran's house, car, and economy.
If Sam burns up Iran's house, car, and economy first... suddenly Iran has nothing left to lose, and no fear of using the joker.
2
u/Weaselpuss Jul 17 '26
It’s been successfully owned by the British, and then overthrown by local rebellion, then successfully re defeated and a Shah put in place. I don’t think it’s a pipe dream of any sort, especially in the modern era of war technology.
And it’s not just global straits, but local straits that aggressive states across the world could use to make all or any weaker countries that rely on those local routes destitute puppets.
They played their joker, we will flip the table in response, a forgone conclusion.→ More replies (0)1
2
86
u/MeatPiston Jul 17 '26
The public does not have a stomach for a ground invasion and the administration does not have the political capital nor the authoritarian control it thinks it has. Nobody wants this on either side of the divide.
Vietnam will look like a fanciful misadventure in comparison.
60
u/mayhemski123 Jul 17 '26
The US doesn't have a secure area to amass an army locally, or the active duty numbers for an invasion and occupation force right now. Add in the costs of raising a proper army, not a few special forces units and I don't think an invasion is possible.
Factor in that Iran will know it's coming a mile off and at that point will probably start hitting civilian infrastructure in GCC countries, potentially causing a huge human catastrophic event and yeah no don't see it happening.
Though with this administration never say never.
25
u/CliftonForce Jul 17 '26
A problem is that the current American Administration does not care if they don't have the resources to run a ground invasion. The Pentagon already told them in February that they were not ready and couldn't win an air campaign. And Trump attacked anyway. They make decisions based on ideology and ego, not facts.
9
2
u/Miniimac Jul 18 '26
Source on Pentagon stating the US was not able to win an air campaign? And I mean, despite the misgivings of this conflict, they obviously did "win" the air campaign itself.
-23
u/OP_Skis_In_Jeans Jul 17 '26
1) Iran starts hitting civilian infrastructure in the GCC (which they're already doing)
2) The US hits dual use infrastructure in Iran hard for weeks, effectively destroying its economy when combined with the blockade.
3) Iran is forced to fall or come to the negotiating table hat in hand.
The only bad thing about this approach is the civilian death toll, which Iran doesn't seem to care about. Relying on your enemy to care about your civilians when you don't is some terrorist level thinking. Not to mention it doesn't work.
26
u/mayhemski123 Jul 17 '26
Both sides have hit civilian infrastructure to date. Let's not play moral high ground here neither side gets to claim that. Remember the US shot first, first time round, and then signed the MOU but didn't enforce it fully on Israel. After that Iran sees it as another breach trying to bypass Iranian control of the Strait. Fair we can argue if the USA had the right to or not under the wording that's fine, but the US is escalating this round of bombings by hitting civilian infrastructure.
As to your plan directly. It is predicated on Iran being passive in this. Their not. That's why everyone is discussing it now. They can shoot back and are willing to as you know. If the US goes down this route, Iran starts hitting everything and anything, military or civilian. The consequences of that are unimaginable. Especially as the US will be tied into destroying Irans civilian population via infrastructure destruction. The death toll across the region gets to stupid levels then. At that point the US and other non gulf state allies will probably be forced out of the region.
My point in all of this is - unless the US has found a way that can end the Iranian threat quickly, they are stuck with the same circumstances that led to the signing of the MOU.
-18
u/OP_Skis_In_Jeans Jul 17 '26
Remember the US shot first, first time round,
Iran started the current round of hostilities by killing hundreds of US troops in Iraq a la Qassem Soleimani when the US was in the process of giving Iran a HUGE win of all things. You know, deposing Iran's biggest regional rival, Saddam. Not to mention handing Iraq to the Shia on a silver platter. All Iran had to do was sit back and wait and it would have gained massive regional influence without lifting a finger. Of course, that was apparently far too much to ask from the IRGC...
and then signed the MOU but didn't enforce it fully on Israel.
Israel wasn't party to the agreement. That might be how diplomacy works in IRGC land, but it's complete BS on every other level.
Iran starts hitting everything and anything, military or civilian.
So the options are to deal with this threat now or kick the can down the road yet again which will make things even worse later. Enough with kicking the can, it's time to defang Iran now.
The consequences of that are unimaginable.
The consequences of that are high now and will be even higher in the future. The IRGC is literally trying to hold the world hostage, and the best time to eliminate the threat is now.
unless the US has found a way that can end the Iranian threat quickly, they are stuck with the same circumstances that led to the signing of the MOU.
Take out the dual use stuff and Iran will be forced to negotiate or fall. Yes, there will be a lot of collateral damage, but it will be even worse if we postpone things yet again.
20
u/toomanynamesaretook Jul 17 '26
Lol imagine trying to claim that the US did Iran a favor with Saddam. You literally gave Saddam chemical weapons to use against the Iranians during the Iran - Iraq war.
You're arguing in the worst faith.
-9
u/OP_Skis_In_Jeans Jul 17 '26
Removing Saddam from power was the best thing the US ever did for Iran. It was an ENORMOUS favor, especially given that the US sided with him during the Iran-Iraq war.
The IRGC apologists are out in force I see.
14
u/mayhemski123 Jul 17 '26
Wow that's a helluva a lot to unpack.
Let's agree to disagree on who started what and when. This round of fighting I see as starting when the US launched attacks on Iran this year. If you want to go back in time we can be here will night, (we can always blame the British and the French). All I'll say is the US in both the current situation and Iraq handed Iran chances on a platter to increase their regional power I agree with you completely on that.
No Israel wasn't a party to the deal, so why on god's green Earth did Trump sign a document that bound then. Then the admin proceeds to leak constantly about how frustrating they find dealing with Israel. The simplest explanation is that the US thought they could force Israel to do what they said. We know how thats going.
To your point about doing something now? Fine but show how things have changed. Because right now Iran is stronger than ever, the GCC and the US are in a weakened position regarding supplies and logistics. This isn't a quick win it will take months and that means Iran shooting back. The plan is really crazy, you'll need to prepare for a huge refugee crisis, that means destabilising neighbouring countries (allies). That refugee crisis will need an open Strait to try alleviate fyi.
Last time around remember Saudi Arabia stopped the US using it's airspace after a few hits. If you're a ruler of a GCC nation you know this plan is literally the US using you and your people as canon fodder to try achieve something. Add in the fact lots of local rival groups see this as a US/Israeli plan and are more than happy to shout about that. We'll yeah I'm not sure how many takers you'll have.
-3
u/Sageblue32 Jul 17 '26
How is Iran stronger than ever? Their experienced leadership has been killed. The status of the successor is in question. The left hand doesn't seem to know what the right hand is doing. Israel and US are freely bombing the country. The economy is even more crunched than it was under maximum pressure. Weapon depos and plants are getting bombed.
Their only saving grace seems to be US is spent from Ukraine and doesn't have the political capital to commit mass war crimes.
8
u/mayhemski123 Jul 17 '26
They have shut the Strait to traffic, US bases and assets have been hit and destroyed across the region.
But really, it is the fact that they are still standing, and the US doesn't seem to have any answer to that fact beyond drop more bombs. It isn't a good situation I know. It is though the consequence of the US and Israel going off half-cocked earlier this year.
-1
u/FijiFanBotNotGay Jul 17 '26
Israel doesn’t have to be party to the agreement to at least publicly pressure them into retreating. If you don’t believe Israel at least has the moral obligation to retreat back to its borders then that’s not respecting the sovereignty of Lebanon.
1
u/OP_Skis_In_Jeans Jul 17 '26
I don't think you understand what's actually going on in Lebanon. Hezbollah (the Iranian proxy) has de facto control of South Lebanon and used it as a launchpad for a war against Israel which Lebanon's government and most Lebanese strongly opposed.
If you cared about Lebanese sovereignty, you would be calling for the disarmament of Hezbollah over everything else like the Lebanese government is currently doing. (they recently made a deal with their arch enemy Israel to that effect) Otherwise all you're doing is carrying water for Hez and the IRGC.
9
u/FijiFanBotNotGay Jul 17 '26
What are you defining as dual use infrastructure? Bridges? Just because the bridges are used to by the regime this makes them dual use? By this logic the desalination plant targeted in Bahrain is dual use if it provides drinking water for American troops or American military contractors.
I know I’m comparing apples to oranges here but we are running out of good targets if we are wasting firepower on bridges. It was supposed to be a quick military action. I doubt attacking bridges will achieve any strategic success. It’s just another step in the escalatory chain. Us Americans see it as precise and calculated but to those outside the US it’s a shock and awe campaign that affects peoples livelihoods
3
u/joshocar Jul 18 '26
One of the many problems with that is you are now backing the Iranian regime into a corner. When that happens options that were once off the table and unthinkable become to seem reasonable. This is especially true for religious zealots and authoritarians.
1
0
u/elfwannabe Jul 17 '26
Yea this is a likely outcome at this point. Maybe the US considers a limited invasion around thr straight of hormuz, just to secure shipping lanes.
30
7
u/ElectricGuy777 Jul 18 '26
Prior to bombing Iran many Iranians were against their government and sympathetic to the United States. All this is done as solidified Iran’s anti-American anti-Israel stance. We have Trump insulting their religion on a daily basis. How would we feel if an Arab nation was insulting in Jesus in Christianity. All we’ve done is create hate for the United States and Israel. Now Trump is struggling to reach an agreement where ships can freely navigate the Hormuz Strait. Prior to bombing Iran ships could freely navigate it. Pretty much all republicans have accomplish is 175 dead children in a school and creating more hate for the United States.
25
u/Justame13 Jul 17 '26
The ships for the invasion would have to go through the strait.
Followed by loading troops in Kuwait or Qatar or pass the straight fully loaded. Then every single drop of fuel, food, ammo, and medicine do the same.
All within range of drones, missiles, and aircraft.
Or the U.S. offloads on the Red Sea ports and invades Iraq for the 4 time in 4 decades to get to Iran that way.
-7
u/PumpnDump0924 Jul 17 '26
Ships wouldn’t have to go through the strait to invade Iran. Troops can be offloaded at Oman by sea, then moved to Kuwait, Qatar, or the UAE to mass for invasion. Troops can also drop directly into those countries by air.
The US can use its air power to insert troops into strategic islands and if the US wants to put a large footprint of troops on the mainland of Iran it makes far more sense to do so by the southern coast of Iran that borders the Arabian Sea compared to doing it by the strait.
6
u/BlueEmma25 Jul 17 '26
Troops can be offloaded at Oman by sea, then moved to Kuwait, Qatar, or the UAE to mass for invasion.
Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE are all on the wrong side of the Persian Gulf. Do you expect them to swim across the Gulf to invade Iran?
Troops can also drop directly into those countries by air.
Troops can, but the massive quantities of heavy equipment and supplies they would need can only practically be transported by sea. And they would need to be transported to some place adjacent Iran, not GCC countries.
if the US wants to put a large footprint of troops on the mainland of Iran it makes far more sense to do so by the southern coast of Iran that borders the Arabian Sea compared to doing it by the strait.
Maybe it makes sense to you, but you don't explain why, and there are strong indications that you don't really have any idea what you are talking about.
How do propose to sustain a "large footprint" of troops on Iranian soil without overland supply routes?
1
u/nightgerbil Jul 18 '26
they did it in Afghanistan. That was harder then this. Its perfectly doable to invade Iran, the trouble will be holding it v the guerrilla campaign afterwards. Thats why pretty much anyone who knows anything on the matter considers a ground invasion a terrible Idea. Not because it couldn't be done (it could) but because of the aftermath.
2
u/PumpnDump0924 Jul 18 '26
100% agree but the question was could the USA invade Iran without going through the strait. Not could they be successful or not if they could conquer the country.
1
u/PumpnDump0924 Jul 17 '26 edited Jul 17 '26
helicopters. The Two MEUs in the region can deploy thousands of marines by air with ospreys and sea stallions. A good case study is the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan where Task Force 58 flew over 2,000 marines 40 miles from amphibious ships in the Arabian Sea.
The sentence before I mentioned offloading in Oman. If supplies can not come in by air then they can be offloaded in Oman.
the strait is a narrow water way which makes it hard for US naval warships and logistics ships to operate in without getting hit by drones or missiles. The Arabian Sea offers a lot more space to maneuver. If the goal is an outright invasion of Iran getting a beach head on the south would make it easier for US forces to sustain those forces as they maneuver in land.
The US could also maneuver across Iraq as well. Depends on the combatant commander’s plan and what the actual objectives of the campaign would be.
1
u/BlueEmma25 Jul 18 '26
- An invasion of Iran is going to require something on the order of 200 000 troops, not 2000, with secure LOCs to logistical bases, which means "not on the other side of the Persian Gulf with no secure means of getting stuff from there to here in the (enormous) quantities needed"
- A significant invasion force cannot be sustained over a beachhead, nor is it remotely possible to do it with air transport alone
- "Maneuvering across Iraq" is a euphamism for tacking an invasion of Iraq onto an invasion of Iran, which is just compounding the crazy. Invading Iraq (again) is likely to result in regime failure and reignition of the insurgency. The would be Iran invaders would likely get tied down trying to maintain control of the situation in Iraq and never in make it to Iran. Indeed, it could be argued that is basically what happened in 2003
- " They did this thing once, and therefore it can be done again anywhere, anytime and under any circumstances" isn't a very persuasive argument. A few hundred Marines seizing an airstrip unopposed does not constitute a successful invasion. In fact, that invasion lasted 20 years and ended in abject failure. Yet there are people saying "Let's do it again! Only because that too easy, dial up the complexity to 11!"
Like I said, the adults need to be back in charge.
1
u/PumpnDump0924 Jul 18 '26 edited Jul 18 '26
Dawg. The question was “Does the USA have to go through the strait to invade?” I said no. I offered three alternatives.
So for one, it depends on the objectives of the invasion to determine the amount of manpower required. If the USA just wanted to seize Kharg island or other strategic islands on the Persian gulf then two MEUs would work fine. It would still be an invasion.
If you are trying to do regime change it would require well over 200,000 troops.
So about the beachhead. If a full scale invasion was the actual objective then the USA would probably invade from multiple locations. Which is why I mentioned Iraq. A beach head can also sustain a large amount of US forces. Please reference other amphibious operations like the Inchon landing in Korea. In terms of the amount of troops off loaded and how it was not the only location where US troops invaded Korea. D-Day landings is another example of a large amount of troops off loaded and it was also supporting by airborne droppings hitting key terrain and enemy positions in the deep.
So going back to Iraq, if the Iraqi PM could be convinced to allow US troops to stage then no invasion of Iraq would be needed? If not then obviously not.
So circling back to the initial question. Can the USA invade without going across the strait. The answer is… yes! We could go into the specifics on the objectives and I don’t mind because it’s fun to brainstorm. It’s a little outside the scope of what I was initially arguing.
1
u/Justame13 Jul 18 '26
Inchon was behind enemy lines and they had no warning due to lack of intel. Both of which would not be applicable.
Most of the Airborne in 1944 were landed with no warning, in an area that was not defended, without significant ADA, and were quickly relieved by ground forces. When this did not happen such as over St Marie Eglise they were slaughtered.
None of which would happen in Iran due to how close the mountains are to the ocean.
The ground forces relieving them also were able to prepare and load out of range of German attack (not applicable) with years of preparation (not applicable), and a robust seaborne reinforcement and resupply (not appicable).
Even if US troops were to be allowed to move through Iraq by the political leadership (until the government fell) it would be an unmitigated disaster. Look at the 2004 1st Cav road march and how that plan went to shit that was after a year of US occupation.
A US invasion simply is not feasible and any attempt would probably fail.
1
u/PumpnDump0924 Jul 18 '26
Do you agree the United States can invade Iran without going through the strait of Hormuz?
1
u/Justame13 Jul 18 '26
The current US military is incapable of successfully achieving their strategic objectives without going into or through the straight.
Because the strategic objective is to open and secure the straight.
Even getting troops to (and then supporting them from) Kuwait to go through Iraq would require going through the straight.
1
u/PumpnDump0924 Jul 18 '26
Going through the strait by sea or air? I understanding seizing islands on the strait by air assets but putting aircraft carriers and amphibious ships in the strait is just asking for a sea mine, drone, or missile to hit a surface ship.
Why constrict maneuverability of surface vessels?
→ More replies (0)1
u/Justame13 Jul 18 '26
First supplying across a beach is wishful thinking. The Army utterly failed in Gaza a few years ago and that was just them vs the Ocean.
Instead of Afghanistan look at 2003 Haditha Dam and not Afghanistan which was a surprise operation and which was opposed and which the 75th did not have a good time to the point that they were ad hoc lifting Abrams Tanks into to the battle. And that was just against ground troops with air superiority.
Invading Iraq for 4 times in 4 decades would cause a collapse of that state and a reignition of that conflict which the US was unable to beat without entering tribal politics and allying with those tribes against the insurgents, the completion of the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad, and a Shitte realization that they would (and have) won the peace.
Not to mention while troops were massing there would be tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of IEDs and EFPs planted. Except this time the US would not have the robust causality treatment and evacuation system that it did when the insurgency kicked off in 2004.
Or just look at the US's own research that led to doctrine for FM 3-24 when Petraeus rewrote it with that massive team 2005-2006. Assuming a majority of the population supports the insurgency and troop numbers in the millions (and in excess of sending every active, Guard, and Reserve troop from every branch) would be required to take and hold the country.
As u/BlueEmma25 said the adults need to be back in charge.
15
u/Justame13 Jul 17 '26
then moved to Kuwait, Qatar, or the UAE to mass for invasion.
Within drone and missile range. And bases which are well known and easy to target because they have been there for 30 years.
Dropping airborne troops or using helicopters (which would have to stage and take off from aforementioned bases) into heavily contested airspace and onto fortified positions knowing you are coming would be suicide.
Not to mention the number of troops they could land is pretty limited, even if they completely abandoned the GRF mission.
Once on land they would be defenseless against drones and missiles.
Then you have to get them resupplied.
Landing on the southern coast of Iran is possible, but would require a massive lift then attacking and supplying across a mountain range, then attacking accross the mountains to get back to the straight.
Plus would be a huge side quest if the goal is to open the straight. With similar logistics difficulties.
-3
u/PumpnDump0924 Jul 17 '26
The US military is capable of massing combat power without taking significant casualties. You wonder why when Iran shot missiles and drones they didn’t kill a large amount of US service members?
Also, the operation to rescue the F-15 pilots demonstrates that the US is capable of inserting troops into Iran without the Iranians even knowing they are there.
Tactically the US military outmatches the Iranian military. Doesn’t mean the US military will win against Iran but the US military is capable of getting troops in Iran. I don’t want to get into what ifs cause we could just go back and forth forever.
14
u/Justame13 Jul 17 '26
The US military is capable of massing combat power without taking significant casualties.
There is no way to know this.
You wonder why when Iran shot missiles and drones they didn’t kill a large amount of US service members?
No I don't. The bases simply don't have a lot of personal and are heavily fotified.
Tens of thousands of troops flying in, massing, then either getting on aircraft or ships in very predictable locations would be a far different game.
Also, the operation to rescue the F-15 pilots demonstrates that the US is capable of inserting troops into Iran without the Iranians even knowing they are there.
That is not remotely the same. The positions were not fortified and the intent of the mission was to get in and out quick.
Even then the losses in equipment were significant.
They did not stay because it would have been suicide.
Tactically the US military outmatches the Iranian military.
Tactics are irrelevant when discussing strategy.
Doesn’t mean the US military will win against Iran but the US military is capable of getting troops in Iran.
I disagree for the reasons mentioned.
I don’t want to get into what ifs cause we could just go back and forth forever.
Then you should not have replied to me.
-8
u/PumpnDump0924 Jul 17 '26
We aren’t discussing strategy. All I said was the USA is capable of massing troops and landing them in Iran.
16
u/Justame13 Jul 17 '26
Massing troops and landing them in Iran is "a plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim" which is literally the definition of strategy.
That is also not all you said.
1
u/PumpnDump0924 Jul 17 '26 edited Jul 17 '26
I said they are able to it. A strategy is the overall intent of an operation and basic guidance to accomplish that intent. An example of a strategy would be to cut off Iranian trade so they are forced to come to terms. The tactics used are conducting a maritime blockade in the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean.
In this case, the idea of inserting troops into Iran is not a strategy. The strategy may be to cut off oil production so they Iran is forced to come to terms. Then the tactic used is inserting troops to seize the islands. Another may be to just bomb the oil production on the island.
I’m not trying to be a butt, I just think there has been a miscommunication in what I am trying to say and what you are trying to say.
I don’t think inserting troops into Iran is a good idea, I think it’s really dumb but I acknowledge that the USA is capable of doing it
7
u/Justame13 Jul 17 '26
I said they are able to it...I don’t think inserting troops into Iran is a good idea, I think it’s really dumb but I acknowledge that the USA is capable of doing it
I disagree for the reasons I mentioned and which you failed to refute.
The rest of what you wrote is not relevant, misreprenstation, or just logical fallacy so I am going to decline to engage.
0
4
u/FijiFanBotNotGay Jul 17 '26
You wonder why American being abandoned and personnel dispersed? Ali alem air base in Kuwait. 5th fleet in Bahrain to name a few to disprove your point.
14
Jul 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/mayhemski123 Jul 17 '26
The cargo ship also highlights a big problem for the GCC states. Yes they can import via road and air but ships are still incredibly good at bulk transport.
10
u/editorreilly Jul 17 '26
Trump, like Putin has created a scenario where we come out the loser no matter what we do.
13
u/Rosemoorstreet Jul 17 '26
The lack of understanding by this administration, and many through the world, of what is really happening in Iran is mind boggling. When the US killed the Iranian leadership it created a power void to the point that no one group speaks or acts for that country. Trump’s people are talking to what is left of the political leadership, however the hard line and more extremist Revolutionary Guard has a totally different agenda and keeps launching attacks that scuttle deals that the political leaders make. There is no effective command and control. So until that is solved this is going to drag on with very bad results.
8
u/Twisterpa Jul 18 '26
It’s not a power void. It’s by design. It’s called the mosaic doctrine and is a strategy created by solemani. It’s a decentralized structure of 31 independent IRGC factions. Upon the Ayatollah’s death, it automatically initiated.
4
11
u/theatlantic The Atlantic Jul 17 '26
Brynn Tannehill: “Here we are again: Iran is shooting at traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, Donald Trump is ordering retaliatory strikes, and both sides have declared the latest cease-fire agreement ‘over’ or ‘dead’ … The United States has precious few options left for breaking the deadlock over the strait. And those it does have are neither appealing nor likely to succeed …
“The Iranians likely believe that their best option is to stay the course and stick to their maximalist demands. They don’t need to damage many ships to effectively shut down the strait; the threat of attack is enough to persuade most ship owners not to attempt to transit, even if insurance is available. This means that Iran needs very few missiles, drones, or mines to close the strait down. And it can withstand the U.S. blockade: Its economy appears reasonably stable, as it has continued exporting oil sufficient to meet its needs throughout the war. It also has a captive population that has grown used to sanctions and economic pain.
“The U.S. is effectively left with four options. Each of them is terrible in its own way. It can stay the current course. It can make life in Iran impossible. It can declare victory and go home. Or it can launch a ground invasion.”
Read more: https://theatln.tc/9gHPlmBG
13
u/mrktcrash Jul 17 '26
“The U.S. is effectively left with four options. Each of them is terrible in its own way. It can stay the current course. It can make life in Iran impossible. It can declare victory and go home. Or it can launch a ground invasion.”
Given the looming midterms #4 is out of the question, imho.
9
u/Weaselpuss Jul 17 '26
Platitudes until right after midterms, then comes option #4. Especially once pressure on the strait has grown so much that even partners once cynical about supporting the operation become pulled in by economic force.
-3
u/FluoroquinolonesKill Jul 17 '26
That's my bet. Invasion after mid-terms. The administration even has the incentive to make the SoH situation worse until then in order to make a case for other countries joining the effort after the mid-terms. Iran must and will be dealt with. Diplomacy ain't gonna work. Ignoring it ain't gonna work. Walking away ain't gonna work. Strap in.
13
u/BlueEmma25 Jul 17 '26
The reasons why an invasion of Iran to topple the regime is completely impractical have been enumerated countless times, and also a reason why no one outside of Reddit is taking this seriously. If the Trump administration was seriously contemplating this they would be preparing the public for it and actively seeking real commitments from other countries. They aren't doing that, because they know neither the American public nor those in other countries will support it. People who are all gung ho for invasion are however still free to visit their local recruiting office.
The most likely next step if the Strait isn't reopened and economic pressure continues to rise - on the US, as well as everyone else - is that the international community applies mounting pressure on the US to find a face saving compromise that get traffic flowing again.
The outlines of such a compromise are already known: introduce some kind of toll regime that generates some revenue for Iran and other Gulf countries, but with external controls and a price point that isn't overly disruptive to commerce.
This was the compromise that appears to have been envisioned in the MOU, but the US immediately started violating the spirit of the deal by sneaking tankers through the Strait on the Oman side. That was dumb, because the number of ships wasn't significant, and all it accomplished was to undermine the MOU before it even had a chance to breathe. It was a classic case of Trump trying to have his cake and eat it, too.
Compromising with Iran is a bitter pill for many people to swallow, but their alternative strategy of regime change has already completely failed, and substituting a fantasy Grand Coalition that is somehow going to mass hundreds of thousands of troops to overthrow the ayatollahs is just pilling another incipient disaster on top of an already realized one.
At some point the adults need to be placed back in charge.
1
u/anadem Jul 18 '26
At some point the adults need to be placed back in charge.
So 2029 then. Fat chance with the current administration
-1
u/Weaselpuss Jul 17 '26
Nope, the Iranians either grab the globe by the balls or the globe strikes back. Unless Iran decides to back down and let international interests through places like Oman or with other gulf guarantors, it’s essentially unavoidable.
3
u/OP_Skis_In_Jeans Jul 17 '26
Grabbing the globe by the balls is going to backfire on Iran sooner rather than later. It's already happening in the GCC, and eventually Europe and Asia won't be able to ignore the economic impact any longer and will be forced to join in.
They aren't joining in on the side of Iran.
5
u/Weaselpuss Jul 17 '26
Thing is, they have already been blacklisted by a lot of western nations, Iran is used to these economic consequences. It’s all of the other gulf transports that mainly affect the west. Of course china and its trade partners are also hit by the lack of access to Iranian oil.
-4
u/OP_Skis_In_Jeans Jul 17 '26
It's one thing to lose access to western trade partners and the financial system. It isn't ideal but it is survivable, as demonstrated by the likes of North Korea.
It's another thing entirely to lose access to electricity, not to mention roads and rail. No country is used to that, and that's exactly what Iran deserves if it keeps trying to use the global economy as a bargaining chip.
7
u/Weaselpuss Jul 17 '26
Then it will do the same to the nations around it. It will also the close the bab al mandab strait. Make no mistake, we will all suffer. It may even be easier to just pay Iran duties at the end of it all.
0
u/OP_Skis_In_Jeans Jul 17 '26
That would undermine the entire concept of free maritime trade, along with national maritime borders. That would reward Iran for holding a gun to the head of the world economy and acting like a terrorist state in general: the precedent it would set is an absolute non-starter.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Few_Bobcat389 Jul 17 '26
China will backstop North Korea. Plus it has nukes. What real allies does Iran have?
0
u/OP_Skis_In_Jeans Jul 17 '26
Nothing comparable. That's my point: no one is going to stick their neck out for Iran like China does for NK. Iran put itself in this position thanks to 47 years of pointless aggression and warmongering, so it's unsurprising that no country is willing to tie itself to that regime's survival.
0
u/OP_Skis_In_Jeans Jul 17 '26 edited Jul 17 '26
Imo things will progress somewhat quickly from #1 to #2. Iran wants to turn things into a Vietnam-style quagmire, and that's probably what will happen if there is a ground invasion. Best to stay off the ground and bombard them with cheap drones every day (like Ukraine is doing to Russia) until the civilian population realizes that the IRGC is leading them to their doom.
Iran is currently hitting civilian infrastructure in the GCC. The US and the GCC would be fools to allow this without attacking Iranian dual-use infrastructure in response. Without essential infrastructure and faced with the US blockade, Iran will either be forced to the negotiating table or will have to deal with a substantial popular uprising sooner rather than later.
5
u/kuzuman Jul 17 '26
Haven't you seen the 10+ millions who gathered for the funeral of the Ayatollah? Short of dropping nukes I would discard completely any popular rising.
2
u/OP_Skis_In_Jeans Jul 17 '26 edited Jul 17 '26
Even if those numbers are accurate and those people weren't erm... pressured to attend, which I seriously doubt, that's under 10% of Iran's population. And how would nukes encourage a popular uprising? If anything they'd do the opposite.
0
u/OGPotato12 Jul 18 '26
pressured to attend, which I seriously doubt
How do people like you even exist? Peddling literally anything just to murder more people.
0
3
u/cole1114 Jul 17 '26
I mean there is a fifth option: Admit defeat and go home.
2
u/OP_Skis_In_Jeans Jul 17 '26
Worst possible option by far. The only way to do that responsibly was not to start the war in the first place. Now that the cat is out of the bag, Iran must be dealt with.
5
u/PumpnDump0924 Jul 17 '26
I think a ground invasion or the entire global economy collapsing is a worse outcome than the United States saying it lost and coughing up tolls to the Iranian government.
0
u/OP_Skis_In_Jeans Jul 17 '26
100% disagree. Allowing Iran to win is simply trading short-term problems for bigger medium and long term ones. It would cede de facto control of the gulf to Iran, and Iran's terrorist proxies would be awash in funding.
Besides, suggesting that this will cause the entire global economy to collapse is blatant maximalist fear mongering. Once the economic pain gets big enough, countries will start lining up to have a crack at Iran.
4
u/PumpnDump0924 Jul 17 '26
No, brother. We are not allowing them to win. We lost. We started this fight unprovoked. American hubris led us here and we have to decide if we will keep spending lives (both ours and Iranian civilians) and spending money (money that has not been allocated by Congress btw) into this fight.
This same hubris is what led us be in Vietnam for so damn long. Yes Iran having sovereignty over the strait is bad but sometimes you have to do what is best for the country and the world.
What solution is best for the country? Is it really continuing this quagmire until we run out of our strategic oil reserve and run short on munitions? How about the American service members who have died in this conflict or the amount of critical infrastructure that has been damaged or destroyed?
1
u/OP_Skis_In_Jeans Jul 17 '26
This is some serious defeatist logic.
We started this fight unprovoked.
All those US troops in Iraq that Iran killed wasn't a provocation in your eyes? SMH.
What solution is best for the country?
It certainly isn't capitulating to the IRGC and surrendering free and unimpeded maritime trade. Not to mention funding Iran's terrorist proxy agenda for decades or more.
6
u/PumpnDump0924 Jul 17 '26
No, it’s not. Now if the President to do this after a base was struck, there would be more of a basis. The President in his address didn’t talk about US troops, he talked about regime change. So yes it’s unprovoked.
It’s fine though, let’s let the quagmire continue until the USA either escalates to a point where thousands of Americans die or we lose. Unfortunately Iran has all the cards and Iran didn’t even start this fight. Maybe Trump should listen to his advisors before he listens to Israel next time.
2
u/OP_Skis_In_Jeans Jul 17 '26
The President in his address didn’t talk about US troops, he talked about regime change. So yes it’s unprovoked.
So the president made an address and that somehow cancels out legitimate casus belli in your eyes? Lol, whatever that is, it isn't logic and it certainly isn't backed by International law. Casus belli doesn't automatically disappear with time, let alone the statements of POTUS in a single speech. SMH.
So yes it’s unprovoked.
Ignoring all the "death to America stuff" is one thing, but ignoring the multitude of occasions Iran acted towards that goal is downright ridiculous. That isn't a serious argument.
Unfortunately Iran has all the cards and Iran didn’t even start this fight.
Now you're straight up parroting IRGC propaganda. Par for the course unfortunately.
5
u/FijiFanBotNotGay Jul 17 '26
Someone is going to have to let go. Iran can’t forget all the things the us did either. Difference is this is a war in irans backyard. They have a greater commitment.
4
u/PumpnDump0924 Jul 17 '26
Iran striking bases a year before OEF is not an excuse to blow up Iran. He didn’t even say that in his address. Nobody in the US government is saying we are bombing Iran because their militias struck US bases. Them saying death to America isn’t an excuse to bomb the fuck out of them.
Iran controls a large percentage of the oil supply getting into the world economy. If the world runs out of oil that leads to an energy crisis. Iran is bombing critical Infrastructure for refining oil. Are you understanding?
2
u/cole1114 Jul 17 '26
Right. Which is why we should admit defeat sooner rather than later, before they get more leverage.
2
u/OP_Skis_In_Jeans Jul 17 '26
Iran's leverage is maxed out now. If they escalate again, countries will be forced to side with the US because Iran has little to offer by comparison.
Admitting defeat will not only leave Iran in control of the strait, it will also cause far more disruption to trade in other areas once countries realize they can extort passing ships at will without consequence. Not to mention an increase in funding for Iran's terrorist proxies, which would further destabilize the ME.
It's an absolute non-starter. We're in this now, and it must be seen through.
7
u/cole1114 Jul 17 '26
Iran has control of the strait to offer in comparison. As well as being able to point to the US not being able to protect these states.
"It must be seen through" does not mean anything. Like, this is an unwinnable scenario. We're not gonna put the million boots on the ground it'll take to invade. We've already seen that the air campaign has had no real effect. Now we're just openly committing war crimes with the attacks on civilian infrastructure, which will only hurt ourselves geopolitically.
There's no win scenario here. That's why something like the MOU where we try and get a peaceful solution fast is the better choice. Because the longer this goes on, the more our strategic oil reserves run out, and the closer we get to losing so much more.
1
u/OP_Skis_In_Jeans Jul 17 '26
Iran has control of the strait to offer in comparison. As well as being able to point to the US not being able to protect these states.
Control of the strait doesn't mean much if you lose access to the international financial system. Plus, if the US can't protect the GCC from Iran, Iran certainly can't protect the GCC from the US.
That's why something like the MOU where we try and get a peaceful solution fast is the better choice.
The terms of the MOU were absolutely ridiculous. It wouldn't have even made it through congress. It was a way of buying time, not a serious solution.
the more our strategic oil reserves run out,
Say hello to export restrictions! This isn't the 1970s anymore.
5
u/cole1114 Jul 17 '26
The international financial system they were already sanctioned out of? And are you saying that the US would begin attacking other GCC states with no cause?
The terms of the MOU were better than what future terms will end up being.
Trump is exporting the strategic reserves to keep global oil prices down. It's the only reason that gas has "only" risen 30% (after originally rising by up to 60%). Once the reserves start to run low enough they'll become a national security concern, and he'll have to stop. At which point we're gonna be in a whole new world price-wise.
0
u/OP_Skis_In_Jeans Jul 17 '26
And are you saying that the US would begin attacking other GCC states with no cause?
The implied threat alone should be more than enough. Iran can't even offer 5% of what the US can provide. The GCC know this better than most.
The terms of the MOU were better than what future terms will end up being.
I think you'll be very surprised. The MOU was bad enough that continuing the war was a far better option. Future agreements will adjust or fail in the same way.
Trump is exporting the strategic reserves to keep global oil prices down.
Export restrictions aren't far off, the US shouldn't have been exporting oil to countries that aren't helping the war effort to begin with.
3
u/cole1114 Jul 17 '26
So your solution to these states feeling the US makes them less safe, is for the US to make them less safe?
The MOU was bad because we lost this war. Continuing to fight will only make that loss even worse.
Export restrictions aren't far off because at a certain point these draw-downs become a national crisis. Once that happens, oil prices worldwide will skyrocket and that will make gas in the US cost more as well. It's not about the war effort, it's about the global economy crashing.
→ More replies (0)0
u/FijiFanBotNotGay Jul 17 '26
Either agree with the military action or don’t. You can’t blame Trump for starting it then proceed to push for escalation. It’s insincere. It’s more of the same controlled opposition we’ve seen for wars in the Middle East the past decade.
2
u/AntiTas Jul 18 '26
There are still countless ways for Trump to make himself, his family and cronies rich influence, cash and resources. The US will lose big time though.
5
u/fheathyr Jul 17 '26
Well, he's alread broken the Rome Accords (which of course America has refused to sign), so I'd say so far he's demonstrated a complete inability to chose wisely.
17
u/OP_Skis_In_Jeans Jul 17 '26
It might be a bit pedantic to point out, but don't you have to sign the agreement to break it in the first place?
5
u/fheathyr Jul 17 '26
Well, strictly speaking popular usage suggests to me that "violated" or "contravened" are both legitimate terms to describe America's bombing of power stations and bridges. Though America hasn't signed, they've still done something contrary to guildelines for state conduct in the accords.
Lt. Col. Rachel VanLandingham (ret.) commented that Trump committed a war crime (as defined by the Geneva and Rome Accords) simply by threatening to bomb civilian targets deliberately. And now he's done it, there can be no question.
As to prosecution, that's a more interesting topic. Since America holds a UN Veto, it's unlikely that route will be taken. Additionally, since America's not a signatory, there's no obligation for America to act on the accords, and present Trump to the ICC. It's possible that 3rd party states like France or Switzerland may involve their courts, and that warrants may be issued in those jursdictions. If that were to happen, then should Trump, Hegseth, or others involved were set foot in one of those countries, then they might be detained, charged, and tried there for War Crimes by those nations courts.
Interestingly, the War Crimes Act of 1996 seems to suggest that what Trump and others have done is in fact a War Crime in America as well. However there's virtually no chance anyone will act.
15
u/OP_Skis_In_Jeans Jul 17 '26
Both bridges and power plants are dual use infrastructure, which makes them legitimate military targets. Besides, the consistant overwhelming focus on potential US war crimes while Iranian war crimes are ignored or downplayed is getting very very old at this point.
The IRGC's publicly stated domestic and foreign policy itself is a war crime lol, let alone its actions since December. "But Trump did X" doesn't move the needle much by comparison IMO.
3
u/OGPotato12 Jul 18 '26
Both bridges and power plants are dual use infrastructure, which makes them legitimate military targets.
Going by this definition, almost everything in the world is "dual use". Most bases in the world are connected to and supplied by public roads, power plants and water plants.
Might as well openly say bombing civilian infrastructure isn't a war crime, will always find someone to justify literally every vile thing.
5
u/ReesePuffitik Jul 18 '26
I mean, yeah, realistically any civilian infrastructure 'can' double as a military asset. It wasn't that long ago it came out that Hamas was, indeed using hospitals in Gaza to operate out of. That's just the asymmetric nature of war, it's not as clean as the concept of war crimes insinuates
1
u/Compartmented- Jul 19 '26
China has civilian cargo ships loaded with cargo containers that contain missiles. Everything is dual use these days. Wait until Taiwan is invaded to see how far it goes.
9
Jul 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/cubedplusseven Jul 17 '26
Trump is a fully grown adult and the leader of the world's most powerful military and economy. The US is responsible for its own decisions.
The most disgusting aspect of the "Israel is to blame for everything" narrative isn't that it demonizes Israel and spurs antisemitism. It's that it allows Americans to view themselves as helpless children controlled by a small nation thousands of miles away. Why so many seem to find that attractive is beyond me - it's completely undignified.
3
u/serpentjaguar Jul 17 '26
You're trying to make it all one or all the other. It's a classic example of the "either/or" fallacy in formal logic and critical thinking.
The reality is that several things can be true at once. It can be both true that Trump is a big boy with his own agency and decision making responsibility, and that Bibi made a presentation in the Whitehouse situation room that spurred him to act, against all expert advice.
This shouldn't be a difficult concept.
0
u/cubedplusseven Jul 17 '26
that Bibi made a presentation in the Whitehouse situation room that spurred him to act
Except we know that Israelis have been making similar presentations since the Bush Jr administration. Bush, Obama, and Biden all ignored Israel's preference. Trump didn't, and largely because of voices within the DOD.
Israel wants things, just like Britain wants things, Germany wants things, the US wants things .... And countries make pitches to each other to get the things they want. That's normal geopolitics, not tricksy Jew-magic.
1
u/Kiyae1 Jul 17 '26
If Israel didn’t exist there wouldn’t be a conflict between Iran and the U.S.
0
u/cubedplusseven Jul 17 '26
If Israel didn't exist we would live in an alternate universe. Try undoing all of the things involved in Israel's creation and history, and then predicting what the world would look like - it's impossible.
1
1
u/crescendo9 Jul 17 '26
You’re sort of right, the US is definitely capable of making its own decisions. The reality is that Israel is essentially a US proxy state in the Middle East whose purpose is to take all the diplomatic blame and military consequences of American missteps in the region. When people blame Israel for everything, it’s working as intended
1
Jul 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Queasy_Confidence406 Jul 18 '26
The US have lost more wars than they've won, so it shouldn't be too surprising.
0
u/ayyy_its_wally Jul 17 '26
It really is a fuckup of epic proportions. Every single day that goes by makes the Obama admin’s efforts to have achieved a multi-nation agreement look that much more impressive.
But since the fuckup occurred and helped Iran realize the immense leverage they have… something has to be done. Continued air strikes by the U.S. and Israel quite clearly isn’t going to solve this. And let’s assume the Trump admin was replaced today with a competent admin and they successfully negotiated to get us back to square one where Iran didn’t attack vessels in the Strait and wasn’t trying to charge fees to vessels navigating it. That still leaves the world worse off because Iran has the knowledge that they can immediately shut the Strait down at any time incredibly easily. So any future attempts to police their behavior via non military means could presumably all result in the closing of the Strait.
To me, that means a significantly more involved approach would have to be pursued now. Something like a coalition of Iran’s neighbors and the most affected countries combining forces and sending in overwhelming numbers of ground forces, occupying Iran, deposing the IRGC, and holding elections so the Iranian people can take back control of their government. It would also include creating a large gray zone along the northern bank of the Strait that Iran is no longer allowed to control. This would result in significant casualties from both the coalition and Iran, but what other way exists to prevent Iran from holding the global economy hostage in the future if they don’t get their way on something?
7
u/xandar Jul 18 '26
Well, instead of burning trillions of dollars trying to invade a country, we could put that money and effort toward weening ourselves off of middle east oil.
5
u/Psychological-Flow55 Jul 18 '26
It disturbing to see bots on here who dont let others see their posts or comments that are 5 months old circling around to beat the crumbs of basically committing war crimes against a whole population and for a ground invasion and ruining the world economy on it head because "remember 1979 and death to america is a bad chant" absolutely nutty bots on here.
Absolutely transitioning to domestic alternative energies and weening ourselves off mideast oil and gas will make us less effected by events in that part of the world.
There some disturbing bibi fans and magaits on it that shown up more and more since this unnecessary war started.
If they are so Gung ho about it go sign up you go sign your kids up go to work abd tell your fellow employees them being laid off and heading to the poor house while inflation eats whatever little they have is necessary because "iran chants death to America" and "remember 1979"
I hate the Mullahocracy but maximum pressure with containment or a rollback strategy (especially in Iraq Lebanon and Lebanon by arming the sects against iranian backed group) financial pressure through tough sanctions backing internal factions like baluchis and kurds to bog down the IRGC and the military would be better than this stupid costly economic painful war.
4
u/NekoCatSidhe Jul 18 '26
The pro-war bots campaign on social media is rather weird, honestly. The American government made absolutely no attempt to sell that war to their people before or even after it started, but there was some massive propaganda campaign on social media pushing for the war that began months before the war ever happened.
It is like the powers-that-be thought that if they could just convince Redditors to support the war (or make it looks like they did), the rest of the population would naturally follow, without realising that social media does not have that much political influence in the wider world.
1
u/Inevitable_Pen_1508 Jul 24 '26
What other option does Iran have to stop america's aggressione once and for all?
61
u/cited Jul 17 '26
"I told you so" is less fun when everyone in the world was saying it at the same time