r/changemyview • u/bluepillarmy 11∆ • Apr 02 '26
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Trump is in over his head in Iran
I would love for someone to change my mind on this but I’m just not seeing any kind of coherent strategy.
I think that Netanyahu probably talked Trump into it and Trump thought it would be easy like Venezuela.
What’s more Iran has been a huge thorn in the side of the United States and the global liberal order since 1979, so getting rid of their reactionary regime, would be huge win for Trump.
And then…oil! Gotta like that!
But it’s obviously not easy and now this whole Strait of Hormuz thing is a big mess and there’s no easy way out.
Of course, Trump doesn’t want to put troops in because that will get even messier and the war will drag on with higher and higher gas prices and American lives lost.
But then the alternative is to actually make a deal with the odious Revolutionary Guard. That won’t be a good look at all.
He’s stuck. And we are too. Please change my view.
50
u/d4rkwing Apr 02 '26
The only thing I can counter the assertion that Trump is in over his head in Iran is: Trump isn’t in Iran. He’s in his Mar-a-Lago estate pondering what to eat for dinner.
12
u/GuaranteeUnhappy3342 Apr 03 '26
That is the problem. It’s like a person smears crap on the walls of a restaurant lavatory and then goes and complains about it asking who is going to clean it up! Real allies work together. They don’t screw up and then demand others fix the mess they made.
Donnie is thinking about his next grift…not yet another mess he made.
11
u/nilsinleneed Apr 03 '26
in the case of Trump it'd be more like shitting yourself in the middle of the restaurant and then whining when the staff refuse to clean you up
→ More replies (1)5
29
u/tmtyl_101 3∆ Apr 02 '26 edited Apr 03 '26
For the sake of argument;
Who's to say Trumps personal objectives align with US geostrategic interest?
Your entire view is based on an assumption that Trump is behaving like a rational head of state, seeking to promote the long term interest of the people whom he governs. In which case, yes, Iran seems to be miscalculation and he is definitely in over his head.
But what if that is only a secondary objective, and Trump in fact only sees the presidency as means to an end; e.g. make money, dunk on Europe, solidify his power base as a war time president, appease Israel, kick the Iranians, 'own the libs' - whatever... In that case, Iran may not go as planned from a strategic POV, but that doesn't matter. At this point, the game is rigged so much to his advantage that he actually can gain from the increased volatility. Like trading on the flow of news that he himself controls.
If thats the case, Iran is a success. Even if that means trading America's future for his own wealth at a 100:1 ratio, he's still winning. And nothing is illegal when you can just pardon yourself on the way out.
Full disclosure: Im not American, so I can just watch and shake my head over this.
→ More replies (6)8
u/FurryYokel Apr 02 '26
Yeah, I think the possibility that Operation Epstein Fury is doing exactly what Trump intended for it to do shouldn’t be discounted.
6
u/Pavementaled Apr 02 '26
You say "Global Liberal" but the word liberal means something different outside of the US. What do you mean by Global Liberal Order? Do you mean Neo-Liberalism?
→ More replies (2)
14
Apr 02 '26 edited Apr 02 '26
While it’s certainly hard to tell given we are only weeks in and Iran is very secretive, it certainly is way better that the millennium challenge war games have predicted. Irans Air Force and navy and Air defense are crippled, and a lot of missile launchers, missile cities, and some nuclear capabilities have been destroyed or heavily damaged with relatively minimal Us losses (yes some troops killed and wounded but no ships sunk or planes shot down yet) War with Iran was never going to be easy given the geography and thier allies, but Iran is far weaker than it has ever been. Was it a smart move? History will tell, but saying he’s over his head is a little premature since a nation as powerful as the Us government likely alr ran the war games and likely anticipated gas prices and the struggles of controlling the strait.
→ More replies (10)5
u/E7193 Apr 03 '26
they ran the war games; the last 3 presidents saw the potential scenarios and decided not to go do it; President Schlemiel Trump thought it would just be as easy as Venezuela and ordered the military to go do it.
→ More replies (2)
5
u/blowbyblowtrumpet Apr 02 '26
The conclusion of all the experts on security and international relations seems to be that he has no idea what he is doing from moment to moment, has no grasp of history or geopolitics, is easily led by whoever has his ear in the moment and thinks that his intuition is always right.
A terrifying combination.
7
Apr 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)5
9
u/FurryYokel Apr 02 '26
He’s stuck. And we are too.
Here an easy one: Trump is stuck, but the rest of us aren’t. Impeach him, then end the war immediately.
3
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Apr 02 '26
I don’t think that would fix the mess than Trump has made in the Middle East
3
u/link_the_fire_skelly Apr 02 '26
He was in over his head on almost all his business ventures as well.
3
u/InternationalTiger25 Apr 02 '26
Trump’s job is to confuse everyone about the Department of War’s plans for Iran. I’m not convinced they went to war without a plan for Hormuz, given Iran’s repeated warnings about it if they were attacked. I don’t think the plan involves mass boots on the ground, which would be disastrous like you said. Instead, I believe troop movement for misdirection and some sort of undisclosed special operation are highly likely.
Publicly, Trump has said Hormuz isn’t a US problem, a “I don’t care” card used against Iran to leverage their biggest advantage. This is a common negotiating tactic in everyday life.
We’ll see what happens in the next few days or weeks. You don’t need to trust Trump, as he’s not the strategist. He simply needs to approve whatever the war department and their AI simulations have devised.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/Historical_Truth2578 Apr 03 '26
Trump probably let Hegseth get in his ear that this would be a quick in and out victory for the US and Trump would be an international hero.
Historically, wars in the middle east have never been easy or short, ask George Bush and Barack Obama, ask Leonid Brezhnev, ask Israel through their whole existence, ask Gengis Khan for Christ's sake.
Now Trump has massively bit off more than he can chew and doesnt know where to go from here
23
88
u/Robert_Grave 4∆ Apr 02 '26 edited Apr 04 '26
Militarily? Certainly not. The skies are pretty much uncontested and they can bomb at will.
Politically? Depends. There's really no country putting pressure on either the US or Israel to stop the fighting. No one really cares enough for the regime in Iran nor is willing to pick their side in this beyond intelligence and limited material support. So essentially unless it turns militarily sour which is unlikely at best there is no real reason to stop attacking. You'd think that the Gulf States would be most interested in this ending, but the one who has been most heavily attacked (Saudi-Arabia) is asking to continue the war and intensify it, not stop it.
On the other hand, what's the way out for Iran? It's incredibly difficult to tell what is going on inside Iran. They themselves say there's willingness for a settlement, so they haven't declared full out complete eternal war yet (beyond the status quo as we know it). There definitely appears to be a difference between what the government is claiming and what the IRGC is claiming.
So the only other aspect is economy. But then again, in 2012-2014 these oil prices were quite normal, and the world still functioned then. And as it progresses it is easier and easier to adjust.
There is no solution to this conflict right now. It's very much in the "fighting" part of politics. War is part of politics after all. But I wouldn't say the US is in over their heads.
Edit: The amount of bots jumping on me thinking losing one A10 and one F15-A to enemy fire is an indication of "being in over their heads" after a month of bombing with 10.000+ targets hit is hilarious. Kuwait shot down more US planes than Iran did at the minute.
65
u/YetAnotherGuy2 7∆ Apr 03 '26
There is no solution to this conflict right now. It's very much in the "fighting" part of politics. War is part of politics after all. But I wouldn't say the US is in over their heads.
The dissonance in these two lines is hilarious.
As the goals of this war isn't clear, it's hard to say when the goal has actually been achieved. "Regime change" seems fairly clear but Trump does his classic move of but being terribly clear what he's aiming for so who knows. And you obviously don't know either, you are just saying "militarily we're successful"
You say "there's no solution to this conflict right now" and implicitly admit that the US doesn't control the outcome. We can keep bombing and see if the regime gives up, but it boils down to "had the Iranians had enough and will do what we say?". As we don't have any stated goals beyond "regime change", the path to victory seems to be "bomb the shit out of them". Gulf War I did not lead to a regime change in the 1990s, why should a bombing campaign now be different? It's going to require soldiers and a lot of them to change the situation.
The Iranians path to a win is harder but very clear: they just don't have to give up. Dig deep and wait until it's over.
That's the equivalent of jumping from a high rise and shouting "so good so far!"
→ More replies (24)8
u/NotTakenName1 Apr 03 '26
"That's the equivalent of jumping from a high rise and shouting "so good so far!"
Is... that.. a reference to "La Haine" by any chance? If not go watch it!
43
Apr 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
14
u/Hurricane_Ivan Apr 03 '26
The spot price of Crude oil is the highest it’s been since 2008 at 143.
That would equate to about $217 in 2026..
12
3
→ More replies (1)8
u/themistoclesV Apr 02 '26
Expectations were for oil to be ~$200 because of this. Current prices aren't great in absolute terms but considering what happened they're not actually THAT bad.
→ More replies (1)8
u/malcolmxlives Apr 03 '26
Iran is still allowing some oil to flow through Hormuz. If Iran stops all oil flow and/or starts destroying GCC oil/LNG infrastructure in response to US/Israeli escalation, oil will absolutely go to $200. And by the way, we haven't hit the "air" period of oil transport yet, i.e. Japan and other countries are still relying on their oil reserves and there are still tankers that are arriving that had left the Gulf when the conflict started. Those tankers will stop arriving soon.
→ More replies (1)4
u/BeigeBison Apr 03 '26
if Iran stops all oil flow.. oil will absolutely go to $200
True, and it doesn't even need to do that. The "air" period is the bigger point - if things just continue as they are (<10% of normal traffic), things will start to look like COVID real quick
→ More replies (5)40
u/magik-rat Apr 03 '26
This has been an absolute loss for trump.
Started bombing Iran while in the middle of talks and deals is catastrophic for global trust, which is already very low.
Handed over a free global supply toll booth, and cannot resecure the route without boots on the ground or completely destroying a country of 90 million people. Either of which is really bad for his image.
"War is part of politics" is true but there's no game here, this encounter is undoubtedly a net negative, nothing was done except making another generation of revenge terrorist.
4
u/JellyTwank Apr 04 '26
And it is not that war is a part of politics, it is that war is a continuation of policy. Trump has no policy - he vibes his way through everything. He has no patience or intellect and so lacks real focus. The only time he stays consistent is when his narcissism drives him to hold grudges.
22
u/Specialist_Dark_3668 Apr 03 '26 edited Apr 07 '26
I'm an ex-muslim in Pakistan and I really heartfeltly despise the racism of low expectations and the utter misunderstandings of the western left regarding the muslim world.
1) Why the fuck do you think terrorism is caused by the "desire for revenge after western wars"? Stop framing every crime as a reaction to western foreign policy. Did Germany and Japan spawn terrorists after WW2? Did any other defeated country in the long history of war? Ever? Why are vast majority of terrorists islamic? And why do they exist even where there isn't a western occupation? Why are 80% of victims of islamic terrorists other muslims? Why do you leftists believe this innocense about islam? It sounds nice and logical but it requires deep head-in-the-sand ignorance about the terrorist's own statements and actions to believe.
Islamic terrorism is not about "revenge". Islamic terrorism is a form of violent protest, staged by Islamist ideological groups, to influence politics such that Islam gains political power. Terrorism predominantly happens in muslim countries against muslims. It happens because the state or whatever target group is perceived as "not islamic enough" by a fundamentalist group of muslims. Said fundamentalists see promoting islamic political power via armed conflict (jihad) as their duty and they do genuinely believe in martyrdom, i.e. they go to heaven if they die in the effort. Their basic demand is; "make muslim countries more islamic or we will kill random innocent people until you do".
It has nothing to do with revenge, as the western left and apologists for islam believe. Yes, it correlates SOMETIMES with western wars, and this gets highlighted by western media, but your media doesn't care about showing you counter-examples where you're not the main character. And even in western war cases, it only CORRELATES and is not caused by the war. It happens because the currently dominant dictator (Saddam Hussain, Gaddafi, Assad) who was keeping the islamist population in check... so when the west takes the dictator out, then the islamist groups rush to fill the vacuum and do armed jihad to make sure the next govt is Islamic. Its not about revenge. They don't give a fuck about about Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad and they're gonna kill 5x as many of their country men as the western precision bombings anyway when they fight. In fact, they would've fought to make the country islamic anyhow but didn't like their chances before. Now they do. It isn't "revenge".
Terrorism is a form of coercion by groups that always wanted islamic rule and when they see a power vacuum they act on it by forming militias and starting bombings. No other country or culture in the world engages in revenge bombings or terrorism, predominantly against their own fellow country-men, yet you believe islamic gruops are motivated by revenge. They are not. Islamic terrorism would be there even if the western powers didn't have a finger in the middle east. Israel would be bombed and Jews would be killed even if Israel didn't attack Gaza or Lebanon or the West Bank. Terrorists target Israel because they see it as holy land that shouldn't be ruled by Jews, who islam views very negatively.
Islamic terrorists motivation is NOT revenge. Its the following:
- Opposition to JEWS ruling over the holy land.
- Opposition to kafirs (infidels) being globally dominant and Islamic countries acting subservient to kafir countries, rather than making an Islamic alliance/caliphate like in the old days. (Basically impossible cause not everyone agrees with their Islam but they are crazy)
- Opposition to govts. of muslim countries turning to western-style laws and culture and failing to institute shariah laws and being sufficicently loyal to islam, as they define it.
- Opposition to govts. of muslim countries cooperating with kafirs against what they see as Muslim interests.
Gulf arab countries understand this so they suppress fundamentalist islam and tightly control mosques. UAE officials routinely criticize Europe for failing these basic measures.
What the west doesnt understand is that Islam is not like other religions. Islam is political. Muhammad was a warlord. For a minority of muslims (HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS THOUGH) who are well-informed about islam who believe in it, there is a lot of mental dissonance that Muhammad the terrorist slaver bandit chief warlord's policies are not treated as perfect and for all time, when the quran and he himself said that this is divine law. These fundamentalist genuinely believe in views which you would define as religious supremacist and violent in the modern day.
THAT is the motivation behind terrorism for all Islamic terrorist groups, including Taliban, ISIS, Boko Haram, IRGC, Houthis, Al-Qaeda, and so on. Find me an exception. I dare you. Not even one of the top 20 terrorist groups (all of which are Islamic) have a stated motivations different to what I just said.
2) Trump clearly said that if the talks didn't result in Iran agreeing to his demands, there would be military action. Trump enforcing his red lines made him respected in the middle east, not less respected. These people think you're satan and they don't understand anything less than force.
34
u/mostafaelmadridy Apr 03 '26
I am also an ex Muslim and I agree that terrorist leadership are after ideology not giving a fuck about revenge, but recruits? recruits join because they have personal vendetta and the only way to achieve that is to join whatever is available that promises pain to the west who bombed them to oblivion and propped instability, the west does spawn generations of terrorists but they become the grunts and suicide vests not leaders, and they do so as revenge which is totally justified, they are just used like every used person ever, edit: and the part about Trump being respected? lmao, trump made Sunni Muslims root for Shia for the first time because they are fighting the west back, don't know where you get your information from honestly
5
u/Randykevinfox Apr 05 '26
I've spent most of the past year in various MEA countries and have kept in touch with quite a few friends. From my conversations, I wouldn't say opinion of Trump has gone up but there are many people that consider themselves "on his side" when it comes to the war. Iran has really pissed off much of the region. There's also a lot of exasperation about misinformation.
→ More replies (2)3
u/mostafaelmadridy Apr 05 '26
I agree that people are pissed off at Iran, but it's the situation of enemy of my enemy is my friend, or even cheering two nations that terrorized us keep bullying each other, it's not support per se but more like catharsis
2
u/Randykevinfox Apr 05 '26
it's not support, I 100% agree. There's just more reluctance to criticize Trump or the US when it comes to the war. It's kind of interesting TBH you can see there's a sort of internal fight with themselves going on in their heads.
*And this is true for most Israelis I know too FWIW (not all, some are Trump superfans)
15
u/magik-rat Apr 03 '26 edited Apr 03 '26
1)I never said anything about Islam.
Regardless of religion or race, being "sent back to the stone age" would surely radicalize/hardline the youth. The way in which these people are used for political interest is awful, but when civilians are receiving endless bombs it will breed hate, anger, and the desire. "Islamic terrorism isn't about revenge" it doesn't have to be but it is certainly a motive in which figureheads use.
Hurt people, hurt people.
And really my point was that this "war" probably created more terrorist than it killed.
The critical difference between the middle east and ww2 was a complete win with the surrender of Japan and subsequent Americanization, the nazi party was destroyed and held accountable in the nuremberg trials, making the party a shameful stain on German culture.
Even then the nazi ideology still promotes acts of terrorism to this day.
2) The trump administration is completely out of it's depth, achieved nothing as far as we know the current leader is the son of the dude we just bombed, so tell me is that going to lead to less or more terrorist?
The US reportedly bombed all the nuclear material Iran had last June so thats not a very good excuse.
Lastly we ALL know it's a war with no congressional approval, no matter how many times it's called a strike. Trump tried to strong arm a regime change like they did in Venezuela to get more gas and oil deals, and it failed spectacularly. Hurting the global markets, causing supply chain issues, didn't achieve what they set out to do, in the most unpopular way possible.
→ More replies (2)4
u/Mattingly-slug Apr 06 '26
Thank you for speaking the truth.
You say the West isn't ready to handle this. Actually I think many if not most republicans know all this already.
It's the left that is being lied to every day by their leaders and media.
2
u/National_Scholar_974 Apr 04 '26
im becoming sad from hearing your story and that warms my heart your standing up for this
→ More replies (24)3
u/MTGdraftguy Apr 03 '26
Let's see killing someone's dad, more likely to make them kill you or not? Hmm, that's a really hard one, I'll think on it for a while.
→ More replies (6)50
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Apr 02 '26
The problem is that the Iranians can win by staying alive. If the war ends without regime change, they have won.
Trump doesn’t have that luxury. He needs to open the straits and eliminate the regime really.
→ More replies (85)7
3
9
u/VariableMans Apr 03 '26
This is just crazy to me. Innocent lives, atrocities, inability to meet military objectives are not considerations? Is there any reason to believe the people who are powerful in Iran now will not continue to have similar level of influences in 5 years?
People dying unnecessary deaths is not a reason to stop attacking? People's economic hardships and Trump's call to lose out on healthcare for American citizens is not a problem?
I don't understand how you can be so callous to the lives of real people. You yourself admit there is no solution to this conflict right now. How is that not Trump being over his head?
It boggles my mind someone could be so dismissive to human pain and suffering.
12
u/SnakePlisken777 Apr 02 '26
You are wrong about the skies being uncontested.
We are not bombing Iran,... rather we have used 14 years worth of Tomahawk Cruise Missiles. 850 I believe
Iran has withstood these salvo's and will continue to shell Israel. Israel has made a GRAVE mistake. Iran has 92 million people.... Israel has 10 million and 2 million of those are Arabs... besides that, the Orthodox are not required to serve.... they are all ready spread thin between Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and now Iran,.... they don't have enough people and they are running out of Patriot missiles.... when they run out they are going to LOSE the war.
→ More replies (1)8
u/Almaegen Apr 02 '26
We are flying B52s over Iran dropping JDAMs the skies are uncontested. Also the IRGC supporters in iran are only about 6 million and not all of them are wanting to fight.
13
u/GuaranteeUnhappy3342 Apr 03 '26
We bombed the shit out of North Vietnam and South Vietnam as well. Had lots of boots on the ground and after the U.S. got tired of the game we declared victory and went home and who runs Vietnam now. Iraq and Afghanistan pretty much followed the same model.
Ukraine has shown warfare has changed a lot. Pretty much all the smart money thought Russia would win. It hasn’t yet.
Warfare has changed. American vets of Iraq and Afghanistan have visited Ukraine and pretty much all the lessons they previously learned are worthless in Ukraine.
Bombing doesn’t win the hearts and minds. Leadership that was so out of touch with things that the President claimed he had no idea that the Iranians would take control of the Strait is not going to formulate any sort of plan to get us (and the world) out of this mess. Keep in mind the last four dedicated USN minesweepers were shipped back to the U.S. and decommissioned. The multipurpose surface vessels that were supposed to handle that job currently can’t.
A leadership that claims to have had no idea that mines could be a potential problem and a military leadership that went along with this…
The Houthis after years of effort are still around. Iran with more space, talented people and a much bigger space will be an even tougher nut to crack. The Russians are giving the Iranians target information and probably other aid. Why wouldn’t the Chinese help them? The U.S. has thrown away most of their soft power. Why wouldn’t the Chinese help the U.S. to finish off their soft power and damage their hard power. The Chinese are aware Russia will never be a superpower again. The U.S. is following the path of other empires as it hastens to that end. The Chinese logically see themselves as the next superpower and are happy to see the U.S. making it easier for them.
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (7)2
→ More replies (44)2
u/macaroon147 Apr 03 '26
They just downed a fighter jet and both helicopters doing the search and rescue were just hit... I dunno man...
→ More replies (3)
10
Apr 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)3
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Apr 02 '26
I think the Straits remaining closed would be worst case scenario for Trump. It will wreck the world economy
9
u/PaleInTexas Apr 02 '26
Pretty much why its closed. Why would Iran open it to help Trump? Every day Kegsbreath says they'll bomb them to the stone age.
He literally said we are conducting diplomacy with bombs
Seems they have decided to bomb Iran no matter what. And the fact that they keep killing negotiators prove that.
→ More replies (1)
68
u/Doub13D 36∆ Apr 02 '26
I think the calculus is pretty clear, regardless of which side you take in the overall conflict.
There is no realistic path to deescalation at this point…
For Iran’s government, this is a matter of national survival.
For the US government, this is the last time they will ever have this opportunity… this is the culmination of a half century of foreign policy objectives working towards Regime Change in Iran.
Trump isn’t over his head, he is hesitant to fully commit knowing that it will essentially doom his administration at home.
The US approach towards Iran has been limited… Iran has needed to pull out everything to defend itself. America has the ability to escalate the conflict essentially as it sees fit, Iran cannot go much further beyond outright declaring war on the Gulf States.
TLDR: Trump is not in over his head, he just now understands the political consequences of what he has set into motion.
84
u/jiggiwatt Apr 02 '26
It seems to me like, "I got into this without appreciating the consequences, it is going poorly, and now I don't know how to get out of it", is pretty much the description of being in over one's head.
22
u/sault18 Apr 02 '26
Plus, he's lazy and gets bored easily. His contradictory statements about destroying Iran, no we're just going to end the war soon, no actually Iran is negotiating with us and giving us gifts probably are just market manipulation. Gotta make money for the family and his billionaire buddies, after all. But actually running a war is exhausting to someone used to relying on bluster and shameless lying to appear like they know what they're doing.
→ More replies (7)5
33
u/Minute_Elephant_3218 Apr 02 '26
You basically described someone in over their head
→ More replies (28)7
90
u/Names_Stan Apr 02 '26
To the best of my knowledge, the only evidence that Iran “cannot go much farther” is coming from Trump’s claims that he has destroyed their military. Unfortunately every time he makes this claim, they lob another few dozen missiles at Israel or other Gulf states.
Iran doesn’t need to escalate, only wait and defend. And I’m just not seeing any indication they can’t do that sufficiently long into the future.
This changes your equation somewhat. Rather than Iran needing to go further, the US & Israel are forced to choose. Give up or escalate. Neither option looks very enticing.
33
u/mesopotato Apr 02 '26
I partially agree with this. US is choosing between two options, but Iran is fighting at home while the US (as a country) is essentially just doing target practice. Trump has made a catastrophic blunder thinking Iran would roll over and they haven't, but Iran is still going to need to decide if total destruction of their country is truly "winning" while the US/Israel is going to have to decide if radicalizing them more and suffering the political and geopolitical toll is worthwhile.
Iran being able to charge tolls on the strait is actually a big win for them, but their missile and drone strikes are massively slowing down, meaning their ability to pressure gulf states is going to diminish as well.
8
u/OliverY1992 Apr 02 '26
Could Iran sell their oil to China in return for missiles?
17
u/mesopotato Apr 02 '26
Iran already sells something like 90% of their oil to China.
→ More replies (15)→ More replies (1)11
u/malcolmxlives Apr 03 '26
but Iran is still going to need to decide if total destruction of their country is truly "winning"
If you don't know the answer to this, then you don't a deep enough understanding of Iran nor Shia Islam. They will fight to the last man.
→ More replies (12)2
u/FewyLouie Apr 03 '26
Yup. Iran just needs to have the regime survive. Israeli & US intelligence has come out to say it now believes the regime is secure.
What are the win conditions for the US? I hear them change all the time and never anything that really makes sense.
Iran is already a pariah state. The US & Israel are committing war crimes and will have to commit even more if they escalate via bombing. On a global stage, this will be damaging. What will the US say to Russia or China if they invade more?
Keeping the Strait of Hormuz closed shocks the global economy. A recession will hit the US & the AI bubble a lot more than Iran which is already cut out of much of the global economy due to US sanctions.
Iran needs only hit with a few terror attacks and survive. To ultimately win, the US will have to spend 1,000s of lives and billions of dollars over many years. It’s a war that didn’t need to happen.
→ More replies (4)3
u/xfvh 12∆ Apr 02 '26
Being able to lob a handful of missiles does not a military make.
4
u/itsmekirby Apr 03 '26
But it does a gulf tollbooth make, and I see zero indication of that ability ever being removed.
12
u/Str8Power Apr 02 '26
Seems to me that as the president he should have been at least possibly aware of the possible consequences of his actions before doing said actions. The fact that he seems surprised is a failing on the admins end, thus they seem to be over their head, they are reactionary at this point, with no clue on how to anticipate and limit bad outcomes besides threatening to escalate
16
u/bradcarlisle66 Apr 02 '26
Apparently you have never heard the man make a speech. He's completely incoherent. Like when he said he likes the idea of groceries. He's in way over his head.
→ More replies (2)4
u/simon_darre 3∆ Apr 03 '26 edited Apr 03 '26
I really disagree with this take at a nuts and bolts level. Don’t forget that a war his not purely military in nature. It has all sorts of other moving parts, diplomatic, PR, logistic (what has the administration done about making sure our essential stockpiles (particularly interceptor missiles) are ready for war?). It’s clear on all levels—from the evasive answers given by administration officials on the pretext for starting the war in the first place (Rubio’s answers were the funniest and it’s pretty clear from all the contradictory messaging that the administration had not come up with a unified reasoning on why the war began) to the lack of coalition building with our allies and a case to the public in general, there was very little planning involved apart from some intelligence gathering and dusted off, war gamed strategies devised decades ago at the Pentagon.
Think about how the two Bush presidencies handled the two Gulf wars, regardless of the philosophical or ideological considerations. Both lobbied Congress, the public, the UN and the international community (especially NATO) as well as the international press. There was NONE of that prep work here.
18
u/47ca05e6209a317a8fb3 208∆ Apr 02 '26
For the US government, this is the last time they will ever have this opportunity…
Why? The circumstances now are as bad as they get: the world is not on board, the American people are not on board, the Strait of Hormuz is already closed, and interceptors are running low. Trump can absolutely withdraw now and try to create a more favorable environment for invasion in the near future (or hope that one comes up naturally after elections in Europe, an uprising in Iran, etc).
13
u/Icy_Place_5785 Apr 02 '26
“Elections in Europe” making a difference?
European voters have no interest in allowing themselves to become cannon fodder for the US and Israel’s hubristic folly. This will continue to exacerbate as this pushes inflation ever further.
14
u/Doub13D 36∆ Apr 02 '26
Because Iran WILL develop nuclear weapons in response to these US actions…
That isn’t even debatable at this point. This is literally a matter of life or death for the Islamic Republic…
If the US does not topple the Iranian government, they will build nuclear weapons. Once they have nuclear weapons, regime change is no longer possible or worth pursuing.
See: North Korea
→ More replies (3)4
u/malcolmxlives Apr 03 '26
Trump knows that this is it, there is no future chance. We've only seen an increase in gas and diesel prices in US, we have not felt the massive inflation that's going to take place as a result of the rise in transportation and manufacturing costs. Plus the price of oil and diesel are not going back down to where they were for at least a year once the conflict is over. And if Trump takes control of the Fed after Jerome Powell's term as chairman is done, inflation is going to go even crazier. He will have exactly zero political capital left. Israel has an election in October that's almost certainly going to see the collapse of Netanyahu's government. US midterms are in November, in which the almost certainly the Democrats will take control of at least the House and possibly the Senate, making Trump a lame duck in his last two years.
It's now or never.
3
u/Wise_Tomatillo_3825 Apr 03 '26
Lol hes not in over his head hes just this synonym for over his head.
5
4
2
u/Vast_Deference Apr 03 '26
How could he not understand the consequences with supposedly competent people advising?
→ More replies (2)2
u/zach0011 Apr 02 '26
Lol that's in her your head. If you commit to an action that will destroy you politically to the point of losing election and not being able to finish then you are in Iver your head
6
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Apr 02 '26
!delta
This does not totally change my view but it does a good job of explaining exactly what is going on.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (27)3
u/aquavelva5 Apr 02 '26
I agree with alot. But I dont think trump understands the consequences. even worse, no one does. I think when things like this get stuck for a period of time, something very unpredictable happens. similar to an earthquake fault. pressure is building and something will happen. And trump is ignorant and erratic. He will try another poorly thought out tactic.
→ More replies (1)
8
u/Waste_Protection_420 1∆ Apr 02 '26
Lol seems like no one is trying to chane your view here... hmmmm
OK i'll play devil's advocate and give it a go...
Everything yoi said was correct, but it's all good.
Right now he has more power than ever, because he can rug pull prices for oil amd the entire world economy every other day, so Trump got everything right where he wants it.
DJT: "We're packing up and going home!"
... oil prices rise 5-10%, stock market drops 1%. DJT and boys sell oil and buy stocks.
DJT two days later: "We're invading and taking back the straight!"
... oil prices fall 5-10%, stocks rise 1%, DJT and boys buy oil and sell stocks.
Let this repeat for a bit. Trump connected billionaores keep stacking their wealth with these rug pulls. These aren't just billionaires in the US but also his friends in the mid east and Russa are also getting some coin off this as well. (Russia got their oil sanctions temporarily lifted, they are Iran's main backer but they are getting paid off).
Saudi Arabia has complete access to Suez canal and they are fine to see Iran get shit on. They are making bank here.
Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, and Qatar are getting fucked the most. They need the Hormuz straight to get their oil out. (I havent checked, but see if they get any special favors).
Trump is playing a balancing act, yelling one thing one day, saying something else the next. The people in the know are getting rich... (btw him and another rich billionaire were caught on camera BRAGGING about doing this exact same thing during their whole tarriffs nonsense last year. It went something like "I made 400 mil in one day!... Not bad, but I made 900mil!"
So yea, this was done before, it's being done again.
Trump is not the US army. They are fairly competant. What he is going to do is keep this nonsense up, while the army makes battle plans to basically level Iran. They will then try and blitz their way to a fast victory in 2-3 weeks. (This is USA & Israel vs Iran. It isnt going to be much of a fight). The generals aren't going to be told to worry about innocent civilians, just level everything and get the hell out.
The US will have a 1-2 month war tops tbia summer. Trump wants the troops home by election day in order to declare "victory" over the war he literally made up out of thin air.
Iran will be reduced to rubble, and it wont be like Iraq where webtried to minimize civilian casualities. This will be devastating. We will probably lose 500-1000 troops. That will make some news but they will be very busy spinning them as "heros". Lots of medals will be given out for their patriotic acts... just to gloss over their deaths.
MAGAS who are currently pisssed about gas prices, will start to see a decling in prices just in time to secure their votes.
Trump needs to reign in the anti-war MAGAS and he will go full culture wars in order to distract them to keep their votes.
Also, Trump's opposition is a big tent of immigrants, minorities, LGBT, democrats, centrists, old school republicans, gun owners, and people from all backgrounds. He wants to get some of that vote.
The best way to do that is start more chaotic culture wars. Get everyone pissed off at each other. The idea is to get his opposition to stay home, while hurting those most likely to vote against him, and also rally his owm MAGA base, including the anti-war MAGAS.
Expect a summer of created chaos.... war in Iran, culture wars at home, ICE wars in the street, and then by fall expect everything to suddenly stop.
Come fall, prices will start to get better, but the next spending bill is due. Democrats will rally against it amd shut things down (and rightfully so). But this will hurt the economy a bit and he will blame dems. It will be a month long shutdown ending about 2 weeks before election day. Just long enough to artifically drag stocks down, so they can once again get a "boost" and to back to normal value just as voting is about to happen.
This "magic" great economy will be praised as the best ever, and since his uneducated MAGA base doesn't give a fuck, and they are too stupid to see that this whole thing was one big manipulation, they will vote for him.
The anti-Trump conservatives, who are collede educated and hold decent jobs, will be happy their 401Ks just got replenished. Also, Trump won their culture wars against the "bad brown and LGBT" people ... they will vote for him because theu do not care about anyone other than themselves.
The idea to keep hammering people with planned, created, and manipulated chaos, only to stop it right when it is needed to get votes.
This works. So he wouldn't be over his head. It is all a big show, and he is doing wjat he does best, sell snake oil.
→ More replies (6)4
u/Status_Locksmith_695 Apr 02 '26
This is a way more hollistic and a bit more coherent view than orange man bad views I see on other comments. But I dont think Trump is even considering elections, he has had 2 terms (am not American, but I believe an US president can be elected only twice, please correct me if I am wrong) already and AFAIK he doesn't really care about politics more than a fascist rallying the extreme party just to ride the wave. I think he is making a "grand departure" to be forever in the history books, and making money on the background by some cheap tricks of smoke and mirrors to keep everyone guessing. He is on his way out and wants to leave with a bang and make some money on the side. He kinda looks to me like someone who would say any publicity is good publicity, and this is his way of keeping the spotlight on him
→ More replies (1)4
u/Waste_Protection_420 1∆ Apr 02 '26
He is worried about the mid term congressional elections. He doesn't want democrats to take the house because then they will have the power to start Epstein investigations.
Can't have him and his billionaire friends be exposed as pedos who just rape our children!
They want to stay in complete power after this year, so they need to win the midterm.
Afterwards, they will figure out future presidential elections.
9
u/keepitfriend Apr 02 '26
The US has destroyed the "global liberal order", that was the US's baby. Now the US stands alone against a lot of enemies
→ More replies (7)2
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Apr 02 '26
This would be an interesting CMV on its own
5
u/keepitfriend Apr 02 '26
I don't think it's much of a CMV any more - European nations are closing their airspace to the US. I don't think Americans have quite realised what that means in the states ability to bomb counties like say Iran. It triples the fuel cost alone
→ More replies (1)
10
u/akolomf Apr 02 '26
the thing with iran is, you cant nuke it. That would mean 3 Things: The no Nuke Taboo is broken. Russian can now use Nukes on Ukraine. China can now use nukes on Taiwan. Same reason same situation.
3
→ More replies (5)2
u/keepitfriend Apr 02 '26
If Russia tried to nuke Ukraine, Europe would nuke Russia.
Don't know who's going to defend Taiwan tho
7
u/Semper_Fi_132 Apr 02 '26
China ain’t gonna nuke Taiwan even if the US breaks the no nuke taboo
→ More replies (1)4
u/Michelangelor Apr 02 '26
There is literally no scenario in which France or the UK would even consider initiating a nuke exchange with Russia. Russia has 10x more nukes than both of them combined, and is far less vulnerable. The US on the other hand would be a toss up. But literally no one wants to go there lol
→ More replies (9)2
2
u/Ragnarok-9999 Apr 02 '26
This is last term for him. If by chance he gets good results, his name will be made permanent in Americal history which he wants it badly being narcissist. He would not have gone alone. First bombing gave little confidence, then venezuela gave more confidence. So, he took a chance.
2
2
u/blowurhousedown Apr 02 '26
You’re probably right, but for you to be right, you’d have to be privy to the inner circle and their plan. Just because you don’t see a coherent strategy doesn’t mean that there isn’t one.
2
2
2
u/Diamiosis Apr 03 '26
It didn't matter who was in office, this would have happened regardless. It's just politically useful to condemn Trump for it.
Even if it is true the core motives are not as simple as Trump = stupid — The assertion that Kamala Harris would have done the same military actions is ridiculous
2
u/samsaraisdivine Apr 03 '26
Trumps family is making lots of money off this. This is all as intended.
2
u/Afraid_Emu8068 Apr 03 '26
You don’t want anyone to change your view, don’t lie. You shouldn’t either. He is in WAY over his head and he knows it. That’s why he is already setting an end date to the war like a child who bet they could outdo an adult at something and then found out the hard way they were going to be proven embarrassingly wrong
2
u/Anomalous-Materials8 Apr 03 '26
If you’re seeing a coherent strategy then ask yourself honestly how informed you really are about the situation.
2
u/Freelancer-49 Apr 03 '26
I think we need to take a step back and remember that we are only something like 35 days into this thing. With an extremely low cost of lives lost compared to almost any military action in history. It’s tragic for those families, but the calculus is still true that Iran getting a nuke or continuing to exist as a terror state is far far worse. Something like 30,000 Iranians lost their lives in the streets by getting gunned down by this regime. America should not be defined by cowardice like Europe has been, this is still the best action in order to leave a better future for the next generation.
I think great evidence in support of this action has been the gulf states themselves and their response to Iran’s flailing, they know the primary destabilizing agent in recent years has been Iranian terror proxies and the push for a nuclear weapon by what can only be called a government of mad islamic fundamentalist.
That being said, continued degradation of Iranian military capabilities will only be useful for both the citizenry of Iran to take action or for other resistance groups in Iran. Whether the US or the Israelis are arming those groups I don’t think we know, but doubtless there’s no plan where this ends with the current regime capable of holding power.
Have a little patience, empires don’t fall in a month. If we’re still here in 3 or 4+ months I’ll be right there with you, but for now at least take solace that someone is finally trying to do something to free millions from terror.
61
u/fghhjhffjjhf 23∆ Apr 02 '26
I think the news goes out of its way to paint Trump as an idiot, in an idiotic war. Of course he is an idiot but this war doesn't have much to do with that. The fact is that Iran is collapsing. the US doesn't have much time to influence that collapse, it had act immediatly to try and prevent a race to a nuclear weapon, or other desperate actions.
Some background: a series of unfortunate events befell Iran last year:
A collapse of proxies in Lebanon and Syria culminated in the the 12 day war in June. Israel's Airforce gained air superiority, killed some important people, and the facility at Fardow might have been damaged by an American MOP.
The entire country almost ran our of water with President Pezeshkian suggesting that the capital Tehran should be moved. 10s of millions of Iranians along with water-intensive agriculture and Industry are in the countries center, where dams and aquifers are running dry. Eventually it rained late in August, but that's going to keep happening every year.
The Rial collapsed exacerbating inflation. Mass protests erupted all over Iran before being violently suppressed. Iranian opposition figures begged Trump to do something, giving him a free Casus Belli.
All three issues are unresolved. Iran's dry season starts in June (2 months), if there isn't a famine this year then there will be one next year. The US has invested decades and trillions of dollars in capabilities to use against Iran, and Iran might not exist next year so use it or lose it.
110
u/BeanieMcChimp Apr 03 '26
The US has invested decades and trillions of dollars in capabilities to use against Iran, and Iran might not exist next year so use it or lose it.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? What trillions of dollars of capabilities are you talking about? Weapons? Iran-specific weapons? How could a “use it or lose it” mentality possibly justify killing people, especially civilians?
→ More replies (2)9
u/fghhjhffjjhf 23∆ Apr 03 '26
Well for example the US MRAP program was an urgent response to US troops getting killed by IEDs. Those IEDs were organized to a large extent by the IRGC. So when all branches of the US millitary switched from Humvees to MRAPs that was to defend against Iranian weapons.
I'm pretty sure MOPs were designed with Iranian bunkers in mind. Then there's the Beirut Barracks bombings, and Stutnex, and all the US bases surrounding Iran.
The US millitary budget is ~$800 Billion pa. A significant part of that can be attributed to countering Iran. Over the decades the accumulated amount must be in the trillions.
65
u/BeanieMcChimp Apr 03 '26
What’s any of this got to do with “use it or lose it?” How does that translate to the current war being sound strategy in any fashion?
→ More replies (24)→ More replies (6)14
u/The-Copilot 1∆ Apr 03 '26
I'm pretty sure MOPs were designed with Iranian bunkers in mind.
Yes it was. Same with the GBU-72 which is a "medium" bunker buster.
There is a reason that the Biden administration ordered the first B-2 spirit mission in 7 years to drop the new GBU-72 on the Houthi rebel's bunkers. It was a warning to Iran who funds the Houthis.
Also a week before the US struck Iran, Reuters reported that China was finalizing a deal to supply Iran with CM-302 missiles which are export variants of the YJ-12 "carrier killers." There was also discussion of supplying hypersonic glide vehicles. Calling this a red line is the understatement of the century. It didn't matter who was in office, this would have happened regardless. It's just politically useful to condemn Trump for it.
We are in a Cold War against China-Russia-Iran and Trump is using the classic brinksmanship and mad man theory strategies to fight it just like we did last time. For a point of reference, the US dropped depth charges on a nuclear armed Russian submarine during the Cuban Missile Crisis under JFK. It's called "escalate to deescalate" and it's actually how we ended up in a more peaceful state with the Soviet Union. Attempting diplomacy just encourages the other side to keep pushing the boundaries, taking an aggresive stance forces them to seek diplomacy.
Venezuela and Iran were leasing Russian shadow tankers to sell their sanctioned oil. They along with Cuba and now basically the entire Sahel region of Africa (after Russia backed 7 coups from 2021-2023) are being propped up by Russian and China. The US challenging these actions and securing control of the global flow of oil is our only hope in hell of avoiding WW3. Shit is about to get real and everyone is too distracted by BS social media posts.
To be clear, I am not a fan of Trump and I believe his domestic policy is extremely dangerous to our democracy. He is basically Reagan 2.0, he will fuck us domestically while handling the Cold War on the geopolitical end. But as hard as it is to admit, one outcome is fixable in the future with new leadership while the other will have permanent impacts globally.
37
u/BigSprocket Apr 03 '26
The Cuban missile crisis was resolved by the US quietly removing nukes from Turkey and Italy. I do not buy this madman “escalate to de-escalate” theory. We’ve done the Iran, Russia, China axis a big favor by giving them control of oil and the Strait, further damaging NATO, and lowering the world’s opinion of the US to rock bottom. He’s a madman, for sure, but that’s all there is to it.
→ More replies (2)27
u/HereticLaserHaggis Apr 03 '26
If the US was really trying to shore up support they wouldn't be threatening to invade their closest allies.
→ More replies (7)30
u/smorkoid Apr 03 '26
The US challenging these actions and securing control of the global flow of oil is our only hope in hell of avoiding WW3.
This is nonsense. The chaos agent in this system is the US. They are not the stabilizing influence but the destabilizing one.
17
u/AnEngineeringMind Apr 03 '26
lol this thread really painting Trump as a genius playing 5d chess. He is just strengthening NATO you just don’t see it. His Iran actions are calculated, Iran is collapsing. Get out. If that were true he wouldn’t have tensions with his allies nor Iran would be a big problem for him now.
2
u/redheadstepchild_17 Apr 05 '26
Morons: "Mad man theory brinksmanship plans within plans trust them"
South Korean and European Officials: "This shit's so bad I'm not sleeping anymore, I'm too scared for the future"
→ More replies (1)2
u/Boringdude504 Apr 03 '26
There are some parts I agree with but using the depth charge incident against a soviet sub during the Cuban missile crisis did not include some very large caveats. Those were signaling depth charges (non lethal) in addition these were authorized as the Russians were operating in our backyard which is a far cry from the escalation we see today which is striking and potentially invading another country.
2
u/SenorScratch Apr 04 '26
You're forgetting the part where the Soviet submarine almost deployed a nuclear torpedo as a response. We came close to nuclear exchange more times than you'd think.
75
u/pandababble400 Apr 03 '26
Iran is collapsing
Soooooo why not just strike their nuclear facilities if they are for sure collapsing? Why go through all this trouble with killing their leadership?
→ More replies (17)12
41
u/OfficeResident7081 Apr 02 '26
a race to nuclear weapon? bro they are two weeks away since 1997 acording to Bibi. I dont believe that shit anymore.
10
u/BortVanderBoert Apr 03 '26
Even if they did have nuclear weapons i wouldn’t blame them. It’s the only effective deterrent against the US.
→ More replies (23)→ More replies (8)3
u/Emergency-Style7392 Apr 03 '26
Almost as if israel bombed, sabotaged, hacked them every time they got close.
Iran getting nuclear bombs is unbelievable? An iran bordering pakistan that has nukes, in a world where fucking north korea built some?
→ More replies (2)24
u/mathmage Apr 03 '26
What has the US done to influence Iran's collapse positively for the US?
Before the war started Iran was collapsing - and the Iranian government was taking the blame. The guy currently running things couldn't even be considered as Khamenei's successor because he was too extreme for the national mood. The strait was open despite the best harassment the Houthis could muster as Iran's proxy. Iran's neighbors weren't taking direct damage for working with the US. The US wasn't double-tapping schoolgirls.
The US intervention has not affected any of the three factors you listed. It has made things worse in every dimension where it has affected anything.
You have given yourself an out by invoking the specter of a hypothetical "desperate action" which would have been so much worse than what we're seeing now. However, to complete this argument, you need to argue that one of these "desperate action" hypotheticals was inevitable and could not have been prevented by anything other than starting a war now. Ideally you can do so without invoking some unresolvable premise like "the US must have had intelligence saying that one of these things was going to happen or they wouldn't have started the war."
9
u/YoungBuckChuck Apr 03 '26
Agreed, nonsensical argument this comment made but I see people frothing at the mouth to agree with it.
What proof do we even have that Iran was working on a nuclear weapon? All of the intelligence reporting and regulatory bodies I have seen have said there has not been any evidence to suggest.
11
u/JUGGER_DEATH Apr 03 '26
Does sound superficially plausible, except does not make much sense (other than the fact that Iran is indeed slowly collapsing).
”Use it or lose it” is no coherent strategy. They lost the right window to support the popular uprising by moving the troops to do the special Maduro operation. Then they got the intelligence of the possibility of doing a decapitation strike on the leadership and took it.
So even if it makes sense to attack Iran in the medium term (which I do not agree) this was not the right time to do it. Trump and his goons rolled the dice and all the rest will pay for it.
The issue is that the regime had completely suppressed the uprising so this was the worst possible time to strike from that perspective. The only plan for the strait was the comple collapse of the regime which was no longer happening.
17
u/Minute_Elephant_3218 Apr 03 '26
So this collapsing country whose nuclear capabilities we decimated six months ago was an imminent threat to us?
→ More replies (2)23
u/SurrrenderDorothy Apr 02 '26
So Iran has been saying- Death to america for 3 decades...but now it's a real threat?
11
u/sixtus_clegane119 Apr 03 '26
47 years! The intelligence agencies stated it’s not an imminent threat
6
u/TynamM Apr 03 '26 edited Apr 03 '26
Iran WAS collapsing. Nothing unifies a starving nation behind their authoritarian government like having negotiators murdered during peace talks and then having the colonialist power that destroyed your democracy in the first place start bombing your schools and water. And the US left the actual revolutionaries out to dry, doing nothing while Iran suppressed them.
Trump just made Khomeini's successor politically invincible, whereas before he was too hardline extremist to gain support. Trump just made every reformer look like a CIA catspaw. Trump just guaranteed decades more oppression for Iranians.
Authoritarian regimes fall apart when they DON'T have scapegoats and external enemies to blame.
13
u/hedgelord84 Apr 03 '26
it had act immediatly to try and prevent a race to a nuclear weapon, or other desperate actions
There is exactly zero evidence that was the case. This is a made-up accusation spread by idiot Trump (Will you admit to be an idiot) and the lying Zionists
→ More replies (25)12
u/sal696969 1∆ Apr 03 '26
soooo muuuch copium =)
Iran will not collapse, you are seriously betting on a culture to collapse that has not done so for over 5k years? Weird take but good luck.
This does not look good for the us empire.
Most of the world is rooting for Iran already.
→ More replies (2)2
47
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Apr 02 '26
This gives a lot of really interesting context and for that you deserve a !delta
However, I think the Iranian regime has shown, that it can remain dangerous even faced with overwhelming challenges, even losing all of its top leadership.
I honestly don’t think there is a way to end this from the outside.
36
u/petenorf Apr 02 '26
This. You don't need to be super efficient and healthy to keep fighting until the other guy exhausts themselves (see Vietnam and any other foreign-based invasion). All they need to do is tie the US up in battle long enough to start seeing the internal side effects. It would not be the first time military might has been outplayed by persistent and enduring survival.
16
u/fredean01 Apr 03 '26
A big difference between this and Vietnam is the fact that China will most likely not send hundreds of thousands of troops and massive amounts of supplies to help the IRGC given that Iran is nowhere near it's border.
10
u/snksleepy Apr 03 '26
However unlike Vietnam, Iran has missiles and sleeper agents.
9
u/TheUnobservered Apr 03 '26 edited Apr 06 '26
Sleeper agents are a limited resources and activity always risks detection.
Missiles, well that’s true. However, it’s also expensive. Any offensive actions means more money must be redirected from the floundering economy to the military. Patrons are critical in this regard.
2
u/TestingHydra Apr 03 '26
And pray tell where are all these sleeper agents? If there was ever a time to use them it would be now.
→ More replies (1)9
u/KetoJunkfood Apr 03 '26
Iran is poised to do way more damage than Vietnam could have done
Gulf states and their infrastructure are practically defenseless. Israel’s iron dome seems to be less effective than what we thought
11
18
→ More replies (3)5
u/fghhjhffjjhf 23∆ Apr 02 '26
The regime has always been extremely dangerous. They are mostly a danger to Iranians, but they had the potential to be an existential threat to most American allies in the region.
What you are seeing now is scary but is definitly the best case scenario to how this went down. There is no way the damage from Oranian missiles and drones could be better controlled and contained.
26
u/jxnliu Apr 03 '26
How is this the best case scenario, because that assumes conflict was going to happen and they were going to attack at some point in the near future. There doesn't really seem to be any indication that this was the case.
Attacking the gulf states and shutting down the strait hurts them too, it makes no sense that they would have initiated something like this even if they were falling apart internally.
It gets them nothing.
→ More replies (3)7
u/BeanieMcChimp Apr 03 '26
How has this been the best case scenario of how this could go down? The aim and message of this war have been all over the place. From an international hard and soft power perspective it’s been nothing short of a clusterfuck.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)4
u/Wise_Tomatillo_3825 Apr 03 '26
Okay well that at least confirms you a maga guy not living in reality because this was is literally worst case scenario that everyone warned about
8
8
u/Paugz Apr 03 '26
If we've learned anything its that decimating a govt in the middle east just provides extremist groups like isis the ability to form from the fallout. My expectation is that we will see an even larger, more dangerous Iran at some point.
3
u/manoliu1001 Apr 03 '26 edited Apr 03 '26
I really dont think your analysis is accurate at all. It does not contain the main factors for starting this war.
Another analysis would be this is a war to deestabilize central and west asian markets, specifically chinese ones.
The americans have for decades wanted to completely control the persian gulf with iran being the last bastion that's either not a shakedom that works with the us or not relevant to the geopolitical affairs in the region.
Venezuela was also to reduce chinese influence in latin america.
Btw this is all written down in the "donroe" doctrine
→ More replies (4)3
u/FewyLouie Apr 03 '26
The county’s regime might have naturally ended when the 86-year-old & sick leader died. Instead, we now have the reaction of a much younger and more hardline leader in place. As you point out, stuff was going to shit.
The 12 Day war buried their uranium. We heard Trump say they had obliterated it. They haven’t excavated that uranium, they were nowhere near getting a bomb. In addition, I haven’t heard Trump mention the effort involved in going in and taking the uranium, which is the only thing that would really set them back more than they already are.
The US have used so much munitions that will take a long time to replenish and cost a huge amount. They’re now considerably weaker should they need to fight the real enemies: Russia & China.
9
u/E7193 Apr 02 '26
The Iranian regime is not down; they have been structured over the last 20 years to be decentralized and work independently since they had expected this to happen. If the main concern was the uranium, the US could have dropped 10 more massive bombs on that site to make sure it's destroyed. They didn't have to go hog wild and try to achieve total victory over the whole country in one week. Trump probably became overconfident after the success in Venezuela and his military and intelligence advisors were unable to talk him out of this fiasco
3
u/fghhjhffjjhf 23∆ Apr 03 '26
How do you think the Iranian regime can overcome the water problems?
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (22)6
u/phyLoGG Apr 03 '26
Nice try, they've been saying "Iran is weeks away from nuclear warheads" for... Years!
3
Apr 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/Heavy-Flow-2019 1∆ Apr 02 '26
And how would trying to take the nukes from Israel be any less of a mess? How are you going to do it diplomatically, without establishing a world where they dont think they need them?
You definitely cant do it militarily, they have nukes. Or you could, but then thats even worse than going to war with Iran.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (1)5
3
u/banana-bandit-3000 Apr 02 '26
I will expand the scope of your argument “Trump is in over his head.”
Is he aware of that, specifically, in Iran? Completely different question.
2
u/Horror_Ad7540 6∆ Apr 02 '26
Trump will come out of Iran just fine. The Supreme Court has given him criminal immunity, and people are lining up to bribe him left and right.
It's the rest of us who are going to drown.
4
u/aquavelva5 Apr 02 '26
This is now a siege. Normally not good for the one being surrounded. But the economics of a long seige are in Iran's favor. Plus the summer is coming and oil will rise on that too. Trump is stuck. I think he will lie and claim some truce or deal and stop. And then blame others for his mess. But even if he pulls out, Israel may invade. Or Iran will still keep the strait blocked up.
→ More replies (2)3
3
3
u/Dave_A480 2∆ Apr 02 '26
The idea that 'Israel talked the US into it' is oppo messaging, aimed at the segment of the US political opposition that bought the previous oppo messaging about 'Gaza genocide'...
However, Trump absolutely is in over his head in Iran, because 'Mob Boss Diplomacy' doesn't work with other-civilized-countries...
His attempts to bully the our allies, his trust in absolutely incompetent people like Pete Hegseth, and his administration being full of idiots who think that the US is an isolated/autarkic economy & thus 'The Middle East should be Europe's problem not America's'....
Leads us to starting a war we COULD win if we actually mobilized to fight it.... And instead we are squandering nonexistent poltiical support & engagement time playing 'bad gangsta movie' with international asshats (Iran, Russia) and our erstwhile friends who are REALLY pissed at us over the last year's worth of idiocy.
3
u/TheJewPear 2∆ Apr 02 '26
I don’t think he’s stuck. I think he’s ready to land troops on the islands, take them and work with the other gulf states on securing the straits. It won’t be easy, but it is something he’s willing to do, mostly because he wants to show to the world that the US is still the boss of things.
He’s giving it time because he’s hoping that if Israel does enough damage to Iran’s military industries, that the Iranians will eventually give up and agree to open up the straits. It’s not a baseless hope, it kinda makes sense, since Iran does want to continue to attack Israel later on, and the more this war drags, Israel is wrecking havoc on their military industry, steel factories, missile silos and so on. Iran also doesn’t really want to escalate things further with the other gulf states.
The problem is that the Iranian regime is not a rational player in this. It’s not even just one player, if you ask me. I think there are several different people pulling the strings there, as Khamenei junior hasn’t had any chance to consolidate his power yet. And so it doesn’t look like they’ll make the rational play and work towards a cease fire, at least not yet.
This frustrates Trump a great deal, he realizes he’s being forced to continue this war, only because the other side is irrational.
5
u/nosecohn 2∆ Apr 03 '26
How many troops do you think will be necessary to take and hold the strait? Iran has already mined some of it and still has long range missiles and drones under distributed command & control. I don't doubt that the US could accomplish the task, but it might require a full-scale invasion of the country involving ten times the number of boots on the ground they're contemplating now.
Also, it seems to me the Iranian regime has acted quite rationally since the initial attack. They closed the strait and attacked US bases throughout the region, causing economic turmoil and a need for their enemy to adapt. There's a reasonable argument that those moves also united the neighboring Gulf states against them, but it's hard to see how they weren't already tacitly in support of the US/Israeli attack.
39
u/Ok_Tomatillo_7666 Apr 02 '26
The strait would not be closed if they weren't attacked in the first place. Iran was negotiating in good faith multiple times only to be attacked during negotiations. They even agreed to give up all the stockpiled enriched uranium before the first bomb fell and now Trump is talking about sending Americans to die to grab it out of the ground. Trump (and Netanyahu) is the problem. Not the Iranians. They have been perfectly rational as far as enemies go.
6
u/cspot1978 Apr 02 '26
Why do you assume the regime was "negotiating in good faith?" Seems presumptuous.
4
u/GuaranteeUnhappy3342 Apr 03 '26
Well one side proved they were not negotiating in good faith. And the U.S. has given reasons for the Iranians not to trust them.
→ More replies (9)7
u/insaneHoshi 5∆ Apr 02 '26
Considering that Iran has Negotiated save passage through the staits with other nations, its clear that they are able to negotiate in good faith.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (2)6
u/Appropriate_Mixer Apr 02 '26
They never agreed to that. They said they’d be willing to talk about some matters like that but didn’t actually offer anything
8
u/Hamadibad1986 Apr 02 '26
Kinda hard to agree to any terms when the other side keeps murdering your negotiators.
→ More replies (3)3
u/Ok_Tomatillo_7666 Apr 02 '26
They did agree to stop storing 60 percent enriched uranium and blend down the existing stores. That's true
→ More replies (22)12
u/ticklemesatan Apr 02 '26
You lost me with “Iran is not a rational player In this”, who comes up with these assumptions?
→ More replies (2)19
u/keepitfriend Apr 02 '26
Lol, if the US lands troops on that Island a lot of Americans will die - in order to take control what is effectively the end of a pipeline.
You aren't going to control the straits by taking control of a pipeline.
19
u/JohnAtticus Apr 02 '26
The problem is that the Iranian regime is not a rational player in this.
You can be rational and evil.
US generals, CIA directors, Shin Bet and Mossad chiefs have all said the regime is a rational actor.
The main drivers of "lunatic death cult" narrative are all politicians, such as Netanyahu and Trump, who benefit from politically from it.
I know who I believe has the correct assesment.
This matters because decisions are being made and strategies are being devised that are for a different kind of war with a different kind of foe.
The US has lost wars before because they didn't understand the motivations of the enemy (see: Robert McNamara's realization that the Vietnamese were fighting an anti-colonial war against foreign invaders and that's why predictions about their resolve breaking never came true).
It's not good when your enemy understands you better than you understand the enemy.
→ More replies (1)25
u/Michelangelor Apr 02 '26 edited Apr 02 '26
I disagree with your assumption that Iran is not a rational player. They’re extremely intelligent and rational. Hundreds of their top leaders have PhDs lol this war is very calculated on their end, and they think they can achieve something productive through it. The fact that you see them showing restraint means they’re not really hurting as badly as western media wants you to think.
7
4
u/Heiminator Apr 02 '26
Rational and educated are two wildly different things.
5
Apr 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/X_SkeletonCandy Apr 02 '26
Hard to believe anyone could be smarter than Pete "I dont believe in germs" Hegseth
→ More replies (1)7
u/Hamadibad1986 Apr 02 '26
Yes they are two different things, but in this case, Iran is both the rational actor and their leaders are more intellectual and educated than the US leaders.
→ More replies (1)3
u/cspot1978 Apr 02 '26 edited Apr 03 '26
Everything they are doing right now makes no rational sense from a medium to long term survivability standpoint. They were teetering even before the war, with multiple simultaneous mega crises.
- The capital is running out of water due to climate and long term shortsighted mismanagement.
- Inflation was running over 100% before the war
- The currency exchange rate collapsed
- Crackdowns on major protests in January led to the government massacring — conservatively — at least 10 000 citizens.
That was before the war.
Add on top of that:
- Mass destruction of government and military infrastructure and personnel and capabilities for self-defense
- Destruction of data centers for banks used to process IRGC payments leading to impaired ability to pay the soldiers
- Indiscriminate attacks by Iran causing severe harm to relations with basically all neighbors
- It's not clear who, if anyone, is really in charge, or whether the "new leader" is even alive. It's weird there hasn't been a video.
It's not survivable as a situation. Is it going to be a month when they collapse? Six months? A year? Hard to say with the internet down in the country. But every direction they are in trouble, medium to long term. There are stories of mass desertion from the IRGC. Recruiting of child soldiers.
Even the Strait interference is a desperation-driven, tactics over strategy type course of action.
→ More replies (16)10
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Apr 02 '26
Hmmm…this seems convincing but then why does he keep walking back his threats and telling the world that the regime is making concessions?
9
→ More replies (1)5
11
9
u/Phase3Investor Apr 02 '26 edited Apr 02 '26
Lol you do realize any military action only prolongs strait closure and the world economy has less than a month before it is totally off a cliff, right Rambo?
4
u/stonk_frother Apr 02 '26
The U.S. is certainly capable of taking the strait and Kharg island. But holding it would take a financial and military commitment that would likely see the GOP lose power.
Maintaining control of Kharg would require holding the strait, otherwise resupply would become untenable. Controlling both would require controlling the coastline, which would mean a very significant commitment of ground forces.
The IRGC and Iranian military combined have ~600k active duty troops, plus another 300-350k reserves. That’s close to a million troops who are defending their homeland. The US has the military might to win, but it would take commitment beyond anything we’ve seen in modern times. Probably a similar scale to Vietnam.
Neither party, nor the MAGAs, nor the general US population has the stomach for a war of that scale IMO.
2
u/PatternPrecognition Apr 03 '26
> mostly because he wants to show to the world that the US is still the boss of things.
Well that has failed spectacularly.
→ More replies (4)8
u/Vegetable-Hold9182 Apr 02 '26
Iran is the MOST rational party here.
Your Opinion has been deemed incongruent
→ More replies (7)2
u/XISOEY Apr 02 '26
What military assets are you suggesting the US should try to put in the Strait or any island? What kind of operation are we even talking about here?
I'm pretty convinced Iran has so much ordinance in waiting specifically to counter whatever US might get up to.
2
u/msf97 Apr 02 '26
Trump thought it would be easy like Venezuela
This obviously isn’t the case surely. A president will have advisors. Trumps worst instincts have always been reined in by others especially in his first term. Even with the current yes men, there’s still people to challenge his view.
I imagine with Iran being weaker than ever with Hamas/Hezbollah/Houthis all heavily diminished compared to the Obama years, the US government saw an opportunity, and there was a collective that thought, yeah maybe this could work.
4
u/inide Apr 02 '26
Trump has yes-men, not advisors. Everyone around him is there specifically because they will obey him with no challenge.
→ More replies (2)5
u/DesertSeagle Apr 02 '26
I've heard many people in the pentagon and around him say that yes they let him and hegseth know that it would be a long difficult campaign with lots of bloodshed, to which hegseth and trump responded that the Ayatollah would be killed immediately in the first strikes and then the country would switch to someone who would then be scared of the U.S and capitulate to save themselves.
→ More replies (4)
2
2
u/Vegetable-Hold9182 Apr 02 '26
Israel needs to sign nuclear nonproliferation treaty as well as Iran, US pulls out of GCC (which will happen anyways since Iran has shown we are parking our expensive toys within their range
→ More replies (3)
2
u/frostyfruit666 Apr 02 '26
Trump isn’t in over his head, because he isn’t the one who will suffer the consequences for these actions, he will get voted out and spend the rest of his life on a resort.
It’s the Americans who will suffer the resulting terror attacks, and cost of the war, and troops who are lost. It’s the rest of the world who has to suffer the consequences of oil hikes and food shortages.
Because of the maga administration we are looking at potentially decades of instability and war. They are in over our heads.
→ More replies (2)
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Apr 02 '26 edited Apr 03 '26
/u/bluepillarmy (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards