Miscellanea: The War in Iran
acoup.blog
acoup.blog
In the fantasy imagination of some people, they really think you can take out some military targets of another country and then the oppressed masses will magically revolt, as they completely ignore the failed revolution just a month prior. Surround yourself with enough of these people while excluding and firing those who don't and this is what you get.
I suggest a significant cause is Trump's arrogance and only listening to the advice he wants to hear.
And I'm not sure most of those realise how delusional they were, even now. They will probably rewire their memory to forget what they believed 3 weeks ago, compress the time they were wrong.
I initially thought the 'manufacturing consent' part of the war was botched, unlike Irak, but now to me it seems that people are much more susceptible to propaganda disguised as 'almost true' information on social media, and I am afraid I might be in the same boat.
Why waste time convincing anybody of anything, when support for the war will just converge on the president's approval rating anyway?
[0]https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/21/cq-brown-trump-fire...
A few more sceptical voices brought this up, and were told repeatedly that it didn't matter because the Kurds in Syria and Turkey are very different from those in Iraq & Iran.
And there's certainly something in that - but it ignored the clunkingly obvious point that, if America had been thinking at all strategically, a bit more support of Rojava and would have demonstrated to all Kurds that "looking west" would be rewarded.
It has to be hard for Americans to realise that their government has pissed so much of the world off so badly. I suspect we'll see further such errors in analysis and response before the new reality fully sinks in.
It is not hard, at all, for roughly 1/3 of Americans to understand this. Another 1/3 don't think it, or anything past their TikTok feed, matters. The last 1/3 thought Team America was a documentary.
Sorry, but I don't think they do understand.
America has managed to piss off Canada FFS. And lets be honest, you've got to work really hard to piss off the Canadians.
Frankly, Americans (former) allies have seen the American people VOTE for Trump. Twice. Even if Trump goes tomorrow, the (former) allies know what a significant proportion of the US people want in a leader, and so may be in store at the next election.
Having elected Donald Trump twice - atop all our other failings - is a giant screaming proclamation that the United States is unfit for, and undeserving of, continued existence as a state or government. The responsible thing to do is to hold a Constitutional Convention and dissolve the damned thing, and then the individual states can figure out how they ought to go forward from there. (I don't think current U.S. States are anything like perfect but they're what we have left once the United States government is gone.)
Sorry, but 1/3 of the country is deeply, keenly aware of what an absolute fucking disgrace the last year and two months have been for us on an international stage. There's no delusion, here, that Canadians are excited about being threatened with an invasion, in spite of your silly black/white post.
Since 1945 America was a solid partner that could be mutually trusted by us all. That trust has been lost for good. There is simply no coming back from that.
_That_ is what you do not understand.
My man, you are arguing with someone who fucking understands that. I get you think America is entirely dudes coal-rolling their pickup trucks in Bumfuck Texas because you're angry and you want to call us stupid. And sure, some of us are. But repeatedly telling someone "YOU DON'T GET IT" when they repeatedly demonstrate getting it is supremely childish.
A fair number of people, especially on this site, have like, traveled. Talk to people in other countries. Read the news. Etc. I get your angry and you're lashing out, but good god.
Please keep the tone civil. I said nor implied no such thing.
Rather, a significant number of posts on HN believe there will be change back to 'normality' when Trump is no longer president. Yet the world has now changed and what is normal has shifted. Maybe you understand that, but many very clearly do not comprehend the gravitas.
And to make matters worse, Trump didn't even make an attempt to let them down gently - saying "the Kurds were paid tremendous amounts of money, were given oil and other things. So they were doing it for themselves more so than they were doing it for us"...
...and then, 4 weeks later, expected their Iraqi and Iranian cousins to ride to the USA's aid!
I will never forgive Saudi Arabia for the content of the 28 pages. Those who did 9/11 on us remain unpunished because geopolitics demands that we keep good relations with their "royal family".
I'd be happy to abandon whatever "alliance" we have with Turkey/Hungry, and a few other states that have shown evidence that they don't like democracy and are hostile to it.
I must have missed those, but I would expect HN to be able to count. There really are not a lot of Kurds.
This resulted in the Turks moving in, massacring all the Kurds they could find, and a few thousand ISIS prisoners (including 60 'high value targets') escaping as the Kurds guarding them fled for their lives.
However Trump said this didn't pose any threat to the US because "They’re going to be escaping to Europe.”
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/trumps-syria-withdrawal-i...
It hardly seemed an unreasonable assumption.
(Tucker Carlson is weirdly intelligent and thoughtful in that interview in a way i did not expect, but Joe said the most eye opening stuff... I have a lot of respect for him)
The left, not liberals but actual antiwar/antizionist left has been warning about Zionism and the Iran war for decades, nothing Tucker is saying is new, it's just nobody ever listens to those voices they have no platform are completely ignored in liberal media which is exclusively Zionist and pro-war. So when Tucker talks about it it's the first time most people ever hear this stuff, that's what makes Tucker so dangerous he is a white supremacists with a large platform who reads the room and recognizes the historic unpopularity of Israel, who has built a viable independent media platform for himself. Tucker is what an intelligent fascist Trump 2.0 would look like make no mistake.
He says constantly that he is against blood guilt, the killing of innocents no matter their heritage, and even went so far as to say that he doesn't even necessarily think the large scale replacement of white people in their home countries is a bad thing. I don't know how you could consider that to be white supremacy.
But that doesn't make him a supremacist. Tucker knows his audience and gives them what they want. He's done content in support of both major parties in the US; he's a true capitalist not a supremacist.
That's why the parent comment said "the large scale replacement of white people in their home countries" as a statement of fact, all you dog whistling nazi fucks
>Biden administration’s immigration
To quote Joe Biden: "An unrelenting stream of immigration, non-stop, non-stop. Folks like me who are of european caucasian descent for the first time in 2017 we'll be an absolute minority. Absolute minority. Fewer than 50% of the people in America will be white European stock. That's not a bad thing, that's the source of our strength."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgrliuQW_-Q
Joe Biden's White House sued Texas and Arizona to get them to take down their border walls, and even sent the Border Patrol with fork lifts to forcibly open the barbed wire:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/rxPu0OnVoYU
>"the large scale replacement of white people in their home countries" as a statement of fact
In one generation (1965 to now):
USA: 90% (higher than that in most states) -> 50%
UK: 100% -> 83% (predicted to be a minority by 2066)
Australia: 98% -> 55%
New Zealand: 90% -> 67%
Germany: 100% -> 80%
Spain: 98% -> 81%
France: 100% -> 85% (difficult to estimate but likely lower than 85%)
Netherlands: 100% -> 72%
Italy: 100% -> 92%
Denmark: 100% -> 82%
Belgium: 100% -> 64%
Sweden: 100% -> 75%
Norway: 100% -> 90%
This is just one generation, extrapolating these trends out another one or two generations and the result is that whites are a minority in most of their homelands.
>nazi fucks
I mean if you're saying that I want to invade Poland, quite the opposite is true. I'm saying we should leave Poland alone so they can manage their own borders and grow peacefully. :)
Of course you don't like that, because that vile ideology is thankfully still generally reviled in society so you don't want to be called that. But that's not up to you. It's the same way that obviously the Nazis didn't think they were the bad guys, they thought they were the good guys saving Germany from non-whites and jews destroying their homeland, just like you think white people's homelands are being threatened by non-white people.
China, Japan, Korea, India are nice places and I have no problem with them controlling their own borders. They are 99% ethnically homogeneous, but I don't think you would spend a second trying to claim they are "asian supremacists".
>do you not see how explaining those things (like the white replacement theory) isn't helpful?
Your original post seemed incredulous that I could claim it was happening at all, then I provided you numbers and now you've moved the goal post from "it isn't happening" to "why would you point out this thing that's obviously happening?".
Calling people Nazis doesn't work anymore, nobody cares. It's obvious your entire view on the topic is based on just trying to apply that label to everything you disagree with.
Tell us more about this white replacement theory, do you agree with Tucker?
Good thing that that's not at all true. What you are referring to was an (intentional) mistranslation of a public comment by an Israeli minister, who said that Turkey was their greatest threat after Iran.
Mitch McConnell (adherent of the great replacement theory) accusing Joe Kent of anti semitism gave the accusation the same gravitas it would have if Strom Thurmond or the Grand wizard of the KKK did it.
i.e. it only serves to underscore the accuser's racism.
- https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/31/politics/senate-confirmation-...
Obviously a hero to the some on the far left today.
You didnt cite anything so i googled to see whom or what you might be talking about and thats all that popped up.
It turns your vague accusation only matched the equally vague accusations of a rather nasty white supremacist zionist.
I think that says that Joe Kent is being slandered mainly by some rather extreme genocide denying racists.
No it isn't. There are lots of anti-Semites who just don't like Jews irrespective of Israel's foreign policy. There are also a lot of people criticising Israel who are idiots, alongside the–I believe–majority who have thought deeply about the issue and concluded dispassionately.
And, they hate anti-racists almost as much as they hate muslims.
Antisemitism is at all times high. And not the "critical of Israel" type of antisemitism. The "jews control the weather", "space lasers from mars" and "let's kill all of them" type of antisemitism is rampant.
Comments like yours are the racist ones. Maybe you don't understand that but that's a whole problem on its own. People are completely uneducated on what antisemitism is, the traditional blood libels against the Jewish people, the history of the Jewish people, and how all that relates to what's going on today.
It's always high, or did you mean at an all time high? How does antisemitism in America today compare to Russia in the 1800s?
Part of the game played here by the people that hate Jews is to attack the meaning of this word and they are being successful at it. Distortion of words and language is part of the tool set used by the anti-Israel camp here. The anti-Israel camp, which is also (broadly) antisemitic, is intentionally fueling antisemitism while pushing the argument that it's not antisemitism because it's really anti-Zionism or anti-Israel.
For countries like Iran and Qatar Israel should not exist because it's Jewish and Jews should not live in the Middle East because it's Muslim land. In their eyes there is no confusion that these are all the same thing. Only in those eyes of said "moderate" people.
Arabic countries didn't have much trouble coexisting with native jews. You might be overlooking the minor point of shipping Europeans en-masse into a place and displacing people who lived there before natively.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Arab_world barely touches this topic.
Jews living in present day Israel were subject to pogroms, murder, and ethnic cleansing well before modern Zionism. One random example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1834_looting_of_Safed
So the fairy tale put forward by today's antisemites that you are echoing is historically false and nonsense. That's not to say there were some better periods for some Jews in some areas but as a rule they were still discriminated against, persecuted, and obviously never have the ability to determine their own future or to restore their historical homeland.
I'm not aware of any particular AIPAC policy on this topic so I only have to guess this is some other antisemitic fable. When we see holocaust denial happening right in front of our eyes by maybe people you call "moderate non-racists" then we are going to call that out. Holocaust denial is a strategy of the Palestinians because they believe that the world supports Israel's right to exist as a result of the bad things that happened to Jews by the hands of the German(tm). So their approach to that is to diminish the holocaust and compare it to their own "suffering" (which is another form of diminishing). Some Palestinian leaders like Mahmoud Abbas are outright holocaust deniers and their "opinions" are popular amongst their people: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/07/palestinian-pr...
"shipping Europeans en-masse into a place and displacing people who lived there before natively." -> never happened. Jewish people that migrated to present day Israel did not displace anyone. The displacement that happened in 1948 happened as a result of the war that was started against Israel. "Europeans" meaning Jewish people who also lived there natively, just farther back in history.
See if you talk like this about e.g. Chinese immigration to Vancouver, Canada, and you say they came and displaced the white people who lived there (or the first nations or whatnot). Then you are immediately labelled, correctly, a racist. But it's ok to talk like that about Jewish refugees with nowhere to go, persecuted in Europe, who immigrated to a place they have immense historical connection to, did so legally, wanted to coexist peacefully with in a free and democratic society with everyone in the region, and then when brutally attacked by people who would not accept their right to be there defended themselves.
The accusation of antisemitism isn't really losing its meaning. It still means exactly what it meant. Those people who are being accused are actually antisemites. They are not "moderate non-racists". They are totally racist.
EDIT: So I don't know anything about you. Where you're from. Where you've absorbed your "knowledge" about the middle east and the Jewish people from. But you are repeating some story or narrative you've heard somewhere and that narrative is totally racist. Maybe you're not aware of it but it still is. This is exactly what racism and antisemitism looks like not like what you describe.
I just fed your reply into an LLM as a sanity check and asked whether that reply is antisemitic or racist and got this evaluation: "The statement you’ve shared is a complex mix of political critique and rhetoric that, in several places, moves beyond standard political debate and into the territory of established antisemitic tropes."
It goes on to say: ""The Accusation is Losing All Meaning" This is a common rhetorical tactic. While one can certainly debate whether specific organizations overreach in their definitions of antisemitism, using that debate to excuse or explain away the rise of terms like "ZOG" shifts the blame for bigotry onto the victims of that bigotry."
"European "Mass Shipping"
Referring to the Jewish population in Israel solely as "Europeans" ignores the fact that:
Over half of Israel’s Jewish population are Mizrahi (descendants of Jews from the Middle East and North Africa).
Jews are indigenous to the Levant; describing them exclusively as European colonizers is a way of delegitimizing their historical and ancestral ties to the region."Why the fuck would I have a problem with Chinese immigration to Canada and how the fuck would it be remotely equivalent to European jews forcibly being put on a land at the behest of a colonial power initially then their own terrorism to pressure the brits later? Immigrants to modern Canada have come with legal permission and are peacefully coexisting with the locals as equals. They didn't annex or displace anyone.
>Jews are indigenous to the Levant
The people already living there were much more indigenous than someone who married europeans for hundreds of generations.
This of course brings us to a funny point. Why do you feel a need to defend israelis on the basis of genetics? Its just a country, anyone ofany race should be able to immigrate right? If not then what do you want to say, that it is an ethnostate? If it's an ethnostate what is your opinion on forming an Aryan ethnostate? Do you have a problem with that?
And regarding genetic roots there. If I have 99% Nigerian and 1% French what would you say if I tried to tell you I am French, France is my ancestral land and I need to displace the fake people living in France currently?
I didn't say anything about local jews and arab jews. I am talking about slavic and german etc jews. They don't even look like anyone local. If you showed a photo without any religious garb people would say this person is white.
Again why this both waysing of Israel as simultaneously both a ethnic state for jews and as a liberal secular state? Pick a lane.
I don't give a shit about race, nationalism, religion anyone should be able to move anywhere as long as they aren't harming others. Israels origin and continued present action fails the latter test.
That's mainly what the more racist zionists claim.
Most genuine anti semites are up front about their distaste for Jews and they tend to be on the far, far right.
There's a simple test to distinguish the genuine anti racists and the disguised racists, too:
* I condemn the holocaust unreservedly. It was commited by a regime of absolute evil against innocent people.
* I condemn the Gazan genocide unreservedly. It was commited by a regime of absolute evil against innocent people.
If you're completely happy repeating both of these sentences like I am then you're not one of them.
If you engage in deflection or denial of one of these two UN recognized genocides, well, you're either an anti semite or it's equal and opposite.
>Comments like yours are the racist ones
Im gonna go ahead and assume you will either ignore me or fail the antiracist test.
The problem is you're providing cover for the antisemites even if you're not one yourself (which isn't clear at this point). They will fly under your cover pretending that they actually care about the same thing. We see this "mix" in the conversation (e.g. painting the Jews in the US as not being loyal or serving foreign interests).
The choice of the word "genocide" for the civilians killed in the war in Gaza is antisemitism. You might not think so but it objectively is. That word started getting used around 5 minutes into this war on Oct 8th or so. The Israeli "regime" (aka democratically elected government) is not absolute evil and it is fighting a war against a mix of innocent people and evil people which is true for most wars. While elements of this government may hold opinions that are let's say "extreme" that is different than evil. Evil is what Hamas' attack on Oct 7th looked like. Anyways, evil is meant to manipulate emotions as is genocide. Those are tools of propaganda and their usage indicates a certain mindset. The word genocide is not appropriate because it refers to the aim of destroying a national or ethnic group and Gaza is neither. Even if Israel wanted to kill, and killed, all Gazans that does not fit the commonly accepted definition of this word prior to the war in Gaza. Those that wield the word rely on some legalities that differ from the common usage and that is intentional. According to certain legal scholars even the killing of a single person can be considered a genocide but that's obviously not what the intent is/was. So the usage of this word is a "tell" in a bad way and the singling out of Israel is another "tell". There are ways of expressing your condemnation that would probably avoid the issue and the choices made do matter. The problem is then you'd actually have to say what you really think and that might not stand a test to the factual reality. You might have to also suggest what Israel could have done that would be acceptable to your morals and is something that stands other tests of reason.
The equating/comparison of the war in Gaza to the Holocaust is antisemitism.
The war in Gaza is not a "UN recognized genocide" and that title is meaningless anyways. We don't need to UN to tell us what's right and what's wrong.
There are many examples current and historical where more civilians were harmed, with more intent, and less or no reasons, that haven't drawn the kind of hate and condemnation that is aimed at Israel (or as you say the "regime" whatever that's supposed to mean). That "bias" is what racism and antisemitism is partly about.
So you are clearly possessed of this bias. I claim I have no bias. If you s/Palestinians/Swedes/ and s/Israel/Dutch/ my take on the Gaza war would be exactly the same. I do not view it through a lens of race. I view it purely through the facts of the matter. Any similar example in the world, any other war or conflict, with civilian casualties, I would view through the very same lens. No racism. Maybe you don't know that in every war ever innocent people die. Maybe you don't understand the realities and facts of this specific war. Maybe you don't understand the propaganda war going on. I really don't know. What I do know is that there is a correlation between physical attacks on Jews all over the world and this intentionally distorted view of the conflict so even if you claim that you support one and oppose the other that's clearly not how many people perceive the same propaganda.
Nothing special about jews, dual citizens by definition have mixed loyalties, whether they be a dual citizen to Israel, Russia, Egypt, Netherlands, anywhere else.
This is another example where a perfectly general and non-jewish aspect is taken and construed to be "antisemitism".
Genes are also a nice argument. Jews have all kinds of genetic origins from Russians, Poles to Middle Eastern. Would you be saying the same thing if it was jews instead of Palestinians?
Physical attacks on jews are happening precisely because Israel is deliberately confusing real antisemitism and perfectly normal non-racist views. This gives cover to the actual antisemites. People are growing sick of giving disclaimers they condemn the holocaust, they have nothing against jews as a people, etc etc and at that point what do you think someone with less energy and willpower will do once they see an attack: bah whatever.
Yes it is not wise to out oneself as a genocide denialist - whether it's the holocaust or (in your case) gaza.
>The choice of the word "genocide" for the civilians killed in the war in Gaza is antisemitism.
There was an enormous war crime committed and plenty of evidence, just like there was with the holocaust.
Commitment to genocide denial demonstrates an equal level of racism as a holocaust denier. They are, as I'm sure you'll agree, anti semites whether they admit it or not.
>I view it purely through the facts of the matter. We don't need to UN to tell us what's right and what's wrong.
The UN is there to tell us what happened as a neutral party. THEY view it through the facts of the matter, which is why they confirmed that it is a genocide - over two years after it started and the evidence had mounted up.
It is seems likely that you view this conflict exclusively through a racial prism. That is very sad.
Your definition of genocide is so narrow that it also excludes the Armenian genocide, are you okay with that? Some groups like those in Constantinople were spared, so a denier might claim that only rural Armenians were targeted, not the whole ethnic group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide_denial#Rheto...).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct...
Total War involves an understanding and exploitation of high ground, rivers, and choke points. Like just about any war gamer, with a glance at the map of Iran one arrives at The Pentagons stated wisdom on the matter for decades. Geography says you invade all of it, or cede the straight.
We have this issue many paces in the world and people just don’t get it. North Korean nukes are a threat, but the unstoppable artillery barrage that would kill tens of millions in the first minutes of the war is The Issue. You can’t have snipers on a mountain ridge over your house and feel safe.
Dick Cheney and the Bush family spelled it out over and over. They like money and oil.
It's after the ramp up in production of weapons used in the shooting war started.
The US could not participate in that because we had moved assets to south america to fuck with Venezuela. The war in Iran wasn't started until the USS Ford had been re-positioned back to the middle east.
Probably not. History has practically zero examples of foreign-caused popular revolts. When you want your person in power, you do a military coup.
What history is littered with is adversaries (a) constantly fomenting dissent in each other and (b) levelling up convenient revolutions. America has been doing the former in Iran since basically 1979. But to say the recent protests "may have been the US" is ascribing way too much influence to Washington.
You should go take a look at what Lenin and many other communists was doing and where he was physically right before the October revolution...
Also, Haiti slave revolt was heavily influenced by the French revolution.
Also, uhh the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom?
To what effect? The only other successful Communist revolution prior to the conclusion of the October revolution was the one in Mongolia [1]. It built on decade-old revolutionary ground [2]. (Finland, meanwhile, was seceding from White Russia.)
Trying to cause a revolution from abroad just doesn't work. Exhibit A: right now.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_revolution#Successfu...
Are you just blindly ignoring all 'regime changes' supported/caused by US (i.e. from abroad) since WW2?
Some of them do not work (this one is especially botched). Many, many have succeeded (the initial change), with typically less successful outcomes over longer time frames.
And you are totally missing the point of the remark about Lenin and Germany's part (essentially sending him to destabilize Russia in order to help their WW1 efforts - succeeded wildly beyond expectations, to disastrous long term consequences)
What fraction was popular revolt versus military coup? Engineered from afar?
> totally missing the point of the remark about Lenin and Germany's part (essentially sending him to destabilize Russia
Oh fair, I did miss this. I would argue this is leveling up an existing revolution. But sure, this is the closest N = 1 modern history offers.
It is not like the successful ones were popular revolts. They were, simply, a coups. And in Iran specifically, ended up with population hating on USA.
And with Americans being totally Pikachu face shocked about "how come they hate us as much as monarchy we installed there" as even opposition to the theocracy hated on them.
America is isolating itself in so many ways. You could rewrite that scene and reach the same conclusion.
Apparently it's "The Wind Rises: The Looming War", a Japanese anime film.
https://www.cornel1801.com/animated/Wind-Rises-2013/video-qu...
- It is a nice night. Hier ist Der Zauberberg.
- "The Magic Mountain" Thomas Mann.
- Yes. A good place for forgetting. Make a war in China. Forget it. Make a puppet state in Manchuria. Forget it. Quit the League of Nations. Forget it. Make the world your enemy. Forget it. Japan will blow up. Germany will blow up too.
This recklessness is a theme I keep seeing when reading about preludes to major war. There is always a side who wants diplomacy to fail and war to break out. It seems to me like the American administration is champing at the bit for a war of aggression.
The implication is that, the US's military failures in the past have been caused by lefty bedwetters wringing their hands about casualties and restricting the military. More generally, caused by "woke" policies that are about political correctness instead of about military success.
I would bet at least $10 that the top people in the administration are baffled that they haven't won the war yet. They're saying, we did everything right. We got rid of the trans people in the military. We fired the worst women and black people in leadership roles. We put a real tough guy in charge of the military. We told our troops to stop worrying about rules of war and let them off their leash. So why is Iran still able to fight?
That's one of the problems with bigotry and toxic masculinity and that sort of thing. Not only does it lead you to harm people, but it also hurts your ability to actually get things done. Thinking that gay people are destroying society is bad if you're in a position to hurt gay people, but it's also bad if your job involves preventing the destruction of society, because it means that you're going to look at idiotic "solutions" to the problem. And because it's not coming from a place of rationality in the first place, you're not going to eventually say, wait a minute, this isn't working, maybe gay people aren't the problem. You're just going to keep pushing at it harder because you know it's right, and if it's not working then it's just because you haven't done it enough.
Who exactly is saying this? Your comment is worthless conjecture.
Normally this would have been the end of it, lessons would be learned, and strategic directions adjusted. Instead the game was reset and the Iranian side was handicapped to prevent them from doing various things, effectively imposing a scripted result. This led to the US winning by an overwhelming margin and somehow the results of this rigged game were used to align strategic initiatives moving forward.
In modern times we increasingly seem to have entered into an era where people are willing to believe what they want to believe, rather than what they know to be true. And while it's easy to mock politicians and the military for this, this is also a mainstay of contemporary political discourse among regular people, including those who fancy themselves as well educated, on a variety of controversial issues.
I don't know what started this trend, but it should die. At least in terms of war it's self correcting. The US can't handle many more botched invasions or interventions, and I suspect we're already beyond the point of no return in terms of consequences of these errors.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
Gen. Van Riper's tactics were apparently discredited in 2002 because they were unfair, but Iran seems not to have received the memo since their moves bear more than a passing resemblance to his.
But the US seems to be committed on repeating the Russian experience.
“So, it’s it’s uh little unfair. You know, you win a war, but they have no right to be doing what they’re doing.”
Would be funny if it wasn't real.
This is not what Wikipedia's summary describes. Now, maybe Wikipedia has the wrong summary, but according to it the challenge wasn't "discredited". By that point the exercise was over, but 13 more days were budgeted for, so the analysts requested their forces to be resurrected so they could play out the rest of the days, with artificial restrictions so that the rest of the challenge was effectively scripted and left no room for the OPFOR to try novel tactics.
One of the generals (of the blue team) is quoted as saying: "You kill me in the first day and I sit there for the next 13 days doing nothing, or you put me back to life and you get 13 more days' worth of experiment out of me. Which is a better way to do it?"
Also:
> The postmortem JFCOM report on MC02 would say "As the exercise progressed, the OPFOR free-play was eventually constrained to the point where the end state was scripted. This scripting ensured a blue team operational victory and established conditions in the exercise for transition operations."
It definitely seems like there were issues with RedFors achievments. But the response is still ridiculous. I would have also resigned in ReFor's shoes.
Of course this means learning the lesson of how the first defeat happened. You reset so that you can learn more lessons. If they ignored the lesson of the first defeat, that's stupid. But the reset itself makes sense.
(works up to 20-30km, a bit more if needed)
a) preinstall your fiber optic cable between points A and B (say AA platforms that need/want coordination for distributed passive/multistatic tracking of intruders)
b) when it is torn, send a fiber optic drone from A to B and use its line to replace the torn one (those are flying in Ukraine with bomb payload, now just use its fiber optic reel, you can reuse the drone; not durable, but very cheap and fast repair of radiation-free communication lines)
Today's technology offers so many opportunities ...
Also, communication over longer distances (even few km) will add so much latency that it will be unusable for coordinated AA targeting.
Furthermore, all that radiating will just invite bombs from the attacker.
Maybe I was not clear enough about the goal: not "robust command and control communication network", but more of:
quickly and temporarily set up a high-bandwidth low latency communication network to accomplish AA ambush using coordinated mobile passive sensors (a quick radar burst might for initial acquisition might be useful, but probably not necessary).
Nowhere in your message do you describe light-speed motorcycles.
You didn't arrive at this conclusion thanks to a light-speed motorcycle thought exercise...
The relevant concept is undetectable (by electronic surveilance) communication usable for tactical warfighting. Real life motorcycle messengers are a partial (detectable, high-latency) solutions for which there are currently (not at the time of that war exercise) better options (e.g. the one I presented).
You can nitpick that due to imperfection of the exercise (allowing red team to use light-speed motorcycles) the whole result of the wargame was compromised. To which my answer is: That is a nitpick, real-life offers the red team enough options to achieve the same results without relying on physically impossible feats.
Most recent example: Isrealis are learning to cope with fiber optics drones in the southern Lebanon, to great detriment to their Merkavas.
shouldn't it be possible to lock-in amplify imagery of known fluorescent centers in the main types of fiber optic?:
flash/flood the scene with appropriate stimulation wavelength for suitable fluorescent center, take a picture (and observe the emission wavelength), then take the same picture without the flash, repeat this N times and add all the ones with the flash present and subtract all the frames without so one can observe the exact paths of the optic cables...
It seems one could mass produce a cheap detection and imaging platform that can aid cutting all the umbilical cords cost-effectively.
"shouldn't it be possible to lock-in amplify imagery of known fluorescent centers in the main types of fiber optic?"
In Ukraine, there are areas densely covered with fiber optic lines, almost all of them old. How would you detect and cut only the active ones?
A brightly flashing drone examining and cutting fiber optics lines would a) be slow and very obvious, easy to disable b) need a lot of battery power for all those flashes, and risk getting tangled in branches when cutting
On the other hand, if you can easily remotely detect the fiber optic cables, it might be useful for quickly detecting them and tracing them back to the operator.
> Normally this would have been the end of it, lessons would be learned, and strategic directions adjusted. Instead the game was reset and the Iranian side was handicapped to prevent them from doing various things, effectively imposing a scripted result. This led to the US winning by an overwhelming margin and somehow the results of this rigged game were used to align strategic initiatives moving forward.
Wargames aren't like laser tag matches where one side wins and then it's over, the point of them is to be a training exercise. It's supposed to be closer to D&D than anything, where the person playing the opposing forces plays a similar role to the DM. If you look at interviews from other MC2002 participants, essentially what happened was that the Navy wanted to practice for an amphibious landing. Due to how they moved their ships, the computer running the simulation thought that the entire naval fleet had been instantly teleported right next to a massive armada of small boats that Van Riper had set up, without simulating what would have happened if the naval fleet had seen the enemy ships in the distance. Additionally, in real life Van Riper's fleet could not have held the missiles that he had told the computer they were carrying and now firing at point blank range at the Navy. The simulator that ran the US naval ships' defenses was also not functioning due to the engagement happening in an unexpected area, so it was turned off. Van Riper was able to sink the ships and defeat the navy within the bounds of the simulation, but not in a way that could have happened in real life.
This is basically like if I found an obscure sequence of chess moves that caused the Lichess server to crash and declare me the winner, then used it to beat a bunch of grandmasters, then went on a media tour saying that this proves that there's some massive flaw with how chess strategy is being taught.
The only big surprise was a rapidly closed engagement zone but even that absolutely could happen in real life, even if through different means. Ukraine's early success with suicide boats was precisely because they were unexpected, undetected, and able to get into range rapidly. If they had simultaneously deployed them at a much larger scale, the results would have essentially been a repeat of MC2002.
And more general, the discovery the 'Iranian' general in MC2002 made, some 24 years ago now, is that the future of warfare wasn't going to be giant behemoth vessels, but lots of really cheap asymmetric systems - another thing that the Ukraine war has demonstrated beyond any doubt. Had this lesson been learned it's entirely possible that the US could have ended up on the forefront of advances in war instead of finding itself in a scenario where the bleeding edge of a trillion dollar military budget is literally just cloning Iranian drone tech.
But you're presenting very specific technical claims (that the boats couldn't physically carry the missiles, that the fleet was "teleported" next to the armada, that the defense simulator was "turned off") as though they're established fact. None of that appears in any sourced material I can find. If you have sources for those claims beyond "interviews from other MC2002 participants," I'd genuinely like to see them.
More importantly, you're glossing over the part that actually matters: what happened after the restart. Red Force was ordered to turn on their anti-aircraft radar so it could be destroyed. They were forbidden from shooting down approaching aircraft during an airborne assault. They were told to reveal the location of their own units. The JFCOM's own postmortem report stated that "the OPFOR free-play was eventually constrained to the point where the end state was scripted."
Even if you accept that the initial result was partly an artifact of simulation quirks, the response wasn't "let's fix the sim and rerun it fairly." It was "let's force a Blue victory and use that to validate the concepts we were supposed to be testing." Van Riper's complaint wasn't just that he won and they took it away. It was that a $250 million exercise was turned into a rubber stamp.
Your chess analogy would be more accurate if, after your opponent crashed the server, the tournament organizers restarted the game but told you which pieces you were allowed to move, then published the result as proof their strategy was sound.
Are you saying that Iran is capably fighting and killing US personnel, aircraft, and invading infantry?
I am a little confused about the universe you live in. The IRGC and Basij effectively do not have a chain of command and are effectively moving and acting by momentum, essentially no different than a dead man walking.
Do you know the names of any alive people in the IRGC chain of command? Have you seen videos or evidence of IRGC doing anything to harm US forces other than lob some stuff and hope it hits? Where are the Islamic Iranian armies and navies you imply to exist?
This was by design via the mosaic defense tactic.
They know the US prides itself on decapitation strikes, "taking out the leader of x" was a monthly headline during our time in Iraq, Afghanistan, and during the events of ISIS/syrian civil war. It's how the special forces operated, taking out a "leader", collecting all the names they could find in their possession, and taking those guys out. In the later days of Afghanistan, they stopped even trying to find out who the names were. If you were some mid-level Taliban member's dentist, you'd be fair game.
So Iran built a defense for that, a military that does not need a central command to continue fighting. They have their orders and they'll continue to carry them out. Completely bypass the benefits of highly accurate munitions, cyber intelligence, etc.
That's the same reason the first round of the Millennium challenge won outright. The red-team leadership knew to not expect last year's war today, and used their brains to exploit the weaknesses of a highly mechanized and sophisticated military.
Basically sounds like the military from Imperial Japan during the end of WW2, with scattered units continuing to fight, surrender not believed an option, not aware, or in disbelief that Japan has surrendered...
Let's hope it doesn't have to lead to the same conclusion?
Iran doesn't have to conventionally defeat the US military and can't: so they're just not doing that, and instead going after valuable economic targets which are politically sensitive to Americans and impossible to defend since they're risk sensitive.
There is no reason to believe that
They have been training for decades for exactly this sort of war, and have experienced veterans at all levels
One has to abandon the view that what represents to the media as a modern state, with modern institution is actually a state. What you have is several, small states, city-kingdoms basically, ruled by one clan. Connected to one another in a tangle of agreements and contracts. Once you come to this point, you start to understand the structure of the thing and also why it is hard to decapitate.
who rigs the results of a war game and believes the results - only an idiot drunk on power.
The problem is that the wargame demonstrated that it ended up with the extinction of the Northern Hemisphere every single time. We didn't then change the rules of the game to make it so we could still play nuclear games and come out okay, but instead took this as a major wakeup call. It directly led to a shift in US policy towards the USSR of coexistence, de-escalation, and some degree of reconciliation. Within 7 years the first McDonalds would open in the USSR, and the entire Soviet system would collapse in under a decade after the shift of the strategy driven entirely by this wargame result.
A smaller point: all military exercises are heavily scripted--it's more or less impossible for them to be otherwise, as you just can't simulate the details of war that matter without actually killing people, breaking things, and giving up your secret game plans. Usually the goal of this sort of thing is to make sure that everything (people, equipment, doctrine) works together more or less as intended, and people have the experience leading and operating in larger units than they do on a routine basis. The PR people then spin it into an unqualified and historic success, validation of our technology and tactics against the forces of evil, blah blah blah. It is still very difficult to draw the right lessons from these sorts of things--even more so when the civilian leadership of the military has 99 things to consider besides a certain kind of pure military effectiveness (and although I have strong feelings here, we're still doing quite well on the tactical and operational levels in spite of everything).
Fun fact: the Millennium Challenge is still taught as a case study in basic officer training, at least in the Marine Corps (well, probably--it definitely was a little over a decade ago).
It's very interesting that you can look at the situation and say the war game where Iran destroyed the US navy is "not entirely unlike what Iran has done during our invasion" though. I guess in the end different people perceive the reality differently.
At least Roman emperors got assassinated by their own bodyguards.
1) Every authority figure is telling the Iranian people to stay inside and wait.
2) Revolutions don't happen overnight, the same way that businesses don't succeed overnight, even though from far away it might seem that way.
3) Official Israeli statements estimate it could take up to a year after the war is over for a successful overthrow, even if everything is going according to plan.
The truth is there's a lot of people who want this war to fail, because it will align with their political convictions and hopes.
It is working on making itself larger cleansing whole areas around it and settling it.
Israel would probably be fine with a moderate government in Iran. A moderate Tehran doesn't encourage Hamas and Hezbollah to randomly lob rockets into Israel.
Even if Israel disagreed, a moderate Iran balances Israel in the region. An Iran that has beef with literally every single one of its neighbors other than Turkmenistan cannot provide that balance.
Well, is that better than Israel and its relationships with its neighbors?
Yes. Tel Aviv retains solid security relationships with Jordan and Egypt. And it trades with its region [1]. On a ranking of hegemonic pests, Iran is way ahead.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade_agreements_of_Israe...
Maybe, but I think they are genuinely aiming for a failed state.
Israel is a state with a political apparatus that is predicated on providing security. That apparatus needs a persistent (but non-serious) threat to remain in power. I think best case for that power is to have a number of failed, weak states in the Middle East that occasionally launch relatively impotent attacks against Israel. This would also have the side effect of giving hard-line elements in Israel the enough justification to expand their borders and continue ethnic cleansing (e.g. what is happening in Lebanon right now).
> Summarising the Israeli government’s position, Citrinowicz said: “If we can have a coup, great. If we can have people on the streets, great. If we can have a civil war, great. Israel couldn’t care less about the future . . . [or] the stability of Iran. > > “That is a point of difference between us and the US. I think [Washington is] more concerned about nation-building and threats to their regional partners,” he added.
I don't think they would be happy having a moderate government that could still evolve Iran into a regional leader.
Pre-war, Iran had good relations with Qatar and Oman. Also with Pakistan. And Armenia. Their current relations with Iraq are also OK.
They have problems with Saudis, Bahrain, UAE - exactly the countries with extensive US military bases. No surprise there.
And Iran has not (prior to being attacked) attacked any of their neighbours.
The only two neighbouring countries Israel does not have problems with are heavily-bought Jordan and Egypt (Israel still attacked them prior to Camp David accords).
To any non-ideologically blind person it is obvious who is the one stirring the instability in the middle east.
You
Last week: "Our aircraft are striking terrorist operatives on the ground, on roads and in public squares. This is meant to allow the brave Iranian people to celebrate the Festival of Fire. So go out and celebrate...we are watching from above," Netanyahu said, speaking from air force headquarters.
but what I did NOT expect, is how Iran regime would choose strategically suicidal options just to "feel good"
missile-rambo even on non-combatant countries? that'll trigger self-defense attacks...
$2M per voyage? woah... the stait-users don't have a choice, but "make an example out of" iran...
I mean, iran should have just shot israel with all its missiles (select and focus), and bring that "missle interception rate" down to 40%.
Now what did iran gain from shooting everyone? making more enemies, and showing your weaknesses (96% missile interception rate, even from UAE? wtf...)
don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying Trump was right on starting the war. I actually think what the fk was he thinking back then...
I'm just saying even if you're angry and desperate, there are wise choices and dumb choices
My experience while working there years ago was that their armed forces were a weird mix of coup proofing and a nepotistic dumping ground for family members who couldn’t be trusted to help run the family business.
they can just pay gurkha mercenaries for the job
The coordination will be difficult (I doubt the Saudis are properly, NATO - style, trained for joint actions with USA).
Their involvement would also severely raise the risk of friendly fire (see the F15's over Kuwait).
Raising the overall costs to the US and its allies is a pretty coherent theory of victory for Iran. Obviously they aren't going to win a conventional fight, but they might be able to inflict enough havoc on energy and commodity markets to the point that it really hurts the US and its allies economically; perhaps enough that they bail out of the war in order to stabilize the global economy.
Trump clearly wanted a quick easy win here and does not want to see massive inflation at home. Sure he personally doesn't give a shit about Americans but the rest of the politicians who enable him do and he's at risk of absolutely torching his own party for years if the war drags on and costs really get out of hand.
All the Iranian regime has to do to win is not lose for enough weeks. If the regime holds out Trump will have to either give up and try to pretend this disaster was a Great Victory, or he'll launch a ground invasion that will almost certainly turn into a quagmire. Bombing civilians makes a popular uprising much less likely, so the US is doing them quite a favor on that front.
It's their only play, really.
I mean, can US and its allies exactly stop at status quo?
Iran just learnt it can missile nearby neighbors and demand $2M toll fee on the strait users...
even if US just backs down from "epic wut", will iran become "the good guy" and never missile neighbors and stop demanding that $2M toll?
nope: rather, that would mean US and allies will lose its deterrence against Iran completely
iran'll start bullying more on those neighbors, and the toll fee will go up: $2M to $5M to $10M to... even $100M -- I mean, what's stopping iran from doing so?
anyway, I'm just surprised everyone in this forum is trying their best only to say "trump is such an idiot to start the war (well duh?)", and not to look at what choices each nations had/have after trump's dickhead move
Iran was NOT bombing its neighbours and demanding Hormuz toll before the war. Not even after it was bombed last June.
If they had not responded strongly, USA/Israel would keep periodically 'mowing the lawn', not acceptable to any country, especially not for a big and proud nation like Iran.
Btw, the US military bases in Gulf countries are legitimate military targets, and have born the brunt of Iran's attacks. It is just that in our western media the focus is on any civilian damages, and almost all damages to military is hushed up.
Iran has no good way to prevent future attacks (nobody sane would believe any agreement signed by USA), their only way is to make sure beyond any doubt that attacking them again will hurt VERY, VERY much. As a side note, getting rid of USA military bases in the Gulf would be beneficial to them in making any future attacks on them more difficult. Hence the (very true!) messaging 'the USA military bases are not there to protect you, but to help them project power over us (and you!), and are only making you a target, reducing your security, not increasing it'.
They were funding and arming proxies that were bombing and destabilizing neighborhoods. Nobody in the region likes Iran, that is precisely why the Gulf States want US bases and a Israeli military pact.
And this is not a reactive policy as it is an explicit proactive policy of exporting the Islamic Revolution and gaining regional hegemony. Which no one wants.
Iran has a history of launching rockets into Israel, both through it's proxies an directly. It has also invaded the US embassy holding 52 staff hostage, conducted unprovoked attacks against allied interests, attacks merchant ships in international waters and massacred tens of thousands of it's own people for the crime of speaking out against the government.
Your perception of Iran is delusional.
Without a negotiating partner Iran basically has to settle the issue with force. They are going to try to do as much economic damage as possible in order to deter current and future attacks, or die trying. Without a ground invasion the attacks on both sides will wind down at some point but it's hard to see how we get to a clean cease fire, it's likely to be a messy uneven one that could flare back up at any point.
They are easier to hit and harder to defend then Israel. That is depleting defense forces more.
Iran has deliberately escalated the war horizontally to create a bigger mess and to make the military adventure more expensive for America and the world.
Iran is saying, "If you attack us, these are the costs."
As an invading military, you're either willing to pay those costs or you're not.
This operation was cobbled together between Trump, Hegseth, Rubio and Vance without consulting anyone outside that circle. The way they have been selling it, espwcially the strait stuff, smells of unplanned developements all around.
The US has turned into a Wall-e society just getting off on entertainment and bored with civilized, thoughtful politicians. This is the end result of TOO MUCH prosperity for the average American.
They haven't experienced true hardship in generations and we (the rest of the world) is paying the price of their hubris.
The correlating factor for those two acquaintances is that they are both devout Christians. I find that to be beyond ironic but also makes sense, as that devotion parallels the appeal to authority and many churches are run by leaders who believe in Supply Side Jesus.
I don't mean this to be inflammatory as it's only an observation, but organized religion is not compatible with modern society,
> Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.
The key difference is that religious fundamentalists pledge their allegiance to the Church, not the country; not "God" either (although they might claim it to be so). They are tribal to their core and anybody outside their church is an "other" and is not worthy of being considered a fellow citizen.
There's a free ebook from 2006 that tries to dive into it as a personality spectrum:
https://theauthoritarians.org/
It has some interesting assertions/observations about issues like double-standards and fear as a motive.
The truth is that people are perfectly capable of making bad decisions regardless of their beliefs. Appealing to authority is not unique to religion. You see this same thing in corporate environments, academic circles, political groups, etc... It's probably more useful to focus on that broader dynamic than tie it to a specific group.
Let me give you one of countless examples of why I said what I did: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/26/hegseth-pray...
There plenty of other criticisms of groups and systems and people in general. But the "God Says So" crowd is very real and has been with us the whole time.
I consider myself to be deeply spiritual and understand the appeal and would even join in the faith if I thought it was real. But I don't. I wish I didn't have to pay any attention to it or care about it or think about it at all. But I do.
The reason I care, and I speak up about it, is that there are factions in power that embody exactly what my "prejudice" criticizes. This is everyone's business because they are making their faith everyone's business.
Edit: I believe this dialog is germane to HN because the subject is literally about the hacking of democracy itself.
I don't really read the news, so thanks for that link. I am not so sure Hegseth and Co. are great examples of Christianity. I'm also thinking Jesus would not approve of “overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy", so the dude's prayers probably will go unnoticed. That political/news sphere doesn't represent Christianity at all IMO and is all just noise. I personally saw thousands of Christians and secular people volunteer side by side during the TN and NC floods. There were even some Islamic people in there as well. It was really wonderful.
There are a lot of good people out there, whether Christian or not. Unfortunately the worst are the best at speaking the loudest. And I'm telling ya... I am harder on Christians than any other type of person, because they should be held to a higher standard. Anyway, instead of being proven wrong, I'd probably just get out and meet some good people, Christian, Muslim, whatever. Have a good time, make some great friends, and definitely not pay attention to the news.
https://www.onthewing.org/user/Bonhoeffer%20-%20Theory%20of%...
They are not intelligent.
People seem to think that intelligence can be isolated. Its not. People can fake intelligence through memorizing a bunch of facts, but that's not intelligence. Every part in a persons mind influences every other part.
And its easy to test as well. Nobody who is hard conservative can answer this simple question - "What concrete, hard evidence would you need to see for you to realize you have been wrong and change your stance on which party you support?"
Its along the same lines that any stupid person doesn't realize they are stupid - if they did, they would know the differentiator between smart and stupid and thus can become smart.
>Israel could force the United States into a war with Iran at any time.
>It should go without saying that creating the conditions where the sometimes unpredictable junior partner in a security relationship can unilaterally bring the senior partner into a major conflict is an enormous strategic error, precisely because it means you end up in a war when it is in the junior partner’s interests to do so even if it is not in the senior partner’s interests to do so.
This situation is not just because we elected a clown, these people donated hundreds of millions to Trump's campaign (Miriam Adelson, Sheldon Adelson, Larry Elison, etc). The same lobby (the Israel lobby) has contributed hundreds of millions more to almost every US senator, to the point that both political parties are pretty much aligned when it comes to serving Israel. There are plenty of politicians in the Democrat party who are quietly supporting this war because at the end of the day they've been bought by the same lobby.
Kamala (the alternative candidate in the 2024 election) has her own ties to Israel, and publicly said "all options are on the table" to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Which means had she won the election she likely would have also invaded Iran.
It goes beyond just who we elected, it's huge sums of money flowing through our political system and effectively buying our politicians.
No president has ever been this fucking stupid.
It seems pretty obvious that they’re trying to turn America into Russia. Crash everything, and let the oligarchs swoop in and buy up the shattered pieces. Then keep the people divided and depressed using media and drugs.
America has told Israel not to attack multiple times. Hell, Trump has held Netanyahu back before.
Israel wanted this war, it is not like they would be victims here. But USA is NOT a victim either. Hegseth, Trump and co love the violence, love the bombing and love to cosplay as masculine men. They do not get play the "they made me do it" card.
Third, for christ sake, they sent Witkoff and Kushner to negotiate. Lets not pretend there was any honest attempt at negotiations or war avoidance.
> So Iran would now have to assume that an Israeli air attack was also likely an American air attack. It was hardly an insane assumption – evidently according to the Secretary of State, American intelligence made the exact same assessment. But the result was that by bombing the Iranian nuclear facilities in June of 2025, the Trump administration created a situation where merely by launching a renewed air campaign on Iran, Israel could force the United States into a war with Iran at any time.
Your second sentence doesn't necessarily follow from the first. Obama had similar words to say about Iran during his administration and never invaded.
I disagree strongly with this assertion. But for sake of argument, let's assume it's true: American politics is permanently captured to Israel's interests.
That still doesn't explain this war. "I think most folks understand that this war was a misfire for the United States, but I suspect it may end up being a terrible misfire for Israel as well. Israeli security and economic prosperity both depend to a significant degree on the US-Israeli security partnership and this war seems to be one more step in a process that very evidently imperils that partnership. Suspicion of Israel – which, let us be honest, often descends into rank, bigoted antisemitism, but it is also possible to critique Israel, a country with policies, without being antisemitic – is now openly discussed in both parties. More concerning is polling suggesting that not only is Israel underwater with the American public, but more Americans sympathize with Palestinians than Israelis for the first time in American history."
If, on the other hand, we acknowledge "Netanyahu...is playing an extremely short game because it benefits him politically and personally to do so," we can allow for similar levels of narcicism and stupidity in the U.S.
So right now, the state of the war is a win for Israel.
To see the effect of losing popularity, see how AIPAC's power in the Democratic party has begun to wane following their defeat in New Jersey.
A common mistake those deploying money in politics make is forgetting that the endgame is votes. The money helps buy votes. But if you're losing votes, you're losing votes.
> right now, the state of the war is a win for Israel
If hostilities end right now, yes. There is zero indication that endpoint is proximate.
Israel is pushing back Hezbollah that's attacking Israel's north. Hezbollah decided to join the war and it's firing at Israeli civilians and towns with statistical weapons (rockets).
It does seem like it's at least some sort of short term win for Israel but it remains to be seen what the long term game looks like.
Katz is indeed still talking about a "buffer zone", while Smotrich demands a "permanent change of borders". The settler movement has already drawn maps.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-security/2026-03-...
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-politics/2026-03-...
> Israel already controlled southern Lebanon and withdrew.
I don't get what you want to say with that statement. It was already theirs to begin with?
It is a requirement under international law to let civilians evacuate areas where fighting is happening. If Israel accomodates that then they're engaging in ethnic cleansing. If they don't then they're engaging in genocide. Maybe the anti-Israelis should spell a more detailed and acceptable plan of how Israel can get Lebanon to stop lobbing rockets into its cities. If Hezbollah is using villages as cover then they become military objective. Check out what villages on the Ukraine/Russia frontlines look like or in any other war. Hezbollah fired hundreds of rockets already from inside the city of Tyre at Israel. Many armies would just flatten it with artillery under this situation.
Smotritch and the settler movement don't get to decide.
But yes, the argument that if Israel doesn't extract a price for aggression is gaining momentum over time. Because it seems nothing else works. Lebanon has no reason to attack Israel. It's not "occupied", it has no "right of resistance", or whatever other bullshit reasons people give to the right of others to lob rockets into Israeli population centers and terrorize its civilians. The Lebanese government gets it as well but unfortunately has no ability to control Hezbollah who are loyal to Iran.
Either way at this time it is not being annexed and there is no plan to annex it. What will likely happen is that some buffer zone will remain occupied until the Lebanese government and UN resolutions decisions demanding Hezbollah is disarmed are applied. If Hezbollah keeps rearming and keeps attacking Israel then we can expect that buffer zone to keep growing over the long term and the retaliation from Israel to become as severe as required to remove that threat. The main change in Israel's policy following Oct 7th is that it will not get into a scenario where it can be surprised again and it will not allow enemy forces to build up the capability to surprise it.
Sure. I don't doubt that many US politicians would start a costly war if it benefitted them. But who are the US politicians it has benefitted?
Trump hasn't gained anything from this war. Nor has Rubio or anyone else in his administration. Netanyahu, however, has benefitted politically and personally, even if only in the short term. Any effort to understand or explain the war should incorporate that.
Israel had 2 major opponents remaining the region: Iraq and Iran.
We invaded Iraq and regime-changed them at the behest of neocons:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_C...
>Calls for regime change in Iraq
>Shortly after the September 11 attacks, the PNAC sent a letter to President George W. Bush, specifically advocating regime change through "a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq". The letter suggested that "any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq", even if no evidence linked Iraq to the September 11 attacks.
>https://www.twf.org/News/Y2004/0111-Before911.html
The neocons are/were a group of American Zionists, both Jewish and Christian.
Now we are working to eliminate the only remaining rival to Israel in the region: Iran.
Israel will be free to grow into a global superpower after this is complete, Israel is the only nuclear power in the region, they sit at the nexus of the eastern and western hemispheres and on top of abundant energy reserves. _They will not need US support anymore_. This is the fundamental gamble that they are taking with this war. They know that they will lose US popular support both on the left and the right, but if it pays off they will not need that support anymore and will be free to dominate the region.
Wow, what an insult, to call her as stupid/cheaply buyable as Trump.
I'm pretty sure she wouldn't have had an alcoholic wife-beating former Fox teleprompter-reader who would not have been able to tell her why it'd be a catastrophe to start bombing Iran... As weak Biden was/appeared to be, at least he had a competent team (ok, it wasn't competent enough to pushback against Adolf Netanyahu).
Probably Harris would've tried to restore the Obama-Iran deal like Biden did (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93United_States_rel...), a job that Biden failed because a particular fuckwit fucked it up before him...
First, this "both sides bad" take isn't fooling anyone. Everyone sees through your bullshit that you are pro Trump. Like its easy to tell from just this comment, but if anyone thinks Im being super presumptions, feel free to looks at your comment history and you will see Im right.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46890675#46891294
Secondly, the shitty thing for you is that the conservatives in charge have shown themselves to be just very inept. They could have honesty just rode the rest of Trumps term in silence, and Trump would still have been very popular despite the tarrifs, but they had to fuck it up in the most grandeur way possible of starting a new war.
Which means that Republicans are going to lose the support of the average person who is clueless about politics, and can vote one way or another based on vibes, and
Which means Dems are likely going to take a lot of the power back. At which point, it will become socially acceptable to "punish" conservatives and pro Trump people. There is already work going on to process internet comments and extract patterns of speech to cross correlate them across varying accounts on social media to id certain people, and if id'ed you better believe your work, your family, your friends, and whomever else you are going to be connected to are going to get spammed and your life ruined as much as possible.
So Imma be the nice guy and tell you to tighten up you OPSEC because you are doing an extremely poor job at it.
I get that people like me have no pull because we're already designated losers, but it would be nice if y'all would just take our word for it.
If by that you mean Iranians in Iran chanting "better our a-hole than yours", I'm not so sure that's radicalization.
The alternative is recognizing that you can effectively cow large populations of people into submission, no matter how much it sucks, and that the people who do this (in this case, the Islamic theocrats of Iran) can and will forever be a part of the geopolitical landscape with thrall over tens of millions of lives, and seek to influence even more. That there will always - ALWAYS - be a segment of humanity that has no real chance to think differently, to improve their lot, and to peacefully see the changes they want made to their society.
The hope in the immediate post-Soviet era of the early 1990s is that liberalized representative government would spread around the world, and that rules-based order would allow for peaceful resolution of problems through democratic processes and markets. And for a while, this seemed to be the route. Then it became apparent by the late 90s that there were still parties who didn't like the general direction that this was taking, particularly Russia, China, and at least some of the Middle East.
Now that China and the Middle East have become engines of global economic growth, there seems to be a tacit agreement, at least among the people who matter, than authoritarianism is fine so long as the right people get paid and that line continue to go up. In fact, it's more than fine; it's perceived by these people as more efficient at creating economic growth than that messy back-and-forth of representative government. And God forbid you have to set up that representative government after getting rid of an authoritarian one like in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Is it a harbinger of dystopia? Absolutely. But that's the reality that we inhabit.
On many occasions I've read self-soothing wishful thinking messages about my country. In 2022 it was that Russian army is fleeing, all Russian tanks were burned down, and Russian soldiers are deserting from a front lines with a speed of 100,000 persons a day. Here on HN. Written by the people who had no clue how to distinguish Russian tank from Ukrainian tank.
Or in 2022-2023 EU leaders said that Russian soldiers are fighting with shovels and stealing microwaves and washing machines to extract microchips from them.
Or just recently someone wrote to me that we are living in the stone age, whatever that means.
On the other hand, I'm happy that West prefers to live in a bubble with no access to real information. And if you try to convey real information, they'll call you "Kremlin bot" or "North Korean bot" or "Chinese bot". It means that less countries will fall prey to neocolonial practices and wars because you cannot wage wars and govern colonies based entirely on misinformation from propaganda your own media creates out of thin air.
The Russian economy has not collapsed.
The Russian military has not collapsed.
The Iranian regime has not collapsed.
The Ukrainian regime/state/military has not collapsed. Nor has it reconquered the territory it has lost.
Wait a bit and see if Trump's regime/presidency collapses or not. The same for Iran/Russia/Ukraine/Israel.
The strains (societal/economical/geopolitical) are great and rising, something will give out... (no sanity in sight)
And this WAS true. At one point, Ukraine broke through Russian lines and was pushing Russia back as fast as they could get logistics organized.
In response, Russia mobilized about 300000 people and forced them to fight or die. Usually both. Then started offering jailed inmates a chance of freedom by fighting on the front lines for 6 months. It invited freaking North Koreans to fight on the Ukrainian front!
> Written by the people who had no clue how to distinguish Russian tank from Ukrainian tank.
The thing is, in a large war such as the Ukrainian war (or the Iranian war now) you can have multiple total routs of the opposing military. And still not gain anything. The opposing military can be armed with shovels and they might be formed out of the dregs of society, but as long as they hold the line, they can still stop your advance.
Conscription is enforced with martial law only in ukranian territories, by both the official ukrianian government, and by the russia's occuption forces in donbas.
No. Russia _mobilized_ 300000 people. As in "sent mobilization notices and then grabbed whoever came". It almost resulted in uprisings, so it was quickly abandoned in favor of using prison inmates and later offering $50000 signup bonuses.
It was then memory-holed by the Russian propaganda as if it had never happened.
While I can easily imagine the Trump crew is a bit impulsive and unprepared, I am VERY sure Israel went in to this with their usual competency, including very clear plans and targets.
If this eventually results in a half decent Iranian government, that would be the best thing that happened to the world this century! A period of war and high oil prices is a cheap price to pay, IF that actually happens.
To be fair, one can find plenty of analysis positing everything for the Middle East. The pointed criticisim is, in Devereux's words: "Iran would thus need a ‘lever’ closer to home which could inflict costs on the United States. For – and I must stress this – for forty years everyone has known this was the strait. This is not a new discovery, we did this before in the 1980s."
You can also easily find analysis warning of the opposite: the risks of not invading Iran. See Nazi Germany and WW2 for an example what happens when you fail to contain a belligerently rogue country.
The rogue nation here is the US.
Oh, you mean the JCPOA that Iran violated (before it was rejected by Trump) by failing to disclose storage of undeclared nuclear material at secret sites in Turquzabad between 2009 and 2018 and at Lavisan-Shian, Varamin and Marivan starting in 2003 to early 2000s?
UN watchdog declares Iran in breach of nuclear non-proliferation duties: https://www.iranintl.com/en/202506123029
The JCPOA, had weak stipulations on nuclear constraints that sunsetted after 15 years. The deal did not address Iran's missile program, human rights record or support for proxy terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.
> Iran was in good faith negotiation
Iran has historically made promises, broken them and lied about it.
"The best time for Iran to have given up the weapons pursuit was after the 2003 embarrassment of being caught clearly lying about its nuclear program, but it did not. Over the years, the IAEA Board of Governors issued several warnings to the UN Security Council about the “possible military dimensions” of Iran’s nuclear program"
https://thebulletin.org/2025/07/time-for-iran-to-make-a-no-e...
Iran treats it's people like shit and chooses terrorism over the welfare of it's own people
https://newlinesmag.com/spotlight/the-islamic-republics-brok...
Iran invaded the US embassy holding 52 civilians hostage, has conducted unprovoked attacks against US, Israeli and other interests for more than 40 years, regularly launches missiles into Israeli airspace, indiscriminately attacks merchant vessels in international waters, massacres and tortures tens of thousands of their own people for the crime of speaking out against their government, sponsors terrorist groups like Hamas that massacred over a thousand people including children, raped women, etc.
As for your comparisons of Israel to Nazi Germany, did the countries that Germany invaded have a history of launching rockets and terrorist attacks at Germany? Has Israel rounded up Palestinians in concentration camps and executed millions of them in gas chambers?
But you're saying it's Israel that needs to be contained and they are Nazi Germany. Ok...
That's a classic IDF specialty, Israeli military are masters at shooting and killing children. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpqwv9vvzx9o
> Has Israel rounded up Palestinians in concentration camps and executed millions of them in gas chambers?
Yes, jailed for years young boys and even teens without any reason. Why would they need gas chambers when traditional bombing of schools and hospitals is working beautifully and wonderfully to cull the palestinians?
I looked up the claim of seizing tankers and it seems it has only ever happened during context of other wars like with Iraq.
Israel openly celebrates rapists such as when the rapist soldier was released from trial. https://www.timesofisrael.com/5-idf-reservists-indicted-for-...
And you don't need to ask me, just listen to the direct words of Bibi, Bezalel Smotrich and other Israeli government representatives how they want "Greater Israel" and wish for expansionism.
You cite one example of a bad Israeli soldier and extrapolate to all of the IDF. This belies your faulty reasoning and desire to project a perspective based not on facts, but your own biases.
Again, there is no comparison between Nazi Germany and Israel. The countries Germany invaded exhibited zero aggression against Germany. In contrast, Palestinian terrorist groups launch routinely launched rockets into Israel, send terrorists in to blow up civilians, and conducted wholesale massacre and rape in the name of Allah.
Interesting that you ignore than Iran are hostage takers and murderers of their own people. After the first bombings of this war, Iranians in Iran were dancing in the streets.
> I looked up the claim of seizing tankers
I said "attacks" not just seizing. But there was seizing too.
May 2022: two Greek Tankers seized by IRGC commandos 2023: Tankers Advnatage Sweet and Niovi seized by IRGC commandos Jan 2024: St. Nikolas seized by Iranian Navy Apr 2024: MSC Aries seized by IRGC commandos During the Tanker War 1981 - 1988: Iran was responsible for approximately 168 attacks on merchant ships
July 1987: Kuwait tanker MV Bridgeton struck by Iranian mine April 1988: USS SAmuel B. Roberts nearly sunk by Iranian mine. 2019 Limpet Mine Attacks July 2021: Iranian drone strike on MT Mercer Street Nov 2022: Pacific Zircon struck by Iranian drone
Palestine is a fun example. Why limit your looking back to such a short period. Let us rewind a few more decades. Israel itself is the product of violent terrorism and displacement. Israeli's are such nice people they bombed a hotel with innocent British and Arab people and then a future prime minister was from the very terrorist organization. Israel has been belligerent and violent from the very start.
You're not being coherent here. What exactly is your point? Yes, you did give an isolated example. How exactly would I make stuff up and say it's not real? If IDF soldiers shooting children unprovoked is part of a large trend, surely this would be documented and reported somewhere?
> providing actual hard facts
Again, where are your hard facts that Israeli's shooting children is a large trend? You merely claiming it doesn't make it a hard fact.
The Palestinians crossed into Israel on Oct 7th, killed and raped music festival attendees, shot families in their homes and kidnapped and hid them in secret tunnels. None of these victims were remotely militant; not even lifting a rock at their murderers. They were living their lives and were viciously attacked. These are hard facts.
> Israeli's are such nice people they bombed a hotel with innocent British and Arab people
The King David hotel bombing was done by the paramilitary group Irgun. After Israel attained statehood, it outlawed the Irgun group, declaring it a terrorist organization. The World Zionist Congress also condemned Irgun's violence. Sorry, your example not only fails prove your point, it does the opposite.
I just gave one example, you can easily search and see how IDF loves killing children.
And what kind of trend do you need for showing the nature of a peoples who literally cheer and celebrate a rapist being freed from jail?
In 1947, the UN passed the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. It called for a two state solution, one for the Arabs and one for Israel. Britain supported it, the Jewish Agency supported it. Everyone supported it with the exception of, you guessed it, the Arabs. The Jewish were willing to compromise. Arabs, nope.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_...
Immediately after the Partition Plan was adopted by the UN, the 1948 Palestine War started. Guess who attacked first and started it? You guessed it, the Arabs.
> The prime minister literally came out of irgun the terrorist group. Its a known fact.
Sorry, you're getting your facts wrong again. In this list of members of Irgun, do a ctrl-f on Netanyahu and see what you get. That's right, nothing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_members
> And you don't need to ask me, just listen to the direct words of Bibi, Bezalel Smotrich and other Israeli government representatives how they want "Greater Israel" and wish for expansionism.
"From the river to the sea, Palestine must be free" - Palestinian chant
In a survey conducted by the Arab World for Research and Development 74.7% Palestinians agreed that they support a single Palestinian state "from the river to the sea", while only 5.4% of respondents supported a "one-state for two peoples" solution. 3 out 4 Palestinians supported the Oct 7 massacre of Israelis
Who is expansionist now?
When you have a group who's ideological goal has always been to exterminate the Jewish people and Israel, Israel must defend itself.
I wasn't talking about Netanyahu coming from Irgun but two other past prime ministers.
>From the river to the sea
Its very pleasing you quoted this slogan. And you accuse me of being biased? Do you know which Israeli political party's slogan this is?
Tell me, is this fake news: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/smotrich-calls-israels-bo... ?
Or any of the politicians quotes here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israel
So you're saying since it was the Irgun that bombed the Hotel, it's the Jews who started the Arab Israeli conflict.
Dude, get your facts straight. The 1946 Hotel bombing was against the British, not the Arabs. British administrative headquarters were housed in the Hotel and that was who the Irgun was targeting.
Read up and educate yourself before you speak: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing
If you want to go back before 1948:
The Battle of Tel Hai (March 1920): Often cited as the first military confrontation between Arab and Jewish forces. It involved a clash between a Palestinian Arab militia and Jewish defenders of the Tel Hai settlement. It started when a Shiite Arab militia and local Bedouin, led by Kamal al-Hussein, entered the Jewish settlement of Tel Hai.
The 1920 Nebi Musa Riots: In April 1920, Arab residents attacked Jews in the Old City of Jerusalem during a religious procession.
The 1921 Jaffa Riots: This started as a scuffle between two different Jewish groups. Arab onlookers mistook it as an attack against Arabs and started attacking Jews.
"Dozens of British, Arab, and Jewish witnesses all reported that Arab men bearing clubs, knives, swords, and some pistols broke into Jewish buildings and murdered their inhabitants, while women followed to loot. They attacked Jewish pedestrians and destroyed Jewish homes and stores. They beat and killed Jews in their homes, including children, and in some cases split open the victims' skulls."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa_riots_(May_1921)
And they are still doing that today.
The 1929 Hebron Massacre: Prompted by rumors that Jews intended to seize the Al-Aqsa Mosque, Arab mobs killed 67 Jews in Hebron.
And again, you cherry pick some far right people and project them on to all of Israel. And you totally ignore the fact that early on the Jews were willing to compromise with a two state solution, but the Arabs were not willing. Today, 75% of Palestinians support the murder, rape and kidnapping of festival attendees, families and children. That plainly shows what kind of people they are and why Israel needs to defend itself.
The Irgun was targeting many things, they were of course ingrates who hated the Brits that had gifted their own colonial land to these frauds for free, but they were also conducting terroristic operations against arabs. It's all very simple really, Israel was doing tactics that were morally acceptable in the 1800s but had fallen out of fashion by mid 19th century. It's vety simple, just answer this. Where are the upto 3 to 4 previous generations of most current Israelis from. Are they from the Levant or are they from Europe? And if Europe, did they migrate peacefully to an existing country or take over lands someone else was living in?
The former. They legally bought land from Arab landowners. If the Arabs didn't want them there, they shouldn't have accepted their money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_land_purchase_in_Palest...
Where are the rest? The ones who don't have legal papers of purchase and whose immediate ancestors 2 to 3 generations back are in Europe? How do you think they managed to squat on land that isn't theirs, where they never lived in, and where they didn't have any legal deeds of sale?
Hamas killed a few Israelis, that was perfectly fine reasoning for starting a genocidal military campaign against Palestine as a whole so I am not sure why that argument is a problem for you. Iran hasn't even directly attacked Israel the first shot, and they got invaded. So I don't see a problem if Irgun were a jewish milita, to say israel/jews started it.
Because the Irgun attack on the Hotel was an attack against Britain, not the Arabs. So you are saying Jews started the war against the Arabs by attacking Britain. How is that even close to being logical?
And since you so conveniently ignored my citations on instances of Arab attacks against Israel that were well before this Hotel incident (happened in 1946) that you like repeatedly cite as the proof of "who started this shit", I'll list them again.
The Battle of Tel Hai (March 1920): Often cited as the first military confrontation between Arab and Jewish forces. It involved a clash between a Palestinian Arab militia and Jewish defenders of the Tel Hai settlement. It started when a Shiite Arab militia and local Bedouin, led by Kamal al-Hussein, entered the Jewish settlement of Tel Hai.
The 1920 Nebi Musa Riots: In April 1920, Arab residents attacked Jews in the Old City of Jerusalem during a religious procession.
The 1921 Jaffa Riots: This started as a scuffle between two different Jewish groups. Arab onlookers mistook it as an attack against Arabs and started attacking Jews.
"Dozens of British, Arab, and Jewish witnesses all reported that Arab men bearing clubs, knives, swords, and some pistols broke into Jewish buildings and murdered their inhabitants, while women followed to loot. They attacked Jewish pedestrians and destroyed Jewish homes and stores. They beat and killed Jews in their homes, including children, and in some cases split open the victims' skulls."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa_riots_(May_1921)
And they are still doing that today.
The 1929 Hebron Massacre: Prompted by rumors that Jews intended to seize the Al-Aqsa Mosque, Arab mobs killed 67 Jews in Hebron.
The violent, blood thirsty Arabs started this shit.
You said Irgun were declared terrorists so I find it strange that the Israel doesn't seem to have ant plaques or monuments to a great British hero who eliminated 5 terrorists.
1200 is not a few. They also raped, tortured, kidnapped Israeli civilians including children.
The words you use to downplay this atrocity shows me what kind of person you are.
That's a theory, israelis cheering snd celebrating the release of rapsists is well documented fact.
uh no, it's data from polling Palestinians directly
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/israel-middle-east/nearl...
You haven't shown me any evidence to your assertion that Israeli's cheer for rapist, not even close.
But we do know 75% of Palestinians support the murder, rape and kidnapping of young people enjoying a music festival and the killing of children with their families in their homes. So any sane government must take steps so it doesn't happen again.
Why did Israel punish the official who exposed the rape instead of the rapists btw? Why was Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi arrested? Why were Israelis loudly protesting and demanding the release of the rapists? You falsely claimed Palestinians support rape and cited an article that mentions nothing of rape and you repeatedly excuse Israeli civilians and politicans mass movement and protest to release actual rapists and then cheers as the rapists were released. You are a liar.
>Among the reasons listed by the IDF for canceling the charges are “complexity regarding the existing evidence”; the release of the detainee back to Gaza in the October 2025 ceasefire; “the conduct of senior officials in the Military Advocate General’s (MAG) Corps and in the IDF’s law enforcement system in this case, and its exceptional and unprecedented circumstances” — an apparent reference to former MAG Maj. Gen. Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi, who leaked a surveillance video to Channel 12 news while the indictments were being prepared; and “procedural difficulties” regarding the transfer of investigative materials from a police investigation, “in a manner that harms the defendants’ right to a fair trial.”
So all of these are bs reasons. Let me just paste a modified version of the text and ask how you feel:
>Among the reasons listed by the Palestinian military for canceling the charges are “complexity regarding the existing evidence”; the release of the detainee [a young israeli boy] back to Israel in the October 2025 ceasefire; “the conduct of senior officials in the Military Advocate General’s (MAG) Corps and in the Hamas’s law enforcement system in this case, and its exceptional and unprecedented circumstances” — an apparent reference to former MAG Maj. Gen. Omar Mansour, who leaked a surveillance video to Channel 12 news while the indictments were being prepared; and “procedural difficulties” regarding the transfer of investigative materials from a police investigation, “in a manner that harms the defendants’ right to a fair trial.”
To show I am mot being racist, I am happy to use the same standards for the USA and Trump.
>And again, you cherry pick some far right people and project them on to all of Israel. And you totally ignore the fact that early on the Jews were willing to compromise with a two state solution, but the Arabs were not willing. Today, 75% of Palestinians support the murder, rape and kidnapping of festival attendees, families and children. That plainly shows what kind of people they are and why Israel needs to defend itself.
If these are so called far right and voted in to the government, then why should we treat Lebensraum as an exceptional opinion instead of a sentiment shared by the majority of your country?
Again, the Jews agreed to the two state solution outline by the UN in 1947. It was the Arabs who rejected it. It is the Arabs who need to learn to live in peace.
The two state solution is the fairest solution because historically, both Arabs and Jews were in the land. In fact, if you go back far enough, Arabs and Jews share the same ancestry. The Jews were not "invaders"
The locals didn't particularly give a shit about israel or jews until European jews began forcibly displacing them en masse. Jews lived there for centuries, sometimes treated better sometimes worse than Christians in Europe treated them.
You'll need to support your claims with evidence or else they are just worthless.
The fact is Arabs were not willing compromise on a two state solution that Jewish Agency agreed to. (Balfour Declaration and the UN Partition Plan for Palestine).
The fact is currently, the majority of Palestinians want Israel exterminated. They still will not compromise with a two state solution. They just want to murder more Israelis.
The US & UK governments were convinced that they would recreate the liberation of Europe, with cheering crowds, flowers in their hair, Mission Accomplished banners and then simply totally dismantle a government & civil service and recreate a new one to their favour. Groupthink is a powerful thing.
Could it be fantasy reinforced by some LLM "advisors"? I have a strong feeling that the people in US administration are talking to LLMs which constantly reassure them that their imagination is the best
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=trump+tariffs+decided+by+a
(1) reducing oil shipments to China is good posturing for the US; hence Venezuela and Iran ahead of 2028. These are shaping operations. China suffers more from these conflicts than the US.
(2) Iran isn't the only one who can control passage throught the strait. All gulf countries can do so. If Iran can cheaply cut off passage, so can Saudi Arabia and UAE and everyone else there. They all have a long term mutual need in keeping this strait open.
All these recent analysis of conflicts in isolation, which always assume a lot of self-interest in disliked politicians, seem to make the analysts and authors blind to a much more probable and sensible grand strategy. Russia invading Ukraine and failing, has been the greatest strategic gift Russia could give to the US against China in setting the stage for shaping a defence of, and deterring an offensive on, Taiwan. Russia lost the ability to defend its proxies at a cost asymetrically small to the US. Hamas broke rank and allowed Israel to eventually decapitate Iran's proxies and air-defense step by step instead of all at once, setting the stage for the opportunity of the current war. And Russia being distracted also gave the US carte-blanche in Venezuela, not only via distraction but by proving that Russian air-defense isn't the thread it was thought to be.
The remaining strategic tension, in my humble opinion, is whether the US depletes its stockpiles too much without a caught up manufacturing capability, so that a Taiwan conflict becomes easy to win by default for China (via a blockade which would essentially be a cold war with few deaths and minimal damage) or if the weakened China (due to oil constraints) would be simply unable to attack in 2028, the strategic window when it can do so.
The situation, in my eyes, is evolving in a state where only two modes become dominant and both are slightly better for Taiwan.
you must be living in the Disneyland?
life must be great in your lala land
One of the few advantages this war might bring would be China letting American radars paint its kit.
The US being a net exporter of oil should benefit from higher oil prices. Defense contractors will also benefit.
The 1970's were probably better than these days. ;)
Most probably, but Israel and US are now being more conservative with interceptor targets though so that seems to go both ways.
(2) I think we all (the author included) agree with you that it's easier to break things than to build them--both hardware and relationships--so it's obvious that maintaining trade through these kinds of choke points requires some degree of cooperation on all fronts. Iran does have a geographic advantage over other players, though (partial exceptions to Oman and the UAE), as well as a clear acute interest in constricting traffic through the strait. Sure, it may be bleeding them, but it seems to be one of the few ways they can meaningfully attack their enemies. It'll be interesting to see if anyone has the will to force the strait open against Iran's efforts.
Generally agree on Ukraine/Taiwan and the bigger geopolitical picture though.
(2) Iran has a temporary but unsustainable interest in constricting traffic, and it's not the only country who could impose a filter there. The mere credible threat of a strike on shipping is enough to stop it, so other countries basically have an equivalent capability to restrict traffic. And all countries, including Iran, are unable to sustain a prolonged closure. The current situation is an unstable, non-equilibrium situation for Iran and it's neighbors.
Overall, all of it doesn't really matter to the US because simply taking Iran off the supply chain of China is good for them. They spin the narrative about starting the war for a variety of other reasons so that they can justify the pain it inflicts on their allies (Korea, Japan - very dependent on those hydrocarbons too, and EU) and choke China's oil supplies without looking intentional. Last time the US overtly blockaded an asian nation's oil supplies, Pearl Harbour happened.
Which is another reason why China had such a structural incentive to move toward solar power, battery storage and renewables in general while also powering most of their early growth with dirty power plants.
I think Trump wants to be remembered for having neutered the China threat and having restored American supremacy and dynamism, and doesn't care too much about what it will cost at the next federal elections. I think he cares more about his legacy and wanting to be remembered as a historical figure on the strategic level. He's portrayed as being merely a fool with self interested dictatorial tendencies but I think attributing such simple intentions to him is self deception and leads to poor analysis. It doesn't pay to trivialize figures for disliking them or their actions.
Without taking camp here, I'll say that taking Trump for a fool is shortsighted, in my opinion.
(2) Again, sure, but Iran can clearly sustain it longer. They've read their Clausewitz and properly understand this as a contest of political will, which they have much deeper reserves of than capital or munitions. Anyone with any power in the Iranian regime knows they have no offramp.
Absolutely agree that Trump cares strongly for his legacy, maybe more than anything except for his self-image, but the most important part of that legacy is being recognized as both popular and a winner--I would argue that these are far more important to him personally than US power and influence on the world stage (shutting down USAID, for example, was a massive blow to US soft power, and the NATO infighting that he initiated is still probably a net negative for US hard power, even if it has had a positive impact on European defense spending and self-sufficiency). He also clearly wants to see that legacy established in his lifetime (hence the obsession with having things named after him). It's hard to imagine this being a particularly effective way to increase long-term US power and influence relative to China, particularly in a way that will generate positive sentiment within the US--especially among the majority voters who favored his populist-isolationist political platform.
However... higher oil prices also increase energy prices across the board, and China's energy sector is dominant in renewables. I think they're more than happy to have the competing energy sources become even more expensive.
"I am not, of course, an expert on the region nor do I have access to any special information, so I am going to treat that all with a high degree of uncertainty." - Then proceeds to tell us about the Iranian regime and other things he is not an expert on.
- Iran's conflict with the US didn't start in June 2025. While it had its ebbs and flows Iran has been in conflict with the US since the Islamic Revolution.
- Iran has been helping Russia in its war with Ukraine. That does have strategic implications to the US. So it's not true that Iran does not matter strategically. Those Shaed drones are flying into Ukraine by the thousands.
- Iran has supported the Houthis in Yemen (which effectively can close the Suez Canal traffic when they feel like it) and has levers on Saudi Arabia both directly and indirectly through Yemen. Another strategic lever.
- The whole comparison to Iraq's ground war is completely irrelevant. Iran and Iraq are very different countries with very different history and this conflict is very different in many ways. The US is not going to invade and conquer Iran.
- If Iran has made so much trouble over the years without ICBMs and nuclear weapons should we just wait for them to acquire these technologies? What do we think about the rationality of this regime vs. the North Korean one? Is North Korea really the right analogy? "Iran was not a major strategic priority" maybe add yet? When it becomes a major strategic priority with ICBMs and nuclear weapons then what?
Nobody knows where this war will end. Did the US have to go to war now? Probably not. Was there an opportunity between the internal unrest, the massacre of Iranian civilians, the intelligence and military superiority. Yes. What would the outcome be of not going to war? What's the certainty of that outcome? I don't think a nuclear Iran with ICBMs would be a good thing for the world and they would definitely go there.
What's the latest thinking on the 2028 window?
> (1) reducing oil shipments to China is good posturing for the US
No, it isn't. For several reasons:
1. China has stockpiled ~1.4 billion barrels of oil. it'a net importer. Supplies from Russia aren't disrupted. At present, Iranian oil is still gointg to China;
2. China is rapidly decreasing its dependence on fossil fuels with renewable energy projects on a scale where they're building more solar, for example, than the rest of the world combined. They also produce those panels so there's no supply chain risk there;
3. While the US is a net oil exporter, it's not universal. California, for example, has no pipelines so 75% of its oil comes from the sea. ~20-25% of that comes from Iraq and is disrupted by the Strait being closed;
4. Qatar produces 20-30% of the world's Helium supply and ~20% of the world's LNG, both of which are disrupted;
5. ~30% of the world's fertilizer is disrupted by the Strait being closed. The US is way more impacted by fertilizer disruption than China is.
> (2) Iran isn't the only one who can control passage throught the strait. All gulf countries can do so.
The other Gulf states are US client states. Why would Saudi Arabia close the Strait, which especially hurts US interests?
I also doubt any of them can to the same degree. The entire Iranian military is geared towards this strategy with drone and ballistic missile production on a scale no other country is really built for. It has hardened military infrastructure designed for decades to resist US bombardment.
Other Gulf states don't have this hardened infrastructure and are more vulernable to Iranian attack if it came down to it. Take desalination plants as an example. Yes Iran has those too but Iran also has significant snow melt as a source of water, Mountains, remember? Iran has ski resorts they have that much snow.
> Russia invading Ukraine and failing
Russia has basically succeeded. You have fairly stagnant battle lines where neither side can particularly advance but Russia holds certain Ukrainian territory now for years. Russia is just going to wait for the West to get bored and give up. Russia's economy has proven itself to be surprisingly resilient.
Sanctions just don't work on enemies like Iran, Russia or North Korea as well as they do on allies or former allies because enemies have an entire national project to resist American imperialism. They have to be self-reliant in a way that allies just don't.
This is also why the US client states in the Gulf are hurting way more from the Strait being closed: their economies aren't built for it. Iran's is.
> ... the weakened China (due to oil constraints) would be simply unable to attack in 2028, the strategic window when it can do so.
So this is where you've really gone off the deep end. China is less affected by this, in part because of long-term strategy but short-term because Chinese shipments are still going through the Strait.
American imperialists (which is both Republicans and Demorats, for the record) have this weird idea that China will invade Taiwan. Or wants to. Or it can. None of those things are true.
It really feels like projection, like every accusation is a confession. China must be doing violent imperialism because that's what the US is doing.
China can blockade Taiwan but that won't really do anything any more than an aerial bombardment will do anything to Iran. China doesn't have the amphibious capability to land an invasion on Taiwan any more than the US does in Iran. If you think otherwise, I'm sorry but you're gorssly mistaken.
But all of that ignores the real issue: China doesn't need to invade (or blockade) Taiwan. Why? Because all but ~10 countries in the world already view Taiwan as part of China. In the US (and Europe) it's called the One China policy. It is US government policy and consistent across both parties.
Why would China upset the international order when everybody already agrees with them?
China is also a big food importer, they'll feel it eventually
And yeah, it's a dumb idea, but Taiwan, unification in general, seems to be one of the handful of things China can't quite manage to be rational about. They didn't have to grab Hong Kong ahead of time either.
1. What a barrier water is still to this day;
2. How many troops it would take to occupy a country; and
3. The logistics required to support an invasion.
Knowing these things, even a little bit, can dispel a lot of fearmongering nonsense one will see.
On a clear day, you can see the white cliffs of Dover from Calais, France. I believe at its narrowest point the English Channel is 17 miles wide. At its peak the German army in WW2 had ~10 million soldiers and a massive industrial war machine. Yet they couldn't cross the English Channel. They didn't even try.
The Allies did manage D-Day but mostly because German strategy was bad, they were asleep at the wheel and D-Day was logisitcally probably the most complex military operation in human history and it took years to plan.
Look at a map of Ukraine and see where the front line is. The Dnipro River will feature strongly along much of it. That's not a coincidence. To cross even a river you need pontoon bridges to get tanks across and then trucks for supplies. Those bridges can be built quickly but the entire operation and any bridgehead you establish is incredibly vulernable to attack.
100 miles of ocean separates the Chinese mainland from Taiwan. It may as well be 10,000. Or 10. It just doesn't matter.
Taiwan has 1-2 million soldiers (including reserves) and a national project to resist an invasion and occupation. China would probably need at least 1-2 million troops to occupy Taiwan and they would have to get them across the ocean and them supply and arm them.
China simply doesn't have that amphibious capability and Taiwan could play havoc with their supply lines.
I really wish more people would ask "what would an invasion of Taiwan take or look like?" because then we could all waste less time worrying about things that just aren't going to happen. You could reduce any scenario to "can they?", "do they need to?" and "do they want to?". The answer to all three is "no".
Creating fear of this is just another tactic to sell weapons and, to some extent, more revealing about the Western imperialist psyche.
So no, I don't care about what barge ships China is building. At all. It doesn't matter.
What matters is not just what you plan to do, but what your opponent thinks you'll do. The US in general believes that China wants to invade or control Taiwan in some way. This mere belief is sufficient to cause it to take action.
Notably they were in a position of air inferiority the whole time, despite certain popular perceptions. So not really comparable. (Indeed if China, by contrast, is making preparations for an amphibious invasion, surely that says something)
> Look at a map of Ukraine and see where the front line is. The Dnipro River will feature strongly along much of it. That's not a coincidence. To cross even a river you need pontoon bridges to get tanks across and then trucks for supplies. Those bridges can be built quickly but the entire operation and any bridgehead you establish is incredibly vulernable to attack.
That the front in a somewhat evenly balanced war would stabilise on a natural obstacle isn't so surprising. We can't leap from there to say that such natural obstacles would make for stable defensive lines in a less balanced war.
Whether China plans to actually invade or blockade Taiwan or not doesn't matter if the US thinks it will. AFAICT the US is convinced it will, and the mere threat of this is enough to justify Venezuela and Iran, I believe. Higher oil prices are less worse than no more semiconductors.
And I think Russia might have gained some territory, but at the cost of being completely sucked into the conflict, having lost strategically by (1) being unable to support and defend its proxies and (2) having its arsenal and technology thoroughly analyzed and proven ineffective against US weapons. All actors involved know this and it will not remain, but until solved this means that the US knows it can strike countries defended by Russian weapons, at least until counter measures are researched, developed and distributed. This is a temporary advantage and moment of clarity that lasts a few years, not a sustained advantage.
The risk of the US being equally sucked into Iran and suffering the same fate is very high. And China's best strategy here is probably to sit and wait and help US opponents keep the US busy for a while, like the US did on Ukraine with Russia.
The US doesn't want to live in a multipolar world. It wants to remain the hegemonic global superpower, basically to make a handful of really wealthy people even more wealthy at the expensive of everyone else.
So do I believe the US wants to treat China like an enemy that "needs" to be degraded? Absolutely. Do I think it should be that way or has to be that way? Absolutely not. But that is a minority position in US political circles. One thing the Republicans and Democrats are united on is the US imperialist project.
You have a handful of candidates like Graham Platner who think the path forward with China is one of cooperation not competition [1]. The Democratic Party, just like the Republican Party, hates this kind of rhetoric. That's what we're dealing with.
Part of selling that is convincing everyone is that China is or wants to do the exact same imperialism that the US is doing. What's China actually doing? The Belt and Road Initiative [2] where China basically sues its massive trade surplus to go around the world and build ports, airports and roads and to fund mines, farms, power plants and oil and gas. All on significantly better terms than the World Bank and IMF offer [3], so much so that Africa is considered "lost" to US interests in favor of China.
Fun fact: the United States Africa Command is headquartered in Germany [4]. Why? Because no African country wants it. It's one region where the US only has a handful of bases (eg Djibouti, Kenya).
When the country that produces most of the world's weapons is telling you that there's some big military threat that can only be solved by selling more weapons I just ask: consider the source.
[1]: https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/2028936316285546537
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_and_Road_Initiative
[3]: https://www.cgdev.org/publication/chinese-and-world-bank-len...
[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Africa_Command
China can't replicate any of those things in the next 100 years. They are also handicapped by their ideology, which weakens their capacity to work the necessary logic for critical outcomes. They've tried and failed to achieve some kind of belt and road initiative to make up a bit of the difference in their supply chain dependencies. They've tried and failed to clone so many of our technologies, but what gets promoted are the ones they've succeeded at.
One of the admirals in the Pacific said something along the lines of (paraphrasing), "China is complaining that we're trying to contain them. My question to them would be, 'well, do you need to be contained?'"
China constantly contradicts itself about its ambitions. What you need to understand, from all this stuff you've been writing in this thread, is that China is no longer China. That great history, so much of its critical culture from the past. It's all trashed. China is now communist. It's now what communism wants, not what China wants or needs. Taiwan isn't about reunification with a brother, it's about communists crushing democracy.
If you look back at World War 2, it was in large part caused by communism. Comintern believed that communism could not co-exist with capitalism, so communism would have to be established globally. This threatened Japanese and German sovereignty. Granted, the Japanese and Germans had their own ideological problems, but just the threat of global communist expansion was enough to start a race for global resource control.
We downplay this about WW2, but if you want to understand anything about US national strategy, it is that we have been hedging our resource control against a potential flaring up of global communist ambitions again.
Now what is China doing? They're building the largest military in history that has no use other than expanding. Xi Jinping is purging his military like Stalin did before he invaded Poland and Finland.
The contradiction about communist ideology is that it is anti-western and anti-imperialism, but the success of communism is that it has to become western to suck less and it has to manufacture a psychological empire to succeed. Western "empires" have largely been a result of good fortune in water access. The US is the absolute pinnacle of that. Russia and China are worse off and since they are at a disadvantage there, the alternative is psychological expansion.
China is trying to make up the difference by using a massive population, but the entire logic around it is weak. China is easy to choke off and scale down. It would go the same way World War 1 and World War 2 went, except with more turmoil in each other's countries. It's easier now than ever to project power from inside enemy's countries than to need to send ships and missiles thousands of miles to reach them. The issue is that, China is more fragile in this regard than the US is in every regard despite all their social controls.
This is high school propaganda. It's classic "they hate us because of our freedom" nonsense.
What principles? America was established on white supremacy, slavery, genocide, religious intolerance and exploitation. The government we formed was by and for wealthy white slaveowners.
Do you know when the last slave ship survivor died? It was 1940. Slavery survived in practice well beyond Emancipation. Forced servitude existed up until 1941 [1] and that only happened because of the propaganda threat from World War 2.
You're right about the geographical "luck" (other than, you know, the whole genocide part of it).
> [China is] also handicapped by their ideology
No, they're not. The reason the US goes after communist and socialist governments so vehemently is because any success threatens capitalism, not the other way around. If these systems were all doomed to fail, why can't we simply serve as a good example? Why do we need to militarily intervene, overthrow governments and starve countries that dare do anything different? Don't you find that odd?
China has transformed itself over recent decades and brought ~800 million people out of extreme poverty in the last century. All while living conditions and infrastructure crumbles in the West.
> One of the admirals in the Pacific said something along the lines of (paraphrasing), "China is complaining that we're trying to contain them. My question to them would be, 'well, do you need to be contained?'"
I don't know what point you think you're making with this. It can just as easily be used to justify imperialism because "we don't like anyone else succeeding". What kind of argument is that? If anyone needs to be contained, it's the US military, actually.
> China is now communist.
This isn't really true in practice. Sure it's the Chinese Communist Party and you may see labels like "socialist/communist transitional state" but what China really is is a command economy [2]. Chinese people have seen their standard of living change massively in their lifetimes. What do we do? Further concentrate wealth in the hands of the 10,000 richest people because it matters that Jeff Bezos has $210 billion instead of $200 billion.
> If you look back at World War 2, it was in large part caused by communism.
This is hitorically revisionist nonsense. Communism (if you define the USSR as such) saved Europe by defeating Nazi Germany at terrible cost. Stalin tried to warn Britain and France about Hitler and form an anti-Hitler alliance. Britain and France refused.. Japan was imperialist. Germany was imperialist. WW2 started at near the peak of the British Empire. Communism didn't cause the Rape of Nanking or the Holocaust or Japanese internment in the US.
For the rest of it, all I can say is "read a book".
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_of_slavery_in_the_United_S...
Xi Jinping absolutely believes in Marxism-Leninism. You could argue there were reformers in past decades that held sway, but he doesn't want to see himself get replaced with a reformer.
There has never been a communist state, when we talk about communists we talk about movements that aspire to communism. Maybe the old CCP operated things more like a command economy, but today's China is more like planned mercantilism, which is a weaker regression from "capitalism" which is itself an inaccurate Marxist caricature of how regulated free markets actually work. The CCP leadership are very firmly Marxist-Leninist.
Industrialization amplified power potentials of trade and production, which did leave Japan and Germany operating below their potentials, but communism threatened them both. Look at the first actions Japan took and who made those decisions and what they were concerned about. Look at the first actions the nazis took in Germany, look at who they allied with Japan against, look at the book Hitler wrote about the threat he saw, look at who he labeled and what he did with them.
Russia is the largest country on Earth, by accident? No, because it expands its empire. China is huge, because it's never expanded its empire, it was just born that way? No, it has taken over adjacent regions and expanded its culture. It even tried to expand into Russia, but Russia threatened to nuke them.
Italian fascists and German nazis were a direct reaction to communists psychological imperialism. Marxist global expansion is itself a contradiction, because they hate imperialism, and yet aim to achieve the same goals. Communist International in the USSR was a prime enemy that Japan and Germany allied against. The US got Stalin to dissolve Comintern to try to deflate German and Japanese motivations, but also because the US was very anti-communist. We just saw Germany and Japan as the more immediate threats to the world.
Russia couldn't have beaten Germany without aid being shipped in from the US constantly.
What the US sees right now is the threat of another world war caused by communism.
Personally, looking at the kind of things you write, I think you should step way back, forget everything you've been taught and instead focus on the fundamentals. Go back into history and just understand the basic behaviors of countries, like they are organisms. How trade, industry, economy, military, geography, psychology, culture, communication, transportation, demographics, power imbalances, etc all contribute to the various behaviors and outcomes. Then you can say, ok, there are all of these details, but how many of the details are just....details and not the trend?
The threat that China poses is unmistakable. They have the warped ideology, societal repression, information control, massive state propaganda, most rapid military build-up in history, they have the largest global network of spies in history, they're threatening almost all of their neighbors (not just Taiwan) and so on. The list just keeps going.
If you think the US should simply sit back and watch it unfold without pushing back at all...yeah, we're not that naive.
Good. It also doesn't make China Communist, let alone establish that "Communism = bad" as you assert.
> ... which did leave Japan and Germany operating below their potentials, but communism threatened them bot
Are you really saying that Japan and Germany had to do Imperialism and the Holocaust because there was a Communist movement in their countries? Really? That's one of the silliest things I've ever read.
> Italian fascists and German nazis were a direct reaction to communists psychological imperialism.
Fascism is capitalism in crisis. Fascism and imperialism are the ultimate forms of capitalism. "The threat of a more equitable distribution of wealth made us kill millions" is the biggest pro-capitalist cope.
> What the US sees right now is the threat of another world war caused by communism.
Most (if not all) wars since 1945 were instigated by or materially supplied by the US. Saddam Hussein was our puppet until he wasn't. We even looked past him using chemical weapons on Kurds and feigned indignation only when he turned on us. Weird. We them fueled the Iran-Iraq war for 10 years killing more than a million. We then starved the Iraqis for a decade before killing millions more of them in the so-called "War on Terror" when Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 all while ignoring Saudi Arabia who materially supported 9/11. We even covered for the Saudi involvement.
The world would be a demonstrably better place without the US.
> The list just keeps going.
I once heard a quote that the only thing Americans know about is WW2 and they don't know much about that. You're making that point. Repression? You mean like locking up and deporting them for saying "Free Palestine"? Oh wait, that's us.
History will judge the US as the Evil Empire, with or without your DARVO.
Do you know why Hitler blamed the Jewish people and had them separated out? He blamed the Jewish Bolshevik revolutions in Germany for causing Germany to lose World War 1. Hitler's actual belief was that Bolshevism was a Jewish mechanism to achieve global control. Bolshevism is born out of Marxism and is essentially communist. The "headquarters" of communism was Comintern in Russia. Many of the leaders of the Bolshevist movement in Russia and elsewhere were Jewish. Marxism also comes from Karl Marx, who was Jewish.
This is why he put Jewish people in concentration camps, because he believed with conviction that they were a threat to German sovereignty. This is also why he planned from the very beginning to attack Russia, even while temporarily allying with them. Japan also saw Marxist revolution inside China as a threat to its sovereignty, but it ended up fighting both the communists and the anti-communists.
Obviously many atrocities were committed in these wars. We are lucky that the US saved Russia and China, because they are much weaker adversaries than an expansive Germany or Japan had they conquered their respective regions.
We didn't start World War 1, but we helped finish it. We didn't start World War 2, but we helped finish it. We didn't start the Korean war, the communists did backed by Russia. We didn't start the Vietnam war, but it probably started similarly.
We didn't put Saddam Hussein in power and he was never our puppet, but Iran was a much greater threat than Iraq was and that's why we provided him weapons when he was fighting Iran. Saddam Hussein was afraid of the Islamic revolution and saw it as an existential threat. There were border fights even beforehand. Saudi Arabia also saw the Islamic revolution in Iran as essentially the next Hitler. The reason that war started, was because Iran was trying to export its Islamic Revolution into Iraq, which is the same thing it's been doing again in recent years. Yes, Saddam eventually became a problem for us, but it's more nuanced than you present it.
There are a lot of details around 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan that maybe you aren't aware of, but I don't feel like going into them at present.
Both Marxist movements and Islamic movements have these kinds of extreme radical qualities about them that countries feel the need to defend against. When a country has any sort of power, it gains some capacity to export its way of thinking through investing people, funding and even hardware into that goal.
China is simultaneously threatening to export its ideology in psychological warfare and expand militarily.
I guess you'll never believe any of this, anything else I say or research any of this objectively to decide if it has merit. I can't fix that, that's up to you.
Yes, Hitler did blood libel [1], a tradition continued by Donald Trump [2].
> He blamed the Jewish Bolshevik revolutions in Germany for causing Germany to lose World War 1
Are you arguing Hitler was right? Or that it was a useful tool and a lie? Because you've blamed the Communists for WW2. Multiple times. This makes me think you've been hiding your power level and I'm usually pretty good at spotting that. I should've recognized it from blaming the Communism. It's specifically "cultural Bolshevism" [3]. That too has been recycled today as "cultural Marxism" [4]
> Bolshevism is born out of Marxism and is essentially communist. The "headquarters" of communism was Comintern in Russia. Many of the leaders of the Bolshevist movement in Russia and elsewhere were Jewish. Marxism also comes from Karl Marx, who was Jewish.
I get it now [5].
> We didn't put Saddam Hussein in power and he was never our puppet,
He was our foil against Iran. We gave him weapons to fuel the death count of the Iraq-Iran war. We didn't care when he used nerve gas on the Kurds. All of that is established historical fact.
> I guess you'll never believe any of this
No, I don't buy into neo-Nazi conspiracy theories. You are correct.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel
[2]: https://www.axios.com/2023/12/30/trump-poisoning-the-blood-r...
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Bolshevism
[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_th...
Communist revolution was not simply some kind of economic restructuring demand from workers. It is about eradicating religion and revolutionizing culture which in old countries is often tied to the culture of a genetic line of people. That is how inflammatory these Marxist revolutions are, that they bring rise to voices who want to reinvigorate a race and defend religion.
Marxist movements tend to redefine multiple angles of a people's identity. That's why there were also many similarities in Japan's fight against communism and its racial attributes. That's why you also see racial and religious qualities in the US rejection of Marxist tampering in culture today, though they are vastly overstated. Basically information moves so fast now, it's easier for people to see how dumb Marxism is if they weren't indoctrinated young, so plenty of reasonable people reject it without needing religious or racial angles fueling it. Despite that, it still spreads.
I do blame communists for World War 2, in combination with the power imbalances and massive opportunities that industrialization surfaced. Germany and Japan both believed they had larger potential in that environment, but communism gave them the legitimate enemy they needed to justify expanding. Essentially, global communism is about controlling all the resources and leveraging them, so any country that wants to survive outside of communism has to race for resources.
This isn't a neo-Nazi conspiracy theory, it's just history. It's a matter of history that there was an intention to expand communism globally. Look up Comintern if you've never heard of it, which advocated for world communism.
It's funny you say Marxism is something thats hard to imbibe unless indoctrinated from childhood, why did you leave out religion from this, marxism is merely a faulty economic system. Religion is a fundamentally wrong and violently wrong system thst encompasses the entire universe. Religion is precisely what is the first and most fundamental thing that comes to mind ehich absolutely requires brainwashing from childhood to consistently propagate.
We also see education as being useful, yet education seems to not teach many critical things which we often leave up to parents. Yet, many parents do not fully teach essential morals or lessons. It wasn't that long ago that the only real kind of formal education was a sort of religious education.
Religion in a way, carries forward crystallized values that people felt were important enough. You can look at all the religions around the world and identify the various elements of how those people behave. Is the way they behave useful, logically?
Not everyone is a scientist or a computer programmer, many people do not invest heavily in their minds. We might think that religion only served a purpose 500+ years ago, because it was an inverted solution to a surveillance state, letting people police themselves from within their own minds when external surveillance apparatus was basically not sufficiently viable.
I would argue some, but not all religions, still offer value as they bring forward crystallized behaviors that serve an actual purpose.
We've all seen how easy it is for people to get manipulated, become violent, etc. That seems to happen even if they aren't religious. So, if the people who are most susceptible to manipulations are pre-manipulated into a positive format that encourages them away from violence, that doesn't sound useless.
It's true that religion has been involved in many wars, but not all of those wars were for religious ends, even if religion was used. If religion wasn't used, it might have been something else. Societal structures and law enforcement have advanced a lot since then.
Why not, if religion wasn't available, we'd wrest one major weapon away from warmongers. They will have to search much harder to galvanize large groups of people to fight for nonsense reasons over. If they didn't have this strong identity ready made on a platter to tap into, things become much harder.
Religion is simply not worth the baggage, it posits and requires faith in the infinitely wrong. Values can be taught without religion, you don't need to be a scientist to have values. Everyone has values including atheists. I see no reason why we can't simply teach values minus religion. I don't see atheists who believe in the American constitution as a good system have by virtue of atheism any less support for it, as an example. For the tiny amount of good you may find religions have provided, on the scale of balance the bloodshed and negativity it has caused are simple far worse and not worth it. And even if you think in terms of some values religions might impart, its also again counterproductive. Almost all religions are very karen and nosy often violently so about lgbtq, so much for the values side of the equation. If a religion might be good for values, such a religion at least hasn't yet emerged.
Personally, I think you're lost in the very kind of generalizations and lack of precision that you seem to hate. You're becoming what you complain against. If you think people living that way is something to be eradicated, which you seem to, why have you become it in your own way? Is it because you're human and just as susceptible to these mistakes as anyone else?
You are also making up crap about wanting "eradication" which I never wrote or said about. I simply stated facts about the vast ills religion has given us and very little to almost non-existent good. I showed you how religion is unrelated at best and an active hindrance to capitalism.
I hate communism but why faslely single it out, global any group or system will want to control resources as much as possible. You seem extremely stupid to the point of believing nazism was about opposing communism fundamentally rather than antisemitism and racialism.
Again as an avowed capitalist, race is the opposite of good capitalism. I will gladly trade with anyone of any race.
I'm not arguing that racist motivations and beliefs didn't already exist, but the Bolsheviks were a very real cultural, economic and religious existential threat to German identity which massively amplified the validity and appeal of something like the Nazi party.
Are you arguing that's not true at all? I think that would be ahistorical.
It may have been a religious threat but that is not an existential threat. What do you think happens if suppose most Germans stopped believing in those fairy tales? Do they combust and die? Capitalism literally has no use for religion and nationalism. They are completely out of scope of capitalism, it is at best neutral about them, and in practice religion and nationalism are a hindrance to practicing free trade.
Of course nazis hated commies just as nazis hated any other alternative source of power, but that was hardly their main animating reason for the genocides. I don't need any "brainwashing" to know what nazis openly and proudly said about Jews and Slavs. Or what are you going to say, Poles were also "commies" which is why Germany attacked them? I think the nazi motivation part of your shtick is so beyond mentally ill it's not even worth bothering with.
Even if I explained the actual reasons for Venezuela, it doesn't seem like you legitimately want to know. You can be addicted to curiosity or you can be addicted to opinion, but it's hard to be both.
We all know the real reason Venezuela was attacked for. Capitalism, communism it does not matter what system, anything powerful enough will want to control all resources for itself. I hate communism, I hate nazism but you give the stupidest non-reasons against it factors which are shared in any powerful system and not unique to it.
And what exactly do you think China can't reproduce in 100 years?
Do you think if you were Japan, South Korea or any of those other countries, you would be sitting comfy on the belief that China has good intentions for them?
So, no, I am not _certain_ that is what China is doing with its military build up. Only that, I see it as a possibility that we can't sleep on.
Your argument about whether Chinese people are pro war isn't as relevant in a country like China as it might be in some democracy, but even in democracies war still occurs even if the population is anti-war. In China, it's just even less relevant, because they have strict social control. You could say the relevance has other angles, like more of the population has to be dedicated to enforcement and repression which takes some of that capacity away from military duties.
China can definitely reproduce a lot of technologies, but if they confirm again that they are a critical threat then there is a lot more we can do to slow their progress if necessary.
Iran has suffered six consecutive years of drought, which has been bad enough that they were considering (before the war) moving the capital from Tehran to Makran on the coast of the Caspian
China's stockpile of oil is only enough for a few months and that is only assuming that nothing happens to the stockpiles or the ability to access them. China does have a lot of renewable energy infrastructure, but these numbers don't convert directly into oil not being important. Oil is still very important. Their military runs on oil and for many kinds of products oil has no alternative. A lot of their population still uses ICE cars. You can put a percentage on it, like they are 60% less reliant on oil, but these numbers are useless if they still fundamentally rely on it in critically important ways. Which, they do.
Russian oil infrastructure has been under attack, which shows China that their oil imports from Russia are not guaranteed and their own infrastructure can be reached. Being at Venezuela and Iran's doorstep also shows that oil imports from them are not guaranteed.
As far as Iran goes, they can harass, but they can also lose all of their income and imports. While Iran and Russia are being scaled down, more western energy infrastructure can be coming online to replace it over the coming years even if this current situation gets resolved soon. Iran is being boxed in militarily, politically, economically, and more. They can troll, but even their trolling options are being slowly reduced. Their long range missiles can only achieve those ranges by removing the warhead and adding extra fuel. They are incapable of defending the island that most of their income flows through.
Speaking of islands. Xi Jinping absolutely wants to take Taiwan and he's been purging his military just like Stalin did before he invaded Poland and Finland. They've been building out manmade islands and military bases in the sea to increase their claim and threaten anyone who would intervene.
There is also a very big difference between political or token recognition of Taiwan as part of China as a cost of doing business vs real belief. The CCP sees Taiwan as a threat to harmony, because it serves as an example of democracy which China will always be a poor example of. If the CCP falls, Taiwan might be able to serve as a new center of gravity, which was also a credible threat from Hong Kong. That is the flip side of the "One China" policy, where it's only good for them so long as the CCP survives. Even without that, travel and communications between them increases interest in a true democracy that gets compared every time the CCP fails at something. COVID, property investment, unemployment, you name it. Ukraine was a similar issue with Russia, partly because they see Russian language and culture as an encapsulation that their mechanisms of control need to dominate within.
Taiwan is in very close proximity, so even if there is a lot of leverage against China from all angles, if they put everything into it they would probably be able to do it at great cost. They don't have the capability matrix to sufficiently achieve a Venezuela. If they tried that right now, it would just start a new 100 years of humiliation if the clock didn't already start the day Xi Jinping got in.
China is still getting oil from Iran. Maybe that'll change but there's still (IIRC) >100M barrels of oil in transit to China.
Aside from that, the point isn't to have indefinite supplies. It's to have supplies the last longer than other countries. This is going to create huge problems for the US beofre it creates huge problems for China.
> Russian oil infrastructure has been under attack
This is a delicate balance. Ukraine can only do so much against Russian energy infrastructure before the US and Europe, who supplies the military, reins it in because of the damage done to the global energy market. This included restricting the supply and use of long-range weapons that could be used to strike energy infrastructure deep in Russia.
Like, did you know that some countries (eg Hungary) are still buying oil and gas from Russia [1]?
> As far as Iran goes, they can harass, but they can also lose all of their income and imports
Iran can do more than harass. They're winning. There is no military path to victory for the US and Israel short of the wide-scale use of nuclear weapons.
> ... more western energy infrastructure can be coming online to replace it over the coming years even if this current situation gets resolved soon
This is just wrong. No Western infrastructure can replace 20Mbpd of crude oil production and losing 20-25% of the world's LNG supply. None. You're talking about investment in the trillions of dollars over a decade or two, assuming you can even find raw resources to extract, whihc is far from certain.
> Speaking of islands. Xi Jinping absolutely wants to take Taiwan
Sorry but no. China considers this its territorial waters. And yes I know some of these "islands" (some are just reefs, basically, that they build artificial islands on) are closer to Taiwan or the Phillipines. China considers Taiwan part of its territory so that's no issue for them. Most of the world agrees (ie only ~10 nations recognize Taiwan).
China doesn't want the US or its allies to militarize "islands" right off its coast. Can you blame them?
> The CCP sees Taiwan as a threat to harmony, because it serves as an example of democracy
This is just "they hate us for our freedom" type Ameribrainned propaganda. China does more for its people than the US does. China pulled ~800 million people out of extreme poverty. The truth is that the Chinese government is quite popular with Chinese people. How do Chinese people talk about the US? One good recent example is the "kill line" [2].
Westoids project Western imperialism on China when China has no modern history of doing imperialism. "But Tibet" is the usual rejoinder. That was 1950. Other than that? There was a dispute with Vietnam over like 50 square miles in the late 1970s. And that's it. You want to compare that to the US history with regime change [3]?
Taiwan just isn't the threat to China Westerners make it out to be. We make it out as a threat because it justifies American imperialism. It's the result of propaganda. China believes that the Taiwan question will ultimately be resolved peacefully and there's absolutely no reason to resolve it militarily.
This is a difference of time frames. Every problem we have is immediate requiring a kneejerk reaction. China operates on five year plans but more than that, China plans far mor ein the future than that.
[1]: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/10/3/how-much-of-europes...
[2]: https://fpif.org/how-the-kill-line-redefined-the-american-dr...
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
As for Russia, yes there is still some European reliance on Russian oil/gas, but that isn't the only issue as there can also be concern over civilian casualties inside Russia with a complete collapse of oil infrastructure which could hurt some aspects of public support for Ukraine inside Russia and in the rest of the world.
Iran doesn't produce anywhere near 20 million barrels of oil per day, and only a tiny fraction of the 30% of LNG supply is disrupted, which will be coming back online within 3 years. You could argue that Iran might expand its attacks on all the infrastructure in the region to try to take more production offline, but their capacity to do that is shrinking every single day. Even if they did manage it, that would basically greenlight a multi-national ground invasion to end their regime for all time. So just like your arguments about the limitations Ukraine faces in taking out Russian infrastructure, even though Iran is a terrorist state and demonstrating how their terrorism operates, they are still fundamentally limited in what they can do without destroying themselves.
When it comes to China and Taiwan, you need to better appreciate that China has had a standing policy to take Taiwan by force if Taiwan sees itself as independent. Increasingly the Taiwanese population do see themselves as independent and they are arming themselves for defense.
China did not magically bring its population out of poverty, the US did that, by opening up to them and allowing them into the WTC (which they then abused). We thought it might liberalize their economy, which might liberalize their politics, which would pave the way for democratic reform. It didn't happen, but that was part of the plan. The other part of the plan was to increase the dependency of China on western supply chains, because this was part of the logic to stop world wars by making everyone interdependent on each other.
Communism is freaking awful, because it is never achieved and always seems to stagnate into a permanent state of dictatorship. It then sucks enough that it cannot maintain itself naturally, so it has to repress its population and heavily control information to simply prevent crumbling. The logic is not self-reinforcing. Therefore, it absolutely, critically is a threat to freedom around the world.
Technology advancement and resource access accelerates with global trade, so if one country goes rogue, that supply chain can be cut off reducing their incentive for war. China now sees that it continues to have many critical dependencies and its current potential is only achieved as part of a global trade network. Their sanction proofing will never be complete. The concern is that they may not care that they're at a disadvantage and do what they want anyway.
"Take desalination plants as an example. Yes Iran has those too but Iran also has significant snow melt as a source of water, Mountains, remember? Iran has ski resorts they have that much snow."
Iran is in a dire situation with its water supply. It used to rely on an ancient system of ancient Qanat wells that only provide a fixed amount of water that can't be overdrawn, but in their quest to be self sufficient in terms of food they have gone to groundwater instead. The Qanats haven't been maintained so their output has reduced, probably permanently to some extent, and the ground water table is running dry to the extent that they are considering moving their capital.
You are missing the even bigger picture. Look back a few decades. The 1973 oil crisis was not just a temporary inflationary event, but the starting point of various technological and political investments that sought reduction in reliance on oil — engine efficiency regulations, nuclear power in France, early research into solar energy. The current war will likely have a similar effect. Suddenly you can't rely on imported fuel any more. And if you look around for alternative energy sources, Chinese solar and batteries and EVs suddenly look a lot more attractive than two months ago. And this is before you factor in the rest of the world reassessing their relation to the US and their confidence in the competence of US military and diplomacy.
And the point remains that this operation has been started in a way that leaves the US in a weaker strategic position, not just in the Gulf, but also, crucially, in the far east. It has now become harder to contain China, both in the medium term by the reduction of US military capabilities both globally and in-theater by pulling out strategic defensive assets from South Korea and Japan; but also long-term, by putting themselves into a situation where they have to do that, retroactively, after painting themselves into a corner elsewhere, therefore undermining their posture as a credible, rational actor that can be relied on to oppose China's ambition in the region.
Current US interventions should be read as a sign of weakness - an inability to shape events without resorting to naked aggression. Global hegemony can not be maintained through force alone.
Amidst the US bombing Iran, blockading Cuba, slaughtering the president of Venezuela's guards and kidnapping him and his wife, and so on and so forth - US government talk on China can be removed from reality. So this point -
Mainland China says it is the same country as Taiwan.
The US acknowledges mainland China and Taiwan are the same country.
Taiwan acknowledges mainland China and Taiwan are the same country.
So this discussion of "invasion of Taiwan" means PLA troops in mainland China moving to Taiwan. Which could mean the Chinese navy moving into Xiamen harbor (a Mainland city!) and putting its troops onto Kinmen island which is claimed by Taiwan.
Western elites have antiquated ideas, like talking about the rights the Britsh colonialists have over Hong Kong and other imperial nonsense. They brandishing their liberal ideals in their imperial machinations. But those days are over.
Obviously all actions the US takes have knock on effects elsewhere but those effects tend to become quite unpredictable and also weaker the further you are away from the place where the action happens.
We could talk for days about the knock on effects of the Iran war and sort through them and how all the different actors in the world will react and whether that’s on balance good or bad for the US … but it’s all a bit cute, right?
Worth noting that at the time of invasion of Iraq they had about 25 million people per gemeni. They now have about 46 mil people per wikipedia. All else equal, we are comparing 25 mil to 93 mil and not half of 93 mil to 93 mil.
I also used this as an opportunity to reference the now archived[0] CIA Factbook[1] which does put the 2003 Iraq population at 25 million.
The most important aspect of the "toll" is that Iran prefers payment in yuan, not dollars.
If Iran succeeds in nationalizing the Straight and is successful in enforcing the toll, it represents a very serious threat to the dominance of the U.S. Dollar as the world's reserve currency for trading energy.
Whether your little black heart wishes concentration camps or you’re just hoping your paycheck goes a bit further, voting for a con man is a terrible idea.
"Oh he's just trolling", "it's a negotiation tactic, didn't you read his book?", "chill out, it's just a joke", "but what about OBAMA!?"
Being bombed does not mean it can target non-combatant countries without consequences... Nor does it mean it can start tolling ships $2M per voyages...
Now that current iran regime has learnt it can do those things...
what choice do the gulf nations, or even all the asian+european (strait users) nations have?
Form a coalition against iran, and send troops to change the regime...
even if US backs away, the others will finish the job
Remind me again, which country started this whole mess?
> what choice do the gulf nations, or even all the asian+european (strait users) nations have?
They can go "yeah, you know, the US has been less than reliable as an ally recently, what with absurd tariffs, saber rattling around greenland, belitteling NATO, etc., and they seem unwilling to change, so we're just gonna pay the piper, and get oil, and make arrangements with the Chinese (aka. the worlds most powerful industry), and if they US doesn't like it, that sounds like a them-problem..."
What's very likely not gonna happen, is other countries fighting the US's war for them. NATO already told trump no, other countries won't give different answers.
And anyone who wants to actually invade Iran...well, let's put it this way: Iran is 3-4 times the size of Afghanistan, with even more difficult terrain, and has a standing army of 600,000 men, with over 300,000 in reserve. They have an air force, are proficient in the manufacture of drones, have a working intelligence network. And they've had 4 decades to dig into defensive positions.
In short, it's not gonna happen.
what has already started, is already started -- I agree on Trump being dick, but does that make iran's "making new enemies" a wise move?
> NATO already told trump no, other countries won't give different answers.
of course it said no BEFORE IRAN started the $2M toll (and other countries don't like trump due to tariff-for-everyone)
if the current iran regime was strategically wise, iran should have fired everything it got to Israel, and make the missile interception rate down to 40%. That would have actually showed it's power.
now, with even UAE's missile interception rate of 96%, iran actually showed its missiles are nuisances, not some existential threat.
600,000 men and 300,000 in reserve -- well that would have mattered a lot in medieval wars... "they have an airforce" -- well do they actually have planes? "have a working intelligence network" -- hmm...
no you're way way way over-estimating iran
the only strategic move for iran was selecting one specific target (israel) and focusing all its might, not becoming a rambo
well even in the best-case scenario (trump impeachment), I highly doubt any democrat president can actually stop at status quo -- rather, the next president has exactly zero choice but to wipe out iran MORE than trump (and call trump a weakling)
just leave Iran be and get out? well he/she could, GIVEN that Iran didn't show its potential to be bully on the gulf states and didn't even think about that $2M toll...
now? well even if a pirate has a sad back story, doesn't mean the navy can leave them be.
by missiling everyone nearby, iran just became too dangerous to nearby neighbors...
by even talking about $2M toll, iran just became too financially dangerous even to strait users... I mean, even if it's "just $2M", what will stop iran from asking $5M, $10M, or even $100M ?
There is no downside on making the Gulf states enemies. Quite to the contrary: they might lobby the USA to end this madness. It's a serious damage to the importance of the USA in the region if it can't or doesn't want to open the strait again, either by force or by making a deal.
Those countries were already enemies of Iran by virtue of housing US bases, military installations, etc.
“The war will surely achieve regime change,” replies the oracle.
“Great, let’s go,” says Trump, who never read Herodotus.
I mean, even before the $2M toll, if you're kuwait/UAE/saudi/etc, what choice do you have? form a coalition against iran
now.. with that $2M toll, iran just learnt it can just toll the ships...
so what choice do all those strait-using countries have? pay $2M or more, even after US leaves?
nope... they'll form a coalition against iran
it's highly unfortunate that trump started the war, but iran's way of things are just making more enemies -- it'll pay with regime change within few months
But the strait has two sides and Iran only controls one side. The UAE/Oman on the other side could equally threaten to attack Iranian ships unless Iran pays them a toll.
the strait-using countries are surely going to "make a lesson out of" iran exactly for that reason
They are also not neutral - they have been paying in to the US protection racket, and are discovering that their payments haven't bought much.
it's not just gulf states -- look at who are the customers of those gulf states are. the whole asia, europe, and america -- the whole world is their customer.
Even if it's "extremely hard", those countries have no choice but "make a lesson out of" iran -- just like what we did with pirates
why would those "customers of gulf" just leave iran? after US leaves, will iran regime suddenly become nice and stop forcing that $2M-per-voyage bill?
no, and even if iran regime promises "I'll never bill those ships", how could you trust on that promise? the only way to ensure free-ship-passing would be obliterating Iran as an example, even if US backs away.
> They are also not neutral - they have been paying in to the US protection racket
hmm so were they "helping" US bomb iran? "being neutral" means it didn't participate on attacking iran, not whether it paid or not.
2 Million a ship seems like a pretty cheap price to pay for the damage the us and Israel have inflicted on Iran - they cannot be made to pay it though, so I suppose the rest of us will have to (through marginally higher oil prices in the long term - much less than the spectacularly high oil prices the US war will cause in the short term)
Well if we're talking reparations, shouldn't Iran pay for the damage Hezbollah inflicted on Israel with Iranian supplied weapons for decades?
And good for the environment!
and do what?
Bomb shit. The Saudi and UAE militaries aren't anything to sneeze at. (The area cross the Strait from the UAE is majority Arab [1].)
I think it's generally good strategy to not provoke new belligerents against oneself.
But Saudi and UAE are ruled by rich regimes who benefit from oil revenue, and very vulnarable to Iran strikes, they more likely will pay those $2m.
Less plus some is still more.
> whatever could be bombed already bombed
This is plainly untrue. We're still bombing things. Missiles are still being fired. Power plants and refineries continue to run.
> Saudi and UAE are ruled by rich regimes who benefit from oil revenue, and very vulnarable to Iran strikes, they more likely will pay those $2m
That functionally cedes Emirati and Saudi sovereignty to Iran. Today it's $2mm. Tomorrow it's anything else Tehran requires.
the point is besides full scale invasion which Saudi and UAE won't do, there is no reliable way to remove threat of Iran striking oil infra, they just don't have way to deal with the problem.
Don't need a full-scale invasion. Just a land grab on the coasts. They can't do it alone. But they can provide troops (and mercenaries) as well as staying power where the U.S. cannot.
> there is no reliable way to remove threat of Iran striking oil infra
Barring invasion: mutualize the damage. Pot Iranian tankers. Seed their ports with mines. Israel locking up the Caspian and the UAE and Saudi Arabia locking up Hormuz to Iran changes the calculus of the war in Tehran and makes suing for peace–not with America and Israel, but with the Gulf–tenable.
they couldn't win this against much closer, smaller and weaker Yemen. They just don't have functional military.
> mutualize the damage. Pot Iranian tankers. Seed their ports with mines.
I don't believe they will do this because they love oil money too much, unlike Iranian regime, which is idiologically/religiously driven, and endured for many years of various attacks and sanctions.
KSA went it alone in Yemen. And from that–as well as various proxy wars in Africa–both it and the UAE have learned.
> don't believe they will do this because they love oil money too much
Loving oil money means wanting to export your oil. That said, I think the monarchies are more politically vulnerable. So it's harder for them to commit to this path. (It would also involve pissing off Trump.) But that doesn't mean it's strategically off the table, particularly for Saudi Arabia, which is less dependent on the Strait than the UAE.
there were many countries involved in coalition. UAE specifically sent troups to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Aden_(2018)
But the issue is that KSA just didn't perform on the ground, well equipped troups were overrun by Houthies with AK consistently. Not clear if they changed anything.
> Loving oil money means wanting to export your oil.
right, if Iran will take reasonable cuts, gulf states won't escalate.
Unlikely. Again, a reasonable cut today can turn into any ask tomorrow. It's worth tremendous costs to the Gulf to ensure the Strait returns to at least neutrality.
Also, I don't think controlling shoreline will give anything: tankers are easily strikeable via drones/missiles from inner-Iran.
The only solution: is deep invasion supported with internal uprising with full defeat of current regime.
As the article points out, this just makes the soldiers on the coast the targets of the drones and missiles.
And it is a very large coastline to secure. How many mercenaries can they feed into the grinder? They certainly can't keep it up like Russia.
There was a semi-stable equilibrium and the US ruined it. Now Iran controls the straight and it will be very very costly to go back.
Correct. That also reveals the locations of launchers, artillery pieces, et cetera. A winnable game if you have cheap bodies.
> it is a very large coastline to secure
To secure the Strait? Absolutely. To converge firepower onto a few beachheads? Not necessarily. And a Gulf land grab wouldn't be comprehensive. Just the islands (e.g. Larak, Hengam and East Qeshm) and maybe the land directly across from the Musandam Peninsula. (Probably not to hold. Just draw fire and trade back to Tehran. Hell, gift it to Trump.)
Kuwait and Iraq remain screwed. But if you're a Gulf exporter, that isn't necessarily a bad thing...
> There was a semi-stable equilibrium and the US ruined it. Now Iran controls the straight and it will be very very costly to go back
Sure. The point is how those costs will be borne. I don't think the emerging status quo is tenable for the Gulf.
True. Without the U.S., the most they can do is pot Iranian ships so they sue for limited peace.
> Factoring in drones, they will simply run out of soldiers before Iran runs out of drones
Both the KSA and UAE have access to mercenaries. They wouldn't be running out of fodder any time soon.
rather, they'd just use oil money and pay gurkha mercenaries
https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/19ckc6l/saudi_a...
https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/qhmbog/why_i...
https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/hqfatn/why_are_...
https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/fbd97k/is_...
rather, you expect them to pay for the missiles and mercenaries like gurkhans
The US has raised tariffs erraticly. Traders seek out a good that can be traded anywhere with predictable low costs and that is gold. So, demand is rising and, if it continues, trades may be denominated in gold.
The straight is not physically closed by Iran. It's closed by insurance companies which asking a very high war risk insurance premiums. Even if you pay $2M it unlikely will reduce the cost of insurance. That's why very few ships are choosing this option (and some of them are shadow fleet tankers which probably have no insurance).
And why should them? It appears that the Iranian armed forces started acted quite autonomously, by design. They know that communications are not secure, so local commanders have a very high latitude in what actions they deem correct to take. If such a commander deems that asking and collecting $2 MM per vessel is a good idea, they'll do it. But if another commander thinks that sinking a passing vessel is what their standing orders are, they'll do it too, not being aware that the toll was paid. So, if you are the captain of such a vessel, what do you do? Do you complain to Iran for not holding their end of the bargain?
> If Iran succeeds in nationalizing the Straight and is successful in enforcing the toll, it represents a very serious threat to the dominance of the U.S. Dollar as the world's reserve currency for trading energy.
This theory seems to predict that CNY/USD should have gone up since Feb 27 as everyone rushes to trade and obtain yuan so they can pay the Iranians. But in fact the opposite is the case; that currency pair peaked Feb 27 after a bull run (well, only about +7%) since approximately "liberation day".
China poses a huge threat, but some of their worst advantages aren't viable. We know things they have, so we tell them things we have. If you do X, we do Y. Thus some of their big advantages are nullified, unless they get reckless. Same as the nuclear issue, weapons you've invested in yet cannot even use, because they become part of new rules.
Some of that has been clarified in the trade tug of war, showing each other's dependencies. Some is being shown by also showing how easy it is for Russian infrastructure to be hit, or how easy it is to put a choke hold on critical energy, or to simply capture a dictator for that matter. It isn't even just those things, it's also the cadence and timeframe. Venezuela, Cuba, Iran and Russia all under severe pressure within just a few months at the start of 2026.
At most we've maybe seen some limited sabotage of infrastructure inside the US and perhaps aboard a carrier, some sharing of targeting information, etc.
If Russia and China are leveraging any of their real potential for pressure, it sure is hard to tell.
As far as the Euro, Europe is not America. The European Union is also not the United States. America has geographic advantages that Europe lacks. The US has structural stability advantages that the EU lacks. People sometimes argue things like, the EU is more of a framework or general agreement, while the US is an actual country.
The amount of USD in circulation dwarfs all other currencies and makes it more cushioned against shocks. It's much more liquid than gold or bitcoin. If you need to get actual things done in the real world and you need to get them done quickly, USD is the currency you want to generally have.
It's also the least likely to simply poof or disappear. China is the only real threat the US has faced since World War 2 and we're handling it pre-emptively. You could argue we were pre-empting the CCP even before World War 2, since we were supporting the anti-communist forces inside China before Japan attacked it and unified them against it.
The outcome of a lot of wars comes down to physics. The physics are on the side of the US. USD isn't going anywhere. Iranian and Venezuelan oil will be traded in USD now as well.
This is too complacent for my liking. Every rusty trawler is a viable launch platform for Shahed type drones (operational range ~2500 km per Wikipedia). Nearly every US oil refinery and LNG terminal are on the coast. And then there are floating oil platforms (e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perdido_(oil_platform))
The article then says:
>One can never know how well prepared an enemy is for something.
And:
>And if I can reason this out, Iran – which has been planning for this exact thing for forty years certainly can.
I'll leave it here for y'all to ponder.
And where exactly are you planning to operate that trawler out of? Or are you going to send it across the Atlantic on its own (well, with a couple of tankers accompanying it, but never mind that) and hope no-one pays attention?
> operational range ~2500 km per Wikipedia
I think you either added an extra zero or were looking at the hyped prototypes rather than the models in actual use. The Shaheds have ranges in the hundreds of miles, not thousands.
I think the furthest hits Ukraine has been able to achieve with drones were on a refinery about 1300km from Ukraine controlled land.
It's a couple of hundred miles from the frontlines in Kharkiv, and the Russian border to the North is even closer.
The fuel tank is heavily segmented, so they are difficult to shoot down. When shot, they lose fuel but continue to the target. They get to the target with less fuel, but still get there. The HE them detonates the remaining fuel load.
A Shahid could do a 2500km mission, and arrive with a very small fuel load. That will be effective against targets that already have enough fuel to burn there, such as apartment buildings, petroleum energy infrastructure, office buildings, etc. Less so against places with little flammable material concentration such as hospitals, military installations (other than fuel and munitions depots), roads and runways, etc.
China operates fishing fleets all around the globe but Iran is not known for this so Iranian fishing vessel in western Atlantics will rise suspicions. An ordinary cargo vessel heading to the Central America on other hand may sail unnoticed.
I thought I was clear where I was looking - here, you may check for yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HESA_Shahed_136.
You presented the absolute maximum estimate as if it were the conventionally accepted value. That's incredibly misleading.
Or if you wanted to attack refineries, you could possibly select some climate change activists to do it for you?
Or find angry children to do it. Make things go bang for fun.
Our industrial infrastructure appears to be vulnerable to me (as a superficial opinion).
The real fix is to help poor people in other countries to like the US. And work hard at avoiding doing things that radicalise dangerous haters.
[1] https://news.sky.com/story/four-arrested-on-suspicion-of-syp...
[2] https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-890851
The point is Iran isn't going to be landing tactical, much less strategic, fire on America unless we royally fuck up. It will be closer to terror/psyop attacks.
Now the US is not dependent on Middle Eastern Oil, but Japan, China and other countries are. So controlling the region will mean a lever of power over those regions.
It's absolutely not. If they were being targeted, material fractions of them would be getting destroyed. Instead we're seeing one offs, which look more like fuckups or Israeli nonsense.
The first time any kind of claim measured in weeks was immediately before Rising Lion last year, and guess what, the IAEA agreed with him.
The U.S. is dependent on oil and the oil market is global. Even if the U.S. is a net exporter of oil, Americans still pay increased prices for pretty much everything as a result and the economy suffers. The only way around this would be a scheme in which domestic oil producers are forced to sell to American refiners at pre-war prices, similar to the "National Energy Program" that was tried in Canada during the '80's. (Spoiler: It didn't turn out well.)
Yes, the U.S. is less likely to see its pumps run dry and U.S. oil companies are going to be very happy with the increased prices. However, unless it goes the NEP route, U.S. companies are going to export more oil creating shorter supply at home. Americans will pay the same high prices everyone else will be paying. As we're seeing now, the U.S. might actually see even higher price increases than countries like China.
If everyone had electric cars charging from solar then Iran's strait gambit would be much less effective.
Unfortunately, it hasn't diminished the number of American foreign policy experts who think it's very important to fight lots of wars in the Middle East.
"The entire region has exactly two strategic concerns of note: the Suez Canal (and connected Red Sea shipping system) and the oil production in the Persian Gulf and the shipping system used to export it. So long as these two arteries remained open the region does not matter very much to the United States."
First, observe the top 10 oil reserve countries:
1. Venezuela: ~303–304 billion barrels (mostly heavy crude) 2. Saudi Arabia: ~267 billion barrels 3. Iran: ~208–209 billion barrels 4. Canada: ~163–170 billion barrels (mostly oil sands) 5. Iraq: ~145–147 billion barrels 6. United Arab Emirates (UAE): ~111–113 billion barrels 7. Kuwait: ~101 billion barrels 8. Russia: ~80–110 billion barrels (estimates vary) 9. United States: ~40–70 billion barrels (reserves fluctuate with prices/technology) 10. Libya: ~48 billion barrels
China is the world's largest oil importer. Stats are hard, things get mislabeled due to sanctions, but somewhere between 15%-20% of China's oil is-or-was from Iran+Venezuela.
In my view, this partially explains the move in Iran, considering a 3-10 year strategic timeline.
When dealing with the Middle East we keep underestimating the amount of hardship the people I these countries can endure or be forced to endure.
Translation: "The victor is not victorious if the vanquished does not consider himself so”
The article is in large parts about how that's not true. It makes the point that the very existence of the Iranian regime hinges on its opposition to the US, to capitulate would mean for the leaders to lose all support, be overthrown and likely die: so there's no level of suffering that it "can't take anymore". And similar in the US, the leadership cannot survive politically to a capitulation. Hence endless escalation on both sides.
Trump has more flexibility. Really all he needs is an endpoint that FOX News is willing to describe as a US victory. He cares more about image and perception than reality. So, in that space, there is probably room for some negotiated outcome.
And I expect that (or something like it), will in fact satisfy core MAGA voters.
I'm in another country so not fooled but at same time I don't get to vote in US so I don't matter.
The often missing asymmetry reflects something deep in the mindset of large portion of western population.
Inflation means hardship.
Iran is the first conflict in many years that might inflict tangible suffering on the American people.
This war seems more than likely to drive up oil prices not only in the near term, but in the medium and long terms too! In addition, petroleum usage seems likely to become dependant on sucking Iran's proverbial dick, a notion that very few people in The West will find palatable.
Optimistically then, perhaps this will finally light a fire under everyone's asses to switch to renewable energy sources! Wether it's wind, solar or hydro, a underappreciated property of renewable energy is the energy sovereignty they provide. Once deployed, international trade can stop completely, and you'll still have electricity to heat your homes, cook your food, and drive your car.
No more being dependant on dubious regimes like Iran for your day-to-day.
Admittedly this is true for coal, too, but I think we've already established that it cannot economically compete, so that should play out in favour of renewables in the long run.
Biggest concerns are usually placement and durability to bad weather.
This may have been true in the past but the economics of today is "whether this is good for 1% of the population" and not in general, yes? If I can buy cheap solar panels from China (or say for the sake of argument someone "friendlier" like Germany) but that gets slapped with tariffs or other means the "administration" (bought by the 1% crowd) has at their disposal to prevent this from happening. If we lived in a free market this would be true for sure but we don't (by we I mean USA :) )
And energy storage, and peaking, and matching demand to supply at the grid level. None of which are included in the usual "costs" of solar.
A longer view of history shows a clear pattern: "After a gasoline price shock, households respond in the short run mostly by reducing travel, although estimates from the literature suggest the response in the short run is quite low (e.g., Hughes, Knittel, and Sperling 2006). Over long horizons, households adjust their vehicle technology and reduce further their consumption of gasoline.
...
The market share of full-size pickups, utility vehicles, and vans fell more than 15 percentage points between its peak in 2004 and early 2009. Small cars and the new cross-utility vehicle segment picked up most of this market share" [1].
[1] https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086%2F657541#...
If your sovereign territory happens to support them geographically. This is true for many, but not all countries.
Also, without large storage capacity, you might end up being self-sufficient during sunny, windy days, but find yourself very dependent on your neighbor countries for imports on overcast days or at night without wind.
The combination of all of this is especially unfortunate for hydro, where you're pretty much fully dependent on the geography you've been handed.
So I'd say the self-sufficiency story of renewables doesn't fully hold. They benefit from regional cooperation and trade just as much as fossil fuels, if not more. (In my view, that's not really a counterargument, but it does raise the importance of having a well-integrated, cross-border grid even more.)
If you’re 95% self sufficient it will stay at headlines in the local press.
Personally, I don't see an issue with that, as long as the neighboring countries you're importing from are reliable and will be able to supply at the times you need (i.e., they don't have the same possibly spiky import dependency as yourself). The other option is massive storage capacity.
I just don't think it makes sense to just equate renewables with automatic sovereignty.
(And yes, I have solar + battery, and have lost 100% of my outside electricity supply on a half dozen occasions since having it installed, and my actual response has been to not run the clothes dryer.)
In the grid we have, where most people don't have batteries, nor a way to react to (or even perceive) network-side load shedding commands, you get rolling blackouts at best, and brownouts, damaged devices etc. at worst.
It's true that there are tragedy-of-the-commons situations where not everybody has a battery, but it's also true that there are higher-level but subnational entities within the U.S. that have invested significantly in renewables + battery storage. This chart of where electricity comes from on a state-by-state level is illustrative:
https://www.nei.org/resources/statistics/state-electricity-g...
California, Connecticut, DC, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington are > 95% renewables + natural gas, all of which is produced in North America. If it comes to the point where it's "keep the lights on or sever ties with fossil-fuel states", I'd bet that they choose the latter.
(Note that the table kinda refutes your point anyway: the only states that are > 1% dependent upon oil for electricity are Alaska and Hawaii. Other than natural gas, which is largely produced domestically [1], the other big fossil fuel source is coal, which is also produced domestically.)
[1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/where-our-na...
At >95%, it's probably a very different story. At that point, you basically turn off your aluminium smelter and you're good :) (And note how GP said "renewables", which gas isn't.)
And my point really isn't about oil specifically, it's about GPs "renewables increase sovereignty" thesis in general.
Similarly, if a country can use 80% less oil or imported fuel than they would have without renewable energy, I think they're pretty self-sufficient. They don't have to be isolated from trade, it's okay to import some things and export others. Energy sources can be one of those things. But if they rely on energy imports, then when something disrupts their supply then they are in trouble. However if they get 80% of their energy from renewable sources, then they have significantly less of a problem.
Also, highly depending on what metric we mean by "80% self-sufficient" (peak capacity? long-time average?), there might either be a lot of work left, or this might be "effective sovereignty".
For example Germany was dependent on Russian gas (before year 2022), which they later swapped for dependency on US LNG. In addition, Germany is dependent on China for PV panels.
There is merit to putting one's energy policy on autopilot by doing the opposite of whatever Berlin is up to.
So you're suggesting to cut solar incentives and never discuss SMRs?
I think you might be predicting future performance from past returns here.
This is gas brain thinking.
Panels aren't burned to make electricity. If literally everyone stops selling you panels (nearly impossible) you continue generating electricity the old way. Nothing bad happens. The panels you already have continue working.
Other countries make panels too. India has a glut right now.
https://solarmagazine.com/2025/08/india-solar-supply-chain-f...
For Germany it's domestic wind + domestic coal + imported gas.
In case you ask for energy storage in Germany, the amounts are quite low. https://openenergytracker.org/en/docs/germany/storage/
The German decision to phase out nuclear power was a very big and very costly mistake. The French almost made the same mistake.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/renewables-up-nuclear-down-in-fren...
It's time to stop talking about it. It's done. Unless the stopped plants can be restarted (which I'd support) this is completely useless. It doesn't mean anything.
> How much further investments in solar, wind and storage will decrease the need for gas?
The upper bound today (keep in mind battery tech gets cheaper all the time) it would cost $5tn to power Germany on batteries for 6 months. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45446112
You don't need to run Germany on batteries for 6 months. Even 1 month is more than plenty.
"much less dependent" is still a huge win. Sure 100% independent is better. Isnt this obvious? i dont understand the point.
Going for the worst possible option, only because the better options are not 100% perfect, is to be considered irrational behaviour.
I guess I'm collecting all the downvotes because I didn't make it sufficiently clear that I'm absolutely in favor of switching to renewables as quickly as feasible. My point was not to stick with fossil fuels in the interest of "sovereignty" or anything like that. Especially massive solar deployment just seems like a no-brainer at this point.
But as we do that, I'd love to be realistic about new interdependencies and failure modes being introduced, so that they can be mitigated as we transform and build out our grids, not discovered in very painful incidents that "nobody could have seen coming".
Kind of sad to see how ideologically driven discussions around energy policy still are, and maybe always will be.
That's like saying without gas stations good luck getting gasoline to the people. It goes without saying that batteries are an essential part of most renewable solutions.
I expect that batteries will eventually solve the day-night cycle for solar, but for seasonal storage, natural gas is much easier to store, so this still looks to me like a mix of energy technologies, with renewables getting a larger share.
We can probably stand to use a lot less plastics too. Outside of medicine it's mostly replaceable, and reducing our usage to less than 80% of current usage would be trivial if we didn't burn it for energy.
In that scenario Iran can keep their strait. We won't need them.
I don't understand why so many people are raising an objection here when this should be a clear win-win.
And that's just energy. What about pharmaceuticals? Financial markets? Who protects your shipping lanes? Who builds your semiconductors? Where do those factories get their energy from?
I support the diversity of energy sources because they all have strengths and weaknesses. We've got to figure out climate change. But we also can't have, even if you want to somehow "move off of oil" a single country run by lunatics who can decide whenever they don't get their way that they get to seize 20% of the global oil supply. We can't have China dominating rare earth processing either. For some others it may be a reliance on American military technology.
When Russia invades Ukraine or Iran cuts the straight of Ormuz energy prize go up instantly, chocking the entire world economy in the course of a few weeks. Even if China stops exporting rare earths, it would take years before it affects the energy market.
It's absolutely incomparable.
Cuba is a good example by the way: a country can survive for decades while being cut from most technology import due to sanctions, but if you cut its access to oil, it becomes dirty real quick. And because Cuba has been stuck in the middle of the 20th century, it's actually much less dependent on energy than most developed or even developing countries.
That's not the entire point. You still rely on global supply chains. Those semiconductors in your MacBook Pro are made in Taiwan - many steps (perhaps most) in that supply chain to go from raw material to MacBook Pro, or EV, or fresh produce rely on oil. When Iran holds 20% of the world's oil supply hostage then prices go up for you too. Even if you are 100% renewables you are still dependent on oil for your economy.
Even the renewable power grid relies on fossil fuels for maintenance and service, many parts and components are built using materials made from oil (hello plastic), &c.
The key would be to simply not ignore all the other dimensions of dependency.
Sure China. But unless they send in an army to retreive previously sold panels, or block the sun they can only harm future increases to supply.
1. It’s closer to 50 years, and even a partially degraded panel will work, just with less output
2. Even if we say 20 years, that means that you only need to buy panels once every 20 years! Not continuously. A complete and total interruption of solar panel production lasting 4 years will only mildly interrupt current output. How long can we last with a total disruption to oil supply chains?
Depends on the country.
> UK power grid doesn't give a fuck about this war.
Power grid =/= economy. You're missing the point. Rising prices affect the United Kingdom economy even if it was fully run on renewables. The ships bringing products to the country don't run on renewables, the cars mostly don't, your fighter jets don't, your fertilizer doesn't. &c.
It's important to not be dogmatic and be practical about this stuff. Every country on the planet needs and utilizes oil and gas and that will remain true for the foreseeable future because of globalized supply chains.
> Sure China. But unless they send in an army to retreive previously sold panels, or block the sun they can only harm future increases to supply.
Which, in the case of a war with the US would be true because the UK will be involved and sided with the US and/or certainly assumed to be by China. (This is indisputable). So sure you build up those panels, but then you see a war and now you lose access to those materials and if it isn't solved in the near term you have to switch all of your energy back to fossil fuels. No new EVs during the war, for example.
It's also important to note that the US also produces oil[0]. There are some quirks of the market and refineries that make it difficult to consume our own oil, but we could potentially build more domestic processing. The real problem is that pesky global market that puts costs on the state's ambitions for power. To put it bluntly, American oil is expensive. We can survive an oil crisis iff we are willing to pay astronomical prices at the pump; but if we are doing this assuming we can just enjoy cheap gas while the world burns, we are going to get a rude awakening.
Think about it this way: buying your energy in the form of oil is like exclusively using streaming services for your entertainment needs. It's cheap, easy, convenient - until the plug gets pulled and it suddenly stops being those things. Buying solar is like buying physical media - you have to pay up front and it's more of a hassle to get started, but it can't be turned off on a whim.
[0] It also used to produce rare earths, too. The mines closed down because they were too expensive to operate - not because rare earths are actually rare.
Self sufficiency exists on a spectrum. On the idiot end is autarky, which only works to keep a small group in power at the cost of national weakness. On the other end is a lack of stockpiles and domestic production that essentially negates sovereighty.
A country running a solar grid with EVs can withstand more economic shocks for longer than one importing oil. And while mining metals is geographically limited, making solar panels and batteries and cars is not.
It's the same difference as buying a house now and owning it until it collapses vs. renting a house and being at the mercy of your landlord, or buying a piece of shrink-wrapped software and using it for the next 18 years vs. renting a SaaS subscription that provides a different product next month.
I'm wondering how that works. I have written software that was still being used, 25 years later, but it was pretty much a "Ship of Theseus," by then.
Quite common on old industrial machinery and other capital equipment like lab equipment. San Francisco BART for example has to scrounge eBay for old motherboards that still allow DMA to parallel ports via southbridge because it’s too expensive to validate a new design for controllers.
The software they would buy, cost tens of thousands of dollars, and they couldn’t afford to keep upgrading (or the original vendor went belly-up).
My gut reaction is that the software you're describing relies heavily on external integrations. Is that correct?
Basically, a driver. Pretty involved one.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47502310
He had upgrades, but I was running Kubuntu about 20 years ago, still have a bunch of Red Hat and Mandrake ISOs from the early 2000s, and can confirm they still work.
only in your wet day dreams.
let's just look at Gallium which is arguably one of the most critical for defence. to produce 100 tons of Gallium, which counts for 10% of the global supply each year, you have to have 200 million tons of Alumina capabilities. "other countries" won't be able to do it, as they don't have affordable electricity and skilled workers to make the Alumina business itself profitable. how they are going to use or sell those Alumina? to absorb loss of 2 million tons of Alumina for each 1 ton produced Gallium, "other countries" will have to lift their Gallium prices to stupid level.
that is assuming Chinese choose not to fight back on the Alumina front - they control 60% of Alumina production worldwide, they can just flood the global market with cheap Alumina to bankrupt your Gallium production.
remember - 2 million tons of Alumina for 1 ton of Gallium.
I don't know about defense needs, could be true, but I guess they are much less important in volume that the other. You may be able to store them in case of disruption.
It doesn’t solve the production issue, but there are ways to counter that dépendance over china.
I always take issue with the expression "buying a house now" when you actually mean "pay a mortgage for a house now". With a mortgage, you are at the mercy of the bank and whatever contract you signed. With a rent tenancy, you are at the mercy of the landlord and whatever contract you signed. A landlord will wake up tomorrow and tell you to leave, you have some notice period. Your fixed period deal ends and you can only get a deal that triples your rate.
It's like when people say that self-employed people have no boss, your customer becomes your boss. And you always have one. Everyone that exchanges services/products for money has one.
Even besides that, there is a dramatic difference between a typical (U.S.) mortgage that locks your payments for 30 years, and a month-to-month rental where your rent can go up next month. It's the same difference as buying a solar panel that fixes your costs for 30 years vs. paying whatever electricity rates the local utility charges this month.
(And there is also a dramatic difference between having 1 boss vs. 10 clients vs. 1000 customers vs. 3 billion users. The amount you can ignore any one of them goes up exponentially, and the risk that they will all stop paying you goes down correspondingly.)
In a tenancy, your rent can go up but most decent countries have legal restrictions in regards to how many increases you can do in a period of time and by how much you can increase it at any given time, and gives tenants legal tools to contest it if needed. And you still get the freedom to move to a different city without losing money. Here, most people don't do anywhere near 30 year mortgages so maybe that's more of a US thing.
In an ideal world, businesses would have customers that are all equally valuable. But in the real world, many businesses have a few customers that account for most of the revenue and the rest of the customers. Those few customers become your boss and they indirectly dictate significant parts of your business because an average customer not spending as much will be ok but a major customer not spending as much will get you sweating and looking at your cashflow.
My secret suspicion is that Trump knew of Israel's attack on the Qatar/Iran natural gas in advance.
If the Persian Gulf is closed for a long period, shale oil in North America will do very well.
Israel also has new natural gas reserves that will be in high demand.
Is the loss of market share of the Persian Gulf nations an unintended side effect?
Recycle one of your old ones. You don't burn solar panels to make energy.*
I think people are still stuck in the fossil fuel mindset. I've started calling it gas brain.
* What happens if China stops selling you panels while you embark on electrification? Nothing. You already have enough electricity from your existing sources (presumably) so you just pause the PV rollout until they wise up. And other countries are starting to get into PV manufacturing. Exhibit A: https://solarmagazine.com/2025/08/india-solar-supply-chain-f... So you can always just buy from someone else.
I'm fulling expecting someone will reply to me and say that making plastic wastes 75% of the oil or something during production, and that it's just as wasteful amortized across the lifespan of a wind turbine. I'm tired, man.
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/material-intensity-electr...
According to International Energy Agency mineral demand for clean energy technologies would rise by at least four times by 2040 to meet climate goals, with particularly high growth for EV-related minerals.
https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in...
If you keep burning gas you will never stop mining.
You can recycle the minerals and you should recycle minerals, but almost no recycling technology can recycle 100% of minerals and recycling has always costs attached to it (this can be for example capital costs, building recycling facilities, operating costs in form labor costs for separation, energy costs for melting material and purification processes).
For example aluminum is recycled, not because we have have a shortage of aluminium ore (Earth's mantle is 2.38% aluminium by mass), but because recycling is less energy intensive then production of fresh aluminum. https://international-aluminium.org/work-areas/recycling/
Recycling of EV batteries will lose between 1-10% of the valuable metals https://blog.ucs.org/jessica-dunn/how-are-ev-batteries-actua...
The worst kind of recycling is decreasing the costs of recycling by outsourcing to third world countries, by exploiting lax environmental regulations or corrupted environmental protection officials.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/11/18/world/africa/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chittagong_Ship_Breaking_Yard
https://www.npr.org/sections/goats-and-soda/2024/10/05/g-s1-...
So what?
> Recycling of EV batteries will lose between 1-10% of the valuable metals
How much gasoline, coal, and natural gas can you recycle?
> The worst kind of recycling is decreasing the costs of recycling by outsourcing to third world countries
That's going to happen as long as those countries are poor. They need to develop their economies quickly to demand better laws. Climate change will be a danger for many of them in the coming years.
Better, less-polluting recycling tech will help them far more than continuing to burn fossil fuels.
If you want to choose least material intensive source of energy, you choose nuclear energy. By choosing nuclear energy you get the benefit of almost decarbonizing you electricity production as can be seen in France.
If you can build price-competitive nuclear energy without government backstops or insurance, you have my blessing.
I personally think nuclear's time is in the far future when we have more advanced, exotic materials that make it radically safer and cheaper. For applications where solar isn't sufficient, such as space propulsion.
Yes a nuclear power plant more expensive than solar power plant. But an electric grid based on renewables, if we add the costs for storage, backup generator, power lines upgrades needed for smoothing out regional variations of production, is more expensive (or it can be cheaper if you have access to cheap natural gas, Texas power grid).
https://doi.org/10.1080/14786451.2024.2355642
https://www.olivierdeschenes.org/uploads/1/3/6/6/136668153/j...
Uranium is plentiful. Uranium is more plentiful than antimony, tin, cadmium, mercury, or silver, and it is about as abundant as arsenic or molybdenum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium#Occurrence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_reserves Also uranium is very, very energy dense. Current nuclear fuel can provide up to 45 gigawatt-days per metric ton of uranium. So stockpiling few years worth of fuel is not a problem. https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/b...
Governments are always supporting new technologies https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/cleanenergy/tax-guidanc... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Renewable_Energy_Source... https://emagazine.com/clean-energy-subsidies-explained-how-t...
Nuclear energy also quite safe https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p...
Show your work. I'm telling you right now you're wrong. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45446112
Even the Texas power grid makes heavy use of wind and solar.
> So stockpiling few years worth of fuel is not a problem
Weird you were oddly concerned about being "China dependence for PV" but this you just wave away. Stockpiling a few decades of PV and batteries is also not a problem.
"Rare earths" (not really used in panels) are plentiful too. Refining them is polluting and low-margin so developed countries prefer not to deal with them. Btw uranium is the same.
> Nuclear energy also quite safe
I didn't say anything about it being unsafe. But making it that safe currently costs a lot of money in materials, labor, and regulations.
Honestly it feels like you decided beforehand "nuclear is the way" and are trying to make every fact fit that. Or you're a troll/paid off by Big Oil. Sorry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Texas
Natural gas (40.5%) Coal (12.7%) Other fossil (1.01%) Nuclear (8.47%) Renewable - Wind (23.2%) Renewable - Solar (13.7%) Other Renewables - Hydro, Biomass (0.18%)
Texas has access to cheap natural gas, which is used when renewable don't deliver. In Texas the price is king.
> Big Oil. Sorry.
I would really prefer high world-wide carbon tax. World-wide because cheap Chinese poly-silicon production for cheap PV is an excellent example of carbon leakage.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09596...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_leakage
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/4/18/1533104...
Common plastics are made from highly abundant elements, so running out of oil as a chemical feedstock is a quite surmountable problem given cheap enough energy.
In Europe between 4–6% of oil and gas is used for producing plastics and globally around 6% of global oil is used. By contrast, 87% is used for transport, electricity and heating.
Stuff like medicine, sure, crucial and very hard to find replacements for.
But single use plastics can probably be replaced 95% (the environment would appreciate it if we banned them), dyes are mostly not vital, synthetic fibers can be replaced 95% with minor critical impact, just using natural fibers, etc.
The petrochemical industry is just the cheapest option in many cases in a world driven by conspicuous consumption of non vital items.
Touch screen controls are rife and not only become impossible to use when, say, grease is splattered on them or your hands are wet/wearing gloves (common when cooking on a stove top), they can even be falsely activated by such things. Cold spots can also be a concern depending on your cookware.
Unfortunately a lot of promising technology has matured in a time of consumer product enshitification, and there is no established track record for people to be nostalgic for.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with preferring gas. It has many superior use cases. My point is that “no, I like things this way and won’t ever consider trying the other thing, much less changing, even though the other thing ends up being effectively free in the long run” is silly, and almost certainly based in some kind of identity.
Where as I think most curious people would think "Oh, neat, a new cooking surface. I'd like to try that thing."
It is encrapified with a bunch of intrusive "smart" features that nobody asked for?
I was extremely dubious about connecting it, but I decided to do it anyway and see whether it's worth it. So far I've noticed two things:
* It sets the clock with NTP and follows daylight savings time. This actually might be worth it, I'm one of those people who otherwise just lives with clocks set an hour wrong for half the year. The odd thing though is that this isn't default behavior, I had to install an add-on in the mobile app.
* It gives me a mobile notification when the oven gets to temp. Not really compelling.
So depending on how you feel about clocks, feel free to skip the wifi setup.
To me this sounds a little like "I saw that fiats break down often, so I better not get a car" which is obviously silly
It's not free. It costs trilliions of dollars to build and maintain. I think it's worth it. But one place where the climate-change movement lost the plot was in underplaying costs and overplaying the doom.
Is it an investment? Sure, but it's an investment that trivially pays for itself.
Is it the most profitable place for investment dollars? Probably not, but it's effectively risk-free, and there are plenty of knock-on benefits, like having power in a blackout, and having the option of getting an EV in the future.
I think most sensible people who are even moderately risk-averse would think that's a fairly winning deal when we're only talking about a small amount of up front capital.
One could even say it is risk-negative. It decreases the risk one runs of future oil price hikes.
If you buy solar cells, you buy futures on energy delivery at a guaranteed price.
It always seems like there’s no real way to ‘get ahead’. They’ll always find a way to make the system cost such that it barely pays itself off, by introducing fees or cutting rebates.
For example, there was a proposal in Australia to raise our fixed grid access fee from something like $1 a day to $5 a day.
Or consider even just the feed-in-tariff for solar — that’s gone down as solar power has gotten cheaper, which is expected, but it’s another thing that increases that mythical payback period for the system.
Now to be clear I think the tech is wonderful and would 100% have a big battery and solar system if I could, but not for financial reasons.
For all intents and purposes you’re just pre-paying for the next X years of your electricity. I would at least want my battery warranty to be four times X, which it currently is not. Now in 5 years there might be battery tech that gets to that multiplier that I want and THEN I could start thinking of it as investing in ‘free electricity’.
But I’m sure the government and electricity suppliers will close any loopholes they can to prevent that.
Yes. Also, the risk for industry is going all in right before a new technology comes out. At that point, you either write off your original investment and deploy the new kit. Or you accept a structural energy-cost disadvantage.
I am massively pro renewables. But you have to ignore a lot to pretend it's without risk.
This doesn’t really make sense to me as an objection, so maybe I misunderstood.
No, it yields savings. This is a massive difference.
> You also likely don’t want to be an early adopter of the newest tech anyway if this is a concern for you
This is a real concern for any long-term investment, particularly when we're talking at utility/industrial scales. Dismissing it like this is basically arguing that solar is too new to be properly talked about, which is nonsense.
The vast majority of the set up costs are just getting electrification done right.
Like, even if LNG becomes crazy cheap, a battery set up will still save you money in the long run just by allowing off-peak demand.
This is why I’m confused: for this to me remotely a bad investment, basically everything possible has to go wrong for you, whereas the risks associated with carbon energy production are very obvious and very likely.
Do you have some more likely counter scenario?
See Uruguay. Bet heavily on renewables [1]. Baked in a high cost [2].
If LNG becomes crazy cheap and you're stuck with expensive solar and battery, the countries with cheaper power will eat your industry. On a household level, you wasted money. The alternate you who didn't put money into the solar and battery set-up could have earned more from other investments and had cheaper power.
Put another way: if you remove the decommissioning costs, the same argument could be used for nuclear. Once you've built it, it's sort of "free." Except of course it's not. Building it took a lot of work.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Uruguay#Electricity
[2] https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/Uruguay/electricity_price...
Household electricity prices are 157% of average in SA, and 200% of industry prices. That's not a case of renewables backfiring, it's a case of strange policy resulting in weird pricing.
Germany had to do the same thing when their power costs threatened de-industrialisation. The base cost of electricity in Uruguay is higher than its neighbors’ in an environmentally-wonderful but economically-problematic way.
Then they started importing all their energy from neighbouring countries including:
Nuclear power from France
Coal (!) power from Poland
Hydro from Sweden
Etc,etc.
The anti nuclear crowd in Germany fucked the environment to sate their delusional beliefs.
Electricity prices in Sweden tripled because of that and still haven't returned to normal.
Worst decision in the history of the German nation! (This statement is true, but only on a technicality: the current nation of Germany is young!)
1. Energy at your normal usage costs $1000/yr.
2. You can spend $20k now to have access to equivalent energy output for the next 40 years before it degrades to unusability.
3. Next year, somebody invents a flux capacitor bringing all energy costs for everyone down to $1/yr.
If you don't buy the thing, you spend $1039 over the next 40 years. If you buy the thing you spend $20k, and it's hit its expected lifespan, so you don't recoup any further benefits.
The real world has inflation, wars, more sane invention deltas, and all sorts of complications, but the general idea still holds. If you expect tech to improve quickly enough and are relying on long-term payoffs, it can absolutely be worth delaying your purchase.
If you predict massive improvements in solar/battery/etc tech, the only way it makes sense to invest now is if those improvements aren't massive enough, you expect sufficiently bad changes to the alternatives, etc. I.e., you're playing the odds about some particular view of how the world will progress, and your argument needs to reflect that. It's not inherently true that just because solar pays off now it will in the future.
I know there are other places with high energy costs, but for the majority of the US (both by land area and population count) solar doesn't make economic sense without additional incentives.
And even that analysis assumes that you're forced to use electricity. Many home appliances are vastly more efficient dollar-wise when powered by various petroleum products.
Gas stoves aren't renewable. For most countries, they're dependent on volatile exports.
"This recovery period doesn’t just get pushed out by 24 hours each day it gets longer as more production is forced to shut down or is damaged in the fighting. As I write this, futures markets for the WTI seem to be expecting oil prices to remain elevated (above $70 or so) well into 2028."
Just because there's an obvious good choice for the average citizen doesn't mean we'll take it, as recent history has more than proven.
Another upside seems to be that every Arab country in the Middle East seems to be on the same side as Israel. Nothing unites like a common enemy!
The what?
> "Buying a BYD car ASAP"
A what kind of car?
Netanyahu has a deadline. He is facing a snap election. If the Knesset doesn't pass a budget by March 31st, Israel votes 90 days later, and Netanyahu is not expected to win. Worse for Netanyahu, he's on trial for corruption charges, and once he's out of office, he's probably headed for jail.
The war was intended to give Netanyahu's popularity a boost, but that did not work out.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/netanyahu-seeks-av...
The budget will likely be approved in parliament. Netanyahu has a solid majority and his partners are not interested in triggering elections. I'd be very surprised if that wasn't the case. Netanyahu survived many worse political crisis. I'll be happy to see him gone but he always pulls out some magic trick from his hat. The biggest factor will be whether the Arab parties will unite and actually get their people to go and vote. That they didn't in the last elections is how Bibi got to form the government again. Even if that happens this becomes tricky because you'll likely end up with a minority government.
90 days vs. October isn't that much of a difference either and a lot can change in 90 days.
A lot also depends on whether the Arab parties run together in the coming elections or not.
Israel and the U.S. can absolutely end the war and leave a turd in the Gulf states' mess kits. The former would focus on Hezbollah. The latter start laying into Cuba or whatever.
Not saying it can't happen. There doesn't seem to be a bottom to the incompetence.
Sure. The point is strategic depth absolutely gives America this choice. The way it could actually happen is with a regime change. Special election in Israel or midterm full switch of the Congress together with war-powers resolutions in America.
To be clear, I’m not advocating for this. But it’s a bit silly to say Iran gets a veto on this at a kinetic level. They don’t. They have a de facto veto on strategic and messaging levels. But so did Vietnam.
> Imagine if Saudi Arabia decides it's not friends with the US anymore and won't send any more oil here
This isn’t a realistic threat. America and Israel are not in positions to be lectured by Riyadh. Like, we started this mess without bothering to materially loop them in.
That's the point. We have the power to leave, we absolutely don't have the power to leave without severe consequences. Similarly, if someone points a gun at you and tells you to stay, you still have the physical power to leave unless they also strapped you down. But that's cold comfort.
On the other hand isn't this how the russian revolution happened? An economic crisis due to a prolonged war leading to a revolution? While i wouldn't bet money on it, it seems at least possible that something similar could happen to Iran.
Trump could literally go on TV and r*e a kid on stage in 4k, and most people would go to work and be like "damn what weird times are we living in"
If shit gets bad enough economically to where there are food shortages and such, you will see US split before any revolution happens.
It happened because Russian empire (and German empire) lacked state security apparatus adequate to the threat. It was fixed by most authoritarian states after that, so e.g. Soviet Union survived for 70 years despite many popular uprisings, which happened almost the whole time of its existence. It went down only when elites in Moscow destroyed it from within.
The Iranian people(not the Islamic Regime which is despised by the vast majority of the people in Iran) tend to be very western friendly and tend to be much more secular than most populations in the region.
> the indscriminate military action of the past few weeks they are probably more likely to get ayatollah'd again.
The Iranian people are well aware that the airstrikes are not at all indiscriminate but are targeting the Regime(there are plenty of videos coming out of Iran of people filming and cheering as airstrikes hit Regime targets), indiscriminate military action would be what the Islamic Regime did when they killed tens of thousands of civilian protesters by firing automatic weapons into crowds of people. The Iranian people understand what is happening.
Fixed that for you.
My takeaway from the war in Ukraine is: it’s going to get worse and last longer than anyone ever imagined.
Can you elaborate a bit on what was unrealistic? (Maybe you have different posts or claims by him in mind?)
"If you are trying to follow the War in Ukraine, I strongly suggest watching the War on the Rocks podcasts for the times they bring in Michael Kofman."
I’ve been caught up in “guilt by association” here. Michael Kofman always struck me as a cheap propagandist. (but I should shut up now)
But I never saw him as a cheap propagandist. Not even an expensive one.
Despite his obvious allegiance, he regularly criticised UAs actions and never went for any of the hurrah-hurr-durr delusions you had anywhere else. During the siege of Bachmut he repeatedly and clearly said that UA has nothing to gain from holding out. I remember him openly critical of the sacking of the defence minister, candidly describing the problems in UAs recruitment, never hyped up drones, avoided predictions and after that first fiasco with Trump and Vance last year he did not hold back criticism towards Zelensky and not once can I remember him painting the Russians as morons. On the contrary, in one episode he dismisses any sort of essentialism and related chauvinism, this was when refuting the idea that broad parallels can be seen between Napoleonic and today's Russia.
> So long as [the Suez Canal and the Gulf] remained open the region does not matter very much to the United States.
I feel his assumption there can't be correct. Just look at the amount of military bases the US has built in the region, or the sheer number of wars there that the US was involved in. I can't imagine that a country would spend that kind of resources, money and lives for an area it deems not of vital strategic importance.
I assume/hope this was meant to say "the people in these countries are not [un]important"? (or just "are important")
As an entirely secular person, I believe every innocent human life is important.
Another problem will be getting to through to Trump who seems to be cocooned in a reality distortion field cast by Fox News, the Israel Lobby and Israel-firsters in his administration. If enough people in his base and dissenters in his administration and the government can speak up and get through to him he might be convinced to change course.
The Democratic Party for their part seem to be quite unanimated in all this. It looks like they're playing a cynical double-game, hoping Trump gets further caught up in a web of his own making. I wonder if it will weigh on them at all if another school gets blown up or another thousand people die while they slow-walk the vote on the next war powers resolution.
[1] - Interesting interview between Kent and Saagar Enjeti https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XMyC2Cr7X0
The reality is that plenty of Democrats are "animated" about the war.
If you haven't been paying attention, Trump has declared victory and called it quits roughly every other day for the past several weeks. It hasn't stuck, principally because Iran is the main actor that can decide whether or not to call it quits, and they have no reason to call it quits until they believe that Trump is actually serious in calling it quits.
One of the most surreal things is the sheer disconnect going on. The energy sector and everyone who's impacted are basically running around going "the strait's gonna be closed for months, we're turbofucked." The finance people are betting that the crisis will be over if not tomorrow then next week at the latest. And Trump et al are acting as if the crisis ended yesterday.
> I wonder if it will weigh on them at all if another school gets blown up or another thousand people die while they slow-walk the vote on the next war powers resolution.
The Democrats are the minority party. They don't control the agenda of legislative votes. But sure, blame them for the things they don't control, rather than the Republicans who want to avoid embarrassing their dear leader even as he leads his party to what looks to be utterly crushing defeats in the next elections with some of the most historically unpopular policies ever.
> while holding unto their hard pro-Israel line which already cost them the previous election.
Kamala Harris lost because of the economy, inflation, and a mismatch in perceived values among Asian and Hispanic voters. She did not lose because the election was any sort of referendum on Israel or Gaza – progressives want that narrative to be true because it was a core issue for them, but the data doesn't back it up:
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/americans-hate-inflation-more-...
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/what-drove-asian-and-hispanic-...
> Kamala Harris lost because of the economy, inflation, and a mismatch in perceived values among Asian and Hispanic voters. She did not lose because the election was any sort of referendum on Israel or Gaza – progressives want that narrative to be true because it was a core issue for them, but the data doesn't back it up:
The DNC decided to hide their own post-mortem of the 2024 election because it pointed to their unwavering support of Israel as one of the biggest reasons they lost. How do you fit this in your narrative?
https://www.axios.com/2026/02/22/dnc-2024-autopsy-harris-gaz...
Also, interesting read if you have some time:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/02/17/opinion/focus...
This war doesn't make any sense for US to be involved in. It makes every sense for Israel to have the US involved in.
1. The straight of Hormuz is crazy because of the sheer amount of options Iran has to threaten shipping. It's so narrow that they can even hit ships with artillery fire. No need for missiles or drones at all! Lobbing kinetic shells may sound primitive, but anti-missile defences are designed to deal with large projectiles with minutes or hours of warning, not shell-sized projectiles that hit within seconds. If a U.S. war-ship enters the straight, they could be struck by fire from artillery that's been concealed for decades before they know they're under fire. It's also worth noting that Shahad drones have a larger range than the size of Iran, and they're hidden all over the country. Any ship transiting Hormuz or any ground force trying to land in Iran could face drone attack from anywhere in Iran, or all of it simultaneously. A few drones are easy to intercept, but give Iran a juicy enough target and they could make the decision to simply overwhelm it. Drones are a heavily parallel capability.
2. There are only a couple of lanes deep enough for large ships in the straight. So far, no ships have been sunk outright, and that's probably a deliberate choice on Iran's part. If they sink a ship at the right spot, the straight could become barricaded. Clearing that barricade under threat of fire would be a far worse pickle than what we're seeing now.
3. The critical question to ask is, "How does the U.S. end this?" Just continuing to bomb Iran is phenomenally expensive and likely won't accomplish much. This is a regime that has been preparing for an American invasion since they overthrew the CIA-installed Shah 47 years ago. They probably never seriously expected to win an air-war against the U.S. and have obviously planned for an asymmetric conflict. The U.S. is not going to win this one without phenomenal amounts of blood, treasure, and will, but all of these are in short supply. A ground invasion of Iran would likely be worse than Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam rolled into one. The U.S. can't win this war because they simply can't pay the price. Unfortunately, the straight of Hormuz gives Iran the ability to prevent Trump from simply TACO'ing out and proceeding to invade Cuba. Iran could keep the straight closed even after the U.S. withdraws their forces, and likely will to make sure everybody knows they can control the world economy at will. They're going to expect a peace settlement, and it won't be cheap.
4. This conflict lights a fire under the behinds of all nascent nuclear states. Iran would not have been invaded if they'd managed to build nuclear weapons. Even Iran is more likely to develop nuclear weapons now. Contrary to what some think, Iran isn't going to give up their enriched uranium and end their program just because the U.S. promises not to attack them again. Something like the JCPOA only works if some level of trust is possible, but Trump personally burned that. The best the U.S. is likely to get in negotiations is a superficial promise not to develop nuclear weapons, backed up by absolutely nothing. If the U.S. decides to end the program by force, the result will also be uncertain. Say the U.S. locates and extracts Iran's HEU from those underground facilities. How will they ever be certain they got it all without occupying the whole country?
I hope things do get de-escalated soon, as this is not good for any party (apart Israel and Russia, which are the main gainers of all this mess).
Without NK's hard deterrence (and without being next door to its allies) Tehran is an easy target up until the last second. And even then what's going to happen if they detonate a nuclear bomb? Everyone will sit back and let them build as many more as they feel?
Iran seemingly is coming out of this mess stronger than it was before.
The regime remains unchanged, and is likely less willing to make concessions now. Hell, even sanctions on it being able to sell oil have been lifted, which is a boon to their economy.
They are in effective control of the strait, and justified in exercising it now. Yeah, other gulf countries may try to circumvent it with pipelines and whatnot, depending on how poorly they come out of this war - and it is not like you create a pipeline in a few days. Those are big engineering projects.
If I were a betting man, which I am not, I think they will just resume their nuclear weapons program unchallenged after this, and will likely achieve it. It is clear that no one can stop them doing so.
And frankly, they should. Every country that can have nuclear weapons should develop them, that much is very clear, as the last decade taught everyone.
They are not afraid to spend money (and blood) on a problem, even if it turns out to be bigger than expected. How much? We'll see.
The neighbors are motivated to not live next to one more nuclear state. We'll see how much.
I agree, but it is unclear if "more money" is the answer here. Iran is a much tougher nut to crack than Afghanistan. Afghanistan is barely a country. Iran is an actual, functioning country, with a territory that is geographically very defensible. And on top of that, they have actually been preparing for this for decades.
The ironic bit is that I thought the Iranian regime was on an irreversible decline, as the unrest amongst the population was growing in recent years.
The analysis I have read point out that this attack actually further legitimizes the regime and takes steam away from internal unrest, especially if Iran comes out on top.
Every authoritarian government needs an enemy. The US-Israel axis provided a very real, tangible one.
Yes. Unfortunately both things can be true (irreversible decline) and solidified regime due to any external intervention.
This is a wild take. Their top leaders and generals have been killed, they have no control over their own airspace, have their military and civilian infrastructure completely at the mercy of their enemies, and have no navy/airforce any more.
Oh, and their currency collapsed.
But other than that they are doing great.
Facts have this annoying tendency of getting in the way of propaganda.
Unfortunately HN has no crayon functionality:
1. Regime still in power, legitimized by the defense against foreign agressors.
2. Internal unrest loses steam.
3. Effective control of the strait of Hormuz, being able to, for example, dictate who is allowed to pass through and/or demand tolls for safe passage.
4. Weakening of the US presence in the Gulf countries. In particular the destruction of radar systems. Those things are expensive.
5. Lifting of sanctions on Iranian oil, at a time where the resource is very expensive.
6. Likely will be able to pursue its nuclear ambitions undeterred.
2) That happened before the war, and the protesters have been told to hold off for now. Its completely irrelevant to this war.
3) They control it for now. We'll see how long they can continue threatening global trade. My money is not for long. [1]
4) Attacking radar systems is not weakening the US presence in gulf countries. What they have succeeded in doing is attacking almost every gulf country souring relations.
5) This makes no difference since they were selling to russia and china regardless
6) This makes no sense, as they had operational Nuclear facilities up until the moment Israel/US blew them up. There is no reason to think we wouldn't do it again.
[1] https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/bahrain-uae-join-20-oth...
Yes having the deterrent is strategically beneficial, but working toward it paints a huge target on your back, while you need to pay for development, endure sanctions, etc.
Any state considering such weapons development already knows this. So this war is not new information.
And it's far from over yet.
Iran could very well end up cut off from the strait as rival gulf states build pipelines, rail, and drone defenses. (Sure this kind of long term thinking is not characteristic of the actors involved, but politics change easier around Iran than inside it.)
(Side note: That... seems like a very high figure to me?) For comparison the US spent close to $1 trillion in 2024 on the military. It could have saved lives and spent that money on healthcare. But that's not how govts work. Iran didn't get a drawstring bag with 2T in it and chose to throw it all on nukes.
Additionally, you're trying to bring a (totally valid tbf) logical argument ("Desalination is critical and an excellent place to spend money that's not going into saving lives") to a government that behaves like a cornered wild animal. It will act to save itself first, even if attacking the aggressor hurts itself too in the process.
Of course, but as we see simply focusing on ground forces, drones, and anti-air defenses would be strictly better. (Because they wouldn't be this sanctioned, and they could even have a civilian nuclear energy program too.)
> 2T USD
It's a number coming from an Iranian trade official.
I heard it in this video: https://youtu.be/OJAcvqmWuv4?t=1084 and unfortunately there's no source cited, but I think it's this one: "As former Iranian diplomat Qasem Mohebali admitted on May 20, 2025, “uranium enrichment has cost the country close to two trillion dollars” and imposed massive sanctions yet continues largely as a matter of national pride rather than economic logic."
https://www.ncr-iran.org/en/news/nuclear/iaea-report-and-geo...
see also https://freeiransn.com/the-two-trillion-dollar-drain-irans-m...
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/2/21/us-sanctions-inflic...
I'm not a military export but it doesn't look like a very good option. To get accurate targeting information Iran will have to use radars. Radars can be detected and destroyed given that the US has air dominance. Also as soon as artillery will start to fire their position will be calculated by counter-battery radars (and they will be destroyed again thanks to air dominance).
So drones (both UAV and unmanned USV) are likely more viable options for Iran.
(HMS Warspite, a WW1 era ship, managed a 24km hit on another moving ship!)
Replace "Iran" with "Ukraine", the difference being that the latter gave them away.
Just a minor point, but, the shipping routes are thin, but they are not that thin. It would take several ships to do that.
> Unfortunately, the straight of Hormuz gives Iran the ability to prevent Trump from simply TACO'ing out and proceeding to invade Cuba.
Iran already proposed a soft-victory condition that Trump could use to TACO-out. He can just claim it's Europe problem, so Europe deal with the toll.
It's Israel that won't allow TACO.
It talks about how:
- It's much more expensive to shoot down a Shahed drone than to build one. - Iran could decide to attack water filtration plants in the Gulf countries. - It's almost impossible to win a ground invasion without spending a ton of money because of the mountains.
Basically, even if the US wins this war, the entire world economy will suffer tremendously.
edit: typo
Trump has averaged something like 1 bombing run on Iranian leadership ever 2 years. Iranian provocations must be quite effective at making him see red.
Sure, it’s not hard to find. These started long before Trump. You should look beyond the last few months’ news cycles. Iranian government’s issues with Israel are of ideological nature (according to the regime) and their open support (financially and militarily) of a part of Palestinian resistance and Hezbollah. Iran has been active at Israel’s borders for years. Their heavy involvement (including sending troops) in Syria’s civil war is another one to name. All of these are the ones that Iran openly admits to. You can’t explain these away with Israel’s expansionist tendencies because that’s not been a threat to Iran. No serious analyst believes that Israel wants/can to expand into even Iraq, let alone Iran!
The hostilities towards US and vice versa are a whole different topic.
Now to be clear I’m not siding with Israel on this and not saying that caring for Palestinians is not right, just answering your question and naming a few examples. Now, it’s all happened during many decades and not sure if it matters anymore who started it because it’s become a total shit show that is very hard to reconcile.
You might find it surprising that during Iran-Iraq war, Israel was the only country in the region who helped Iran against Iraq (which had the backing of the Arab countries including Palestinians).
> Iranian government’s issues with Israel are of ideological nature
I think they're just good at threat assessment. There seem to be a lot of Iranians dying of Sudden Acute Missile Disease this month. Frankly I'm struggling to see what aspect of their actions aren't just common sense over the last decade, except for their charmingly simplicity in that they didn't make a break for a nuclear bomb when they first got within a year or two of being able to develop one. Israel and their supporters have done a very bad job of offering an explanation of why the repeated hits were justified or helpful.
Considering the results of this war so far and the one before, as well as Iran's military strategy, it doesn't seem plausible to think Iran sees (or ever saw) Israel as a threat to its borders' integrity. This may be the basis for Iran's strategy in the region in some version of the future, but to extend it to what they've done in the past would be hindsight bias.
IMO, the regime is not as much worried about Israel as it is about the US. Just compare the number of missiles and drones they shot at Gulf countries vs Israel.
But consider that Israel, rightfully or not, can make similar claims, which actually conform to the Iranian regime's long-stated goal of "destruction of Israel".
> Frankly, I'm struggling to see what aspect of their actions isn’t just common sense over the last decade.
That’s because it didn’t all start in the last decade. As you get closer to “present” in this timeline, it looks more like a one-sided affair. This is similar to the view which sees the whole Israel-Palestine issue only from October 7th onwards.
> Israel and their supporters have done a very bad job of offering an explanation of why the repeated hits were justified or helpful.
True, I’m also not sure if this is going to turn out as they wish it did. Although the jury's still out, but as the article points out, it seems unlikely.
edit: type
The Islamic Regime is not a normal rational actor, their opposition to Israel is driven primarily by their ideology.
> Just compare the number of missiles and drones they shot at Gulf countries vs Israel.
This is probably more just a matter of Iran having more short range weapons than long range weapons, Israel is a long range target that much of their weapons will be unable to reach.
If Hezbollah offered Israel a choice between: peace with Hezbollah OR occupy land in Lebanon, I think Israel would rationally choose peace.
But Hezbollah has never offered this. Their stated goal is complete destruction of Israel.
So if the options are: Hezbollah shoots at you from right across the border OR you occupy a buffer zone and Hezbollah still shoots at you but from further away:
Isn't it perfectly rational to choose the buffer zone?
It "ordered" wast places full of people to lead, destroyed bridges, created shoot at will area on other side and is getting ready to move settlers there.
Isreal is not defending itself. It is cleansing and expanding, feeling entitled to kill at will everyone not them.
Opposition to the oppression of Palestinians is not ideological.
“Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that.”
Using the same extraordinarily broad definition of "provocation" required here, can you name a single war in history that was unprovoked? And if not, haven't we just neutralized all meaning from the phrase "provoked war" with our overly broad definition of "provocation"?
This war is only to benefit Israel, and right now indirectly Russia (due to the rising prices). Basically, the US is the main loser/sucker in this war, and we are all poorer for doing it.
The US is doing just fine from this war. The US is an oil and gas producer, the largest in the world. So they benefit from rising prices.
I'd say the biggest losers are countries like Europe, and neutral oil importing countries around the world.
Why are Israeli settlers annexing land in the West Bank? Why is the right wing government letting them?
Israeli military launching incursions into lebanon to fight hezbullah and prevent them from launching rockets randomly into israel (these rockets killing many arabs as well), is not the same as the squabbles of a small minority of civilians in disputed territory within israel proper.
I think this is understated in every analysis I've seen. I would bet good money this was part of the main selling point for the US. Just type in "China Oil" into any search engine or even filter the search to 2023 and earlier. China's oil consumption was surging significantly and they get a huge chunk of their oil through the Strait. It wasn't until 2024 I believe that they started reducing their dependence on oil; which I think suggests that they saw the writing on the wall and were worried about this exact scenario. China is America's number one adversary. If we're making large global moves, there's a high chance it's a strategic move against China.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_oversea...
it's a good selling point. i dont believe leaders cannot understand the diff between 'iran's 90% oil goes to china' and 'china get 90% ot its oil from Iran', but i'm sure some people will buy it
They (rich and well connected) did, but they won't have to suffer the consequences, everyone else will. The Pedo of the United States is now a billionaire that will walk away in 4 years shrugging his shoulders laughing all the way to the bank with them.
Not one person that could stop it, did stop it. Legislature is sitting on their thumbs pretending not to work for Israel and selling us out to big tech and defense spending.
All the Baby Boomers are in the south enjoying the sunshine and shrugging their shoulders.
I don't think Trump himself particularly cares about Iran (or indeed Israel) - as in I don't think he has strong heartfelt views or moral convictions that cause him to act one way or the other in the strategic sense.
But there are those in the White House who do.
My impression from afar is that JD Vance wouldn't have been very supportive of this war, but his faction lost some power after the success of the Venezuelan adventure.
I think that particular move was Marco Rubio, but I'm not sure he would have been crazy enough to make the jump from that working to thinking that war with Iran was a good idea.
It doesn't seem to have been Stephen Millar's idea either.
So maybe it was a bunch or fairly random people from the pro-Netanyahu faction in the WHite House (not sure of names? Maybe Hegseth?) who really believed that this would be a quick bombing attack to take out the Supreme Leader and degrade some Iranian military capabilities, and it would be quickly over?
Maybe it was just Pete Hegseth trying to seem extra macho and people actually listened?
Writing it down makes it clear how very confusing this it. Maybe no one actually wanted this and they just went along because no one was actively saying it was dumb?
It is possible that the current war launched by the US Department of War by the chairman of the Board of Peace is the result of the Abilene Paradox.[1]
However, this vile collection of idiotic thugs more likely reached a Dunning-Krugerian consensus that this would be a quick and easy win. They all think themselves smarter and even nobler than everyone else.
They are however simply more remorselessly corrupt than most people imagined.
Surely the resources required to build and maintain solar panels, turbines, dams, and nuclear reactors are logistically more stable than oil has proven to be.
Why does this happen? It is because israel blackmails American politicians.
It would be better to show all the dirty shit to the public than for the world to die for israel.
They even have missiles targeting the USA in case "they feel over run"! They are an enemy to the world.
The GCC elites there are living well, with escape plans, but the people know they are viewed as subhuman "arabs" by the Israelis, and are in line for the Gaza Method (which is currently being deployed in the West Bank and Lebanon).
It would be a black swan if this didn't happen.
Israel has little to fear from Iran in the air, the IRIAF has been destroyed and ballistic missile launches have tapered off.
In terms of Arab ground armies, only Egypt and Saudi pose much of a threat; the others are small, unintegrated and inexperienced and rely heavily on Western contractor support.
And if Israel, which has the most combat experienced air force in the World, somehow did struggle to defend against those forces, they always have the Samson Option of nuclear-tipped missiles from silos and submarines.
At which point Israel is over. I have no doubt about that.
Israel is a nuclear power, there is no conceivable scenario in which Israel would cease to exist that doesn't involve nuclear war. Israel also has a long history of defeating coordinated attacks from their neighbors with conventional means alone.
That's it. That's the whole damn "Causus belli" for this so called "Special military operation." It isn't intended to accomplish any specific geo-strategic goals, it doesn't have a plan or purpose, it's just a convenient distraction and way for some already very rich folks to get even richer.
This is honestly my major issue with the whole "Geo-strategic analysis industrial blogger / YouTuber complex" in that I think they far too often ascribe deeper meaning and geo-strategic planning or purpose to state actions when they can far more easily be interpreted through the lens of the political capture of nations and institutions by the wealthy elites, their greed / self interest and their monological desire to preserve the status quo and thus their own political / economic power.
Nations very seldom do pretty much anything these days because it would be of benefit to their nation or people, they almost exclusively only do things that benefit the wealthy elites who control them.
This war, like all wars throughout human history, is a class war, in that the lives and livings of us regular folks are being sacrificed at the alters of power and profit, all so certain rich folks can get even richer and keep their boot on our necks.
I'm not an American so I'm not sure if the voting base actually believed him.
I'm looking for the bright side, believe me. A couple times I thought I might have seen one. You know, like you did with your hope that he wouldn't start any wars. But the pessimistic view keeps making all the correct predictions.
The point is not "this guy is a genius" but rather "this war was so predictable, even this weird guy could pinpoint with frightening accuracy how this war would happen two years before it started".
1) They control the flow of oil, as we're seeing now.
2) They provide a huge amount of funding to hostile forces throughout the middle east - Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, pro-Iran militias in Iraq. This destabilizes the entire region, including important partners beyond Israel (Saudi Arabia, UAE). Their support for the Assad regime in Syria and Hezbollah, who killed nearly half a million Syrians during the civil war there, also created a huge refugee crisis throughout Europe that has led to a rise in far-right parties who are reacting to the failed integration of these refugees.
3) They provide drones to Russia and instructions for how to build those drones.
4) They provide oil to Russia and China, two major geopolitical adversaries.
5) They are among the most significant propagandists that use social media to destabilize the west - having been caught repeatedly manipulating social media platforms like Reddit, Instagram, Twitter/X.
There are also some strategic benefits to the current war, especially if you're a narcissistic kleptocrat running the US:
1) We've already seen the market manipulation.
2) Every bomb dropped is a bomb taxpayers must replace; that money goes right to defense contractors
3) Then consider the American oil companies: they stand to make a lot more money from this, as their products are now more scarce and more valuable. The US, as a net exporter of oil (we import low quality oil because we're good at refining it; we export the good stuff), will make more money.
4) The disruption of the Persian Gulf hurts Russia and China far more than it hurts the US and EU. There are some US allies and neutrals who get hurt (those in east Asia, gulf oil states). But it's not a balanced impact - we definitely come out on top in the current situation in my view.
5) Electric vehicles are starting to look a lot better. Who's Trump's bff and biggest financial backer, again? Does he operate in that space?
I think the overall impact of the attacks on Venezuela and Iran sum to an attack on the hostile Russia-Iran-China axis, with the benefit of hurting some of their minor allies as well. It seems too perfect that we attack the two largest non-allied oil suppliers in quick succession for it to be coincidence. It might not be Trump's plan, but it seems like a long-standing plan to achieve a favorable geopolitical environment.
Dangerous stuff there pal, AIPAC coming for ya now. /s
Other than that, this whole thing is very well written and thought out. I found myself bobbing my head in agreement repeatedly.
I also must point out this gem: "There is a great deal of ruin in a nation." – Very well said.
JCPOA was due to expire beginning in October 2025, so it was not a permanent solution. Iranian nuclear proliferation was closely monitored by Israel and others as a top priority, and there's little doubt that this was the end game: no one could explain the vast enrichment activity in hardened, dug-in facilities otherwise (if you claim "Iran never had a military nuclear program!" while faced with the evidence of multiple scattered military-grade facilities, a missile program and nuclear material enriched to above-civilian grade then you're simply an idiot).
The Iranian combination of a huge missile and drone programs and effect on the Middle East through proxies (de-facto controlling Iraq through the Shia militias and Iran affiliated government, Syria through Assad, Lebanon through Hezbollah and Yemen through the Houthis) meant it had geopoltical control of the entire area.
Iran attacked oil infrastructure before; namely Aramco facilities in Saudi Arabia back in 2019. So it's a weapon it was willing to wield even before this war.
Iran was a key player in the Chinese/Russian axis (Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Russia, China) that was a global threat to Western interests.
There are persistent reports that Saudi Arabia wanted this war to happen, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the Gulf states supported that as well, because nothing threatens them more than Iran.
Iran getting nuclear weapons would throw the entire region into a nuclear arms race, so it was much more than the survivability of Israel alone. Saudi Arabia would pursue one, then Egypt (because of the former), and no one knows where it would stop.
I don't think this war was good, but doing nothing was even worse. I trust Israel more than I trust the US to have sound strategy on how this war ends. Israel is entrenched enough in Iran to be capable.
My bet? it will most likely end with a Venezuela situation, where the IRGC remains in place but with different people with different priorities. Iran keeps losing more and more infrastructure by the day, in Iran and outside (like what's going on with Hezbollah).
Assuming Iran can go on like this for a long time with their population suffering (remember the economy was in ruins and there was a serious draught even before this war started) is not realistic. They are playing the Middle Eastern bazaar-style negotiation, but there's not much behind it.
As for Israel: it's enjoying a huge economic boom with defense industry having record backlog (Israel just overtook UK!), massive R&D activities with companies like Apple and Nvidia (see Jensen's latest memo on his unwavering support of Israel and plans to build a 12,000 employee campus in addition to whatever Nvidia has in Israel). Amazon, Google, the works. Very unlikely that trade relations between US and Israel would deteriorate - there's simply no sound reason to do so, unless someone like Mamdani wins the presidency runs a Trump-style amok just with opposite beneficiaries.
P.S. no tears will be shed in Israel for Qatar, either. Qatar is the primary sponsor of anti-Israeli (not to say anti-Jewish) propaganda right now.
It's an unprovoked war by the USA and its handler, Israel, against Iran.
People are being killed, by choice, by the USA and Israel, and the USA and Israel are irreversibly destroying their own personas on the world stage.
Even US hostage Merz is starting to stutter about it.
Everywhere that isn't the USA or a USA vassal, they call the USA and Israel "The Epstein Coalition".
That's how it is viewed. Think about it. That's how appalling it is.
Downvote me, I have no fucks to give; the field is barren.
Is he stuttering into an iron dome?
"Volkswagen may turn car factory into Iron Dome hub with Israel partnership"
https://www.business-standard.com/world-news/volkswagen-isra...
Iran via their proxies have waged war for years against the US and Israel, the war is in no way unprovoked.
Author's analysis, as critical as he is of American presidents breaking their promises, is completely absent of analysis of what would happen if American presidents broke their promises to never allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. Never mind that JCPOA had a sunset clause that would allow Iran to resume nuclear enrichment to weapons-grade after the sunset clause.
The author's analysis pretty blatantly exposes reality: the West is losing because it does not have the political stomach to win. Instead of deciding that maybe society should try to develop that political stomach, instead of paying attention to a Trump who got elected in large part on mantras about how America was losing and it needed to start winning, no, Author says this was all a horrible idea and implicitly we should just sit back while our enemies progress along the road of putting nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists.
JCPOA was highly flawed, but it was a lot better than nothing, which is what Trump traded it for.
If Trump was serious about stopping Iran's nuclear program, he would have made taking Isfahan a top priority of the initial strikes.
As to Trump's motivations, they don't change this calculus. Iran intended to nuke their neighbors, and Israel, not just before Trump came to power but literally before the first Bush became president. And the full situation is even worse: right after the mullah's came to power in a leftist revolution in 1979, they begged for US and Israel's help to stop Saddam Hussein from nuking them. They got that help ... and then figured that nukes are a great idea.
Here's what the mullahs are most afraid of btw. The biggest threat to their power, the biggest problem for their central-London villas:
https://x.com/NarimanGharib/status/2036761330359615897
This local opposition to them has systematically worsened over time, btw. So I wouldn't put it past the mullahs to nuke Iran itself, eventually. It also means that Iran's islamic regime is threatening everyone, for the simple reason that if they make a single concession loosening their grip on Iran, they'll be lynched, one by one, in the streets, by people they went to school with. That is how much Iran's regime is "winning".
But it's only Donald Trump that has used that as an excuse to make that danger greater.
And acoup has a great counter-point to your tweet in the article.
The Soviet Union dealt with massive internal protest quite successfully for pretty much every single one of its 70 years of existence. The Soviet Union only fell when insiders took it down.
Iran appears to be in absolutely no danger of that happening.
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-25.pd...
(they preliminarily reported the same stance even in 2024, before any attacks)
TLDR: Iran, despite having signed a treaty allowing access, is hiding highly enriched uranium, enough to build 9, maybe 10 nuclear devices. It is also not complying with its other obligations under the NPT treaty.
And then Iran responded to this ... by boasting of making nuclear weapons grade uranium to make bombs, to American diplomats:
https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/middle-east/iran-eastern-stat...
Now I get that American diplomacy is a shitshow since ... a certain event. However, I fail to come up with a worse attitude that Iran could have had at the time. They are openly boasting of having "the divine right" to enriched uranium that can only be used for bombs in negotiations ...
I also get that Americans (and everyone else, for that matter) feel that it's entirely unfair that they have to care about nuclear weapons in Iran. But if nobody does ... Iran's leaders have made it clear that as soon as they have the weapons, nuclear war starts. What I find baffling is that nobody cares ...
Of course, now it turns out that UAE and Saudi Arabia have since been SCREAMING at the US to do something. But the people it will affect the most are of course in Europe and Asia (everyone except Russia, Norway and Ukraine), who are effectively going to see yet another 3-4% tariff, except this one applies even on goods they produce themselves, for themselves. The EU is burning massive amounts of political goodwill trying to get a few percent savings, and now they'll have to do tell their people they're saving at least double that, in a few months time, with no real warning.
And until they do that, and until they're let out again, no amount of arguments will ever make me agree that it's just not fair. In fact, if everyone even remotely involved with them gets shot THAT I will call fairness.
You don't really care because you don't have a valid argument. Fact is Iran was complying with JCPOA, as all US intelligence agencies agreed on. It was working. But it had one flaw, Obama signed it and the orange baby couldn't deal with that, and likely Israel/Netanyahu influencing Trump back then as well as they were opposing the deal from the start.
Now I don't think Iran should have nuclear weapons, but lets be fair here, they followed the deal, but still got sanctions put on them as if they were building a bomb, why not do it then? If we're to judge them by what politicians, generals or religious zealots has said in the past, then look no further than the US and what they thought about using nukes post ww2, I would argue they were much much worse no matter what Iran has said.
Iran's government organizes massacres, inside and outside of Iran. Could you illuminate further to me which treaties that little practice follows and how unfair it is it causes bad things to happen to them?
> Iran was complying with JCPOA, as all US intelligence agencies agreed on.
??? I'm not even the one making the argument.
Delaying the onset of war is not worthless, but it is not the same as arguing that war could have been avoided, which is what people who roll out that claim are really trying to argue. It's only true in a universe where Iran would have collapsed from within before the expiration of the sunset clause, and that clearly was not going to happen.
"highly flawed" implies that it's not very good at its primary goal
> it only delayed Iran getting nuclear weapons
That sounds better than no delay
That depends on what Iran does in the meantime, does it not? If Iran effectively turned their missile program into a true deterrent then negotiated delay is worse, because it would remove the ability to stunt the development through military means. Which is very much the argument being made for the “why now” of this war.
No one can know this hypothetical, but some def bet their entire futures/careers on this: that an Iran with a more prosperous middle class (as a result of JCPOA) might have had a better chance for social/internal reform, i.e. regime change.
This does not happen even in the most insane examples like North Korea.
The more likely outcome would be that they would be able to avoid getting their schools/hospitals etc. bombed.
In your mind US should just nuke iran so there is regime change? Can you calculate how this would play out after that happens?
a. They have armed and financed their terrorist proxies (Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, and others), who used those arms and capital to commit acts of terrorism against their regime enemies (the US and Israel).
b. Witkoff literally offered them free nuclear fuel forever for civilian purposes and they turned him down, bragging that they had enough highly enriched nuclear fuel already for nuclear weapons
c. I can put 2 and 2 together
In what universe does having nuclear weapons protect you from getting schools and hospitals bombed? Israel very likely has nuclear weapons, but Israeli schools and hospitals are getting bombed by Iranian missiles. So what?
With all this considered I think it is clear why Iran is able to bomb Israel back and Israel can't just nuke them.
I think the points you made about why Iran would give nuclear weapons to terrorists make no sense. Because Iran would, presumably, get obliterated when those terrorists use those weapons on any country.
As far as I know, full-on invasion of a country that has nuclear weapons has never occured in history so far. So Iran having nuclear weapons in a defensive capacity is obviously good for them. In fact all countries having nuclear weapons in middle east might have made it more peaceful but would have been obviously terrible for Israel/USA
Can we believe anything that the senior people in the current US administration say, at this point in time?
The Islamic Regime is effectively a terrorist organization itself, so Iran getting nuclear weapons would be effectively giving a terrorist Jihadist organization a nuclear weapon. The Islamic Regime simply cannot be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon and the military costs to stop them will continue to get higher as time goes, this is a problem that we will inevitably have to deal with and dealing with it sooner rather than later is likely always going to be the best option as the costs to deal with the Regime will only continue to increase.
> This does not happen even in the most insane examples like North Korea.
North Korean leaders value self preservation much more than the Islamic Regime leaders do, they also do not use terrorism in same way or to the same degree as Iran does. North Korean leaders also don't generally have ideologies similar to Martyrdom/Jihad like Islamic Regime leaders have(these ideologies specifically make traditional mutually assured destruction deterrence strategies largely ineffective).
As an American who lives abroad and travels around the world, I've never had the slightest worry about "oh man what if Iran does something?" But I've had to adjust flight and travel plans several times, I've had cost of living surge, I've witness chaos causing terrorist splinter groups that attack countries around the world because Israel and America have started some stupid conflict and said "we had no choice bro we had to attack them because in 80 years they would've made a bomb that might've killed a civilian bro you have to trust me bro." And frankly, I'm done even taking those arguments in good faith. I simply refuse. The mess these two countries cause has caused far more death than even if Iran had a nuke, ten nukes, or one thousand nukes.
Its sphere of influence includes Israel, Gaza (Hamas), Yemen (Houthis), Iraq (various Shia splinter groups), and Lebanon (where Hezbollah refuses to accept the sovereignty of the Lebanese government). You are being willfully ignorant.
And funny you mention Lebanon. Iran isn't the country bombing Lebanon every few years or seizing land there either. But right now another country is invading and seizing land and not accepting the sovereignty of the Lebanese government. [1] Always funny how accusations in 2026 really just are a way of confessing.
[1] https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/defense-news/article-89105...
Hezbollah also assisted the Assad regime in Syria during the Syrian Civil war - participating in laying siege to entire villages for long enough that people starved to death.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2017/11/syri...
You are willfully ignorant. There is tremendous anger at Hezbollah even within Lebanon, especially since they restarted the war on Iran's behalf in recent weeks, giving Israel the causus belli to resume their bombing campaign against them.
Looking at Wikipedia, apparently 1000+ have been killed in Lebanon so far during this war. So it seems Israel has done 50x more harm. Interesting.
There’s this weird attitude I see where people claim “realpolitik” to give other nations colonial rights to their neighbors while denying the same to America. If you buy into “spheres of influence” as a concept it’s time to accept that the US, as the world’s preeminent military and economic power, has a sphere of influence that spans the globe.
Its ironic it's not even discussed anymore in the US. A year in and you can't find a political post on HN, it's all blackholed - we've gone past "I didn't vote for him" straight to posts like this from alternative reality where he doesn't exist, doesn't say or do things.
IMO: this war is just the next step in the 1200-year old Shia-Sunni conflict. The Sunnis hate the Shia, and vice versa. Ever since 1979 when Khomeini came to power, the Sunnis have been on edge. The terrorist attack on Mecca shortly after made matters worse ( https://www.brookings.edu/events/terrorism-in-saudi-arabia-p... ). At first they thought they'd get Saddam to take out Iran; but that brutal war ended in a stalemate. Saudis and Kuwaitis gave billions to Saddam for this, and when it ended, they demanded refunds for a job not done.
This caused Saddam to try and take over Kuwait to wipe out his debts, which in turn freaked the Saudis out. They turned to the US to save them; which in turn pissed Osama off, who was riding tall after kicking the Soviets out of Afghanistan. Gulf War 1 happened, but that didn't placate Osama. Then USS Cole, Khobar Towers, 9/11 happened and US got dragged into the MiddleEast again, this time finally taking out Saddam.
When Trump got reelected, the Saudis and Qataris saw their chance to take out their archenemy Iran. They wined and dined him, invested billions into his and his family's shady schemes, gifted him a brand new jet. In that part of the world, every gift comes with strings attached. So, it was only a matter of time before the US would start trading blows with Iran.
And guess what? MBS is now pushing Trump to put boots on the ground: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-on-brink-of-groun...
The problem with the rulers of Iran was that they did not see the writing on the wall, and continued to poke at Israel via Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthies. They had already lost Syria (with the ouster of Basher Al Assad); they could have just cut their ties with Hamas and Hezbollah and made peace with Israel.
US and Israel attacked Iran because of Shia-Sunni issues?
Saudis want to get rid of Iran, for Shia-Sunni reasons.
Israel wants to get rid of Iran because of the 3 Hs.
Enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that; that's why KSA and Israel mended fences (for now).
Now Saudis cannot take on Iran at all; heck, they can't even take on the Houthis. So ... they found the 800lb gorilla (USA) and convinced it that those mean Iranians had made stupid faces at him.
Iran, meanwhile, showed colossal stupidity and arrogance by supporting these 3 Hs. Houthis, I can understand; they are going after Saudis mainly. But Iran had no dog in the Israel-Palestine fight!
How unimportant was Bin Laden?
Was he important? Genuinely curious because all I know is cultural vibes.
>But countries do not go to war simply to have a war – well, stupid fascist countries do, which is part of why they tend to be quite bad at war – they go to war to achieve specific goals and end-states.
>Again, it is not a ‘gain’ in war simply to bloody your enemy: you are supposed to achieve something in doing so.
There are a few other passages to similar effect, but for brevity, these two will do to illustrate the point: the author seems to be subtly implying that America is a "stupid fascist nation". Actually, the way he keeps clarifying the obvious, I think he expects a good amount of his readers to be "stupid fascists".
I cannot say I wholly disagree with his assessment!
He does nothing of the sort.
I can clarify for you: the mention of fascist countries being bad at war is a link to another article by the author, which explains that fascist countries such as Mussolini's Italy and Nazi Germany were very bad at a war even while they mythologized and romanticized it, and derived their "sense of nation" out of symbolic struggle and might. The article you linked to describes many fascist or fascist-like nations, like Putin's Russia, but does not mention liberal democracies such as the USA.
I recommend you read it.
So why did the author mention that article in this context? Because he wanted to explain that countries -- unless they are fascist countries -- have strategic goals for going to war, and so does the US in this case, and therefore it's warranted to look into those goals and whether they have a chance of being met.
Again, I recommend you read the article in question (the one about fascists being bad at war) before jumping to unwarranted conclusions.
And having a stated objective is quite different from having a real objective. Hitler had various stated objectives for all his wars (Lebensraum, fostering the Ubermensch, and rescuing Germans from the supposed oppressions of the Jews, which of course never existed and was purely a fiction to justify unspeakable horrors). If you take Hitler's words at face value, they were all motivated and not at all stupid wars. But you'd be very stupid to take Hitler's words at face value, especially with the benefit of hindsight!
I think the same arguments are applicable to trump. He has stated several goals, none of which are reasonably achievable. Take trumps words at face value and the war makes sense, but he has shown himself to be a pathological liar, so you'd be an idiot to believe him, especially when his statements lack any connection to the real world. Given how he tends to argue, it wouldn't surprise me at all if trump thinks that "bloodying your enemy" is a win in a war. That's how he works. That's how he handles trade. Doesn't matter if tariffs damage America, so long as they also damage other nations, it's a win. Of course he thinks that way about war too!
The end state trump is looking for is damage to Iran. He'll have it. But the rest of the world (including USA) will suffer tenfold. He doesn't care. Because he's a stupid fascist leader.
Thus, we end up with the conclusion that America had no real reason to start this war, and starting it anyway is an action historically only done by stupid fascist countries, therefore America is a stupid fascist country. It's a fourth order implication, which admittedly is not at all clear, and might not have been intentional.
I'm severely biased of course, I generally hold last week's turd in higher regard than I do trump (turds make great fertilizer!). So grain of salt and all that...
Well there are a lot of very stupid people in this world.
Proceeds to not mention the Epstein files at all. No comment here mentions it either.
All that mess and all those deep connections that were unraveling... I’m not a US citizen, but has that already been forgotten? Do people not consider that they might be relevant in some way to this situation? Or is raising that possibility now generally viewed as a conspiracy theory?
Region instability had ben regularly threatening freedom of navigation in the last five years
And USA may not consider the individual country strategic, but cares deeply about freedom of navigation, because the single market is basically the pillar for their hegemony.
Sarah Paine lectures give overall better lenses to look at this engagement.
They held the threat of closing it, as a deterrent of an attack, and once attacked, they did just that.
You either live in a parallel universe, or are just spewing here propaganda.
Lol there were routine attcaks every time things weren't going their way. Whos been in a parallel universe?
And never said closed. I said ransom.
Especially in the heavily jingoistic american context, where all of the focus is implicitly on the military means and technology and execution, but people have lost sight of, maybe can not even state plainly, what the point of a military is, what considerations are part of deciding to use it to accomplish a goal.
If you're going to accomplish a strategic goal with a military action, that goal had better be achievable through military action and this one plainly isn't. A historian can see it, a blogger can see it, a programmer can see it. Why wasn't it seen by people whose job is ostensibly to see it?
1. If US was to replace Iran as the one to control exports of oil through the strait, then thos would gain huge leverage on China via control of energy exports from Iran, Middle East more generally, as they have already done in Venezuela.
2. Making it clear that partnership with Russia and China will not provide security, which was shown to be worthless. This counters “The East is rising and the West is declining”, a go-to Xi Jinping line.
4. Securing South America for near-shoring production, decoupling of supply chains from China. Iran, China, and Russia have lots of
5. Disrupting Iranian ability to support Russia against Ukraine via manufacturing of drones in Iran and in Venezuela.
Whether these points are actually part of the strategy, I do not know, but they have been raised by others in the space, and seemed absent in the article.
These rewards are useful to the US if they accomplish regime change to a friendly regime or at least military occupation of a good strip of land.
The article is about how these two preconditions for obtaining the rewards are unlikely to be fulfilled and, at the same time, non-accomplishment might achieve the opposite:
- Iran (and by necessity, other Gulf states if they want to export oil) align more with China
- US-partnership will not provide security (Arab states, South Korea and other allies are now less secure and the US can't protect them)
- US and allies are in a worse position to secure South America
Huge risk with little chances of a reward. That's the article.
Modifying the rewards does not change the game unless the probability of obtaining them increases or that of the risks decreases.
The author is a military historian and professor with a PhD, so not an amateur.
If you think this isn't high grade, or that it is mistaken, please explain how and why.
Maybe the strategic balance creates a situation where it's advantageous for Iran to pull US in regardless of non-involvement. They don't do well against Israel alone (see rather low damage of 4 separate large scale attempts at attacking Israel directly), but US is so much easier to pressure via the Gulf. Indeed, this scenario doesn't quite need Israel.
So US risked getting pulled in not due to attacking in June 2025, but because the cheque given to the Gulf was starting to expire, the power balance was objectively swinging in favor of Iran at the location where Devereaux sees as the most important part of the Middle East. Now, say there are powerful states who feel they are in a decent position now but also that the strategic balance would slip away. What do they tend to do? Devereaux can consult his WW1 history.
The response is as applicable now as it was then. Time will tell.