Iran doesn’t have the capacity to attack the US directly, you could simply withdraw troops from the middle east and cut off Israel. From there it’s a matter of offered concessions or otherwise ignoring the region and hoping things restablize.
It’s more of a question of what they have to gain. They can instantly get a lot of money to stop the attacks. It also gives them the biggest tool they have back. If they continue to stop shipping, and require a toll, they don’t have that as leverage to use later. It’s just the standard. Think about if they were doing that before the invasion. The US would just leave and give them nothing, because it’s the status quo.
But then we objectively, officially, lose the war. The presumption of American military superiority would be destroyed, which would spell the end of the American empire, and they cannot let that happen. Of course the perception of our superiority is already screwed because Iran made god bleed, but that only makes Trump and friends more desperate to win.
The US has lost all but two of the wars it has committed itself to since WW2, with Korea and Desert Storm being seaming flukes at this point. What’s another mark upon that record, better to cut losses than be further humiliated at this point.
The empire is already burning let’s not send further legions into Germania.
Korea and Desert Storm being seaming flukes at this point
It’s even less stellar than that. Korea was a stalemate. Desert Storm achieved its limited objectives but didn’t resolve the underlying problems, so we got Gulf War 2 (which had poorly defined objectives and which failed on a far greater scale).
There were far smaller skirmishes such as the Grenada invasion and the NATO intervention in the former Yugoslavia that were arguably more successful at their near-term, limited aims.
If there’s any lesson to be learned, it’s that the Powell Doctrine should be reinstated. Also, that imperialist interference is a loser’s game, and initiatives by broad international coalitions are less likely to degenerate into clusterfucks.
I broadly agree except with Korea. The Korea was successful in its initial aims, the original end goal was to restablize the border and push the Norks to a higher parallel. The problems can be largely laid down at the feet of general MacArthur who wanted to annihilate the Norks, basically everyone disagreed but was unwilling to override him. This resulted in the Chinese getting involved which is why actually wiping out the Norks was not on the table originally, they were supposed to be used as a buffer state. Eventually MacArthur gets fired by Truman and people who aren’t stupid and don’t want to nuke Manchuria take charge, the warfront stabilizes and the modern borders are established. Maybe the active war couldve gone on for longer but by that point basically everyone involved was done with the conflict and figured that nobody winning outright was acceptable, UN and US succeeded at the initial goal if a bit lower in latitude and the Soviet bloc keeps the Norks.
I think this is different given the context of this war. It’s not an insurgency or an unfamiliar jungle it’s just a super power losing against a “lesser” military. In the process also losing influence over 20% of the world’s oil supply, which is the oil that gives the American petrodollar its value. This stupid ass and unnecessary war could change the power structure of the entire world.
It’s still effectively an asymmetric war something that basically favors home field advantage to the point of absurdity. Winning is basically impossible given that Iran has been preparing for this exact scenario for decades, any escalation will worsen the look of the US since the current dipshits in charge don’t know how to do jack shit.
Honestly pulling out before it turns into the US equivalent of the Soviet-Afghan war is basically the only way forward that doesn’t lead towards federal collapse IMO. Those in Congress have an active incentive to prevent that from happening while also working as a great propaganda win for those who side against it. The damage is already done cutting losses is the best that can be done at this point.
Our? Nah Americas. Personally I’m a Californian nationalist and recognized that the US has to collapse for my wants to come true. Problem is I’m also annoyed by incompetency and wish I could be wrong so as to not scorn my ancestors who actually had a grudging faith in the government. Regardless we’ll have to wait and see how things pan out after the mid terms, my money is that something will happen either during the elections or before January which will shake things up.
Which is why I included the option of just abandoning the region. Frankly the middle east is just a liability and has been since the 70s oil crisis. It’s a statement on foolishness that not only has reliance on oil held steady but expanded. If a forceful material change is required then so be it.
You completely ignored my point. Leaving the region include stopping all aids to Israel and aiding all sanctions on Iran and for this to happen you need the majority of the congress to approve it which is not the case right now
The US opened this conflict up by bombing a pre-teen girls school in Iran, and civilan infrastructure-- war crimes and terrorism. And the “west” has been supporting the Palestinian holocaust, war crimes and racism conducted by the zionists for 80 years. I could go on and on about all the crimes that we have seen, but its old news.
I dont think many countries in the “west” get to unironically use that “terrorism” word anymore. Its especially meaningless when we pretend its a travesty then do it nonstop ourselves.
Iran doesn’t have the capacity to attack the US directly, you could simply withdraw troops from the middle east and cut off Israel. From there it’s a matter of offered concessions or otherwise ignoring the region and hoping things restablize.
Iran has shown willingness to negotiate. I just think that at this point they just don’t want to negotiate with Trump anymore.
I’m not sure what they have to lose by just ignoring the US and keeping the Oman side of the strait more or less closed.
It sounds like shipping via their toll system is going fairly well.
It’s more of a question of what they have to gain. They can instantly get a lot of money to stop the attacks. It also gives them the biggest tool they have back. If they continue to stop shipping, and require a toll, they don’t have that as leverage to use later. It’s just the standard. Think about if they were doing that before the invasion. The US would just leave and give them nothing, because it’s the status quo.
That would be conceding their ability to block the Hormuz strait. Major geostrstegic defeat.
But then we objectively, officially, lose the war. The presumption of American military superiority would be destroyed, which would spell the end of the American empire, and they cannot let that happen. Of course the perception of our superiority is already screwed because Iran made god bleed, but that only makes Trump and friends more desperate to win.
The US has lost all but two of the wars it has committed itself to since WW2, with Korea and Desert Storm being seaming flukes at this point. What’s another mark upon that record, better to cut losses than be further humiliated at this point.
The empire is already burning let’s not send further legions into Germania.
It’s even less stellar than that. Korea was a stalemate. Desert Storm achieved its limited objectives but didn’t resolve the underlying problems, so we got Gulf War 2 (which had poorly defined objectives and which failed on a far greater scale).
There were far smaller skirmishes such as the Grenada invasion and the NATO intervention in the former Yugoslavia that were arguably more successful at their near-term, limited aims.
If there’s any lesson to be learned, it’s that the Powell Doctrine should be reinstated. Also, that imperialist interference is a loser’s game, and initiatives by broad international coalitions are less likely to degenerate into clusterfucks.
I broadly agree except with Korea. The Korea was successful in its initial aims, the original end goal was to restablize the border and push the Norks to a higher parallel. The problems can be largely laid down at the feet of general MacArthur who wanted to annihilate the Norks, basically everyone disagreed but was unwilling to override him. This resulted in the Chinese getting involved which is why actually wiping out the Norks was not on the table originally, they were supposed to be used as a buffer state. Eventually MacArthur gets fired by Truman and people who aren’t stupid and don’t want to nuke Manchuria take charge, the warfront stabilizes and the modern borders are established. Maybe the active war couldve gone on for longer but by that point basically everyone involved was done with the conflict and figured that nobody winning outright was acceptable, UN and US succeeded at the initial goal if a bit lower in latitude and the Soviet bloc keeps the Norks.
I think this is different given the context of this war. It’s not an insurgency or an unfamiliar jungle it’s just a super power losing against a “lesser” military. In the process also losing influence over 20% of the world’s oil supply, which is the oil that gives the American petrodollar its value. This stupid ass and unnecessary war could change the power structure of the entire world.
It’s still effectively an asymmetric war something that basically favors home field advantage to the point of absurdity. Winning is basically impossible given that Iran has been preparing for this exact scenario for decades, any escalation will worsen the look of the US since the current dipshits in charge don’t know how to do jack shit.
Honestly pulling out before it turns into the US equivalent of the Soviet-Afghan war is basically the only way forward that doesn’t lead towards federal collapse IMO. Those in Congress have an active incentive to prevent that from happening while also working as a great propaganda win for those who side against it. The damage is already done cutting losses is the best that can be done at this point.
I agree they should pull out, but I don’t think they see that as an option anymore. Hubris will be our downfall.
Our? Nah Americas. Personally I’m a Californian nationalist and recognized that the US has to collapse for my wants to come true. Problem is I’m also annoyed by incompetency and wish I could be wrong so as to not scorn my ancestors who actually had a grudging faith in the government. Regardless we’ll have to wait and see how things pan out after the mid terms, my money is that something will happen either during the elections or before January which will shake things up.
Simple theorically but most of the congress will refuse to give any major concession to Iran necessary to end the war
Which is why I included the option of just abandoning the region. Frankly the middle east is just a liability and has been since the 70s oil crisis. It’s a statement on foolishness that not only has reliance on oil held steady but expanded. If a forceful material change is required then so be it.
You completely ignored my point. Leaving the region include stopping all aids to Israel and aiding all sanctions on Iran and for this to happen you need the majority of the congress to approve it which is not the case right now
Iran will turn to terrorism
The US opened this conflict up by bombing a pre-teen girls school in Iran, and civilan infrastructure-- war crimes and terrorism. And the “west” has been supporting the Palestinian holocaust, war crimes and racism conducted by the zionists for 80 years. I could go on and on about all the crimes that we have seen, but its old news.
I dont think many countries in the “west” get to unironically use that “terrorism” word anymore. Its especially meaningless when we pretend its a travesty then do it nonstop ourselves.
Fair enough, meant no offense
no problem, same here.
Terrorism like US or like Israel.
Yes
Twenty years of listening to you fuckers say this about Afghanistan, but we lost, and where are all the 9/11s?