Subject: Re: Is NATO figuring it out?
Why didn't we do that? Why haven't we started escorting tankers and other shipping vessels through the gulf? Is it because of our moral weakness, cowardice, and lack of any ability to project power?

Because we're taking out their ability to launch attacks. I'll also point out that I've flagged the diminished state of our Navy for the past several years on this board and on PA.

Or is because that particular mission involves putting servicemen and women within twenty miles of the Iranian coast, making them viable targets for Iran to create non-trivial numbers of casualties that the American public will not support?

Oh, so we're the cowards? That's certainly a take. "TACO" (<--- lol) and all that.

And all of those paths remain just as open to them now as they did before the war. We haven't done anything to change their capabilities.

If one believes that all we've done is blow up empty parking lots and bounce rubble, sure.

Iranian strategy has always been to head down the path of getting a nuclear weapon and not pass breakout.

And there it is. I knew that leftists didn't actually believe that the Iranians really wanted a nuclear weapon, that instead it was all a bluff. Or something.

If they had actually wanted to move to breakout, they easily could have at any point during the last five or six years (up until the 12 Day War). But they did not. Because the faction in the Iranian government that wanted breakout was in the minority, and they were overruled by others who felt that Iran could project power more readily in a non-nuclear Middle East than one in which six or seven countries had nukes.

Erm, okay. The religious fanatics who export terror at will are the dominant "faction" in the Iranian government. There IS no other "faction" of "moderates". I'm, reminded of the 1980's joke that goes like this:

What does an Iranian moderate look like?
He's the one who ran out of ammunition.

Still applies today.

Except he didn't. He didn't choose to end the threat.

Sure, okay. We're just digging holes with our explosives in Iran. Totally pointless exercise.

He chose to engage in an aerial campaign without ground troops. Which doesn't end Iran's nuclear capabilities - indeed, it barely will affect them from where they were before the war. They hadn't restarted the program, so there wasn't really anything left that hadn't been destroyed in the 12-day war. And it doesn't end Iran's nuclear ambitions, and indeed makes it far more likely that they won't stop short of breakout when they restart their program.

And if the Marines are sent in to seize Kharg Island, then what will you say? Taking that is checkmate for Iran's economy, as 90% of their oil exports move through those terminals. Seize that, the Iranian economy ceases to exist.

I'll won't ask you to comment on the hypothetical of Iran threatening to detonate a nuclear weapon in the middle of the strait. Instead, I'll play it out for you:

1. Iran issues the threat. Immediately Lloyd's on London says "We're not insuring tanker traffic through the Gulf" or just raises rates through the ceiling.
2. Oil prices rise
3. The western powers can't risk war because it's too easy for the Iranians to carry out their threat. Plus it's not like they're threatening to nuke Chicago or London, so a nuclear deterrent is off the table.
4. The Iranians gain concessions in the form of sanctions relief and quickly put the money towards terror and more weapons development.
5. In 12 months, the cycle starts again.

That's what strategic inaction buys you. If I'm Trump when this is all over I call up Rutte and tell him not to bother to invite Spain and France to any NATO conferences or meetings because as far as the US delegation is concerned, they're dead to us. I'd also cancel any and all training exercises with either country for a few years (it's not like they have any military readiness anyhow). I'd also quietly speak to Giorgia Meloni about relocating any Sixth Fleet ships from Rota, Spain to Naples (where the repair facilities are located anyway).