Subject: Re: Dear MAGA, thank you for the foreign wars!
Literally everything you're saying about the situation now actually applied to the US Navy running around the Red Sea playing whack a mole.

But that's not going to be changed by what we're doing. That's the problem with the limited strategic objective of replacing Khameini with another Khameini...or some other random mullah. The same theocratic authoritarian regime is still going to be in charge of the same very large country (17th largest population, 43rd largest by GDP even with sanctions), which will have more than enough resources to continue supporting the Houthis if they want. Taking out their nuclear program doesn't solve for that. Taking out the regime might solve for that, but we're not going to do that.

We're not fixing anything in Iran. Once we stop bombing them, the regime will still be in charge, and they'll start rebuilding their capabilities - just like they did after we bombed their nuclear facilities, and just like they did after Israel bombed their ballistic missile facilities.

Oh? They have drone carrying ships? Nuclear tipped ballistic missiles? Swarms of drones they can threaten others with?

That's not relevant. That wasn't the job they were doing for China. Again, China didn't materially depend on them for any military objectives - they want Iran to be their economic and diplomatic ally and provide a steady source of energy. We're not hurting China by degrading Iran's military capabilities. It doesn't affect their interests very much, and it certainly doesn't outweigh the beneficial things we're doing by opening up opportunities for them in a post-war Iran.

...all the while lacking the offensive firepower they had not 2 weeks ago. With the entire GCC behind us. With a renewed license for us to smash up any and everything we want in Iran any time we want to. With a restless population. With a shattered leadership core. And many other things.

So what? They didn't need any of that offensive firepower in order to supply China with energy or be their "b1tch" in diplomatic circles. Again, you keep mistaking operational goals ("We blew up most of their military equipment!") with strategic goals ("We didn't diminish their ability to be valuable to China, because that didn't depend on their military equipment!").

We haven't gained anything of importance, vis-a-vis China. They're in no different a spot now than they were two weeks ago. So when you write:

If Iran wants to be openly hostile to the Gulf Nations and China starts something, think any of them will have any compunctions about sinking shipping bound for China? No.

And that means the Chinese have to devote resources to protect their energy flank. Resources they never would have to think about expending if Iran were to retain the power to intimidate its neighbors in the Gulf. That's all gone now.

...none of that is any different than it was two weeks ago. Iran never had the ability to prevent tankers bound for China from being sunk. They don't have a blue water navy that can do that. And again, China imports vastly more oil from the other Gulf states than they do from Iran, which oil could be cut off by those Gulf states without the need for sinking tankers. China doesn't have to devote any more, or fewer, resources to protect their energy flank now than they did two weeks ago - because none of what we blew up are any resources useful for protecting China's energy flank. What we've done doesn't affect this in any way. Nothing that we've made "gone" now has any relevance to China's energy flank.

They've been improving their energy security by: i) stockpiling and reserving; and ii) reducing their oil dependency by significantly investing in renewables. They want to make sure their military is resistant to an oil embargo and that their economy is less vulnerable to an oil shock. None of that is affected in the slightest by whether Iran has ballistic missiles.