Post New

...says a surprising source:

Two weeks into Operation Epic Fury, the dominant narrative has settled into a comfortable groove: The United States and Israel stumbled into a war without a plan. Iran is retaliating across the region. Oil prices are surging, and the world is facing another Middle Eastern quagmire. US senators have called it a blunder. Cable news has tallied the crises. Commentators have warned of a long war.

Yep!

But:

But the critics are making a different error: They are treating the costs of action as if the costs of inaction were zero. They were not. They were measured in the slow accretion of a threat that, left unchecked, would have produced exactly the crisis everyone claims to fear: a nuclear-armed Iran capable of closing the Strait of Hormuz at will, surrounded by proxy forces that could hold the entire region hostage indefinitely.

Seventeen days in, Iran’s supreme leader is dead, his successor is reportedly wounded and every principal instrument of Iranian power projection – missiles, nuclear infrastructure, air defences, the navy, proxy command networks – has been degraded beyond near-term recovery. The campaign’s execution has been imperfect, its public communication poor and its post-conflict planning incomplete. War is never clean. But the strategy – the actual strategy, measured in degraded capabilities rather than cable news cycles – is working.


From all places, al Jazeera: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2026/3/16/the-u...

Except that article shows that the strategy....is not working. The key piece:

The limits of military force against a nuclear programme are real, and as others have argued elsewhere, strikes can destroy facilities but cannot eliminate knowledge. The 440kg of enriched uranium remains unaccounted for.

A successor regime of any political colour will inherit a strategic environment in which the case for nuclear deterrence has been strengthened, not weakened. These are genuine long-term risks. But they are arguments for a comprehensive post-conflict diplomatic architecture, not arguments against the campaign itself.

That's the point, right? We're "degrading" nearly all of Iran's conventional military capabilities...but that doesn't affect their nuclear threat. We're not doing anything that will materially affect their ability to develop a nuclear weapon after the war, from where they were right before the war. We had destroyed their enrichment program back in June ("obliterated" was the word), but this war doesn't create any obstacles to them restarting the program at a future date that didn't exist before the war. The same is generally true of their conventional military capabilities and their ballistic missile programs - they can always be rebuilt, and indeed Iran had almost completely replenished their ballistic missile inventory within about six months after much of it was destroyed by the 12 Day war.

The author is absolutely wrong in concluding that these aren't arguments against the campaign itself. They are core arguments against the campaign. If the campaign isn't actually doing anything to stop Iran from restarting their nuclear program once the war is over, then the campaign doesn't further that strategic goal - which vastly affects whether the campaign should have been undertaken. Especially since (as acknowledged here) the attacks only strengthen the case for getting a nuclear weapon. And the same is true of the ballistic missile program.

When the author writes:

But the critics’ implicit alternative, continued restraint while Iran inched towards a nuclear weapon, is the policy that produced the crisis in the first place. Every year of strategic patience added centrifuges to the enrichment halls and kilogrammes to the stockpile.

...he's committing the politician's fallacy:

1. We must do something to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
2. This is something.
3. Therefore, we must do this.

The critics' aren't making an "implicit alternative" - pointing out that this war isn't going to do anything effective to stop Iran from inching towards a nuclear weapon is not a claim that any particular alternative would be better. Just that this particular alternative won't work, but has a lot of other costs that different tactics do not. Even if one is correct that Iran can't be bribed out of pursuing a nuke, that doesn't mean that they can be bombed out of pursuing a nuke - it just means that bribing them wouldn't work. Just because the "implicit alternative" wasn't working doesn't mean that this plan of action "is working."

We're not doing anything that will materially affect their ability to develop a nuclear weapon after the war, from where they were right before the war.

Depends on how many of their scientists and engineers we're getting.

Just that this particular alternative won't work, but has a lot of other costs that different tactics do not. Even if one is correct that Iran can't be bribed out of pursuing a nuke, that doesn't mean that they can be bombed out of pursuing a nuke - it just means that bribing them wouldn't work. Just because the "implicit alternative" wasn't working doesn't mean that this plan of action "is working."

At any rate, the point was that this article didn't appear on Fox. It was on al-Jazeera.

At any rate, the point was that this article didn't appear on Fox. It was on al-Jazeera.

Doesn't make his analysis any more correct. Or even that surprising - there are Iran "hawks" in a variety of places that one might not expect (Bret Stephens over at the NYT is one), and Iran is a horrible actor in the Middle East that many folks in al-Jazeera's target audience might want to read the argument in favor of hitting them.

The more important point is that his arguments that the strategy is working are pretty weak. Again, we don't know the final outcome. We might send a few thousand troops in to go and get the uranium; we might launch a full on ground war to overthrow the regime; the Iranian people might rise up on their own to overthrown the regime; etc. I personally don't think any of them are all that likely - but even if you disagree and think one of those scenarios is going to unfold, they are not happening right now. Right now, what we're doing is blowing up things that can be blown up with bombs and missiles. Which is a lot of stuff, to be sure - but most of that stuff is not directly related to the strategic goal of preventing Iran from restarting their nuclear program or rebuilding their missile program after the war. Obviously they can't do anything while the bombs are falling, but eventually the bombs will stop falling, and they'll have all the resources that come with a sizable economy and a ton of oil wealth to restart whatever it is they're going to do. So whatever the strategic goals are (and they shift a lot), this article doesn't provide a lot of support for the contention that the campaign is working to achieve them. At least, thus far.

They were measured in the slow accretion of a threat that, left unchecked, would have produced exactly the crisis everyone claims to fear: a nuclear-armed Iran capable of closing the Strait of Hormuz at will, surrounded by proxy forces that could hold the entire region hostage indefinitely.

As with Iraq, appears nukes were nothing but an excuse. The Omani mediator in the negotiations reported good progress and was optimistic of an agreement where Iran would downmix the U it had and abandon it's nuke program. But that wasn't what "Bibi" wanted. "Bibi" wants Iran crushed into a failed state, and apparently was only waiting for Iran to be knocked down, to invade Lebanon.

Steve

Doesn't make his analysis any more correct.

Doesn't make it wrong, either.

I personally don't think any of them are all that likely - but even if you disagree and think one of those scenarios is going to unfold, they are not happening right now.

Yeah. And?

Obviously they can't do anything while the bombs are falling, but eventually the bombs will stop falling, and they'll have all the resources that come with a sizable economy and a ton of oil wealth to restart whatever it is they're going to do. So whatever the strategic goals are (and they shift a lot), this article doesn't provide a lot of support for the contention that the campaign is working to achieve them. At least, thus far.

From the article:

When you look at what has actually happened to Iran’s principal instruments of power – its ballistic missile arsenal, its nuclear infrastructure, its air defences, its navy and its proxy command architecture – the picture is not one of US failure. It is one of systematic, phased degradation of a threat that previous administrations allowed to grow for four decades.

This is true.
It's going to take a while to knock all this stuff down and see what can be done from there. Declaring everything a failure now is somewhat premature.

"That's the point, right? We're "degrading" nearly all of Iran's conventional military capabilities...but that doesn't affect their nuclear threat. We're not doing anything that will materially affect their ability to develop a nuclear weapon after the war, from where they were right before the war. We had destroyed their enrichment program back in June ("obliterated" was the word), but this war doesn't create any obstacles to them restarting the program at a future date that didn't exist before the war. The same is generally true of their conventional military capabilities and their ballistic missile programs - they can always be rebuilt, and indeed Iran had almost completely replenished their ballistic missile inventory within about six months after much of it was destroyed by the 12 Day war." - Albaby

Maybe we need someone to come up with a way to have Iran voluntarily give up their nuclear weapons program in exchange for something else. Of course, it would have to have a rigorous inspection program attached to it to make sure Iran is not cheating. Maybe we could get all of the European powers plus Russia to sign off on such an agreement.

Oh wait, we already had that, but some idiot president who always thinks he can negotiate better deals (but never seems to be able to actually do so) came in a broke that agreement.

Yes, MAGA it's working...

"Americans are taking hardship withdrawals from their retirement accounts at the fastest pace in history warns Vanguard"

"U.S. Housing Market has reached its most unaffordable level in history"

"Home Sellers now outnumber Buyers by more than 600,000, the largest gap ever recorded"

"Diesel fuel prices in the US—the lifeblood of freight, agriculture, and construction—have risen above $5/gallon"

"Private Credit Defaults hit an all-time high 9.2%"

"US coffee prices are surging at a record pace: The average price of ground roast coffee is up to a record $9.46 per pound"

"49% of Americans are now struggling to afford their regular rent or mortgage payments, up from 44% in May 2025, according to a Redfin survey"

"The top U.S. counterterrorism official, Joseph Kent, has resigned in "protest" of the Iran war, I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation." Kent said.

America First?... We’re first—in unaffordability, debt, and creative ways to call total collapse ‘winning!’

MAGA = The Red, White, and Bleak

At any rate, the point was that this article didn't appear on Fox. It was on al-Jazeera.

Just for the record, it wasn’t an article, it was an opinion essay.

There are differences. From AI:
Articles are generally objective, informative pieces written for a broad audience in newspapers or magazines, focusing on facts. Opinion essays are subjective, analytical, or persuasive arguments, often showcasing the writer's personal viewpoint or experiences, typically for academic purposes or specialized publications.

I personally don't think any of them are all that likely - but even if you disagree and think one of those scenarios is going to unfold, they are not happening right now.

Yeah. And?

Well, if you want to say the strategy is working - present tense - then you'd need the operation mission to be accomplishing some of the strategic goals.

One of the major strategic goals is to prevent Iran from restarting their nuclear program. But nothing we've done so far is working to accomplish that goal yet, at least in any demonstrable way. The regime is still in place, and therefore still has the same motive to pursue nukes as before - and probably more. The uranium is still in country, presumably in exactly the same place as it was before the war (ie. under the rubble of the demolished facilities). Iran hadn't previously restored their enrichment capacity that was destroyed in the 12 Day War, so we're obviously not affecting that. Etc.

IOW, if the war were to end today, there's nothing to indicate that Iran would be in any different a position on their nuclear ambitions tomorrow than they were on June 25 last year. The current war "isn't working" to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon. If we were to have a massive ground invasion to depose the regime, or if we were to send in the several thousand troops necessary to locate and extract the uranium, or if the Iranian people were to rise up and overthrow the regime, then that would be progress towards stopping them from getting a nuclear weapon. But none of those things is happening. The stuff that we know is happening isn't changing Iran's position vis-a-vis nuclear weapons in any material way, except arguably to strengthen the position of those in Iran who have advocated that nukes are the only way to provide national security against the U.S. and Israel.

One of the major strategic goals is to prevent Iran from restarting their nuclear program. But nothing we've done so far is working to accomplish that goal yet, at least in any demonstrable way.

And you don't know this either. You don't know where the material is or what the status of it is.

Why not...just let this thing play out for a while and see what happens? Why the rush to pass judgement and declare the entire thing a failure?

America First?... We’re first—in unaffordability, debt, and creative ways to call total collapse ‘winning!’

But, most importantly how are Trump, his family and cronies, and the oligarch class doing?

After he gets their votes, MAGA doesn't count for sht in Trump's world.

After he gets their votes, MAGA doesn't count for sht in Trump's world.

Typical "JC". Tell the Proles anything, to get what you want from them, right now. Then, once you have it, screw them over, until you want something from them again.

How to break the cycle? Fix it so you don't ever need anything from Proles again.

Steve

And you don't know this either. You don't know where the material is or what the status of it is.

Ah, but I'm not out there writing articles claiming that "The strategy....is working." Right? If you're saying, "the strategy...might end up working if certain things happen," then that's far more defensible. But the author of that piece has no more idea than I do about where the material is or what the status of it is - so he has no real basis to claim that the strategy is actually working.

Why not...just let this thing play out for a while and see what happens? Why the rush to pass judgement and declare the entire thing a failure?

Partially because this is a major ongoing current event, and it's natural to talk about it? And as informed citizens, perhaps form assessments about whether or not the ongoing operations are achieving their strategic goals - so that we can exercise oversight and pressure on our elected officials to conduct those operations in a way that serves the country's interests? Of course we're going to discuss it. Of course we'll make assessments.

Partially because I genuinely do not understand how the military operation (what we're doing) is intended to accomplish our strategic goals (what we want) - so I am hoping that these conversations will help clarify that. I'm not rushing to judgement and declaring the thing will be a failure, because we don't know what is going to happen. But I do not see how the specific types of operations we are conducting (entirely attacking from long range with bombs and missiles) can accomplish the strategic goals we've set out (stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, preventing them from being a regional threat). Those don't seem to be the sorts of goals that can be accomplished with bombs, because the bombs eventually have to stop - and so if the government is still largely the same, the threat profile after the bombs stop is still largely the same, except perhaps in the very short run. Drones and short-range ballistic (as opposed to cruise or guided) missiles are relatively simple, not overly expensive to build, and can be replenished fairly quickly. There's no indication that the nuclear program has been affected at all (because, again, it had already been "obliterated" within the year).

And mostly, I was responding to the article that you posted that wasn't "letting this thing play out for a while and see what happens." That article was "rushing to pass judgment" and declare that the entire thing "is working". Again, present tense. I'm pointing out that's not correct - if we're going to pass judgment on how things are going at the present moment, it's hard to see any strategic goal that we've accomplished that was worth the cost. We'll end up spending billions and billions of dollars and deplete our own military readiness, as well as precipitate an energy crisis, to mostly degrade Iran's conventional military and short-range ballistic missile threat. Which, great, Iran now doesn't have an air force or navy - but how much of an imminent threat to us (or really to anyone) were Iran's air force or navy or even ballistic threat that it was smart to do this now?

"And you don't know this either. You don't know where the material is or what the status of it is." - Dumbass Dope

Hmm, we used to know exactly where the Iranian nuclear material was and what was the status of their nuclear program. We knew it all in precise detail and had a rigorous inspection program to ensure Iran stayed compliant.

So we went from having intimate knowledge of their program, what they were doing, how much material they had, etc. to knowing nothing about it. We don't know where the material is, how much is left, or if they have restarted production yet.

Yet somehow you think it is a good thing that Trump went from having extensive knowledge of the Iranian nuclear program to knowing almost nothing so now he has to do continuous bombing, destabilize the Middle East, drive up oil prices, driven a wedge between us and our allies, and spend billions of dollars each day attacking Iran.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe Trump's foreign policy just isn't very smart?

Why not...just let this thing play out for a while and see what happens? Why the rush to pass judgement and declare the entire thing a failure?

Partially because this is a major ongoing current event, and it's natural to talk about it? And as informed citizens, perhaps form assessments about whether or not the ongoing operations are achieving their strategic goals - so that we can exercise oversight and pressure on our elected officials to conduct those operations in a way that serves the country's interests? Of course we're going to discuss it. Of course we'll make assessments.

The Wall Street Journal, not usually thought of as a hotbed of liberal opposition to Trump, is “making assessments.” In fact, they are doing so with repeated articles (and opinion pieces) which are not terribly optimistic about doing everything “by air.”

Here’s an interesting piece today:

Israel Is Hunting Down Iranian Regime Members in Their Hideouts, One by One
The killings of top officials mark milestones in a fierce campaign to bring down the Tehran government

But decades of military experience show it is difficult if not impossible to dislodge a government from the air. And if the Iranian regime survives, it could emerge emboldened and more dangerous. “It will be a clear victory for the regime with both predictable and unforeseen circumstances,” said Farzin Nadimi, an Iran-focused senior fellow with the Washington Institute, a U.S.-based think tank.
…
Last week, while Israeli officials were openly questioning whether air power alone could bring down the regime, the military was expanding its targets.
…
https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/israel-iran-...

Those two snippets are not representative of the article, which is mostly about the success of Israeli targeting and killing various memebers of the Iranian heirarchy, from political leaders to street level operatives. What becomes clear, however, is that a simple “decapitation” strategy is not goingt to be enough to bring about regime change given the many layers and levels of the power structure all throughout the country and society.

It’s an interesting article, but I am out of “gifts” for the month; if you can find it elsewhere I’d suggest reading it, whether you are “pro” or “con”, it fills in a lot of details which don’t cone through in the chatterheads TV version of the war.

It’s an interesting article, but I am out of “gifts” for the month; if you can find it elsewhere I’d suggest reading it, whether you are “pro” or “con”, it fills in a lot of details which don’t come through in the chatterheads TV version of the war.

You can read the article here:

https://archive.ph/it1lS

Yes, MAGA it's working...

Brent crude oil prices surge to $110/barrel after Israel strikes Iran's largest gas plant...
Iran is now announcing that some Gulf energy sites are "legitimate targets."

Ah, but I'm not out there writing articles claiming that "The strategy....is working." Right? If you're saying, "the strategy...might end up working if certain things happen," then that's far more defensible. But the author of that piece has no more idea than I do about where the material is or what the status of it is - so he has no real basis to claim that the strategy is actually working.

Hmm. That all depends on how we want to define "strategy". You're narrowing it down to only the nuclear component but the broader plan has always been about Iranian power projection across the region...and that certainly is being degraded severely.

-Their Navy is done
-No more Air Force
-They're running out of ballistic missiles
-Their having trouble launching drones
-The Air Force blew up a bunch of their anti-ship missiles this morning

...and now we're gunning for their production facilities for missiles and drones. We also continue to whack specific regime figures, as in this morning where Esmail Khatib (Iran's intelligence chief) met his maker.

This is a process, and the US and Israel are methodically working their way through it.

That article was "rushing to pass judgment" and declare that the entire thing "is working". Again, present tense. I'm pointing out that's not correct - if we're going to pass judgment on how things are going at the present moment, it's hard to see any strategic goal that we've accomplished that was worth the cost.

That's certainly one way to look at it. Not the way I look at it. It's very fair to say "it's working" while thing is still in progress when it's obvious in the kills we're chalking up and the equipment of theirs that we're blowing up is highly measureable.

Oh, then there's this:

The Journal reviewed the contents of one call between a senior Iranian police commander and an agent of the Mossad, Israel’s foreign-intelligence service.

“Can you hear me?” a Mossad agent can be heard, speaking in Farsi. “We know everything about you. You are on our blacklist, and we have all the information about you.”

“OK,” the commander said in the recording.

“I called to warn you in advance that you should stand with your people’s side,” the Mossad agent said. “And if you will not do that, your destiny will be as your leader. Do you hear me?”

“Brother, I swear on the Quran, I’m not your enemy,” the commander said. “I’m a dead man already. Just please come help us.”
https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/israel-iran-...


Bwahahahahahaha. As I said, they're working their way down the list. Amazing how it works when the other side knows all the bad things you do and has you on a list how some of these guys suddenly lose enthusiasm for The Cause.

You're narrowing it down to only the nuclear component but the broader plan has always been about Iranian power projection across the region...and that certainly is being degraded severely.

Is that the goal of the war? To degrade Iranian power projection in the region?

The Administration most frequently talks about the need to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon - not generally degrading Iran's power projection. Because, of course, that kind of conventional regional military power is probably not something that would really warrant a pre-emptive war against Iran. I don't think that anyone was arguing that U.S. interests were especially threatened by the fact that Iran had a navy, or had an air force. So while destroying those things certainly weakens their conventional military power, the improvement to our security interests from removing that aspect of their power isn't all that high. Particularly given the significant costs of waging this kind of war.

And, of course, given that they will certainly rebuild some of that capacity after the bombing stops. No one seriously thinks that Iran's going to throw up their hands and say, "Well, I guess we'll never have an air force again." Missiles are easy to rebuild - nearly all of their missiles were either destroyed or launched during the 12 Day War, and most of their launchers as well, and they completely replenished them within less than a year. Sure - we've made great strides in degrading Iran's conventional military capabilities -which weren't really a significant security threat to the U.S. (or quite frankly to the region, since Iran's ability to project power wasn't really predicated on their relatively modest navy or air force). We've used up most of their ballistic missiles, at the cost of using up the lion's share of our available missile defense systems - they'll have to replenish the former, and we'll have to replenish the latter. Is that worth tens of billions of dollars and precipitating a global energy crisis? Doesn't seem like a particularly "working" strategy to me. We're notching the goals that aren't especially valuable (neutralizing the Iranian naval threat), while not achieving the goals that were arguably more important (neutralizing the Iranian nuclear threat)...and all at great cost.

Is that the goal of the war? To degrade Iranian power projection in the region?

Partway through the clip from TYT, that I posted earlier this morning, there is discussion of the PNAC crowd, which populated quite a bit of the Bush junta. In 96, that group published a hit list of seven countries Israel wanted the US to knock over. That list included Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Iran. There is also a segment of General Wes Clark talking about a visit to the Pentagon in the early 2000s. Clark was chatting with a serving General, and the General said he had just received a memo from Rumsfeld saying the US was going to war with Iraq. Clark asked why. The General had no idea why the US would want to attack Iraq.

Here's that link again. The discussion of the Israeli hit list from 96 starts at the 9:20 mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUGS2nwaj6A

You may notice the friction between Ana and Cenk. He is increasingly going off on tirades, interrupting Ana's trying to report on the issues.

Steve

Is that the goal of the war? To degrade Iranian power projection in the region?


Sure.

The Administration most frequently talks about the need to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon - not generally degrading Iran's power projection.

The nuclear weapons are merely a part of it. Iran projects power by
-Its ballistic missile threats
-Its drones
-Its terror proxies
-Its threat to close off the strait of Hormuz

...etc. This is about taking care of all of that. Iran desires a nuclear weapon they can load onto a ballistic missile and end the Israelis once and for all.

Because, of course, that kind of conventional regional military power is probably not something that would really warrant a pre-emptive war against Iran. I don't think that anyone was arguing that U.S. interests were especially threatened by the fact that Iran had a navy, or had an air force. So while destroying those things certainly weakens their conventional military power, the improvement to our security interests from removing that aspect of their power isn't all that high. Particularly given the significant costs of waging this kind of war.

That's your view. The administration sees Iran as a multidimensional threat that they're now doing something about.

Is that worth tens of billions of dollars and precipitating a global energy crisis? Doesn't seem like a particularly "working" strategy to me. We're notching the goals that aren't especially valuable (neutralizing the Iranian naval threat), while not achieving the goals that were arguably more important (neutralizing the Iranian nuclear threat)...and all at great cost.

You keep stating this. That's fine. I get it. You're just off base.
The other thing looming here is China. As I've mentioned on this board 1000 times, everything we're doing is aimed at getting us ready for 2028/2029 and The Main Event, which we'd rather not have to show up for.

Iran is a bad actor. Has been since 1979. It's also a lynchpin of China's middle east strategy and we're currently degrading that part of it to a large extent.

Ideally, we weaken the regime enough such that the Iranian people have room to rise up and knock of the mullahcracy.

The nuclear weapons are merely a part of it. Iran projects power by
-Its ballistic missile threats
-Its drones
-Its terror proxies
-Its threat to close off the strait of Hormuz

...etc. This is about taking care of all of that.

But you can't "take care of all that." Short- and medium-range ballistic missiles are cheap and relatively easy to build. Drones are even cheaper and easier to build. Terror proxies just cost money and small arms, and the threat to close off the strait of Hormuz can be accomplished with equipment as limited as drones, small and cheap missile launchers, or even just guys in a speedboat.

Nothing we're doing now will address any of those things. They had their ballistic missile threats and drones back online within six months after they were mostly exhausted after the 12 Day War - and nothing we can do is going to prevent them from being able to threaten Hormuz.

If we had a plan and a war goal to invade with ground troops to replace the regime with one friendly to the west, then you might accomplish those goals. But absent regime change, nothing we're doing will accomplish these goals. You can't "take care of" Iran's ability to project power by any of those means you list simply by air power - except during the literal time that we're in the act of bombing them.

It's also a lynchpin of China's middle east strategy and we're currently degrading that part of it to a large extent.

No, we're not. China's middle east strategy has been to get all the countries there to sell it oil. It has pursued that strategy through economic and diplomatic means. Their strategy doesn't depend on Iran's conventional military forces, so degrading Iran's military forces doesn't degrade their strategy. And Iran's going to keep selling oil to China.

But you can't "take care of all that." Short- and medium-range ballistic missiles are cheap and relatively easy to build. Drones are even cheaper and easier to build. Terror proxies just cost money and small arms, and the threat to close off the strait of Hormuz can be accomplished with equipment as limited as drones, small and cheap missile launchers, or even just guys in a speedboat.

Sure, if the mullahs are still in charge.

No, we're not. China's middle east strategy has been to get all the countries there to sell it oil. It has pursued that strategy through economic and diplomatic means. Their strategy doesn't depend on Iran's conventional military forces, so degrading Iran's military forces doesn't degrade their strategy. And Iran's going to keep selling oil to China.

China's strategy in the Middle East is more than about oil. It's about enabling chaos and creating distractions/headaches/resource drains for the United States in every way that it can.

Sure, if the mullahs are still in charge.

If anyone hostile to the United States and Israel is in charge. Iran's long been governed by both the mullahs and the IGRC, with differing factions within those groups. It's hard to see how this conflict results in a more conciliatory regime coming out at the end.

Unless, of course, one is hoping for a popular uprising. But to borrow from the thread title, hope is not a strategy. The strategy of pursuing war against Iran almost entirely with air power is highly unlikely to yield that kind of regime change.

China's strategy in the Middle East is more than about oil. It's about enabling chaos and creating distractions/headaches/resource drains for the United States in every way that it can.

Hard to imagine a more chaotic and distracting/headache/resource drain for the United States than what's going on right now. And unless we get that popular uprising among the People of Iran, we're not going to be in much different a spot when we come out of this than going into it. So again, hard to see how the strategy is working, if we're doing to ourselves exactly what you think China was trying to do to us....10x over.

If anyone hostile to the United States and Israel is in charge. Iran's long been governed by both the mullahs and the IGRC, with differing factions within those groups. It's hard to see how this conflict results in a more conciliatory regime coming out at the end.

The US and Israel are working through it. Let's see how it plays out.

Unless, of course, one is hoping for a popular uprising. But to borrow from the thread title, hope is not a strategy. The strategy of pursuing war against Iran almost entirely with air power is highly unlikely to yield that kind of regime change.

How do you know that's the strategy?

Hard to imagine a more chaotic and distracting/headache/resource drain for the United States than what's going on right now. And unless we get that popular uprising among the People of Iran, we're not going to be in much different a spot when we come out of this than going into it. So again, hard to see how the strategy is working, if we're doing to ourselves exactly what you think China was trying to do to us....10x over.

Really? I can imagine much worse than this. It doesn't take much imagination to highlight a scenario where
-China moves on Taiwan and the first island chain, and threatens Australia
-Iran shuts the straits
-Russia/China attack space assets and conduct cyber ops against the US
...and other things.

Then the US is fighting on 2 fronts and we're not equipped for that.

So again, hard to see how the strategy is working, if we're doing to ourselves exactly what you think China was trying to do to us....10x over.

We're not doing anything to ourselves.

How do you know that's the strategy?

I think I'm confused what you're trying to say, here. I was pointing out how the current prosecution of the war would not lead to us achieving any of the things you identified as goals (eliminating the threats from drones, missiles, closing of Hormuz, etc.). You responded, unless the mullahs aren't in charge. So unless that's the strategy - to have a popular uprising and displace the mullahs - then we don't achieve our goals. I don't know that's the strategy; in fact, I think it really isn't. But if that's not the strategy, then how does anything we're doing eliminate the threat of, say, drones from Iran going forward?

Really? I can imagine much worse than this.

Much worse than this in the Middle East. You were suggesting that China is doing things with Iran in order to cause us headaches or a resource drain. None of China's contributions to Iran, though, did or could have caused anything like what we're undergoing right now.

We're not doing anything to ourselves.

We're depleting tens of billions of dollars in military resources, including some of the most critical equipment in our THAAD and anti-missile equipment. To the point where we're possibly relocating it from other theaters - including Asia. All the while enduring an energy crisis and further straining our relationships with our allies. All for a war that we chose to fight, in pursuit of strategic objectives which are a mix of either unattainable (eliminating Iran's drone or ballistic missile threat), unlikely to be obtained (eliminating their nuclear threat), or trivial (eliminating their navy). Exactly the sort of headaches, distractions, and resource drains that you were describing.

Seems like we're doing a lot to ourselves that we didn't need to do.

We're not doing anything to ourselves.

Except using up most of the military equipment needed to protect the US and its allies. It will take years to replace a significant number of those assets. Both China and Russia know how to count, and they both know how low the available number of weapons the US has left. Then what happens when the next set of attacks happens?

DRAFT MAGA and make them the "boots on the ground" in Iran. Let them bring their own weapons AND ammunition. They ARE the cannon fodder on the front line, after all.

The nuclear weapons are merely a part of it.

Following up on this, someone should let JD Vance know.

Vance noted that Trump has been consistent in his stance that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, though reasoning for the war has shifted wildly since its start earlier this month.

“That’s all this is about. We do not want the Iranians to have a nuclear weapon,” the vice president said.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/579000... (emphasis mine).

If that's all this is about, then it would be nice to have some explanation of how what we're doing prevents the Iranians from having a nuclear weapon after the war is over in any way that's different from where they were before the war started.

So...
The top U.S. counterterrorism official, Joseph Kent, has resigned in protest of the Iran war,
saying, "I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation."
But Dope1, who stayed @Holiday Inn Express once thinks the opposite...
For folks with traumatic brain injuries it can be hard to know who's right!

But if that's not the strategy, then how does anything we're doing eliminate the threat of, say, drones from Iran going forward?

Besides destroying all the launchers, the drone stockpiles and the factories that make them? There are 2 scenarios at play here:

1. The Iranian people rise up and throw out the mullahs
2. The regime survives somehow

If 1, then your question is answered
If 2, then at some point victory will be declared and a new status quo will emerge. Right now that status quo has armed Kurds running around someplace doing whatever they want.

Much worse than this in the Middle East. You were suggesting that China is doing things with Iran in order to cause us headaches or a resource drain. None of China's contributions to Iran, though, did or could have caused anything like what we're undergoing right now.

Because...they are. Are you under the impression that China isn't a global threat of ours, doesn't work against our interests and never conspires with our enemies to cause trouble?

This statement is hilarious. I will never get the left wing refusal to see the planet for what it really is:

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/how-china-is-...
Chinese firms, especially Wanda Holdings, are helping Iran bypass sanctions, funding Tehran’s military through illicit oil trade. Targeting China’s economic links is key to stopping Iran’s rearmament and future threats.

https://www.uscc.gov/research/china-iran-fact-shee...
China’s relationship with Iran has evolved over decades from limited cooperation to a broad strategic partnership encompassing economic, diplomatic, and security dimensions, much of which runs directly counter to U.S. foreign policy and national security interests. China views Iran as a partner in balancing U.S. influence in the Middle East and seeking to erode the U.S.-led global order, and as a key supplier of discounted energy resources.
China, Iran, Russia, and North Korea are increasingly resembling an informal Axis of Autocracy. Brought together by a shared desire to challenge U.S. global leadership and reshape elements of the international system to be more conducive to authoritarian forms of government, this partnership emboldens each actor to take more provocative actions, believing that mutual support will help them withstand the consequences. (For more, seeU.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, “Axis of Autocracy: China’s Revisionist Ambitions with Russia, Iran, and North Korea,” in 2025 Annual Report to Congress, November 2025.)
Beijing has expressed opposition to Iran developing nuclear weapons and has supported diplomatic frameworks such as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). China has supported Iran’s right to a civilian nuclear energy program.[1] Over the past two decades, open-source reporting does not indicate that China has directly helped Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Rather, most allegations against China have focused on dual-use technology transfers, missile-related materials, or sanctions evasion rather than direct nuclear weapons assistance.[2]
China has helped ease Iran’s international isolation by facilitating its entrance into alternative multilateral institutions including the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in 2023 and BRICS in 2024.[3] Membership in these organizations brings Iran into closer alignment with China and Russia and helps China’s goal of using them to promote illiberal norms, help mitigate the impact of sanctions tools, and coordinate on security issues. Following the United States and Israel’s bombings of Iran in 2025, BRICS issued a statement expressing “grave concern” but has not taken a stance on the recent strikes, reflecting limitations to the group’s cohesion.[4]

The Chinese are as bad actor as bad actors get.

We're depleting tens of billions of dollars in military resources, including some of the most critical equipment in our THAAD and anti-missile equipment. To the point where we're possibly relocating it from other theaters - including Asia. All the while enduring an energy crisis and further straining our relationships with our allies. All for a war that we chose to fight, in pursuit of strategic objectives which are a mix of either unattainable (eliminating Iran's drone or ballistic missile threat), unlikely to be obtained (eliminating their nuclear threat), or trivial (eliminating their navy). Exactly the sort of headaches, distractions, and resource drains that you were describing.

Seems like we're doing a lot to ourselves that we didn't need to do.

The strategic calculus is this:
-Take care of Iran, Venezuela and Cuba now

vs.

-Deal with China + all those entities and Russia all at once.

This isn't 1941 and the US isn't able to multitask like it used to be able to.

“That’s all this is about. We do not want the Iranians to have a nuclear weapon,” the vice president said.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/579000... (emphasis mine).

If that's all this is about, then it would be nice to have some explanation of how what we're doing prevents the Iranians from having a nuclear weapon after the war is over in any way that's different from where they were before the war started.

That's nice he said that. Doesn't change the overall intent of what we're doing.

And it's great that other writers are coming around to the reality of the situation as I've laid it out:

https://freebeacon.com/columns/the-false-choice-be...

Stationing enough forces around China to maintain a favorable balance of power is important for deterring Chinese aggression, but it is insufficient. Deterrence is ultimately a mental game. Leaders are deterred from action when they think the costs outweigh the benefits, and they make that calculation based on their perception of the adversary's power and will.

Both elements are necessary. After Oct. 7, the Biden administration sent an extra aircraft carrier to the Middle East, in the words of National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, "to send that clear message of deterrence." The military had the power to punish Iranian aggression, but President Biden lacked the will to fight back, and the Iranians knew it. They harassed U.S. forces with drone attacks until they eventually killed three Americans and wounded dozens more.

The Iranians knew they could bully Joe Biden, and they did. When this board pushes back, I give you the example of MONTHS of Houthi missile strikes in the Red Sea. Talk about wasting US resources for zero gain. Where were the calls for controlling "costs" back then?

Xi will decide not to attack if he is convinced the United States has the ability and the will to defeat him. Trump has chosen to launch a big operation against Iran, and if he fails to achieve decisive results at a reasonable cost, or if the attempt to reopen the Strait of Hormuz founders, Xi will reevaluate American power and the president's skill. This would heighten the danger.

If Tehran knows we cannot prevent it from blocking the Strait of Hormuz, it will have tremendous leverage against Trump and the rest of the world. For example, Iran could race for the bomb with much less fear of an American strike against the program. This would create new and threatening possibilities for Beijing and Tehran to collaborate. Any attempt to weaken China in a crisis or conflict would be much harder if, for example, Tehran informed the Europeans that any collaboration with Washington would cost them their access to Gulf energy. The duo could attack their neighbors simultaneously, since the American military would struggle to defeat both at the same time.

The choice between deterring China and defeating Iran is thus a false one. Iran's leadership must fail, and be seen to fail, to reduce the threat of further war in the region and elsewhere. Trump is facing one of the greatest tests of his presidency, and the country needs him to ace it.

This.

This part bears repeating:
Any attempt to weaken China in a crisis or conflict would be much harder if, for example, Tehran informed the Europeans that any collaboration with Washington would cost them their access to Gulf energy.

Look at how the Europeans are loathe to help now. What happens when Iran threatens them with a cutoff of their oil supply? What would the vaunted NATO governments do then?

Besides destroying all the launchers, the drone stockpiles and the factories that make them?

Yes. Because we're not going to be able to destroy all of them, and it's not going to take too much time and effort to replenish both the factories and the stockpiles. Again, they got from nearly gone to fully restocked within less than a year of the 12 Day War.

Are you under the impression that China isn't a global threat of ours, doesn't work against our interests and never conspires with our enemies to cause trouble?

Of course not. Are you under the impression that that's what my point was about?

China is a global threat, and what they use the Middle East for is primarily an energy resource. They predominantly achieve their goals in the Middle East through economic and diplomatic means. They derive minimal benefit from Iran's conventional military resources, so it does virtually nothing to China to deplete those conventional military resources. As long as the oil is flowing, China's getting what they need. Notice how we're not stopping Iran from sending oil to China, even though we certainly could? How we're liberalizing the sanctions on Russia so they can sell more oil to China, even though that benefits both Russia and China?

I will never get conservatives' refusal to see the situation for what it really is:

1. China is a threat so we have to do something.
2. This is something.
3. Therefore we have to do this.

The fallacy is obvious. But you keep misinterpreting the discussion as if people were dismissing the threat of China, rather than questioning whether the "something" that we're doing in Iran is actually doing anything to affect China's threat profile more than we're depleting our responsive capabilities. There's a reason why China almost never gets mentioned in any of the Administration's efforts to explain their war goals - because the effect on China is so attenuated and contingent compared to the depletion of our own military resources that they would get serious blowback if they tried to pretend this was about China.

-Take care of Iran, Venezuela and Cuba now

Yeah, you keep using the generic phrase "take care of" - but that's the problem. We're not "taking care" of these countries. Venezuela remains governed by a left-wing socialist dictatorship hostile to the U.S. and deeply allied with China. Iran remains governed by an authoritarian dictatorship hostile to the U.S. and deeply allied with China, and there's a good chance that it will come out of the war in the same position. Neither of those countries has been "taken care of" in any material way that affects China. We haven't even gotten started with Cuba, though it's been such a reduced priority for both China and Russia over the last decade or so (mostly relying on support and interaction with other leftist countries in Latin America more than anything) I think the security implications are modest.

So if we were going to have a problem with Venezuela and/or Iran in 2028/2029 before, we're still going to have that problem now.

Yes. Because we're not going to be able to destroy all of them, and it's not going to take too much time and effort to replenish both the factories and the stockpiles. Again, they got from nearly gone to fully restocked within less than a year of the 12 Day War.

Uh, huh. Assuming the regime is still around and can afford to.

China is a global threat, and what they use the Middle East for is primarily an energy resource.

We've established this is only a partial view of the matter. They use the ME for more than that.

They predominantly achieve their goals in the Middle East through economic and diplomatic means. They derive minimal benefit from Iran's conventional military resources, so it does virtually nothing to China to deplete those conventional military resources. As long as the oil is flowing, China's getting what they need. Notice how we're not stopping Iran from sending oil to China, even though we certainly could? How we're liberalizing the sanctions on Russia so they can sell more oil to China, even though that benefits both Russia and China?

I'm aware. Trump is trying to keep world energy markets from panicking.

The fallacy is obvious. But you keep misinterpreting the discussion as if people were dismissing the threat of China, rather than questioning whether the "something" that we're doing in Iran is actually doing anything to affect China's threat profile more than we're depleting our responsive capabilities. There's a reason why China almost never gets mentioned in any of the Administration's efforts to explain their war goals - because the effect on China is so attenuated and contingent compared to the depletion of our own military resources that they would get serious blowback if they tried to pretend this was about China.

I'm "misinterpreting" nothing. I'm just refusing to allow you to set the terms of the debate, narrow the focus, and wave your hands so as to ignore the bigger picture.

Where was all this concern about "depletion of our own military resources" when the proxies of Iran were shooting missiles at US ships in the Red Sea? This board was dead silent. Those several months of playing defense and not cutting off the head of the snake are what you should be angry at.

If we listened to the democrats, Iran would be free to endlessly replay the scenario where the US Navy sits there and acts as target practice for the Houthis. For months. THAT was stupid on stilts. THAT was a pure waste of time, money and war shots.

Yeah, you keep using the generic phrase "take care of" - but that's the problem. We're not "taking care" of these countries. Venezuela remains governed by a left-wing socialist dictatorship hostile to the U.S. and deeply allied with China. Iran remains governed by an authoritarian dictatorship hostile to the U.S. and deeply allied with China, and there's a good chance that it will come out of the war in the same position. Neither of those countries has been "taken care of" in any material way that affects China. We haven't even gotten started with Cuba, though it's been such a reduced priority for both China and Russia over the last decade or so (mostly relying on support and interaction with other leftist countries in Latin America more than anything) I think the security implications are modest.


And yet, the US is telling Delcy Rodriguez what to do. And she's doing it. Now there are protests going in Cuba and the regime there is on its last legs. How much influence does China have right now in South America? Say, how are things going for them with the Panama Canal? Have you looked lately?

Again, let this scenario play out. As I pointed out the IDF and Mossad are methodically working their way down the list of bad actors. Last night they blew up a gathering of 300 or so street thugs. They're not playing around.

Why not allow Iran into the World Trade Organization?

Give Iran Permanent Normalized Trade Relations.

Give Iran Most Favored Nation trade status.


China is a "threat" and we did all of the above.

Let's stick to what works.


Here's to the Google Jockeys of the World- creating Trumpy movements in their wake.


After all, there's always "a link"

Why not allow Iran into the World Trade Organization?

Give Iran Permanent Normalized Trade Relations.

Give Iran Most Favored Nation trade status.

And while we're at it, let's take Maduro out of his jail cell, dust him off, apologize, and put him back in charge of Venezuela. Then make them MFN status, too.

Because literally nothing we do matters, amirite? It's the same exact people in charge doing the same exact things with zero changes to any of their behavior! It would be way cool to live in a world where the Chinese say 'jump' and everyone else throws themselves off a cliff.

We've established this is only a partial view of the matter. They use the ME for more than that.

But not materially more than that. They have invested a ton in economic and diplomatic resources in all the countries there, and don't really derive much strategic benefit from Iran's military positioning relative to those economic and diplomatic ties.

Where was all this concern about "depletion of our own military resources" when the proxies of Iran were shooting missiles at US ships in the Red Sea? This board was dead silent. Those several months of playing defense and not cutting off the head of the snake are what you should be angry at.

Again - "cutting off the head of the snake" is another metaphor. When did the Houthi attacks stop? Not because we stopped playing defense, and not because we "cut off the head of a snake." Because of the cease-fire in Gaza. An issue addressed primarily through a diplomatic solution, not the U.S. physically stopping anyone from attacking Red Sea commercial vessels or cowing them into giving up.

And yet, the US is telling Delcy Rodriguez what to do. And she's doing it.

Yeah, because we're not telling her to do anything significant. We're telling her that she has to sell Venezuela's oil through us - why should she care? We've basically given Venezuela relief from sanctions and taken all the pressure off of them to possibly cede power to the lawfully elected opposition - and all we want in return is for us to be able to help them sell their oil? Oh, no! Please don't throw me in that briar patch!

Note, though, we haven't asked her to do anything about her country's ties to China. No expulsion of Chinese nationals, no expropriation of Chinese assets the way that they expropriate our oil company resources, no repudiation of Chinese debts.

How much influence does China have right now in South America?

Still decent, on the whole. Have you looked lately? What they've lost in some countries (like Argentina) they've recovered in increases in other countries like Brazil that have turned to China in response to American protectionism and...being erratic. In fact, China now has an opening to get into all the Mercosur countries for the first time ever - because Brazil has decided to make more of a pivot to Beijing:

BRASILIA/MONTEVIDEO, Feb 6 (Reuters) - Brazil is considering pushing for a partial trade agreement between the Mercosur bloc and China for the first time, senior Brazilian government officials said, in what would be a major shift for Latin America's largest economy.

Brazil has long vetoed formal negotiations with Beijing to protect domestic manufacturers from a surge in Chinese imports. But as Beijing has sought deeper commercial ties and Washington has imposed waves of tariffs, the government of President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva is now reconsidering that stance.

A joint statement issued during Uruguayan President Yamandu Orsi's visit to Beijing to meet with President Xi Jinping this week said they hoped free trade negotiations between China and Mercosur could begin "as soon as possible." Mercosur includes Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay, with Bolivia poised to become a full member.

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/brazil-signals...
https://archive.ph/0IVC3

Dope1: I'm "misinterpreting" nothing. I'm just refusing to allow you to set the terms of the debate, narrow the focus, and wave your hands so as to ignore the bigger picture.

Jeebus. Umm, albaby1, why do you keep replying to The Black Knight? Do you really think you're learning something? The only thing the rest of us are learning is that The Black Knight keeps insisting "'Tis but a scratch" as he is being eviscerated in this 'discussion'.

But not materially more than that. They have invested a ton in economic and diplomatic resources in all the countries there, and don't really derive much strategic benefit from Iran's military positioning relative to those economic and diplomatic ties.

Much more than that. They use Iran as a blunt instrument to further China's overarching policy goals, which are to kick us in the jimmy every chance they get.

Again - "cutting off the head of the snake" is another metaphor. When did the Houthi attacks stop? Not because we stopped playing defense, and not because we "cut off the head of a snake." Because of the cease-fire in Gaza. An issue addressed primarily through a diplomatic solution, not the U.S. physically stopping anyone from attacking Red Sea commercial vessels or cowing them into giving up.

Yeah, not so much:
https://apnews.com/article/trump-yemen-houthis-reb...

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) — President Donald Trump said he ordered a series of airstrikes on the Houthi-held areas in Yemen on Saturday, promising to use “overwhelming lethal force” until the Iran-backed rebels cease their attacks on shipping along a vital maritime corridor. The Houthis said at least 31 people were killed, and Trump’s national security adviser said Sunday that the strikes had successfully targeted “multiple” Houthi leaders.

“Our brave Warfighters are right now carrying out aerial attacks on the terrorists’ bases, leaders, and missile defenses to protect American shipping, air, and naval assets, and to restore Navigational Freedom,” Trump said in a social media post. “No terrorist force will stop American commercial and naval vessels from freely sailing the Waterways of the World.”

This BTW is what you do when somebody sits there and shoots at you repeatedly. What you don't do is have your valuable ships sit out there waiting for some loser to get lucky and sink one of them. THAT was a waste of time and materiel.

Yeah, because we're not telling her to do anything significant. We're telling her that she has to sell Venezuela's oil through us - why should she care? We've basically given Venezuela relief from sanctions and taken all the pressure off of them to possibly cede power to the lawfully elected opposition - and all we want in return is for us to be able to help them sell their oil? Oh, no! Please don't throw me in that briar patch!

Remind me who controls their oil flows now. Right - that's us. Had we not done anything to Maduro we wouldn't have this level to pull.

What they've lost in some countries (like Argentina) they've recovered in increases in other countries like Brazil that have turned to China in response to American protectionism and...being erratic. In fact, China now has an opening to get into all the Mercosur countries for the first time ever - because Brazil has decided to make more of a pivot to Beijing:

lol. de Silva is a communist. Meanwhile, Argentina, Peru, Panama, Bolivia all say hello.

This BTW is what you do when somebody sits there and shoots at you repeatedly. What you don't do is have your valuable ships sit out there waiting for some loser to get lucky and sink one of them. THAT was a waste of time and materiel.

But it didn't work. Houthi attacks on vessels in the Red Sea weren't ended by that strike. They didn't stop until the Gaza ceasefire was entered into:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houthi_attacks_on_co...

Remind me who controls their oil flows now. Right - that's us. Had we not done anything to Maduro we wouldn't have this level to pull.

We could have done the same thing with Maduro. Impose a full blockade of oil tankers - and then offer to release the sanctions against Venezuela and remove all the pressure to have him step down? Just in exchange for having us volunteer to be his broker? He would have taken that deal in a heartbeat.

Because we don't "control" their oil flows. We're acting as Venezuela's oil brokers, selling them to whoever wants to buy them. Again, it's the briar patch. We gain the appearance of having a lot of control, and we get to wet our beak with a little fee (I'm sure) - but if we tried to cut off Venezuela from selling oil, we'd have to do it by force again.

de Silva is a communist. Meanwhile, Argentina, Peru, Panama, Bolivia all say hello.

Last I checked, Brazil's more than twice the size of those countries - combined. If I'm China, I would be happy with that trade-off.

Except it's not a trade-off. As noted in the other article, Argentina still has pretty decent relations with China - they just keep them as quiet as possible so as not to irritate the U.S. China's still got massive influence in the other large country, Peru - almost certainly stronger influence than the U.S., even with our renewed efforts to pull them more in our orbit:

China has been Peru's largest trading partner for more than a decade. In 2023, bilateral trade exceeded $35 billion, driven primarily by copper, iron ore and agricultural exports. Chinese companies control or hold major stakes in several of Peru's largest mining operations, including the Las Bambas copper mine.

A regional pattern with a Peruvian focal point

Peru is not alone in navigating this dynamic. Across Latin America, Chinese firms have secured major roles in strategic infrastructure, including port facilities in Panama, energy and mining assets in Ecuador, and extensive investments in Brazil's electricity transmission and agricultural sectors. What distinguishes Peru is the combination of large-scale mineral wealth and access to the Pacific, coupled with relative institutional stability -- attributes that make it a focal point for both global powers.

The most emblematic project is the Port of Chancay, a $3.5 billion deep-water megaport north of Lima. The project is led by the Chinese state-owned shipping giant COSCO, which holds a 60% controlling stake. Once fully operational, the port is expected to reduce shipping times between Peru and Asia by up to 10 days and position Peru as a major logistics hub for South America's Pacific coast.

Supporters view Chancay as transformative infrastructure that will enhance Peru's competitiveness and attract regional trade. Critics argue that the majority of foreign control over such a strategic maritime gateway raises legitimate concerns regarding sovereignty and national security. The debate is no longer simply economic; it is geopolitical.

https://www.upi.com/Voices/2026/02/17/latam-China-...

But soft power is boring and doesn't make for exciting press conferences or use the word "warfighters" the way big military operations or special forces missions do.

Jeebus. Umm, albaby1, why do you keep replying to The Black Knight? Do you really think you're learning something? The only thing the rest of us are learning is that The Black Knight keeps insisting "'Tis but a scratch" as he is being eviscerated in this 'discussion

Don't discourage the debate. It is illuminating.

But it didn't work. Houthi attacks on vessels in the Red Sea weren't ended by that strike. They didn't stop until the Gaza ceasefire was entered into:


You have the cause and effect all wrong. The Houthis stopped when the Iranians told them to. And they'll start when the Iranians told them to.


We could have done the same thing with Maduro. Impose a full blockade of oil tankers - and then offer to release the sanctions against Venezuela and remove all the pressure to have him step down? Just in exchange for having us volunteer to be his broker? He would have taken that deal in a heartbeat.

How do you know that? The point of some of these actions is getting rid of the hard core losers and replacing them with people who are more pliable, like Delcy.
Wonder why Iran's President is still breathing? We've had ample opportunities to whack that guy and yet he's not only been seen and heard, he's been out in public.

Why do you think that is?


Because we don't "control" their oil flows. We're acting as Venezuela's oil brokers, selling them to whoever wants to buy them.

Oh, we don't control their oil, just tell them who they can sell it to out in the open. Distinction without difference.

But soft power is boring and doesn't make for exciting press conferences or use the word "warfighters" the way big military operations or special forces missions do.

Yeah, we're not doing *any* diplomacy work at all. Just bombing the sh1t out of people.

Wonder why Iran's President is still breathing? We've had ample opportunities to whack that guy and yet he's not only been seen and heard, he's been out in public.

Why do you think that is?

Because the President is purely a figurehead role who has no formal authority in the government? Unlike in other countries, the head of state in Iran doesn't carry the title of Prime Minister or President - that title is "Supreme Leader."

Oh, we don't control their oil, just tell them who they can sell it to out in the open. Distinction without difference.

We don't tell them who they can sell it to. Or rather, we "tell them" they can sell it to anyone they want - which is the same thing.

Yeah, we're not doing *any* diplomacy work at all. Just bombing the sh1t out of people.

I didn't say we weren't doing any diplomacy. But we're clearly not centering diplomacy, or soft power, compared to using military power.

Look at it this way. China put $3.5 billion into building one of the largest and most modern container ports in Chancay, Peru. As a result of that, not only has China significantly increased their influence in Peru - but it's going to reorient virtually all of the economics in that part of South America towards Asian export markets (read, China) as roadway and railway ties are connected to let goods move from the Atlantic coast (read, Brazil) to the Pacific Coast.

Meanwhile, for 10x that amount we're....bombing the sh1t out of people, so that they can be replaced by different people who are aligned with China and are hostile to the U.S. Because bombing the sh1t out of people is cool and involves warfighters and seeming manly and is fast. But meanwhile:

Chancay sits at a curve along the ocean, about 50 miles north of Lima. Until recently, it was best known for its medieval-themed amusement park, a crescent of beach and a row of seaside restaurants. Now it’s home to South America’s newest, most technologically advanced deepwater megaport and the epicenter of China’s bid to control the flow of goods to and from this commodity-rich continent.

For Peru, the recent opening of the port here was the realization, nearly two decades in the making, of a dream to position itself as South America’s global transportation hub, the continent’s primary launching point for a straight shot across the Pacific to Asia’s biggest economies.

For China, the port delivers a strategically direct route for the critical minerals and agricultural commodities coming off the continent, and in the other direction, a more expedient channel for its cars, machinery and electronics to stream into South American markets.

The port represents Peru’s first project under the banner of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, Beijing’s $1.3 trillion bid to remake how the world travels and trades, and collectively speaking, the most ambitious infrastructure project in history. It is China’s flagship infrastructure investment in South America—and a crucial node in Beijing’s global strategy for securing access to critical commodities.

It also brings China logistically closer to one of its chief goals: direct access to neighboring Brazil and the massive amounts of timber, soy and beef produced in the Amazon rainforest. Now, in theory, these commodities no longer have to travel through the politically fraught Panama Canal or around the continent’s southern tip. The new megaport, the only one in South America that can manage the largest class of fully loaded container ships, cuts the transport time by 10 days or more.

And you're talking about China losing influence in South America....

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/01122025/china-...

Wonder why Iran's President is still breathing? We've had ample opportunities to whack that guy and yet he's not only been seen and heard, he's been out in public.

The Bush junta was constantly crowing about greasing another AQ honcho, but AQ always had another to take his place.

Steve

Because the President is purely a figurehead role who has no formal authority in the government? Unlike in other countries, the head of state in Iran doesn't carry the title of Prime Minister or President - that title is "Supreme Leader."

Or maybe...he's the Iranian regime's version of Delcy Rodruguez: Somebody who can play the role of Most Benevolent Supreme Totally Not Gayatollah of Iran Who Knows Where Mossad Keeps His B@lls.

Maybe he's that guy.

Look at it this way. China put $3.5 billion into building one of the largest and most modern container ports in Chancay, Peru. As a result of that, not only has China significantly increased their influence in Peru - but it's going to reorient virtually all of the economics in that part of South America towards Asian export markets (read, China) as roadway and railway ties are connected to let goods move from the Atlantic coast (read, Brazil) to the Pacific Coast.

And Peru just responded by kicking out this guy:

https://globalnews.ca/news/11671547/peru-president...
Jerí is facing a preliminary investigation for corruption and influence peddling launched by Peru’s Attorney General’s office earlier this year.

The charges stem from a series of undisclosed meetings with two Chinese businessmen in December. One of those businessmen holds active government contracts, while the other is under investigation for alleged involvement in an illegal logging operation.

...for his Chinese dealings.

Because bombing the sh1t out of people is cool and involves warfighters and seeming manly and is fast. But meanwhile how many bombs did we drop on Panama?

The Bush junta was constantly crowing about greasing another AQ honcho, but AQ always had another to take his place.

And how many of them went running around in public, begging not to be blown up next?

We might have found our Iranian Delcy.

Maybe he's that guy.

Incredibly unlikely. If he had the internal resources to move into a position of real authority, he would have. But he didn't. Pezeshkian is fairly powerless within Iran, and was completely marginalized by all the folks who had actual power. There's virtually no chance that he's stepping into the big chair, and certainly not if he's going to be a puppet of Mossad.

But meanwhile how many bombs did we drop on Panama?

None. We've done some things without dropping bombs. That doesn't make the big thing that we're doing right now, which involves tens of billions of dollars of dropping bombs, any smarter. Whereas China puts a few billion dollars into Peru, builds the most advanced deepwater seaport, and reorients almost the entire South American economy in their direction.

Incredibly unlikely. Maybe, maybe not.

Hard to say. He seems to be unusually in love with life, for a dedicated martyr.

Pezeshkian is fairly powerless within Iran, and was completely marginalized by all the folks who had actual power. There's virtually no chance that he's stepping into the big chair, and certainly not if he's going to be a puppet of Mossad.


Welp, right now the Head Chair and the next 200 chairs are...empty. Somebody has to.

None. We've done some things without dropping bombs

Oh, so we *are* using Smart Soft Power and Diplomacy to say, talk Panama into throwing China off of both ends of the Panama canal. That's good.

That doesn't make the big thing that we're doing right now, which involves tens of billions of dollars of dropping bombs, any smarter.

Right. Instead, we should spend 10s of billions of dollars on completely defensive operations in the Red Sea, never doing anything about the people shooting the missiles or the people handing them the missiles to shoot at us with. Just...sit there on the calm waters of the Red Sea and pray nobody makes a mistake.

Great stragery!

Whereas China puts a few billion dollars into Peru, builds the most advanced deepwater seaport, and reorients almost the entire South American economy in their direction.

And when, pray tell, did this start? Yesterday? No. They've been doing their Long March through the Americas and everywhere else they can ruthlessly exploit for 20 years+ now. We've been allowing them to.

Right. Instead, we should spend 10s of billions of dollars on completely defensive operations in the Red Sea, never doing anything about the people shooting the missiles or the people handing them the missiles to shoot at us with. Just...sit there on the calm waters of the Red Sea and pray nobody makes a mistake.

What's the alternative? If you can't "do anything" about the people shooting the missiles at you (because shooting back won't stop them), and if it costs you more than the cost of the defensive operations (in terms of money, military resources, and geopolitical position) to shoot back...then shooting back isn't the right choice, either.

Again, it's the same logical fallacy:

1. We have to do something to change the status quo.
2. Making war on Iran will change the status quo.
3. Therefore, we have to invade Iran.

That doesn't make sense. Because if making war on Iran won't materially improve things from the status quo, but will consume vast amounts of military resources and leave you in perhaps a worse situation, then #3 does not follow.

And when, pray tell, did this start? Yesterday? No. They've been doing their Long March through the Americas and everywhere else they can ruthlessly exploit for 20 years+ now. We've been allowing them to.

And invading Iran doesn't impede them. That's still the point I'm trying to make. You can't counter what they're doing by dropping bombs in Iran or abducting Venezuelan Presidents. Because what China is doing is based on economic and geopolitical maneuvering, not based on which people happen to be ruling in a given country at a given time. You just burn off massive amounts of resources, and the geopolitical factors that make Iran an ally of China and an adversary of the West are still going to be there.

What's the alternative? If you can't "do anything" about the people shooting the missiles at you (because shooting back won't stop them), and if it costs you more than the cost of the defensive operations (in terms of money, military resources, and geopolitical position) to shoot back...then shooting back isn't the right choice, either.


Hmm, I suppose we could just withdraw from the Middle East altogether, tell the Israelis good luck and laugh while Europe learns the hard way what happens when you voluntarily disarm *and* de-industrialize, but that would be counterproductive.

Again, it's the same logical fallacy:

No it isn't. You keep basing your analyses on shaky assumptions. In this case you're assuming that the current status quo is "good". It's not. Far from it. When you have

1. An aggressive China eyeing up territory grabs and economic moves to stave off their impending demographic crisis
2. A US that does not have the ability (nor the will power) to be a two-front power any longer
3. A militant, despotic nation driven to aid the bad guys in point #1 and who is willing to export murder and extort entire continents

...you have a status quo that sucks, frankly. And that's the world we were living in 3 weeks ago.

Because if making war on Iran won't materially improve things from the status quo,

And you know this...how? You don't. You don't have any more idea of how Iran is going to turn out than anyone else does. All you can do is guess at this point.

But a slow ride towards 2029 when Xi gets his military squared away, Iran is left untouched and Europe is still toothless is NOT a good movie for the United States.

Literally everything in the Pentagon is about China right now. Everything. Go look up the F-47 mission patch if you want to see a living example.

In this case you're assuming that the current status quo is "good".

Absolutely not. That's why I keep reciting that fallacy to you. To show that even when the status quo is bad it does not mean that any specific which changes the status quo should be done. That's the fallacy:

1. Something must be done.
2. This is something.
3. Therefore we must do this.

In those terms, you can see why it's flawed logic. The fact that something has to be done - that the status quo needs to be changed - does not mean that any possible thing that you can do must therefore be done. There is a universe of possible things that can be done - and the fact that something must be done does not mean that any specific one of those things is a thing that must be done.

That's why it is possible that it can be true that both: i) the existing situation with Iran was bad; and ii) attacking them this way was something we shouldn't have done. Just because the second proposition is true doesn't mean that the first proposition is false.

Similarly, it doesn't matter how many times someone points out "Something must be done!" - it doesn't necessarily mean that any specific course of action is the thing that must be done. Pointing out over and over again how bad it would be for Iran to get a nuclear weapon doesn't necessarily mean that any particular thing we might do is therefore something we must do. Again - "something must be done" doesn't mean "therefore we must do this" for every single "this." Only some "this" should be done, and some should not - not matter how much the status quo must change.

Where was all this concern about "depletion of our own military resources" when the proxies of Iran were shooting missiles at US ships in the Red Sea? This board was dead silent.

Seemed a minor aspect of the problem, and this is whataboutism. Stick to the monumental depletion that is ongoing, mot the itsy bitsy

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.