Post New

Aligns well:

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/what-the-u-s-has-accom...

What the U.S. Has Accomplished in Iran
The regime is much weaker, and time is on the side of the U.S. and its allies that want a more stable region.

Many here will debate "Weaker", but whatever.


The war against Iran has been a limited war, and its outcome is likely to be inconclusive. But it has achieved enough to produce a far better Middle East.

The three-month military campaign degraded Iran’s ability to project power by significantly damaging its conventional forces, missile stockpiles and proxies.

Indeed. As stated here, that was the original goal: reduce/eliminate Iran's ability to project power in the region.

many Arab regimes no longer question Israel’s legitimacy; instead, they seek the benefits of technological and economic cooperation with Israel. Modernization is their strongest motivation.

The war demonstrated that the Iranian regime’s leaders were physically vulnerable to U.S. military power and allied intelligence. It also showed that although Iran can close the Strait of Hormuz, that leverage is limited, as the U.S. blockade confronted Iran with the prospect of severe economic damage in return.

The war also had global implications. It showed that China is no friend of the Arab world, as Beijing watched from the sidelines as Iran attacked the economic infrastructure of the region. Ukraine, which used its advanced defensive capabilities to support the war effort against Iran, demonstrated that it is an asset to the U.S. and its allies. Given the mounting strategic losses for Russia—Syria, Venezuela, possibly Cuba and on the battlefield in Ukraine—this is the time to press the advantage on behalf of Kyiv.

She concludes with:

The U.S. doesn’t need a nuclear agreement with Iran to achieve these goals. But once the Strait of Hormuz is opened, if the administration engages in nuclear negotiations, it’s critical that the following conditions are maintained:

Not a single penny of frozen assets or sanctions relief should go to Tehran. Under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran used the money to rebuild its capabilities and those of its proxies. It would do so again.

Which is one of many reasons (outlined earlier) why the JCPOA was a failure.

This war hasn’t brought, as many had hoped, the end of the Iranian regime. But it has left a weaker, more confused one. The public hasn’t seen Mojtaba Khamenei since his installation as supreme leader. Economic pressure has made the regime vulnerable—not necessarily to the street, where it can always crush dissent, but perhaps to internal fractures over Iran’s future relationship with the world. If the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps controls 40% of the economy, as reports indicate, the U.S. must make sure Tehran understands that 40% of nothing is nothing.

Strategic patience is hard, and it isn’t always satisfying. But time is on the side of the U.S. and its allies. Reaching no deal is fine. Reaching a bad deal isn’t.

This is a new day in the Middle East, though it isn’t one without clouds. No American president has had a better chance to build a different and more stable region. It may just take a little more time.

Exactly right.

The war against Iran has been a limited war, and its outcome is likely to be inconclusive. But it has achieved enough to produce a far better Middle East.

The three-month military campaign degraded Iran’s ability to project power by significantly damaging its conventional forces, missile stockpiles and proxies.

Certainly wrong. Iran's conventional forces were damaged, but whatever impact that had is completely overwhelmed by the increase in Iran's ability to project power resulting from the Strait of Hormuz and their ability to attack regional energy infrastructure. They've now demonstrated they can do both, and that the mightiest military the world has ever known lacks the ability to either force the Strait back to normal or to fully protect the other Gulf States from missile and drone attack.

Making it worse is that the damage to Iran's conventional forces is ephemeral. They will be able to rebuild all their missile and drone stockpiles within a very short time, perhaps only a matter of months. IMHO, the war has almost certainly resulted in a net increase in Iran's ability to project power already - the gains from their Hormuz play and the missile attacks on other Gulf States far outweighs losing some of their missiles and such. But even if one agreed with Condi that the degradation to their conventional forces, missile stockpiles and proxies was "significant" enough to outweigh the gains they've made, that will be erased very quickly after the war is over.

The war also had global implications. It showed that China is no friend of the Arab world, as Beijing watched from the sidelines as Iran attacked the economic infrastructure of the region.

It certainly showed that the U.S. is not so great to the Arab world, either. We never consulted with them or solicited their input before we catapulted the region into chaos. We showed that we are unable to protect them against Iranian attacks and forced them to absorb the direct physical damage from Iran's missiles and drones and the economic damage from the Strait being closed. Beijing may have watched from the sidelines but we were the proximate cause of Iran attacking the economic infrastructure of the region. We demonstrated that having U.S. bases on their property doesn't contribute to their security, and indeed probably detracts from it.

Methinks Condi is really trying to put some lipstick on a pig, here.

Which is one of many reasons (outlined earlier) why the JCPOA was a failure.

Then Trump will never get a nuclear deal. It is inconceivable that Tehran would agree to the sort of restrictions that were in the JCPOA (much less anything more stringent) in exchange for nothing. That the sanctions and asset freezes remain in place forever? Or that any unfrozen assets go to non-Iranian parties?

Strategic patience is hard, and it isn’t always satisfying. But time is on the side of the U.S. and its allies. Reaching no deal is fine.

Reaching no deal is where we were in February. Reaching no deal means that we're back where we were after the JCPOA went away and Iran was engaged in unrestricted uranium enrichment. Reaching no deal means Iran retains all it's ability to get a nuclear weapon (which Trump has said is intolerable) as existed in February, and which was so dangerous that it was necessary to launch this war. How is that now "fine"? If it's fine, why did we do this? Because we needed to eliminate Iran's navy?

Certainly wrong.

Actually very right.

but whatever impact that had is completely overwhelmed by the increase in Iran's ability to project power resulting from the Strait of Hormuz and their ability to attack regional energy infrastructure. They've now demonstrated they can do both, and that the mightiest military the world has ever known lacks the ability to either force the Strait back to normal or to fully protect the other Gulf States from missile and drone attack.

Also incorrect. I was wondering how soon the "Iran is now a superpower" argument would enter the chat and now here we are.
As I explained earlier, we hadn't really bothered to try to force the strait open. Well now we're quietly escorting ships out.

If we wanted to ramp up strikes on Iran again, we could. This is where Trump is using his political situation at home to affect his CiC decision making and he needs to be focused on the CiC job, not the midterms.

They will be able to rebuild all their missile and drone stockpiles within a very short time, perhaps only a matter of months.</t>

Condi covered that. Let China show their oil suppliers what they really think of them.

It certainly showed that the U.S. is not so great to the Arab world, either. We never consulted with them or solicited their input before we catapulted the region into chaos. We showed that we are unable to protect them against Iranian attacks and forced them to absorb the direct physical damage from Iran's missiles and drones and the economic damage from the Strait being closed.

1. Supposition on your part. BTW to launch attacks from bases in another country you're required to let them know what you're using their territory for. So this was always a falsehood to suggest that the US somehow surprised everyone with the Iran action.

2. Unable to protect? Given the thousands of missiles and drones launched, I'd say the percentages of intercepts have been quite high. If there's something to blame it was the estimates of Iran's stockpiles of weapons - way too low. Marco Rubio said in front of Congress that one reason for starting this was that Iran would soon have so many missiles that we'd have -zero- chance of stopping them.

But it has achieved enough to produce a far better Middle East.

Fabulous! Then Trump can finally walk away and credibly claim ‚victory‘ to his fan base and beyond?

Wait…

The extensive tit-for-tat strikes during the conflict—which severely hit energy infrastructure from Iran's South Pars gas field to Qatar’s Ras Laffan LNG facility, and triggered missile/drone fire into Bahrain and Kuwait—have fundamentally shattered the Gulf's reputation as a "safe haven"

Civilians and governments across the Gulf are highly anxious. Major cities like Dubai and Doha have maintained elevated military alert levels due to the persistent threat of asymmetric drone or missile strikes.

Major global carriers have blanket-cancelled flights deep into the year. For example, British Airways has suspended flights to Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Bahrain, and Amman until October 25, 2026.

Long-haul flights between Europe and Asia are forcing massive, expensive detours, while a severe global jet fuel shortage triggered by the Strait of Hormuz crisis has caused ticket prices to skyrocket worldwide.

In major hubs like Dubai, the impact is being compared to the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Local hotel occupancies have cratered to just 15% to 20% of their normal seasonal levels. Restaurants and luxury retail outlets have faced closures or are operating on bare-minimum staffing, with thousands of employees placed on unpaid leave

Energy analysts widely anticipate sudden oil price hikes soon due to the extreme volatility in the Middle East

So much better! We‘ll get tired of winning!

Not a single penny of frozen assets or sanctions relief should go to Tehran. Under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran used the money to rebuild its capabilities and those of its proxies. It would do so again.

Which is one of many reasons (outlined earlier) why the JCPOA was a failure.

And there it is, the reason being floated why this agreement (to be) will be superior to the Obama JCPOA, and Dope buys it - so we may have a way out for Don the most Magnificent GOAT of all time. A way we can pack unplug the oil strait, slow down the inflation, stabilize things a bit, let Donnie fall asleep for awhile and when he wakes up, attack Cuba.

As I explained earlier, we hadn't really bothered to try to force the strait open. Well now we're quietly escorting ships out.

But still not trying to force the strait open. We're moving two or three ships per day through, instead of anywhere close to the ~150 ships per day that constitutes normal traffic.

It's not that we haven't bothered to force the strait open. It's that we can't. There's no way to do it without ground troops. And we're not sending in ground troops.

If we wanted to ramp up strikes on Iran again, we could.

We could, but that wouldn't open the Strait. They didn't before, and the stuff that remains to be bombed is of less strategic importance than what we've already hit (unless someone in the military is really screwing up in setting target priorities). You can't use air strikes to take away Iran's control of the Strait or their ability to strike energy infrastructure in the region.

Condi covered that. Let China show their oil suppliers what they really think of them.

No, she didn't cover that. What does Condi think that the oil suppliers think China should have done? Gone to war against Iran? Gone to war against the U.S.? What grounds would any of those Gulf States have for thinking China has failed to do something it ought to have done?

Supposition on your part. BTW to launch attacks from bases in another country you're required to let them know what you're using their territory for. So this was always a falsehood to suggest that the US somehow surprised everyone with the Iran action.

There was no "coalition of the willing." No joint statements in support of the war. No involvement by any of the governments of any of the Gulf States of their support for the attacks, or any after-the-fact mention at all of any joint planning or consultation. I'm not talking about "surprising" them by launching air strikes without giving them the requisite heads-up - I'm talking about including them in the decision-making process on whether to launch a war that will completely upend the entire region and (as we've seen) completely disrupt their entire economic and industrial base. "America first" - those Gulf States didn't get a say in whether we start a regional war, even though they have to live with the consequences of the regional war. IMHO, that's going to rub them a little more raw than the "something something China" that I don't understand.

Unable to protect? Given the thousands of missiles and drones launched, I'd say the percentages of intercepts have been quite high.

Doesn't matter how good your "percentages" are. Qatar or Kuwait don't care much if Iran has to launch a single drone or a few dozen drones in order to blow up their gas production or airports or whatever. Iran has shown them - unequivocally - that Iran can blow up their stuff and the U.S. can't stop that from happening. And that we aren't going to let the threat to their facilities or economy stop us from doing what we want to do.

* * * * *

I do have to cop to something here - I really don't want to push back on this Op-Ed by Rice. She's actually doing exactly what I've been hoping would happen. Namely, she's out there trying to create an argument that it's okay if Trump were to get absolutely nothing out of the war other than what's already happened. That if we said to Iran, "Look, let's just open up the Strait and we'll go back to where we were on February 26," that this would somehow be a win.

That's utterly false, of course - but it would be great if Dope1 and all the other supporters of the President actually believed it. If they could convince themselves that this is some marvelous achievement.

This is another early green shoot in creating a permission structure to let Trump declare victory and go home. So while I think it's hokum, I am all in favor of everyone in Trumpworld swallowing it hook line and sinker!

The extensive tit-for-tat strikes during the conflict—which severely hit energy infrastructure from Iran's South Pars gas field to Qatar’s Ras Laffan LNG facility, and triggered missile/drone fire into Bahrain and Kuwait—have fundamentally shattered the Gulf's reputation as a "safe haven"

"Safe haven" for what? When you have a crazy neighbor who wants to obtain the most powerful weapons on the planet, how are you in a "safe haven"?

But still not trying to force the strait open. We're moving two or three ships per day through, instead of anywhere close to the ~150 ships per day that constitutes normal traffic.

As I've said. We've not tried to force the strait open.

We could, but that wouldn't open the Strait.

Depends on how hard we went and what we were willing to do.

No, she didn't cover that.

Yes, she did.
What does Condi think that the oil suppliers think China should have done?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe tell Tehran to knock it off? Instead China worked to preserve their discount oil from Iran instead of working to calm things down. They prioritized their discount oil - which undercuts the economies of the other Gulf states in the region. I'll bet that didn't go unnoticed among the GCC.

There was no "coalition of the willing."

Never claimed there was. Although you really ought to do some research into who did what this entire time.
Hint: It wasn't just the US and Israel.

That's utterly false, of course - but it would be great if Dope1 and all the other supporters of the President actually believed it. If they could convince themselves that this is some marvelous achievement.

You're actually talking to Dope1. Maybe you ask me instead of saying this?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe tell Tehran to knock it off?

There's no way that would work, and all the Gulf States would know that. The regime is fighting for its very existence. There's no way that China's going to be able to convince the regime to "knock it off," so none of those Gulf States are going to have any bad feelings towards China for not doing it. But they are very likely to have some raw feelings towards the U.S. for putting them through all this for very little gain.

You're actually talking to Dope1. Maybe you ask me instead of saying this?

Sure. Do you agree with Condi?

Suppose we end the war as follows: i) we agree to end the blockade and stop attacking Iran; ii) Iran agrees allows traffic to resume in the Strait at pre-war volumes; iii) we have an agreement to have nuclear talks. There's no actual nuclear agreement in place, and no obligation for the talks to embrace missiles or proxies, and (probably) no enforcement mechanism to require Iran or the U.S. to participate in the talks.

Would you consider that a success, and thus approve of Trump deciding to take that deal?

There's no way that would work, and all the Gulf States would know that.

The point is that China didn't even try, did they.

There's no way that China's going to be able to convince the regime to "knock it off,"

Sure there is. I can think of several carrots they could throw Tehran's way.

The point is that China didn't even try, did they.

Didn't try what? What is the thing that you think China could have done to get Iran to just sit there and let the U.S. bomb them? Or rather primarily Israel, because it was Israel's bombs that set off the really big infrastructure reprisals?

Sure there is. I can think of several carrots they could throw Tehran's way.

Again, what? What's the "carrot" that induces Iran to let their enemies keep bombing them in lieu of taking the steps that forced the U.S. and Israel to agree to a ceasefire?

Also, I remain curious, since you asked me to ask you. Do you agree with Condi's take that stopping now and accepting only what we've achieved to date, with no goals achieved (or future commitments) on nuclear capabilities, is a win?

"Iran's conventional forces were damaged, but whatever impact that had is completely overwhelmed by the increase in Iran's ability to project power resulting from the Strait of Hormuz and their ability to attack regional energy infrastructure. They've now demonstrated they can do both, and that the mightiest military the world has ever known lacks the ability to either force the Strait back to normal or to fully protect the other Gulf States from missile and drone attack."

To be fair, the U.S. military definitely has the ability to force the Strait back to normal.

Is there anyone who really doubts that if the U.S. military was given free reign (and a budget to do so) that they could not completely topple the Iranian regime (including the Republican Guard force)?

Of course, that would involve an invasion with a large boots of the ground footprint. I am guessing that within a few months of putting hundreds of thousands of soldiers on the ground that most of the upper levels of the Iranian leadership (both the Mullahs and the IRGC) would be dead or captured. That would come with the political price that the U.S. would then be occupying a huge, broken country with a populace that does not like us, but that is a political problem, not a military problem.

The U.S. military definitely has the ability to do whatever it wants militarily in Iran. The problem is the U.S. population is (rightfully!!!) not willing to pay the political price. The Trump administration is made the same mistake that the Bush administration made (though on a lesser scale since they are not putting boots on the ground), they are confusing military success with political success.

To be fair, the U.S. military definitely has the ability to force the Strait back to normal.

True. But not without a large deployment of ground troops. I certainly didn't clarify that and should have. Most of these discussions take place in the context of our current approach to the war, which is to not have an Iraq 2.0 style full-on invasion with massive ground troops - so I didn't specify that. We absolutely could seize control of the Strait that way.

But we're not going to use ground troops. For exactly the reasons you mention. Within that (self-imposed) constraint, we cannot force the Strait back to normal. Which is why we haven't.

let Trump declare victory and go home. So while I think it's hokum, I am all in favor of everyone in Trumpworld swallowing it hook line and sinker!

Ya only gotta pretend to believe Dope, you can do it. C'mon! Otherwise...

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

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