Summing up the Iran situation

[frater_pan]

Iran is a very complex society and generally defies Western and esp. US pigeonholing. I went to military school with some Iranians some of whom were later lined up and shot, some who were able to stay in the US and some who were ultimately taken from prison and ordered to save Iran from the Iraqi invasion and rebuild the Iranian military.

I have gone through this before several times. I told a leftist group many years ago that they were fantasizing at best and suggested running a war game/economic game simulation to evaluate possible outcomes at the time. IMO this is still the best move. However no one does it (not publicly at least).

The most that can be said currently is that Iran has successfully used asymmetric warfare to close two important waterways and has bloodied the US nose in the Middle East (which the US inadvertently helped the Iranians do when the US turned away from kinetic air defense weapons around 2000 and went all in on missiles for air defense based on the false assumption that the US would always be dominant in air defense on the battlefield and that kinetic weapons had no significant utility for the future).

The two waterways in question can be opened. The problem is that only one can be reliably opened under the circumstances but SA does not want to take the necessary steps to permit that. After the recent attacks by the Houthis on SA airports that may change. The Strait of Hormuz can also be rendered more safe but the US seems reluctant to engage in the naval operations to do so (and the naval operations that the current Know Nothing Occupant of the Executive Branch has outlined would lead to open defeat). It is not clear that the US really can secure the Strait of Hormuz militarily. Doing so partly would still eventually result in some US naval losses. The fact that no retired naval officer has discussed the outlines of a plan for clearing the Strait of Hormuz probably means that the US lacks some degree of command, control or sufficient munitions to execute such a plan with a high degree of certainty. And even clearing the Strait of Hormuz militarily will still definitely result in the loss of some shipping with the resultant degradation of the environment as well as resulting skyrocketing insurance costs.

Why didn't the Iranian people rise up? For 40 years the US has threatened Iran. The current murderous regime seems the safer bet overall. Change may still be possible from the ground up however through culture. But evaluating Iranian society from afar is like scrying at best.

The best that people can do for now is to acquaint themselves with what we see as reliable analyses of Iran from several international perspectives. Here is one from 2022 from the Marine Corps University Press :

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[speculumphilosophi]

I always found it odd how Russia supports Iran. I lived and studied for a time in Yeltsin's Russia so got to chat to many people. Maybe it's due to trade and economics but you would think Putin must surely see the danger posed by Iran having a nuclear potential.

Post automatically merged: Wednesday at 10:19 PM

Trump's administration didn't seem to plan this very well. Trump is also very prone to thinking in economic terms but is really no war leader. He started off very strong but then just totally lost momentum. Of course, NATO countries totally let him down, which was a disgrace. I mean, millions of Iranians had their hopes raised while the E.U. clearly didn't want to take part in any war that made Israel an ally. Worse still, the Iranians themselves didn't have a clue how to fight for their freedom.
Probably the way to go is to arm the Iranian opposition and create an invasion force, with combined tactical strikes to cripple the regime leadership. Sometimes it seems Trump is very indecisive and worried about economic factors.

 

[Asteriskos]

No, military bases were severely degraded (some abandoned), the US was/is running out of important munitions, and there were concerns about oil spiking. With the latter you only need to look at the dozens of times Trump claimed a deal was close to crudely manipulate markets. Nothing about this has anything to do with wanting to appear nice.

Saudis are attacking Houthi oil infrastructure now, so one can anticipate the kind of retaliation this will entail. This is spiraling.

Can't say that I blame them. The US isn't likely to telegraph anything, that's never smart. I doubt Trump will even say much of any consequence till after 11/3, and maybe not then either, IMO. Trump wants to appear that he's tried to give as much chance for a deal with Iran as possible. It has everything to do internally with US mid-terms right now. Fragile psyche's make frightened voters. Manipulate the markets? Of course to dismiss the fact (Older than any of us) that shit like this is "All About the Money" would be somewhat naive?

 

[Beyond Everything]

Probably the way to go is to arm the Iranian opposition and create an invasion force, with combined tactical strikes to cripple the regime leadership.

How precisely do you propose arming the opposition? Arms were given to the Kurds and -given the history there- they kept them for themselves.
What would more strikes targeting leadership do? Nothing, they have deep redundancies and decentralized command structures for the military.
If the Iranian government (military) was really going to collapse, what would stop them from destroying the gulf's oil infrastructure and desalinization? How would you prevent that?

No one can answer these questions because it is a situation with no solution. They happen in life.

 

[speculumphilosophi]

As a general comment, it seems to me the real issue is the overall weakness in the E.U. and U.S. By that I mean rapidly declining civilization, which creates a huge void for countries like Iran to fill. Especially subtle ideology. This infiltration of anti-western ideology has been gaining momentum since the 1990s.
How do the Trump Administration deal with Iran's real nuclear threat, when the younger generations in western countries don't support the effort, or perceive the danger is real? How come no "Freedom Flotilla" has yet set sail to Iran to.personally.protest to the mullahs? That is, over the gunning down of thousands of unarmed Iranians. Could it be Greta Thunberg know quite well what reception she would get within that country.
I'm only too aware Trump has many flaws, especially narcissism, outbursts and even bouts of being nasty. Despite all, his decision to act was rational. Iran would very soon have had ICBM missiles that could reach New York. Also very close to a viable nuclear test. His efforts should have been supported in Europe but modern society is a far cry from the WW2 generation (who were a tougher generation).

Post automatically merged: Thursday at 10:15 PM

How precisely do you propose arming the opposition? Arms were given to the Kurds and -given the history there- they kept them for themselves.
What would more strikes targeting leadership do? Nothing, they have deep redundancies and decentralized command structures for the military.
If the Iranian government (military) was really going to collapse, what would stop them from destroying the gulf's oil infrastructure and desalinization? How would you prevent that?

No one can answer these questions because it is a situation with no solution. They happen in life.

I assume the very first strikes removed the Iranian nuclear scientists "in one sitting" so to speak. That must have set them back. Then the destruction of the research centers, heavily bombed.
There are, of course, unknowns. The Iranian people blame Trump for not overthrowing the regime, but themselves proved to be pretty hopeless, to put it mildly. They did have an opportunity but there was no sign of any organized resistance. The other big unknown was the E.U. that totally opposed intervention.
Things very often go wrong or take unexpected turns.
The irony is, the invasion of Iraq was mostly successful, apart from not being a good idea (Saddam was secular). It was over in weeks. Now, it seems, there's something lacking but if a quick intervention of Iran restored popular power in the country, we could see a much more secure Middle East.

 

[frater_pan]

Probably the way to go is to arm the Iranian opposition and create an invasion force, with combined tactical strikes to cripple the regime leadership. Sometimes it seems Trump is very indecisive and worried about economic factors.

Iranians are like Americans in several ways. The second that some active military force steps foot on Iranian soil, the entire country would rise up and engage them. The absolute most that can be done would be to train Iranians and even that would be controversial. But there is no way that a non-Iranian military force could attack Iran even to support some Iranian opposition.

 

[speculumphilosophi]

Iranians are like Americans in several ways. The second that some active military force steps foot on Iranian soil, the entire country would rise up and engage them. The absolute most that can be done would be to train Iranians and even that would be controversial. But there is no way that a non-Iranian military force could attack Iran even to support some Iranian opposition.

Like anything, battles are won psychologically first and physically second. Iran is a third world country with a pretty average army, to put it mildly. However, despite the best intentions, Trump hasn't planned his intervention that well, not thinking ahead towards potential setbacks. He was very much caught out by the refusal of allies to even open up strategic NATO bases (especially Spain and Britain).
At the end of the day, they have to go in very hard, hold strategic areas for a very limited period and neutralise any nuclear facilities. There's really no other choice. Otherwise, Iran with a nuclear weapon would be a threat way beyond what we've seen so far.

 

[frater_pan]

Like anything, battles are won psychologically first and physically second. Iran is a third world country with a pretty average army, to put it mildly. However, despite the best intentions, Trump hasn't planned his intervention that well, not thinking ahead towards potential setbacks. He was very much caught out by the refusal of allies to even open up strategic NATO bases (especially Spain and Britain).
At the end of the day, they have to go in very hard, hold strategic areas for a very limited period and neutralise any nuclear facilities. There's really no other choice. Otherwise, Iran with a nuclear weapon would be a threat way beyond what we've seen so far.

It appears to not be possible to occupy and neutralize the Iranian nuclear facilities at this point, at least noy with conventional weaponry. Many of them have been turned into hardened sites (at least one under a mountain) as a direct result of air attacks over previous decades.

It doesn't matter that the Iranian army is at best a 2nd world variety. Before the final defeat of Iran virtually the entire country would mobilize itself and fight a guerilla war which would extend to any occupation. There could be massive US losses mostly during the occupation. The US would have to pull out immediately after a forced change in the government which means that the US could never be certain about the incoming government.