Rendered at 18:01:23 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
zuzululu 17 hours ago [-]
Any country watching Iran situation should take a way a few things: For one khamenei was known to be against nuclear weapons and was a sort of a peace keeper between hardliners leaning towards lifting sanctions but seems to have been forced into a lame duck through narratives inside and outside along with internal leaks. Two, its no longer possible to shut down the internet with Starlink.
Those two were supposed to be backstops against any externally induced regime change. Now any country at odds with United States currently owning nukes is looking at escalating straight to warning shot doctrine. Having enriched uraniums or some land based ICBM is no longer enough. Something tactical and small enough to be used to limit nuclear fallout but make regional allies absolutely against engaging in war at behest of the US seems like it would test US nuclear umbrella.
ex) Any NATO countries willing to have a low yield tactical nuke detonate near their border but inside a disputed territory/land? Which non-nuclear EU country is willing to erase themselves off the map to shield their European brothers?
rayiner 17 hours ago [-]
> For one khamenei was known to be against nuclear weapons and was a sort of a peace keeper between hardliners
I think the Iran war was a dumb idea, but you’re repeating propaganda.[1] Khamenei called the shots in Iran. The country had a nuclear weapons program because he wanted it. Iran isn’t an autocracy in the same way China isn’t an autocracy—the mullahs run the country in the same way as the CCP runs China. But major defense programs don’t happen without the supreme leader’s approval.
Khamenei was also a hardliner. Over the last two decades, there have been many moderate candidates for Iran’s presidency. But the Guardian Council banned all of them from running. (The Guardian Council has six members appointed by the Ayatollah, and six appointed by the Chief Justice, who is appointed by the Ayatollah.)
[1] I find it interesting people feel the need to make excuses for the Iranian regime. I guess non-interference with a sovereign country’s internal affairs is not, by itself, a very satisfying principle. So there is a desire to make it seem like Iran’s leadership didn’t deserve to get blown up.
whatever1 17 hours ago [-]
I really thought that Russia would use such a device to end the war in Ukraine. Hopefully they will not.
tim333 5 hours ago [-]
Russia could end the war in Ukraine tomorrow by just going home.
They could use nukes as part of their campaign of imperial expansion but they'd get a lot of push back from the rest of the world.
epistasis 17 hours ago [-]
If Ukraine had kept its nuclear weapons it would not have been attacked, but there was never any risk of Russia using nuclear weapons.
This is just one of many many ways that people in the west fundamentally misunderstand Russia, and why so many people made fools of themselves thinking that Putin would not invade. The other really big one is that Russia never admitted that it lost the Cold War and thinks the war is still going on, and that it's the fault of the US and others that Russia is so backwards and poor, not a result of their own mismanagement, the weakness of their people, and the general corruption.
rayiner 17 hours ago [-]
> and that it's the fault of the US and others that Russia is so backwards and poor
Why is Russia so backwards and poor? Russia and Iran are two countries that seem to way underperform their fundamentals.
jltsiren 16 hours ago [-]
With Russia it's precisely because of their fundamentals. Too much depends on the people in charge, because Russia never developed effective institutions to constrain their leaders. When they have a good leader, they take a step forward, and when they have a bad leader, they take three steps backward. Bad leaders are always more effective, because it's easier to make things worse.
Medieval Russia was not too different from the rest of Europe, with all the little monarchies and merchant republics. The period of centralization that followed was also similar. But the accidents of history almost all went the same way. Monarchies defeating merchant republics and free cities. Muscovy being too good at conquering its neighbors, turning Russia into a huge centralized empire with little direct competition. The assassination of Alexander II before he could complete his reforms. The unholy mess of 1917–1922. The idealism of Gorbachev and Yeltsin that turned their reforms into a disaster.
whatever1 16 hours ago [-]
Because their institutions are completely corrupt. There are no rules to the game so the powerful take everything. It is a smaller pie but if I can have it all, why do I care?
Prosperity correlates with powerful institutions (not necessarily democratic). But ultimately you need a set of rules that even the state has to follow.
t-3 7 hours ago [-]
It's ultimately a cultural issue. Russia never really experienced the liberalization and philosophical transformation of the enlightenment that occurred in Europe, they practiced monstrous feudalism until suddenly transitioning to socialism, which quickly became just as monstrous. Rules without ideology or philosophy are just things to be gamed - exactly as occurs often in those cultures without strong rule-of-law ideologies and societal game-theory countermeasures against corruption and malfeasance. Our politicians would rather twist the laws to make corruption legal than engage in illegal corruption because the drawbacks of illegality are so large. Russian politicians would rather do things extralegally because the system is facade and the real system is one of might makes right so the laws don't apply to them.
tim333 5 hours ago [-]
They'd be quite well off just now if they'd taken the resources spent invading Ukraine and spent them on developing their own country instead. Why they feel the need to keep invading everyone is a more interesting question.
hollerith 16 hours ago [-]
A lot of it is because transportation is quite difficult. Even today huge tracts in Russia are without any roads. On the opposite end of the spectrum is the US, where even before the railroad and the automobile, transportation was quite easy, with navigable rivers flowing through the best farmland in the world.
Another big piece is how easy it is to invade; how hard it is to defend. History records 50 invasions of Russia. For centuries Russian looked in envy at the very fertile land in what is now Southern Russia and Eastern Ukraine, but dared not farm it because it was swept regularly by quite fierce nomads on horses. That farmland became secure enough to farm only about 250 years ago.
On the opposite end of the spectrum is Great Britain, which has been successfully invaded, but not after Britain got serious (about 4 centuries ago?) about having a good navy. When the risk of the investment's being destroyed by an invading army is low, more investment happens. And a navy profits more than an army does from technological investment: 100 years before Britain's industrial revolution, London was investing heavily in copper mining and copper refining so that it could give all of its warships a copper bottom.
The US is even more secure than Great Britain because any great power or middle power contemplating an invasion of the US would need to cross either the Atlantic or the Pacific to start the attack. (Yes, the invader could try to get Mexico to agree to host the invading army, but the US would probably find out about that plan and respond by either blockading Mexico or invading it if it doesn't immediately abandon the plan.)
Policies that work great for secure countries like the US and Britain work terribly for countries like Russia, China, Iraq or Iran that must always worry about a land invasion. The basic strategy the US and the UK used in WWII had been worked out by Britain during the Napoleonic wars. Japan and Australia can follow the same basic strategy. Russia cannot because except for a few heady decades during the Soviet Union and maybe in the 1890s, the best way to increase Russian security was always to invest more in the army what with the country's being so hard to defend against a hostile army.
wsgeorge 9 hours ago [-]
> (Yes, the invader could try to get Mexico to agree to host the invading army, but the US would probably find out about that plan and respond by either blockading Mexico or invading it if it doesn't immediately abandon the plan.)
Curious, how viable would this strategy be when invading via Canada?
soco 10 hours ago [-]
On the other hand, this doesn't explain why Poland, which was even wiped off the maps for a few times, has a GDP per capita almost twice of Russia, which wasn't really invaded much throughout more-or-less-recent history (au contrary).
hollerith 10 minutes ago [-]
Russia has paid an economic cost (from e.g. sanctions) for invading UKR. In the year before the invasion, the ratio of Polish GDP per cap to Russian was only 142%. (Also in that year, Polish GDP per cap differed from the GDP per cap of the entire Warsaw-Pact region by only $200.)
I think a country like Russia is still influenced by its experience centuries ago (when it was invaded for a time every single year) and by its experience in WWII. One can argue that (because of nukes and because satellite recon and cheap drones give a tech advantage to the defender) Russia is in a new situation where it can relax and start worrying much less about invasions, but I think that even if the leaders of a country realized that, it would be hard for them to actually change the country. I think for example a big reason that the US is so rich is that (for the white settlers) life in America was always easy. The economy has changed drastically since Colonial American times, when most adults were farmers, but the experience of plentiful high-quality farmland (especially when the settlers started crossing into the Ohio Valley) and plentiful timber and rivers that were a great help to transportation even without doing much work to improve the river system (by adding canals for example) produced a culture that remained adaptive and useful even as the economy was transformed by steam, railroads, the telegraph, cars, electricity, etc.
Germany for example introduced a welfare system in 1871 IIRC. For the average commoner to make a living in Germany was hard enough that the German government of that time (who cannot be accused of having been bleeding hearts) considered it essential to national security for the government to help the commoner out. In contrast, when (many decades after Germany introduced welfare) the Dust Bowl devastated large regions of the US in the 1930s, there were no governmental programs to assist them because most Americans and most American decisionmakers considered such programs to be largely unnecessary.
I believe these governing traditions in the US (which started to change in the 1930s with the election of FDR, who transformed the country more than any previous president except maybe Lincoln) of small-government and individual freedom were conducive to wealth generation whereas the Russian governing tradition where a powerful state is seen as essential to protecting the nation from invasions and where the population tends to depend heavily on the government for its economic security tends to keep a country poor. And again I hypothesize that these governing traditions are difficult to change.
And maybe the reason Poland never develop a strong national-security culture like Russia did is that it was in a hopeless situation with respect to invasions and such (except during the ascendancy of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, but I don't think that coalition lasted long) because it was surrounded by more populous, more-cohesive neighbors and did not have much in the way of mountains or bodies of water to slow down invasions from those neighbors: namely, France, Germany, the Austrian empire and Russia.
In contrast, Russia was a big enough country with enough natural resources (e.g., good farm land) that if it tried really hard over a span of decades, it usually could increase its national security considerably, which led to a national culture that emphasizes a powerful state with a powerful army (and a powerful spy system to suppress uprisings by already-conquered ethnic minorities).
p-e-w 17 hours ago [-]
Brain drain at an unimaginable scale, which is a self-reinforcing mechanism because once it starts, governments will usually impose restrictions to try to stop it, which makes everyone else want to leave too.
xiphias2 11 hours ago [-]
It would not, but it's clearly not just a war with Ukraine.
Europe is sending the jet engines for the drones that are shooting Moscow, and Germany is very actively preparing for war with Russia.
It's not the first time in history that this has been done, and Russia still remembers.
tim333 5 hours ago [-]
The troops are Ukrainian on one side and Russian plus North Korean on the other. The fact both countries have supporters even if only a handful in Russia's case doesn't make them very at war.
soco 10 hours ago [-]
Then said Russia could withdraw their multinational troops, stop their international drones, and enjoy peace for the first time in their history.
Because Russian drones have European parts as well (and Chinese and and), and the army recruits are not only Russian either.
xiphias2 7 hours ago [-]
I think you just implicitly agreed with me that Europe is in proxy war with Russia and it's escalating.
soco 6 hours ago [-]
I think you just implicitly agreed that what I said is true - that it would be enough for Russia to go back home and everybody would be at peace.
xiphias2 5 hours ago [-]
Sure, that's what a war is about
fragmede 12 hours ago [-]
Both Russia and Iran have figured out how to jam Starlink.
tim333 5 hours ago [-]
Starlink seems to function pretty well in Ukraine.
fragmede 2 hours ago [-]
The kilometers of fiber-optic cable trailing behind Ukrainian drones beg to differ.
aaron695 17 hours ago [-]
[dead]
taneq 17 hours ago [-]
Re. point 2: It is if you own Starlink. :S
mgiampapa 17 hours ago [-]
The US Government can own and nationalize it in a heartbeat if they want to. Even other Billionaires hate Musk.
mlmonkey 19 hours ago [-]
I don't think the current regime has changed their policy out of the goodness of their hearts, or for the concerns of the citizenry. If I were to hazard a guess, I'm guessing it is so their army of digital burglars can wreak havoc on US sites, in retaliation for the bombings by the US. So I guess we can only expect more ransomware and more digital mayhem.
platinumrad 18 hours ago [-]
I'm not a fan of the Iranian government at all but this is pure Iran Derangement Syndrome. If you thought about this for half a second you'd realize that their "army of digital burglars" has had internet access the entire time. No state, and especially not one that specializes in proxy warfare, is going to intentionally cripple its actors with the highest damage to plausible deniability ratio.
dakolli 18 hours ago [-]
Its also simply not true, Iranians have been on the internet this entire time. These people commenting are Israelis, which HN is full of.
platinumrad 18 hours ago [-]
It's the middle of the night in the region, so I don't expect very many human internet users from Israel or Iran right now. This may also explain why so much of the traffic coming out of Iran is flagged as bot traffic.
I agree that a significant portion of urban middle class Iranians have been online the entire time, but it's a group that is roughly analogous to the people in China who go out of their way to use a VPN.
taneq 17 hours ago [-]
What kind of crazy person would be on the internet on the middle of the night? None of us normal people would ever do that! cough cough
tptacek 19 hours ago [-]
Iranian-sponsored threat actors have had network access throughout this entire conflict.
866-RON-0-FEZ 18 hours ago [-]
Thanks for reminding everyone of the obvious. You'd think it wouldn't be necessary.
The popular theory that all Iranian internet was shut off like Johnny pulling the plug out of the socket in Airplane is simplistic and beyond ludicrous.
AznHisoka 18 hours ago [-]
That fact wasnt obvious to me.
lysace 18 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
t-3 17 hours ago [-]
If you think propaganda is why people are upset about Gaza, you don't understand the politics and history. Diasporas produce grassroots domestic interest and activism, no propaganda needed. 70 years of forcing people out of their homes makes for a pretty significant diasporic population.
platinumrad 18 hours ago [-]
Insofar as it being regular citizens expression their opinions, yes, even if we might not agree with them. I wouldn't call that "pro-hamas propaganda".
18 hours ago [-]
lysace 18 hours ago [-]
What would you call it?
platinumrad 18 hours ago [-]
The same thing you would call people on this site expressing geopolitical opinions that half of the world might disagree with.
gpm 19 hours ago [-]
The internet is a pretty critical economic tool. I'd imagine that a good portion of the reason is simply to let Iranian businesses function.
Laurel1234 19 hours ago [-]
Wouldn't regime glow in the darks have open access already? You'd imagine they'd run a whitelist or something.
whyage 19 hours ago [-]
You might be right; most of the traffic is bot-driven
lysace 19 hours ago [-]
The more important aspect is that the regime now feels certain enough that they have killed enough of the internal opposition so that the security forces can handle rest even with open comms.
dakolli 18 hours ago [-]
I've been able to talk to every dev I know in Iran this whole time and none of them are state affiliated, just regular open source contributers. Don't trust 5 eyes (this includes CF) and what they say about Iran. There have been Iranians on twitter this entire time also that are completely normal citizens.
Israelis and US news sources will tell you Iran is strangling their people of internet and then upload 300 videos a day from inside Iran allegedly from bystanders filming strikes or whatever.
Its wild how brainwashed western tech people are. If I were a world leader though, I'd probably cut my citizens off from the Western Internet. The original patch for the ARMY psyops division is literally a ghost holding its hand out from way above with electrical signals pulsating from its hand. Which is really future thinking considering this patch is from the 40s-50s. Look up "Army PSYOPs ghost patch". I always say Starlink should change its logo to that.
Don't fall for the trap where the US and Israel paints Iran as some authoritarian censor. The US is far more authoritarian, we have the largest prison population in the world and the most corrupt leaders on earth. Also, Iran hasn't been committing a genocide. I would love to see evidence for the thousands of executions they allegedly did, still haven't seen a single bit of video evidence for that other than 400p 10 second clips of random bags on a ground.
wunderlotus 17 hours ago [-]
> Don't trust 5 eyes (this includes CF)
What are CF & 5 eyes?
taneq 17 hours ago [-]
Not sure about CF but 5 Eyes is an information sharing agreement to get around laws regarding governments spying on their own citizens. So eg. Australia wants to surveil some guy but legally can’t. Well, they can’t help it if the US spies on that guy, right? And if the US later hands the Australian government an envelope with some information in it, that’s perfectly legal, right? And later the same thing takes place in reverse, quite a coincidence really.
bluegatty 17 hours ago [-]
"Don't fall for the trap where the US and Israel paints Iran as some authoritarian censor. The US is far more authoritarian"
This is total delusion, honestly, it's why people in these systems will remain trapped for a long time.
America has many problems but when people in places like Iran start on this bandwagon, it's evidence of inability to just weigh reality in the face of emotional rhetoric.
Nobody is suggesting that Iran is 'committing genocide' - that's just something you made up, however, they have been killing protesters, this is very real.
From Amnesty [1] (not exactly a pro US voice)
Human Rights Watch [2]
Amnesty and HRW indicate the state murdered at least thousands of protesters, and HRW has considerably more than that under investigation, there is plenty of evidence.
There are 2000 drones that hit UAE and you hardly see a video, why? Because UAE officials are brutally oppressive about this. They threaten people with imprisonment and expulsion for any 'leaks' and they've been forcing social media personalities to push propaganda. That's just UAE, Iran is even more assertive.
Press freedom index [3]
Iran has a ruthlessly oppressive regime, not even comparable to that of the US.
> Iran has a ruthlessly oppressive regime, not even comparable to that of the US.
Not comparable in domestic affairs... in foreign affairs the situation is reversed. US is by far the most violent, untrustworthy, and oppressive in the world, while Iran looks pretty peaceful and harmless in comparison.
esseph 9 hours ago [-]
I mean, Iran has been firing missiles at 14 different countries in this war. Not exactly saints.
t-3 8 hours ago [-]
They didn't start the war. Those countries are hosting bases and troops and providing aid to the enemy who attacked them multiple times while they were negotiating. Why shouldn't they strike US bases and US vassals when fighting a war against the US? Why should they be polite when the US doesn't even honor basic diplomatic norms, let alone pretend to care about international law or rules of engagement?
esseph 38 minutes ago [-]
Seems like not a good way to make friends in the region.
In fact, it seems like a situation where those countries could be like "fuck these guys".
bluegatty 16 hours ago [-]
No, this is hyperbole.
Even with the terrible shenanigans of the last 1.5 years - the US is actually still the only thing that holds the world together.
The reason it's hard to grasp is because we see 'horrible Trump regime' - and previous failures in Iraq but don't look at the underlying tectonic security foundation.
DJT is Humpty Dumpty on a very entrenched wall.
We live in a 'Post World War 2' system of relative peace which hasn't really happened in history.
The US could have occupied and controlled 1/2 the world after World War 2 - it choose not to.
This is the one of the most meaningful geopolitical actS in history - that framework actually still exists.
Here are some Eisenhower quotes that capture the ideology [1], worth a read ('no nation before another' etc.).
That's still the foundation.
We mostly accept the notion of sovereignty because of this order.
Freedom of navigation for example - is something that we take for granted, but that only exists because of a Western-led order with the US as the base of that.
Even Vietnam - it was acted upon for the same reasons as Korea, but it was a mess and the US failed, were they to have been successful, we would look at it differently.
There is no way to be an 'entirely benevolent power in all affairs' - it's always going to be a bit murky.
It is a paradox that DJT has threatened Greenland (which is really all about him, nobody actually supports that) but the actions in Venezuela are not totally inconsistent with 'order' - it just so happens to be done by a leader with ulterior motives.
The US did not stay in Iraq or 'acquire' it's vast Oil reserves.
Up until President Humpty Dumpty - the US provided security for the Gulf for 80 years - again, almost unthinkable in the context of history.
People have completely forgotten that the 'true point of instability' in the Middle East is Egypt vs. Israel. That's way, way more dangerous than Iran v. Israel - but we don't talk about it because the US has been 'bribing' Egypt for decades - still to this day - with billions in aid and support to keep the political system reasonably balanced. Without that - there would be constant war between Israel and Egypt, and Suez would be closed.
If the US did not exist as a 'power' - then the world would be wild place - Ukraine would have been conquered long ago, at very least the Baltic states as well.
Neither the Suez or Panama canal would exist as we understand them, and it's hard to even grasp what the world map would look like.
And all of that despite Iraq, Afghanistan etc..
The world is shifting away from this, but not completely.
The US will lose 'absolute centrality' but will not loose general centrality.
To the rest of the world, US aggression is perceived as oppressive and unilateral primarily because it’s a political act meant to further domestic political goals. All US administrations act in their own self interest, as they should.
But the US being the world’s cop was never going to be sustainable indefinitely. It was partly because of hegemonic power and partly because of a reluctance of wealthy democratic countries to seriously invest in their military when they could just “pay” someone else.
I don’t think anyone wants the pre world war 2 order. So we are likely going to see otherwise reluctant states step up militarily to protect their neighborhoods.
dakolli 16 hours ago [-]
The US does occupy and control > 1/2 the world through financial instruments.
dakolli 16 hours ago [-]
If you for some reason think Israel is less authoritarian than Iran, I really don't care to argue with you. They've been murdering tens of thousands of civilians and publishing videos of them bragging about it to the world. They film themselves firing machine guns into refugee camps and post it on their Instagram stories.
As a US citizen I will go to prison for a decade for donating school supplies to a state ran school in Cuba. If I donate a microscope or a glass beaker to a high school in Iran I will likely end up in prison for 10-20 years as a political prisoner.
All governments are repressive, Iran included, but if we're going to make a competition out of it its not even close. Iran's prison population isn't even as large as Texas's. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait actually has hijab rules, I don't see us carpet bombing their infrastructure to rescue the women and we're actively flirting with the idea of giving them nuclear weapons and already sell them our best defense tech.
emptysongglass 14 hours ago [-]
Protesting against the US government in the streets will not get you shot in daylight. Protesting against the Iran government in the streets will get you shot in daylight or, worse, publicly hung.
Being gay will get you executed in Iran. Being gay in the US will not.
There is no comparison. You are not being serious.
The weird thing is: Iran seems to be acting like the war is ending, and that their peace plan has been accepted, and yet now it's the Trump administration that says it's all fake news. In the past the Trump administration has claimed the war was ending and Iran said (truthfully) it's all fake news.
It makes me wonder if something has shifted with the internal power dynamics in Iran, and the civilian government at least is worried about being ousted if this continues. The usual reason why you would lie about peace being around the corner is to placate the citizenry and prevent them from revolting.
Also relatedly, Trump is now doubling down on U.S. demands and threats of more military action. This is what you do if you sense your opponent is weak. Does U.S. intelligence know something we don't?
dools 17 hours ago [-]
> Does U.S. intelligence know something we don't?
Well, yes probably.
NordStreamYacht 17 hours ago [-]
> Does U.S. intelligence know something we don't?
Unlikely. They thought a dose of shock and awe would get people out on the streets for a rapid regime change and it didn't work.
hypeatei 17 hours ago [-]
I don't think U.S. intelligence thought any part of this war was a good idea or justified. There were two National Intelligence Estimates (a panel of all 18 agencies in the IC) that concluded Iran was not developing nuclear weapons.
There has also been reporting that a top general in the Joint Chiefs of Staff warned Trump about starting a conflict with Iran[0]. The only party that believes, or wants others to believe that Iran is a huge threat, is Israel.
There are many reasons to lie about peace being around the corner, it is the default norm. It is in part to place the blame of further conflicts on your enemies, i.e. I wanted peace but clearly they did not.
There is a conflict of narratives and one way to help push your narrative is to act like it is the reality on the ground. Unless the US is going to send in a ground army or nuke Iran then all we have at the moment is a pointless stalemate and the longer this goes on the more people will be upset at Trump and Israel for creating this situation.
twothreeone 18 hours ago [-]
Isn't it also possible that this happened to be one of the explicit pre-conditions for a treaty by the US?
nostrademons 18 hours ago [-]
It could be a trust-building move, open up a little and see if it's reciprocated, although if it's a trust-building move the right response is probably not to threaten to obliterate them, or to launch more military strikes.
Although this conflict has seen both sides consistently choose the wrong response in basically every situation, which is why it's still going on.
twothreeone 18 hours ago [-]
Yeah, it's not even clear what the true motivation is from the US side.. "get the Uranium out" by itself doesn't make sense, because (a) they can just enrich again (or even be supplied directly by Russia/NK) and (b) even if they build nukes they'll never be able to reach US territory. If they wanted to destabilize the regime, they would have needed to actively push an alternative group or leader. If they wanted to pressure China/EU by stressing global markets, I'd say it was mildly successful - though incredibly short term.. I suppose it may be a mix of all of those (and maybe more). But I'm lost as to what the overall goal and strategy is here, it feels extremely haphazard.
the_af 17 hours ago [-]
Everyone is lost about what exactly was the US strategy here. Everybody understands Iran wasn't a threat to the US that warranted immediate action. Mostly everyone understands the aftermath of this war looks to be worse than the previous situation.
drnick1 17 hours ago [-]
> Everyone is lost about what exactly was the US strategy here.
The strategy is clear: out Iran as a paper tiger (accomplished last year), disarm the mullahs by sinking their boats and destroying the few aircrafts they had left, and humiliate the regime so that an uprising becomes more likely. Same strategy that has already realigned Syria and Venezuela with U.S. interests, and that will soon take Cuba too.
I don't think that anything should be negotiated at this stage. Return to combat operations, destroy Iran's ability to threaten traffic through the Strait, escort the ships that are currently trapped in the Gulf, and maintain the blockade on Iranian ports.
the_af 16 hours ago [-]
You must be the only person in the world who thinks the "strategy is clear". Not even other Republicans agree with you.
Your claims are not what Trump said. He has claimed it was about regime change, then about an uprising, then about the nuclear program (though it was apparently destroyed forever during the previous war, it must have magically rebuilt itself), then about opening the strait (which was open before the war), then about blockading it, then about who knows what. The man can't keep his story straight and keeps flip-flopping about this. Meanwhile, there are real hints it's Israel leading the US into wars it doesn't want but there's no backing down now.
Just the fact the US wasn't able to foresee the closure of the Hormuz Strait, or at least effectively handle it without turning it into a major crisis, is evidence enough there was no strategy.
The US can very well destroy Iran, at great cost, and this isn't in doubt. But so far there's one country completely humiliated by this war, and it's not Iran.
> Same strategy that has already realigned Syria and Venezuela with U.S. interests, and that will soon take Cuba too.
Syria is more or less a failed country and the strategy was different anyway (and the world still doesn't completely understand the fallout from that collapse). Venezuela's regime didn't fall (they were humiliated into cooperation with the US while keeping their political structure intact; that war has a similarity with the current one in that Trump couldn't make up his mind, was it about freedom and democracy, about drugs, or about oil? Or maybe about getting a Nobel Peace Prize?). Cuba is a completely different case which has nothing to do with Iran (or do you think Cuba is months away from having nukes?).
I mean, come on, try not to be a cartoon hawk.
bluegatty 18 hours ago [-]
No, the regime has been very publicly saying 'there is no deal', more so than US Admin who keeps hinting 'a deal' or 'imminent' or '95% of the way there'.
"Trump is now doubling down on U.S. demands and threats of more military action. "
No - he's been backing down over and over for weeks. There limited strikes today.
The US Admin is wary of escalation, Tehran knows it (or seems to be acting as though they believe that) and are dragging this along.
tim333 5 hours ago [-]
The Iranians are probably good with the status quo - Trump blustering while blocking Hormuz causes escalating shortages and the November elections pressure Trump.
licebmi__at__ 2 hours ago [-]
You could also give credence to the reporting that US/Trump has messaged to Iran that they should ignore Trump declarations as they are intended for internal audiences.
During the rest of the conflict Trump has doubled down on threats, I mean "a civilization will die tonight" is not peacefully. I wouldn't doubt that Trump might believe Iran is weak, but I also think is more than proved that US wartime messaging is mostly directed internally to keep people dumb.
protocolture 18 hours ago [-]
>Trump is now doubling down on U.S. demands and threats of more military action.
He does this every day even if hes not at war. He threatens to nuke canada and destroy the EU. You literally can never take him seriously.
Gigachad 18 hours ago [-]
The prime example of the boy who cried wolf.
Forgeties79 18 hours ago [-]
> Also relatedly, Trump is now doubling down on U.S. demands and threats of more military action. This is what you do if you sense your opponent is weak. Does U.S. intelligence know something we don't?
Hasn’t he done this every week since it started? He constantly bounces between “we’ve almost got a great deal” and “we are going to ABSOLUTELY OBLITERATE IRAN1!!!1!”
esseph 9 hours ago [-]
> Also relatedly, Trump is now doubling down on U.S. demands and threats of more military action. This is what you do if you sense your opponent is weak.
It's really the opposite. Trump is grasping at anything he can use as leverage in a deal he doesn't seem to be able to close.
jmyeet 18 hours ago [-]
No, Iran is acting like time is on their side. Because it is. The iceberg the rest of the world is about to hit in the coming month or two is strategic reserves of crude oil as well as refined petroleum products (eg jet fuel, gasoline, diesel) being drained. That's going to be a whole new level of suffering.
Trump is doubling down on Israel's demands. That's the true stumbling block here. Israel wanted this war. They still do. Israel thinks they can turn Iran into a failed-state like Somalia.
Trump is also the least reliable indicator of what's going to happen becausee, as we all hopefully know by now, he just rants stream-of-consciousness like. The Joint Chiefs, the intelligence community and allies all knew this was doomed to failure. Closing the Strait of Hormuz has been historically modeled in terms of military exercises and capability for decades. It was unproven prior to this war if the US could reopen the Strait. Well, now we know. Congratulations, everybody, the system works.
I don't know what increased Internet traffic from Iran means. As was proven last year though, Israel used that access for intelligence and assassination purposes (ie to identify target locations, particularly through the large number of of Afghan refugees that were in the country at the time, allegedly [1]).
There is no grand strategy. There are no cards left to play by the US short of the use of nuclear weapons. I mean that literally. The uS has lost but unwillingness to break with Israel has stopped the administration from admitting it publicly.
> The iceberg the rest of the world is about to hit in the coming month or two is strategic reserves of crude oil as well as refined petroleum products (eg jet fuel, gasoline, diesel) being drained.
It's not clear to me that the "world" will come down on Iran's side on this one. On the one hand you have a country that is perpetrating a violation of international norms by establishing a toll on the straight of hormuz and is shooting at or is threatening to shoot at the "world"'s ships, on the other hand you have a country that violated international norms by invading another country (ho hum, everyone does this) but isn't shooting at or threatening to shoot at your ships (mostly just iranian or dark ships). When the oil reserves run out, do you side with the bad guys that are making a token effort at helping to get oil to you, or do you side with the bad guys that are preventing oil from getting to you just to middle finger trump?
t-3 17 hours ago [-]
> ho hum, everyone does this
No, just US, Israel, and Russia.
dnautics 13 hours ago [-]
china has recently invaded bhutan and the Philippines -- not to mention historically vietnam, north korea, and tibet, saudi arabia and uae (directly https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/saudi-arabia-laun...) participated in the attack on iran too, eritrea, ethiopia, sudan, congo, niger, Venezuela threatened guyana, Ukraine (understandably) invaded russia, though that turned out to be mostly pointless, armenia, azerbaijan...
t-3 13 hours ago [-]
> china has recently invaded [...] the Philippines
Uh, when? I couldn't find any information suggesting that such a thing happened. Fishing rights and other minor maritime disputes don't make an invasion.
jmyeet 17 hours ago [-]
The world already has come down on Iran's side. It's pretty much the US and Israel (and maybe the UAE) against the world. Trump has bemoaned the lack of international support. Use of bases and airpsace have been spotty. And this is only going to get worse once winter hits in Europe and people start seeing their electricity and heating bills. Asia (minus China and Japan) are the most vulnerable because they're almost entirely dependent on Gulf oil that has stopped. And they blame the US for it. Iran has allowed traffic through the Strait to countries that aren't aiding the war effort. It's now the US that is blocking it.
Americans as a whole don't understand the history of the region or know about all the sins the US has committed against Iran over a century, including being responsible for the current regime, overthrowing their democratically elected government in 1953 and stole their oil. They also propped up the Iran-Iraq war and destabilized Afghanistan to flood Iran with heroin.
There was a perfectly good deal with Iran called the JCPOA but Trump tore it out because it had Obama's name on it and Israel hated it. Everything that has happened since is Trump's (and Biden's) fault.
Iran is defending itself against an unprovoked attack by the biggest bully on the planet. The tolls are e complex issue because the navigable lanes through the Strait of Hormuz go through, in part, Iranian territorial waters. There were no tolls. The us started an unprovoked war, caused countless deaths, blew up a school through of girls and assassinated a bunch of leaders. So the tolls are viewed by many as, well, reparations. Iran never closed the Strait or enforced a toll prior to this war.
Iran also acted in good faith last year after yet another unprovoked attack (ie the 12 day war) that was ultimately called off because the US and Israel were losing the ability to intercept Iranian missiles. Why? Critically depelted munitions. And what did the US do? turned around and made another unprovoked, surprise attack rather than negotiating. Because Israel told them to.
So Iran has been forced into the position that they need to make the economic damage of this so high that the US and Israel never think about doing this again. And if you can't see why they might do that, consider what the US did after 9/11.
dnautics 13 hours ago [-]
we shall see
you see, the problem is this "unprovoked attack by the biggest bully on the planet" framing requires some sense of "international order" but thats a myth, always has been, and, now its being seen for what it is. in that world iran doesn't do so well, especially since the claims it makes (controlling the hormuz) depend on rejecting the international order. you cant have your cake and eat it too. im not saying its right or wrong, I'm saying it is what will be. countries will revert to self interest, and a hormuz controlled by iran is in no one's interest. well maybe it will be good for the environment, since co2 emissions will go down.
t-3 8 hours ago [-]
Turkey charges fees for ships crossing the Bosphorus and Dardanelles. That's not illegal or against the international order. The only countries strongly opposing an Iranian/Omani fee are the US, Israel, and Europe, because they are enemies of Iran. Other countries just add it to the cost of doing business.
dnautics 4 hours ago [-]
i don't know where you are getting your information. oman and china (among others) opposes tolling hormuz. the montreaux convention precedes the un, and was explicitly rolled into the rules of the sea.
13 hours ago [-]
bluegatty 18 hours ago [-]
Time is on their side - except for the embargo. That stops 90% of their revenue and that's a very real thing.
It's interesting to see how far they think they can get away with this, but they are not in an easy situation.
Soldiers and civil infrastructure don't last on $0.
That money stops is the 'most likely thing' that will cause a real revolution.
Both sides are hoping for 'regime change' by embargo it seems!
jmyeet 16 hours ago [-]
Sanctions don't work on enemies. We've had what? 4 years of sanctions on Russia now? How's that going? Iran has had over 40 years of almost uninterrupted sanctions. How was that going? North Korea?
Sanctions force an enemy to build an economy to withstand those sanctions. This is easier when you can grow food, have water and have energy. Also, they've built their entire military to resist the one card you can play: strategic bombardment. Cheap missiles, super-cheap drones, both easy to produce and launch and underground facilities that are largely immune to bombing.
Strategic oil reserves are getting perilously low [1] and everybody understands that Trump would rather let the world burn than restrain Israel in the slightest.
It's fair to say sanctions don't always work but otherwise this is wrong on every account.
- The Soviet Union fell apart for economic reasons, not due to ideology or anything else.
- Sanctions 100% work. North Korea is a powerless useless state due to sanctions. They have not collapsed, but they can't do anything otherwise.
- Sanctions on Russia are absolutely effective - we can see how the state budget gets drained and how it affects their ability to fight.
Russia is finally at the 'end of it's rope' ad Putin is talking about 'the war coming to an end' - why? Because the economic engine is failing, and people are starting to turn against him.
The 'hardship at home' is finally starting to take root, and it's putting a lot of pressure on Putin.
It doesn't mean the economy or regime collapses, but it puts Putin in a corner, in a weakened position.
- Iran is not North Korea - the leadership is not popular and the people are not 'brainwashed' like in NK, and economic sanctions will hit very hard.
The JCPOA put in place by Obama was by far the best deal, but failing that, the 'oil blockade' is by far the best option for getting Iran to the table, probably more effective than any of the kinetic actions. Iran has bout 3 months until the pain starts to hit.
The pain will hit 'the world' hard, but the US will only face mild inflation.
Paradoxically - that mild inflation will infuriate voters and cause 'regime change' in the US at midterms. So - you can see 'sanctions' are working for Iran as well.
- " Trump would rather let the world burn than restrain Israel in the slightest." this is false, and a total misunderstanding about Trump's position on Israel.
Trump has restrained Israel on many occasions. He went after Iran for his own benefit not for anyone else. It worked last year to bolster his image, then after 'Venezuela' Trump saw the obvious path to popularity. Netenyahu told him 'it would be easy' to win - and even do 'regime change' aka appealed to Trump's ego, not to the plight of Israel. Even on the domestic issues, DJT is mostly after AIPAC money and votes. He's not strongly ideologically aligned, and he's happy to do deals with Qatar, UAE, Saudi that throws Israel's security interest to the window.
Literally yesterday - Trump was plausibly going to offer 'a deal' that would have given Iran quite a lot, but it was his own pro-Israel senior political that forced him to backpedal. Senior GOP people came out and warned him off.
DJT wants out of this situation and would throw all of us - including Israel to the wind.
Note that Iran can re-organize their budget, change spending, get some Oil out otherwise, and 'prolong their burn' which then gives impetus for Trump to strike a deal.
But time is not really on Iran's side - they think they have a bit of an edge, but it's definitely a game of chicken.
jmyeet 15 hours ago [-]
Name one time sanctions have worked. And relaly by worked I mean caused a regime to collapse or otherwise change. I can think of one: South Africa. And they were an ally not an enemy so they don't count. Sanctions against allies work great. Israel would collapse in a day if the US seriously floated sanctions.
USSR? Sanctions werne't the primary cause.
North Korea? The Kims have ruled for 60 years with no end in sight. So really we're just starving North Koreans for literally no reason. How has that "worked"?
Russia? That's funny. Russia has been weeks away from collapse for 3+ years now. It's not happening. Russia is going to sit on the Ukrainian territory they have until the West gets bored and the West will get bored. It's a war of attrition and Ukraine will run out of fighting men first. This was my prediction in 2023 after the last serious Ukrainina counteroffensive failed. The Iran situation makes this even more likely because Europe will need Russia's energy exports and that situation is only getting worse.
Iran's leadership? Whatever Iranians think of their leadership, they despise the US and Israel more. As always happens, factions unite against foreign invaders, particularly colonizers. Iranians remember well what the US has done to them.
There are actually two schools of thought on Iran:
1. they should've developed a nuke so they'd be left alone like North Korea. The Ayatollah who got assassinated actually had a fatwa against doing it. Many view this as a strategic error. Many think the region would actually be much more stable if Iran had a nuke because it would restrain Israel's child murder regime [1]; or
2. Closing the Strait is like a nuke but it's a nuke they can use. As such they don't need a nuke.
As for the pain, the US is torching the international order they've spent 70 years building at a rapid pace. NATO, the Island Chain Strategy for China, Taiwan, even the status of the US dollar as a reserve currency are all unravelling. The big winner here is China who simply has to... do nothing.
As for Trump, Israel and Iran, you kind of contradict yourself here. You say Bibi whispered in his ear. This is true and has been true for every president since at least Reagan. Only Trump was dumb enough to take the bait. I'd also love to know when you think Trump has ever restrained Israel. You might be tempted to argue the Gaza "ceasefire" but it wasn't really. The Gazans are still being bombed and starved, just not quite so much. Is that restraint? Not really. They've just moved their bloodlust to Lebanon with zero consequences.
As for the rumors about what Trump was about to do, yeah that's all bullshit. It's just market manipulation for personal profit and to desperately try to keep oil below $100/barrel.
I will agree DJT wants out of this situation. And he also thought he could do a decapitation strike like in Venezuela. And he could end it today but doing so requires breaking with Israel and he just won't do it. Not yet at least.
And yes, time is on Iran's side. I imagine much like North Korea, if this went on for 60 years there'd still be people insisting that Iran was weeks away from collapsing.
This is wrong on almost every point, this is a glib and superficial understanding of geopolitics.
Sanctions are a tool - nobody expects them to necessarily 'cause a regime' do collapse.
+ Sanctions were an important part of driving the Soviet Union to collapse.
+ "So really we're just starving North Koreans for literally no reason. " - no - we are 'sanctioning' North Korea to keep them in box.
Sanctions on North Korea are very effective at keeping them powerless.
+ Russia, again your analysis is glib and false. Sanctions are effective - they stop Russian from obtaining certain materials, they hollow out the budget faster, make it more difficult for them to fight.
If Russia were not sanctioned, it's possible they might have overwhelmed Ukraine already.
If you were paying attention, you'd see that Russia is actually showing strain, economically and socially.
Just three days ago Putin signalled the 'war coming to an end' and used conciliatory language when referring to Zelensky.
This is a big shift (among a few others) and sanctions have been a primary tool to coerce his regime.
"Russia has always been 3 weeks from failing" is just nonsense you've made up.
+ "Whatever Iranians think of their leadership, they despise the US and Israel more"
It's irrelevant because the US is not invading and if the regime stops paying them, their anger will be against the regime.
+ "status of the US dollar as a reserve currency are all unravelling"
Again, uninformed hyperbole. USD has strengthened, bond yields are up - those are different things.
+ "Trump has never restrained Israel" - is also false, use Google. Trump defies Israel often, but most critically, the 'deal on offer' that seems to be coming out of the White House would be a 'very bad deal' for Israel.
Trump is throwing Israel under the bus as we speak, by offering Iran fairly good terms, it's why in the last 2 days you've seen Republicans come out on TV to reinforce how Trump should 'seek a strong deal'.
Summary: the sanctions are effective, and the best tool to coerce the regime in Iran, which is horrible, and it will be extremely bad for everyone.
All of that notwithstanding none of this should have happened in the first place.
You read far too much Reddit.
18 hours ago [-]
myth_drannon 18 hours ago [-]
Why is the bot traffic in Iran is so high -75%? I checked Argentina - 16%, Netherlands - 65%.
stn8188 18 hours ago [-]
Oh come to think of it, I had some attempted logins to some home-hosted infrastructure from Iran last week...
drnick1 17 hours ago [-]
You should really filter third world IP ranges. Removes a lot of of the unwanted log noise.
Those two were supposed to be backstops against any externally induced regime change. Now any country at odds with United States currently owning nukes is looking at escalating straight to warning shot doctrine. Having enriched uraniums or some land based ICBM is no longer enough. Something tactical and small enough to be used to limit nuclear fallout but make regional allies absolutely against engaging in war at behest of the US seems like it would test US nuclear umbrella.
ex) Any NATO countries willing to have a low yield tactical nuke detonate near their border but inside a disputed territory/land? Which non-nuclear EU country is willing to erase themselves off the map to shield their European brothers?
I think the Iran war was a dumb idea, but you’re repeating propaganda.[1] Khamenei called the shots in Iran. The country had a nuclear weapons program because he wanted it. Iran isn’t an autocracy in the same way China isn’t an autocracy—the mullahs run the country in the same way as the CCP runs China. But major defense programs don’t happen without the supreme leader’s approval.
Khamenei was also a hardliner. Over the last two decades, there have been many moderate candidates for Iran’s presidency. But the Guardian Council banned all of them from running. (The Guardian Council has six members appointed by the Ayatollah, and six appointed by the Chief Justice, who is appointed by the Ayatollah.)
[1] I find it interesting people feel the need to make excuses for the Iranian regime. I guess non-interference with a sovereign country’s internal affairs is not, by itself, a very satisfying principle. So there is a desire to make it seem like Iran’s leadership didn’t deserve to get blown up.
They could use nukes as part of their campaign of imperial expansion but they'd get a lot of push back from the rest of the world.
This is just one of many many ways that people in the west fundamentally misunderstand Russia, and why so many people made fools of themselves thinking that Putin would not invade. The other really big one is that Russia never admitted that it lost the Cold War and thinks the war is still going on, and that it's the fault of the US and others that Russia is so backwards and poor, not a result of their own mismanagement, the weakness of their people, and the general corruption.
Why is Russia so backwards and poor? Russia and Iran are two countries that seem to way underperform their fundamentals.
Medieval Russia was not too different from the rest of Europe, with all the little monarchies and merchant republics. The period of centralization that followed was also similar. But the accidents of history almost all went the same way. Monarchies defeating merchant republics and free cities. Muscovy being too good at conquering its neighbors, turning Russia into a huge centralized empire with little direct competition. The assassination of Alexander II before he could complete his reforms. The unholy mess of 1917–1922. The idealism of Gorbachev and Yeltsin that turned their reforms into a disaster.
Prosperity correlates with powerful institutions (not necessarily democratic). But ultimately you need a set of rules that even the state has to follow.
Another big piece is how easy it is to invade; how hard it is to defend. History records 50 invasions of Russia. For centuries Russian looked in envy at the very fertile land in what is now Southern Russia and Eastern Ukraine, but dared not farm it because it was swept regularly by quite fierce nomads on horses. That farmland became secure enough to farm only about 250 years ago.
On the opposite end of the spectrum is Great Britain, which has been successfully invaded, but not after Britain got serious (about 4 centuries ago?) about having a good navy. When the risk of the investment's being destroyed by an invading army is low, more investment happens. And a navy profits more than an army does from technological investment: 100 years before Britain's industrial revolution, London was investing heavily in copper mining and copper refining so that it could give all of its warships a copper bottom.
The US is even more secure than Great Britain because any great power or middle power contemplating an invasion of the US would need to cross either the Atlantic or the Pacific to start the attack. (Yes, the invader could try to get Mexico to agree to host the invading army, but the US would probably find out about that plan and respond by either blockading Mexico or invading it if it doesn't immediately abandon the plan.)
Policies that work great for secure countries like the US and Britain work terribly for countries like Russia, China, Iraq or Iran that must always worry about a land invasion. The basic strategy the US and the UK used in WWII had been worked out by Britain during the Napoleonic wars. Japan and Australia can follow the same basic strategy. Russia cannot because except for a few heady decades during the Soviet Union and maybe in the 1890s, the best way to increase Russian security was always to invest more in the army what with the country's being so hard to defend against a hostile army.
Curious, how viable would this strategy be when invading via Canada?
I think a country like Russia is still influenced by its experience centuries ago (when it was invaded for a time every single year) and by its experience in WWII. One can argue that (because of nukes and because satellite recon and cheap drones give a tech advantage to the defender) Russia is in a new situation where it can relax and start worrying much less about invasions, but I think that even if the leaders of a country realized that, it would be hard for them to actually change the country. I think for example a big reason that the US is so rich is that (for the white settlers) life in America was always easy. The economy has changed drastically since Colonial American times, when most adults were farmers, but the experience of plentiful high-quality farmland (especially when the settlers started crossing into the Ohio Valley) and plentiful timber and rivers that were a great help to transportation even without doing much work to improve the river system (by adding canals for example) produced a culture that remained adaptive and useful even as the economy was transformed by steam, railroads, the telegraph, cars, electricity, etc.
Germany for example introduced a welfare system in 1871 IIRC. For the average commoner to make a living in Germany was hard enough that the German government of that time (who cannot be accused of having been bleeding hearts) considered it essential to national security for the government to help the commoner out. In contrast, when (many decades after Germany introduced welfare) the Dust Bowl devastated large regions of the US in the 1930s, there were no governmental programs to assist them because most Americans and most American decisionmakers considered such programs to be largely unnecessary.
I believe these governing traditions in the US (which started to change in the 1930s with the election of FDR, who transformed the country more than any previous president except maybe Lincoln) of small-government and individual freedom were conducive to wealth generation whereas the Russian governing tradition where a powerful state is seen as essential to protecting the nation from invasions and where the population tends to depend heavily on the government for its economic security tends to keep a country poor. And again I hypothesize that these governing traditions are difficult to change.
And maybe the reason Poland never develop a strong national-security culture like Russia did is that it was in a hopeless situation with respect to invasions and such (except during the ascendancy of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, but I don't think that coalition lasted long) because it was surrounded by more populous, more-cohesive neighbors and did not have much in the way of mountains or bodies of water to slow down invasions from those neighbors: namely, France, Germany, the Austrian empire and Russia. In contrast, Russia was a big enough country with enough natural resources (e.g., good farm land) that if it tried really hard over a span of decades, it usually could increase its national security considerably, which led to a national culture that emphasizes a powerful state with a powerful army (and a powerful spy system to suppress uprisings by already-conquered ethnic minorities).
Europe is sending the jet engines for the drones that are shooting Moscow, and Germany is very actively preparing for war with Russia.
It's not the first time in history that this has been done, and Russia still remembers.
Because Russian drones have European parts as well (and Chinese and and), and the army recruits are not only Russian either.
I agree that a significant portion of urban middle class Iranians have been online the entire time, but it's a group that is roughly analogous to the people in China who go out of their way to use a VPN.
The popular theory that all Iranian internet was shut off like Johnny pulling the plug out of the socket in Airplane is simplistic and beyond ludicrous.
Israelis and US news sources will tell you Iran is strangling their people of internet and then upload 300 videos a day from inside Iran allegedly from bystanders filming strikes or whatever.
Its wild how brainwashed western tech people are. If I were a world leader though, I'd probably cut my citizens off from the Western Internet. The original patch for the ARMY psyops division is literally a ghost holding its hand out from way above with electrical signals pulsating from its hand. Which is really future thinking considering this patch is from the 40s-50s. Look up "Army PSYOPs ghost patch". I always say Starlink should change its logo to that.
Don't fall for the trap where the US and Israel paints Iran as some authoritarian censor. The US is far more authoritarian, we have the largest prison population in the world and the most corrupt leaders on earth. Also, Iran hasn't been committing a genocide. I would love to see evidence for the thousands of executions they allegedly did, still haven't seen a single bit of video evidence for that other than 400p 10 second clips of random bags on a ground.
What are CF & 5 eyes?
This is total delusion, honestly, it's why people in these systems will remain trapped for a long time.
America has many problems but when people in places like Iran start on this bandwagon, it's evidence of inability to just weigh reality in the face of emotional rhetoric.
Nobody is suggesting that Iran is 'committing genocide' - that's just something you made up, however, they have been killing protesters, this is very real.
From Amnesty [1] (not exactly a pro US voice) Human Rights Watch [2]
Amnesty and HRW indicate the state murdered at least thousands of protesters, and HRW has considerably more than that under investigation, there is plenty of evidence.
There are 2000 drones that hit UAE and you hardly see a video, why? Because UAE officials are brutally oppressive about this. They threaten people with imprisonment and expulsion for any 'leaks' and they've been forcing social media personalities to push propaganda. That's just UAE, Iran is even more assertive.
Press freedom index [3]
Iran has a ruthlessly oppressive regime, not even comparable to that of the US.
[1] https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-af...
[2] https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2024/country-chapters/iran
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_Index
Not comparable in domestic affairs... in foreign affairs the situation is reversed. US is by far the most violent, untrustworthy, and oppressive in the world, while Iran looks pretty peaceful and harmless in comparison.
In fact, it seems like a situation where those countries could be like "fuck these guys".
Even with the terrible shenanigans of the last 1.5 years - the US is actually still the only thing that holds the world together.
The reason it's hard to grasp is because we see 'horrible Trump regime' - and previous failures in Iraq but don't look at the underlying tectonic security foundation.
DJT is Humpty Dumpty on a very entrenched wall.
We live in a 'Post World War 2' system of relative peace which hasn't really happened in history.
The US could have occupied and controlled 1/2 the world after World War 2 - it choose not to.
This is the one of the most meaningful geopolitical actS in history - that framework actually still exists.
Here are some Eisenhower quotes that capture the ideology [1], worth a read ('no nation before another' etc.).
That's still the foundation.
We mostly accept the notion of sovereignty because of this order.
Freedom of navigation for example - is something that we take for granted, but that only exists because of a Western-led order with the US as the base of that.
Even Vietnam - it was acted upon for the same reasons as Korea, but it was a mess and the US failed, were they to have been successful, we would look at it differently.
There is no way to be an 'entirely benevolent power in all affairs' - it's always going to be a bit murky.
It is a paradox that DJT has threatened Greenland (which is really all about him, nobody actually supports that) but the actions in Venezuela are not totally inconsistent with 'order' - it just so happens to be done by a leader with ulterior motives.
The US did not stay in Iraq or 'acquire' it's vast Oil reserves.
Up until President Humpty Dumpty - the US provided security for the Gulf for 80 years - again, almost unthinkable in the context of history.
People have completely forgotten that the 'true point of instability' in the Middle East is Egypt vs. Israel. That's way, way more dangerous than Iran v. Israel - but we don't talk about it because the US has been 'bribing' Egypt for decades - still to this day - with billions in aid and support to keep the political system reasonably balanced. Without that - there would be constant war between Israel and Egypt, and Suez would be closed.
If the US did not exist as a 'power' - then the world would be wild place - Ukraine would have been conquered long ago, at very least the Baltic states as well.
Neither the Suez or Panama canal would exist as we understand them, and it's hard to even grasp what the world map would look like.
And all of that despite Iraq, Afghanistan etc..
The world is shifting away from this, but not completely.
The US will lose 'absolute centrality' but will not loose general centrality.
[1] https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/eisenhowers/quotes
But the US being the world’s cop was never going to be sustainable indefinitely. It was partly because of hegemonic power and partly because of a reluctance of wealthy democratic countries to seriously invest in their military when they could just “pay” someone else.
I don’t think anyone wants the pre world war 2 order. So we are likely going to see otherwise reluctant states step up militarily to protect their neighborhoods.
As a US citizen I will go to prison for a decade for donating school supplies to a state ran school in Cuba. If I donate a microscope or a glass beaker to a high school in Iran I will likely end up in prison for 10-20 years as a political prisoner.
All governments are repressive, Iran included, but if we're going to make a competition out of it its not even close. Iran's prison population isn't even as large as Texas's. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait actually has hijab rules, I don't see us carpet bombing their infrastructure to rescue the women and we're actively flirting with the idea of giving them nuclear weapons and already sell them our best defense tech.
Being gay will get you executed in Iran. Being gay in the US will not.
There is no comparison. You are not being serious.
It makes me wonder if something has shifted with the internal power dynamics in Iran, and the civilian government at least is worried about being ousted if this continues. The usual reason why you would lie about peace being around the corner is to placate the citizenry and prevent them from revolting.
Also relatedly, Trump is now doubling down on U.S. demands and threats of more military action. This is what you do if you sense your opponent is weak. Does U.S. intelligence know something we don't?
Well, yes probably.
Unlikely. They thought a dose of shock and awe would get people out on the streets for a rapid regime change and it didn't work.
There has also been reporting that a top general in the Joint Chiefs of Staff warned Trump about starting a conflict with Iran[0]. The only party that believes, or wants others to believe that Iran is a huge threat, is Israel.
0: https://www.axios.com/2026/02/23/iran-strike-trump-gen-dan-c...
1. Trump had a bee in his bonnet since the 80s
2. Iran has oil
3. Israel willed it
4. Disrupt global energy markets
5. All of the above
There is a conflict of narratives and one way to help push your narrative is to act like it is the reality on the ground. Unless the US is going to send in a ground army or nuke Iran then all we have at the moment is a pointless stalemate and the longer this goes on the more people will be upset at Trump and Israel for creating this situation.
Although this conflict has seen both sides consistently choose the wrong response in basically every situation, which is why it's still going on.
The strategy is clear: out Iran as a paper tiger (accomplished last year), disarm the mullahs by sinking their boats and destroying the few aircrafts they had left, and humiliate the regime so that an uprising becomes more likely. Same strategy that has already realigned Syria and Venezuela with U.S. interests, and that will soon take Cuba too.
I don't think that anything should be negotiated at this stage. Return to combat operations, destroy Iran's ability to threaten traffic through the Strait, escort the ships that are currently trapped in the Gulf, and maintain the blockade on Iranian ports.
Your claims are not what Trump said. He has claimed it was about regime change, then about an uprising, then about the nuclear program (though it was apparently destroyed forever during the previous war, it must have magically rebuilt itself), then about opening the strait (which was open before the war), then about blockading it, then about who knows what. The man can't keep his story straight and keeps flip-flopping about this. Meanwhile, there are real hints it's Israel leading the US into wars it doesn't want but there's no backing down now.
Just the fact the US wasn't able to foresee the closure of the Hormuz Strait, or at least effectively handle it without turning it into a major crisis, is evidence enough there was no strategy.
The US can very well destroy Iran, at great cost, and this isn't in doubt. But so far there's one country completely humiliated by this war, and it's not Iran.
> Same strategy that has already realigned Syria and Venezuela with U.S. interests, and that will soon take Cuba too.
Syria is more or less a failed country and the strategy was different anyway (and the world still doesn't completely understand the fallout from that collapse). Venezuela's regime didn't fall (they were humiliated into cooperation with the US while keeping their political structure intact; that war has a similarity with the current one in that Trump couldn't make up his mind, was it about freedom and democracy, about drugs, or about oil? Or maybe about getting a Nobel Peace Prize?). Cuba is a completely different case which has nothing to do with Iran (or do you think Cuba is months away from having nukes?).
I mean, come on, try not to be a cartoon hawk.
"Trump is now doubling down on U.S. demands and threats of more military action. "
No - he's been backing down over and over for weeks. There limited strikes today.
The US Admin is wary of escalation, Tehran knows it (or seems to be acting as though they believe that) and are dragging this along.
During the rest of the conflict Trump has doubled down on threats, I mean "a civilization will die tonight" is not peacefully. I wouldn't doubt that Trump might believe Iran is weak, but I also think is more than proved that US wartime messaging is mostly directed internally to keep people dumb.
He does this every day even if hes not at war. He threatens to nuke canada and destroy the EU. You literally can never take him seriously.
Hasn’t he done this every week since it started? He constantly bounces between “we’ve almost got a great deal” and “we are going to ABSOLUTELY OBLITERATE IRAN1!!!1!”
It's really the opposite. Trump is grasping at anything he can use as leverage in a deal he doesn't seem to be able to close.
Trump is doubling down on Israel's demands. That's the true stumbling block here. Israel wanted this war. They still do. Israel thinks they can turn Iran into a failed-state like Somalia.
Trump is also the least reliable indicator of what's going to happen becausee, as we all hopefully know by now, he just rants stream-of-consciousness like. The Joint Chiefs, the intelligence community and allies all knew this was doomed to failure. Closing the Strait of Hormuz has been historically modeled in terms of military exercises and capability for decades. It was unproven prior to this war if the US could reopen the Strait. Well, now we know. Congratulations, everybody, the system works.
I don't know what increased Internet traffic from Iran means. As was proven last year though, Israel used that access for intelligence and assassination purposes (ie to identify target locations, particularly through the large number of of Afghan refugees that were in the country at the time, allegedly [1]).
There is no grand strategy. There are no cards left to play by the US short of the use of nuclear weapons. I mean that literally. The uS has lost but unwillingness to break with Israel has stopped the administration from admitting it publicly.
[1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckglp8epg11o
It's not clear to me that the "world" will come down on Iran's side on this one. On the one hand you have a country that is perpetrating a violation of international norms by establishing a toll on the straight of hormuz and is shooting at or is threatening to shoot at the "world"'s ships, on the other hand you have a country that violated international norms by invading another country (ho hum, everyone does this) but isn't shooting at or threatening to shoot at your ships (mostly just iranian or dark ships). When the oil reserves run out, do you side with the bad guys that are making a token effort at helping to get oil to you, or do you side with the bad guys that are preventing oil from getting to you just to middle finger trump?
No, just US, Israel, and Russia.
Uh, when? I couldn't find any information suggesting that such a thing happened. Fishing rights and other minor maritime disputes don't make an invasion.
Americans as a whole don't understand the history of the region or know about all the sins the US has committed against Iran over a century, including being responsible for the current regime, overthrowing their democratically elected government in 1953 and stole their oil. They also propped up the Iran-Iraq war and destabilized Afghanistan to flood Iran with heroin.
There was a perfectly good deal with Iran called the JCPOA but Trump tore it out because it had Obama's name on it and Israel hated it. Everything that has happened since is Trump's (and Biden's) fault.
Iran is defending itself against an unprovoked attack by the biggest bully on the planet. The tolls are e complex issue because the navigable lanes through the Strait of Hormuz go through, in part, Iranian territorial waters. There were no tolls. The us started an unprovoked war, caused countless deaths, blew up a school through of girls and assassinated a bunch of leaders. So the tolls are viewed by many as, well, reparations. Iran never closed the Strait or enforced a toll prior to this war.
Iran also acted in good faith last year after yet another unprovoked attack (ie the 12 day war) that was ultimately called off because the US and Israel were losing the ability to intercept Iranian missiles. Why? Critically depelted munitions. And what did the US do? turned around and made another unprovoked, surprise attack rather than negotiating. Because Israel told them to.
So Iran has been forced into the position that they need to make the economic damage of this so high that the US and Israel never think about doing this again. And if you can't see why they might do that, consider what the US did after 9/11.
you see, the problem is this "unprovoked attack by the biggest bully on the planet" framing requires some sense of "international order" but thats a myth, always has been, and, now its being seen for what it is. in that world iran doesn't do so well, especially since the claims it makes (controlling the hormuz) depend on rejecting the international order. you cant have your cake and eat it too. im not saying its right or wrong, I'm saying it is what will be. countries will revert to self interest, and a hormuz controlled by iran is in no one's interest. well maybe it will be good for the environment, since co2 emissions will go down.
It's interesting to see how far they think they can get away with this, but they are not in an easy situation.
Soldiers and civil infrastructure don't last on $0.
That money stops is the 'most likely thing' that will cause a real revolution.
Both sides are hoping for 'regime change' by embargo it seems!
Sanctions force an enemy to build an economy to withstand those sanctions. This is easier when you can grow food, have water and have energy. Also, they've built their entire military to resist the one card you can play: strategic bombardment. Cheap missiles, super-cheap drones, both easy to produce and launch and underground facilities that are largely immune to bombing.
Strategic oil reserves are getting perilously low [1] and everybody understands that Trump would rather let the world burn than restrain Israel in the slightest.
[1]: https://archive.ph/lWiwl
- The Soviet Union fell apart for economic reasons, not due to ideology or anything else.
- Sanctions 100% work. North Korea is a powerless useless state due to sanctions. They have not collapsed, but they can't do anything otherwise.
- Sanctions on Russia are absolutely effective - we can see how the state budget gets drained and how it affects their ability to fight.
Russia is finally at the 'end of it's rope' ad Putin is talking about 'the war coming to an end' - why? Because the economic engine is failing, and people are starting to turn against him.
The 'hardship at home' is finally starting to take root, and it's putting a lot of pressure on Putin.
It doesn't mean the economy or regime collapses, but it puts Putin in a corner, in a weakened position.
- Iran is not North Korea - the leadership is not popular and the people are not 'brainwashed' like in NK, and economic sanctions will hit very hard.
The JCPOA put in place by Obama was by far the best deal, but failing that, the 'oil blockade' is by far the best option for getting Iran to the table, probably more effective than any of the kinetic actions. Iran has bout 3 months until the pain starts to hit.
The pain will hit 'the world' hard, but the US will only face mild inflation.
Paradoxically - that mild inflation will infuriate voters and cause 'regime change' in the US at midterms. So - you can see 'sanctions' are working for Iran as well.
- " Trump would rather let the world burn than restrain Israel in the slightest." this is false, and a total misunderstanding about Trump's position on Israel.
Trump has restrained Israel on many occasions. He went after Iran for his own benefit not for anyone else. It worked last year to bolster his image, then after 'Venezuela' Trump saw the obvious path to popularity. Netenyahu told him 'it would be easy' to win - and even do 'regime change' aka appealed to Trump's ego, not to the plight of Israel. Even on the domestic issues, DJT is mostly after AIPAC money and votes. He's not strongly ideologically aligned, and he's happy to do deals with Qatar, UAE, Saudi that throws Israel's security interest to the window.
Literally yesterday - Trump was plausibly going to offer 'a deal' that would have given Iran quite a lot, but it was his own pro-Israel senior political that forced him to backpedal. Senior GOP people came out and warned him off.
DJT wants out of this situation and would throw all of us - including Israel to the wind.
Note that Iran can re-organize their budget, change spending, get some Oil out otherwise, and 'prolong their burn' which then gives impetus for Trump to strike a deal.
But time is not really on Iran's side - they think they have a bit of an edge, but it's definitely a game of chicken.
USSR? Sanctions werne't the primary cause.
North Korea? The Kims have ruled for 60 years with no end in sight. So really we're just starving North Koreans for literally no reason. How has that "worked"?
Russia? That's funny. Russia has been weeks away from collapse for 3+ years now. It's not happening. Russia is going to sit on the Ukrainian territory they have until the West gets bored and the West will get bored. It's a war of attrition and Ukraine will run out of fighting men first. This was my prediction in 2023 after the last serious Ukrainina counteroffensive failed. The Iran situation makes this even more likely because Europe will need Russia's energy exports and that situation is only getting worse.
Iran's leadership? Whatever Iranians think of their leadership, they despise the US and Israel more. As always happens, factions unite against foreign invaders, particularly colonizers. Iranians remember well what the US has done to them.
There are actually two schools of thought on Iran:
1. they should've developed a nuke so they'd be left alone like North Korea. The Ayatollah who got assassinated actually had a fatwa against doing it. Many view this as a strategic error. Many think the region would actually be much more stable if Iran had a nuke because it would restrain Israel's child murder regime [1]; or
2. Closing the Strait is like a nuke but it's a nuke they can use. As such they don't need a nuke.
As for the pain, the US is torching the international order they've spent 70 years building at a rapid pace. NATO, the Island Chain Strategy for China, Taiwan, even the status of the US dollar as a reserve currency are all unravelling. The big winner here is China who simply has to... do nothing.
As for Trump, Israel and Iran, you kind of contradict yourself here. You say Bibi whispered in his ear. This is true and has been true for every president since at least Reagan. Only Trump was dumb enough to take the bait. I'd also love to know when you think Trump has ever restrained Israel. You might be tempted to argue the Gaza "ceasefire" but it wasn't really. The Gazans are still being bombed and starved, just not quite so much. Is that restraint? Not really. They've just moved their bloodlust to Lebanon with zero consequences.
As for the rumors about what Trump was about to do, yeah that's all bullshit. It's just market manipulation for personal profit and to desperately try to keep oil below $100/barrel.
I will agree DJT wants out of this situation. And he also thought he could do a decapitation strike like in Venezuela. And he could end it today but doing so requires breaking with Israel and he just won't do it. Not yet at least.
And yes, time is on Iran's side. I imagine much like North Korea, if this went on for 60 years there'd still be people insisting that Iran was weeks away from collapsing.
[1]: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/nuclear-armed-iran-would-b...
Sanctions are a tool - nobody expects them to necessarily 'cause a regime' do collapse.
+ Sanctions were an important part of driving the Soviet Union to collapse.
+ "So really we're just starving North Koreans for literally no reason. " - no - we are 'sanctioning' North Korea to keep them in box.
Sanctions on North Korea are very effective at keeping them powerless.
+ Russia, again your analysis is glib and false. Sanctions are effective - they stop Russian from obtaining certain materials, they hollow out the budget faster, make it more difficult for them to fight.
If Russia were not sanctioned, it's possible they might have overwhelmed Ukraine already.
If you were paying attention, you'd see that Russia is actually showing strain, economically and socially.
Just three days ago Putin signalled the 'war coming to an end' and used conciliatory language when referring to Zelensky.
This is a big shift (among a few others) and sanctions have been a primary tool to coerce his regime.
"Russia has always been 3 weeks from failing" is just nonsense you've made up.
+ "Whatever Iranians think of their leadership, they despise the US and Israel more"
It's irrelevant because the US is not invading and if the regime stops paying them, their anger will be against the regime.
+ "status of the US dollar as a reserve currency are all unravelling"
Again, uninformed hyperbole. USD has strengthened, bond yields are up - those are different things.
+ "Trump has never restrained Israel" - is also false, use Google. Trump defies Israel often, but most critically, the 'deal on offer' that seems to be coming out of the White House would be a 'very bad deal' for Israel.
Trump is throwing Israel under the bus as we speak, by offering Iran fairly good terms, it's why in the last 2 days you've seen Republicans come out on TV to reinforce how Trump should 'seek a strong deal'.
Summary: the sanctions are effective, and the best tool to coerce the regime in Iran, which is horrible, and it will be extremely bad for everyone.
All of that notwithstanding none of this should have happened in the first place.
You read far too much Reddit.