Could someone please explain to me how the United States actually wins our war with Iran? Not how we have air superiority and can strike every military target. Not how the U. S. and Israeli militaries can strike at the Iranian leadership virtually at will. Not that Iran has provided ample provocations over the last 50 years. Not how we could just walk away from the war at will.
Walking away is not the same as winning and declaring victory does not make it so.
How can we win?
We have means, but no theory of victory. Absent that, “victory” becomes rhetorical rather than real.
You haven’t defined winning. To be fair neither has the Trump admin. I think its kind of built into the conservative/GOP DNA that if overwhelm some other country they will welcome us as liberators and reject heir current awful government but it just doesnt happen. I think maybe one could state that our goal is to make it difficult for Iran to produce weapons so we are just going to bomb the heck out of it every 5-10 years. We stop when the place looks awful and come back when they shown of rebuilding.
That leaves the issue of nukes. Under this scenario Iran has real motivation to develop them. It also makes them more interested in engaging in terror acts against US citizens which they have largely avoided. If eliminating that risk is part of the definition the only way we get there is an agreement that allows us to inspect Iran, like we had before.
I think you should ask a second question. What would Israel regard as a victory? I think they just want to destroy as much of Iran asa possible, concentrating on manufacturing so they cant build weapons, especially missiles. They would also like the US to send in ground troops to grab that uranium. My current bet is that if ground troops are landed there will be few or no Israeli troops involved.
Steve
I don’t think that the Israelis speak with a single voice. Indeed, Hamas’s biggest mistake has been to push them in that direction and they’ve been insistent on doing that for decades. To the extent that voice is Netanyahu I don’t think that Israel’s objective is well-aligned with ours.
As to your complaint I don’t think it’s up to me to define the objectives of the war. I’ve opposed it from the start. I still oppose it.
We win by fighting and killing until there is no opposition left. With real warriors in charge, we won’t wimp out like we did in Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan and we won’t get bogged down like those sissies Putin and Netanyahu who are too squeamish and who just don’t know how to fight hard enough.
It’s easy. Just like Call of Doody.
Iran has more than 90 million people. That’s more than Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan combined.
You misspelled targets. More than 90000000 targets.
scout
The war with Iran polls positive at about 75% in Israel. Netanyahu may not speak for all of israel but he keeps getting re-elected. The israelis supported his actions in Gaza and everything else since 10/7. Note that during the week when the risk of an attack by Hamas was at its highest level(the 50 year anniversary of their last surprise attack) Netanyahu pulled troops away from gaza making it easier for Hamas. Also note that he has not seen any negative repercussions from that. I think it’s safe to say he represents the very large majority of Israelis.
Steve
I do wonder if Trump is unconsciously wondering into his own Suez crisis (which ended with Eden’s resignation).
Through Iran’s government is taking a painful hit; and I suspect its strategy of attacking its Arab neighbors will be counterproductive (the Straight of Hormuz can be blockaded by more then 1 party).
But lets see how / if the negotiations go.
As for Israel; the polls are consistent that Netanyahu is on track to lose re-election. But Israelis (whether they like or dislike Netanyahu) have a consensus that Iran is an existential threat. I mean, they do take Iran seriously (both its stated intent and its close to breakthrough threshold). There maybe people who disagree with the methods but there is no disagreement in weakening Iran.
At its peak, the American ground forces in Vietnam amounted to over 500,000 troops, some 60,000 actual combat troops. Over the course of the war, some 80,000 dies, 58,000 KIA.
Always ignored, the Republic of Vietnam fielded over 1,200,000 troops at any one time, and at least 200,000 were killed. ARVN did almost all the fighting.
We also had absolute air supremacy in the south, but faced fierce antiaircraft guns and missiles in the north. We operated hundreds of fighter bombers, dozens of B 52’s, multiple aircraft carriers, heavy cruisers, destroyers, and even a battleship off the coast.
We fought for 8 years.
We lost.
The forces we can bring to bear in Iran are quite inferior to what we had in ‘Nam, especially with respect to numbers. Is there an ally who will give us 1,200,000 troops?
Iran has almost 100,000,000 people, and it is a modern industrial state. It has a area bigger than France and Germany combined, and is mostly mountainous.
Both Russia and China are supporting Iran with weapons and intelligence, especially targeting information. Haaretz reports that 80% of Iran’s missiles reach their targets. By the way, combined China and Russia have 3 times our industrial capacity, twice the capacity of US/EU/UK combined.
The idea that the US can defeat Iran without resorting to nuclear weapons is utterly asinine. The better models for the US’ fate are Little Big Gallipoli, Horn, Dieppe, Bataan, Dien Bien Phu…
No nukes? Nobody said anything about winning without nukes.
The question was “How can we win?”
Not “How can we win and have stable post-war economic and diplomatic international relations?” or “How can we win without committing war crimes?” or “How can we win while avoiding global devastation?”.
Stupid question, stupid answer. I stand by my stupid answer.
best, scout
I think victory involves regime change. The theocracy comes to an end. I think Trump expected an uprising against the Iranian government to overthrow it once the bombing started. I don’t think that will happen, but that is what victory would look like.
That’s consistent with the same misconception I’ve mentioned above. The Iranians aren’t nascent liberal democrats. I’m sure some are but most aren’t.
Like Steve said, “winning” requires defining the objective, which Trump hasn’t done with any specificity.
In a way, that’s better than overpromising and then discovering what you promised isn’t possible.
But at the end of the day, the US needs to come out of this war in a better strategic position, not just in the immediate aftermath, but also over the long term.
scout: You misspelled targets. More than 90000000 targets.
That, of course, would be a war crime.
Andy: But at the end of the day, the US needs to come out of this war in a better strategic position, not just in the immediate aftermath, but also over the long term.
Too late for that. But it’s not really Trump’s fault—or at least not his alone. The fault belongs with the American people.
“The fault belongs with the American people.”
Wha?
scout
scout: You misspelled targets. More than 90000000 targets.
That, of course, would be a war crime.
scout: Wha?
The American people elected a demagogue for whom there was ample evidence of greed and corruption. Then they allowed, aye, encouraged the subversion of the bedrock systems of checks and balances. Like the flim-flam man, the con only worked because the mark was also greedy and corrupt.
Zachriel, thanks for clarifying. By that logic, the fault can be traced back to Fred Trump.
And of course that’s a war crime. The POTUS and SOW regularly spout gibberish about committing war crimes. That’s how we win, right?
scout
scout: And of course that’s a war crime.
Okay. Thought it might have been a troll (or perhaps sarcasm).
scout: The POTUS and SOW regularly spout gibberish about committing war crimes. That’s how we win, right?
Yes, Weaponized gibberish. Only the target isn’t Iran.