It’s good news that the WSO from the F-15 downed by Iranian fire has been rescued. Hopefully, his injuries are not too severe.
I have continued to follow the U. S.-Israeli war on Iran as closely as I could through open sources, particularly the Institute for the Study of War, and the usual limitations that entails. To the best of my ability to determine the following is the present status of the war:
- The U. S. is not losing the war in operational terms.
- The number of Iranian counter-attacks have largely plateaued and they have not been particularly effective.
- The Iranians can probably maintain their present level of counter-attack for an extended period.
- The Iranian regime is unlikely to surrender.
Taken together, these conditions suggest a conflict in which the U.S. is neither losing nor on a clear path to winning, and in which the definition of ‘victory’ remains unclear. I continue to think that the war is illegal and imprudent. That does not imply that I want the Iranian theocracy and/or the IRGC to win.
I have sem so me people claiming Iran is winning the war, but no one claiming they are winning on operational terms. Who is making that claim? Nice to see that Trump at least had the decency to not go after the guy for getting shot down like he did McCain. (I read that he was colonel which surprised me a bit.) Hope he is OK.
This interview with McCrystal done by David French was very good. I think he was one of our better commanders in Iraq/Afghanistan and has a much better grasp on the history of the area than most people. He also has much better insight into the abilities and likely outcomes of special forces actions and bombings.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/7dQXyGJdRLACbzKwSDjeLD
Steve
Any number of US military experts will tell you the US won both the Vietnamese and Afghan wars. And we defeated the German army, with the help of some minor diversionary feints by the Soviets in the East.
Of course, our biggest victory was removing Assad and putting ISIS in control of Syria. That actually happened as planned, The ISIS head and now President of Syria has been making a victory lap around Europe, shaking hands with Starmer, Macron, Metz, and others. He has shaken hands with Trump.
I wondered what “losing in operational terms” means. So I pulled up FM 1-02.1 {admittedly, the 2021 version; maybe there’s a more recent version}.
Defeat is in there, but not win, lose, or victory.
Seems appropriate.
scout
Biden might have been senile, but at least, he did not start anything.
I think the actual history (as opposed to mythology) of World War II is that at the end of the war the undermanned and outsupplied German military fled from the Eastern Front as quickly as they could because they were well aware what the Soviets would do to them. Surrendering to the Americans was less painful than surrendering to the Soviets.
Trump could have elected to kick the can down the road as have so many before him. That would have been dangerous and immoral. Iran was on the cusp of permanent control of the Straits, and in all likelihood use of its uranium, whether on a missile or a dirty bomb. The clock was ticking down to zero.
Decades of killing Americans, Israelis, slaughter of its own citizens by the thousand and, when pushed, lobbing missiles into ME states inform us on this.
I expected the mindless citations of the horrors of war, or economic costs. It’s a shame so little time has been spent on the costs of kicking that can. It would be dramatically, not marginally, worse. And a crazed theocracy would never have changed its ways.
And right on que, as I flipped through articles there is Iran TV, at the behest if the IRGC no doubt, encouraging children to gather around infrastructure sites.
Yeah, they can be reasoned with…..
Drew- If you really followed this issue you would know that Israel, and some in the US, have claimed that Iran was months away from having nuclear weapons since the mid-90s. Building nuclear weapon sent that hard. Easier than making the missiles Iran has been launching. If they really wanted one they would have it already. Trump claimed that we “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear sites last year. Yet less than a year later they are weeks away from making them? Either Iran is capable of rebuilding in less than a year or Trump was lying.
Either way it suggests we cant really destroy Iran’s ability to make nukes. Absent an agreement how are we going to verify that they arent trying after this bombing when they now have the incentives to actually make them? Also, note that Iran didnt try to take control of Hormuz until after Trump and Israel attacked. It’s right there and they could have done it any time in the last 50 years.
Yes, the current regime has killed thousands of its own people, but note that the Shah, whom the UK and US put into power tortured and killed thousands of its now people. Look up SAVAK. AsMcCrystal noted, they are strongly motivated to not have the US involved in choosing a new leader for them.
Anyway, lets hope the war works and Iran surrenders, opens the Strait gives up its uranium and agrees to inspections so we know they arent trying anything. However, it just doesnt seem that likely. Remember the Iraq-Iran war. Remember how that was conducted? It just seems unlikely we bomb them into submission and then what do we do? If our real goal was to keep them from having nukes then negotiate an agreement, like we did before and which they honored until Trump broke it.
Steve
Iran (no one) really has any use for enriched uranium beyond the 3-5% range used for energy production, or the 3.7% specified in that idiotic treaty. The only possible exception, announced and executed in the 2020-2021 timeframe, is enrichment to 20% for the Tehran Research Reactor. But 60% has no possible practical use other than weapons. This renders your 1990’s point nonsensical. The rest of that paragraph is just silliness.
Some have speculated that Iran’s intentions are really only to gain bargaining leverage. Easy to say if you are not the one getting bombed. (Notice how Europe’s leaders sat up to take notice when Iran’s missile range was discovered to be greater than previously expected.) But really, it makes no difference. Even if just bargaining power, and not incineration, it would result in Iran’s ability to hold the world’s oil supply hostage, perhaps selectively excepting and benefitting China. Look at the bleating and moaning now. Imagine gasoline at $12/gallon, if you could get it.
Your comments are just juvenile “I hate Trump, steve.” But the adults in the room have to deal with the realities, including some of the most ruthless and bloodthirsty rulers on the planet.
You ignore history. We were told Iraq had WMDs and engaged in a stupid, costly war. We have been told for 40 years that Iran was weeks/months from having nukes. Hasn’t happened. When negotiated with Iran gave up all of their plutonium and about 11,000 kg of enriched uranium. They honored the JCPOA until the US pulled out of the deal. Iran knows that it could never stand up directly against the US military. They have decided that maintaining breakout capability is in their best interest.
The rest of what I wrote is important as you dont understand war and its limitations. You cling to the same fantasy that Trump has. We will bomb Iran and they will bow to us. A bombing campaign alone has never really achieved that. We should hope this time is different as the other options are poor. We land troops, we declare victory and leave with Iran controlling the strait or we just keep up what we are doing in some form. Expensive and doesnt open the strait. We bombed the heck out of North Korea and N Viet nam. Results? N Korea has nukes and we lost in Viet Nam.
The issue is whether war can achieve the ends we supposedly want. In that assessment we need to remember our history with Iran, all of it. It doesnt start in 1979. People like Dave keep claiming that Ukraine can sustain what they are doing, yet they have. It’s because they have true motivation. Iran will have similar feelings. (It’s not a completely fair comparison as Iran has done some truly evil stuff and not so much for Ukraine.) If had read Boyd or Sun Tzu or followed the Iran-Iraq war then you would understand the importance of that belief.
So its not that I hate Trump its just that the apparent plan, bomb Iran and they will give us a total concession with no retaliation, seems poorly thought out. We have destroyed a lot fo stuff but Iran has learned it can control the Strait and that the world is heavily affected and that people will pay to get ships through. Poor trade off.
Steve
Without a regime change, is it even possible to declare victory?
Of course, the CIA backed coup in 1953 that resulted in a regime change to bring back the Shah of Iran didn’t work out so well. The result was long-term resentment by Iranians against the US that lead to the counter revolution and the current regime (or what is left of it).
I believe such hatred toward the US is exacerbated by this war, regardless of the outcome. Even if the US achieve it’s “objectives“ in waging this war, we are in a no win situation.
Please cite a credible source that asserts that Ukraine can prevail in its conflict with Russia or even hold out indefinitely.
Dave Schuler: Please cite a credible source that asserts that Ukraine can prevail in its conflict with Russia or even hold out indefinitely.
You can start here: CSIS | Center for Strategic and International Studies (2026-02-27): “How Europe Can Build Ukraine’s Future Force… Ukraine needs sustained flows of materiel to withstand Russia’s war of attrition and to implement a ‘porcupine strategy’ that makes future offensives prohibitively costly.”
For comparison, see their analysis from *before* the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine (2022-02-24):
CSIS (2022-01-13): “Russia’s Possible Invasion of Ukraine… But a Russian attempt to seize and hold territory will not necessarily be easy and will likely be impacted by challenges from weather, urban combat, command and control, logistics, and the morale of Russian troops and the Ukrainian population.”
CSIS (2022-02-18): “Russia’s Losing Hand in Ukraine… The United States and its partners and allies should be prepared to conduct a sustained diplomatic, economic, military, and humanitarian campaign that supports Ukraine and raises the financial and military costs for Moscow of meddling in Ukraine—both now and in the future. Russia has several weaknesses that can be exploited, and Ukrainian nationalism and Western resolve could present formidable, long-term problems for Moscow.”
The answer to your question is stuck in moderation. Too many links!
Dave Schuler: Please cite a credible source that asserts that Ukraine can prevail in its conflict with Russia or even hold out indefinitely.
You can start here: CSIS | Center for Strategic and International Studies (2026-02-27): “How Europe Can Build Ukraine’s Future Force… Ukraine needs sustained flows of materiel to withstand Russia’s war of attrition and to implement a ‘porcupine strategy’ that makes future offensives prohibitively costly.”
For comparison, see their analysis from *before* the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine (2022-02-24):
CSIS (2022-01-13): “Russia’s Possible Invasion of Ukraine… But a Russian attempt to seize and hold territory will not necessarily be easy and will likely be impacted by challenges from weather, urban combat, command and control, logistics, and the morale of Russian troops and the Ukrainian population.”
CSIS (2022-02-18): “Russia’s Losing Hand in Ukraine… The United States and its partners and allies should be prepared to conduct a sustained diplomatic, economic, military, and humanitarian campaign that supports Ukraine and raises the financial and military costs for Moscow of meddling in Ukraine—both now and in the future. Russia has several weaknesses that can be exploited, and Ukrainian nationalism and Western resolve could present formidable, long-term problems for Moscow.”
No argument with any of that. That link supports the view I have articulated that a near-term victory for Ukraine is unlikely and our best course of action is to be prepared to provide support for Ukraine for some time.
Yep, that’s what “people like Dave” are saying.
Is Trump credible?
“”I think Ukraine, with the support of the European Union, is in a position to fight and WIN all of Ukraine back in its original form,” Trump said on his Truth Social network after his talks with Zelensky.”
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250923-trump-says-kyiv-can-win-back-all-of-ukraine-in-major-shift
More seriously, there are a lot of people who think Ukraine can win and even regain its territory. Google and about 30 seconds of looking found multiple articles from people with pretty serious credentials.
Steve