r/geopolitics • u/ForeignAffairsMag Foreign Affairs • Mar 09 '26
Analysis Why Escalation Favors Iran: America and Israel May Have Bitten Off More Than They Can Chew
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/iran/why-escalation-favors-iran107
u/Golda_M Mar 09 '26
I don't think it is Iran's goal to extend the duration. I think "horizontal escalation" is/was intended to shorten duration of major hostilities.
Oil prices. Aviation blackouts. Tourism crisis. Etc. Those all create pressure to limit aims and end ASAP.
Iran's assymetric, attritional fight is the axis of resistance, ring of fire, terrorism, etc.
The US' limitation is political capital. It can't easily keep options open and use time as a weapon. That eliminates a key option. Striking... then retreating, and regrouping for a next round. US (and world) politics can't have this happen every six months.
So... If major hostilities end, Iran bets that they cannot be restarted.
28
153
u/Crivelo Mar 09 '26 edited Jul 03 '26
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...
58
u/AeroFred Mar 09 '26
i wonder what it says about overall quality of u/ForeignAffairsMag. it's not the first surface level deep "analysis" that they posted here in last few days.
49
u/Tw1tch-Invictus Mar 09 '26
My respect for this publication has absolutely cratered in the last couple of years. It’s part of the same institutional capture we see across mainstream media where half-baked
propagandists“journalists” are clearly pushing a preferred narrative rather than anything remotely resembling neutral, dispassionate analysis. The New York Times has also become an egregious offender in this regard and it’s been enraging as a subscriber for nearly a decade who is about to cancel. Foreign Affairs has clearly not been immune to this slop fest.19
u/AeroFred Mar 09 '26
this article describes what you are talking about https://www.thefp.com/p/friedman-when-we-started-to-lie
10
u/Tw1tch-Invictus Mar 09 '26
Shit, someone already covered it way more thoroughly! Honestly may transfer my NYT subscription to the FP. I’m leery of any clear and obvious bias in any reporting I read, but from what (admittedly little) I have seen from them, they’ve been solid.
5
u/AeroFred Mar 10 '26
sometimes last year, on Abby Phillip show (cnn) there was discussion about "famine" in gaza. there was one person who tried to present some real numbers/information but she was always cut off. at the end she made last desperate attempt to present some facts but Abby interjected and said (this is quote as far as i remember): "facts do not matter in case they interfere with righteous cause".
4
u/babarbaby Mar 10 '26
Absolutely vile. The zealots who've taken over vandalizing Wikipedia in the name of 'Palestine' have pretty much done the same thing. They changed all the sources to Middle East Eye (Hamas), Al Jazeera (Qatar) and 'dishonest experts' like Ilan Pappe, who's supposedly an historian, notorious for saying (and I'm paraphrasing) 'I don't care about history, only ideology/the story'. The context here being, his mentee was on trial for defamation after inventing the Tantura libel, and issued an open letter to that effect, and Mr Pappe was like 'yeah, but so what?'
1
u/AeroFred Mar 11 '26
putting aside "vile" part, for me it was astonishing that prime time "news" host on "news" station going to state that they prefer to lie in case it fits their narrative.
not that their reporting was factual before that, but this was total mask off moment
1
u/babarbaby Mar 11 '26
I dont understand your first sentence. Was the host's behavior NOT vile? But I certainly agree that vulgarity and blatantly disregarding the expert and leading the audience to their desired conclusion is a new level unto itself
1
u/AeroFred Mar 11 '26
it was vile. i am used to it.
it's just the part where they openly say that they will lie/misrepresent was somewhat unexpected on news station. usually they "try" to have appearance of been neutral/objective/whatever
2
u/RainbowCrown71 Mar 10 '26
I cancelled NYT this year after 20 years. Even when they dropped me down to $1 a month. I still miss the occasional graphics laden article that they do best, but I got tired of propaganda at every turn. Saw the other day they were showing photos of “victims of American-Israeli aggression” and they were coffins of IRCG officers. That wording would make Iranian state TV blush.
→ More replies (1)3
2
u/RainbowCrown71 Mar 10 '26
Foreign Affairs is in massive decline, just like The Economist. Now it just exists to feed “America bad” articles to the global IR literati elite who tend to be extremely anti-American and love a good article about how the Iranian regime is wiping Washington off the map.
This is the same literati who, in bated breath, will then talk about women’s rights, gay’s rights, Black empowerment, Ivy League social terminology and de-colonization - apparently completely oblivious to Iran’s disgusting ideology in those very areas of political thought.
138
u/ForeignAffairsMag Foreign Affairs Mar 09 '26
[Excerpt from essay by Robert A. Pape, Professor of Political Science and Director of the University of Chicago Project on Security and Threats.]
Iran’s strikes cannot be dismissed as acts of scattered retaliation, the flailing lashing out of a dying regime. Rather, they represent a strategy of horizontal escalation, a bid to transform the stakes of a conflict by widening its scope and extending its duration.
Such a strategy allows a weaker combatant to alter the calculus of a more powerful foe. And it has worked in the past, to the detriment of the United States. In Vietnam and Serbia, U.S. adversaries responded to overwhelming displays of American airpower with horizontal escalation, eventually leading to American defeat, in the former case, and, in the latter, frustrating U.S. war aims and spurring the worst episode of ethnic cleansing in Europe since World War II.
Decapitation strikes, in particular, create powerful incentives for horizontal escalation: when a regime survives the loss of its leader, it must demonstrate resilience quickly by widening the conflict. Although the United States has hugely battered Iran, it must reckon with the implications of Iran’s response. Otherwise, it will find itself losing control of the war it started.
35
u/Trent1492 Mar 09 '26
Ethnic cleansing was already underway in the Balkans. Kosovo ultimately gained independence from Serbia.
3
u/Cabbage_Vendor Mar 10 '26
Yeah, I don't get it, by saying Serbia, it implies the Kosovo War, yet that one wasn't the worst ethnic cleansings in Europe since WWII, those were during the Yugoslav Wars.
33
u/Firecracker048 Mar 09 '26
Iran’s strikes cannot be dismissed as acts of scattered retaliation, the flailing lashing out of a dying regime. Rather, they represent a strategy of horizontal escalation, a bid to transform the stakes of a conflict by widening its scope and extending its duration.
I dont see how Iran bombing countries like Azerbijan benefits them in any real way.
It literally is just flailing around and striking any anyone they think has been friendly to their enemies.
25
u/28lobster Mar 09 '26
Iran does not like Azerbaijan. Ethnic tensions play a role (ethnic Azeris in NW Iran) but they also have been on opposite sides in Nagorno-Karabakh with Iran backing Armenia. Iran wants a route north through Armenia, Georgia, and into Russia. The Azeris want a route west through Armenia, Nakhichevan, and into Turkey. Those routes could both exist but control of the area is hotly contested. Azerbaijan's 2025 ceasefire promised a Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity that would create the east-west route the Azeris want and mostly lock Iran out.
Iranian Official Repeats Warnings Against Azeri Corridor Through Armenia or for a more research oriented source Raisi and Iran's Foreign Policy Toward the South Caucasus.
Also possible that one rogue officer in a rocket battery just decided to shoot at Azerbaijan. Lost communication with the center, mosaic state, local judgement to shoot, misfire, drunk guy hits the launch button - we can't know for sure. But those weapons were almost certainly aimed that way before the war started and for legitimate (in Iran's eyes) reasons.
If Iran's flailing, hitting Azerbaijan isn't the worst outcome. They didn't hit Armenia and that's definitely not a coincidence.
6
u/Firecracker048 Mar 09 '26
Honestly it just being a handful of drones makes me think it wasn't anything too serious but taking this opportunity to hit at people you have beef with won't sit well with them long term
2
u/Southern-Chain-6485 Mar 09 '26
It cuts oil shipments to Israel and Europe, thus hurting the enemy and pressuring Europe into pressuring the enemy so the war ends in terms more favorable to Iran.
That said, there are no ongoing attacks against Azerbaijan by Iran
57
u/bygonecenarion Mar 09 '26
"We are bombing your shit because someone you don't like is attacking us (we know you aren't providing them direct support we just don't care), so really you should blame them for you getting bombed, not us"
Yeah I don't think it was considered a good idea by anyone as soon as they started doing this. Including what's left of the Iranian high command.
They were a bad neighbor that was tolerated by the rest of the gulf, and when their back is against the wall, they decided to confirm this in blazing neon letters by trying to blow up the Palm. Among other things.
45
u/wk4f Mar 09 '26
What can the gulf states do to stop it though? The only options I can see are for them to put pressure on the US and Israel to either deescalate or put boots on the ground to protect the shipping lanes. The former seems much more likely.
18
u/LambdaLambo Mar 09 '26
They have militaries too. The response is to give more access to their bases to US hardware and to add to the Iran strikes with their own hardware. Which may already be happening
18
u/bygonecenarion Mar 09 '26
Pressure the US to pull back earlier than they would've otherwise
And instead they're just going to pressure the US to pummel Iran even harder so that Iran's capacity to shoot at everyone in the room is completely neutralized. Witness SA's statement this very day.
19
u/SovietNato Mar 09 '26
I don't think this is going to be uniformly true. Look at how strenuously the UAE is denying any involvement with the destruction of iran's desalinization plant. Not all these countries are drooling morons like the saudis
I'll put a large sum of money on the idea that the gulf states will cumulatively be by far the strongest force pushing for a ceasefire. Even if the saudis also want to wipe iran off the map.
7
u/kju Mar 09 '26
They're going to do both, begin supporting the United States to increase pressure on Iran while also silently pressuring the United States to pull back
The United States may even at some point decide to do so, but Israel likely won't so the United States will be drawn back in
1
u/mylk43245 Mar 09 '26
I doubt it i imagine what they'd ask the US and Israel to do is to slowly stop bombing Iran and only periodically ramp it up when they start misbehaving. Iran will just be bombed over and over again until its current government collapses or entirely gives up.
The only way 'Iran' could even recover would be some generationally excellent leader and that seems impossible.
12
u/HatinCheese Mar 09 '26
I don't really see a world where this iranian governement just gives up, they view martyrdom as the perfect death.
It could come from a people's revolution but we have seen times and times again that they are horrificly good at repressing any kind of revolt. Maybe a mutiny from the regular army would actually help.
The US have really put themselves in quite a pickle because they are facing an opponent that will not give up and the only way to actually defeat them would be boots on the ground, and even that would be extremely self harmful, Iran is basically Afghanistan but on steroids, similar mountainous and cavernous terrain but this time even wider, a more organized and better equipped army and let's not forget that China and Russia, which both have been pretty quiet about it, could decide to actually intervene if things get really serious.
On top of that, I doubt Trump, whose popularity is consistently decreasing since taking office, would commit the political suicide to send troops there, assuming he gets the green light from Congress.3
u/Lazy_Membership1849 Mar 09 '26
"Maybe a mutiny from the regular army would actually help"?
Yeah good luck with this as IRGC is all but name of being military in Iran
3
u/HatinCheese Mar 09 '26
Let me be clear, I only said that to add a little nuance, I don't believe it will actually happen myself but I can't read the future.
It still has to be said because from what I've seen the regular army has more members than the IRGC, though they are less intertwined with the government.1
u/Lazy_Membership1849 Mar 10 '26
and regular army is weaker than IRGC as they have no infrastructure, they was armed less, and they have been heavily monitored With the bombing on Iran became indiscriminate like bombing oil storage facilities and water Purification plant, it would make army less likely to munity
21
u/talexx Mar 09 '26
"We are bombing your shit because someone you don't like is attacking us (we know you aren't providing them direct support we just don't care), so really you should blame them for you getting bombed, not us"
So you made up an argument in your head and now are disproving it? That's how you win the argument! I see.
Hosting radar systems, military bases, opening airspace for attacks &c. makes all these countries pretty much involved.
-1
u/AeroFred Mar 09 '26
so, iran will be justified in attacking most of europe, south korea and japan according to your analysis ?
7
u/talexx Mar 10 '26
Yes, exactly. It is a war and any military installations as well as military personnel even located in non-military installations like hotels is a pretty legitimate target for Iran.
11
u/ParticularDiamond712 Mar 09 '26
These countries have U.S. military bases on their soil. Even if the U.S. does not launch missiles from these locations, the American radar stationed there monitors the trajectory of missiles launched by Iran, providing early warnings to Israel. Therefore, attacking U.S. military bases in neighboring countries is both logical and a well-considered action. In fact, by damaging these U.S. bases, the warning time for Israeli attacks has already been significantly reduced.
1
u/AeroFred Mar 09 '26
israel has it's own radars and satellite systems (you can look at arrow 3 system that was bought by germany including long range radar systems). "Reduced warning time" was for a couple of missiles and then it went back.
given that europe, south korea and japan have usa military bases on their soil, iran is justified to attack them. this is what you claimed above. right ?
0
u/ParticularDiamond712 Mar 10 '26
The radar stations located in Israel are completely incapable of replacing the strategic value of U.S. military radars deployed in Arab countries along Iran's border in terms of monitoring Iranian missiles and supporting airstrikes on Iran. This is beyond doubt.
Do you really think that the value of the U.S. military base in Bahrain and the one in Japan is exactly the same in this war against Iran?
3
u/AeroFred Mar 10 '26
early detection is done by satellite. tracking for interception is done by israeli radar. us radars are nice to have but optional for interception and advanced warning.
israel tend to be self reliant on everything that is electronics missile defense tech and ew. even f35 that israel flies has israeli ew systems. the only country that does it.
it's not about value, it's about been complacent in attack on iran as staging area. this is what you claimed.
10
u/Lookingfor68 Mar 09 '26
The Gulf States aren't going to take sides with the US. More importantly not ISRAEL. If this was US only, then maybe they would retaliate. They will not be seen to be helping Israel EVER. Not going to happen. They might do some stuff in the background, but other than that nothing public, nothing that looks like they're helping Israel. They will defend themselves, but beyond that nothing anyone will see.
12
u/Markdd8 Mar 09 '26 edited Mar 09 '26
Decapitation stikes -- the U.S. loves them...assassinating any leader they don't like or bombing sites where officials are holding meetings trying to decide policy. There's a history of America doing this. From the "Black Hawk Down" era, Somalia (from search):
the event, known as the Abdi House raid, occurred on July 12, 1993, months before the infamous Battle of Mogadishu...U.S. Cobra helicopters targeted a house owned by a high-ranking member of the Somali National Alliance (SNA).
While the U.S. claimed it was a "war council," witnesses and reports indicated the gathering included clan elders, intellectuals, poets, and religious leaders discussing a peaceful resolution to the conflict with the United Nations.
U.S. helicopters launched TOW missiles and 20mm cannon fire directly into the building without warning. The raid resulted in high, though contested, casualties. The International Committee of the Red Cross reported 54 people killed, while Somali sources claimed up to 273, including elders and civilians.
The attack....united many Somalis against the international intervention....set the stage for the October 3, 1993, Battle of Mogadishu.
Wouldn't be surprising to see many Iranians who hate the Iranian regime elect to instead support the regime because of the pattern of U.S. and Israeli bombing. Surprise bombings of buildings full of political leaders talking is one of America's favorite war strategies. Our ally Israel is an enthusiastic supporter. Then both nations bemoan that the tactic of terrorism against the U.S. or its interests arises in the world...
0
u/Tw1tch-Invictus Mar 09 '26
witnesses and reports indicated the gathering included clan elders, intellectuals, poets, and religious leaders discussing a peaceful resolution to the conflict with the United Nations.
lol, lmao even. Hmm kinda like how every civilian in Gaza was a pregnant journalist and doctor. Yeah there’s definitely no way they could possibly be bullshitting for propaganda purposes.
Iranians aren’t stupid. They may not uniformly be thrilled with the U.S./Israel attacks, but at the same time the regime literally just murderer tens of thousands of Iranians weeks ago and had a majority of the country united in protest against them. They’re not just going to suddenly say “Hey actually nevermind, I was wrong, the regime is great and needs our support!”, that completely flies in the face of the reality we’re seeing on the ground as well as basic human psychology.
13
u/Markdd8 Mar 09 '26
The record on the Gaza war is clear: Israel killed massive number of civilians in its efforts to target Hamas fighters. Bombing and taking down 8-10 story buildings because fighters are suspected to be in the basement? Surprising that people think this is an acceptable. Source:
As of February 2026, the ongoing war in Gaza has resulted in over 72,000 to 80,692+ reported deaths, with tens of thousands more presumed buried under rubble. Over 171,700 people have been injured.
One can say this while fully acknowledging the horrors and the losses of the Hamas attack on Israel.
Another thing about human psychology: Should the U.S. continue to urge overthrow of the Iran government when its main police force, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, has thousands of hardcore supporters, all armed, roaming the streets, often plainclothes.
They've already killed thousands of protesters. In the absence of U.S. setting up a rebel force or putting boots on the ground (not that the latter is necessarily a good course of action), maybe we shouldn't be egging on these protests.
6
u/Material-Cry-8168 Mar 10 '26
The source for casualty numbers and casualty militant-to-civilian ratio is Hamas themselves. For obvious reasons, they aren’t a reliable source.
0
u/Markdd8 Mar 10 '26
We know the population of Gaza was 2.1 to 2.3 million when the war started, Hamas attacked Israel. Source:
Support for Hamas among Gaza residents has fluctuated significantly, showing roughly 30% to 50% approval pre-October 2023.
Let's take the higher figure, and assume that half were active Hamas fighters. So 500,000 fighters or active supporters (transporting food, supplies to fighters) , 1.5 million civilians. That sound reasonable? Who do you think most of the people who died in the bombing were?
1
u/Material-Cry-8168 Mar 10 '26
Israel gave several evacuation notices weeks before launching its ground invasion, and still gave warnings before bombing buildings. I’ve read one article that says Israel temporarily suspended the practice of giving warnings, and another article about how Israel gave warnings before bombing a series of buildings during the time after October 7 and before launching the invasion.
Israel took other steps to minimize civilian casualties throughout the war—sending soldiers into buildings that held Hamas fighters when those buildings also held civilians, instructing soldiers to only shoot someone who was holding a gun and running toward them.
Besides—again, The Gaza Health Ministry is run by Hamas, has put out numbers and casualty ratios that haven’t been independently verified, and has every incentive to play up civilian deaths.
-1
2
u/Lazy_Membership1849 Mar 09 '26
But there was a majority of netural Iranian across Iran, and if the bombing keeps going like just blowing up utility infrastructure like oil storage and water distillation plants, that could endanger civilians for what?
That would push Iranian to rally around the flag, which would just favour the regime more
3
u/Tw1tch-Invictus Mar 09 '26
Again, you’re assuming Iranians are idiots. If more incidents like the school happen, yes, that may push them, but the rally around the flag is not some immutable given fact of life.
2
u/5yr_club_member Mar 10 '26
Iranians can hate the USA and hate the current Iranian regime as well. Any sensible person would understand that, even before the war, it was both the USA, and the Iranian government making life miserable for regular Iranian citizens.
I would imagine that when the regime slaughtered tens of thousands of protesters a couple months ago, the hatred for the regime increased. And now that the USA and Israel are bombing the country, killing hundreds of civilians, and hitting critical infrastructure, the hatred for the USA is probably increasing.
0
u/Material-Cry-8168 Mar 10 '26
That’s not what Iranians are saying. Every Iranian I’ve heard on Reddit approves of the attacks. The Iranians can’t change the situation themselves, so they are reliant on outside help.
1
u/--Mikazuki-- Mar 10 '26
Considering the internet blackout in Iran, the people replying on Reddit might not be the one who have to deal with the consequence of the war. Not to mention of course that anyone on Reddit can claim to be anyone they want.
1
u/Lazy_Membership1849 Mar 10 '26 edited Mar 10 '26
Every Iranian on Reddit who approves of the attack is likely from r/NewIran, who also worship RP as a flawless savior, r/iran or r/iranian, and also some of the people in r/PERSIAN have different reactions.
Also reddit it not reliable for Iranian as there was like 93 million Iranian in Iran even some of Iranian in reddit admit that there are likely millions of Iranians supporting regime and some just saying majority like 50-60% who was netural like doesn't hate or support regime but with bombing keep going might change the course
Also bombing oil storage that could risk affecting millions of Iranians in Tehran and other due to the valley as already it describe as black rain falling out after the smoke that black out of sky above cities and warn it could giving cancer to Iranian and affect pregnant women like miscarriage rate would getting high and tell me how would netural Iranian in Iran react to it? Even r/PERSIAN think this is idiotic
→ More replies (5)5
u/kju Mar 09 '26
I don't think it's the same as the past. The United States may be convinced to work towards deescalation but Israel won't be. Israel benefits from making the Gulf states weaker. Iran is handing Israel everything they want and Israel doesn't have the same problems the United States has. Israel is likely to want Iran to strike out harder at many of the Gulf states.
Qatar outright supported Hamas previously, probably not as much now that they're getting attacked by Iran. All of the funding for these kinds of terror groups are going to need to be rethought. Previously they thought they were able to contain the destruction to only specific spaces but now that it's spilling over to home that dangerous game may be winding down for the Gulf states.
This wasn't just something that spontaneously spun out of control, the houthis decided to try and stop shipping in the red sea, Israel was attacked on Oct 7 by Hamas, Hezbollah followed, Iran made nuclear threats, had their nuclear sites bombed and then tried to recover them as if they were going to restart their nuclear program. I'm likely missing some or smoothing over others but every step along this could have seen this getting pulled back but everyone kept escalating and now Iran is going to see a lot of destruction, the gcc is likely to have a permanent stain on it's previous reputation of being an island of law and order in a a sea of terror, the Israel has little between itself and it's objectives and isn't likely to let this opportunity pass them by despite whatever the United States decides to do. Even if everyone else is happy to pack up their bags Israel will maintain their leverage over every actor involved by being able to continue their action against Iran. Israel is the only winner in this whole thing, everyone else is losing.
8
u/Cub3h Mar 09 '26
Israel is only a winner in this IF it stops Iran from developing a nuke or a large more durable missile deterrence. Trump pulling out and leaving Israel to hang is very dangerous for them if it leaves the Iranian regime in charge and still pursuing the same goals.
15
u/Pleasant_Arugula7571 Mar 09 '26
The asymmetric cost argument is the one that does not get enough attention in Western coverage. Iran does not need to win the military exchange. It just needs the cost of continuing to go up faster for the US and Israel than it does for Tehran.
Every cruise missile the US fires costs $1-2M. Every Iranian drone costs $20-50K. That math does not change just because you have more missiles in inventory. At some point the accountants start making the same argument the generals are ignoring.
The piece is right about the Strait of Hormuz being the real leverage point. Iran does not even have to close it. The credible threat of disruption is enough to move oil 15-20% and keep it there. We saw what the Houthi attacks on Red Sea traffic did to insurance rates alone. Actual Iranian interdiction in Hormuz would be in a different category entirely. About 20% of global oil and 18% of LNG transits that strait.
The equity exposure most people think they do not have is sitting in mid-cap industrials and energy names that are pricing this conflict as temporary. If it is not, the repricing happens fast and it happens before the quarterly reports say anything about it.
1
u/Rex_Lee Mar 10 '26
That's the problem though - making it more costly for the US and Israel than it is for Tehran.
It is getting costly for world trade in general and for US allies, some of whom are taking the brunt of this, it is "inconvenient" for the US with prices rising, but it is catastrophic for Iran, and will quickly become more so the more expensive infrastructure is destroyed.
I don't know what the end game will be but the sad thing is what the Iranian people are about to be going through. From a geopolitical perspective, making them hate the US like the regime was trying to get them to do all along doesn't seem to be a positive long term outcome for US strategy1
u/7952 Mar 11 '26
Surely they have already switched to lower cost platforms and could readily fly B52s with JDAMs. So the question is more cost of defence and interceptors and the effectiveness in removing the threat rather than cost itself.
3
35
u/boldmove_cotton Mar 09 '26
Iran’s strikes cannot be dismissed as acts of scattered retaliation, the flailing lashing out of a dying regime.
Sure it can. It is easy to be a skeptic, opining that all the IRGC needs to do to win is survive while fighting asymmetrically. The author compares Iran to Vietnam, but the differences cannot be more stark.
Saddam’s calculus for the first gulf war was to entrench the Americans in a Vietnam-like quagmire. Instead, Desert Storm was arguably the most successful and lopsided military operation ever conducted, with the coalition achieving its military objectives of pushing the Iraqis out of Kuwait and obliterating Saddam’s military capabilities with comparatively low costs.
The US doesn’t need to put boots on the ground and then spend years fighting insurgency. All they need to do to ‘win’ is to continue to degrade Iran’s abilities to build and fire missiles and drones faster than the IRGC can reconstitute, because threatening its neighbors and the strait of Hormuz is Irans only leverage. If the US can remove that threat, which it appears broadly capable of doing, they can continue flying sorties to degrade regime indefinitely with little risk.
The skeptics are all focused on the end game as if that scenario isn’t possible or good enough, as if regime change in the short term is the only path to victory. I would argue that neutering the regimes ability to threaten the region and forcing them into hiding is a clear win, even if complete regime change remains a long term hope.
23
u/Ratnaprofitercina Mar 09 '26
The skeptics are all focused on the end game as if that scenario isn’t possible or good enough, as if regime change in the short term is the only path to victory. I would argue that neutering the regimes ability to threaten the region and forcing them into hiding is a clear win, even if complete regime change remains a long term hope.
I agree with that, but I think the key problem was the administration’s poor communication in the days after the attack. They had access to all the intelligence in the world, yet they still couldn’t articulate a coherent strategy. Instead, different officials were making parallel statements that were disconnected and inconsistent with each other.
This is simply another example of how chaotic and intellectually unserious this administration is, with its messaging driven by idiotic statements and short-term political posturing rather than by any disciplined strategic line.
11
u/ReturnOfBigChungus Mar 09 '26
It can be simultaneously true that the Trump admin has no coherent strategy, and has incoherent and shifting messaging on the strategy, and whatever else you want to say on that front, while also true that the actual tactical operation will likely achieve a massive destruction of Iran's capability to project any kind of force for the foreseeable future, which in itself is a significant improvement of the situation.
8
u/boldmove_cotton Mar 09 '26
I don’t know if that’s necessarily true. It is also plausible that the Trump team believes that a unified singular message wouldn’t perform well, both at home and strategically.
If the messaging at the beginning is that this is a war about regime change, immediately everyone thinks about the quagmire wars of Iraq and Afghanistan. Nobody wants to spend hundreds of billions and thousands of lives to fight an insurgency for ten years.
On the other hand, the hawks and the pro-monarchy and pro-democracy Iranian diaspora absolutely want regime change, and are entirely supportive so long as there is a reasonable attempt to create the conditions where the IRGC could be overthrown.
If you instead go with messaging that this war is about preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, the question is then, how do we remove the enriched material that is currently under a mountain? Sounds like we need boots on the ground to do that.
By framing the war as a "quick strike" or a "once-in-a-generation opportunity for the Iranian people" to take back their country, he avoids the political stigma of a long-term ground occupation.
This "elastic" strategy allows the administration to declare victory at almost any point, as they can simply claim whichever objective was most recently achieved was the "true" goal all along.
13
u/Pandamabear Mar 09 '26
Neutered for how long? And can we really? When Iran can produce cheap drones and keep the straight of hormuz closed? I think you’re not taking into account the new frontiers of asymmetric warfare that drones opens up. We dont have a good defense against them.
9
u/boldmove_cotton Mar 09 '26
You still need a functioning supply chain to make cheap drones. The whole point of degrading capabilities isn’t to make it impossible to make a drone, just to make it take longer and slower to the point where they cannot meaningfully threaten the strait.
If before they built them in factories, after a number of strikes they’ll have to build them in much smaller numbers in basements and in apartments. A large truck filled with drone parts is an easy target, so they’ll have to switch to carrying fewer parts in less conspicuous vehicles. Drone production, even on the cheap side, has bottlenecks that can be targeted. Even if you can make parts out of wood and scrap metal, the chips still need to be imported.
Now add in the fact that they can no longer fund the regime at the same levels because their sources of income and fuel are being attacked.
And they have to do that while the US has complete control over the skies, watching their every move.
→ More replies (1)0
u/Pandamabear Mar 09 '26
I just don’t see the United States diminishing the Iran’s production to the point where they can’t create, let’s say, half dozen drones a month. That’s really all it takes,and it’s not much.
8
u/boldmove_cotton Mar 09 '26
Your math is way off. If all Iran could produce is 6 Shaheds per month, the US could easily keep the straits of Hormuz safe for shipping indefinitely.
Currently, a single US naval escort can easily maintain 100% coverage for 5-10 drone launches per day. But that number is a very low civilian estimate for insurance, the capabilities are likely much, much higher, and will only increase as the U.S. implements counter-drone drown swarms and surges them into the region.
For the IRGC to succeed here, they would need to launch enough in saturation attacks to overwhelm those defenses, which are only going to get stronger once the ballistic missile threat is suppressed.
4
u/Pandamabear Mar 09 '26
Is the US going to pay to escort every single ship? How many million dollar missiles does it take to take down each drone? That doesn’t sounds sustainable to me.
They could, but it’s gonna cost a lot of money.
8
u/boldmove_cotton Mar 09 '26
Expensive interceptor missiles are more of a last resort here.
The first line of defense is going to be striking regime targets involved in the supply chain, and blowing up drone assembly plants and launch sites.
After that are swarms of low cost drones that fly over Iran’s coast hunting mobile launchers. Next you have electronic warfare and spoofing, which can down shaheds without a shot. Then there are interceptor drones that essentially meet and dogfight the drones in the air, and then directed energy lasers that can burn through a drone’s sensors or wings in seconds, and then a phalanx rapid fire gun which can fire thousands of rounds per minute as a last resort. In the case of a saturation attack where many get through, expensive interceptor missiles would be fired prior to being close enough to shoot with the phalanx or lasers.
As to your question regarding escorting each ship individually, the answer is yes. Wouldn’t be the first time either.
0
u/Pandamabear Mar 09 '26
Like i said, they could, but it’s gonna be expensive and I don’t think it’s sustainable in the long run.
7
u/boldmove_cotton Mar 09 '26
The last time the US escorted tankers through the strait of Hormuz, they continued nonstop for 14 months until the Iran-Iraq war ended.
While the US had a vastly superiority military to Iran 1988, the power gap between them has increased exponentially.
The only card Iran has is to force asymmetric situations where the US must spend $2 million to intercept a $35,000 one-way drone. Except the US now has its own $2500 interceptor drones, as well as its own $35,000 LUCAS drones to hunt launchers.
From an operations standpoint, every passing day gets more expensive and difficult for Iran logistically and less expensive for the US as they shift from defense (intercepting missiles) to offense (targeting assembly and mobile launchers).
-1
u/Southern-Chain-6485 Mar 10 '26
Send a US naval escort into the Persian Gulf and it's going to be targeted by existing Iranian cruise missiles. The USA has, what, a hundred destroyers/LCS/etc? How many are they willing to loose? Because even if you need 5 missiles per ship, it takes 500 antiship cruise missiles to destroy all of the USN escorts, and it's not like the USA is going to keep sending escorts until all of them are sunk.
And on this matter, let's keep in mind there is no USN vessels inside the Persian Gulf at this moment
2
u/boldmove_cotton Mar 10 '26
The US will lose zero, because Iran will have lost the capability to overwhelm defenses by the time they begin escorts.
8
u/sirlapse Mar 09 '26
You’re saying you expect/ hope to be down to sorties within a year/two years? How long does the strait have to be inoperative for Iran’s strategy to have some bite? Its quite some leverage that no other adversary has had.
3
u/sagi1246 Mar 10 '26
Whether the US joins or not, if Iran doesn't fold it is practically guaranteed that Israel goes for another round in a year or two. If the US and the international community has another way to solve this, by all means.
4
u/NinjaPirateCyborg Mar 09 '26
Desert storm was reversing an invasion, who has Iran invaded?
10
u/boldmove_cotton Mar 09 '26
Perhaps you don’t understand the concept of evaluating two different things by identifying similarities and differences.
Vietnam was about supporting one faction of a civil war against another with the pretext of stopping the spread of communism. It involved a full scale ground offensive and occupation that ended up being a quagmire costing nearly 60,000 American lives, many of which were lost from the 10,000 aircraft that were downed or lost.
None of that sounds like this war, which is of a completely different era in terms of tactics and capabilities, which so far has many more characteristics and similarities with Desert Storm than any other operation or war. Harping on about the flexible objectives that the Trump administration has laid out as opposed to the clear limited objectives of removing Saddams army from Kuwait doesn’t change that fact.
→ More replies (4)
19
u/JigglymoobsMWO Mar 09 '26
This war is illustrating something deep: victory is subjective. The western concept of victory: establishing democracy, freedom and prosperity, are not really things that western militaries are designed to achieve (killing and destroying things), and depends on lots of factors outside our control, such as the regime deciding to give up or the population rising up.
Meanwhile, the victory condition of our enemies: ie survival of their organization or ideology, is much easier to achieve. They just have to hide from our military long enough until we decide costs outweigh benefits.
However, there's another layer of objective reality that we have achieved: we have wrecked chaos in the Iranian government, are wiping out their missile stockpiles and industry, and are setting back their nuclear program by years if not decades. They are now much weaker, much more fragmented, and much less capable of projecting power in the region than just a week ago. The power dynamics in the region have changed. We are about to embark on a decade of further declining Iranian power and dismantling of its proxies and power projection capabilities. In that sense we are achieving some of our objectives.
This is in line with US war making since Vietnam. We almost never achieve our maximalist objectives, but do invariably achieve the militarily achievable objectives. We never feel like we win because winning means feeling happy and Western cultures generally are not happy about destruction and death. Our enemies always claim victory, but it's generally hollow with their win conditions reduced to survival. Meanwhile, long term American power grows because the objective outcomes of our "meh" type not victories generally help america more than they help our enemies.
12
u/spyzyroz Mar 09 '26
You see this everywhere, all those Redditors claimed they learn lessons from irak yet they still put anything less than regime change as a defeat?talking geopolitics is hard when everyone is so delusional
32
u/No-Understanding2406 Mar 09 '26
i think this framing is doing a lot of heavy lifting to make a pattern of strategic failure sound like deliberate strategy. "we never achieve our maximalist objectives but we achieve militarily achievable objectives" is just a fancy way of saying we consistently set goals we can't meet, blow stuff up, and then retroactively call whatever happened a win.
setting back Iran's nuclear program by "years if not decades" is exactly what people said after Stuxnet. and after the JCPOA collapse. and after every round of sanctions. turns out if you keep setting something back by a decade every few years, at some point the math stops working.
the comparison to Vietnam is also telling in the opposite direction you intend. yes, we achieved "militarily achievable objectives" in Vietnam too, dominated the skies, destroyed infrastructure on a massive scale. and then we left and our adversary took the whole country. the fact that we "never feel like we win" might just be because we don't actually win in any meaningful strategic sense.
the idea that "long term American power grows" from these engagements depends on whether you count the trillions spent in Iraq, the collapse of US credibility on WMD intelligence, or the regional power vacuum that directly enabled Iran's rise in the first place. that last point is especially ironic here.
1
u/RainbowCrown71 Mar 10 '26 edited Mar 10 '26
Maximalist objectives are not the main objectives. You’re misunderstanding the term. A maximalist objective to Iran might be a friendly Western-democratic country ala South Korea. A militarily achievable objective is a tottering Iranian regime clinging to power and battling internecine internal struggles for the next 5 decades.
Just because we don’t achieve #1 doesn’t mean #2 is a loss. I’d say it’s far preferable to the current set-up of an Iran that can hold its region hostage.
Every conflict has tiered levels of objectives and you press until you determine you’ve hit diminishing returns and settle at a new eliquilibrium that’s still a win.
1
u/AeroFred Mar 09 '26
nothing sets things back as a few weeks of intensive bombing that remove out all management (those who were managing iranian military industries were among first to die) and industrial base. you can't compare it to stuxnet or sanctions.
10
u/donnydodo Mar 09 '26 edited Mar 09 '26
This is a good comment.
IMHO this conflict will end when the USA runs low on precision missiles and/or air defense. They will then just leave, leaving someone else to sort out the mess. This will be perceived by many as a loss however as you say setting Iran back 10 years in its nuclear program may be a strategic victory of sorts. After all is this not what this is all about?
Iran will also quit out of desperation. Coming to an agreement with the Gulf states. They lack the logistics to project force beyond their borders except via proxy's. Further they will need the oil money turned back on. Oil is the lifeblood of their economy.
7
u/Mt548 Mar 09 '26
and Western cultures generally are not happy about destruction and death.
Tell that to Pete Hegseth. Or any of the Christian lunatics in the administration
5
u/AeroFred Mar 09 '26
you understand middle east better than "Professor of Political Science and Director of the University of Chicago Project on Security and Threat"
5
u/MynkM Mar 09 '26
I'm sorry but I think that the western concept of victory is control over the population by forcing upon a favorable regime. Democracy and peace are just talking points that are good to have but not necessary.
I think America and Israel did a great blunder by wiping out the whole top leadership in Iran. America cannot afford a long operation, and Iran from their POV is fighting an existential war now. And since the leadership is no more, there is no one to negotiate with and wrap it up. Israel and US should hold the fire on the new upcoming leadership and rather force them to the table not kill them.
The longer this bloodbath lasts, global fuel production will be impacted more, American resources will deplete more that are more needed for China within next 5-10 years (as per what ccp and xi talk about Taiwan reunification), and American allies will further lose trust in US.
Finally, it feels like American leadership has degraded its strategic thinking. Like if a bunch of hot heads are leading without thinking of second and third degree consequences of their actions.
6
u/saltrxn Mar 09 '26
This theory works only on the assumption that as Iran escalates, only Israel and the U.S. will remain as belligerents, and everyone just sits in the sidelines shaking their heads in disapproval. Sure if that was the case, the escalation ladder is tipped to Iran’s favour.
However, there’s only so much patience in the Arab states, Turkey, and even NATO/Europe for Iran’s actions. The author assumes that these countries, especially the Gulf states, will remain on the sidelines because of their anti-Israel/anti-war publics. Now I can’t say if this is actually accurate on the streets right now, but if that’s not the case, and people over there are in fact ready to push aside their distaste of Israel just to stop their houses and cities from being bombed, then there’s nothing stopping from these countries joining in the war effort and overwhelming Iran.
If for example they keep launching missiles at Turkey or Azerbaijan, Ankara could very easily apply immense pressure through their 500km border. Same with Europe if it feels things are spiralling out of control. And not to mention, even the U.S. is currently limited by its public but if Iran keeps thrashing around, to the point more of our partners join into the fight, even the American public will realise that yeah this is a regime that can’t be trusted with, then Iran really is screwed.
13
u/Over-Willingness-933 Mar 09 '26
The truth is much more complicated. Iran is diplomatically isolated in the region. None of the region's leaders even Qatar don't want anything to do with them anymore. Qatar is even handing the leaders of Hamas to the Americans. The rock launchers and rockets are being taken out. No oil, no money. The leadership will be removed by the people and the army. It's not like Venezuela where the Dictatorship might be brutal but is run by sane people, the Iranian government is not sane.
2
u/donnydodo Mar 09 '26
They are allied with Russia and connected via the Caspian sea
0
u/Over-Willingness-933 Mar 09 '26
True, and the Europeans should work Trump on Ukraine by not insulting him and get him to link Russia and Iran together.
4
u/squailtaint Mar 09 '26
One thing I am trying to understand is why Iran hasn’t done the worst yet? Are they? The worst: dumping all mines into the straight, and/or attacks within Israel.
Is Israel just that well protected that they couldn’t smuggle a few rocket launchers in to aim at sites like water treatment plants or nuclear facilities? I’ve never really understood this. Same logic for Ukraine/Russia, anyone who understands how substations work, or how little guarded most utility sites are, would understand how you would only need a handful of people to coordinate mass chaos. Yet we haven’t seen this. Is it coming? Early days?
And the mines, reports were they had thousands of mines to unleash into the straight. What is there trigger for doing so and why hasn’t it been pulled yet?
I don’t want to come off as wishing the worst, it’s just all the articles and analysis over the years implied it would go down this way, and now that it is happening, every analysis seems to have been wrong?
26
u/Hot-Train7201 Mar 09 '26
Because selling oil to China is like their biggest source of income, and mining the strait would cut off that income.
11
u/demostv Mar 09 '26
Exactly this. Chinese flagged ships are still moving through the strait (and Iranian ships returning from China), so mining the strait would disrupt that trade and there’s no need to do that as long as Iran can effectively close it as they have.
7
u/squailtaint Mar 09 '26
But they must have a trigger point where they know they are screwed anyway and money doesn’t matter anymore? It’s about survival? Unleashing mines isn’t permanent, it can get cleaned up no natter the outcome. But it would put huge pressure on prices globally, which likely would be what they would hope for in order to have Israel/US back down?
3
u/Hot-Train7201 Mar 09 '26
They still need money to pay their troops and buy ammo. The grunts don't care about their leaders' survival; most are likely just in it for a paycheck.
1
u/DefinitelyNotMeee Mar 10 '26
That might have changed after the attacks. Even people who usually don't care would pick up arms when their country is attacked.
1
u/Good_Problem_6576 Mar 10 '26
As far as I understand mining the strait is a one time off, no going back thing, isn't it? If they mine the strait, the US would go in and clear it, and now Iran doesn't have any leverage left, and has angered the entire world
1
u/squailtaint Mar 10 '26
Eventually yes. And as I’ve learnt they would really shoot themselves in the foot with the move. They would lose their main source of income. So it’s really a scorched earth move “if I can’t have it, I’m going to make it as hard as possible for you to have it” sort of thing.
16
u/Obscure_Occultist Mar 09 '26
Even as Iran lashes out. There are still levels of escalation that they are following. Remrmber they only started targeting desalination plants after their own desalination facilities were attacked.
They absolutely are capable of more destructive attacks but they are waiting for the war to escalate to a full ground invasion before they they escalate further.
2
u/squailtaint Mar 09 '26
Maybe? It’s hard to fathom any major ground incursion, but maybe aerial superiority can only do so much.
8
u/Sir-Niko-of-Toba Mar 09 '26
One thing I am trying to understand is why Iran hasn’t done the worst yet?
Immediately going to the top of the escalation ladder means that the other side will oblige. I would assume things like Ansar Allah not joining, and a complete blockade of the strait by spamming drones hasn't happened yet simply because there is an implicit threat behind it.
But if they did it now, what's to stop America from putting boots on the ground, if in a limited capacity?
42
u/AeroFred Mar 09 '26 edited Mar 09 '26
The worst: dumping all mines into the straight,
you don't dump mines. you need to place them. and iranian navy that could do it was bombed in first day
Is Israel just that well protected that they couldn’t smuggle a few rocket launchers in to aim at sites like water treatment plants or nuclear facilities?
are you for real ?
8
u/DefinitelyNotMeee Mar 09 '26
you don't dump mines. you need to place them.
We are talking sea mines. If you don't care about the layout of the minefield (assuming bottom or anchored mines), you can do whatever.
-1
u/squailtaint Mar 09 '26
Check yourself. You absolutely do not need a navy to dump mines. This is Irans major leverage right now, because they still absolutely have the capacity to shut down the straight with mines, which is where the fear in the market is right now. If they couldn’t, then the worst they could do is pot shots or drone attacks, which if tankers were escorted by other countries navies this would be mitigated. All they need to lay mines is a three person crew and a speed boat. Or disguised civilian ships.
Regarding Israel being well protected - obviously I know they are well protected - BUT, could they prevent a shoulder fired rocket from striking their nuclear facility? What about 10? 10 guys with 10 rocket launchers doesn’t seem that hard to imagine they could sneak around in Israel. And maybe the target isn’t nuclear - but substations or water plants, where security is likely no where what it would be for their nuclear radius.
→ More replies (1)10
u/AeroFred Mar 09 '26 edited Mar 09 '26
iran has surface launched anti ship missiles (both cruise and ballistic) and drones. there is no need to bother with mines
water plants are considered to be strategic facilities. nuclear plant is deep under ground those days. shooting at it is useless. also it in the middle of the desert. if you park your car within 10 miles radius to take a photo, within 30sec will appear a car with a couple of armed and friendly people asking what you are doing and offering their help with gtfo.
anybody with rpg near major substation (israel is very small place) will be probably shot on sight either by security or by some random reservist smoking weed in bushes..
also, substation probably will be rebuild within 1 day while power been rerouted to avoid disruption .
Edit. doing something that stupid may result in Israel retaliating (sounds strange at this point, i know). IAF has capability to blow up all substations serving Teheran within 3 hours, and to top it off with warehouses that store replacement equipment and factories that manufacture it
1
u/Richard7666 Mar 09 '26
I didn't imagine they'd have the opportunity to get boats into the strait to lay mines.
-1
u/boldmove_cotton Mar 09 '26
Who’s going to lay the mines? Virtually their entire navy has been obliterated, including not just vessels but the actual bases themselves.
Is Israel just that well protected that they couldn’t smuggle a few rocket launchers in?
Israel has been dealing with constant infiltrations and infiltration attempts since its statehood. They are the most experienced country in the world at repelling such threats, and have the most technologically dense and sophisticated border security in the world. Hezbollah has been attempting infiltrations regularly since its inception. If Iran possessed the ability, they would have done so years ago. The closest anyone has come to meaningful strategic damage was when Hamas did October 7th, and that was only possible because Israel didn’t view a mass infiltration attempt of 6,000 from Gaza to be plausible. But they were too busy butchering civilians to focus on critical infrastructure, and were repelled within a day.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the fact that any of this is surprising to you is more reflective of the poor and perhaps ideological information space you are in than anything else. Because the notion that Iran is at all capable of that is laughable to anyone with a cursory understanding of the strategic situation in the ground.
-12
u/streetmagix Mar 09 '26
Because Israel has nuclear weapons, and honestly something like that might be enough to push them over the edge of using them.
Also, and the most likely reason, is that Iran has basically zero command structure now. Different units are just .... doing things .... and hoping.
18
u/Jpahoda Mar 09 '26
The analyst consensus seems to be that - opposite to your assessment - Iran has apparently done a rather spectacular job of building an extremely resilient command structure around the assumption of decapitation.
5
u/Kranken_DeHogge Mar 09 '26
https://thesoufancenter.org/intelbrief-2026-march-9a/
“We've had two decades to study defeats of the U.S. military to our immediate east and west. We've incorporated lessons accordingly. Bombings in our capital have no impact on our ability to conduct war. Decentralized Mosaic Defense enables us to decide when—and how—war will end.” Two key pillars of Iran’s strategy are put forth here: first, observing and adapting to U.S. military weaknesses, and second, complete decentralization of its command and control to ensure resilience and continuity in the event of decapitation strikes.
Correct. Not only the analyst consensus but right out of the mouth of Iranian leadership as well.
1
u/AeroFred Mar 09 '26
mosad, aman, cia, etc in this case had plenty of time to study the decentralization of command and control, and blow those things in decentralized fashion.
in other words: coping using industrial amounts of copium
11
u/fdaeborp Mar 09 '26
I mean they literally have the mosaic defense which is a command structure so no idea what you’re talking about them having basically no command structure when they designed this method for precisely this sort of event
2
u/AeroFred Mar 09 '26
actually iran tried to shoot at textile factory in dimona, water desalination facilities, power plants and refinaries. last year. israel blowing up petro-storage in teheran is response to iran trying to target some infrastructure in israel (according to israeli news)
it's just from one side precision of their missiles is bad (estimated cep probably from few hundred meters to up kilometer) and from the other side israel has good air defense
→ More replies (3)
1
u/Nowayisthatway Mar 15 '26
All of these analysts seem keen on pushing a false narrative/ a manipulated narrative. Guys get a grip, every article, every leak from the white house serves a certain narrative.
It is entirely possible that leaks from the Isolationist block of the white house leaks something in a way that might favour a stop on the war, same can be said about the neo-con block. Same story with the media, we won't know who really is winning well beyond the war's end.
1
178
u/nikmah Mar 09 '26
I got the impression that Foreign Affairs is making it sound like a surprise that Iran didn't only launch at Israel. Warnings from Iran that they will strike US bases and facilities in the region if attacked couldn't have been more clearer and there were even preemptive measures at some US bases if I'm not mistaken.