Isn't it fair to say that we know the war will end at the latest once Democrats control Congress, which they are highly likely to do, especially if the war is still going in November? Obviously January 2027 is a long time from now, but there is a time at which we can be reasonably certain the war will be over. This makes the situation quite different from (say) Russia vs Ukraine.
Unfortunately I wouldn’t be too confident at all. There are probably a significant number of Democrats who would not be willing to vote “against US troops” and even if Congress passed a resolution against the war, it’s not totally clear that Trump/the administration would accept this as binding I fear…
Probably not because that doesn’t really affect executive war powers in any meaningful sense. The only real accountability Congress has over executive war powers is the power of the purse, but Congress is very unlikely to consider the Iran War a serious enough offense to leverage that (leveraging the power of the purse would among other things require risking a lot of defense priorities Congress highly values, for starters).
Definite no. Netanyahu or whoever succeeds him will want the US locked into a long war, for the purpose of trying to destroy Iran. Dems maybe were unwilling to kick it off but they'll keep it going since Dem members of Congress are (1) also on the AIPAC payroll, and (2) they can just blame Trump for starting it, and it's not really their fault, have to stay the course etc etc
However if Iran keeps up current rate of activity, US resources in the region, and especially Israel, may reach their breaking points by the end of the year.
Ultimately the parties who in a political sense can be expected to decide when to stop are Israel or Iran. US can of course pull the plug anytime and that would be a definitive halt, but politically this is most unrealistic
So there is tactical and there is strategic. The war between civilizational Islam and the west has continued for fourteen centuries. The west has been ascendant for the last two or three centuries. However, Islam is again on the move, and has significantly destabilized Western Europe and made inroads in America. They do not coexist, their goal is to dominate, kill, and destroy until only Islam remains. It would be wise to study history, and current events to inform the course of action necessary to redeem the west, and indeed the world, from this scourge. The Islamic “republic” of Iran must join other wicked regimes on the ash heap of history, and now is the best time.
Certainly true that since the Shah of Iran, we have given Muslims lots of reasons to hate us. There are many example were different faiths co exist peacefully. True, the Shia - Sunni conflict complicated matters, but this stuff is geopolitics, not religious conflict.
Fair points but I think it was strategically smart to attack them now because they were relatively weak and posed no direct threat which is why they kept stalling diplomatically while they kept reconstituting their weapons program. I hope the trump team don't chicken out now because of the midterms. They are gonna lose the midterms anyways regardless of the outcome of this war. Should've thought of that before tariffs, appointing Stephen Miller, Kristi Noem, Brendan Carr, RFK Jr., DOGE et al. into the administration, etc. Don't solely blame the Iran war on why they'll lose the midterms. If the US chickens out now, they will have used 20? billions and depleting all the stockpile from the pacific for what? just to mow the grass? That would suck balls.
You said it yourself: Iran is a weak country that posed no direct threat to the US. So, why attack it? They kept reconstituting their weapons program? Ok, but nothing they were doing threatened the US. The President yielded to the temptation of believing his little war would be quick and easy - just like Venezuela, just like the 12-day bombing campaign. But - no surprise to anybody paying attention - Iran immediately closed the strait. It was never worth risking this.
I agree it is bad that we have already wasted the weapons stockpile and spent tens of billions, and we've lost American lives. This, apparently, was for for little to no gain - "mowing the lawn" - which leaves a very bitter taste. But if we double down, there's a very good chance we will waste even more weapons, more money, and more lives without getting much in return - while inflicting very serious damage to the world economy and our alliances.
17,000 US soldiers aren't going to conquer a country of 95 million. It's not clear how much pressure the US can bring to bear, or how easily, and how willing Iran is to carry out its threats to damage other persian gulf oil production. There are many ways for this to end with very serious harm and a sullen, defiant Iranian government still in charge of its territory.
Because they will be much tougher to deal with when they are not weak. After they got exposed last year, they were even more hellbent in getting nukes (which who wouldn’t?!). So if the goal is to prevent them from getting nukes, imo it’s better to deal with them when they are weak. No one is asking for a full scale invasion and conquering. Just severely degrade their military capabilities and internal repression infrastructure (so they can’t gun down their own people) and keep up the economic pressure. Maybe it’ll work out idk 🤷
If we listen to the hawks, Iran has been “two weeks away from getting a nuclear weapon” for years and years.
It’s easy to dream of smashing their capability and ending the threat. And it’s tiring to think about negotiations and monitoring. But actually starting a war carries costs and uncertainties and even after all that it may not resolve anything. A lot of people say the sanctions program and monitoring was working. I find it hard to trust Donald Trump’s dismissal more.
Well they are not wrong in the sense that they already have the stockpile, even the IAEA agrees. And Russia and China can always step up as far as the infrastructure goes. All the more reasons to say the regime’s gotta go!
This could have also gone like north korea too you know if US didn’t intervene on time. So it could have potentially made things worse the other way too. What’s the plan for that doomsday scenario? Ask the jihadis with nukes politely to not go do jihad on us?
The world achieved that goal. Trump tore it up. Then with Israel the US attacked again, supposedly oblitering Iran's capabilities. And who can blame the Iranians for wanting them? Israel probably has 100s. The North Koreans and the Pakistanis are hardly stable regimes. Is the US attacking them next?
They did not achieve that goal. Is that why they were building their ballistic missile program? Is that why they still had a "research" reactor that uses 20% enriched fuel even when the deal capped enrichment at 3.6%? Is that why they were consistently shipping weapons to their proxies? All while still in agreement with the JCPOA deal, with a sunset clause to go on top of it! What a deal!! The goal is to not let them be a North Korea cause we can't do shit about it then. That's why I am for attacking them now when they are relatively weak instead of just letting them grow their arsenal.
As for your other comment about current goals, has it really not been said enough? Ask yourself this: why go after their navy and missiles from day 1 of the war if they had really not planned for the Strait? They stated it multiple times, US goes after their navy, missiles, drones, and nuclear and their production facilities while israel goes after the leadership and the repressions apparatus. Hoping for a regime change after all this looks more probable than hoping for it when they had all their weapons and they could easily gun down their own people imo.
Not looking very smart at the moment, unless the goal was to make Iran use the Strait. That genie isn't going back in the bottle. And Sam, what were the goals? One dint need achieving ( nuclear ) and the other was not going to work (regime change). The latter is ridiculous...lots of evil regimes in the world.
The JCPOA did not have anything about missile system (with potential nuclear capabilities), correct me if I am wrong, it only had a cap on enrichment with a sunset clause. Their missiles program kept continuing and they kept sending their weapons to their proxies even before Trump tore it up. Plus the IAEA did not have unfettered access to all the sites, according to their director. Iran had a "research" reactor that uses 20% enriched fuel when the JCPOA (with sunset clause) says no more the 3.6% until 2026. How do you explain all this?
If it is unreasonable to ask them to give up their main deterrent (missiles) to being attacked, would it be unreasonable to assume Iran being hellbent on pursuing the ultimate deterrent (nukes)? Why would they just let it go? Also why did Biden not go back into the deal? Why did Iran add as one of their demands that IAEA close investigation into undeclared nuclear sites? Also to the proxies point, the reason for funding proxies have a different intent though. Ours is not ideological, it's just transactional.
I agree the war isn't too smart but the laissez faire pov vs a nuclear armed Iran i do not share.
A nuclear Iran becomes an entirely different entity to deal with for neighbors, rivals, enemies and Iran’s own targets.
Its hostility towards Israel always appeared more 'fundamental' to me than the opportunistic strategies of the Arab states who look for ways to keep their populaces focused on anything else but their own gov's.
Hamas, Hezbollah etc would have a nuclear best friend.
At the moment an Islamic 'NATO' is being discussed by SA, Turkey etc.Iran could offer Shia states like Iraq and Azerbaijan a shared nuclear umbrella, while Bahrain with a Shia majority ruled by a Sunni minority. Lebanon,Yemen and Kuwait, who have large Shia minorities, would offer additional avenues to explore.
I agree with you but I think at this point Trump knows that Iran will keep it closed regardless of what he does, and that maybe incentivizes him to take even more extreme and dramatic measures to force them into submission. Iran sensibly seems to be holding Yemen/direct attacks on energy infra as responses to more extreme measures; I am not sure if that's enough of a deterrent.
"by keeping the Strait of Hormuz closed and attacking energy infrastructure in the Gulf" - They'll keep the Strait closed but attacking energy infrastructure - at least in a large scale way will mean the destruction of their own energy infrastructure. And while that may convince the US to turn tail, it also may end up creating existential threats to the regime internally so I don't think they do this except as a last resort.
If the US escalates beyond a certain point yes. At the current level of escalation, the regime is intact and in no danger of collapsing. Which is also why Iran has not escalated to the level of destroying Gulf energy infra completely.
Good, though I don't necessarily think Trump painted himself into a corner by saying he would have to intervene to protect civilians well after they'd been slaughtered, not least because he's not someone overly concerned about keeping his word, so I think he could have pulled back at any point up to the actual killing of Khameini.
Problem is Israel as a country (and Netanyahu in his domestic politics) has different interests from the US as a country (and Trump in his domestic politics). And Israel has an infinite checkbook of blank checks from US Republicans and Democrats to veto any US negotiation, and begin or escalate any regional conflict, and the US is required to bail them out without regard to cost to the US.
So basically this conflict doesn't end unless either Iran gets destroyed or Iran hurts Israel so bad that Israel (not the US) makes the decision to stop. There is already enough global inflation baked in that Trump will lose both houses of Congress - but this won't change the US-Israel dynamic and therefore it also won't change the US-Iran dynamic.
I basically agree with everything you wrote, but think there’s a slightly higher chance the war will end soon, say by the end of April, because the economic consequences will become so dire. It would have to be by Trump declaring victory and quitting.
Isn't it fair to say that we know the war will end at the latest once Democrats control Congress, which they are highly likely to do, especially if the war is still going in November? Obviously January 2027 is a long time from now, but there is a time at which we can be reasonably certain the war will be over. This makes the situation quite different from (say) Russia vs Ukraine.
Unfortunately I wouldn’t be too confident at all. There are probably a significant number of Democrats who would not be willing to vote “against US troops” and even if Congress passed a resolution against the war, it’s not totally clear that Trump/the administration would accept this as binding I fear…
Probably not because that doesn’t really affect executive war powers in any meaningful sense. The only real accountability Congress has over executive war powers is the power of the purse, but Congress is very unlikely to consider the Iran War a serious enough offense to leverage that (leveraging the power of the purse would among other things require risking a lot of defense priorities Congress highly values, for starters).
Definite no. Netanyahu or whoever succeeds him will want the US locked into a long war, for the purpose of trying to destroy Iran. Dems maybe were unwilling to kick it off but they'll keep it going since Dem members of Congress are (1) also on the AIPAC payroll, and (2) they can just blame Trump for starting it, and it's not really their fault, have to stay the course etc etc
However if Iran keeps up current rate of activity, US resources in the region, and especially Israel, may reach their breaking points by the end of the year.
Ultimately the parties who in a political sense can be expected to decide when to stop are Israel or Iran. US can of course pull the plug anytime and that would be a definitive halt, but politically this is most unrealistic
How would the Democrats controlling Congress impact the progress of a war started unconstitutionally without the slightest role for Congress?
So there is tactical and there is strategic. The war between civilizational Islam and the west has continued for fourteen centuries. The west has been ascendant for the last two or three centuries. However, Islam is again on the move, and has significantly destabilized Western Europe and made inroads in America. They do not coexist, their goal is to dominate, kill, and destroy until only Islam remains. It would be wise to study history, and current events to inform the course of action necessary to redeem the west, and indeed the world, from this scourge. The Islamic “republic” of Iran must join other wicked regimes on the ash heap of history, and now is the best time.
Grow up
Babblings of an illiterate toddler
Certainly true that since the Shah of Iran, we have given Muslims lots of reasons to hate us. There are many example were different faiths co exist peacefully. True, the Shia - Sunni conflict complicated matters, but this stuff is geopolitics, not religious conflict.
Fair points but I think it was strategically smart to attack them now because they were relatively weak and posed no direct threat which is why they kept stalling diplomatically while they kept reconstituting their weapons program. I hope the trump team don't chicken out now because of the midterms. They are gonna lose the midterms anyways regardless of the outcome of this war. Should've thought of that before tariffs, appointing Stephen Miller, Kristi Noem, Brendan Carr, RFK Jr., DOGE et al. into the administration, etc. Don't solely blame the Iran war on why they'll lose the midterms. If the US chickens out now, they will have used 20? billions and depleting all the stockpile from the pacific for what? just to mow the grass? That would suck balls.
You said it yourself: Iran is a weak country that posed no direct threat to the US. So, why attack it? They kept reconstituting their weapons program? Ok, but nothing they were doing threatened the US. The President yielded to the temptation of believing his little war would be quick and easy - just like Venezuela, just like the 12-day bombing campaign. But - no surprise to anybody paying attention - Iran immediately closed the strait. It was never worth risking this.
I agree it is bad that we have already wasted the weapons stockpile and spent tens of billions, and we've lost American lives. This, apparently, was for for little to no gain - "mowing the lawn" - which leaves a very bitter taste. But if we double down, there's a very good chance we will waste even more weapons, more money, and more lives without getting much in return - while inflicting very serious damage to the world economy and our alliances.
17,000 US soldiers aren't going to conquer a country of 95 million. It's not clear how much pressure the US can bring to bear, or how easily, and how willing Iran is to carry out its threats to damage other persian gulf oil production. There are many ways for this to end with very serious harm and a sullen, defiant Iranian government still in charge of its territory.
Why attack it when it’s weak?
Because they will be much tougher to deal with when they are not weak. After they got exposed last year, they were even more hellbent in getting nukes (which who wouldn’t?!). So if the goal is to prevent them from getting nukes, imo it’s better to deal with them when they are weak. No one is asking for a full scale invasion and conquering. Just severely degrade their military capabilities and internal repression infrastructure (so they can’t gun down their own people) and keep up the economic pressure. Maybe it’ll work out idk 🤷
If we listen to the hawks, Iran has been “two weeks away from getting a nuclear weapon” for years and years.
It’s easy to dream of smashing their capability and ending the threat. And it’s tiring to think about negotiations and monitoring. But actually starting a war carries costs and uncertainties and even after all that it may not resolve anything. A lot of people say the sanctions program and monitoring was working. I find it hard to trust Donald Trump’s dismissal more.
Well they are not wrong in the sense that they already have the stockpile, even the IAEA agrees. And Russia and China can always step up as far as the infrastructure goes. All the more reasons to say the regime’s gotta go!
Like Iraq? Afghanistan? Syria? Really Sam, these excursions not wars always make things worse.
This could have also gone like north korea too you know if US didn’t intervene on time. So it could have potentially made things worse the other way too. What’s the plan for that doomsday scenario? Ask the jihadis with nukes politely to not go do jihad on us?
The world achieved that goal. Trump tore it up. Then with Israel the US attacked again, supposedly oblitering Iran's capabilities. And who can blame the Iranians for wanting them? Israel probably has 100s. The North Koreans and the Pakistanis are hardly stable regimes. Is the US attacking them next?
They did not achieve that goal. Is that why they were building their ballistic missile program? Is that why they still had a "research" reactor that uses 20% enriched fuel even when the deal capped enrichment at 3.6%? Is that why they were consistently shipping weapons to their proxies? All while still in agreement with the JCPOA deal, with a sunset clause to go on top of it! What a deal!! The goal is to not let them be a North Korea cause we can't do shit about it then. That's why I am for attacking them now when they are relatively weak instead of just letting them grow their arsenal.
As for your other comment about current goals, has it really not been said enough? Ask yourself this: why go after their navy and missiles from day 1 of the war if they had really not planned for the Strait? They stated it multiple times, US goes after their navy, missiles, drones, and nuclear and their production facilities while israel goes after the leadership and the repressions apparatus. Hoping for a regime change after all this looks more probable than hoping for it when they had all their weapons and they could easily gun down their own people imo.
Not looking very smart at the moment, unless the goal was to make Iran use the Strait. That genie isn't going back in the bottle. And Sam, what were the goals? One dint need achieving ( nuclear ) and the other was not going to work (regime change). The latter is ridiculous...lots of evil regimes in the world.
The JCPOA did not have anything about missile system (with potential nuclear capabilities), correct me if I am wrong, it only had a cap on enrichment with a sunset clause. Their missiles program kept continuing and they kept sending their weapons to their proxies even before Trump tore it up. Plus the IAEA did not have unfettered access to all the sites, according to their director. Iran had a "research" reactor that uses 20% enriched fuel when the JCPOA (with sunset clause) says no more the 3.6% until 2026. How do you explain all this?
If it is unreasonable to ask them to give up their main deterrent (missiles) to being attacked, would it be unreasonable to assume Iran being hellbent on pursuing the ultimate deterrent (nukes)? Why would they just let it go? Also why did Biden not go back into the deal? Why did Iran add as one of their demands that IAEA close investigation into undeclared nuclear sites? Also to the proxies point, the reason for funding proxies have a different intent though. Ours is not ideological, it's just transactional.
>Iranian proxies have done more to protect Christians in the Middle East than the US.
This just sounds categorically false. As if that's their goal. Jihadis going out of their way to protect Christians lmao.
I agree the war isn't too smart but the laissez faire pov vs a nuclear armed Iran i do not share.
A nuclear Iran becomes an entirely different entity to deal with for neighbors, rivals, enemies and Iran’s own targets.
Its hostility towards Israel always appeared more 'fundamental' to me than the opportunistic strategies of the Arab states who look for ways to keep their populaces focused on anything else but their own gov's.
Hamas, Hezbollah etc would have a nuclear best friend.
At the moment an Islamic 'NATO' is being discussed by SA, Turkey etc.Iran could offer Shia states like Iraq and Azerbaijan a shared nuclear umbrella, while Bahrain with a Shia majority ruled by a Sunni minority. Lebanon,Yemen and Kuwait, who have large Shia minorities, would offer additional avenues to explore.
I agree with you but I think at this point Trump knows that Iran will keep it closed regardless of what he does, and that maybe incentivizes him to take even more extreme and dramatic measures to force them into submission. Iran sensibly seems to be holding Yemen/direct attacks on energy infra as responses to more extreme measures; I am not sure if that's enough of a deterrent.
"by keeping the Strait of Hormuz closed and attacking energy infrastructure in the Gulf" - They'll keep the Strait closed but attacking energy infrastructure - at least in a large scale way will mean the destruction of their own energy infrastructure. And while that may convince the US to turn tail, it also may end up creating existential threats to the regime internally so I don't think they do this except as a last resort.
The threat to that regime is existential.
If the US escalates beyond a certain point yes. At the current level of escalation, the regime is intact and in no danger of collapsing. Which is also why Iran has not escalated to the level of destroying Gulf energy infra completely.
I'd like to listen to a podcast between you and Sam Harris because you disagree on specific points. It would be a good conversation I think
Good, though I don't necessarily think Trump painted himself into a corner by saying he would have to intervene to protect civilians well after they'd been slaughtered, not least because he's not someone overly concerned about keeping his word, so I think he could have pulled back at any point up to the actual killing of Khameini.
Problem is Israel as a country (and Netanyahu in his domestic politics) has different interests from the US as a country (and Trump in his domestic politics). And Israel has an infinite checkbook of blank checks from US Republicans and Democrats to veto any US negotiation, and begin or escalate any regional conflict, and the US is required to bail them out without regard to cost to the US.
So basically this conflict doesn't end unless either Iran gets destroyed or Iran hurts Israel so bad that Israel (not the US) makes the decision to stop. There is already enough global inflation baked in that Trump will lose both houses of Congress - but this won't change the US-Israel dynamic and therefore it also won't change the US-Iran dynamic.
The US is not going to learn very much — I am more optimistic.
I basically agree with everything you wrote, but think there’s a slightly higher chance the war will end soon, say by the end of April, because the economic consequences will become so dire. It would have to be by Trump declaring victory and quitting.