BahRamYou
1d ago
I agree in principle, but I think you should word it differently. "Trump won. Iran lost" is both too simple and guaranteed to stir up anger.
Tbh, I'm not sure how much "Trump" is really in command of this war. He's an 80 yr old man, a lame-duck president, and never showed much interest for a war in Iran before. This feels like something he was talked in to and then leaves the details to others.
I'm very uncertain what's going on in Iran. Who the hell is in charge over there? Certainly not the "Supreme Leader" who hasn't been seen in public even once since his assencion. And certainly not the regular people of Iran, who have been suffering even worse since it began. It seems like the IRGC has increased it's level of control, but it's a very decentralized control. Does anyone there even have the power to negotiate terms of surrender?
Certainly in the short term, Iran can't develop nukes. But we need a long term solution there, and I'm not sure what that would be without a regime change. Is it enough to just perpetually bomb Pickaxe mountain where they store the nuclear material? Maybe it is, it seems like their air defense is in shambles and the big ground penetrating bombs are pretty good at that sort of thing. But it's a messy solution.
And finally oil. yes, world oil prices are at reasonable levels, despite some predictions of doom and gloom. A lot of that is from workarounds and demand reduction. Some oil is getting through, but not as much as before. I still want the USN and allies to go full power and destroy every single cave along the Iranian coast until it becomes clear that they can do nothing to stop oil tankers going through. But in the meantime I'll take this as good enough.
Biggest problem is really the propaganda war. A lot of people on the internet seem convinced that that Iran (represented by one all-powerful Supreme Leader I guess) has the entire world oil supply in its control, and will put the squeeze on real soon. And frankly I think a lot of that is driven by Russian and/or Chinese bots. We need to do something about that, or the US is going to give up right on the verge of victory after the Dems take power in the midterm elections.
I would argue that most wars after WW2 have been a bit messy and complicated to explain "who won." Now that it's frowned upon (and risking nuclear war) to just march in and plant your flag everywhere, wars become even more an extension of politics. Like you said, Iraq was a quick victory over their official army, but it took a very long time grinding down insurgents and backing questionable political factions until it's become enough of a self-sustaining democratic state to really call that a victory. Vietnam was even more of a mess, but it did eventually end with a Vietnam being a free, democratic state allied with the US... I'm not sure if anyone would call that a victory though.
More options
Context Copy link