BANNED USER: antagonism, personal attacks
>Unban in 1d 11h 44m
VIM
No bio...
User ID: 3609
Banned by: @Amadan
VIM
1mo ago
By the literal definition of "they probably have fewer munitions than before the war" then obviously they're degraded, but that isn't a meaningful measure in any sense.
A better measure might be a few days ago, when Israel hit their gas field and they responded by issuing evacuation orders for multiple equivalent targets in neighboring countries and overcoming AD to hit all of them within hours. Personally, I'd call that a clear demonstration of "power projection" and until they are no longer able to reliably launch large, AD penetrating countervalue volleys any claim of victory on the basis of having degraded said capabilities is clearly hollow.
VIM
1mo ago
Another view is that given the conditions, this isn't really the Iran war, it's the Lebanon war and the Iran war is a sideshow and a distraction. The casualties are higher in Lebanon, there are troops on the ground in Lebanon, Israel is considering expanding its territory into Lebanon, occupation will inevitably result in settlements which will not be removed, etc. Perhaps the purpose of the Iran war never had anything to do with Iran herself, which is why the goals against Iran never seemed achievable, but were instead more local to protecting the Israeli homefront against Hezbollah. The USA distracts Iran and forces it to accept Hezbollah's defeat.
If that's the goal then they've already failed because Iran is demanding that Lebanon be included in any peace deal and there's little reason to think the IRGC hardliners calling the shots right now will give up such a powerful tool in their arsenal.
On the flipside, it's almost inconceivable to imagine Netanyahu agreeing to a deal with Iran that actually leaves him in a worse position vis-a-vis Hezbollah than before the war even under immense pressure. The most optimistic outcome seems to be that Trump cuts a deal with Iran like the one he cut with the Houthis after Rough Rider that leaves them free to fight Israel alone as long as they don't shoot at the US Navy. More likely he continues to get dragged into the quicksand by promises of "small escalation for quick win!"
VIM
1mo ago
The maritime.gov statement that I linked to went into effect 2/14/2025; the Gaza ceasefire (the one that stuck, anyway) didn't go effect until the fall.
I'm not sure if you're ignorant or being actively disingenuous here but the passage on 2/14/2025 was covered by the initial ceasefire that didn't stick. So once again, you're proving my point.
Reporting from before the Gaza ceasefire but after the Houthis ceasefire also indicates that traffic levels through the strait rose.
and on the contrary, Lloyd's List reports that the ceasefire did basically nothing to increase traffic.
Regardless, what can't really be contested is that yanking Bibi's leash was more effective in opening Red Sea traffic than fighting the Houthis was.
He in fact did pull the leash on Israel, resulting in a ceasefire early in 2025, with the result that Israel broke the ceasefire after accusing Hamas of giving them the runaround.
Right, he could have kept the leash tight instead of allowing the Israelis to take actions that harmed his interests for basically no benefit. Israel is infinitely more pliable to American pressure than Iran or Yemen.
Objectively, the path to opening the Red Sea ran through Tel Aviv, not Sanaa or Tehran. Similarly, the path to keeping the Strait of Hormuz open ran through preventing Israel from starting an unwinnable war, not in committing American forces to said unwinnable war.
VIM
1mo ago
The statement from Oman was that "In the future, neither side will target the other, including American vessels, in the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandab Strait, ensuring freedom of navigation and the smooth flow of international commercial shipping" so I don't think this is correct. The US government indicated the same.
This is incorrect also; it was publicized that Maersk sent a US-flagged vessel through this January.
Yes, the blockade is currently so in place that traffic noticeably increased and Maersk resumed transiting the Bab al-Mandab.
No, that came after the Gaza ceasefire, which is what actually caused the Houthis to end their blockade. I thought it was pretty widely publicized that the Houthis tied the continuation of their blockade to a ceasefire in Gaza. I guess that would explain why you're the only person in the world who thinks Rough Rider was a success.
Which kind of proves my point: instead of wasting billions on an ultimately pointless campaign that exposed the limits of American military might, Trump could have pulled the leash on Israel and forced them into a ceasefire to get the same result months sooner.
Man, Trump snatching Maduro has really set insane expectations for the duration of military operations. I'm going to have a stroke if I get on here to read about the Chinese invasion of Taiwan in 2030 or whenever and people are declaring it a failure when it's not over after 3 hours.
Anyway, if you read up a bit on US doctrine, you'll see that against a large regional threat like Iran, the doctrine will be to systematically dismantle larger threats before moving to smaller ones, a process that is both imperfect and time-consuming. Possibly US operations will fail in this area, but I think it is too soon to judge - the US is unlikely to move ships into the Strait until it has sanitized the area thoroughly, which is such an exhaustive process that I would not be surprised if the US reached a political solution to the problem before achieving a military one.
Trump is the one who said it would take 3-5 weeks and from where I'm sitting it looks like if anything Iran's hold over the Strait is stronger than it was before the war. They're literally running all of the ships through their territorial waters and extorting them for cash.
Out of curiosity, if Trump negotiated an identical "deal" to Iran that he got from the Houthis and Iran continued to charge tolls or outright block everyone besides the US Navy would you still consider that to be a success?
After the operations you named, the Houthis agreed to stop attacking US vessels, and so far have not resumed (even though the United States is attacking Iran.) This might be a good argument that (US objectives having been achieved) the current strikes on Iran are a mistake, but it doesn't seem like a great argument that the US does not have the ability to influence Iranian/Houthi behavior by force, or that Iran's decision to arm proxies and support them in a blockade against neutral shipping was, in fact, a good idea.
The Houthis agreed to stop attacking the US Navy, which were the only "US vessels" that even attempted to cross the Bab el Mandeb during Trump's term. This does not represent any kind of influence on Houthi behavior because they had been offering such a "deal" since the very start of operations and if anything represents a climbdown from the US, which ultimately left the blockade in place and missiles continuing to fly at Israel.
What I would say isn't a good idea is repeatedly letting the whole world see the hard limits of American power as some mid tier power grabs control of key international waterways and squeezes while the President impotently screams and issues a half dozen contradictory statements ranging from "It doesn't matter, high oil prices are good" to "We'll bomb all their power plants" to "We'll send in the Marines". This whole affair seems like a combination of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Suez Crisis, neither of which were "good ideas" with positive consequences for the countries involved.
Yes, that's how it works, more or less. Blockades impose a cost on neutral countries, and neutral countries may then decide if it serves their interests to use military force to attempt to set things right.
Well currently it seems like neutral countries are choosing to pay the Ayatollah Toll rather than try to take the Strait by force so I'd say that's not a great sign for the wisdom of this operation
VIM
1mo ago
If it was reasonable, then it was reasonable for the United States to retaliate, as they did.
Well no, that doesn't follow at all.
Morally, if they're reasonable then the solution may be to solve the underlying issue.
Practically, if you don't have the ability to stop them by force (as Prosperity Guardian and Rough Rider have amply demonstrated) then the easier solution is to pull the leash on the country you actually have some influence over.
Americans have had to protect their shipping since the very beginning of their nation, from the French, British, and Algerians during the era of the Founders, simply because they wished to engage in neutral trade with other nations unmolested.
Strange how this principle doesn't apply to those who wish to engage in neutral trade with Gaza. Blockades interfering with neutral trade evidently are only an issue when they're imposed by the wrong countries. Woodrow Wilson never exercised his right to "defend free trade" when it was the Brits blockading Germany during the First World War either.
VIM
1mo ago
It's not a Kafka trap, it's an army sitting outside a castle building siege weapons shouting "when these are done are we'll kill you all with these weapons." You attack before they are done, and "wow that was fucking close."
Alternatively, it's seeing a big fortress, choosing to attack it directly from the front, taking heavy casualties, failing to take the fortress and then going "Whew, we sure took heavy casualties but if we had waited longer for them to improve their defenses then we would have lost even harder" while failing to consider the possibility of attacking from a less defensible angle or even avoiding the fortress entirely.
VIM
1mo ago
Both the Germans and the British used indiscriminate blockades as a tactic during both world wars. Is Winston Churchill basically a pirate serial killer mass shooter?
An interesting variation on the "It's not my job to educate you" line.
Actually, it was an interesting variation on "Sorry but I'm not your research assistant".
Of course here, you could have simply used the "cut and paste" function to quote the relevant parts of the articles you linked to. Which you didn't. Because you couldn't. Because your sources don't support your claims.
Of course, here you could have simply used basic reading skills to analyze the sources and, if I were making untrue claims, refute them using said sources.
But you aren't interested in making an actual argument, you're interested in wasting time.
My conclusion is simple: your factual claims are false and you are tedious.
VIM
1mo ago
I'm afraid I'm not your professor.
Consider reading some books, even perhaps an article or two before engaging with a topic you clearly have zero knowledge of next time
VIM
1mo ago
One persistent shitposter can have bigger effect than all lone wolf shooters and bombers combined
Depends on who the shooter shoots. If Thomas Matthew Crooks had slightly better aim we'd live in a radically different world
VIM
2mo ago
There is nothing shown so far to imply that they have the capacity. So far - every launcher they use is single use only.
If the USAF is so incredible at hunting launchers then why were they unable to take out Houthi launch capabilities after over a month of total air supremacy during Rough Rider?
VIM
2mo ago
Ok, I think I understand your position now. And I am extremely skeptical. Please show me your evidence that (1) on or about December 8, 2024, Syria "pretty much unconditionally surrendered" to Israel;
and (2) shortly thereafter "Israel bombed Syria into oblivion"
I disagree, but in any event, it sounds like you are conceding that Israel has not attempted to annex or absorb Jordan or area A, correct?
Hitler didn't attempt to annex Vichy either but that might have changed had he won the war. Israel has, for it's entire existence (with the partial exception of the Rabin-Sharon era), been in an unending state of attempting to absorb territory from one or more of it's neighbors.
But the fact that they're currently "only" annexing Area C kind of proves my point: The PLO tried making peace with Israel and they were rewarded with annexation, whereas Hezbollah hit them in the nose and were given withdrawal from southern Lebanon. The weakest, most conciliatory neighbors are the ones Israel robs land from first.
I am extremely skeptical of this claim as well. Please show me your evidence. TIA.
VIM
2mo ago
Looking at Ural crude prices I'd say that Shaheds sent to Iran pay for themselves in increased oil revenue, though we're nowhere near the point where the Iranians have any need to import Shaheds
VIM
2mo ago
That does sound annoying, but a coast / strait seems easier to police than a bunch of caves on land. How long can Iran disrupt a very important shipping lane while the US navy is hanging around? France just sent an aircraft carrier to the Mediterranean and the UK is sending an air defense warship.
Between Operation Prosperity Guardian and Operation Rough Rider it's pretty clear that the answer is "basically indefinitely".
VIM
2mo ago
Hezbollah just launched the largest volley of the war a few hours ago so clearly you've got a funny definition of "destroyed"
If Iran is "destroyed" yet they continue lobbing missiles and drones at every country with an American presence and the Strait remains closed weeks if not months later then clearly being "destroyed" doesn't count for much
VIM
2mo ago
Has Delcy actually done anything that benefits America and goes against their interests? So far it seems like sanctions shuffling or limited sanctions relief with oil being redirected to US refineries. I'm not plugged into what the flow of drugs looks like at a statistical level, but it sure doesn't feel like there are fewer drugs around.
It's not like Maduro was incredibly uncooperative either, he was even helping out with deportations. I've yet to hear anyone explain what major concession Delcy made that Maduro was obstinate on.
Who knows, maybe it was actually a rescue operation to free Maduro from the Cubans, give him an easily beaten trial to avoid the resulting political turmoil of flipping on a bunch of big public pledges (that the real elite in Caracas don't give a damn about) and then return him once things have calmed down.
VIM
2mo ago
This is very recent and I don't remember hearing anything about this in the news. To be clear, in your view (1) after December 8, 2024, Syria took essentially no aggressive actions towards Israel; (2) Syria fully cooperated with any demands made by Israel and did not resist Israel in any way; and (3) nonetheless, Israel bombed Syria into oblivion.
Is that your position?
Essentially, yes.
Edit: Looking back on your post, it seems you have defined "unconditional surrender" a bit differently than how I would understand it. It seems that in your view "unconditional surrender" doesn't foreclose the possibility of (1) continued attacks by the party who has unconditionally surrendered; (2) preparation for future military strikes by the party who has unconditionally surrendered; or (3) refusal to cooperate by the party who has unconditionally surrendered.
No, I would define "unconditional surrender" as a state in which the party surrendering allows the other party totally unconditional access and control of their country without any attempt at resistance or in this case, actively preventing anyone else in the country from attempting to resist.
I'm a little confused by your response. Do you dispute that Israel has NOT attempted to absorb or annex any parts of Jordan, Egypt, or Area A?
Israel did attempt to absorb the Sinai, they constructed several resorts during their occupation there and it was the preeminent position among the Israeli public including high level elites like Moshe Dayan. The only reason they didn't is because Egypt launched an attack that nearly wiped them out and forced them to resort to nuclear blackmail for American support. It was only after Egypt demonstrated the ability to put Israel's whole existence on the line that Israel was willing to make land concessions.
That's the consistent pattern with Israel, by the way: if you surrender without a fight they push as far as they can, like the West Bank, whereas if you give them a bloody nose they'll consider negotiations, as with Egypt. If Egypt had followed your advice after 1967 they never would have recovered the Sinai at all.
VIM
2mo ago
Yeah, sometimes I get the impression people here are posting from a different universe.
The obvious conclusion I'd imagine the Chinese are taking from this is "they abandoned 5th Fleet HQ because they couldn't protect it from Iran so there's no way they'll stick around to try going toe-to-toe with us"
VIM
2mo ago
So you decline to tell me WHEN this unconditional surrender took place? I'm asking so I can look it up and see if there is any merit to what you are saying. It's a very simple question. You claim that Syria "pretty much unconditionally surrendered to Israel" -- I am asking WHEN this unconditional surrender took place. What month and year?
December 8th, 2024.
Israel clearly has the power to roll in and cause mucho damage in Jordan; same thing with Egypt; same thing with Gaza; and same thing with Area A. But as the saying goes, one of these things is not like the others.
Like any conqueror, rather than causing mucho damage they would greatly prefer to absorb their territory with minimal resistance, like Area C. The current generation of Israeli leadership is also considerably less patient than that which made peace with the Jordanians and Egyptians (who, might I add, receive billions of American taxpayer dollars every year to stay at peace) and has demonstrated far less goodwill towards those who chose collaboration or submission.
VIM
2mo ago
When exactly was this unconditional surrender?
They gave up as much territory as the IDF was willing to seize without even trying to fight for it and then stationed troops to prevent any other Syrians from trying to fight the invaders. I'd call that "unconditional surrender".
And what do you suppose is the reason for the failure you are alleging?
Because their ground forces are totally inept, because they have zero tolerance for casualties and because they have no coherent strategy for actually winning wars.
VIM
2mo ago
He's increasingly popular with the "MAGA base" because if a member of the MAGA base feels betrayed they cease to identify as "MAGA" or even "Republican".
The coming midterms are probably going to be a generational slaughter for Republicans.
VIM
2mo ago
Perhaps if Trump didn't want to lose voters for attacking Iran he should have ran on it and tried to justify it.
Of course, if Trump ran on "we've been at war with Iran for 47 years and under my administration we'll start a regional war" my guess is that he would have just straight up lost the election
VIM
2mo ago
In this case, it's not that hard to know. Israel clearly has the power to roll in and crush Jordan; same thing with Egypt; same thing with Gaza; and same thing with Area A. But as the saying goes, one of these things is not like the others.
-
Syria is an obvious counterexample: they pretty much unconditionally surrendered to Israel and were rewarded by getting bombed into oblivion, having their territory seized, and just generally getting humiliated.
-
This is obviously not true. We've had a two year test case in which Israel tried and failed to roll in and crush Hamas, the smallest and weakest of its opponents.
What do you expect ten thousand Marines, just a fraction of whom are actually fighters, to achieve? The Strait is enormous, just trying to secure the Strait itself would require occupying more territory than Vietnam. You might take an island or two but what will those Marines do on said island other than be sitting ducks for Iranian artillery?
Best case scenario, Iran's ground forces are weaker than expected, you take an island with minimal casualties and now Iran can no longer extort passing ships or export oil. Okay, great, Iran, no longer restrained by the desire to protect their own rackets, chooses to flood the Gulf with sea mines while hitting every refinery and oil field between Baku and Cairo. Perhaps the Iranian regime falls many years down the line as a result of the collapse in oil revenue but the Trump regime falls even sooner and is remembered by future generations as a kind of Jimmy Carter on steroids. You could achieve the same result with airstrikes on Kharg and Qeshm without the need to endanger a bunch of Marines for no clear benefit.
Worst case scenario, Iran did their homework with the Russians and as soon as they land it's a humiliating endless parade of Marines getting obliterated by FPV drones.
More options
Context Copy link