site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   1394 thread views

Transnational Thursday for March 19, 2026

Transnational Thursday is a thread for people to discuss international news, foreign policy or international relations history. Feel free as well to drop in with coverage of countries you’re interested in, talk about ongoing dynamics like the wars in Israel or Ukraine, or even just whatever you’re reading.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So what actually is the American long-term plan for Iran? Just keep bombing them forever, for the lulz?

There isn't one. The plan was to pull Venezuela redux, but a) the IRI regime is made of sterner stuff than Maduro's clowns b) they appear to have killed a lot of the people they imagined stepping in to fill the void.

Okay, it's not quite right to say that there isn't a plan, but the backup plan seems to be that we (the US) are going to apply pressure to Iran until they cave. The Trump administration is stuck, because they don't want to look weak by packing up and there's a lot of pressure to resolve the crisis they started, but they don't really have a good way to compel the Iranian government. While the IRI ability to fight back is pretty limited, it's not nothing and (as demonstrated back in January) they are far more willing/able to force their populace to endure hardship than the Trump administration is.

(Also, Israel appears to have distinct goals - if I had to guess, they see the window closing on their ability to borrow strength from the US and are trying to cash that in to do as much damage to Iran as possible)

but they don't really have a good way to compel the Iranian government

Don't they? I feel like blowing up all of their leadership and military is pretty compelling. There's many reports of desertion in their army ranks already.

Also, the pressure to resolve things quickly seems to come mostly from foreign countries like Japan and India that rely heavily on Persian Gulf oil. The US is a lot more independant, and oil prices haven't really risen that badly, so there's no particular need for Trump to resolve this immediately. The only real threat is that he'll get distracted by something else and lose interest.

Don't they? I feel like blowing up all of their leadership and military is pretty compelling.

The record of air power in delivering conclusive outcomes is... very bad.

Well, the short argument is that it worked quite well in Venezuela 3 months ago. It also worked pretty well in Libya and Syria, if you'll overlook the civilians who died in the ensuing civil war. But it accomplished its strategic goals.

But my longer argument is that this is something unprecedented, qualitatively different from any air war the world has seen before. The US and Israel have had decades to plan this war, plus months to build up forces in the region. They have satellite and drone intelligence to locate all targets, complete air dominance, vast numbers of precision bombs, and now bunkur buster bombs to attack underground sites. They're striking something like 1000 targets per day, which is roughly equal to all the bombs dropped over the entire Bosnian air campaign. There really isn't much a ground force could do that isn't already being done from the air, unless you just want that political value of a man in uniform raising a flag. These days we could even deepfake that too.

Well, the short argument is that it worked quite well in Venezuela 3 months ago.

That argument would be very wrong, as would the analogies to Libya and Syria. The Venezuelan operation worked precisely because it put men on the ground to force the issue (and also probably because Maduro's subordinates sold him out). Syria and Libya had ongoing civil wars where western air power was merely supporting a favored faction. Gaddafi doesn't get overthrown if there isn't a massive rebellion on the ground; likewise for Assad. The Trump administration (at best) seems to be wishcasting a renewed uprising after standing by and doing nothing while the IRI massacred protestors, but available evidence is that it's not going to happen.

The US and Israel have had decades to plan this war, plus months to build up forces in the region

Which is why the US is currently rushing a couple of battalions of marines from the Pacific to (probably) seize a couple of outlying islands. The idea that this operation has been meticulously planned over the course of decades is cope.

There really isn't much a ground force could do that isn't already being done from the air

Unless you have ground forces to stop them, air power cannot stop the enemy from reconstituting once the bombing stops. There's a reason modern doctrine for the application of air power isn't "we're going to bomb until everyone's dead." The military value of air power isn't in raw killing effect, it is in the way air power allows you to precisely strike at key targets in a way that disrupts and degrades the enemy's ability to fight back. That can be an incredible force multiplier, but you still need ground forces to actually engage the enemy.

Ah, the "purist" view. So it's not a "real" strategic air win unless it comes 100% from the air, we're not allowed to make use of commando raids or friendly local factions. In fact, it was over before it began, since the mass protests in Iran disqualified the Air Force from being able to win "fairly." I suspect most military commanders don't see it that way though.

Unless you have ground forces to stop them, air power cannot stop the enemy from reconstituting once the bombing stops.

Unlike decadent Iran, which fights with large expensive ballistic missiles that are in short supply, the US fights with cheap mass produced drones like the LUCAS. There's really no need for the bombing to ever stop, unless Iran has one of those force fields from Dune that can only be penetrated by a slow-moving knife attack.

Ah, the "purist" view. So it's not a "real" strategic air win unless it comes 100% from the air

Yes. If you have to utilize ground troops to achieve your objective, it was not accomplished solely through air power. You cannot equivocate between a special operation with air support and and a pure air campaign.

Sure, just so long as you realize that you're talking about some strange hypothetical situation of "pure air power" that's never actually been tried. In real wars, countries use every asset they reasonably can, which includes spies, commando raids, and allying with local dissidents. The operation in Venezuela is about as close to "pure" air power as you're likely to ever see, they only sent in special forces for one brief helicopter raid for political reasons when it obviously would have been much easier to just strike Maduro from the air.

Keep bombing them until the list of primary targets is completed, then see if there's somebody there to take over or just leave it to smolder and come back when they ask for seconds.

There is no long term plan clearly expressed at this point. Right now there are three outcomes that have been mooted by Trump and Co at different times:

  1. Regime change/the people finally rise up: Iran's government falls. USA makes a deal with the new Iranian government (s) to get everything moving again. Goes to Trump's calls for unconditional surrender.

  2. The United States gets bored and leaves, as Trump threatened yesterday. The gulf countries probably make a deal with Iran to pay tolls to get Hormuz open.

  3. USA is able to brute force destroy Iran's ability to harm vessels in the strait, and traffic resumes. The air war may continue more or less indefinitely, with Iran slowly ground down but the islamists maintaining power over the rubble. Iran becomes increasingly irrelevant. Goes to Trump's plans for naval escorts and island threats.

I'm not sure which seems likely at this point.

What is long term plan for Gaza, Syria and Lebanon? The bombing goes on and can go on ... not forever, nothing lasts forever... but for a long time until there is anything to bomb.

Gaza, Syria and Lebanon can’t cut off half the world oil supply.

I guess until they break. I guess that if this could be sustained couple more weeks people will take to the street. I guess they could start dissolving the state capacity. Barracks, courthouses, prison administrative buildings, police stations and so on.

The protests were wasted but if a couple of cracks show - it will roll downhill and fast. Lets give US at least the time NATO had in Serbia. It took 3 months to bring down Milosevic.

That would at least be a plan. Alright. Let's see how it plays out.

  1. Bomb Iran

  2. ???

  3. Profit

Yes Rico, Profit.

How America Took Lloyd’s 300-Year Oil Empire in 48 Hours

I'm neither pro-iran nor anti-america. I just plain don't get it. I don't understand where this is supposed to lead.

Minimal goal: destroy Iran's capacity and will to make trouble for significant time (years, if lucky decades) Maximal goal: IRGC regime falls

To Underpants Bomber Gnomes obviously.

For real, the Iran "plan" seems to be about as well planned as the Underpants Gnomes' plan in that episode.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats