It ain't over until Bibi says it's over. Trump is pissing his pants trying to get out of this anyway he can but Bibi won't let him. I'm sure our military was against this from day one, but the Fox news host and the Real Estate developer thought they knew better but, in the end Bibi and Israel call the shots and America obeys....
A bad peace will be better than this war. I know people want to stick this into some kind of winners vs losers discussion but I for one would be happy if it reliably ended.
It's very difficult for me to think of such a terrible peace agreement that I'd personally reject it.
Even if the peace holds the whole thing feels like a definite L for the following reasons:
Materiel
- a huge amount of expensive and long lead time to replace missiles/interceptors expended
- a $300,000,000 radar station destroyed
- like 30 Reaper drones (approximately 1/5 of the total)
- 1 AWACs destroyed and 3-5 others heavily damaged (we only have about 20 of them
- tons of damage to infrastructure in the area (like refineries, ports, chemical plants)
Geopolitical
- primacy of American military power shown to be truly questionable (I consider this as the biggest part of the L; can't decide if it's an unforced error or it was bound to happen under any administration)
- Iran now knows it can leverage its drones and missiles to influence the region and world; they don't even need a nuke anymore to project power
I guess if there is a silver lining it's that the conflict has exposed how unprepared some of our doctrines and orders of battle are when dealing against an adversary that needs to operate on a more asymmetric level. But also it feels like that should be already known after years of monitoring the Ukrainian conflict.
> conflict has exposed how unprepared some of our doctrines and orders of battle are when dealing against an adversary that needs to operate on a more asymmetric level
That is known for almost 25 years since Millennium Challenge. However US military decided that to cove their ears, close their eyes and start screaming
Thanks for that link, wasn't aware of it until now. And while the US military ignored it, it looks like either the IRGC paid close attention or came up with the same thing independently.
As bad as the whole Iran situation has been, I'm glad that there are still rational actors pushing back within the military. If Trump had his way completely, I wouldn't put off the chance of an offensive nuke being used.
11 comments
[ 0.24 ms ] story [ 32.8 ms ] threadJust saying...Junk away...
It's very difficult for me to think of such a terrible peace agreement that I'd personally reject it.
Materiel - a huge amount of expensive and long lead time to replace missiles/interceptors expended - a $300,000,000 radar station destroyed - like 30 Reaper drones (approximately 1/5 of the total) - 1 AWACs destroyed and 3-5 others heavily damaged (we only have about 20 of them - tons of damage to infrastructure in the area (like refineries, ports, chemical plants)
Geopolitical - primacy of American military power shown to be truly questionable (I consider this as the biggest part of the L; can't decide if it's an unforced error or it was bound to happen under any administration) - Iran now knows it can leverage its drones and missiles to influence the region and world; they don't even need a nuke anymore to project power
I guess if there is a silver lining it's that the conflict has exposed how unprepared some of our doctrines and orders of battle are when dealing against an adversary that needs to operate on a more asymmetric level. But also it feels like that should be already known after years of monitoring the Ukrainian conflict.
That is known for almost 25 years since Millennium Challenge. However US military decided that to cove their ears, close their eyes and start screaming
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002