I was already thinking how the Iran situation is to the USA what Ukraine is to Russia.
Manly men (in their own heads at least) try to use testosterone to remove the thorn in their side, find things out the hard way. But although the finding out period is expensive, other people pay for it, so they are very slow learners.
The dynamic is completely different though. Russian has a culture and acceptance of sacrifice, sometimes in huge number. America is far more transactional and has increasingly treated sacrifice as unacceptable or even contemptable. There is an element of machismo in the way that the politicians talk and behave, but more in terms of executing on a transaction. But in general both sets of leadership are very protected from consequences of war (very unlikely to suffer violence to themselves or their family) so it must all be a bit abstract.
Not that Trump would have an ounce of good intentions but those wars are quite different in important ways:
- The greatest enemy of Iranian regime are the Iranian people. They want to get rid of that government. Unlike the Ukrainians. Thousands of Iranian protesters were gunned down by their own government in December/January.
- Iran is not "winning" by holding the line in conventional warfare (like Ukraine). They would not stand a chance. They're winning because they're pain tolerance for collateral damage is higher than the US tolerance for high oil prices.
- Ukraine was attacked completely unprovoked, while Iran is a terror state and the single biggest reason for instability in the middle east.
Broadly agree; while I don't see these as important to the kinds of similarity, the things I am focusing on are essentially arbitrary.
> - Iran is not "winning" by holding the line in conventional warfare (like Ukraine). They would not stand a chance. They're winning because they're pain tolerance for collateral damage is higher than the US tolerance for high oil prices.
I'd push back a bit on that. I agree the Iranian government is extremely pain tolerant; my understanding is that the terrain and strategic considerations mean an actual invasion would take around 1/3 to 1/2 of the current US army, marines, and airforce, 1/5 to 1/3 of the navy, for 6-12 months.
This is the other half of the pain tolerance question: the US, isn't.
This is a western take on the situation. Another take would be that the US/Israel are the largest force for destabilization in the middle east (see also Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, and Iran itself from 1953-onward).
> They would not stand a chance
The west would absolutely lose a ground war in Iran. Iran has been preparing for an invasion for 50 years, the terrain isn't like other countries in the region and is incredibly hostile to a ground invasion, and the IRGC will fight to the bloody end (see also the Iran-Iraq war).
Russia is trying to occupy land using ground troops and failing. Right tool for the job, but the tool is rotten.
The US is trying to enact strategic change by (competent) airpower, which in 100 years of airpower has never worked. No matter how potent that tool, it is the wrong one for the job.
Military Ops, Armed Conflict, Defensive strikes, Global war on terror, counter terrorism ops to name a few. These are the labels given to recent conflicts like Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam wars.
Given how many times Trump declared the war a victory, I'm also curious to know if they declare it a war, how many time the families will be compensated? ten wars? a hundred wars? two wars and a a hundred rounds of ceasefire friendly matches?
Wait a second...Trump, Hegseth, and various Republican lawmakers have repeatedly said that Iran started a war with the US 47 years ago and that he is going to finish it.
Trump also called it a war in his Truth Social video announcing the attacks in February [1]:
> My administration is taking every possible step to minimize the risk to U.S. personnel in the region. Even so, and I do not make this statement lightly, the Iranian regime seeks to kill. The lives of courageous American heroes may be lost, and we may have casualties. That often happens in war. But we're doing this not for now. We're doing this for the future. And it is a noble mission.
He was still calling it a war 4 days ago in other Truth Social posts, such as [2] [3] [4]:
> The people and Media Outlets that keep harping on the fact that we have no ammunition (And they are 100% wrong!), are actually treasonous. They do it because they would rather see the United States LOSE a War that we’re easily WINNING, than see me WIN! [...]
> For the treasonous SCUM that refuses to accurately report on our Military Operation in Iran, we have virtually unlimited amounts of Mid to High Grade Ammunition, far more than we could ever use for this, or for any other War. [...]
To be fair, there were also times he did not call it a war. For example from March [5]:
> “I won’t use the word ‘war’ because they say if you use the word ‘war,’ that’s maybe not a good thing to do,” Trump told the crowd of GOP lawmakers at Union Station in Washington, D.C. “They don’t like the word ‘war’ because you’re supposed to get approval. So, I’ll use the word ‘military operation,’ which is really what it is. It’s a military decimation.”
If Republicans didn't have double standards they wouldn't have any standards at all. The lie is part of the appeal to Republicans. He's telling them what they want to hear not matter how irrational. Listen long enough, you can probably find something you agree with. Just hold on tightly to that one thing while ignoring everything else and you too can be part of the cult.
"US officials also acknowledged that they had initially provided inaccurate information, and that her husband's last pay cheque had included – but incorrectly itemised – "combat pay", which amounts to $225 a month, and was not conditioned on a formal war declaration"
25 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 18.9 ms ] threadManly men (in their own heads at least) try to use testosterone to remove the thorn in their side, find things out the hard way. But although the finding out period is expensive, other people pay for it, so they are very slow learners.
- The greatest enemy of Iranian regime are the Iranian people. They want to get rid of that government. Unlike the Ukrainians. Thousands of Iranian protesters were gunned down by their own government in December/January.
- Iran is not "winning" by holding the line in conventional warfare (like Ukraine). They would not stand a chance. They're winning because they're pain tolerance for collateral damage is higher than the US tolerance for high oil prices.
- Ukraine was attacked completely unprovoked, while Iran is a terror state and the single biggest reason for instability in the middle east.
> - Iran is not "winning" by holding the line in conventional warfare (like Ukraine). They would not stand a chance. They're winning because they're pain tolerance for collateral damage is higher than the US tolerance for high oil prices.
I'd push back a bit on that. I agree the Iranian government is extremely pain tolerant; my understanding is that the terrain and strategic considerations mean an actual invasion would take around 1/3 to 1/2 of the current US army, marines, and airforce, 1/5 to 1/3 of the navy, for 6-12 months.
This is the other half of the pain tolerance question: the US, isn't.
> They would not stand a chance
The west would absolutely lose a ground war in Iran. Iran has been preparing for an invasion for 50 years, the terrain isn't like other countries in the region and is incredibly hostile to a ground invasion, and the IRGC will fight to the bloody end (see also the Iran-Iraq war).
Russia is trying to occupy land using ground troops and failing. Right tool for the job, but the tool is rotten.
The US is trying to enact strategic change by (competent) airpower, which in 100 years of airpower has never worked. No matter how potent that tool, it is the wrong one for the job.
Adam Curtis saw it coming a long time ago.
“He talked to me as a mother who lost her son,” said Shari Feehan, Lt Feehan’s mother. “He saw the devastation. He witnessed that, and so he knows.”
.... Mmm
What a surprise.
Trump also called it a war in his Truth Social video announcing the attacks in February [1]:
> My administration is taking every possible step to minimize the risk to U.S. personnel in the region. Even so, and I do not make this statement lightly, the Iranian regime seeks to kill. The lives of courageous American heroes may be lost, and we may have casualties. That often happens in war. But we're doing this not for now. We're doing this for the future. And it is a noble mission.
He was still calling it a war 4 days ago in other Truth Social posts, such as [2] [3] [4]:
> The people and Media Outlets that keep harping on the fact that we have no ammunition (And they are 100% wrong!), are actually treasonous. They do it because they would rather see the United States LOSE a War that we’re easily WINNING, than see me WIN! [...]
> For the treasonous SCUM that refuses to accurately report on our Military Operation in Iran, we have virtually unlimited amounts of Mid to High Grade Ammunition, far more than we could ever use for this, or for any other War. [...]
To be fair, there were also times he did not call it a war. For example from March [5]:
> “I won’t use the word ‘war’ because they say if you use the word ‘war,’ that’s maybe not a good thing to do,” Trump told the crowd of GOP lawmakers at Union Station in Washington, D.C. “They don’t like the word ‘war’ because you’re supposed to get approval. So, I’ll use the word ‘military operation,’ which is really what it is. It’s a military decimation.”
[1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/read-trumps-full-statemen...
[2] https://thehill.com/opinion/lindseys-lens/6071924-iran-war-w...
[3] https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1172076875949...
[4] https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1172076857336...
[5] https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5801382-trump-ir...