Iran War?

[Legbiter]

After a week of this we'll be in a global crisis that will make the 1973 Arab oil embargo look like a picnic.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Apart from any moral qualms there are utilitarian reasons why bombing a girls' primary school and sinking the ship may have additional bad consequences. The USA is claiming to be fighting the current Iranian regime, it is a very obnoxious regime so many are loth to criticise, but the more civilian/non-regime assets that are destroyed the more it becomes a war against Iran the country rather than the regime. Right now a large proportion of Iran's population support the attacks by the USA....but how long will that last?

[OttoVonBismarck]

Sinking the ship itself wasn't really a bad act--it was an Iranian war ship. It's more the inappropriate after behavior that appears to have happened for no reason at all other than simple malice or spite towards norms.

[The Minsky Moment]

We knew what we were getting when the Senate confirmed Hegseth as SecDef.  Someone whose entire military career was a relatively junior officer role and then entered mass media. Someone with no experience managing large organizations and no experience in a role requiring strategic planning. Somone who had very strong opinions about NOT enforcing the laws of war on US military personnel and sought to exculpate those convicted of war crimes.  Somone with contempt for the laws of war and who believes that they are obnoxious and counterproductive restraints on a "warrior" ethos.  Someone who believes that any negative results in America's recent conflicts could be chalked up to the failure to unleash the military from moral or prudential restraints on conduct and from pursuing political objectives beyond kinetic destruction and applied lethality.

What we are seeing in Iran is exactly what America elected when it voted Trump in 2024 and then confirmed his choice of Hegseth.

[mongers]

If they are successful in bombing Iran to oblivion, then the quagmire may be outsourced to Turkey and Europe with a new destabilized country and refugee crisis.

Iran has a little over 90 million people.

What does "bombing into oblivion" mean in this context?

See the phrase "Bombing [insert country name] back to the Stone Age".

I believe it was once in vogue, not the magazine, but that era.

[Jacob]

We knew what we were getting when the Senate confirmed Hegseth as SecDef.  Someone whose entire military career was a relatively junior officer role and then entered mass media. Someone with no experience managing large organizations and no experience in a role requiring strategic planning. Somone who had very strong opinions about NOT enforcing the laws of war on US military personnel and sought to exculpate those convicted of war crimes.  Somone with contempt for the laws of war and who believes that they are obnoxious and counterproductive restraints on a "warrior" ethos.  Someone who believes that any negative results in America's recent conflicts could be chalked up to the failure to unleash the military from moral or prudential restraints on conduct and from pursuing political objectives beyond kinetic destruction and applied lethality.

What we are seeing in Iran is exactly what America elected when it voted Trump in 2024 and then confirmed his choice of Hegseth.

It does seem like the US government is doing a speed run to unlearn the lessons from WWII and Vietnam around ethics, responsibility, and the use of force.

[Zanza]

Right now a large proportion of Iran's population support the attacks by the USA...

Is that really so? Honest question. Obviously there are Iranians that support it, but "a large proportion"?

[crazy canuck]

Apart from any moral qualms there are utilitarian reasons why bombing a girls' primary school and sinking the ship may have additional bad consequences. The USA is claiming to be fighting the current Iranian regime, it is a very obnoxious regime so many are loth to criticise, but the more civilian/non-regime assets that are destroyed the more it becomes a war against Iran the country rather than the regime. Right now a large proportion of Iran's population support the attacks by the USA....but how long will that last?

I think it would have been accurate to say that a large portion of the population supported taking out the Leader on day 1.  I think it is more difficult to argue that all those same people also support destroying the infrastructure a new government would need if regime change was actually going to occur.  And of course, as the civilian death toll and suffering increases, the less likely anyone tied to the American attacks is to take power.

[Neil]

Something that I think may rise to being criminal are reports that after we sunk Iran's ship that was leaving India, we made no effort to save the surviving sailors. My understanding is we are signatory to the 1949 convention that requires us to at least attempt to render aid in such circumstances (and while I think there are some exceptions, I don't believe any apply to that situation.)

There's an exemption for ship safety.  A submarine in wartime being so vulnerable to counterattack is typically the argument used.  Like when the British sank Belgrano in the Falklands. 

[Jacob]

Right now a large proportion of Iran's population support the attacks by the USA...

Is that really so? Honest question. Obviously there are Iranians that support it, but "a large proportion"?

Yeah it's a good question. My reddit feed had a video of someone going around the streets of Tehran showing videos of overseas Persians celebrating the attack to "random bystanders". The responses were very negative.

Now I'm sure such a video could easily be put together whether the local sentiment was 5% in favour of the bombing or 95% (and the music indicated the desired reaction from the viewer as well). Nonetheless, for my part I am not very confident in any assessment of the mood in Iran.

[Neil]

Especially given how the AI boom has made any kind of video untrustworthy. 

There surely are some Iranians who are happy that the strikes happened, but I wouldn't count on them being a strong political movement, anymore than the Americans who celebrated 9/11 were.

[viper37]

Well, in terms of holding people responsible--the girl's school is clearly inside an area where it shares walls with an IRGC compound. The reporting I have heard is that it used to actually be part of the compound, but was turned into the school some years ago, and then a wall was added separating the school from the rest of the compound.

A country that can drone strike an individual target from hundred of miles away with a Secretary of War that publicly indicated it won't be constrained by rules of engagement just bombed a school for little girls and it was simply a mistake, not a war crime.

I'll remember that the next time there's a terrorist attack striking the US.

[viper37]

Sinking the ship itself wasn't really a bad act--it was an Iranian war ship. It's more the inappropriate after behavior that appears to have happened for no reason at all other than simple malice or spite towards norms.

What was the ship doing prior to being sunk?

[mongers]

Something that I think may rise to being criminal are reports that after we sunk Iran's ship that was leaving India, we made no effort to save the surviving sailors. My understanding is we are signatory to the 1949 convention that requires us to at least attempt to render aid in such circumstances (and while I think there are some exceptions, I don't believe any apply to that situation.)

There's an exemption for ship safety.  A submarine in wartime being so vulnerable to counterattack is typically the argument used.  Like when the British sank Belgrano in the Falklands. 

Hi Neil, that's an interesting take, makes some sense.

[crazy canuck]

who was going to counter attack the sub off the coast of Sri Lanka?