Iran War?

[OttoVonBismarck]

Trump chickening out is by far the best outcome for everyone. But he's already giving conflicting statements about that too.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah and I slightly worry he'll want some big dramatic footage of bigger bombs than ever before in order to declare victory.

And obviously the Iranians will still have a vote. Their goal is to make it clear that they cannot be attacked without conseqences. I'm not sure that's been achieved from their perspective yet? This wasn't just a strike against military or nuclear facilities but the killing of their head of state. (I'd add that politically the Iran-Iraq war really solidified the Islamic Revolution. This isn't the same and there is still domestic opposition but it does seem to be producing a rally round the flag effect - and I'm not sure the regime would want to stop that ASAP.

Posted him yesterday and is lengthy but I thought this was interesting from Hamidreza Azizi:

🔹Despite these diplomatic moves, Iranian officials continue to signal readiness for a prolonged confrontation. Kamal Kharrazi said Iran is prepared for a long war with the United States and suggested that diplomacy will only become possible once the broader economic consequences of the conflict force international pressure on Washington and its allies.

🔹Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi similarly stated that Iran would only agree to end the war under conditions that ensure such a conflict cannot happen again, indicating that Tehran is seeking a new strategic balance rather than a temporary ceasefire.

🔹Within Iranian strategic discussions, a broader assessment is emerging that the war should not end quickly through mediation. Instead, according to this view, the conflict should continue until a new strategic equation is created that guarantees Iran's long-term security.

🔹In this framework, attacks on American bases in the region are presented as central to the strategy. Iranian analysts argue that these bases form the backbone of U.S. operational presence in the Middle East and therefore must be weakened or rendered non-operational in order to reduce American and Israeli military freedom of action.

🔹These assessments also suggest that Iran's operational approach is based on repeated waves of strikes designed to exhaust the opposing side over time rather than on a single decisive confrontation. According to this narrative, managing the timing, scale, and type of attacks allows Iran to continue imposing costs while avoiding vulnerabilities associated with large-scale offensives.

🔹Another element highlighted in Iranian analysis is the increasing focus on Israel's domestic front. Iranian sources claim that recent strikes have targeted central areas of Israel and are intended to keep the population in shelters for extended periods.

🔹Iranian officials also appear to believe that maintaining pressure on American and Israeli positions, preserving domestic cohesion, and increasing economic disruption through measures such as the closure of the Strait of Hormuz could eventually create political pressure on Trump.

Very tiny detail but on the Israel front, Meta have temporarily shut their offices in Tel Aviv and in the wider region Amazon and Microsoft are reportedly looking at temporarily suspending the region and moving that regional processing to data centres in Singapore and India.

Edit: Agree Trump chickening out would be for the best - but I think that also actually just replicates the America-centric narrative, which I think Iran has been disrupting throughout this conflict and have their own agenda. And if you're sat in Tehran I can see pretty good reasons not to let Trump chicken out - I mean they've already killed your head of state and are routinely bombarding you.

[Jacob]

Trump chickening out is by far the best outcome for everyone. But he's already giving conflicting statements about that too.

If he doesn't, and if he doesn't win the war in the next few weeks as he suggested, it'll be interesting to see how his narcissistic weather-vane personality impacts the actual conduct of the war.

Will we see non-sensical operations in pursuit of incoherent objectives? I mean, more so than now? Will he ready massive boots on the ground or surgical strike deployments only to change his mind before giving the go-ahead? Or will he let the logic of the fighting run the war with one thing leading to the next all the while pretending to be in control and proclaiming "great achievements" every step along the way?

[OttoVonBismarck]

I'm skeptical there's a "rally around the flag" effect, that isn't consistent with most of the reporting I've seen.

The regime has a big chunk of Iranian society that has always supported it, and likely always will.

It also has a lot of people who aren't fighters, don't want to be fighters, and aren't going to do anything to piss off the only dudes in their country with weapons.

Iran has some anti-regime militant groups, but they are tiny and very inconsequential, typically sheltering in ethnic enclaves and not the basis for any sort of real uprising. Additionally, those groups recognize they are minority groups--they aren't going to rise against the Persians and lose, because then they can expect pretty severe collective punishment.

I don't know that there is a realistic way to achieve regime change without boots on the ground--but one thing you would need is to have built up some sort of proxy force that you knew you could work with in advance. That has been done in the past, but it usually takes years and it's not even certain you can achieve it.

I think people shouldn't confuse protesters for revolutionaries. They aren't the same thing. Iran has a history of tolerating some level of dissent, until it grows "too big", so it's better to understand protests in that tradition. Protesters are generally looking for reforms. They aren't looking to get AK47s and live in caves fighting the IRGC and Basij.

[Jacob]

Yeah and I slightly worry he'll want some big dramatic footage of bigger bombs than ever before in order to declare victory.

And obviously the Iranians will still have a vote. Their goal is to make it clear that they cannot be attacked without conseqences. I'm not sure that's been achieved from their perspective yet? This wasn't just a strike against military or nuclear facilities but the killing of their head of state. (I'd add that politically the Iran-Iraq war really solidified the Islamic Revolution. This isn't the same and there is still domestic opposition but it does seem to be producing a rally round the flag effect - and I'm not sure the regime would want to stop that ASAP.

Posted him yesterday and is lengthy but I thought this was interesting from Hamidreza Azizi:

🔹Despite these diplomatic moves, Iranian officials continue to signal readiness for a prolonged confrontation. Kamal Kharrazi said Iran is prepared for a long war with the United States and suggested that diplomacy will only become possible once the broader economic consequences of the conflict force international pressure on Washington and its allies.

🔹Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi similarly stated that Iran would only agree to end the war under conditions that ensure such a conflict cannot happen again, indicating that Tehran is seeking a new strategic balance rather than a temporary ceasefire.

🔹Within Iranian strategic discussions, a broader assessment is emerging that the war should not end quickly through mediation. Instead, according to this view, the conflict should continue until a new strategic equation is created that guarantees Iran's long-term security.

🔹In this framework, attacks on American bases in the region are presented as central to the strategy. Iranian analysts argue that these bases form the backbone of U.S. operational presence in the Middle East and therefore must be weakened or rendered non-operational in order to reduce American and Israeli military freedom of action.

🔹These assessments also suggest that Iran's operational approach is based on repeated waves of strikes designed to exhaust the opposing side over time rather than on a single decisive confrontation. According to this narrative, managing the timing, scale, and type of attacks allows Iran to continue imposing costs while avoiding vulnerabilities associated with large-scale offensives.

🔹Another element highlighted in Iranian analysis is the increasing focus on Israel's domestic front. Iranian sources claim that recent strikes have targeted central areas of Israel and are intended to keep the population in shelters for extended periods.

🔹Iranian officials also appear to believe that maintaining pressure on American and Israeli positions, preserving domestic cohesion, and increasing economic disruption through measures such as the closure of the Strait of Hormuz could eventually create political pressure on Trump.

Very tiny detail but on the Israel front, Meta have temporarily shut their offices in Tel Aviv and in the wider region Amazon and Microsoft are reportedly looking at temporarily suspending the region and moving that regional processing to data centres in Singapore and India.

Edit: Agree Trump chickening out would be for the best - but I think that also actually just replicates the America-centric narrative, which I think Iran has been disrupting throughout this conflict and have their own agenda. And if you're sat in Tehran I can see pretty good reasons not to let Trump chicken out - I mean they've already killed your head of state and are routinely bombarding you.

Thanks for sharing, that's the kind of cogent analysis I was looking for. Too bad it appears to be on Twitter =/

The direction Azizi lays out for Iran makes reasonable sense to me.

Trump has a clear - and clearly stated - desire for a quick victory here. It makes sense for Iran to drag the conflict out and keep the US bleeding resources, treasury, prestige, and munitions as much as possible; especially if the cost to Iran is lower (i.e. the US and allies using million dollar munitions to defend against $50,000 drones). Normally Trump is pretty good about "not caring" about things when he's not winning at them, but that's going to be more of a challenge when not winning includes looking ineffective militarily (and potentially dead Americans).

Similarly, for a regime that recently killed tens of thousands of its own people a rally around the flag moment is heaven sent. Even if they don't get more Iranians to support the regime, it still makes harsh repression less of a problem. People will accept more in the name of "national defense" when under attack, including things that previously would've been controversial.

While it's an open question whether Trump has the nerve to send in the troops, the strategic calculus remains the same in both scenarios just at higher stakes for both participants. That is, can Iran hang on long enough and drive the cost up high enough for the US to prevail?

Iran's victory conditions - chastening the US and allies and reframe US presence in the local area in ways that are less detrimental to Iran seems more clearly defined and achievable than the US' victory conditions which I think are at minimum some sort of deal that channels money to Trump and related oligarchs, but which would likely require regime change in Iran, either to a civil war or a more pliable government.

[Jacob]

Another question - what sort of consequences can the US levy against Iran if, say, Iran pulls off successful terrorist attacks in the US? And I mean attacks that aren't so massive that "nuke the shit out of them" is on the table.

Relatedly, how would such attacks play out in the US? I expect it would increase support for the war as suddenly Americans could tell themselves they're protecting their freedoms fighting against the Iranians who hate them. I expect that would be good for Trump and his coterie's attempt to undermine democracy, but it would also increase the odds of them going all in on an expensive ground war (or expensive AI drone war, potentially). Because what other options are on the table in that kind of scenario?

[mongers]

You can't leave Israel of the analysis, because in part they may have been shaping US military objectives and also, just because trump chickens out, doesn't mean Netty isn't going to see a lot of utility in continued attacks.

[Sheilbh]

While it's an open question whether Trump has the nerve to send in the troops, the strategic calculus remains the same in both scenarios just at higher stakes for both participants. That is, can Iran hang on long enough and drive the cost up high enough for the US to prevail?

Yeah. I wonder if in a sense it's the type of war America has struggled with in the past (as all empires have) of asymmetric resistance. But that's normally after initial overwhelming victory and (often) the collapse of state institutions. This is sort of perhaps what asymmetric war looks like at between states and with missiles not AK-47s?

[Valmy]

Iran's only hope is to close the straights and take down the world economy, forcing the US and Israel to back down.

But fuck what a huge gift to Russia.

Fuck this neverending Trump nightmare.

[mongers]

Fiseal Islam has said of Monday

"It has been the most volatile day of oil trading in world history. The oil price spiralled to $115 (£86) a barrel at one point early on Monday, but word soon emerged of an emergency meeting of the G7 finance ministers."

[mongers]

Are his goons/ henchmen not telling him what's going on, because this latest outburst:

01:05
President Trump has issued another warning to Iran about disrupting shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.

"If Iran does anything that stops the flow of Oil within the Strait of Hormuz, they will be hit by the United States of America TWENTY TIMES HARDER than they have been hit thus far," Trump says in an online statement.

About 20% of the world's oil passes through the strait and the war has severely reduced sea traffic and sent global oil prices soaring.

"Additionally, we will take out easily destroyable targets that will make it virtually impossible for Iran to ever be built back, as a Nation, again — Death, Fire, and Fury will reign upon them — But I hope, and pray, that it does not happen!" he says.

 

[Valmy]

Oh awesome.

[Grey Fox]

There are still chances that ending the Terrorist theocracy can have some good consequences.

[mongers]

There are still chances that ending the Terrorist theocracy can have some good consequences.

I like the ambiguity, can I subscribe to your newsletter.

[Valmy]

There are still chances that ending the Terrorist theocracy can have some good consequences.

Well let me know when it ends.

As for terrorist regimes, we just blew up a girl's school and made it rain oil. I don't recall Iran ever doing anything like that to us.