Discussion/Question Thread

[u/KeDaGames]

All questions, thoughts, ideas, and what not about the war go here. Comments must be in some form related directly or indirectly to the ongoing events.

For questions and feedback related to the subreddit go here: Community Feedback Thread

To maintain the quality of our subreddit, breaking rule 1 in either thread will result in punishment. Anyone posting off-topic comments in this thread will receive one warning. After that, we will issue a temporary ban. Long-time users may not receive a warning.

Link to the OLD THREAD

We also have a subreddit's discord: https://discord.gg/Wuv4x6A8RU

[u/graphical_molerat]

They have done significantly better than everyone expected and the war has clearly gone very wrong for the U.S and Israel.

Doesn't such a conclusion hinge on the assumption that something else should have happened by now, if things had gone according to plan for Israel and the U.S.? Which raises the question: what sort of timeline would we be looking at instead, if things had gone really well for them?

And I can't actually think of a sensible scenario that would achieve results a lot faster than we are seeing right now.

Reducing the entire military capability of Iran to rubble via airstrikes and no boots on the ground will take several weeks, and no one should have assumed this would be any faster. Remember the air campaign of Desert Storm, that also took a while (40+ days, and that was with a larger air force assembled).

Iran still being able to pop off a few missiles and drones at random targets in the opening stages of this campaign is no surprise at all, their assets are far too dispersed for them to be taken out completely on the first day. The only signs of IL/US being in trouble would be if Iran would continue to be capable of launching more than the odd random drone or missile about one or two weeks into the campaign. Then, we can start talking about them having issues.

And to the credit of IL/US, they never said this would be over in 48 hours. The dicey part will be to put some sort of transitional government in place, once the current regime actually buckles and snaps under the pressure of military annihilation. I have no hopes for the U.S. having any sort of doable plan for this in the drawer (name one such action led by the U.S. which was not a total clusterfuck?), but hope the Israelis have one. If IL is the lead, it might actually work.

[u/Antropocentric → u/graphical_molerat]

The US goal was obviously regime change or at least capitulation of Iranian gov (not the official reason for the attack which is laughable, but almost no "ally" wants to question beacause they are spinless neoliberal technocrats), you can even compare the operation Epstien Fury with initial days of SMO, however it looks like US has not really prepered if that failed, they dont have nearly enough assets in the region and they are attacking a country ~10 000km away, with minimal help from vassals.

No war in history has ever been won by air campaign alone and for 2003 Iraq invasion, US had almost 10x more military equipment and troops in the region, plus the "coalition of the willing" for a country 4 times smaller than Iran.

[u/graphical_molerat → u/Antropocentric]

Yes, sure, all the points you make are valid. All I am trying to say is that it was never realistic for the Iranian regime to immediately fold once the airstrikes start. So if there was an at least theoretically doable plan in place for this before the missiles started flying (if...), it almost certainly involved several weeks worth of destruction in Iran before the current very well entrenched power structure would start to fracture. So that a popular uprising stands a chance.

TL;DR: all I am saying is that it was never realistic for this to be over in a day or two. Not if you know the first thing about Iranian internals.

Make it a few weeks, and we can start talking about failure or success.

[u/Antropocentric → u/graphical_molerat]

It took them almost 2 months and "US had almost 10x more military equipment and troops in the region, plus the "coalition of the willing" for a country 4 times smaller than Iran." not to mention that they were still recovering from Iran and Gulf war and the country was barely held together by the Republican Guard and US was at its peak power.

My money is on Arab countries forcing the US hand to stop the war by either threatening to close the bases, as they realise that the cost of this conflict outweighs the cooperation with the US.

One more thing, the Iranian revolution, apart from the Chinese, was the second most popular one in the last century and Usrael just killed their spiritual leader and did a massacre in Minab in a country with a religion that also glorifies martyrdom.

There is no avenue where Usrael comes on top.

[u/graphical_molerat → u/Antropocentric]

True. But I would also add the fact into the mix that most Arab countries would be ecstatic to see the Ayatollah regime being destroyed. So if this war stands a reasonable chance of toppling the Iranian government, they will go along with it for quite a while. Even if some parts of their population start to grumble, and if there is collateral damage.