War with Iran - DEFCON 3

[Moliere]

This is a really good read from a Professor at the University of Exeter. He lays out some details on why he believes the plan against Iran is working. I am curious to hear what the life-long military posters think of this article and what he points out. A few sections of the article.





The US-Israeli strategy against Iran is working. Here is why

Every aspect of Iran’s ability to project regional power is being successfully degraded.





https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2...ng-here-is-why

I don’t disagree with what he’s saying but I still think we went about this in a totally wrong way. I guess I’m old school in wanting to build coalitions and keeping partners instead of doing it alone. I also don’t want to be staring foreign wars especially in the Middle East. But I get that no one else seems to care and Europes track record of not caring until it’s too late isn’t very good.

[dabrockster]

I don’t disagree with what he’s saying but I still think we went about this in a totally wrong way. I guess I’m old school in wanting to build coalitions and keeping partners instead of doing it alone. I also don’t want to be staring foreign wars especially in the Middle East. But I get that no one else seems to care and Europes track record of not caring until it’s too late isn’t very good.

Another interesting quote from article:

When proxies launch retaliatory attacks across the region, this is not evidence of an expanding network; it is evidence of predelegated response authority, which is what a centralised command system activates when it anticipates its own destruction.

Predelegation is a sign of desperation, not strength. It means the centre can no longer coordinate. The attacks will continue, but they will become increasingly uncoordinated, strategically incoherent and politically costly for the host states where these groups operate.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Embedded Tweet

[Bo Diddley]

This is a really good read from a Professor at the University of Exeter. He lays out some details on why he believes the plan against Iran is working. I am curious to hear what the life-long military posters think of this article and what he points out. A few sections of the article.

The US-Israeli strategy against Iran is working. Here is why

Every aspect of Iran’s ability to project regional power is being successfully degraded.

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2...ng-here-is-why

I feel like we're playing whack-a-mole in the ME, which is kind of what I was anticipating when I started this thread.

Yes, we're degrading Iran's capabilities in the short term. It will take them years to reconstitute their capacity to hold the region hostage with their proxies. It's been great to see that regional network degrade since the Hamas attack on Israel. But proxies are resilient. They don't just go away. We need a regime change in Iran for this to have any lasting value. Maybe we need to get weapons in the hands of the people so they can fight back against the IRGC.

One of my biggest questions is whether this will push the regime to go for a nuclear bomb sooner rather than later. Without boots on the ground, you can't eliminate their stock piles of enriched uranium.

[frank ryan]

I feel like we're playing whack-a-mole in the ME, which is kind of what I was anticipating when I started this thread.

Yes, we're degrading Iran's capabilities in the short term. It will take them years to reconstitute their capacity to hold the region hostage with their proxies. It's been great to see that regional network degrade since the Hamas attack on Israel. But proxies are resilient. They don't just go away. We need a regime change in Iran for this to have any lasting value. Maybe we need to get weapons in the hands of the people so they can fight back against the IRGC.

One of my biggest questions is whether this will push the regime to go for a nuclear bomb sooner rather than later. Without boots on the ground, you can't eliminate their stock piles of enriched uranium.

What does anyone in their leadership have to lose? Israel won't negotiate. Who would be acceptable for Iran to have lead them; even temporarily? This isn't Venezuela. When the US toppled Iraq and banned all Baathist's from government it didn't go so well.

[Bo Diddley]

What does anyone in their leadership have to lose? Israel won't negotiate. Who would be acceptable for Iran to have lead them; even temporarily? This isn't Venezuela. When the US toppled Iraq and banned all Baathist's from government it didn't go so well.

I have little hope for favorable outcome wrt regime change. Even with boots on the ground in Iraq for years, the end result has been mixed. And how did Afghanistan go? How did Vietnam go?

[SteelBlue]

I feel like we're playing whack-a-mole in the ME, which is kind of what I was anticipating when I started this thread.

Yes, we're degrading Iran's capabilities in the short term. It will take them years to reconstitute their capacity to hold the region hostage with their proxies. It's been great to see that regional network degrade since the Hamas attack on Israel. But proxies are resilient. They don't just go away. We need a regime change in Iran for this to have any lasting value. Maybe we need to get weapons in the hands of the people so they can fight back against the IRGC.

One of my biggest questions is whether this will push the regime to go for a nuclear bomb sooner rather than later. Without boots on the ground, you can't eliminate their stock piles of enriched uranium.

I mean, this is the pattern of every ME war since 9/11, no? Quick, shock and awe air superiority but inability to control things on the ground to make hanging around worthwhile. Iran, of the three we've now gone to war with, is by far the most entrenched and able to resist. They don't even have to win to win, they just have to survive. And if they make the financial cost high enough, they probably see it as a long-term deterrent. The Strait of Hormuz and the ease of attacking GCC can make this ugly. Add to that they still have their Houthis in Yemen who can do the same thing in the Red Sea. The thing that frustrates me the most is that this was all so predictable.

As to pushing harder for a nuke, I don't see how they'd see it any other way. It's absolutely the message we end up sending. Nobody is talking about regime change in N. Korea.

[dabrockster]

I have little hope for favorable outcome wrt regime change. Even with boots on the ground in Iraq for years, the end result has been mixed. And how did Afghanistan go? How did Vietnam go?

I think this professor really hit the nail on this issue. People keep mentioning Iraq or Afghanistan. Rightfully to use, but what is the real objective. Trump is like a dog fixated on a squirrel. He can't sit still or stay on point and is all over the map. This is not helping the messaging for Iran.

A clear endgame

The most politically potent criticism is that the administration has no endgame. Trump’s own rhetoric has not helped: the oscillation between “unconditional surrender” and hints at negotiation, between regime change and denial of regime change, feeds the impression of strategic incoherence. Only 33 percent of American respondents in a recent Reuters-Ipsos poll said the president had clearly explained the mission’s purpose.

But the endgame is visible in the operational phasing, even if the rhetoric obscures it. The objective is the permanent degradation of Iran’s ability to project power beyond its borders through missiles, nuclear latency and proxy networks.

Call it strategic disarmament. This is closer to the approach of the Allies to Germany’s industrial war-making capacity in 1944-1945 than to the US war on Iraq in 2003. The analogy is imperfect: Strategic disarmament without occupation requires a verification and enforcement architecture that no one has yet proposed, but the operational logic is the same.

No one is proposing to occupy Tehran. The question is what happens when the bombing stops, and here the critics raise a legitimate concern, which Murphy articulated concisely after a classified briefing: What prevents Iran from restarting production?

The answer requires a post-conflict framework that does not yet exist in public: a verification regime, a diplomatic settlement or a sustained enforcement posture. The administration owes the American public and its regional partners a clear account of what that framework would look like.

[frank ryan]

I have little hope for favorable outcome wrt regime change. Even with boots on the ground in Iraq for years, the end result has been mixed. And how did Afghanistan go? How did Vietnam go?

Iran is a more dangerous enemy. They pioneered the tactics that have caused us problems.

Initially they stayed out of the conflict with Afghanistan but end up moving past their traditional enmity with the Taliban and helped them develop effective IEDs.

The conflict is going to increasingly unpopular with the Muslim world, despite the Gulf States shedding no tears.

Russia has no reason not to meddle.

[Bo Diddley]

I think this professor really hit the nail on this issue. People keep mentioning Iraq or Afghanistan. Rightfully to use, but what is the real objective. Trump is like a dog fixated on a squirrel. He can't sit still or stay on point and is all over the map. This is not helping the messaging for Iran.

I take issue with this statement in particular:

The objective is the permanent degradation of Iran’s ability to project power beyond its borders through missiles, nuclear latency and proxy networks.

I would counter that this is not a permanent degradation, but a temporary setback. How do you stop them from reconstituting their military assets? Without regime change why wouldn't their proxies also reconstitute? What will stop them from developing a nuke? Without regime change, how is this anything but a setback?

[frank ryan]

I take issue with this statement in particular:



I would counter that this is not a permanent degradation, but a temporary setback. How do you stop them from reconstituting their military assets? Without regime change why wouldn't their proxies also reconstitute? What will stop them from developing a nuke? Without regime change, how is this anything but a setback?

Russia is cagey and playing both sides a bit. They are consumed with Ukraine but they will offer help. So will China.

Unlike Iraq and especially Afghanistan, we have no allies, militarily or politically. That's not counting Israel who was never an ally on the same level as the five eyes countries.

[Bo Diddley]

Russia is cagey and playing both sides a bit. They are consumed with Ukraine but they will offer help. So will China.

Unlike Iraq and especially Afghanistan, we have no allies, militarily or politically. That's not counting Israel who was never an ally on the same level as the five eyes countries.

Russia likes how our engagement with Iran is drawing away assets we would be sending to Ukraine. China likes that we are depleting our stocks. They both have their eyes on expanding their borders.

[LVAllen]

I think this professor really hit the nail on this issue. People keep mentioning Iraq or Afghanistan. Rightfully to use, but what is the real objective. Trump is like a dog fixated on a squirrel. He can't sit still or stay on point and is all over the map. This is not helping the messaging for Iran.

The attacks aren't successfully degrading the actual threat to the US, which is their desire and ability to manufacture a nuclear weapon (wasn't that ability completely obliterated 6 months ago?) If anything, this proves that in the world, regimes are divided into the Nuclear Bullies, and everyone else. This is likely to ramp up the importance of possessing nuclear weapons in the world at large for self-preservation.

[dabrockster]

IMG_7768.jpeg

[PaloAltoCougar]

The Bee used to bug me and rarely amused, but it's been a lot better recently.