They definitely can defeat US intervention and cause a lot of damage to their position in the middle east, but I keep mulling over what they can win. They can certainly force them to abandon some bases closer to them and maybe even keep a toll of some kind of the strait, but I don’t think it’s realistic to expect to force the US to abandon the middle east and even Israel. At that point they’d need to actually move troops or something to do that, which isn’t realistic.
Maybe just force them to give up sanctions? And make the bomb?
well…for starters:
iran didn’t start anything. the US regime and israhell attacked unprovoked
zionism was eager to destroy the iranian government since the last 40 years, they got lucky to find a senile pedophile in the US stupid enough to try it overtly (or maybe this time they have the donald grabbed by the p…olitics with some serious blackmail)
right now it’s a war for survival…they are going kamikaze mode expecting to destroy US, isn’treal and their vassals around to survive under their conditions in a new world order, or die trying to make the most damage possible before collapsing fully, because stopping now just will let their enemies refill to launch more destruction and dead girls in schools until iran ends like another gaza
what they can win
it’s more like “what they’re risking to lose if they do nothing”. they saw gaza, and they know that the options are destroy all the enemy power to survive, or being killed by their enemies without mercy
Iran’s ability to externalize the consequences of this war (i.e. cause a global oil and economic crisis) is a point of leverage that the other countries invaded by the US lacked. This means that the war isn’t likely to settle into the kind of stagnant forever war that characterized Afghanistan, bur rather force the US to either keep escalating or back down. I believe the US would keep escalating until they suffer significant casualties, which might create enough domestic and international pressure for them to formally offer genuine concessions.
Alternatively, they (or the Israelis), may decide to go for the nuclear option instead. The same justification that the US used to nuke Japan, that they are fanatics in highly defensible terrain and thus too costly to defeat conventionally, can easily be repackaged and sold to the public for Iran. In that case, I can’t really make any predictions beyond that point. I really, really hope that doesn’t happen, but I can’t dismiss this possibility either.
In case of a nuclear attack on Iran Iran can hit back by destroying all the nuclear power plants in the region, some parts of europe, and perhaps even hit some in the empire too, so such attacks aren’t as “free” as they were against Japan. Not that the regime would let possible consequences get in the way of attacking Iran harder.
War is simply the continuation of politics by other means; to win a war, you have to ‘shatter the enemy’s will to resist, when the enemy is no longer able or willing to fight’. Clausewitz adds: the simplest way to win is to disarm the opponent so that he cannot prevent you from imposing your will (you can see the dialectical thinking and even though Clausewitz was an idealist there is clearly a material reality here).
If Iran can achieve the above, they can win anything. It depends who gets their will ‘shattered’ first and to what extent. When it comes to disarming I think the US is well on its way there with the interceptor shortage and the fact that invading Iran is complete nonsense from the get-go. Saddam tried and he had a full land border with it! I do want them to try invading though lol, just for them to taste the absolute defeat. Kharg is probably a misdirection, and they’re going to land way before the Strait in a relatively flat area, Chabahar. However then they will be confronted by harsh deserts - Iran is either mountains or flat deserts. They won’t make it 20 kilometers inland and I suspect if we do see an invasion, Iran will let them land relatively unchallenged so they can trap them there more easily. We shall see.
But anyway. There is precedence in Vietnam, for example. Not only through the two principles outlined above but also through Clausewitz’s point that war progresses dialectically. Both parties don’t immediately commit the totality of their forces, they gradually mount them up and it snowballs as both need to commit more and more to outdo the adversary.
In Vietnam the war became costly. It might be the typical liberal analysis of it but it’s the one I have lol. It was costly both in terms of money and equipment drained, but also in loss of life. I don’t know how much protests in the US participated, I think it’s often used as white savior reasoning i.e. “even when Vietnam won it was because we let them win”. When Vietnam won they forced the US to withdraw fully within 60 days, and then seized the comprador southern state shortly after unopposed.
But right now will to fight is very high in the US. It’s going to be difficult to knock them down from their pedestal. But when that happens Iran can firstly very easily end the sanctions against it, at least for a time, and pursue nuclear freely in the way they want. We both know the UN is a tool of imperialism and will just go along with whatever the US wants.
The bases around the Gulf are completely destroyed and keep being pummeled, so it’s entirely possible the US won’t even want to build them back up. It will take 10+ years by some estimates to rebuild some of the radars alone. They might want to rebuild them partially, with a scaled back presence. But the damage is done.
With that I think it will be possible for them to charge a toll through the Strait. Who would oppose them? the other gulf states are refusing to get involved beyond harshly-worded letters, they know they don’t have any defenses left if Iran decided to go after them.
“Israel” is a tougher case for me to analyze. I know that Iran is heavily shelling the entity, especially with cluster munition - these are more for soft (ie fleshy) targets. They do pack a punch but you also don’t really control where they fall, so their utility is in saturating an area and preventing congregation or passage there. But Iran has shown they can easily target whatever they want, especially with cheap Shaheds, so at this time I think their usage is more psychological on the settlers. But if you didn’t keep up with the clusters, there’s a ton of them being used. Every day I see new videos.
I just want to add that your comment is excellent and got me changing my reading order so that Clausewitz’ On War is higher up on the list (if not next).
Project Gutenberg has a copy but it’s an older translation/edition. There’s a newer edition that flows much better imo, you can find it by just looking for a pdf, though it remains a dense read. I recommend the first book (maybe even reading it twice if needed), and the second book. First book is still required reading in modern military academies. I think I stopped at book two, I don’t remember what the third book is about right now but the fourth is probably not that interesting anymore since it deals with tactics in certain situations (like attacking or defending a river). I’m sure that was fire in the 1800s but today somehow I don’t think it applies as much lol. Although you never know.
Thank you very much for the insights and recommendations! I will keep it in mind when I hunt for a copy - starred your comment
https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:On_War I actually uploaded it onto PW a while back lol, there’s a link to the good PDF in the foreword. I uploaded the gutenberg edition bc it was easier at the time :(
I didn’t think to check the prolewiki - thank you, that version I did not find so easily and already started on the older version. You are right to the modern ear the PDF version does flow better. I may end up reading both versions! Thanks again; much appreciated
They stated it explicitly, anime profile picture, whenever people ask this stuff I wonder if they check what the Iranians say at all: US military presence out of the region, reparations (imagine the court battle over this considering the unbelievable economic damage to Iran), removal of sanctions, Hezbollah’s demands included, & more. This is not a joke, they can launch missiles as far as Romania if needed. Especially relative to the size of their economy & the expense, their military infrastructure is domestic, decentralized, dense/high-impact, often impossible to target until in action. None of that can stop the US from inflicting incredibly self-destructive countervalue strikes on generally important infrastructure & social capital. Huge ass poor country. Why would you waste an interceptor slot in a boat on a tomahawk to blow up a school, if you weren’t following Wehrmacht delusions? They can only reload at port. Get real, CENTCOM.
Might be the US game but it’s the IRGC’s war to end now, not Araghchi, & even he’s been posting real #different too. They haven’t even closed the Gate of Tears. Phase Three 👀
