I am kind of surprised that anyone still thinks the US could achieve any of its stated objectives in Iran.
-CIA reports Iran still has 70% of its missile and drone capacity; Iran claims it has 120% of its pre-war capacity.
-the Iranian coast along the Persian Gulf is the size of Vietnam, the terrain of Afghanistan, and they have drones,
-the Iranian military is 1 million strong in terms of professional soldiers with reportedly 6-7 million new volunteers since the war started
-(quoting John Mearsheimer): the historical record is clear that an air campaign has never been sufficient to effect regime change
-the US blockade of the Iranian blockade is not going to cause sufficient pain to force Iran to capitulate, and certainly the pain we are inflicting on the world is not worth it
The big pitch of Trump and Hegseth regarding military and other matters is that for every problem there is an obvious, cheap, quick and brutal solution and the reason previous administrations failed was because they were too constrained by conventions of legality and morality to go for it. So for Iran the obvious solution was there all along: just kill the leadership, don’t worry too much about collateral damage, and the Iranian people will take care of the rest of it.
Ironically for this exact reason they are actually incapable of doing what would need to be done to achieve their objectives, which would be a massive ground invasion, because the whole point is that Trump can achieve immediate results at no cost for America through the force of his will and toughness alone. Hence the repeated threats and assertions of victory while nothing has changed on the ground, as if it could be manifested into reality.
I’m honored! Genuinely. In the spirit of your post and revisiting my own opinions…
Two things I had hoped would happen have so far not happened nor do I at this point expect them to happen during this conflict. There has been no uprising, nor any visible efforts to assist one in the form of weapons, training, or intel. I had also hoped that the administration would maintain the pressure until at least one of these jobs was done, rather than sort of milling about aimlessly and saying nonstop contradictory dumb things after a few weeks of military action. As usual the military action was quite successful, but not enough to achieve the non-military goals, and maybe ended prematurely on account of the goals that COULD be achieved militarily. Unfortunately those things haven’t happened. You’re correct that hope isn’t a strategy, but as someone who doesn’t set the strategy hope is all I have.
Re: the strait of Hormuz, it’s clearly a problem but not something I personally put too much stake in, in the sense that’s it’s particularly informative. It’s always been a known problem. I can definitely point to some big things we could have done better (like maybe get our ships out first!) but on the broader question of “how can we keep the IRGC from being able to threaten the strait at all” I’m not sure that there even is a reliable way to do that in the near term. This war in some form or fashion was inevitable. The big difference from Iraq is that the IRGC is a literal death cult that’s not especially invested in self preservation. Even North Korea can generally be “trusted” to not use their nuclear weapons unprovoked. That same trust does not extend to the IRGC because their literal stated goal is a great global calamity that brings back the twelfth imam. Their ability to unilaterally threaten and close the strait is not something that should preclude any possibility of military action against the IRGC. It’s a problem that would have had to be dealt with sooner or later, and there are no clear answers besides an as-yet non-existent AI controlled drone swarm that can be emplaced on the coast and swat down anything that comes near it. That’s my opinion.
My view about the whole “Trump insulted XYZ countries so of course they won’t help” thing is mixed but the same as it was before. On the one hand - obviously. But on the other hand, if those countries have a critical dependence on the strait being open, it’s ultimately their responsibility to do what they can to protect their own shipping. Pointing to the Trump admin being rude and dumb doesn’t get a single ship back into your ports. That’s just how it works. If someone sets part of your house on fire, it’s still your responsibility to deal with that immediate problem. You’re not really sticking it to anyone but yourself by letting it burn because they insulted you meanwhile. Ultimately it was Iran who closed the strait, not the US. If you’re unwilling or incapable of doing anything about it when Iran decides to close the strait, that’s its own problem. I’m sure it does not feel good to be reminded that your access to the strait and its treasures rests entirely on the whims of the IRGC, but that’s just the reality and it can only be ignored for so long. The whole back and forth about who insulted who just strikes me as egotistical and childish on all sides.
But again for me personally, I will take a permanently closed strait over a 10% higher chance of the IRGC acquiring a nuclear weapon. Easy for me to say but there it is. In my view something along these lines, aka trouble with the IRGC resulting in their closing the strait, was inevitable. They are not a normal government that want normal things as viewed through a western lens. I expect that in response the countries around it will build alternate infrastructure to move most of what they need without the need to traverse the strait. Easier said than done but again, inevitable.
The IRGC is not a normal government. So while I will readily admit certain things haven’t gone the way we’d like and the way I’d have liked thus far, I don’t know what a better alternative would have looked like. Better in this case meaning “achieves or nearly achieves most or all stated goals.” Obviously in the short term there was the option to do nothing. But that only gets you so far for so long. Not saying this was the best option, just that literally - how do you achieve these goals diplomatically, with a government that has shown that it’s not interested in cooperating diplomatically? I put near zero stake in the oft-cited agreements we’ve had with Iran to not pursue a nuclear weapons program nor long range ballistic missiles. They very clearly have not complied nor shown an interest in complying. They do show an interest in appearing like they’re complying with “negotiations” that they drag out for decades so they always have the option to play the victim (but we were JUST talking bro, chill!) when their counterparty decides it’s enough. And they clearly showed a willingness to lash out and attack civilians in every random uninvolved country their weapons can reach. So there goes the “IRGC should have nukes so it’s fair!” argument that I’ve seen so much (not here obviously).
So what is the best option here that doesn’t lead to any of the problems we’re trying to solve right now, assuming that the IRGC with nukes is absolutely not an option? It’s not clear there is one. Maybe only the least bad option.
While I desperately wish we had a competent administration during one of the most critical 4 year periods in decades, we don’t. And it’s not clear that a competent administration would have nailed all these goals either. Some things are just genuinely difficult to do with no clear perfect option, and maybe not even a clear best option. So for us on the sidelines (outside the voting booth anyhow) hope is all that’s left.
I’d also like to add that before I commented on your post I spent quite a lot of time marinating in the corners of the internet (cough X) where a great many people were genuinely, reflexively siding with the IRGC as the “good guys” simply because they’re opposed to the US, and all but cheering for the IRGC to “win.” I may have brought some of that energy into that comment! Buuut if I thought that’s who you were I never would have subscribed to you in the first place, so that’s not likely to be the case.
I thought the whole “faith in your country” thing was interesting, and I know what he means. There’s a difference between blind faith (which I don’t think he was suggesting) and an absolute zero-trust-in-any-US-institutions level of faith as if we live in East Germany. It should be plainly obvious that despite having bad actors from time to time in our military, we are not remotely morally equivalent to governments like Russia or the IRGC. It’s always tragic when people die needlessly, but there is just no equivalence between the US and militaries that specifically, explicitly target civilians. Reducing the entire moral calculus to “well the US killed X and the IRGC killed X, so they’re the same thing” is foolish. And he’s right - if you think that the people involved in that strike deliberately tried to kill a bunch of children just for laughs, you have issues. I’m not saying “faith” is the answer, but its something you ought to address before you lose further touch with reality. I always thought it was darkly ironic how certain people hold up - as morally superior or at least equivalent to the US - organizations that explicitly and intentionally do the same things (and on a larger scale) that people call the US irredeemably evil for when we do them by accident. It doesn’t make sense. And there’s a genuine danger to people en masse having such bottomless contempt for US institutions and all of the people in them. Because if they think it’s bad now, wait til you see how bad it really gets after you successful convince people to completely abandon all trust in their institutions and fellow citizens. Actively destroying the social fabric and value system of America because you’re so cool and cynical won’t result in the magical world of perfect harmony and morality they seem to envision. There’s a reason that it’s mostly privileged western-raised college kids that believe things like this and not immigrants from countries where the things people assume of the US are actually true.
(To be clear none of this is about you or anything you’ve written, more about the reflexive “America is evil so what’s the difference” attitude that is common on campuses like the one he spoke at)
One cannot have faith in fellow countrymen when what they say and what they do are at odds with the facts and the fact-checkers. Trust comes from a history of being honest, reliable...well, being trustworthy.
As for the US' involvement in Iran, there is a history that gives the Iranian people good reason to be highly skeptical of US.
Sorry, what? I am happy to blame Hegseth for getting rid of "stupid rules of engagement" and prioritizing lethality and speed over double checking a targetting list, among other actions that surely contributed. But there is no world in which anyone involved *deliberately bombed schoolgirls*. Cui bono?
Sorry, I think my point was a bit unclear in that passage.
I definitely don't mean to insinuate that the bombing was *intentional*. My point was that the student didn't trust that the military had taken reasonable steps to avoid civilian casualties (e.g. by vigilantly double-checking intelligence, or by showing restraint).
Does the toll authority mean that strait passage is likely to start up again in earnest? Sounds like it was a success!
Also, that really is a remarkable set of assertions from Vance - if Trump fails due to Iran, this actually could conceivably set him up as the true successor to Trumpism without Trump.
I am kind of surprised that anyone still thinks the US could achieve any of its stated objectives in Iran.
-CIA reports Iran still has 70% of its missile and drone capacity; Iran claims it has 120% of its pre-war capacity.
-the Iranian coast along the Persian Gulf is the size of Vietnam, the terrain of Afghanistan, and they have drones,
-the Iranian military is 1 million strong in terms of professional soldiers with reportedly 6-7 million new volunteers since the war started
-(quoting John Mearsheimer): the historical record is clear that an air campaign has never been sufficient to effect regime change
-the US blockade of the Iranian blockade is not going to cause sufficient pain to force Iran to capitulate, and certainly the pain we are inflicting on the world is not worth it
The big pitch of Trump and Hegseth regarding military and other matters is that for every problem there is an obvious, cheap, quick and brutal solution and the reason previous administrations failed was because they were too constrained by conventions of legality and morality to go for it. So for Iran the obvious solution was there all along: just kill the leadership, don’t worry too much about collateral damage, and the Iranian people will take care of the rest of it.
Ironically for this exact reason they are actually incapable of doing what would need to be done to achieve their objectives, which would be a massive ground invasion, because the whole point is that Trump can achieve immediate results at no cost for America through the force of his will and toughness alone. Hence the repeated threats and assertions of victory while nothing has changed on the ground, as if it could be manifested into reality.
I'm disappointed that the Persian Gulf Strait Authority launched on X instead of Substack.
I’m honored! Genuinely. In the spirit of your post and revisiting my own opinions…
Two things I had hoped would happen have so far not happened nor do I at this point expect them to happen during this conflict. There has been no uprising, nor any visible efforts to assist one in the form of weapons, training, or intel. I had also hoped that the administration would maintain the pressure until at least one of these jobs was done, rather than sort of milling about aimlessly and saying nonstop contradictory dumb things after a few weeks of military action. As usual the military action was quite successful, but not enough to achieve the non-military goals, and maybe ended prematurely on account of the goals that COULD be achieved militarily. Unfortunately those things haven’t happened. You’re correct that hope isn’t a strategy, but as someone who doesn’t set the strategy hope is all I have.
Re: the strait of Hormuz, it’s clearly a problem but not something I personally put too much stake in, in the sense that’s it’s particularly informative. It’s always been a known problem. I can definitely point to some big things we could have done better (like maybe get our ships out first!) but on the broader question of “how can we keep the IRGC from being able to threaten the strait at all” I’m not sure that there even is a reliable way to do that in the near term. This war in some form or fashion was inevitable. The big difference from Iraq is that the IRGC is a literal death cult that’s not especially invested in self preservation. Even North Korea can generally be “trusted” to not use their nuclear weapons unprovoked. That same trust does not extend to the IRGC because their literal stated goal is a great global calamity that brings back the twelfth imam. Their ability to unilaterally threaten and close the strait is not something that should preclude any possibility of military action against the IRGC. It’s a problem that would have had to be dealt with sooner or later, and there are no clear answers besides an as-yet non-existent AI controlled drone swarm that can be emplaced on the coast and swat down anything that comes near it. That’s my opinion.
My view about the whole “Trump insulted XYZ countries so of course they won’t help” thing is mixed but the same as it was before. On the one hand - obviously. But on the other hand, if those countries have a critical dependence on the strait being open, it’s ultimately their responsibility to do what they can to protect their own shipping. Pointing to the Trump admin being rude and dumb doesn’t get a single ship back into your ports. That’s just how it works. If someone sets part of your house on fire, it’s still your responsibility to deal with that immediate problem. You’re not really sticking it to anyone but yourself by letting it burn because they insulted you meanwhile. Ultimately it was Iran who closed the strait, not the US. If you’re unwilling or incapable of doing anything about it when Iran decides to close the strait, that’s its own problem. I’m sure it does not feel good to be reminded that your access to the strait and its treasures rests entirely on the whims of the IRGC, but that’s just the reality and it can only be ignored for so long. The whole back and forth about who insulted who just strikes me as egotistical and childish on all sides.
But again for me personally, I will take a permanently closed strait over a 10% higher chance of the IRGC acquiring a nuclear weapon. Easy for me to say but there it is. In my view something along these lines, aka trouble with the IRGC resulting in their closing the strait, was inevitable. They are not a normal government that want normal things as viewed through a western lens. I expect that in response the countries around it will build alternate infrastructure to move most of what they need without the need to traverse the strait. Easier said than done but again, inevitable.
The IRGC is not a normal government. So while I will readily admit certain things haven’t gone the way we’d like and the way I’d have liked thus far, I don’t know what a better alternative would have looked like. Better in this case meaning “achieves or nearly achieves most or all stated goals.” Obviously in the short term there was the option to do nothing. But that only gets you so far for so long. Not saying this was the best option, just that literally - how do you achieve these goals diplomatically, with a government that has shown that it’s not interested in cooperating diplomatically? I put near zero stake in the oft-cited agreements we’ve had with Iran to not pursue a nuclear weapons program nor long range ballistic missiles. They very clearly have not complied nor shown an interest in complying. They do show an interest in appearing like they’re complying with “negotiations” that they drag out for decades so they always have the option to play the victim (but we were JUST talking bro, chill!) when their counterparty decides it’s enough. And they clearly showed a willingness to lash out and attack civilians in every random uninvolved country their weapons can reach. So there goes the “IRGC should have nukes so it’s fair!” argument that I’ve seen so much (not here obviously).
So what is the best option here that doesn’t lead to any of the problems we’re trying to solve right now, assuming that the IRGC with nukes is absolutely not an option? It’s not clear there is one. Maybe only the least bad option.
While I desperately wish we had a competent administration during one of the most critical 4 year periods in decades, we don’t. And it’s not clear that a competent administration would have nailed all these goals either. Some things are just genuinely difficult to do with no clear perfect option, and maybe not even a clear best option. So for us on the sidelines (outside the voting booth anyhow) hope is all that’s left.
I’d also like to add that before I commented on your post I spent quite a lot of time marinating in the corners of the internet (cough X) where a great many people were genuinely, reflexively siding with the IRGC as the “good guys” simply because they’re opposed to the US, and all but cheering for the IRGC to “win.” I may have brought some of that energy into that comment! Buuut if I thought that’s who you were I never would have subscribed to you in the first place, so that’s not likely to be the case.
I thought the whole “faith in your country” thing was interesting, and I know what he means. There’s a difference between blind faith (which I don’t think he was suggesting) and an absolute zero-trust-in-any-US-institutions level of faith as if we live in East Germany. It should be plainly obvious that despite having bad actors from time to time in our military, we are not remotely morally equivalent to governments like Russia or the IRGC. It’s always tragic when people die needlessly, but there is just no equivalence between the US and militaries that specifically, explicitly target civilians. Reducing the entire moral calculus to “well the US killed X and the IRGC killed X, so they’re the same thing” is foolish. And he’s right - if you think that the people involved in that strike deliberately tried to kill a bunch of children just for laughs, you have issues. I’m not saying “faith” is the answer, but its something you ought to address before you lose further touch with reality. I always thought it was darkly ironic how certain people hold up - as morally superior or at least equivalent to the US - organizations that explicitly and intentionally do the same things (and on a larger scale) that people call the US irredeemably evil for when we do them by accident. It doesn’t make sense. And there’s a genuine danger to people en masse having such bottomless contempt for US institutions and all of the people in them. Because if they think it’s bad now, wait til you see how bad it really gets after you successful convince people to completely abandon all trust in their institutions and fellow citizens. Actively destroying the social fabric and value system of America because you’re so cool and cynical won’t result in the magical world of perfect harmony and morality they seem to envision. There’s a reason that it’s mostly privileged western-raised college kids that believe things like this and not immigrants from countries where the things people assume of the US are actually true.
(To be clear none of this is about you or anything you’ve written, more about the reflexive “America is evil so what’s the difference” attitude that is common on campuses like the one he spoke at)
Anyway, that’s how I interpreted his comment.
This kind of comment is why I love Substack. Thanks, SVF. Great to hear your updated thoughts and more about where you were coming from.
One cannot have faith in fellow countrymen when what they say and what they do are at odds with the facts and the fact-checkers. Trust comes from a history of being honest, reliable...well, being trustworthy.
As for the US' involvement in Iran, there is a history that gives the Iranian people good reason to be highly skeptical of US.
Sorry, what? I am happy to blame Hegseth for getting rid of "stupid rules of engagement" and prioritizing lethality and speed over double checking a targetting list, among other actions that surely contributed. But there is no world in which anyone involved *deliberately bombed schoolgirls*. Cui bono?
Sorry, I think my point was a bit unclear in that passage.
I definitely don't mean to insinuate that the bombing was *intentional*. My point was that the student didn't trust that the military had taken reasonable steps to avoid civilian casualties (e.g. by vigilantly double-checking intelligence, or by showing restraint).
Does the toll authority mean that strait passage is likely to start up again in earnest? Sounds like it was a success!
Also, that really is a remarkable set of assertions from Vance - if Trump fails due to Iran, this actually could conceivably set him up as the true successor to Trumpism without Trump.
I don’t think the Democratic Party is dying. Even though it’s unpopular, the party is very likely to gain seats in the midterms!