Miscellanea: The War in Iran
Commenters dissect the US–Israeli war against Iran through the lens of strategy, deterrence, and domestic politics, arguing that airstrikes have handed Tehran de facto leverage over the Strait of Hormuz while failing to produce a plausible path to regime change. Many see the conflict as a long-anticipated clash between a regional power and a global hegemon, intertwined with Israel’s security aims, Gulf monarchies’ fears, and US efforts to constrain China and Russia via energy supply. The thread highlights likely long-term fallout: higher and more volatile oil prices, accelerated incentives for nuclear proliferation and renewables, and growing skepticism about Washington’s judgment among allies and adversaries alike.
Scale and Difficulty of War with Iran
- Commenters note Iran is far larger, more populous, and more technologically advanced than Saddam’s Iraq, with decades of preparation for asymmetric defense.
- Some argue this makes a ground invasion worse than Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam combined; others say Iran has lost much of its air/naval capacity and is weaker than it appears.
Objectives and Strategic Logic
- Many see the war as primarily serving Israeli security aims and the desire to break the “Axis of Resistance” (Iran, Hezbollah, proxies).
- Others frame it as a US‑Iran power struggle, with Iran seeking regional hegemony and the US seeking global dominance and protection of allies.
- Several argue a major but under-discussed driver is constraining China by threatening its oil supply and controlling chokepoints (Hormuz, Red Sea, Suez).
- A minority thinks there is no coherent grand strategy; instead, they see short‑term domestic politics, donor influence, and personal enrichment as the main drivers.
Strait of Hormuz and Global Energy
- Broad agreement that Iran’s ability to disrupt Hormuz is central. Artillery, drones, missiles, mines, and sunken ships could all threaten traffic.
- Dispute over whether Iran already effectively “held the strait ransom” before the war or only gained real leverage after it began.
- The reported $2M “toll” per transit, preference for payment in yuan, and insurance-driven closures are seen as:
- A direct economic weapon against US allies and China.
- A potential, though contested, challenge to dollar dominance.
- Some argue this war was a huge own goal for “freedom of navigation”; others think Gulf states and possibly a wider coalition will ultimately move to break Iranian control.
Nuclear Program and Proliferation
- Fierce disagreement over JCPOA: some call it flawed but better than nothing; others say it merely delayed inevitable weaponization.
- Several note the war powerfully reinforces the lesson that only nuclear weapons reliably deter US attacks, incentivizing proliferation.
Domestic Politics, Revolutions, and Legitimacy
- Skepticism that this war will trigger revolution in Iran; many think existential war solidifies the regime and drains opposition.
- Others think repeated economic shocks could still destabilize Iran or, alternatively, spark upheaval in the US, Egypt, or Gulf monarchies.
- Multiple comments stress that bombing civilians and infrastructure likely strengthens the regime’s legitimacy and “rally round the flag” effect.
US and Allied Competence
- Strong criticism of US decision‑making: overreliance on yes‑men, ideology (“warrior narcissism”), and belief that removing leaders automatically yields friendly regimes.
- Millennium Challenge 2002 is repeatedly cited as an example of ignoring inconvenient war‑game results and scripting “victory.”
- Some argue the war has exposed the limits of US and Israeli power, degraded stockpiles, and damaged alliances and public support.
Impact on Energy Transition
- Many expect sustained high oil prices to accelerate renewables and EV adoption; others fear this will instead justify more drilling and old‑style imperialism.
- There is debate over how much energy sovereignty renewables truly provide, but broad agreement that reducing oil dependence would blunt future Hormuz‑style leverage.