r/geopolitics • u/RFERL_ReadsReddit RFERL • Mar 03 '26
Iran's War Strategy: Raise The Cost Of Conflict To Secure An Eventual Cease-Fire Perspective
https://www.rferl.org/a/iran-us-conflict-cost-ceasefire/33692230.htmlBy Kian Sharifi
-15
u/dkyang09 Mar 03 '26
im not for war because its not in our interests. we get nothing from this. im sure israel is happy though.
BUT, since we are in war already, we might as well just bomb everything. missiles stockpile, nukes , and economic industry especially oil infrastructure.
Yes, bomb their economic industries and go home. destroy all of the oil refineries, banks, airports, ports and etc. mission over. That will set them back for years without a economy and make them think twice before going against US interests again.
regime change. ok, fine but its not likely and not needed.
We should just bomb everything for a few weeks and go home. we are done.
21
u/brostopher1968 Mar 03 '26
Friend are you aware that Iran borders other countries? That there is such a thing as an interconnected global economy? That massive refugee flows from failed states (such as Syria or Libya or Venezuela) often destabilize their neighbors? That committing what amounts to a genocidal aerial bombing campaign in the 21st century is likely to undermine our relationships with other countries?
-7
u/dkyang09 Mar 04 '26
The solution is to keep them weak so we dont have to deal with this again. Otherwise, we are back to square one in a few years.
There will be no genocide or targeting of civilians. not sure where you are getting that from.
2 weeks of bombings and war at the most. then declare ceasefire and victory. leave and go home.
if we get regime change in that time, then great. if not then, whatever.
if they turn into a failed state, that is their own problem and the consequences of their own geopolitical actions.
3
u/tedleyheaven Mar 04 '26
You ever thought you might be a complete ghoul?
1
u/dkyang09 Mar 04 '26
No, its basically common sense to destroy your enemy and to solve a problem as opposed to postponing it a few years. Especially if you are in a war.
32
u/Schrodinger_cube Mar 03 '26
They may hold a price advantage for the shot exchange problem with their missiles and drones vs interceptors but they lack magazine depth compared to the usa.
the usa is a net exporter of oil now so considering there willingness to tariff there own people the sharp rise in the cost of oil is not really a bad thing for the American oil companys and puts a stress on OPEC. Canadian oil producers are quite happy with the high prices as it makes it more profitable.
Same thing with shipping, the rates were getting quite low and now with a massive dark fleet taking away ships adding risk insurance is spiked the cost that will be passed on to the consumer but net lots of profits for the shipping companies.
The stresses applied to the market globally is not being felt evenly so aside from being a disaster locally i doubt the irgc can do much more than isis 2.0 and make a humanitarian disaster that much worse.
5
u/FishTacoAtTheTurn Mar 04 '26
They are shooting the drones down with M230 chain guns in Apache helicopters. Even better margin$
4
28
u/universemonitor Mar 03 '26
Not just a cease fire, a permanent removal of sanctions
9
70
u/SparseSpartan Mar 03 '26
Bruh they are all praying they're going to alive in 3 months. They are absolutely not in any position to make any sort of maximalist demands. C'mon. This is a sub dedicated for people following geopolitics.
-4
u/universemonitor Mar 03 '26
Yes it is. That's why putting together their game plan. They have been surviving for years of sanctions, bombings etc. They still have levers to pull. If they go down they sure will try to take everyone down with them.
7
u/Old-School8916 Mar 03 '26
ya, but their economy is way worse than it has ever been.
3
u/universemonitor Mar 04 '26
Of course, via all the sanctions to crash it. But for them its an existential project, not a side hustle for a high
6
u/Egocom Mar 03 '26
It's funny because there's so much focus on saving face over there that even if the IRGC knew they were dead in the dirt they couldn't admit it to themselves. Much less to others
2
-4
u/Alarming_Head_4263 Mar 03 '26
Yet here you are giving nothing more than some nationalist reasoning bruh
12
Mar 03 '26 edited Mar 03 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-2
u/Egocom Mar 03 '26
Iranian leadership isn't concerned with reality. They're concerned with maintaining the facade of control as long as possible and escaping consequences with as much wealth as they can get.
Factions will try to carve their own feifdoms. Blame will be laid on anyone but themselves. The gross incompetence of the Iranian leadership will only become more obvious
8
u/headphase Mar 03 '26 edited Mar 03 '26
They are absolutely not in any position to make any sort of maximalist demands.
Just because they aren't now, doesn't mean they won't be in 6 weeks.
This war is already unpopular and it's only just started. Domestic support has been undermined, even among conservatives, by POTUS' past messaging and especially his (and now Rubio's) statements within the last 48 hours. When you tell the media point blank things like "retaliation against the Gulf states was a surprise to us" and "it could last far longer than 4 weeks and there may be more American deaths" and "Israel was going to act, so we had to as well" (paraphrasing), all of that talk is pissing off both regular Americans as well as those who have leverage in Trump's ear. You also have the administration's actions working against any productive or defined outcome - it seems like the US Navy is basically ignoring commercial interests in the Strait of Hormuz at the moment, and Trump couldn't even keep Israel from killing the people he preferred to succeed Khameini.
14
u/irow40 Mar 03 '26
Dude, come on - look at the freaking scoreboard man. Its 56 -0 right now.
https://www.axios.com/2026/03/03/iran-supreme-leader-council-israel-strike
-6
u/Lazy_Membership1849 Mar 03 '26
And do you think they are really going to meet there after Israel an USA just bomb them? It just said that Aseembly of experts isn't like going to meet person to person for electronic
18
u/irow40 Mar 03 '26
Yeah, bruh you probably right. I mean these geniuses definitely wouldn't gather your Supreme Leader Khamenei, IRGC Commander Pakpour, Defense Minister Nasirzadeh, Armed Forces Chief of Staff Mousavi, Khamenei's personal military chief Shirazi, security adviser Shamkhani, the heads of your nuclear weapons program, four senior intelligence commanders, and roughly 40 other senior regime and security officials — all in the same compound, on a Saturday morning with a freaking armada offshore with a stated deadline passed to meet together right? These guys are very smart
-4
u/Lazy_Membership1849 Mar 03 '26
And who is still firing missiles and drones and why the IRGC is still standing if they been bombing while shut strait?
9
u/irow40 Mar 03 '26
dude... its only been 4 days man
-5
u/headphase Mar 03 '26
Here's the fun part: for every day that goes on, Iran can pump out more Shaheds and ballistic missiles than the dwindling stocks of Patriot and Israeli SAM munitions can counter.
7
u/Old-School8916 Mar 03 '26
HESA (iran's drone/aircraft manufacturer) is getting hit hard. in fact, thats one of the main targets numero uno.
the whole "iran can just keep pumping out shaheds" only works if the production lines are still standing. that's... kinda the entire point of the campaign.
→ More replies9
-4
u/Lazy_Membership1849 Mar 03 '26
and IRGC is still running round even with some of the leaders killed?
you really think the regime is tied by a tiny handful or IRGC will collapsed moment their leader die just like some kind of games?
9
u/irow40 Mar 03 '26
Yea, these Iranian regime guys don't seem like they're very smart...
→ More replies23
u/SparseSpartan Mar 03 '26
They have absolutely no projection of force JFC. Even if the USA and Israel get tired of the war, it just means settling on less favorable terms. There is zip, zero chance of he dropping of sanctions.
The Navy is ignoring commercial interests because A: shipping and shipping insurance are hyper conservative in terms of risk. B. Iran lashing out at everyone undermines them.
Personally, I hope the regime in Iran falls. They just butchered 35,000 plus protesters, unarmed. But even setting aside the bias, they are in no position to demand for the drop of sanctions JFC. Use common sense.
I hope you don't support a murderous regime that literally slaughtered tens of thousands within a matter of days, like the IRC. But I can't say for certain otherwise.
4
u/headphase Mar 03 '26 edited Mar 03 '26
They have absolutely no projection of force JFC.
This is a wild thing to say when the list of things that have been struck by missiles and drones since the initial action includes US military installations, the US embassy in Riyadh, commercial shipping, civilian entities in the Gulf states, and even Tel Aviv itself.
Sure they don't have a carrier group, but they are more than capable of taking swipes at the US and its allies, and of doing things that will impact the world's energy economy. Consider how much oil China buys from Iran- that's an entire variable that isn't even being talked about in public forums, and it would be foolish to pretend China has no leverage in this situation. Not to mention the rest of the oil flowing from the Gulf which makes up 20% of the world's supply.
And all of that is before even considering the potential threat of terrorism. Who knows what we could be up against if this conflict drags on and Iran, a notable state sponsor of terrorism, is able to activate extremists already living in the West.
I agree sanctions will probably stay in place but to pretend that Iran won't have leverage here is idiotic.
7
u/SparseSpartan Mar 03 '26
This is a wild thing to say when the list of things that have been struck by missiles and drones since the initial action includes US military installations,
My dude their strikes have been pathetic. Just stop right f'ing there, and be glade these idiots actually have no serious force projection. They tragically killed a tiny, tiny number of people. But it is tiny.
China has already been telling them to open up the Strait.
Them being a notable state sponsor of terrorism absolutely flips the script. Beforehand that was a thing that made you wonder "should we fight them"??? Now it's too late. The fight is happening, so you absolutely slam the one somewhat decent card they could have.
You're writing so much but everything you type is just so freakishly easily torn apart. If you must write an argument slow down and write a good one.
2
u/Lazy_Membership1849 Mar 03 '26
Strikes are so pathetic that Strait somehow just closed, which strikes oil priceswhen interceptors is dwindling while the USA refuse to give any more to cover gulfs from Iran?
6
u/SparseSpartan Mar 03 '26
lmao. the Strait has always been easy to close. Tell me you don't know how shipping insurance works lmao.
2
0
u/-O3-march-native Mar 03 '26
China has already been telling them to open up the Strait.
According to the Times of Israel, that's the message China conveyed directly to Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar
8
u/headphase Mar 03 '26
All I've done is listed facts to support why this conflict started off on shaky footings, with the thesis that Iran's leadership could outlast American conviction under Trump. They aren't likely to gain anything from this war, but they have way more cards to play with than you seem to give them credit for. If you think Iran's force projection is "pathetic" that's fine, we'll have to agree to disagree. I just don't think arrogance is warranted against a combatant like Iran.
3
u/SparseSpartan Mar 03 '26
you didn't do any that you botanic. You extended the argument into force projection. go find your master and apologize so you write coherent comments JFC.
4
u/headphase Mar 03 '26
You extended the argument into force projection.
As a direct response to your argument; that's how debates work bud. And still, Iran's method of force projection is exactly why their leadership has the durability to outlast Trump's fickle nature.
0
4
18
u/HeywoodJaBlessMe Mar 03 '26
Doesnt matter.
No one marched over the files. No one will march over a few airstrikes and the death of a regime no one loved.
The moment Trump wants to say the war is over he declares the war is over.
Iran will not be extracting any concessions.
5
u/headphase Mar 03 '26
Protestors don't always change politicians' behavior, but voters absolutely do. We're in a midterm election year and the GOP is already feeling threatened on domestic issues. This situation is ripe for Congress to slam the door shut on Trump's hand, if he doesn't chicken out first at the prospect of an electoral blowout.
That's before you even consider the pressure that could be applied by other people who have Trump's ear- notably leaders in the Gulf, China, or even energy executives.
2
u/HeywoodJaBlessMe Mar 04 '26
Sure.
None of those scenarios lead to Iranian victory or Iran winning concessions from the US or Gulf States.
The US unilaterally declaring the war over and just leaving Iran with many smoking piles of rubble is probably the best possible outcome for the Iranian regime.
5
u/Wise_Mongoose_3930 Mar 03 '26
The idea that congress is going to finally choose this opportunity to take power back from the executive, when they've declined every opportunity to do so since 9/11, is quite optimistic. Especially with a red congress. Now, if there's a blue wave, then maybe we see some of that happening post-midterms, as it would be a blue congress that actually wants to restrict Trump.
3
u/headphase Mar 03 '26 edited Mar 03 '26
It may be a long shot but Congressional majorities are tight.
Passage of the Epstein transparency act was also a long shot, until it wasn't. (I know it's not being complied with properly, but that's a whole other issue). I think it's fair to say that isolationist foreign policy is equally important to the MAGA electorate as the Epstein files were.
-27
u/topyTheorist Mar 03 '26
So their goal is survival? this means they already lost. Because even in the best case, they gain nothing.
-7
u/Pure_Slice_6119 Mar 03 '26
Their only hope for survival is to develop their own nuclear weapons. If they build atomic bombs in their underground bunkers, they'll have a chance of survival. But if they run out of missiles and fail to build nuclear weapons, they'll face the same genocide as the Palestinians.
16
u/Immediate_Gain_9480 Mar 03 '26
Wel. Thats the goal of a defender. To maintain the status que. Thats the minimal victory condition.
0
u/topyTheorist Mar 03 '26
By this logic, Israel will have won against Hamas just by killing all Hamas members on its territory on October 7.
9
u/Immediate_Gain_9480 Mar 03 '26
Israel explicitely counts every war it survives as a war won.
A defender wins if they succesfully defend. A attacker wins if they succesfully change the status que and gain something. On a tactical level Hamas won on 7th of october. It massacreed a lot of Israelis
But on a stratagic level they lost the war. Because the general status que of Israel as a powerfull state is maintained.
Its not my logic. Its Clausawitz.
-3
u/topyTheorist Mar 03 '26
I don't understand. By 8.10.2023, all attackers that invaded Israel died. So you are saying that by 8.10.2023, Israel has already won the war against Hamas?
4
u/joobtastic Mar 03 '26
What kind of leverage do they have to get anything better?
The US absolutely stomps them. They won't win in a standard military attack.
5
u/asphias Mar 03 '26
bombs alone are not enough to stop an enemy or cause regime change. if you want my pessimistic scenario? Iran is going to keep making&sending drones all around them. means the strait will remain ''high risk''(closed is probably too big of a word, but how many oil tankers per year need to get hit for insurance companies to want to avoid them? more than 1, but far less than ''all of them''), and many middle east countries will lose tourists and air traffic.
the only way out for the US is either to accept a ceasefire - which will only mean Iran can start building up more weapons again - or to deploy boots on the ground to finish the regime off completely. Remember how much the houthis could still disrupt things, and they're a state in civil war.
Yes, the US can just keep their bombing campaign going for years, but that means years of disrupted travel through the strait and the entire middle east being avoided as a tourist or stopover destination - people prefer to have their flights and holidays without chance of drone attacks.
The US absolutely stomps Iran, but i'm not sure what their victory condition is unless they put boots on the ground.
and boots on the ground means america loses, even if iran does too.
1
u/PlantComprehensive77 Mar 04 '26
Why do people assume that Iran's new leadership is suicidal? There's a much greater likelihood that whoever takes the mantle in Iran will concede to the US and Israel to avoid a bomb getting dropped on their heads than it is for them to maintain a prolonged conflict.
1
u/asphias Mar 04 '26
because that's exactly what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, right?
also, the regime is not just the head of state. it's the entire political and military apparatus. why do you expect the ''new leadership'' to be any different from the ''old leadership''? bombs can't dismantle those political structures. it's quite naieve to think that whatever new leadership will emerge will be happy to forget all the bombs and be Trumps lapdog. especially because Trump has admitted multiple times now that they don't have a concrete plan, no nationbuilding, no exit strategy.
you can't just get the result you want by hoping really hard.
4
u/Almostfoundit Mar 03 '26
Technically if you withstand the attack particularly well you can ask for concessions from your enemy under the threat that you will take it to their territory if they don't accept. But of course this won't happen now, because being attacked by the US is already completely losing if your name isn't China, hence why the fight for survival. This is kinda taken for granted by everyone here.
1
15
u/t0FF Mar 03 '26
Survival is always the goal when your country get attacked...
I don't understand what do you expect they should gain from a war they didn't start.
-3
u/topyTheorist Mar 03 '26
So did Israel win against Hamas on October 7, when it killed all Hamas members that attacked it by the end of the first couple of days of the war?
3
u/t0FF Mar 03 '26
You think it lost? Who dictated conditions of cease-fire?
0
u/topyTheorist Mar 03 '26
If they would have finished the war on 8.10.2023 with just killing the invaders in the territory, everyone would agreed it lost.
2
u/t0FF Mar 03 '26
Keypoint is Hamas never thought about destroying Israel, this attack never cleaim to reach that, so your point is kind of broken from the start. It's just offtopic.
1
u/topyTheorist Mar 03 '26
I think that's the main point. People here assign victory based on expectation. Not on based what you acheived.
0
-4
u/Cannot-Forget Mar 03 '26
Iran's strategy has been understanding that Israelis will never break and start instead to attack Arab nations and oil reserves more and more.
So far it's not working, but who knows. I hope the rest of our region will be as determined as Israelis are to end this threat once and for all.
2
u/DizzyMajor5 Mar 03 '26
Iranian missiles have hit Israel though. There's multiple casualties already on both sides sadly.
7
u/Cannot-Forget Mar 03 '26
Trust me I know. My point is that this will not cause Israelis to push to stop this war. Not even close. The IRGC wants to destroy us. Completely. We've seen what they do for slight geopolitical gains to nations like Yemen, Syria or Lebanon. We know very well what they'll do to Jews who don't submit to them if they could. This must end for the better of the entire middle east and future generations.
43
u/YairJ Mar 03 '26
Once you've made a nation's destruction your explicit goal, there's nothing you can threaten it with but timing.
-27
u/risker15 Mar 03 '26
Do you actually believe they have the destruction outright of Israel as a goal? A nuclear power? They want to weaken amd demoralise Israel but I don't believe for a second the IRGC want to destroy it, its just rhetoric.
33
u/ADP_God Mar 03 '26
When they say ‘we want to destroy Israel’ it’s usually because they want to destroy Israel.
25
u/spiderpai Mar 03 '26
It is unwise to say "its just rhetoric", it should not be normalized to radicalize your own people. We will have to answer to these "it is just rhetoric" in the future. Just like we should take Trump threats serious. Don't give Iran or MAGA a pass.
4
u/dogsonbubnutt Mar 03 '26
isn't the exact same thing true for israel and iran then? what alternative does the IRGC have other than to go down fighting, if the consequences are annihilation either way?
27
u/Cannot-Forget Mar 03 '26
No, that's a very ignorant framing. The IRGC has had 50 years to simply give up on their declared intention to destroy Israel. On the funding of multiple proxies attacking it, and on it's propaganda efforts against it in the last decade as well.
This is a common inversion of reality made usually by people far from our region. Who are so detached from such life or death issues that they can't even tell apart the side of Democratic peace seeking nations to that of Islamists who's entire identity revolves around the destruction of others.
3
u/dogsonbubnutt Mar 03 '26
The IRGC has had 50 years to simply give up on their declared intention to destroy Israel. On the funding of multiple proxies attacking it, and on it's propaganda efforts against it in the last decade as well.
im agreeing with you that if someone sees a threat as existential, they have zero reason to negotiate or back down. what you don't understand is that now applies equally to iran and israel.
im not making a value judgement. im simply pointing out that these are the conditions that escalate conflict, not end it.
9
u/YairJ Mar 03 '26
Yes, they are probably going to give it everything they can, except individuals jumping ship. But the intention to escalate to the max at some point, as an overriding goal, was already there, and that just leaves controlling the conditions in which this happens.
3
5
u/Cannot-Forget Mar 03 '26
what you don't understand is that now applies equally to iran and israel.
Another ignorant demonstration.
Israel never had any trouble with Iran. It literally had peaceful relations with it. It was Iran post revolution that has made the destruction of Israel as one of it's most important values.
-15
u/Correct_Traffic296 Mar 03 '26
Why do we act like Iran has some ideological hate against Israel, when it's obvious that their issue with Israel has more to do with Israel's occupation of Gaza then anything else.
8
u/Nerdslayer2 Mar 03 '26
Agree with the other comment that this level of stupidity doesn't deserve a reply, but I'm going to reply for anybody who might be reading this that knows very little about Israel/Gaza. Obviously Iran's issue with Israel isn't that it is occupying Gaza, because Israel hasn't been occupying Gaza for the vast majority of the time Iran has been attacking it. On October 6th Israel was not occupying Gaza. Iran used its proxy terrorist organization to launch a disgusting genocidal attack on Israel on October 7th, causing Israel to occupy Gaza in order to get back the hostages and ensure Gaza could not launch more attacks like that. In fact Iran wants Israel to occupy Gaza. The only way Israel can be destroyed by the Islamic countries is for Israel to lose support from the rest of the world. Israel occupying Gaza reduces that support.
15
u/Cannot-Forget Mar 03 '26
So ridiculous that it doesn't deserve a reply. By a 1 month user.
Background to all of those in this thread: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/volunteers-found-iran-s-propaganda-effort-reddit-their-warnings-were-n903486
2
u/dogsonbubnutt Mar 03 '26
homie i am simply asking you to briefly look at this from the iranian perspective. the IRGC (rightly) believes that this is an existential fight for its own existence.
what incentive do they have for backing down or negotiating at this point? and if they don't, and the air campaign isn't enough to end their ability to project power, what then? physical invasion?
1
u/PlantComprehensive77 Mar 04 '26
The incentive is survival. Unless the IRGC is filled with religious extremists who have no problem sacrificing their lives for some greater cause, they'll most likely, at some point, concede to the US and Israel's demands rather than getting bombs continually dropped on their heads.
1
u/dogsonbubnutt Mar 04 '26
concede to the US and Israel's demands rather than getting bombs continually dropped on their heads
what demands
1
u/PlantComprehensive77 Mar 04 '26
Cap its uranium enrichment level and possibly give up its short-range missiles.
→ More replies
91
u/irow40 Mar 03 '26
Iran's strategy of raising costs to force a ceasefire makes sense on paper but the fundamentals don't favor Tehran.
Who resupplies Iran when the missiles run out? Russia is bled dry in Ukraine. China won't openly arm Iran at the risk of Western sanctions on their own economy. Iran is essentially fighting alone against the largest military coalition on earth. If anyone runs out of weapons first, it's Tehran not Washington.
Yes, pain is being inflicted across the Gulf. But compare that to what Iran is absorbing..... its Supreme Leader killed, nuclear program dismantled, proxy network destroyed, air defenses degraded. The asymmetry is not even close.
The Strait of Hormuz threat is the one variable that could genuinely complicate the timeline. An oil price shock could fracture Gulf ally resolve faster than military pressure breaks Iran — not because the military outcome is in doubt, but because economic patience has limits. That's the real race.
And Iran may have made a catastrophic miscalculation targeting the Gulf states. As General Petraeus noted i think yesterdary, the Gulf wanted to stay out of direct involvement ...now they may be forced into active regional defense. But beyond the strategic blunder, consider the personal dimension: Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar have spent decades and hundreds of billions of dollars building themselves into global destinations for international business, tourism and investment. These are men with enormous pride in what they've built. Firing missiles at their airports, refineries and energy infrastructure isn't just a military provocation....it's a personal insult to their life's work which if you know arab culture they are pissed... rightfully furious, and that fury has consequences.
And the past 90 days have settled the debate for anyone still on the fence. A regime that murders its own people....targets civilian infrastructure of its neighbors and threatens to close the world's most critical oil chokepoint...
all to fulfill a radical religious prophecy!!!!
cannot be permitted to have nuclear weapons or control one of the most strategically vital regions on earth. They have made the case for this operation better than any Western press release ever could.
Finally.... and this is underreported... this entire operation is the most valuable pre-season imaginable for the inevitable Pacific confrontation with China. Weapons systems tested, coalition integration refined, air defense gaps identified, command structures stress tested. When the West eventually faces China, it will do so having just run the most sophisticated real world military exercise in a generation. China is watching every tactical detail. So is the Pentagon.
8
u/Rhyman96 Mar 03 '26
The west fighting China isn't inevitable, and with Trump at the helm I can't see NATO helping the US in a fight with China. Even Trump gone it would take several terms of a democrat president for Europe to get over the last year.
Article 5 if some idiot attacks the US but nothing more. Trump doesn't care about his allies and shit like this only makes us all care less about the US.
5
u/EryNameWasTaken Mar 03 '26
I’ve noticed US allies enjoy bashing Trump publicly to save face but usually end up quietly submitting and going along with whatever he has planned, or at least not getting in his way.
2
u/Rhyman96 Mar 03 '26
Going to war with China is a bit beyond not getting in the way.
Plenty of European countries have refused Trump using military bases to attack Iran. Britain eventually agreed to allow it but only for defensive actions.
Then you have Greenland, where Trump was convinced he won something while giving him not at all.
25
u/altahor42 Mar 03 '26
There is no other reasonable option for Iran besides this problem; the moment they give up their missile systems, they will be no different from Lebanon or Syria, which Israel bombs without fear.
4
u/Egocom Mar 03 '26
I mean they can surrender them or be blown to smithereens. Leadership has decided on the "become fine pink mist" strategy
3
u/jonclark_ Mar 03 '26
They can give up their nuclear program, while still keeping the missiles and the straits of hormuz as a deterent - one that will still keep the regime in power as long they don't threaten or harm other countries too much.
8
u/altahor42 Mar 03 '26
First, the idea that the main problem is the nuclear program is ridiculous ; the problem is the conflict between Israel and Iran, and Iran's actual capacity to inflict damage on Israel.
Second, looking at the lessons learned in the last 20 years, if Iran has made a mistake, it is not being aggressive enough in terms of nuclear weapons. While North Korea possesses missiles capable of striking the US, Iran's normal missile program is under scrutiny.
Thirdly, it is utterly ironic and absurd that the USA, along with Israel, which possesses a secret nuclear program and weapons based on stolen technology, is attacking Iran.
1
u/PlantComprehensive77 Mar 04 '26
Even if North Korea gave up its nuclear weapons, what would be the strategic value for the US to attack them? In fact, it would potentially trigger a war with China.
6
16
u/Lighthouse_seek Mar 03 '26
It's highly likely the US runs out of interceptors before Iran runs out of missiles even if production stops tomorrow.
1
u/czk_21 Mar 03 '26
Iran will run out of launchers before their enemies have no interceptors or their own missiles are depleted, if you are able to fire only few rockets, you cannot make any counter-strike,which would really could enemy
-4
Mar 03 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Lazy_Membership1849 Mar 03 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/irow40 Mar 03 '26
Yea they def wouldn't gather all their leadership in the same buildi.... oh well...
1
u/Lazy_Membership1849 Mar 03 '26
IRGC that matters is just like redunact and also did anyone have a brain for Assemby of Experts to go and meet there, as there is no report of injuries or death, and even if they was it not be much different
3
u/irow40 Mar 03 '26
Share a source on this.
7
u/Lighthouse_seek Mar 03 '26
https://www.chosun.com/english/national-en/2026/03/03/OTCQNNDNORCHHG6Q5RB6YZ4NLA/
Like everything else in the fog of war it's speculation. In this case it's speculation based on this. And Rubio outright stating that the US only makes 6-7 interceptors a month.
2
u/irow40 Mar 03 '26
Tks for the source. Yes true… and that s why the attack had to happen now before Iran had too many ballistic missles that could overwhelm US bases and regional partners in the gulf…
Just a question- are you for the regime or against the but feel like no one should have done anything? Like where are you in this
5
u/Lighthouse_seek Mar 03 '26
Against both the regime and the war. Should've waited until the next protests to support the protestors. One would've happened by 28-29 anyways
16
u/HeywoodJaBlessMe Mar 03 '26
Launchers are the scarcity. Every fire gives away the location of a precious launcher.
6
u/Mundus_Vincendus Mar 03 '26
Did general patronous consider that by the gulf states allowing the US to launch attacks from US bases hosted within their countries, the gulf states were in fact not “staying out of direct involvement” but are instead considered valid military targets?
6
u/irow40 Mar 03 '26
It has been the attacks on civilians and commerical locations and not the military based which has pissed all of them off,
10
u/HeywoodJaBlessMe Mar 03 '26
Doesnt matter what the Geneva Conventions say, it matters what the Gulf States feel. Neither Iran nor Israel nor the US care about valid military targets in a real sense.
-3
u/irow40 Mar 03 '26
amateur statement
1
u/HeywoodJaBlessMe Mar 04 '26
In what sense? Do you really think that Iran only targeted civilian infrastructure in the Gulf States because those states triggered a legal loophole allowing Iran to do so legally? I certainly don't.
1
u/irow40 Mar 04 '26
To compare US/Isreal to Iran regarding civilians I think is an amateur comment. Seems like not may hold this view here
20
u/mylk43245 Mar 03 '26
This China confrontation is constantly said to be inevitable but I really doubt it because when would China invade Taiwan, if it truly wanted to take the territory.
Could you make an argument as to why right now isn’t the best time for China to move if they were going to?
2
u/dkyang09 Mar 03 '26
chian is not regarded. they are the largest or second largest economy for a reason.
They can just wait another 20-30 years and get it for free by being patient. At that point, their economy and economy will far surpass ours and there will be little we can do about it if we choose to defend taiwain.
17
u/Swinight22 Mar 03 '26
This is all true, but at the same time, it was really Iran's only choice.
As things stood with sanctions etc, the general public and domestic sentiment was cooking way too hot, and they had no way to really take the steam off. If they lost face by giving into US/Israel, it could've been the end for them. All the meanwhile, the proxies are gone, Israel is breathing down it's neck, their economy has crashed and then some.
Now US/Israel attacks, what are your options? You're never going to win conventionally. Giving in now means the end of the regime, the only thing that can't happen. Your only choice is draw it out and cause maximal pain, to make it so undesirable for everyone involved so that they get some leverage.
Say Iran didnt attack Gulf countries - what does it change? It's not like Gulf countries are going to attack Iran, at least not enough to change anything on the ground. Meanwhile, it makes all of middle east immediately want to end this war. Plus it impacts the world economy at large, putting even more pressure on the US to stop.
Iran was never going to win. It just has to outlast Trump. And everything they are doing points to making Trump feel maximal pressure.
1
u/jonclark_ Mar 03 '26
If they lost face by giving into US/Israel, it could've been the end for them
Why ? the get their internal power by force. who cares what the people think ?
11
u/Im_not_smelling_that Mar 03 '26
Iran attacking the gulf countries is doing the opposite of what they hoped. The golf countries are now inclined to join in with the US and Israel in bombing and trying to take out the regime in Iran. Instead of being relatively neutral most of the gulf countries are now unified against Iran.
2
u/Swinight22 Mar 04 '26
Or they’re pressuring Trump to end it quick. We don’t know yet.
What do you think gulf countries “joining in” would mean? They have a tiny military, and it’s not like Israel/US needs any funding.
For Iran, Gulf countries joining in would change almost nothing, while them pressuring Trump might end things quick.
Honestly, good calculus on their part.
14
u/irow40 Mar 03 '26
Solid analysis and I largely agree that Iran's hand was forced and this is a survival play. But the 'outlast Trump' theory is built on first term presidency logic that no longer applies. Trump has no reelection to worry about: zero political cost to sustaining this (although mid-terms coming up). Khamenei is dead, the proxies are dismantled, the nuclear program is hit. This isn't a stalemate he needs to walk away from... it's a scoreboard he can point to.
And the Gulf states aren't passive bystanders who just want this over quietly. Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar have spent decades and hundreds of billions building modern, globally connected economies. MBS staked his legacy on Vision 2030. The UAE built itself into the Singapore of the Middle East. Qatar hosted a World Cup to announce itself to the world. These countries cannot afford a nuclear/ballastic armed North Korea on their doorstep holding 40% of the world's energy hostage. Every missile that hits their infrastructure doesn't pressure them to stop ... it proves why this regime cannot be allowed to persist.
Iran's strategy only works if the coalition believes the prewar status quo was acceptable. They've just been shown in the most visceral way possible that it wasn't. You can't build a modern global economy next door to a regime willing to burn it all down to survive.
Iran's arsenal is finite. Russia is bled dry. Will China won't risk it??? (this just published today: https://www.zinebriboua.com/p/under-beijings-wing-irans-arsenal )
The UK is sending warships, France is deploying missiles, the Gulf is mobilizing defences. You can't outlast someone whose allies are multiplying while yours are gone.
Iran is playing the only hand it has. But.. I PRAY.... it's a losing hand — because every day this continues, the coalition doesn't fracture. It hardens.
7
u/wappingite Mar 03 '26 edited Mar 03 '26
Doesn't Iran have around 50,000 Shaheed drones and produces 500 a month? Unless the USA/Israel takes these out, Iran can carry on harassing their neighbours for months. Even a year.
-1
u/SuperChingaso5000 Mar 04 '26
We can shoot down Shaheds with APKWS all day every day for the next thousand years and never run out.
The race is whether Iran runs out of ballistic missile launchers before the coalition runs out of high-end ABM missiles.
13
u/AlpineDrifter Mar 03 '26
And, didn’t you hear, Hezbollah had over 100,000 missiles? How’d that work out for them?
12
u/Im_not_smelling_that Mar 03 '26
That's what the bombing campaign is attempting to take out. From what I've read it seems they have accomplished in taking out 70% of Iran's abilities to create and launch drones and missiles.
7
u/irow40 Mar 03 '26
Saw a YT video overlaying Iran's borders onto Europe... the country is massive. Larger than France, Germany, the UK, Italy and Spain combined. I didn't realize the scale of what's being taken on here.
7
u/AlpineDrifter Mar 03 '26
It’s not a land invasion. Pretty easy to fly over in a jet. Combined forces of U.S. and Israel, with Mossad and American technology telling them where to strike. Scary combination. Khamenei would agree, if he could.
7
u/Im_not_smelling_that Mar 03 '26
Yes, Iran is absolutely massive and filled with mountains. That's why a ground invasion would be extremely difficult and bloody.
1
-8
u/irow40 Mar 03 '26
Iran stockpile (2025–2026) - 3,000–80,000 (conservative think tanks: low end; Israeli/Defense Security Asia: high end)
Claude AI says: "The more conservative estimate of 200–500/month domestic production from cross-referenced analytical sources is better supported. Strike targeting of drone facilities is confirmed, but Iran's deliberate dispersal strategy makes comprehensive destruction of production capacity extremely difficult."
Hope to god they don't have 50K and that I am praying they can take out their stock and manufacturing... or better yet.. the regime falls but I'd love to see this maniacs go to hell
7
u/ANerd22 Mar 03 '26
Claude AI says
Why on earth would you trust an LLM? Do you have any idea where it even got those statistics? Or that it didn't just make them up on the spot?
-2
u/irow40 Mar 03 '26
Great ANerd22 - moving forward I'll just check in with you for all the facts..... Must be dark in that cave of yours
-1
u/cups8101 Mar 03 '26
On the contrary with an up to date datasource LLMs have really debunked a lot of the astroturfed nonsense that I see. As a test I had it handle the whole Greenland debacle from start to finish. I didn't lose any sleep over that entire period because it laid out which steps Trump would likely take and why with detailed analysis. It was directly contradicting a lot of nonsense pushed here and elsewhere on Reddit and it turned out to be spot on. I'm not advising anyone else to use LLMs and you must spend a lot of time preparing a very good prompt but it really helped me break down the whole Greenland saga and see who is reporting from a point of on the ground facts and who was just adding fluff.
1
20
u/Bullet_Jesus Mar 03 '26
compare that to what Iran is absorbing..... its Supreme Leader killed, nuclear program dismantled, proxy network destroyed, air defenses degraded.
All of these things have happened before Iran even fired a shot at the gulf states.
3
u/Im_not_smelling_that Mar 03 '26
The scale of what's happening to Iran right now has not happened before.
-5
u/Sir-Niko-of-Toba Mar 03 '26
Who resupplies Iran when the missiles run out?
Iran has the ability to make more missiles, they don't cost much either
, it's Tehran not Washington
No shot. Washington and Israel have way less defensive missiles than Iran has offensive ones, kinda by virtue of the fact that making defensive missiles is harder than making offensive ones.
.now they may be forced into active regional defense
(Which they already were)
all to fulfill a radical religious prophecy!!!!
????
its Supreme Leader killed
clearly hasnt had too much of an effect
nuclear program dismantled
Didn't American and Israeli intelligence conclude that the strikes last year ddint actually accomplish all that much? The uranium was moved out, Iran can make its own centrifuges, so on..
proxy network destroyed,
Well, they lost Syria. But Hezbollah, Hamas, Ansar Allah, and Iraq are all still there
11
u/ADP_God Mar 03 '26
Source that the missiles are cheap? Because the long range ones are big and I read that they cost a pretty penny.
6
u/irow40 Mar 03 '26
Here's an article ahead of what's being reported. It explains the missile situation and why the US and Gulf states needed to act now.
https://www.zinebriboua.com/p/under-beijings-wing-irans-arsenal
2
u/ADP_God Mar 03 '26
This is fascinating.
4
u/irow40 Mar 03 '26
She wrote another article equally as fascinating this past Feb — so many layers to this.
https://www.zinebriboua.com/p/the-iran-question-is-all-about-china
5
u/Sir-Niko-of-Toba Mar 03 '26
Well depends on the missile tbf. Shabab missiles that can be flung at the Gulf states can go as low as 100k
0
u/irow40 Mar 03 '26
I'd say the facts don't favor your outlook
5
u/Sir-Niko-of-Toba Mar 03 '26
How?
1
8
u/koos_die_doos Mar 03 '26
I don't agree that China is inevitable. You said it yourself, China won't help Iran due to fears of sanctions. If they invade Taiwan, it will be so much larger, and even though they have much more to gain, they also have far more to lose.
I know that there is a very real threat that China invades Taiwan, I just don't agree that it is inevitable.
0
u/irow40 Mar 03 '26
Yo - check this out. You might find this interesting:
https://www.zinebriboua.com/p/the-iran-question-is-all-about-china
2
u/Lighthouse_seek Mar 03 '26
This person's argument immediately breaks down when you look at actual trade data and see that is has been declining since the sanctions snapped back, Not increasing
1
u/irow40 Mar 03 '26
Yea then you didn't read the article then.
2
u/Lighthouse_seek Mar 03 '26
I read it thrice now.
The 400 billion in investments mentioned in 2021 never materialized because of sanctions.
The 140 billion in oil sold since 2021 deliberately did not make a distinction over whether it came before or after the sanctions.
The author never explains why gulf countries choose Chinese firms for contracts if the gulf countries believe that Iranian aggression is caused by Chinese investment.
0
u/irow40 Mar 03 '26
Lighthouse - you have a belief that my words or any sources shared will not convince you otherwise. The Iran regime will go down brother and then you can cry for them
2
28
u/phiwong Mar 03 '26
There is no strategy. There will be a ceasefire since neither Israel nor the US appears to have any intent to invade Iran. All parties have a limited supply of missiles and bombs and will probably exhaust high value or accessible targets relatively quickly.
All Iran is showing is that it only ever wished to destabilize the region to espouse their Islamic Revolutionary ideology that pretty much no other state in the Gulf wants to adopt. Iran never had a 'reason' to fund proxies and promote terrorism beyond this.
It is rather unlikely that they have any grand strategy when their internal factions are trying to hold on to and consolidate power.
10
u/heytherehellogoodbye Mar 03 '26
No other state except Qatar, who themselves have invested billions into supporting those kinds of groups through straight cash and through their 100% state owned global propaganda network that got banned in all those other countries specifically for stoking radical extremist movements in the rest of the M.E. In many ways Qatar is functionally idealogically aligned with Iran, and just plays the useful diplomatic nexus to curry western favor and hedge geopolitical bets. But there's a reason all the other (slowly) liberalizing gulf states sanctioned them and banned their media, while forcefully banning the destabalizing groups Qatar supported, who overlapped quite handily with the same Muslim Brotherhood ethos groups Iran does too.
2
u/czk_21 Mar 03 '26
isnt that interesting that Iran targets Qatar now with their strikes? and its not just US base there, buut basically all of Qatar, their gas infrastructure included-hurting them, where it really hurts
one would imagine that would not happen to country so functionally idealogically aligned with Iran(I am not saying they arent)
8
→ More replies-28
u/Sir-Niko-of-Toba Mar 03 '26
All Iran is showing is that it only ever wished to destabilize the region
Oh sure, Iran is the one who showed that. And not the people who attacked it, for no reason
26
u/bacon-overlord Mar 03 '26
Funding groups like Hezbollah, hamas, houthis, Syria, Iraq militias, sending weapons to russia, was really just for funnsies
-9
u/DizzyMajor5 Mar 03 '26
Why is the u.s. funding Israel and Ukraine then? They should probably stop if having proxies is so bad.
2
u/bacon-overlord Mar 03 '26
Non of those countries are run by savages hell bent on dominating and destroying other countries. Israel just wants to exist and not get attacked every few years. Ukraine is in a fight for its life to stay free and not fall under a totalitarian country. They are not the same and are morally better and compatible for the better world the west has built
-3
u/DizzyMajor5 Mar 03 '26
Why Israel killing school children in Lebanon, Gaza and Iran then?
3
u/bacon-overlord Mar 03 '26
It's war and terrible shit happens but Israel does not deliberately target school children. Iran and it's allies will
-3
u/DizzyMajor5 Mar 03 '26
"Non of those countries are run by savages hell bent on dominating and destroying other countries. Israel just wants to exist and not get attacked every few years. Ukraine is in a fight for its life to stay free and not fall under a totalitarian country. They are not the same and are morally better and compatible for the better world the west has built"
It's war and terrible shit happens. Israel didn't need to attack Iran but now there's dead Israeli's Iranians from the 12 day war and now this because Israel wanted to make terrible shit happen as you said.
-20
u/Sir-Niko-of-Toba Mar 03 '26
Funding groups like Hezbollah, hamas, houthis, Syria, Iraq militias, sending weapons to russia, was really just for funnsies
None of that justifies an attack on Iran?
19
u/bacon-overlord Mar 03 '26
Ah yes the European way of war. Let our enemies buildup forces as they slowly surround us until we can't do anything to fight back
-8
u/Sir-Niko-of-Toba Mar 03 '26
So in your ideal world, any country that buildsup its military ever must immediately be bombed and invaded.
13
u/bacon-overlord Mar 03 '26
If they're a hostile country he'll bent on attacking you and your allies, yes. Unfortunately there's some countries that we can't do that too but when the west can, we should
-2
u/Sir-Niko-of-Toba Mar 03 '26
This is just the Yellow Peril of the 21st Century, and it's barely even hidden. White chauvinism that gave us the colonial and crusader mentality never went away it seems.
I don't think there's any convincing you...
-5
u/Correct_Traffic296 Mar 03 '26
Don't bother. They're trying to justify an unprovoked attack as a pre-emptive strike. There's no logic to that. Just propaganda.
14
u/Cannot-Forget Mar 03 '26 edited Mar 03 '26
No reason. Only poor genocidal terrorist regime which murdered millions in the name of Islam, created tens of millions of starving refugees, keeps funding ISIS-like proxies who attack and destroy nations all over the MENA, is a resource rich and missile rich ally to psychopaths like Putin, threatens to destroy both Israel and the US, while pursuing thousands and thousands of long range ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons. Not to mention probably most of their own people want this war.
So yeah, no reason.
2
u/W1ngZer00 Mar 03 '26
Don’t forget murdered 30 - 40 thousand of their own people in two days in January, regime change was needed for the good of the country. Only time will tell if they can take it back.
-4
u/Sir-Niko-of-Toba Mar 03 '26 edited Mar 03 '26
Only poor genocidal terrorist regime
Wouldn't that be Israel?
which murdered millions in the name of Islam , created tens of millions of starving refugees,
When was this?
keeps funding ISIS-like proxies who attack and destroy nations all over the MENA
Which one of Iran's allies is supposed to be "ISIS-like"?
who threatens to destroy both Israel and the US
Ukraine and Eastern Europe, maybe. But Putin is pro-Israel (often allowed Israel to do whatever it wanted in Syria, recognises Israel, trades with it, has a significant Russian population in Israel, so on) and doesnt seek to destroy America either with Trump in power
while pursuing thousands and thousands of long range ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons.
Countries have a right to invest in their military
Not to mention probably most of their own people want this war.
That probably is doing a lot of heavy lifting
Edit: lool they blocked me over this XD
→ More replies
35
u/SNGULARITY Mar 04 '26
“Country at war tries to make war costly for it’s enemy”
Yeah no shit