Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Miscellanea: The War in Iran

acoup.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 1001 posts

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#151

Post by Starman_Jones »

spwa4 wrote: post #147
Starman_Jones wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding the first half of your comment, I believe that the article addresses both your recommendations.

Really? The only thing that comes close is the sentence about Iran's regime collapsing "on cue", and let's be honest, the only attention that factor gets is a sound-byte dismissal with barely a reference to what happened in January.

> But a ‘targeted’ ground operation against Iran’s ability to interdict the strait is also hard to concieve. Since Iran could launch underwater drones or one-way aerial attack drones from anywhere along the northern shore the United States would have to occupy many thousands of square miles to prevent this and of course then the ground troops doing that occupying would simply become the target for drones, mortars, artillery, IEDs and so on instead.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#152

Post by somenameforme »

khhu2bnn wrote: post #26

The amazing part to me is just the perceived invincibility this small circle within the US administration has. You can find dozens of articles with a search limited to Feb 1~Feb 27, plenty of analysis warning of the risks that have now become reality, everything - the strait, no revolution, further radicalization, critically low US stockpiles, abandoning other US partners, gulf destabilization, etc. In the fantasy im…

It's not just this administration. Everything with the US military has been going clearly downhill since the Millennium Challenge 2002. [1] It was, appropriately enough, a wargame simulating an invasion of Iran. It was a major event involving preparation in years and thousands of individual operators. When it was carried out the invading force was defeated by unexpected resources and resourcefulness from the Iranian side, not entirely unlike what Iran has done during our invasion.

Normally this would have been the end of it, lessons would be learned, and strategic directions adjusted. Instead the game was reset and the Iranian side was handicapped to prevent them from doing various things, effectively imposing a scripted result. This led to the US winning by an overwhelming margin and somehow the results of this rigged game were used to align strategic initiatives moving forward.

In modern times we increasingly seem to have entered into an era where people are willing to believe what they want to believe, rather than what they know to be true. And while it's easy to mock politicians and the military for this, this is also a mainstay of contemporary political discourse among regular people, including those who fancy themselves as well educated, on a variety of controversial issues.

I don't know what started this trend, but it should die. At least in terms of war it's self correcting. The US can't handle many more botched invasions or interventions, and I suspect we're already beyond the point of no return in terms of consequences of these errors.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#153

Post by solatic »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #140
solatic wrote: post #128

Author seems to not care about the prospect of the Iranian regime developing nuclear weapons, putting those weapons into the hands of its terrorist proxies, and sitting back while those proxies turn Western Europe and Palestine into radioactive wastelands (yes, Palestine, because it is not possible to restrict the fallout to just Tel Aviv, and the regime has shown itself to be far more anti-Israel than pro-Palestinia…

Donald Trump obviously doesn't care either, because every action he has taken during his two terms has increased the risk of Iran developing nuclear weapons. JCPOA was highly flawed, but it was a lot better than nothing, which is what Trump traded it for. If Trump was serious about stopping Iran's nuclear program, he would have made taking Isfahan a top priority of the initial strikes.

People repeat themselves saying "JCPOA was highly flawed, but it was better than nothing", as if JCPOA would have prevented Iran from getting nuclear weapons. It would not - it only delayed Iran getting nuclear weapons, and so by that line of thinking, it only delayed the onset of war.

Delaying the onset of war is not worthless, but it is not the same as arguing that war could have been avoided, which is what people who roll out that claim are really trying to argue. It's only true in a universe where Iran would have collapsed from within before the expiration of the sunset clause, and that clearly was not going to happen.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#154

Post by bryanlarsen »

solatic wrote: post #153
bryanlarsen wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Donald Trump obviously doesn't care either, because every action he has taken during his two terms has increased the risk of Iran developing nuclear weapons. JCPOA was highly flawed, but it was a lot better than nothing, which is what Trump traded it for. If Trump was serious about stopping Iran's nuclear program, he would have made taking Isfahan a top priority of the initial strikes.

People repeat themselves saying "JCPOA was highly flawed, but it was better than nothing", as if JCPOA would have prevented Iran from getting nuclear weapons. It would not - it only delayed Iran getting nuclear weapons, and so by that line of thinking, it only delayed the onset of war. Delaying the onset of war is not worthless, but it is not the same as arguing that war could have been avoided, which is what people…

> as if JCPOA would have prevented Iran from getting nuclear weapons

"highly flawed" implies that it's not very good at its primary goal

> it only delayed Iran getting nuclear weapons

That sounds better than no delay

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#155

Post by aa-jv »

Starman_Jones wrote: post #145
aa-jv wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The USA is the only nation so far which has committed mass murder with nuclear weapons. It seems to want to reserve itself that exclusive right.

As an American, i can say that, yes, I want us to be the only country to ever have used nuclear weapons. I don't think that should be a controversial opinion.

As a non-American, I want Americans to quit using their warrior narcissism to ruin the world. I'd like to see you disarmed, personally - your regime is out of control and your nation is in the grips of a psychotic nationalist mental illness episode. Your nation should definitely not have nukes.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#156

Post by littlecranky67 »

aa-jv wrote: post #125
littlecranky67 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the US can't help stop a slaughter because they don't help stop all slaughters in the world, is that your logic?

The US doesn't stop a slaughter unless it is strategically relevant to the US' special interests - and it does promote slaughters if they are strategically relevant to the US' special interest.

Is the motivation to stop a slaughter really important if that stops it?

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#157

Post by tencentshill »

orwin wrote: post #117
pm90 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its what happens when you surround yourself with incompetent yes men.

It's not all. I tried as much as I could not commenting on it, but the delusions of _a lot_ of hn users on the subject, even a few whose opinion I respect, were unreal. People who are not MAGA btw. And I'm not sure most of those realise how delusional they were, even now. They will probably rewire their memory to forget what they believed 3 weeks ago, compress the time they were wrong. I initially thought the 'manufa…

The facts are that this administration removed most of the top generals in the pentagon a year ago[0]. Notice the pattern in other areas of the administration when the opportunity for new appointments is created: Loyalty over competence and experience in almost every case. There are a few exceptions, but most were from His first term (Jpowell).

[0]https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/21/cq-brown-trump-fire...

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#158

Post by geraneum »

roenxi wrote: post #137
geraneum wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is anyone going to mention what these provocations are? Sure, it’s not hard to find. These started long before Trump. You should look beyond the last few months’ news cycles. Iranian government’s issues with Israel are of ideological nature (according to the regime) and their open support (financially and militarily) of a part of Palestinian resistance and Hezbollah. Iran has been active at Israel’s borders for yea…

Would it be fair to characterise these provocations as all involving Iran providing resistance to Israel aggressively expanding their borders? Because these cases seem to have a tendency to Israel controlling more land at the end of the day. It looks like a pretty classic situation where an aggressive power builds up in a series of "defensive" expansions. > Iranian government’s issues with Israel are of ideological n…

> Would it be fair to characterise these provocations as all involving Iran providing resistance to Israel aggressively expanding its borders?

Considering the results of this war so far and the one before, as well as Iran's military strategy, it doesn't seem plausible to think Iran sees (or ever saw) Israel as a threat to its borders' integrity. This may be the basis for Iran's strategy in the region in some version of the future, but to extend it to what they've done in the past would be hindsight bias.

IMO, the regime is not as much worried about Israel as it is about the US. Just compare the number of missiles and drones they shot at Gulf countries vs Israel.

But consider that Israel, rightfully or not, can make similar claims, which actually conform to the Iranian regime's long-stated goal of "destruction of Israel".

> Frankly, I'm struggling to see what aspect of their actions isn’t just common sense over the last decade.

That’s because it didn’t all start in the last decade. As you get closer to “present” in this timeline, it looks more like a one-sided affair. This is similar to the view which sees the whole Israel-Palestine issue only from October 7th onwards.

> Israel and their supporters have done a very bad job of offering an explanation of why the repeated hits were justified or helpful.

True, I’m also not sure if this is going to turn out as they wish it did. Although the jury's still out, but as the article points out, it seems unlikely.

edit: type

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#159

Post by aa-jv »

littlecranky67 wrote: post #156
aa-jv wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US doesn't stop a slaughter unless it is strategically relevant to the US' special interests - and it does promote slaughters if they are strategically relevant to the US' special interest.

Is the motivation to stop a slaughter really important if that stops it?

The motivation to be known as the nation that stops slaughters should not occlude the truth that in fact, the nation only stops slaughters that serve its own interests.

That the USA allowed Gaza to happen has put an end to the idea that Americans are the good guys and only do things that are good. The rest of the world sees this, even if heavily propagandized American citizens cannot, for whatever justifications they give.

And the USA's inability to reign its security partners in when they commit genocide has put an end to the idea that the USA has any actual weight in its diplomatic efforts.

The world is moving on from American hegemony - we will have to look to others for help in stopping America and its partners' slaughtering.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#160

Post by surgical_fire »

pas wrote: post #141
surgical_fire wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Iran is poorer than it was before, even more of a problem than it was before. Iran seemingly is coming out of this mess stronger than it was before. The regime remains unchanged, and is likely less willing to make concessions now. Hell, even sanctions on it being able to sell oil have been lifted, which is a boon to their economy. They are in effective control of the strait, and justified in exercising it now. Yeah…

Obviously the current US Mobministration is almost impervious to shame, but of course they still have their own egoistic expectations to grapple with. They are not afraid to spend money (and blood) on a problem, even if it turns out to be bigger than expected. How much? We'll see. The neighbors are motivated to not live next to one more nuclear state. We'll see how much.

> They are not afraid to spend money (and blood) on a problem, even if it turns out to be bigger than expected. How much? We'll see.

I agree, but it is unclear if "more money" is the answer here. Iran is a much tougher nut to crack than Afghanistan. Afghanistan is barely a country. Iran is an actual, functioning country, with a territory that is geographically very defensible. And on top of that, they have actually been preparing for this for decades.

The ironic bit is that I thought the Iranian regime was on an irreversible decline, as the unrest amongst the population was growing in recent years.

The analysis I have read point out that this attack actually further legitimizes the regime and takes steam away from internal unrest, especially if Iran comes out on top.

Every authoritarian government needs an enemy. The US-Israel axis provided a very real, tangible one.

Post reply on HN