Miscellanea: The War in Iran • Hacker News Board

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#371

Post by enaaem » Wed, Mar 25, 2026, 7:32 PM UTC

erezsh wrote: post #222

redwood wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see a lot of people throw this "no revolution" perspective around when everyone involved has been very clear to the Iranian people: that this is the time to stay safe and inside. People rising up will take time, and will be highly unpredictable. No one said otherwise. You imply "analysts already had this all identified" yet you are putting forward a supposition here that's just wildly unrealistic.

Seriously, all these armchair "experts" are missing very obvious truths - 1) Every authority figure is telling the Iranian people to stay inside and wait. 2) Revolutions don't happen overnight, the same way that businesses don't succeed overnight, even though from far away it might seem that way. 3) Official Israeli statements estimate it could take up to a year after the war is over for a successful overthrow, even…

I will predict right now that no revolution will happen. Revolutions happen because of fragmentation within the regime. If there is one thing that puts all grievances aside then that would be an existential war. Just like during the Iran-Iraq war.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#372

Post by tmnvix » Wed, Mar 25, 2026, 7:33 PM UTC

znnajdla wrote: post #240

No one seems to discuss the worst case scenario for this war. In the best/average case the world takes an economic hit. But I can think of one really big black swan event which no one seems to even consider (except Nassim Taleb). This war could trigger regime collapses all over the Arab world and put populist leaders in charge who rise to power on the basis of Gaza genocide fury. That would be catastrophic to Israel:…

A not-unlikely outcome in this war is the fall of many gulf monarchies. A great outcome for some. A terrible outcome for others (such as Israel and the US).

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#373

Post by amarant » Wed, Mar 25, 2026, 7:34 PM UTC

the_af wrote: post #335

amarant wrote: post #255

There are a few passages in there that in isolation are not very notable, but taken together are kind of interesting: >But countries do not go to war simply to have a war – well, stupid fascist countries do, which is part of why they tend to be quite bad at war – they go to war to achieve specific goals and end-states. >Again, it is not a ‘gain’ in war simply to bloody your enemy: you are supposed to achieve somethin…

> the author seems to be subtly implying that America is a "stupid fascist nation" He does nothing of the sort. I can clarify for you: the mention of fascist countries being bad at war is a link to another article by the author, which explains that fascist countries such as Mussolini's Italy and Nazi Germany were very bad at a war even while they mythologized and romanticized it, and derived their "sense of nation" o…

We read the article rather differently it seems. My reading is that he's pointing out the lack of goal for America here. Or at the very least the lack of a realistic goal. As he points out, it was clear 40 years ago that the stated objective stood very little chance of being achieved, which in turn makes one wonder if that was even a real objective at all.

And having a stated objective is quite different from having a real objective. Hitler had various stated objectives for all his wars (Lebensraum, fostering the Ubermensch, and rescuing Germans from the supposed oppressions of the Jews, which of course never existed and was purely a fiction to justify unspeakable horrors). If you take Hitler's words at face value, they were all motivated and not at all stupid wars. But you'd be very stupid to take Hitler's words at face value, especially with the benefit of hindsight!

I think the same arguments are applicable to trump. He has stated several goals, none of which are reasonably achievable. Take trumps words at face value and the war makes sense, but he has shown himself to be a pathological liar, so you'd be an idiot to believe him, especially when his statements lack any connection to the real world. Given how he tends to argue, it wouldn't surprise me at all if trump thinks that "bloodying your enemy" is a win in a war. That's how he works. That's how he handles trade. Doesn't matter if tariffs damage America, so long as they also damage other nations, it's a win. Of course he thinks that way about war too!

The end state trump is looking for is damage to Iran. He'll have it. But the rest of the world (including USA) will suffer tenfold. He doesn't care. Because he's a stupid fascist leader.

Thus, we end up with the conclusion that America had no real reason to start this war, and starting it anyway is an action historically only done by stupid fascist countries, therefore America is a stupid fascist country. It's a fourth order implication, which admittedly is not at all clear, and might not have been intentional.

I'm severely biased of course, I generally hold last week's turd in higher regard than I do trump (turds make great fertilizer!). So grain of salt and all that...

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#374

Post by draw_down » Wed, Mar 25, 2026, 7:34 PM UTC

Iuz wrote: post #261

> That said, this post is going to be unavoidably ‘political,’ because as a citizen of the United States, commenting on the war means making a statement about the President who unilaterally and illegally launched it without much public debate and without consulting Congress. And this war is dumb as hell. Proceeds to not mention the Epstein files at all. No comment here mentions it either. All that mess and all those…

[dead]

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#375

Post by littlestymaar » Wed, Mar 25, 2026, 7:35 PM UTC

ericmay wrote: post #361

estearum wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think they said it will give you self-sufficiency, rather that it removes one (important) dimension of dependency.

It doesn't though, it's the illusion of removing of a dependency which is rather dangerous. You're not only swapping one dependency for another in this specific case, but you're ignoring the rest of the global economy and its own dependencies and how they affect you.

You're swapping a dependency which hits very quickly if disturbed, for one that would take a much longer time to manifest.

When Russia invades Ukraine or Iran cuts the straight of Ormuz energy prize go up instantly, chocking the entire world economy in the course of a few weeks. Even if China stops exporting rare earths, it would take years before it affects the energy market.

It's absolutely incomparable.

Cuba is a good example by the way: a country can survive for decades while being cut from most technology import due to sanctions, but if you cut its access to oil, it becomes dirty real quick. And because Cuba has been stuck in the middle of the 20th century, it's actually much less dependent on energy than most developed or even developing countries.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#376

Post by tmnvix » Wed, Mar 25, 2026, 7:36 PM UTC

geraneum wrote: post #116

roenxi wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is anyone going to mention what these provocations are? I've yet to figure it out after 6-12 months. Pretty much everything going on seems to involve the Israelis aggressively expanding their borders or viciously attacking anyone who might oppose their expansion. I've lost count of the number of negotiators they've killed. Trump has averaged something like 1 bombing run on Iranian leadership ever 2 years. Iranian pro…

> 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…

> Iranian government’s issues with Israel are of ideological nature (according to the regime)

Opposition to the oppression of Palestinians is not ideological.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#377

Post by yyyk » Wed, Mar 25, 2026, 7:36 PM UTC

Yea, the US joined in in 2025, what should it imply about a future war? The assumption that Iran doesn't know who's bombing it sounds rather dubious. If anything, it should be very much in their interest to assume away US involvement unless 100% proven, given fighting an additional enemy tend to be very bad and US is so powerful. Unless...

Maybe the strategic balance creates a situation where it's advantageous for Iran to pull US in regardless of non-involvement. They don't do well against Israel alone (see rather low damage of 4 separate large scale attempts at attacking Israel directly), but US is so much easier to pressure via the Gulf. Indeed, this scenario doesn't quite need Israel.

So US risked getting pulled in not due to attacking in June 2025, but because the cheque given to the Gulf was starting to expire, the power balance was objectively swinging in favor of Iran at the location where Devereaux sees as the most important part of the Middle East. Now, say there are powerful states who feel they are in a decent position now but also that the strategic balance would slip away. What do they tend to do? Devereaux can consult his WW1 history.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#378

Post by brendoelfrendo » Wed, Mar 25, 2026, 7:37 PM UTC

pydry wrote: post #353

brendoelfrendo wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, Joe Kent resigning in protest over the war with Iran is admirable, but Joe Kent is also a vocal anti-Semite who was upset that US policy was being directed by Israel. And I don't mean that Joe Kent dislikes the Israeli government or its actions specifically, I mean he engages in anti-Jewish conspiracy theories and associates with anti-Semites like Nick Fuentes.

These days conflating criticism of israel with anti semitism is a very clear, very obvious and very reliable racist calling card. Mitch McConnell (adherent of the great replacement theory) accusing Joe Kent of anti semitism gave the accusation the same gravitas it would have if Strom Thurmond or the Grand wizard of the KKK did it. i.e. it only serves to underscore the accuser's racism.

Did I cite Mitch McConnell? No, I did not. I tried to be clear that I am not accusing Joe Kent of anti-Semitism because he is criticizing Israel, and Mitch engaging in that kind of rhetoric is only serving to make it harder for me to make my point. I am accusing Kent of anti-Semitism because he has a history of engaging in anti-Jewish conspiracy theories and consorting with neo-Nazis. My point is simple: we should not respect Joe Kent. His resignation is correct; his reasoning is flawed.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#379

Post by watwut » Wed, Mar 25, 2026, 7:37 PM UTC

Dig1t wrote: post #299

abraxas wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You elect clowns, you get a circus. The US has turned into a Wall-e society just getting off on entertainment and bored with civilized, thoughtful politicians. This is the end result of TOO MUCH prosperity for the average American. They haven't experienced true hardship in generations and we (the rest of the world) is paying the price of their hubris.

From the article: >Israel could force the United States into a war with Iran at any time. >It should go without saying that creating the conditions where the sometimes unpredictable junior partner in a security relationship can unilaterally bring the senior partner into a major conflict is an enormous strategic error, precisely because it means you end up in a war when it is in the junior partner’s interests to do so…

Israel is entirely dependent on USA. If USA says they cant attack, they wont.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#380

Post by lenerdenator » Wed, Mar 25, 2026, 7:37 PM UTC

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…

Well, there's more than just perceived invincibility.

The alternative is recognizing that you can effectively cow large populations of people into submission, no matter how much it sucks, and that the people who do this (in this case, the Islamic theocrats of Iran) can and will forever be a part of the geopolitical landscape with thrall over tens of millions of lives, and seek to influence even more. That there will always - ALWAYS - be a segment of humanity that has no real chance to think differently, to improve their lot, and to peacefully see the changes they want made to their society.

The hope in the immediate post-Soviet era of the early 1990s is that liberalized representative government would spread around the world, and that rules-based order would allow for peaceful resolution of problems through democratic processes and markets. And for a while, this seemed to be the route. Then it became apparent by the late 90s that there were still parties who didn't like the general direction that this was taking, particularly Russia, China, and at least some of the Middle East.

Now that China and the Middle East have become engines of global economic growth, there seems to be a tacit agreement, at least among the people who matter, than authoritarianism is fine so long as the right people get paid and that line continue to go up. In fact, it's more than fine; it's perceived by these people as more efficient at creating economic growth than that messy back-and-forth of representative government. And God forbid you have to set up that representative government after getting rid of an authoritarian one like in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Is it a harbinger of dystopia? Absolutely. But that's the reality that we inhabit.