[engineer_22]

> The US air superiority has completely done them, it'd seem.

They're managing to successfully counterattack with strikes in every country in the region, while the bulk of their central leadership has been KIA. They still control the Strait of Hormuz and very intense naval, land, and air operations will be required to dislodge them.

If this war was started with the goal of the complete destruction of Iran, ground troops will have to go in (President Trump et. al. is already in the media telegraphing the requirement). Iran is a mountain fortress, and the home team (pop. 91 million) holds advantage. This has the potential to become and long and bloody war.

[mekdoonggi]

I think people in the US are seriously discounting this. The only thing that Iranian forces have to do is keep lobbing drones. You don't need leadership, heavy industry, or even a lot of drones as long as you keep lobbing them.

It takes very little for them to keep disrupting things which affect the global economy.

Even if leadership changes at the top and isn't killed, why would independent cells of fighters stop?

I think there's a huge possibility that Iran can keep being disruptive longer than the US is willing to spend $$$$$ bombing and intercepting.

[collingreen]

One nuance here is where that $$$$ actually goes. The US has a history of diverting a staggering amount of money to the war companies every 2 decades or so. The spend here might be the goal, not the cost.

[AnimalMuppet]

Well, they've managed to launch and land strikes on every country in the region. "Successful counterattack" is a considerably higher bar than that, IMHO.

[engineer_22]

What use is that quibble?

Everyone agrees the United States and Israel have inflicted more damage than the Iranians have in reverse. That's not an interesting point.

More interesting is the Iranian strategy moving forward, since our insight into their world is restricted.