[tristanj]

I disagree. Iran was about to lose. If this ceasefire had not happened, the US and Israel would bomb all of Iran's electricity and fuel facilities. That's what was supposed to happen today, and is what forced Iran to the negotiating table with an hour to spare.

Without electricity, there is no modern life. There is no ability to communicate, pay salaries, run a business, have running water, etc. Without fuel, there are no logistics; there is no capability to transport an army. Nor is there an ability to transport food, people will starve; it would cause an enormous civilian crisis, and this would cause massive riots bigger than the ones seen in January.

The Iranian government would have no ability to coordinate a response, and Iran would collapse within a week. The country would devolve into chaos, into paramilitary factions, and a civil war would start, similar to in Syria.

The US and Israel have been sitting on this the entire time. They don't want to do it, because it would cause near permanent economic damage to Iran.

Once Iran showed it had no ability to prevent the US/Israel from doing a indiscriminate bombing campaign, it was clear the US and Israel could always win this war through this outcome.

[techterrier]

It never had any ability to prevent an indiscriminate bombing campaign, and never did. And nobody ever thought otherwise.

It only ever had to prove it could keep the strait closed. Which it did. And now the americans are going away, and they can get back to hanging students from cranes.

The USA has failed to achieve any of its strategic goals, and is going home, defeated.

[tristanj]

The conflict is far from over, this ceasefire is unsustainable as neither side wants to agree to the demands of the other.

A ceasefire mostly benefits the US, since it can bring in more military assets across the globe. Ships and troops are still weeks away from arriving & being able to participate in combat operations.

A negotiated settlement is preferable to total destruction of the Iranian economy, and large destruction in the middle east, by all parties involved.

I expect the conflict to resume after two weeks, or later this year, after midterms.

[jimbob45]

…except very few died. The Iranian and US casualties and entire ME casualties since the operation started combined are less than 15% of the Iranian citizens slaughtered a month before this all started.

Do we not care about deaths anymore? Avoiding war and death is a win for everyone.

[nicbou]

They did not manage to bomb Germany, North Korea, or North Vietnam into submission and they tried for years. Winning through bombing alone has never worked.

[tristanj]

No, it would achieve the three primary goals of this conflict.

It would cause catastrophic economic damage to Iran, and given how politically unstable Iran currently is (millions of people rioted earlier this year), the regime would not survive the oncoming civil unrest.

It would be a humanitarian disaster, but from the US/Israel's point of view, it would be a victory. An Iran with no electricity has no capacity for industry, and has no ability to manufacture missiles, drones, or have a nuclear program.

Without ability to manufacture missiles, Iran would be unable coerce people to buy into it's Hormuz transit toll system, and the strait would reopen.

This weakened Iran would have no ability to produce nukes, close the strait, and make missiles; for at least a decade while they recover economically.

[krisoft]

> This weakened Iran would have no ability […], close the strait, […]

Here is where we disagree. And i think this is the only point which matters.

I agree with you that the US always had the ability to destroy Iranian civilian infrastructure. I agree with you that doing so would cause catastrophic economic damage, civilian unrest, regime overthrow etc. It would seriously disrupt their nuclear program for sure.

What it wouldn’t do is reopen the strait. As long as some ships pay the toll those monies can be used to pay the “warfighters” and their weapons. It is relatively cheap to do so. Ukraine demonstrated this with their unmanned surface vessels. This they can do even if the whole hinterland of Iran is in flames and turmoil.

In fact the more their economy collapses the more lucrative this coastal piracy “business” relatively to other opportunities becomes. People who “before the bombing” had better things to do will find that shaking down foreign ships is still doable “after the bombing”. Some of it will be out of ideology and hate for sure, destroying all the civilian infra of a country tends to whip up emotions in people. But fundamentally they can keep doing it because it is a business which pays.

And regime overthrow won’t help with this either. In the absence of a strong central coordinating force you might get multiple separate pirate outfits camping at different parts of the coast trying to take tolls. That obviously wouldn’t improve their economic success, but would increase chaos and hinder transportation even more.

In short while the USA could destroy Iran as a nation, doing so would not eliminate the threat to shipping in the region.

[tristanj]

Iran's "toll booth" only functions because they shoot missiles at ships that don't pay up. If they didn't shoot missiles, nobody would pay. They have no legal ability to do this; the strait is split between Iranian and Omani territorial waters. Iran does not have legal control over Omani waters. Actually enforcing their "toll" means firing missiles at ships in Omani waters who don't pay. It's a combination of piracy, terrorism, and an act of war (violation of Omani sovereignty).

This situation is unacceptable for every other Gulf country. It may not be dealt with in the coming weeks, but will be addressed in the coming months, in a similar fashion to how Somali piracy was neutralized.

Also, a neutered Iran would not have the capability of producing anti-ship missiles, which is the primary enforcement mechanic of this toll.

[reeredfdfdf]

"Without ability to manufacture missiles, Iran would be unable coerce people to buy into it's Hormuz transit toll system, and the strait would reopen."

You don't need missiles to keep Hormuz closed. Cheap drones, naval mines and such are enough, and those don't require that much production capabilities, especially if you get some help from Russia. It's enough to hit a ship every now and then, which keeps the insurers away.

Even without any infrastructure IRGC could wage a guerrilla war for a long time.

[drivebyhooting]

In an industrial collapse scenario people in Iran, including IRGC, might have something more urgent than antagonizing ships. Things like subsistence farming.

[nicbou]

That's not something I would cheer for. For what it's worth, this did not Germany, Japan, North Korea or Vietnam to collapse. What makes this time different?

Japan: Not without total defeat on every front

[tristanj]

Iran is already teetering on the brink of collapse, the country is suffering from a decade-long economic crisis, and massive riots nearly tore apart the country earlier this year.

It is highly urban country, where 75% of people live in modern cities. Cities cannot survive without a constant influx of food and water, both of which require electricity and fuel to be delivered. In the previous conflicts you mentioned over 50 years ago, Japan, North Korea and Vietnam had large rural populations that were less affected by access to electricity and fuel.

Also, consider how much of modern life now relies on vehicles and computers, which would be disrupted immediately if this conflict continues.

Regarding Germany, the allies did not focus on destroying German electrical infrastructure, they actually didn't consider it as a priority target. However, post-war analysis determined that if they performed a targeted bombing campaign on Germany's electrical generation, it would have significantly hampered Germany's industrial capacity, and pushed the war to a close months sooner.

[phs318u]

Turning Iran into another Afghanistan would not have been a win for anyone with a memory longer than the last two election cycles.

[tristanj]

It's still a victory. It postpones Iran's nuclear and missile capabilities by a decade, and kicks the can down the road so another administration can come back and clean up the mess again.

[ElProlactin]

Putting aside the fact that the humanitarian disaster you envision would not produce the simple result you expect, it's quite disturbing that you have completely glossed over the fact that destroying Iran's ability to produce electricity is a war crime.

Committing an act of genocide against a country of 90+ million people would be the death of the US as we know it.

[tristanj]

Ah yes, a comment from the morality police. According to international law, if the electrical grid directly enables Iran's military, then it is a valid military target. In every major conflict since WWII, electrical infrastructure has been targeted. This includes WWII, the Korean war, Vietnam War, Iran-Iraq War, the Gulf wars, 2003 Iraq War, and the Russo-Ukrainian War.

So no, it's not automatically a war crime, it's a case-by-case basis.

And claims of "genocide" from are laughable and ludicrous, the target is the IRGC, and regime change. If they wanted genocide there are far more effective ways to do so.

[watwut]

Russia bombing civilian infrastructure does not make it "not a war crime". The fact is, USA and Israel did committed war crimes here and planned to commit more of them.

And yes, according to international law. No, you do not get to bomb desalination plants, eletricity plans, universities, hospitals, bridges and schools and claim "it is not a war crime because soldiers in area exist".

[tristanj]

It is not possible to take your moral high-ground "war crime" argument seriously, when Iran is doing the exact things you are accusing Israel of doing.

Iran is actively targeting:

1) Desalination plants (confirmed strikes) https://x.com/StealthQE4/status/2038421212435558429 https://x.com/EveryoneKnws1/status/2041843348613308922

2) Electricity generation facilities (multiple confirmed strikes) https://x.com/InsidConflict/status/2040604164527702153

3) Schools and Universities (targeted, no confirmed strikes yet) https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2026/04/05/american-uni... https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/iran-war-middle-east-news-u...

4) Bridges (targeted, no confirmed strikes yet) https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20260402-iran-publishes-li...

Iran is also firing ballistic cluster munitions, which have no military purpose, at civilian areas, almost daily.

[nicbou]

This is a textbook definition of terrorism. That the military uses the civilian infrastructure is a justification that not even the US tried to use. This is pure terror bombing, and they admitted as much.

[ElProlactin]

> According to international law, if the electrical grid directly enables Iran's military, then it is a valid military target.

This is not what international law states. The Geneva Conventions forbid direct attacks on civilian assets. Where assets are dual-use, the principle of proportionality applies and your intent cannot be to cause suffering, destroy civilian morale, etc.

I think anyone with an ounce of human decency and who isn't playing keyboard warrior saw Trump's threat to destroy "a whole civilization" for what it was, which is why so many military and legal scholars were disturbed by it.

For those who actually care about what the law says instead of beating their chests:

https://www.justsecurity.org/135797/war-crimes-rhetoric-powe...

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-live-hegseth-and...

[medoc]

Nobody with any slight acquaintance with history could believe any of these.

[nicbou]

Well yes, if cruelty is the goal, bombing civilians is cruel.

If I'm not mistaken, the Obama administration was about to accomplish every single one of those goals with a treaty, which the Trump administration cancelled. Bombing a country into accepting terms that they had already agreed to is not that impressive.

[leonidasrup]

Do not underestimate the effects of modern precision bombing, the technology moved forward (especially if we compare it with II. world war). Today it's much easier to destroy any kind of infrastructure, power plants, bridges, dams, water preparation facilities, waste treatment, cement, steel production, food silos, fuel storage, vehicle manufacturing, etc.

This is very important because, population in cities is much more dependent on infrastructure, than rural population. Rural population is mostly self sufficient. Over 60% of Iranians live today in cities, but under 20% of Vietnamese lived in cities at the time of Vietnam war. Vietnam was also strongly supported by China, with transportation using Laos and Cambodian.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-population-livin...

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-population-livin...

Iran is even now under sever water crisis.

https://www.wri.org/insights/iran-war-water-crisis-middle-ea...

So a large scale bombing of all Iranian infrastructure would probable not cause the fall of the regime, because they have the guns and can take anything they want, but the suffering and famine of Iranian people would be enormous.

Sometimes large scale bombing causes submission, for example fire-bombing of Japanese cities (atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was in the scale of destruction and loss of life comparable to Tokyo fire bombing, only much cheaper in the number of airplanes).

https://www.nippon.com/en/in-depth/d01171/

[nicbou]

My point is that you can't bomb a country into submission. You can use strategic air power in addition to other methods, but the bombing alone was proven again and again to fail. More often than not, it hardens the enemy's resolve.

Bombing Britain failed. Bombing Germany failed (except for dragging the Luftwaffe into a war of attrition). Bombing Japan failed on its own until Japan had no navy left afloat, and the Russians savaged their army in China. The bomb accelerated a victory achieved through other means.

In Korea, Americans levelled cities and infrastructure until there was nothing left to bomb. That did not win the war.

In Vietnam, Linebacker failed. Linebacker II bought slightly more favourable terms for the US in negotiations, but in the end, North Vietnam won.

Even the Desert Storm curbstomp would not have worked without boots on the ground.

I'm just rehashing a better post on this exact topic: https://acoup.blog/2022/10/21/collections-strategic-airpower...

[leonidasrup]

The destruction of Japan and Germany was much more extensive than Britain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World...

Yes bombing of Japan was a factor in surrender, but not the only one. Destruction of much industry, destruction of navy, all their allies were defeated. There were preparations for invasion of Japan or continuous atomic bombing, if Japan would not surrender.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Shot

"Two more Fat Man assemblies were readied and scheduled to leave Kirtland Field for Tinian on 11 and 14 August"

"At Los Alamos Laboratory, technicians worked 24 hours straight to cast another plutonium core. Although cast, it still needed to be pressed and coated, which would take until 16 August. Therefore, it could have been ready for use on 19 August."

The rate of bomb production was one of the Manhattan Project’s most closely guarded secrets. Expected rate of production by General Groves:

"The production rate of 3 bombs per month in August was expected to rise to 5 bombs per month in November, and 7 bombs per month in December. In 1946, it could rise much higher."

https://www.dannen.com/decision/bomb-rate.html

As is written in: https://acoup.blog/2022/10/21/collections-strategic-airpower...

"In Vietnam, the same problem complicated any effort at industrial bombing: the factories that supplied the North Vietnamese forces (both the regular PAVN and irregular NLF) were in China and especially the USSR. Moreover the population was not broadly dependent on centralized utilities (like electricity) which could be bombed."

The article tries to apply lesson from past bombing campaigns to war in Ukraine, but this don't apply because Russia could not establish air supremacy over Ukraine and could not apply large scale heavy bombing. And I hope that they never will...

[krainboltgreene]

> The US and Israel have been sitting on this the entire time. They don't want to do it, because it would cause near permanent economic damage to Iran.

That is such an incredible interpretation of the situation that basically requires you to ignore basically every economic problem being faced from this insanity currently and in the near future.

Sure, the US an Israel were just "too concerned" about the Iranian economy to do war crimes.

[jatora]

Yes? How is it a misinterpretation?

[7952]

The Iranian military is very decentralised and designed specifically with American capabilities in mind. So am not sure they would collapse. And a defending force is far less dependent on logistics in the short term. Also, Iran has a culture of sacrifice.

Iran and the US exist in a state of equilibrium of opposite strategies. The US is unwilling to risk its troops and sees sacrifice as weakness but otherwise applies maximal pressure. And Iran is willing to sacrifice its citizens and sees that as noble. And outside of a black swan event there is little hope of change.

Each side sees its enemies greatest military strength as a moral weakness and will keep fighting. Whilst conversely believing that sacrifice/maximal remote force may someday work. Iranians are not going to pivot because their culture has been forged as a response to exactly this kind of pressure. Nor will America suddenly see the sacrifices of thousands of it's men as virtuous. So things probably just revert back to the same equilibrium.

The point is that America blowing up power plants and Iran absorbing casualties is just an extension of the status quo.

[esseph]

If the US ended up damaging power plans and desalination plants, that would mark a clear inflection point in the number of "friends" the US has militarily, economically, and politically. Sure, Israel would still be a big fan, and maybe Saudi Arabia, but otherwise the US would become a pariah.

It would be damaging to Iran and potentially hundreds of thousands or millions would die.

That's a lot of blood debts.

There is no way the US would walk away from that situation into a better outcome.