[kumarvvr]

What leverage does US actually have here? Even Israel for that matter?

The only options left for US are large scale bombing, like in Vietnam or Cambodia OR putting soldiers on the ground. Going on for years. Or drop a nuke.

Bombing will be of limited use and extremely costly, because is Iran is too large. Its a geographical fortress, mostly large mountain ranges, or deserts.

Soldiers on the ground means a large scale logistics setup, bases, buildup, etc. Its costly and deadly. US soldiers will start dying from day 1.

And then, Iran has total control over the strait. It can decimate the livable conditions in the GCC countries. Mind you, Iran gets about 5% of its water from desalination plants. Almost all GCC countries get more than 50%, sometimes upto 85% of their water from desalination plants. Couple that with hits on their power infra, and the population will be left thirsty in the middle of the desert. None of them can survive without their Air conditioners and water supply. With those countries dying out, Iran emerges as the super power in the region.

[bawolff]

> What leverage does US actually have here? Even Israel for that matter?

Arguably, in a continous war setting Iran eventually runs out of money to pay its soldiers or build new misiles. Especially if their oil facilities are bombed.

I dont think iran can physically keep this up long term. The counter balance to that is usa cannot keep this up politically even in the short term.

[kumarvvr]

The money thing is true. But China and Russia will extend support.

Iran is collecting about 2 million USD from each vessel through the strait. And they are about 50 passing through them each day. That's 100 million USD per day. Or about 30 odd Bullion USD per year.

Plenty of money to spend on war and some more. Not to mention the money it earns from selling it's oil and blocking GCC oil.

[YZF]

Russia is in no position to support anyone. See their support of their friend Assad where they actually had military presence. They'll provide intelligence and targeting info like they've been doing.

China doesn't seem that interested to help the regime. They'll get their oil from any regime. They'll sell them stuff but I don't see them paying the salaries of the IRGC.

There are not 50 vessels passing per day and also the US is now threatening a blockade. If Iran's oil terminal is bombed as is the threat then it's unlikely Iran will allow other vessels through. Likely most of the few vessels that are passing today are carrying Iranian oil.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3w39lg84w2o

19 ships since the ceasefire by 17:00 BST on 10 April.

[bigyabai]

> Russia [will] provide intelligence

> China [will] sell them stuff

Being able to import advanced munitions and coordinate them with satellite intelligence is basically all Iran wants/needs. They're not interested in hiring Chinese mercenaries, sustaining a surface fleet or keeping planes in the sky - they need leverage, and their allies are giving it to them.

The support being offered is serious business, and I'm surprised that you'd write it off because Russia won't install an Iranian tripwire force and China won't cut IRGC paychecks.

[bawolff]

Will china sell them advanced munitions in a significant number? So far its been mostly dual use materials, and maybe some manpads if you believe rumours.

China has a tendency to play both sides when it comes to the middle east, so its a bit of an open question to what extent they are willing to support Iran if it starts to affect their relationship with other middle eastern countries.

And of course "sell" is an important word here - is that good enough for iran or do they need free support given their economic sutuation.

So to be clear, its not nothing, but i'm still a bit unconvinced that either of thrm are willing to help Iran enough to actually save it.

[Gud]

> Iran is collecting about 2 million USD from each vessel through the strait.

No they aren’t. They’re collecting ¥14M.

Maybe nitpicking, but I believe this is the most important change to come out of Israel’s and USA’s war against Iran. The petrodollar is dead, and this will have severe long term consequences for the USA.

[WarmWash]

Oil is dead so we shouldn't sweat it.

Once boomers rotate out of power and people who still have plastic brains take over, the rotation away from oil will speed up dramatically. Right now it's looking like $5/gal is a surety, and we might even see $6.

All the people paying $80 to fill up their eco car are going to be wondering if not being able to drive 7 hours once a year without stopping for a 30 minute charge is really worth it for sticking with gas.

[YZF]

To figure out the leverage just imagine 50 fighter jets over your head each with 6 heavy bombs where their goal is to blow you up. Now argue that those controlling those jets have no leverage.

Bombing has limits but can also do a lot of damage. It's true not every single IRGC member or leader can be bombed out of existence. But many can. It's also true that some infrastucture is buried. But a lot isn't. Specifically all the energy infrastructure that accounts for half of the country's revenue and about 25% of GDP is easily bombed.

There is leverage. That said your leverage over someone who is willing to die and not give anything up is always somewhat limited.

Iran also has leverage due to its control of the Strait of Hormuz and its remaining ability to fire missiles and drones across the region.

The GCC and their allies has no problem flying drinking water in if that's really needed. But it's true that Iran can hurt them some more. They are sitting on some extraordinarily large cash reserves and other investments so they may be willing to take some pain. Supposedly some of them were asking the US to keep attacking Iran. Also keep in mind none of these countries have actively joined the war yet and that may change if Iran keeps attacking. They have small but very well equipped armies.

[acdha]

> It's true not every single IRGC member or leader can be bombed out of existence. But many can.

In the last half century, we tried that in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Iran. When is it going to start working?

The problem is that blowing stuff up creates enemies, not friends, so each time you kill one senior leader you create incentives for the other people those bombs killed to decide you’re worse than the target.

[leereeves]

In 2024, a survey by GAMAAN estimated that "A significant majority of Iranians (around 70%) oppose the continuation of the Islamic Republic."

Then the government of Iran murdered thousands to crush protests and retain power. Why would the people of Iran still be upset at the death of senior government leaders? (Apart from the minority who already supported the regime, continued to support them even as they killed protestors, and are very loud now.)

1: https://gamaan.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Iranians-Polit...

[acdha]

Yes, I’m aware. I have no love for the Iranian regime and would cheer their collapse if it lead to something better. However, bombing civilians will not make friends in general and in this case doing so on behalf of Israel is a gift to the IRGC because it supports decades of regime propaganda. Anyone who was inclined to say America cared for the Iranian people in February now has a mountain of bodies and rubble to make them reconsider.

[padjo]

What direction do you reckon support has been trending in the last month?

[leereeves]

I have no information about that, and of course no one currently in Iran would dare say anything bad about the regime right now.

However, I find it hard to imagine anyone thinking:

"I didn't like the Islamic Republic, and I was pissed and afraid when they killed thousands of protestors, but now that some of the leaders have been killed by the US, I've changed my mind about the Islamic Republic."

[Arodex]

>To figure out the leverage just imagine 50 fighter jets over your head each with 6 heavy bombs where their goal is to blow you up. Now argue that those controlling those jets have no leverage.

You have no leverage.

The Vietnam war ended only 50 years ago and you behave as if it never happened.

[general1465]

Furthermore Iran is mountainous country. Bombing Iran is as pointless as bombing Germany in 1944 - Everything important has been under ground and did nothing to limit industrial output of the enemy.

[arrrg]

The amount of suffering the regime in Iran and the US administration are willing to accept and can bear is probably wildly disproportionate and much higher on the side of Iran.

That also substantially weakens any leverage the US has.

A mere slight increase in gas prices and slight threat to the economy can already substantially weaken US will to fight …

[WarmWash]

Fighting people who think they are divine leaders with a mandate from God is the worst. No logic, no possibility of logic, and they will burn everything and anything to stay in power.

[mtlmtlmtlmtl]

Riyadh, a city of 7 million people gets basically all of its drinking water from desal plants in the Persian Gulf. If those plants get knocked out, they're just gonna "fly in drinking water"? So with some napkin math, assuming 1 litre of water per person per day(which is extremely conservative considering they're in the desert heading into the hottest part of the year), that's 7 million litres of water every day. Can they "fly in" 7000 tons of water every single day? And where is all this water coming from? I have serious doubts about Saudi Arabia having "no problem" doing this.

[swat535]

You clearly haven't learned your lesson from IRAQ, Afghanistan and Vietnam.

You can continue to nuke Iran to oblivion and it will not make a difference.

IRGC welcomes it, you think they care about Iranians? All you are doing is bombing hospitals, schools and civilian areas.

By the way, in all those countries, you had full air dominance, in Iran you barely have air superiority. The crowning jewels of America has been hit and many other aircraft shot down: F35, F15, multiple drones, etc. All your assets in GCC are heavily damaged, expensive aircraft carriers were hit and forced to retreat..

All the IRGC military assets are underground, air strikes alone will not penetrate it. Also IRAN has the proxies that will cause even more pain you for.

Now that you lost IRAQ, IRGC gained yet another militia.

You'll have to launch a multi year ground war, to even have a shot at attempting to take the nation.

I promise you that a nation of 90M people is not going to welcome you.

[WarmWash]

The US was banking on a revolution, which hasn't yet materialized.

A near term power vacuum and civil war might not be unlikely right now. This war started (on purpose) when Iran was the furthest thing from "united".

[kumarvvr]

Presently we are seeing a rally around the flag in vogue in Iran.

They are a civilization going back centuries. No matter their internal fights, they will come together against a common enemy, an enemy for 45 years that is.

I am guessing the IRGC will also be careful enough to not rile up the populace until this war is over.

[YZF]

There is no rally around the flag. Those that hate and fear the regime are not going to join it.

[WarmWash]

From what I have heard from the ground, regular people are paralyzed with fear/uncertainty and people with power feel like they are dead no matter what.

[megamike]

Iran Newspapers and News Media Guide http://www.abyznewslinks.com/iran.htm

[megamike]

good book highly recommend Iran: A Modern History Charting the rise of modern Iran with Yale historian Abbas Amanat https://macmillan.yale.edu/middleeast/iran/publications/iran...

[thefounder]

I think dropping a nuke is not out of question. We just have to watch the language of the U.S administration over the next weeks.

[YZF]

It's very hard to imagine nuclear weapons being used in this conflict.

[xethos]

It was hard to imaigne the United States sticking their nose in the middle east again

It was hard to imagine America kidnapping a head of state, the president of Venezuela

It was very hard to imagine Amercia threatening annexation of Canada and Greenland

Your difficult to imagine world is closer to reality than I think either of us would like

[mplanchard]

Agree with the general point, but the second example shouldn’t have been that hard to imagine. We’ve done it before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Pana...

[thefounder]

And is true about the nukes

[4gotunameagain]

Is it? Israel is a rogue state at this point, and it has openly stated that were the US to withdraw, they would use "any means necessary".

They seem to not be satisfied by causing global economic harm, they want nuclear annihilation as well.

[Gud]

If they do, they will be exterminated.

There is no timeline where Israel comes out victorious if they start using nuclear weapons.

[FunnyUsername]

What quote are you referring to?

[hariharan_uno]

yeah, I think this will escalate further and US might drop a tactical one on some island (military but not heavily inhabited) as a show of power. I don't see a way back out otherwise for US.

[cosmicgadget]

The US doesn't need to show power. Using nukes is all downside.

[hariharan_uno]

Normally yes, but this is the Suez canal moment for US. I think countries stopped caring about US especially in the last year and starting reducing dependence on US economically and politically. So, the unpredictable Trump may try to do something dramatic. China will be the biggest winner of this all.

[cosmicgadget]

The world sentiment is to deintegrate with the US - something Trump campaigned on - and so he is going to do something dramatic? And that dramatic thing is to use nuclear weapons?

Just no. Stop this.

[cosmicgadget]

What would that gain?

[thefounder]

I think they will settle that Iran won’t reuse whatever they have of that nuclear fuel if the U.S drops the nukes on the Iranian nuclear sites. Iran may also think twice before rejecting a deal in which they agree to not acquire a nuclear weapon.

[energy123]

The US holds more leverage than you may expect. First, the US can/will reopen Hormuz by force without a sustained ground occupation. Here's the former CENTCOM commander in April 2026:

> GEN. MCKENZIE: Well, let me, let me say, first of all, we do have the ability to open the strait. Should we choose to do it in what you're seeing now are the- what I would call the precursor of the initial steps in such a campaign you want to reduce Iran's ability to fire short range rockets and missiles into the strait against warships. You want to take out their fast attack craft. Think of them as cigarette boats, large, powerful outboard engined boats that can race out and get among ships and cause direct damage that way. What we're doing is we're going after all those vessels. And that's where a 10s attack aircraft, attack helicopters and other slow moving, low altitude platforms are so very effective. So we're in the process of removing those right now. At the same time, we're working to get rid of Iran's mine stockpile. The mines are very dangerous. They had thousands when the war began. I have no doubt we significantly (UNINTELLIGIBLE) them, now. Of course, it doesn't take many mines to cause a significant blockage to world shipping. So all of that is underway right now, and you want to reduce those to a low level before you put your warships up there to actually sort of test the waters in that strait. I have no idea what Admiral Cooper's decision making process is going to be for that, but I think we're well on the way to achieving those goals.

Here's Admiral Cooper in 2025:

> "Senator Peters: So what is your assessment? How quickly could the U.S. and allied naval forces secure freedom of navigation if commercial shipping is indeed attacked in the straits?

> Admiral Cooper: Senator, the specifics of this are highly classified. But historically, in mine warfare, nothing happens quickly. I think we would think of this in terms of weeks and months, not days."

To an outside observer, it looks like nothing is happening. But what we currently see is a large concentration of fires around the coast, A-10s and Apaches, lots of reaper drones for ISR, attriting the USVs, anti-ship missiles, mines and mine-laying vessels. According to the former CENTCOM commander, you don't need to occupy this land to reopen Hormuz, at most you need fires and short raids. Only after this shaping process can the US Navy run escorts through the shallow and narrow littoral safely. It's a gradual process, a plan that multiple former commanders have commented on publicly going back decades, and this is what the first steps look like. And unlike public perception that the strait needs to be 100% safe beyond any doubt before commercial shipping resumes, the precedent during Operation Praying Mantis proves otherwise. The situation in the Red Sea is somewhat different only because there's an alternative route.

Secondly, the assumption that GCC are deterred is not right. The GCC desire escalation, see for example:

https://apnews.com/article/trump-iran-saudi-arabia-mbs-gulf-...

> Gulf allies of the United States, led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, are urging President Donald Trump to continue prosecuting the war against Iran, arguing that Tehran hasn’t been weakened enough by the monthlong U.S.-led bombing campaign, according to U.S., Gulf and Israeli officials.

This is despite the threats to their critical infrastructure. To know why they want this, you need to understand the regional history in some detail. It can be summarized like so:

- UAE has a territorial dispute with Iran and stands to gain sovereignty over a number of islands in Hormuz.

- Saudi Arabia stands to gain control over Yemen and therefore over Bab al-Mandab if support for the Houthis is cut off.

- Saudi Arabia has a history going back over 10 years of asking the US to bomb Iran despite threats to their infrastructure, such as in 2015, and in 2019 when Soleimani organized attacks on Saudi oil and gas infrastructure.

- Iran is a competing imperial power and wants to obtain suzerainty over Arab states through satellites, to export the revolution. This is why Saddam invaded Iran in the 1980s. The fear among Iran's Arab neighbors is still there, and they won't accept the US just declaring victory and walking away. It's hard for people outside of the region to understand this because the facts that create this perception don't enter the news cycle in the West.

Even though the cost to the GCC is incredibly large, Iran does not have escalation dominance in this situation, because the political will among the GCC is commensurately larger.

The third aspect here is that Iran's defense industrial base is gone, which means their current stockpiles are all they have. Various estimates have been thrown around about their remaining missile stockpile from experts: "1/3 left", "30% left", "over 1000 left". But the common denominator is that they cannot sustain the current tempo (~1200 missiles/month) forever. This is not like the Ukraine war (or most other wars) where both sides have an active industrial base pumping out material to replace the lost material. This puts a hard ceiling on what Iran can achieve against the Gulf states, certainly below total destruction of all their critical facilities. If this wasn't true, the Gulf states wouldn't be pushing the US to escalate.

The fourth aspect is that Iran still has much to lose, and the US can easily deliver those losses to Iran. Their oil exports are the most obvious next step, 10% of their economy can be temporarily removed with a naval blockade of Kharg or equivalent reversible means, which is revenue they use to pay IRGC wages and stave off civil unrest like what we saw last year.

Finally, as committed as the IRGC is (or as committed as they portray themselves to be through a concerted information warfare campaign via their centrally controlled media), there is historical precedent of hardline regimes "surrendering" when faced with a belligerent that has the combination of political will and capabilities. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Khomeini's "drinking from the poisoned chalice" in the 1980s, the one-sided ceasefire agreement that Hezbollah agreed to in 2024, the Japanese surrender in WW2. If the IRGC feels it needs to commit to zero enrichment to preserve the revolution, they probably will.

[ndsipa_pomu]

I really can't see how the US can fully reopen the strait without a major land invasion. They'd need to occupy pretty much all the coastal regions to be able to prevent drones (air and sea) being launched to attack ships trying to pass through. The thing is that ships are going to be vulnerable for all of their journey through the Strait, so it's not like the US can just defend one part. They could try using escort ships, but that'll work out very expensive as they'll be destroyed by cheap drones sooner or later.

Even if the US manages to occupy all the coastal areas, then those areas become the new targets rather than the ships, so it'll end up being extremely costly to the US in terms of people and resources.

It's such a huge strategic mistake to attack Iran just to keep Israel happy.

[energy123]

The former CENTCOM commander said that all you need to reopen the strait is fires and short raids, not occupying the territory.

[ndsipa_pomu]

I don't see how that happens. What's to stop Iranians placing more mines in the water or launching drones to attack oil tankers?

[energy123]

Did you read what I wrote? I already laid it out. The US degrades the mines, mine laying vessels, and so on. Then the risk is reduced to a level that's acceptable for commercial shipping. That level isn't zero, despite what people say online. If you want a historical case study, look at the 1980s.

[general1465]

You can drop a sea mine from literal speed boat. Just kick it into a water. Why would you want to use a slow purpose build mine layer for that?

[HDThoreaun]

Iran can fire drones from the interior that they store in underground caves until minutes before they fire them. Fires and short raids won’t accomplish shit.

“No one thought Iran would be able to close the straight” -Trump