[w29UiIm2Xz]

The power wasn't there in the first place if the administration couldn't defend Hormuz. It's all the same capital and resources that prior administrations had. The actual blunder was exposing that weakness to the world. We could have done nothing and reputation would've carried the idea that we could.

[SlinkyOnStairs]

> The actual blunder was exposing that weakness to the world.

The world already knew.

The real strength of the prior admins was in simply not needing the military force. The 2015 Iran nuclear deal is a relevant example here. It didn't cost the US anything.

[stickfigure]

It did, however, allow the Khomeini regime to murder its own citizens with impunity. So someone paid.

[tasuki]

That same regime is still allowed to murder its own citizens, now more so than before. The US attacks have only made the regime stronger.

[stickfigure]

> The US attacks have only made the regime stronger.

This claim is not supported by evidence. The "best" we can say about the regime is that it persists. So far.

[toast0]

The Khomeini regime was always allowed to murder its own citizens, within its borders, with impunity. That's one of the priviledges of a sovereign state.

[tick_tock_tick]

I mean it really didn't get us anything either. It's not like Iran stopped working towards nuke when they signed it.

[potatototoo99]

Yes they did, to the best of anyone's knowledge they did adhere to the nuclear deal until it was cancelled by Trump. Do you have sources that contradict this?

[dylan604]

> It's all the same capital and resources that prior administrations had.

Is it? Depending on how far back into "prior administrations" you go, the modern US Navy is a shadow of itself.

[runako]

This leads to an interesting thought experiment.

Using conventional weapons only, what prior year's US Navy could beat the 2026 US Navy in combat?

[gpm]

That doesn't seem like the relevant question. A navy barely progressing as the technology progresses by leaps and bounds is just as problematic when you're measuring its strength compared to its adversaries.

[phil21]

It's both a shadow of it's former self, as well as being optimized for force projection vs. freedom of navigation/securing free trade.

It's probably even more powerful than peak cold war/WWII US Navy at force projection while adjusting for technology and adversary capability. Cruise missiles, much more capable aircraft, larger carriers, etc.

At securing the high seas or forcing open trade routes? Just the sheer loss in number of deployable warships available to surge into an area is nowhere comparable. That and logistical capability is nearly nonexistent and relies mostly on nearby basing vs. tankering/supply ships. Not to mention a much larger Merchant Marine they used to be able to fall back on.

There simply is not the ability for sustained operations at sea at any scale any longer, even if you had unlimited munitions to expend. You can certainly float a couple aircraft carriers 700 miles off some coast and keep them on station more or less indefinitely as you rotate them out, but that's really about it. And that's really the only sort of war the US Navy has had to fight for the past 30+ years.

[runako]

Separate discussion. I'm addressing the comment that the US Navy of today is a shadow of its former self.

[gpm]

No, the same discussion.

It's fair to say the British navy is a shadow of the former British navy that more or less conquered the world. It's also obvious the current one with an aircraft carrier would beat the former one with wooden ships and cannons.

The same applies to the US navy even when the difference is the quality and quantity of integrated circuits and not the difference between a telescope and radar.

[runako]

You're not making a cogent argument.

From most perspectives (civilian, political, financial), the "better" military is the one that wins. Your'e arguing that a navy can be a shadow of its former glory and still also be what is understood as "better" by most people. This doesn't make sense.

phil21 makes a relevant point that navies are used for different purposes, and the current US Navy is tuned for a different task than that which it currently faces in the Gulf.

[thinkingtoilet]

The power is there, they just don't want to pay the cost in terms of money, lives, and polling popularity. This was done on the whim of a man-child throwing a tantrum, backed by his deeply racist hatred towards Obama. There was no plan other than his usual bullying tactics. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad we are not investing insane amounts of money and large lives into this, but we absolutely could win this if we wanted to pay the cost.

[everdrive]

Not necessarily. It's a matter of risk. How many resources do we want to commit? Are we comfortable putting a large number of troops in Iran? Are we comfortable with major losses as we try to enforce against drones and mines?

It's not that I think any of these things are wise, but this is part of the risk calculus you make when you decide to wage war. It's more like a debate: if you don't have a plan for uncomfortable questions you're a poor debater. The US has the physical means to prevent the closure, but I think it's quite clear that this administration ignored known risks and acted recklessly. And more importantly, apparently had very little contingency planning if things didn't go their way.