[EthanHeilman]

The bigger issue is the tankers. The US Navy isn't going to be happy patrolling the strait sure, but even if they did they wouldn't be able to protect the tankers enough for it to make sense for tankers to take the risk.

The last time this happened the US opened the strait by accidentally shooting down an Iranian passenger plane after sinking a large chunk of Iranian navy. The Iranians assumed the US shoot the passenger plane down on intentionally as a war crime and assumed the US would was planning to escalate the conflict. This fear deterred further Iranian attacks on tankers.

This isn't going to work this time because the US started the war by performing of the most serious escalations possible, a decapitation strike against top Iranian leadership in a surprise attack using a diplomatic negotiation as cover. The US did this while the strait was open and Iran was considering a peace deal.

Threats of escalation are no longer effective at deterring Iran because Iran now believes the US will take such actions regardless of what Iran does. What does Iranian leadership have to lose by staying the course? Very little. On the other hand if Iranian leadership back down, they loose all their leverage, they look weak internally, they look weak externally and the US might decide to attack them out of the blue again.

This is why decapitation strikes are generally not done. They remove options and they undermine deterrence and paint belligerents into a corner.

[bena]

On a much smaller scale, this is advice I give to just about everyone: If your decisions won't affect how they treat you, then just do what you want. The fact that they won't like it doesn't matter, they didn't like you before.

[RobRivera]

This is very good career advice to any juniors reading

[YZF]

I think "Iran was considering a peace deal" is a bit of a stretch here. Iran was stalling for time, not willing to give anything, and the Strait was indeed open. If they won't give anything now why should they have given anything before.

What does Iran still have to lose? Well, a lot. All their oil is exported through the strait that is now blockaded by the US. The regime while having survived so far and executing thousands of people is still vulnerable over the long term. Leaders can still be hit and potentially the penetrations that led to the success of the initial strikes is still there. Iran's energy sector which is what the regime needs to maintain control (pay salaries etc.) has still not been hit. Other strategic targets that are dual use have also still not been hit.

Iran is never going to capitulate, until it capitulates. Their rhetoric is going to remain that the US has no more levers and can't change anything, because admitting otherwise invites those levers to be engaged. There is some truth to certain individuals likely willing to pay a large price but it's far from clear how deep and wide that extends and what is the tipping point. It is possible that Iran can withstand an oil blockade and even a resumption of air strikes for a very long time but it's also possible they can't. I can't tell and I doubt many people can. There are analysts and various experts with all sorts of opinions.

EDIT: Some of you may remember the Iraqi rhetoric before the US invasion. Then when the US attacked Iraq it crumbled like a paper tiger. The US lost 139 people or so (the coalition lost a bit more) to take Iraq and the Iraqi army largely surrendered or ran away. Assad's huge army with tanks and fighter jets, supported by Russia, collapsed from a bunch of ragtag ex-ISIS guys on Toyotas. The Iranian regime is a lot weaker than what you'd think by listening to them talk because any projection of weakness is the end of them. Ofcourse the US Iraqi invasion ended up very badly after this tactical success and that's the actual problem. Defeating Iran on the battlefield - not so much.

[EthanHeilman]

> I think "Iran was considering a peace deal" is a bit of a stretch here.

Iran was considering a peace deal. I agree that the most plausible was they would reject it.

> What does Iran still have to lose? Well, a lot.

The US could do this, sure, but then Iran would have even less to lose. This might work if the US started small and threatened escalation to try to compel Iran, but the US started at massive escalation so any additional airstrikes are likely to be less escalatory and thus less of a threat.

Even worse, there is a fundamental problem with madman theory, if Iran believes they are dealing with a madman, then threats aren't effective because a mad man doesn't keep promises. If you think your opponent is not rational, then you should not expect them to follow cause and effect.

> Iran is never going to capitulate, until it capitulates. Their rhetoric is going to remain that the US has no more levers and can't change anything, because admitting otherwise invites those levers to be engaged.

I agree that we don't know exactly how much pressure is on Iran. Iran historically has been willing to suffer almost any cost. During the Iran Iraq war then sent enormous numbers of teenagers in human wave attacks over and over. It is my estimation that the current war with the US has helped to stabilize the Iranian government and that they benefit more from the war continuing than from a peace deal.

The only military lever the US has left on the table is an invasion of Iran. Maybe limited to the coastline or maybe complete regime change. Trump has not even attempted to bluff that he is doing this.

[YZF]

The Iran/Iraq war is why I made the edit about US vs. Iraq. Just because Iran and Iraq fought for years does not mean Iran or Iraq are able to fight a super power. They can not.

Iran does not think they are dealing with a madman. I don't believe for a second that they think that if all the demands made of them are met someone will harm them just for the fun of it. The maximalists demands. The problem is those maximalists demands run against everything this regime stands for. Not that those demands are bad for the Iranian people, they're actually good. What is true (and it's not a question of madman theory) is that the US and Israel will absolutely take some concessions and be willing to delay dealing with the rest of the problems. That is not irrational. That is 100% rational. And ofcourse the Iranians knows this as well. What the US and Israel want is a stop to the proxy wars, a stop to long range missiles, a stop to the nuclear program and a stop to "exporting the revolution". No workarounds or funny business.

I think the regime is very weak. Conditions in Iran are worse and a population that already wanted them gone now wants them even more gone. Their boisterous rhetoric is a sign of weakness that westerners misinterpret. The more they sound threatening and winning the more they are losing.

[0xWTF]

> I think the regime is very weak.

The "enemy of my enemy" concept suggests that even if the people hate their government, their immediate pain is being caused by the United States and Israel, so I'm less confident about that.

> Iran does not think they are dealing with a madman.

Iran does think they are dealing with a mad man, or at least a government practicing a policy (as the US administration's apologists have termed it) "intentional volatility".

A far more interesting issue here is the oil supplies available in the Pacific. Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia, Australia, and others are all ramping up production capacity. Non-OPEC oil production is increasing generally in response. This is likely to undermine the Middle East's ability recovery from current constraints as non-OPEC players gain clout in the markets.

Right now people are talking about China and California have limited supplies. But those are enormous, powerful entities that are deploying multi-pronged strategies to secure energy resources. Look at what they're doing and bet there. You also see developing countries retooling to support less oil-intensive economies, like increasing work-from-home options. Solar and wind are currently feeling weak without their subsidies but are exhibiting staying power as people look to move off more petroleum-dependent energy resources.

As for the tactical issue, the concept people seem to be trying to get at is "cost-per-kill". That needs to come down. Yes, we can kill drones with supersonic interceptors. But spending $6M to shoot down a $6K drone has terrible long-term economics.

[YZF]

> Iran does think they are dealing with a mad man, or at least a government practicing a policy (as the US administration's apologists have termed it) "intentional volatility".

We're going to agree to disagree. I know this is what "people" are saying about the US. But it's not what Iran thinks and it's not what the US is actually doing. This is what Iran wants you to think, as it weakens the US, and what it's going to say. Are you saying that the US will go to war with Iran if all the demands I listed were fully and transparently met? A by the way there is that Europe and Canada (e.g.) also don't think the US administration is "mad". Everyone is playing their little geopolitical and local political games.

I also doubt Iranians think their immediate pains are caused by the US and Israel. Some might but most don't.

I agree with you the energy crisis aspect is overblown (I think that's what you're saying). Supply increases in other places and alternative power sources can displace some usage- certainly over time. The other thing that's going to happen are more strait bypassing pipelines.

EDIT: So the problem isn't mad people or rationality. The problem now, as before, is simply that the Iranian regime is religiously and ideologically unable to give in. Giving in will likely result in their fall even if they were able to give in. This is what's driving the main dynamics here. It's not Iranian negotiation tactics or the US supposed not negotiating in good faith or being "mad". The "mad man" are those that believe that Iran is interested in giving in on its exporting the revolution and the destruction of Israel.

[lowbloodsugar]

> But it's not what Iran thinks and it's not what the US is actually doing.

I think you need to provide some evidence for your claim. The US had a deal with Iran. A madman ripped up that deal, started a war with a decapitation strike, and is now attempting to negotiate a deal we already had before we spent billions of dollars killing school kids. The “People” you dismiss includes scholars, strategists, experts on international relations.

You could possibly explain trumps behavior as rational if you believe he is trying to avoid getting arrested for pedophilia, but that doesn’t build trust. In any case, the issue of competence comes up. Even if you could trust the person who renamed the Defense department to the War department, that person simply isn’t competent.

[Shog9]

You seem to have missed the reference to Madman Theory above, interpreting it as a literal commentary on someone's / some group's sanity.

Whether or not actual mental deficiency is involved here is irrelevant; the strategy is the same whether performed intentionally or otherwise. Unfortunately, its track record is dismal in both cases.

[EthanHeilman]

> Iran does not think they are dealing with a madman.

No one knows but the Iranian leadership. The Iranian leadership has been famously bad at modeling the intentions and motivations of other nations leaderships. A bolt of the blue decapitation strike, followed by the US having plan if Iran closes the straits which is the obvious response by Iran, does at face value appear to be the work of a madman. Now in the US we might conclude that Trump and Hegseth are just wildly incompetent and unprepared, but it seems likely to me that Iranian leadership see irrationality instead of incompetence.

[YZF]

We're well within the realm of speculation but: The Iranian leadership has prepared for decapitation attacks which is partly why they weren't as effective. Their so called "Mosaic Defense" was built for that. They have seen what Israel dealt to Hezbollah. So they must have known this would be an option. There was also no question that at some point force was going to get used, at least by Israel. Israel accounted for about half of the firepower (and really 100% of the firepower on Tehran pretty much) and for the entirety of the decapitations strikes. Israel said on multiple occasions it will attack Iran if Iran didn't stop pursuing its nuclear program. With Hezbollah weakened that threat/lever was less effective. Israel was very worried about Hezbollah's retaliation. Israel had already decimimated Iranian anti-aircraft defenses. So all of this is expected, rational, and what Iran accounted for. I agree the degree of US participation was a surprise but not a zero probability event, certainly after their participation in the last round, and their massive military buildup.

Likewise the closing of the strait was no surprise. These sort of scenarios are planned for and there is zero doubt the closing of the strait was a scenario considered by the US and Israel military planners.

Not a ton we can say other than that. Maybe the US and Israel thought the blow would be so hard the regime would crumble. Maybe they thought Iran wouldn't dare. Maybe they thought that if Iran closed the strait they'd be able to reopen it by force. Indeed this could be where over-confidence, or incompetence, or inexperience, comes in on the US side. It's also that one can never fully predict how things would develop. There could have been over-optimism and under-estimation of the Iranians ability to withstand the air campaign or to effectively close the strait.

All that said, both sides are rationally pursuing their interests. Iran's regime wants to survive and it wants to keep building missiles and nuclear weapons and expand it's religious and political influence. The US and Israel want to put a stop to this before Iran has an arsenal of nuclear weapons mounted on long range ballistic missiles. Both sides will do their best to not tell you what they think or what their plans are (and the Iranians are definitely much better at this than the current US admin).

[xbmcuser]

US downing of Iran passenger plane was as much an accident as the triple tap they did of the girls school in Iran recently or the use of nuclear bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima in the past when Japan was already surrendering ie it was a terror tactic. I think americans have the false belief that US is some of kind of benevolent force acting for the good of the world and promoting freedom and democracy. Where as it is an empire that only looks at what is good for itself.

[EthanHeilman]

It was an accident, you can read the investigation. No one claims Nagasaki or Hiroshima were accidents.

> I think americans have the false belief that US is some of kind of benevolent force acting for the good of the world and promoting freedom and democracy.

A state can still make mistakes without saying it is good in everyway

[mrandish]

> US downing of Iran passenger plane was as much an accident as the triple tap they did of the girls school in Iran recently or the use of nuclear bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima

The first and second event are undeniably different than the third in at least one crucial respect, the third was never even claimed to be unintentional by anyone involved - while the first two were repeatedly claimed to be unintentional by everyone involved. Of course, that doesn't prove they were unintentional but not even mentioning the accused's claims of innocence as you assert guilt does prove you're not presenting the comparison honestly.

> I think americans have the false belief that US is some of kind of benevolent force acting for the good of the world and promoting freedom and democracy.

I haven't thought that since I was a teenager, quite awhile ago. At certain points in history the U.S. did sometimes promote the cause of freedom and democracy but it was usually when doing so also aligned with U.S. strategic interests. A notable example was Radio Free Europe (aka Radio Liberty) started in 1950. The U.S. wisely realized the best counter to internal propaganda and totalitarian repression was just telling the truth, so RFERL was (almost always) genuinely unbiased, helpful for the cause of freedom AND good for U.S. strategic interests.

It's also worth mentioning that the Nagasaki bombing is often used as a case study on the ethics of war. They use it as a case study because, once I understood the full historical context of the war and what the U.S. side knew at the time, the decision to drop the A-bomb wasn't as clear-cut as I'd always thought. After spending four weeks on it in an advanced ethics class, my eventual assessment changed from absolute certainty to feeling the Hiroshima bomb was probably reasonably justified but that the Nagasaki bomb was not. The class started out 100% opposed to both but after four weeks was nearly evenly split on Nagasaki.

[defrost]

> After spending four weeks on it in an advanced ethics class, I feel the Hiroshima bomb was probably reasonably justified but that the Nagasaki bomb was not.

In the full context I'm kind of surprised there was any kind of split twixt the two given the full context that both H & N were on a very long target list being systematically worked through and both were destined to be destroyed and effectively levelled regardless of whether untrialled prototype nuclear weapons were tested on those cities or not.

As were 72 other cities (including Tokyo) prior to either H or N being touched.

ie. In the full ethical context the deeper question is really about programs of total war / total destruction rather than the edge case of using two targets as test sites for novel weapons.

[mrandish]

I didn't want to digress too much on that sidebar but the split on Nagasaki was mostly centered around the number of days between Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I think nearly everyone would have agreed the second bomb was probably justified had it been dropped later. Many felt that given more time the Japanese side might have changed their minds without the second bomb.

[defrost]

Let's minimise the digression, I'll move on happily enough ..

I'll note that it appears as if the events were framed to your class as two events predestined to have an excessive impact that deserved pause and consideration rather than as (in the context of contemporary events) two orthogonal weapon designs being field tested and squeezed into an already ongoing, months in the execution, campaign of systematic destruction of urban areas one after the other.

Eg: Was it stressed that had the Nagasaki bomb not been dropped the city would still have been destroyed to the same degree via heavy explosives and incendiaries?

[mrandish]

Honestly, it's been a few decades and I don't recall many details (other than there being a lot of details). I don't remember if it was directly stated Nagasaki would have been destroyed with or without the A-bomb but I do recall reviewing a shocking analysis on the devastating results of fire-bombing Japanese cities and the escalating run-rate of civilian casualties as air superiority over Japan was established. I also remember seeing large estimates of U.S. troop and Japanese civilian casualties should the allies be forced to do a ground invasion city by city.

The allies had good reason to believe much of the Japanese population would fight block by block without a formal surrender by the Emperor and the Japanese ambassador had privately conveyed that the Japanese high-command would die in honor before surrendering in shame (which he sincerely believed). This was supported by the number of kamikaze pilots which seemed endless and continued to shock U.S. commanders.

[genxy]

Makes sense that Trump would shutoff Voice of America since it was originally designed to counter Nazi and then Communist propaganda.

[CamperBob2]

People who are "already surrendering" don't need to be nuked twice.

[xbmcuser]

Yes we are in agreement

[doctorpangloss]

> This is why decapitation strikes are generally not done. They remove options and they undermine deterrence and paint belligerents into a corner.

You don't think autocrats have a strong incentive to not die?

[wongarsu]

The dead leadership can't change their decisions anymore. And the new leadership has no reason to assume that considering a peace deal will keep them alive. The US has already shown that they are happy to break the deal, then a couple years alter kill you anyways. Staying the course at least keeps the internal threats down (which are just as capable of killing any autocrat)

[EthanHeilman]

Threatening autocrats might work, but just bolt out of the blue decapitation strikes undermine future threats because they figure they'll get no warning. If you are threatening, you are bluffing and when you aren't bluffing, there are no threats.

[ShinyLeftPad]

Some religions create a strong incentive for adherent to die in certain ways (X number of virgins when you get into heaven, that sort of stuff).

But anyway, once they are dead, your option to target them is gone.