[nixon_why69]

> project influence, stabilize international trade, or even remotely protect a territory from an enemy that isn't concerned with civilian casualties.

We just failed to do all of those things quite visibly.

Iran made a choice not to escalate to destroying desalination capabilities and that's why a lot of Saudis and Emiratis are still alive. It's not because we protected them.

[kortilla]

Because they didn’t want the retribution that would follow. That’s what protection looks like. Assured destruction when it’s not mutual is pretty motivating.

[nixon_why69]

Sure, but we still couldn't have stopped them with our vaunted carrier-based power projection, or with our exhausted ABM capabilities.

US Naval doctrine has been a paper tiger ever since that Millenium Challenge exercise.

[kortilla]

Not being able to stop random killings or destruction from small arms fire has nothing to do with military power projection.

Military power projection is the reason the US was able to destroy a significant portion of Iranian leadership, nuclear infrastructure, and weapons infrastructure with no retaliation from Iran back in the US nor any pushback from any of Irans allies.

Military hegemony has nothing to do with being a perfect police force that can stop anything from happening anywhere.

>but we still couldn't have stopped them with our vaunted carrier-based power projection, or with our exhausted ABM capabilities.

Who is “we”? Your account started posting nothing but anti-US stances and pro-China/Iran stances since this conflict began.

[sofixa]

> Military power projection is the reason the US was able to destroy a significant portion of Iranian leadership, nuclear infrastructure, and weapons infrastructure with no retaliation from Iran back in the US nor any pushback from any of Irans allies.

First, Iran doesn't have allies, it has friends of convenience (Russia like the military cooperation but don't like the cheap oil competition, China love the cheap oil competition but don't care for the damage, etc).

Second, US bases and US allies (in the actual sense of the word) were attacked by Iran, successfully. US and all its allies were also impacted by the trivial closure of the Hormuz. US allies now will forever know that the US is not a reliable ally and can't protect them; stocks of crucial materiel were wasted on achieving nothing; and high oil prices will cost the US domestic politics dearly. US power projection whacked a few nutjobs from a regime full of them. Oh, and they're a theocracy that believes in martyrdom! And the new supreme leader is a strong proponent of nuclear weapons (unlike his predecessor and father), and saw half his family blown up in front of him.

> Military hegemony has nothing to do with being a perfect police force that can stop anything from happening anywhere.

Being unable to enforce your will on an enemy is not "hegemony". Iran will walk out of this conflict with their nuclear programme back on track, a revenge minded regime, and maybe even a toll on an international strait to fill up their coffers.

[nixon_why69]

I'm American, also that's considered bad form. 2/3 of Americans were against this and think it was a failure.

Military hegemony in the gulf region would mean being able to force Iran to stop attacking gulf targets, rather than negotiating a ceasefire because both sides are hurting. What we have is a multipolar situation, it's not arguable, it's right on the scoreboard.

A hegemon would be able to unilaterally open the straits.

Best for everyone to recognize it and act accordingly. It's got nothing to do with cheerleading, that stuff is for rubes.

[dotancohen]

US military deterrence has been a paper tiger ever since Biden told Iran "don't" [1], and Iran did, and Biden did not respond. Now whoever the sitting US president would be - Trump or anybody else - must restore that deterrence. There is no nice or easy way to do that. The last time the US had to do that was during WW2 and the enemies were not floating heavy, extended media campaigns and funding US universities at the time.

[1] https://m.youtube.com/shorts/A8ce6wzoReA

[sofixa]

The reason why Iran was even back in the nuclear game was because a moron pulled out of the JCPOA that was giving them concrete steps and carrots to get them to stop.

[defrost]

An agreement that had independent inspectors from several countries accessing utilities and leaving behind tamper resistant (and tamper revealing) instrumentation at regular intervals (along with the usual back and forth robust discussions).

The sort of gear that could count atoms from Fukushima drifting across the oceans to end up in HVAC filters in middle North America.

[cmxch]

For the benefit of those who missed it the first time:

The Just Cash Pallets Over Americans agreement, where Iran was rewarded for all the wrong things and the public kept in the dark.

[dotancohen]

The JCPOA agreements were set to expire in January 2026 - and then Iran could continue their nuclear ambitions. The only people who could support those agreements either:

1. Didn't read them and know that they expire in 10 years.

2. Think that 10 years is a long enough time in the future where whatever happens then doesn't matter to their current goals.

3. Would like to see a nuclear-capable Iran.

For what it's worth, January 2026 already passed 5 months ago.

[sofixa]

Or alternatively, in 2026 Iran would have been hooked on closer economic cooperation and trade, (relative) reformers would be in power, and the deal would have been renewed. Yanking the deal all but guaranteed that the hardliners would go back in charge, because they were proven right - the US could not be trusted to keep its word, so negotiations don't matter, the only thing that would actually protect them is nuclear weapons.

> Would like to see a nuclear-capable Iran.

Postponing their nuclear programme with at least 10 years is absolutely worth doing. Because realistically you cannot, I repeat, cannot force them to stop it. If the regime wants to continue, it will and their facilities deep under the mountains are impenetrable.

[amalcon]

So, there would now need to be new negotiations as to the future of the Iranian nuclear program? Except with Iran in a weaker position than they actually are today, due to a decade of no progress on enrichment.

How is that worse than the current situation? Iran is closer to nuclear capability now than in your counterfactual, yet those who disagree with you are the ones who want a nuclear-capable Iran?

[ben_w]

The Millenium Challenge was 2002, predating Biden by about 20 years, and was the same year Iran was named as part of the "Axis of Evil".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil#2002_State_of_the...

[dotancohen]

Yes, Iran had had nuclear ambitions for decades. How is that relevant?

[ben_w]

Are you asking how the 2002 Millenium Challenge showing that the US Navy would lose any directy military engagement with Iran by a large margin is relevant to "The American navy was already a paper tiger ~20 years before your example with Biden"?

[fakedang]

Lol, classic American exceptionalism.

Iran didn't attack the desalination plants because that would amount to actual warcrimes - and they care about their public perception in the broader community of nations. Unlike, of course, Israel and the USA, who don't mind turning a few schools and hospitals to smithereens.

You might call this "assured non-mutual destruction", and of course it helps that the US is located away from Iran's immediate neighborhood, but destroying the lifelines of the GCC countries would assure an economic collapse globally that the world has never seen before. Imagine something on the lines of oil at $300 a barrel, zero fertilizer, zero semiconductors, zero plastics, the works. And Iran could just as easily turn Israel to glass, with a death by a thousand papercuts (or drones, whatever your flavor). Of course, all of this at a huge cost to itself.

[watwut]

It was more son that they have space to escalate. It was strategic decision. They did attacked those when their plants were attacked.

US does not have capability to destroy them. It can make lives of civilians hard, as it tried, but foreigners attacking civilians dont make regimes fall.