alt.hn

3/25/2026 at 4:27:14 AM

Miscellanea: The War in Iran

 https://acoup.blog/2026/03/25/miscellanea-the-war-in-iran/

by decimalenough

3/25/2026 at 6:33:29 AM

The amazing part to me is just the perceived invincibility this small circle within the US administration has. You can find dozens of articles with a search limited to Feb 1~Feb 27, plenty of analysis warning of the risks that have now become reality, everything - the strait, no revolution, further radicalization, critically low US stockpiles, abandoning other US partners, gulf destabilization, etc.

In the fantasy imagination of some people, they really think you can take out some military targets of another country and then the oppressed masses will magically revolt, as they completely ignore the failed revolution just a month prior. Surround yourself with enough of these people while excluding and firing those who don't and this is what you get.

by khhu2bnn

3/25/2026 at 6:44:08 AM

Its what happens when you surround yourself with incompetent yes men.

by pm90

3/25/2026 at 10:17:51 AM

I don't think that is the whole picture.

I suggest a significant cause is Trump's arrogance and only listening to the advice he wants to hear.

by GJim

3/25/2026 at 6:52:54 AM

Honestly, the way this administration has behaved makes me think someone there is obsessed with playing Total War and thinks that’s how the real world works. It’s all about winning battles and painting the map red, white and blue (Greenland, Venezuela, now Iran) with no thought to what they want to achieve beyond that.

by scott_w

3/25/2026 at 7:53:14 AM

I think that criticism legitimately undersells Total War players (and thereby oversells the administrations competence).

Total War involves an understanding and exploitation of high ground, rivers, and choke points. Like just about any war gamer, with a glance at the map of Iran one arrives at The Pentagons stated wisdom on the matter for decades. Geography says you invade all of it, or cede the straight.

We have this issue many paces in the world and people just don’t get it. North Korean nukes are a threat, but the unstoppable artillery barrage that would kill tens of millions in the first minutes of the war is The Issue. You can’t have snipers on a mountain ridge over your house and feel safe.

Dick Cheney and the Bush family spelled it out over and over. They like money and oil.

by bonesss

3/25/2026 at 8:39:17 AM

I never said they were good Total War players ;-)

by scott_w

3/25/2026 at 6:55:31 AM

Don't forget prior saber rattling about Panama. Cuba is still actively on deck.

by 3eb7988a1663

3/25/2026 at 9:08:23 AM

And here I thought that they acted more like Tropico players.

by surgical_fire

3/25/2026 at 6:57:15 AM

They're obsessed with what real white men did the in past centuries, ie old style imperialism, not the current US state of imperialism.

by Hikikomori

3/25/2026 at 7:47:26 AM

I have been thinking about this scene a lot recently: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hj_4KIKHRFY&t=60s

America is isolating itself in so many ways. You could rewrite that scene and reach the same conclusion.

by nicbou

3/25/2026 at 9:12:12 AM

A swing and a miss.

by SirFatty

3/25/2026 at 7:18:51 AM

The failed revolution a month prior may have been the US too.

It's after the ramp up in production of weapons used in the shooting war started.

by ZeroGravitas

3/25/2026 at 8:19:37 AM

Read on the martingale strategy. This is Donald Trump signature strategy. Basically, when something doesn't work, you double down; and it pays off. This strategy keeps working until it doesn't and completely bankrupt the player. Because the strategy has been always paying off for the them (djt & co), they thought they have some kind of a special skill/power that others don't; not realizing that they are just bad at math, geopolitics and strategy.

by csomar

3/25/2026 at 10:20:20 AM

Trump doesn't care about the results in Iran. He's getting richer through graft while making himself look big. He's pathetic and we're all paying the price in one way or another.

by locopati

3/25/2026 at 5:59:07 AM

> More relevantly for us, Iran is 3.5 times larger than Iraq and roughly twice the population.

Worth noting that at the time of invasion of Iraq they had about 25 million people per gemeni. They now have about 46 mil people per wikipedia. All else equal, we are comparing 25 mil to 93 mil and not half of 93 mil to 93 mil.

by manfromchina1

3/25/2026 at 6:02:57 AM

> And I do want to stress that. There is a frequent mistake, often from folks who deal in economics, to assume that countries will give up on wars when the economics turn bad. But countries are often very willing to throw good money after bad even on distant wars of choice.

On the other hand isn't this how the russian revolution happened? An economic crisis due to a prolonged war leading to a revolution? While i wouldn't bet money on it, it seems at least possible that something similar could happen to Iran.

by bawolff

3/25/2026 at 6:26:42 AM

I would not wager money on a revolution coming from this war, either. But if a revolution does come as a result of the war, it seems at least as likely to be in the United States as in Iran.

by GolfPopper

3/25/2026 at 6:50:52 AM

While I agree that a revolution in Iran is not impossible, I rather doubt that whoever comes next will be western friendly and moderate; after the indscriminate military action of the past few weeks they are probably more likely to get ayatollah'd again.

by krige

3/25/2026 at 6:29:15 AM

>On the other hand isn't this how the russian revolution happened?

It happened because Russian empire (and German empire) lacked state security apparatus adequate to the threat. It was fixed by most authoritarian states after that, so e.g. Soviet Union survived for 70 years despite many popular uprisings, which happened almost the whole time of its existence. It went down only when elites in Moscow destroyed it from within.

by ivan_gammel

3/25/2026 at 6:12:47 AM

Actually, there are lots of revolutions in Europe after WWI, but keep in mind that in this case the populations were blaming their governments for starting or participating in an unnecessary war with monumental casualties. In this case, the Iran government has two useful scapegoats and any casualties could be easily ascribed to the idiots bombing girl schools and not to the idiots sending millions to their deaths under artillery fire.

by gostsamo

3/25/2026 at 6:43:06 AM

Are we talking about Iran or US?

by Hikikomori

3/25/2026 at 7:40:21 AM

The Straight of Hormuz is open to any country willing to pay $2M per voyage. Any country except the U.S. and Israel.

The most important aspect of the "toll" is that Iran prefers payment in yuan, not dollars.

If Iran succeeds in nationalizing the Straight and is successful in enforcing the toll, it represents a very serious threat to the dominance of the U.S. Dollar as the world's reserve currency for trading energy.

by johnohara

3/25/2026 at 9:37:50 AM

It would legitimately be hilarious though if the result of this conflict was iran being the one to enact regime change. In terms of the global order

by samrus

3/25/2026 at 7:44:25 AM

No one in the US asked for this. Such a dumb move from the current administration.

by ardit33

3/25/2026 at 8:27:24 AM

The traders with a five-minute preview of trump's tweets beg to differ

by duskdozer

3/25/2026 at 7:02:07 AM

>Iran would have to respond and thus would have to try to find a way to inflict ‘pain’ on the United States to force the United States to back off. But whereas Israel is in reach of some Iranian weapons, the United States is not.

This is too complacent for my liking. Every rusty trawler is a viable launch platform for Shahed type drones (operational range ~2500 km per Wikipedia). Nearly every US oil refinery and LNG terminal are on the coast. And then there are floating oil platforms (e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perdido_(oil_platform))

The article then says:

>One can never know how well prepared an enemy is for something.

And:

>And if I can reason this out, Iran – which has been planning for this exact thing for forty years certainly can.

I'll leave it here for y'all to ponder.

by D_Alex

3/25/2026 at 7:31:04 AM

> Every rusty trawler is a viable launch platform for Shahed type drones

And where exactly are you planning to operate that trawler out of? Or are you going to send it across the Atlantic on its own (well, with a couple of tankers accompanying it, but never mind that) and hope no-one pays attention?

> operational range ~2500 km per Wikipedia

I think you either added an extra zero or were looking at the hyped prototypes rather than the models in actual use. The Shaheds have ranges in the hundreds of miles, not thousands.

by lmm

3/25/2026 at 9:53:31 AM

>I think you either added an extra zero or were looking at the hyped prototypes

I thought I was clear where I was looking - here, you may check for yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HESA_Shahed_136.

by D_Alex

3/25/2026 at 10:04:35 AM

I assume that smuggling drones into the US is easier than it was for Ukraine to smuggle them into Russia.

by Arnt

3/25/2026 at 7:57:41 AM

> And where exactly are you planning to operate that trawler out of? Or are you going to send it across the Atlantic on its own

China operates fishing fleets all around the globe but Iran is not known for this so Iranian fishing vessel in western Atlantics will rise suspicions. An ordinary cargo vessel heading to the Central America on other hand may sail unnoticed.

by citrin_ru

3/25/2026 at 7:42:34 AM

2500 km is a realistic range of you follow the war in Ukraine. Kyiv is frequently attacked with Shahed drones and it is far from frontlines.

by citrin_ru

3/25/2026 at 8:08:10 AM

> Kyiv is frequently attacked with Shahed drones and it is far from frontlines. reply

It's a couple of hundred miles from the frontlines in Kharkiv, and the Russian border to the North is even closer.

by lmm

3/25/2026 at 10:14:33 AM

Shaheds are launched not from the frontline (to avoid a launch site being attacked) but I would agree that a typical attack distance is around 500 km (which is much less than the range stated in wikipedia). Still this unlikely the max range of this drone and there is a tradeoff - one can increase range by reducing the war head mass.

by citrin_ru

3/25/2026 at 7:52:26 AM

Kyiv is pretty close to the Russian border to its north, even Moscow itself is less than 1000km away.

I think the furthest hits Ukraine has been able to achieve with drones were on a refinery about 1300km from Ukraine controlled land.

by Scarblac

3/25/2026 at 6:08:39 AM

He writes that the region is not very important to the USA. It's not, but it is a strategically important area, not only in terms of its location, at the nexus of Asia, Africa and Europe, but also because of the oil there.

Now the US is not dependent on Middle Eastern Oil, but Japan, China and other countries are. So controlling the region will mean a lever of power over those regions.

by Synaesthesia

3/25/2026 at 7:05:36 AM

At present, gasoline prices in China have risen by 11% since the war started. In the U.S., they have risen by 33%.

The U.S. is dependent on oil and the oil market is global. Even if the U.S. is a net exporter of oil, Americans still pay increased prices for pretty much everything as a result and the economy suffers. The only way around this would be a scheme in which domestic oil producers are forced to sell to American refiners at pre-war prices, similar to the "National Energy Program" that was tried in Canada during the '80's. (Spoiler: It didn't turn out well.)

Yes, the U.S. is less likely to see its pumps run dry and U.S. oil companies are going to be very happy with the increased prices. However, unless it goes the NEP route, U.S. companies are going to export more oil creating shorter supply at home. Americans will pay the same high prices everyone else will be paying. As we're seeing now, the U.S. might actually see even higher price increases than countries like China.

by beloch

3/25/2026 at 9:31:52 AM

The article states that it's not important for any reason other than oil and shipping:

"The entire region has exactly two strategic concerns of note: the Suez Canal (and connected Red Sea shipping system) and the oil production in the Persian Gulf and the shipping system used to export it. So long as these two arteries remained open the region does not matter very much to the United States."

by Certhas

3/25/2026 at 6:33:12 AM

So it’s not about nuclear weapons?

by fruit2020

3/25/2026 at 6:47:00 AM

It was never about nuclear weapons, Netanyahu has been saying Iran was one week away for over 30 years. Europe goes along as an excuse to support politically unpopular war to maintain US support for Ukraine.

by bluealienpie

3/25/2026 at 6:56:34 AM

What would you expect Europe to do? It’s not like they openly support this war. The Iranian diaspora supports it, there is the secularism element, but the US doesn’t care about the Iranian people anyway

by fruit2020

3/25/2026 at 7:01:35 AM

The diaspora is happy about the regime being targeted. They will be much, much more ambivalent if the US starts targeting power infrastructure and innocent people in hospitals etc start dying en masse.

by decimalenough

3/25/2026 at 7:33:34 AM

Power infrastructure & hospitals are already being targeted and bombed. Just doesn't make the news.

by lenkite

3/25/2026 at 9:43:15 AM

the nuclear weapons program has cost about 2T USD for Iran, and definitely makes certain arguments for intervention more acceptable, but it doesn't negate the other side of the equation. the cost of intervention is still enormous. (and since the enriched uranium is an obvious target it is obviously even more protected)

by pas

3/25/2026 at 6:38:39 AM

its always oil and 'freedom'

by yanhangyhy

3/25/2026 at 5:54:44 AM

A comment on this post by aerodog calling Bret a "Jew" for calling the Iranian government odious was the first comment on this post but was either removed by them or a mod. Would be good to keep up so that people can see these clowns.

by tobiasdorge

3/25/2026 at 6:02:23 AM

User > showdead

by lostlogin

3/25/2026 at 6:34:46 AM

Everyone should have this option turned on.

by pocksuppet

3/25/2026 at 6:51:35 AM

As someone with it on, I'm very glad off is the default.

by bigyabai

3/25/2026 at 6:53:33 AM

That all makes a lot of sense. Mr. Devereux is being more realistic this time than he was at the start of the war in Ukraine.

My takeaway from the war in Ukraine is: it’s going to get worse and last longer than anyone ever imagined.

by hackandthink

3/25/2026 at 8:50:04 AM

I remember his protracted war posts, and ... indeed there's still a war going there, and fortunately it did not even get into the anticipated guerilla phase.

Can you elaborate a bit on what was unrealistic? (Maybe you have different posts or claims by him in mind?)

by pas

3/25/2026 at 6:13:51 AM

It seems there's a flawed reading coming from a single point in time analysis

Region instability had ben regularly threatening freedom of navigation in the last five years

And USA may not consider the individual country strategic, but cares deeply about freedom of navigation, because the single market is basically the pillar for their hegemony.

Sarah Paine lectures give overall better lenses to look at this engagement.

by avereveard

3/25/2026 at 6:52:41 AM

As the article discusses in detail, if the US actually cares about freedom of navigation, the war was a massive own goal because it looks extremely likely to grant the current Iranian regime de facto control of the Strait.

by decimalenough

3/25/2026 at 7:24:13 AM

Iran already had the strait in ransom, directly and indirectly with proxy receiving weapons. You don't get to ignore that part and call this a own goal, since inaction led to the same effective results.

by avereveard

3/25/2026 at 7:49:00 AM

What are you talking about? The strait was open, and tankers were not paying tolls as they do now.

They held the threat of closing it, as a deterrent of an attack, and once attacked, they did just that.

You either live in a parallel universe, or are just spewing here propaganda.

by ardit33

3/25/2026 at 6:04:35 AM

The reason for the Iran war is very simple: Israel’s instigation, a potential strike against China, and Trump’s political immaturity.

by yanhangyhy

3/25/2026 at 6:09:14 AM

The purpose of the war is to destroy the Axis of Resistance, Iran, Hezbollah and its allies, the only force standing in the way of US/Israeli hegemony in the region.

by Synaesthesia

3/25/2026 at 7:26:23 AM

That’s a purely ideological way of looking at the situation which IMO is not sufficient. As the article states, this war was not unprovoked either, regardless of whether the provocations warrant such a response. Iran is seeking its own hegemony. Now, this does not negate your point on the hegemonic approach of US in the region. I think this war can be viewed as a power struggle between a regional and global power that’s developing into a struggle dominance and survival.

edit: typo

by geraneum

3/25/2026 at 10:14:13 AM

Is anyone going to mention what these provocations are? I've yet to figure it out after 6-12 months. Pretty much everything going on seems to involve the Israelis aggressively expanding their borders or viciously attacking anyone who might oppose their expansion. I've lost count of the number of negotiators they've killed.

Trump has averaged something like 1 bombing run on Iranian leadership ever 2 years. Iranian provocations must be quite effective at making him see red.

by roenxi

3/25/2026 at 7:30:00 AM

It is to benefit Israel (so it can anex more territory in Lebanon), and it has no benefit to the US. The US had already a deal with Iran, which didn't threat its own interests directly. It is like leave a snake alone, but once you step into it, it will bite you.

This war is only to benefit Israel, and right now indirectly Russia (due to the rising prices). Basically, the US is the main loser/sucker in this war, and we are all poorer for doing it.

by ardit33

3/25/2026 at 7:53:46 AM

Israel is an arm of the US empire. It's a very useful ally of the US in the region. And when I talk about the US here I mean ruling elites.

The US is doing just fine from this war. The US is an oil and gas producer, the largest in the world. So they benefit from rising prices.

I'd say the biggest losers are countries like Europe, and neutral oil importing countries around the world.

by Synaesthesia

3/25/2026 at 6:11:41 AM

Reason for Iran war is a fanatic Shiite regime on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons. Same regime that vowed time after time to erase Israel. 100% justified war. Should’ve been done earlier in fact.

by george916a

3/25/2026 at 6:29:36 AM

>on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons

I've been hearing that line, from the same person for thirty years:

https://www.news18.com/world/weeks-away-by-next-spring-video...

by GolfPopper

3/25/2026 at 6:50:21 AM

Because Iran has been repeatedly stopped from doing it through cyber (stuxnet), sanctions, assassinations of nuclear scientists, and bombings.

Israel said the same thing about Pakistan many decades ago, and they were the only country trying to stop it from happening, but they were blocked from doing so.

That's the only reason we don't hear "Pakistan has been weeks away from a nuke for 30 years" in these annoyingly ignorant internet discussions.

I find it so puzzling that a country, which has violated the NPT multiple times, can enrich uranium to 60%, according to the IAEA, inside bunkers deep within mountains, and people with a straight face can say that they're not building a nuclear weapon. I think less of these people's basic intellectual integrity. Just go ahead and say that the theocrats in Iran should be allowed to have a nuke, be honest for once.

by energy123

3/25/2026 at 9:46:55 AM

Those people with a straight face was all US intelligence agencies and their leaders that also testified to congress as Trump ripped up the deal because Obama did it. Are you saying that all US intelligence agency were wrong?

by Hikikomori

3/25/2026 at 6:22:53 AM

This comment is simply not true from a US national interest perspective. The article explains why this was not done earlier.

by kenjinp

3/25/2026 at 6:22:28 AM

> on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons.

WMD 2.0 The Electric Boogaloo.

by unmole

3/25/2026 at 7:12:32 AM

There is no evidence Iran has an active nuclear weapons program or has had one since the early 2000s, which even the article's author seems not to know. They have enriched uranium that could be further processed and used to make weapons, but there is no evidence they are doing so or have the capability to do so (and no, Israeli government/military sources are not reliable. They have every interest to lie about Iran having/nearly having nuclear weapons)

by csb6

3/25/2026 at 6:33:59 AM

Isn't it interesting that the country that takes the nuclear threat most seriously and tries to prevent it is also the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons?

by socraticnoise

3/25/2026 at 6:44:10 AM

Russia? France? The UK? India? Pakistan? Israel? China?

There are many countries that have used nuclear weapons.

If you're talking about the USofA they didn't try that hard at preventing Iran from enriching - they tore up a perfectly good and well functioning monitoring agreement at the start of Trump's first term.

by defrost

3/25/2026 at 6:45:32 AM

When Trump left the agreement Obama made with Iran all US intelligence agencies agreed that Iran was not working on a bomb. Netanyahu has screeched about Irans destruction for 40 years, he was there to lie to congress about WMDs in Iraq. This conflict is engineered.

by Hikikomori

3/25/2026 at 6:55:27 AM

Bret mocks the JCPOA, but the west found a way to work with the Kingdom of Consanguinity and Public Executions. What gives?

by wecwecwe

3/25/2026 at 8:32:45 AM

He wasn't particularly scathing about it - in the article it's presented as a decent solution to a difficult problem, just that in his opinion too much was paid for it - but that being so it should have stayed in place.

by kybernetikos

3/25/2026 at 6:53:55 AM

Next country to invade is monopoly/risk for 10 year olds inside 70 year old presidents.

by totierne2

3/25/2026 at 6:16:50 AM

> Please understand me: the people in these countries are not important, but as a matter of national strategy, some places are more important than others.

I assume/hope this was meant to say "the people in these countries are not [un]important"? (or just "are important")

As an entirely secular person, I believe every innocent human life is important.

by georgemcbay

3/25/2026 at 9:01:00 AM

Trying to parse the whole sentence, especially the "but" afterwards, the most reasonable explanation is that there is a "not" missing.

by red_admiral

3/25/2026 at 6:22:40 AM

He's speaking from a military, America-first perspective (which I suspect may be somewhat affected, because he is hoping to convince people who sincerely think that way). The people in these countries are not strategically important.

by lmm

3/25/2026 at 9:46:27 AM

He emphasizes relative importance, he doesn't claim that the actual people are not important.

by pas

3/25/2026 at 7:40:20 AM

A few thoughts.

1. The straight of Hormuz is crazy because of the sheer amount of options Iran has to threaten shipping. It's so narrow that they can even hit ships with artillery fire. No need for missiles or drones at all! Lobbing kinetic shells may sound primitive, but anti-missile defences are designed to deal with large projectiles with minutes or hours of warning, not shell-sized projectiles that hit within seconds. If a U.S. war-ship enters the straight, they could be struck by fire from artillery that's been concealed for decades before they know they're under fire. It's also worth noting that Shahad drones have a larger range than the size of Iran, and they're hidden all over the country. Any ship transiting Hormuz or any ground force trying to land in Iran could face drone attack from anywhere in Iran, or all of it simultaneously. A few drones are easy to intercept, but give Iran a juicy enough target and they could make the decision to simply overwhelm it. Drones are a heavily parallel capability.

2. There are only a couple of lanes deep enough for large ships in the straight. So far, no ships have been sunk outright, and that's probably a deliberate choice on Iran's part. If they sink a ship at the right spot, the straight could become barricaded. Clearing that barricade under threat of fire would be a far worse pickle than what we're seeing now.

3. The critical question to ask is, "How does the U.S. end this?" Just continuing to bomb Iran is phenomenally expensive and likely won't accomplish much. This is a regime that has been preparing for an American invasion since they overthrew the CIA-installed Shah 47 years ago. They probably never seriously expected to win an air-war against the U.S. and have obviously planned for an asymmetric conflict. The U.S. is not going to win this one without phenomenal amounts of blood, treasure, and will, but all of these are in short supply. A ground invasion of Iran would likely be worse than Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam rolled into one. The U.S. can't win this war because they simply can't pay the price. Unfortunately, the straight of Hormuz gives Iran the ability to prevent Trump from simply TACO'ing out and proceeding to invade Cuba. Iran could keep the straight closed even after the U.S. withdraws their forces, and likely will to make sure everybody knows they can control the world economy at will. They're going to expect a peace settlement, and it won't be cheap.

4. This conflict lights a fire under the behinds of all nascent nuclear states. Iran would not have been invaded if they'd managed to build nuclear weapons. Even Iran is more likely to develop nuclear weapons now. Contrary to what some think, Iran isn't going to give up their enriched uranium and end their program just because the U.S. promises not to attack them again. Something like the JCPOA only works if some level of trust is possible, but Trump personally burned that. The best the U.S. is likely to get in negotiations is a superficial promise not to develop nuclear weapons, backed up by absolutely nothing. If the U.S. decides to end the program by force, the result will also be uncertain. Say the U.S. locates and extracts Iran's HEU from those underground facilities. How will they ever be certain they got it all without occupying the whole country?

by beloch

3/25/2026 at 10:09:12 AM

Tehran "spent" 2T USD on the nuclear weapons program, which they could have spent on water desalination for example.

Yes having the deterrent is strategically beneficial, but working toward it paints a huge target on your back, while you need to pay for development, endure sanctions, etc.

Any state considering such weapons development already knows this. So this war is not new information.

And it's far from over yet.

Iran could very well end up cut off from the strait as rival gulf states build pipelines, rail, and drone defenses. (Sure this kind of long term thinking is not characteristic of the actors involved, but politics change easier around Iran than inside it.)

by pas

3/25/2026 at 10:06:49 AM

Counter point to 4. The Israeli's wouldn't be trying to kill the Iranian leaders if they hadn't spent the last 40 years waging a proxy war against Israel.

by Gibbon1

3/25/2026 at 7:53:55 AM

Agreed on your points. This conflict, just validated the North Korea style of strategy to all regimes out there. It does the opposite of what it is intended.

I hope things do get de-escalated soon, as this is not good for any party (apart Israel and Russia, which are the main gainers of all this mess).

by ardit33

3/25/2026 at 10:15:16 AM

But it didn't really. Iran is poorer than it was before, even more of a problem than it was before. NK has two very special advantages (Seoul is within artillery range, and it is literally in the backyard of one or two relevant superpowers over the decades) whereas Tehran's "force projection" is mostly through proxies and affecting global commodity trade.

Without NK's hard deterrence (and without being next door to its allies) Tehran is an easy target up until the last second. And even then what's going to happen if they detonate a nuclear bomb? Everyone will sit back and let them build as many more as they feel?

by pas

3/25/2026 at 10:33:35 AM

> Iran is poorer than it was before, even more of a problem than it was before.

Iran seemingly is coming out of this mess stronger than it was before.

The regime remains unchanged, and is likely less willing to make concessions now. Hell, even sanctions on it being able to sell oil have been lifted, which is a boon to their economy.

They are in effective control of the strait, and justified in exercising it now. Yeah, other gulf countries may try to circumvent it with pipelines and whatnot, depending on how poorly they come out of this war - and it is not like you create a pipeline in a few days. Those are big engineering projects.

If I were a betting man, which I am not, I think they will just resume their nuclear weapons program unchallenged after this, and will likely achieve it. It is clear that no one can stop them doing so.

And frankly, they should. Every country that can have nuclear weapons should develop them, that much is very clear, as the last decade taught everyone.

by surgical_fire

3/25/2026 at 6:21:37 AM

> They did not and now we are all living trapped in the consequences.

They (rich and well connected) did, but they won't have to suffer the consequences, everyone else will. The Pedo of the United States is now a billionaire that will walk away in 4 years shrugging his shoulders laughing all the way to the bank with them.

Not one person that could stop it, did stop it. Legislature is sitting on their thumbs pretending not to work for Israel and selling us out to big tech and defense spending.

All the Baby Boomers are in the south enjoying the sunshine and shrugging their shoulders.

by righthand

3/25/2026 at 5:48:11 AM

[flagged]

by aerodog

3/25/2026 at 6:45:18 AM

Not a single mention of the 15.000-40.000 thousand (depending on which sources you believe) massacred unarmed protestors killed 8 weeks ago by that regime.

by littlecranky67

3/25/2026 at 6:48:32 AM

Then I’d suggest you read the article because he absolutely mentions it, twice in fact.

by scott_w

3/25/2026 at 6:47:40 AM

As a consolation prize we can mention the unknown amount of unarmed civillians bombed by US+Israel forces instead.

by krige

3/25/2026 at 6:48:46 AM

Nor the hundreds of thousands murder by Israel in a genocide, which is why his strategic analysis doesn't see the gulf states are at risk of collapse if they engage Iran on what is perceived to be on Israel's behalf.

by bluealienpie

3/25/2026 at 9:22:24 AM

So the US can't help stop a slaughter because they don't help stop all slaughters in the world, is that your logic?

by littlecranky67

3/25/2026 at 6:58:02 AM

Did you even read it? He mentions that, and also He says that the regime is 'odious' right in the beginning, and is looking more from the US self interest and strategic perspective.

"It certainly did not help that the United States had stood idle while the regime slaughtered tens of thousands of its opponents, before making the attempt,"

"Now, before we go forward, I want to clarify a few things. First, none of this is a defense of the Iranian regime, which is odious. That said, there are many odious regimes in the world and we do not go to war with all of them. Second, this is a post fundamentally about American strategy or the lack thereof and thus not a post"

by ardit33

3/25/2026 at 6:30:10 AM

I don't understand what this article has to do with Hacker News.

> for the United States this war was an unwise gamble on extremely long odds; the gamble (that the regime would collapse swiftly) has already failed

Right off the bat this guy is wrong. Nobody in their right mind would bet that the regime would collapse swiftly. The US knew what Iran's military C&C looks like, and what their internal oppressive police forces look like.

The US and Israel have been pummeling them continuously, and they're not done. So much so that the one opposition leader all the Iranians in exile are talking about urged Iranians to stay home and not protest - yet.

by underdeserver

3/25/2026 at 6:33:28 AM

> Right off the bat this guy is wrong. Nobody in their right mind would bet that the regime would collapse swiftly.

That "nobody in their right mind" would bet this does not, in fact, contradict his assertion that somebody did!

by Sniffnoy

3/25/2026 at 6:35:51 AM

Right off the bat your response raises questions because if the US leadership knew from day one this was a protracted fight then they stand having made entirely contradictory statements regarding their intent and expectations in that regard.

by ggm

3/25/2026 at 6:45:47 AM

> then they stand having made entirely contradictory statements regarding their intent and expectations in that regard

Time Traveler, rushing to a computer after seeing a Skyrim for Sale poster and seeing this post: "WHAT YEAR IS IT!!!??"

by nowaytheydid

3/25/2026 at 6:39:48 AM

Lying is second nature to them.

by Hikikomori

3/25/2026 at 7:47:43 AM

> I don't understand what this article has to do with Hacker News.

Taiwan has roughly 10 days left of gas supply.

Oil and gas are not only used for energy, but are the primary component of many, many materials and chemicals.

Some of the oil/gas plants that were hit will take months to fix. Pipelines have stopped.

We have a huge risk of a global supply chain destabilization for any sector. Think what happened with chip supply with covid, and make it much worse since the manufacturers never did stop during covid, while there is a risk they will have to stop now.

Not all machines and production can be stopped and started immediately, so even a short interruption can have lasting and cascading consequences.

Covid thought us that the world relies too much on just-in-time production, and we lack buffers in many, many fields. This has likely not changed.

by Luker88

3/25/2026 at 6:32:50 AM

> I don't understand what this article has to do with Hacker News.

The continuing slow collapse of the United States is extremely relevant to all things technology and business. The source of all our funding may be cut off. It's important to monitor what's going on there.

by pocksuppet

3/25/2026 at 6:50:44 AM

I always wondered what alternative reality are people supporting the administration are living in and this right here is the answer. As someone put it, Americans love to fool themselves in believing they are the ones 'winning' because they killed more people even if it means completely failing at the original objective.

by shubhamjain

3/25/2026 at 7:23:25 AM

I also love that he goes right to how much America and Israel have been pummeling Iran when the article acknowledges that to be the case, but rightly points out that even with that being true, the US is still in a losing position.

by scuff3d

3/25/2026 at 7:29:25 AM

Because knowing this would require him to read the article but reading and details are boring.

by scott_w

3/25/2026 at 6:47:18 AM

I stll dont understand what you are doing 10000 miles away from the presumed borders of your country, and even more why on earth you think you have the right to dictate to 90 million people (let aside the rest of the world) how to govetn themselves.

I suppose it is some right given to you from above, now where have I seen this before..

by ajewhere

3/25/2026 at 6:48:06 AM

> I don't understand what this article has to do with Hacker News.

Judging by your comment history it seems to be the majority of what you discuss. Maybe you're not the best judge of what HN finds interesting or salient.

by bigyabai

3/25/2026 at 9:33:08 AM

I'm basing that opinion on the FAQ that states that most politics stories are irrelevant. But sure, I'm one vote among tens of thousands, and it's up to the mods to decide.

It's most of my comment history recently because I have family and friends in the region and I'm admittedly triggered by the callousness, heartlessness and sanctimony I see in these comments. It's not healthy, I know.

People are trying to preach good and honest values but are doing so through narrow, biased, misinformed and presupposed views of reality that are completely detached from what's actually going on on the ground, which you could tell by talking to anyone actually living there.

But that's beside the point. I was pointing out an objective observation: The Trump administration has said from day one that if regime change happens, it won't be by American hands, but by Iranian protesters' hands.

These protesters are being asked by all sides to stay home so the US and Israel can keep bombing Basij outposts without hurting them. They're doing just that. Where is the failure? All that's being demonstrated is this analyst's impatience.

It might work. It might not. But we'll only know in a few months.

by underdeserver

3/25/2026 at 10:24:55 AM

The HN protocol to deal with this is downvote silently. Complaining about why and what is on HN is also in the FAQ as a no no.

If there was any serious preparation for a many months long campaign then why Kharg island is not occupied already?

by pas