We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day – People are such rubes And, btw, when it comes to words, Trump made one of his most astonishing public lies recently about how Putin did not help Iran in the recent war. Speaking at the G7, Trump went out of his way to praise Putin for being “neutral” in the Iran War. Here is what he said.
“And I want to thank Vladimir Putin, he was very neutral. They could have made it much more difficult for us.”
Of course, Russia was anything but neutral in the war, and provided key support to Iran, support that seems to have helped the Iranians win the war and defeat US forces (and defeat Trump). This Russian help went from vital drone components, targeting intelligence to help the Iranians hit US bases, sanctions evasion help and the delivery of finished munitions.
So Trump has recently gone to great lengths to lie and protect Putin and to loosen sanctions on the Russian economy. But hey, he did not insult Ukraine.
People are such rubes.
– Phillips P. OBrien
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Stay the course, folks.
We are now only 200 days or so away from 20 January 2027 and the beginning of the two-year death watch on the current US administration.
What will follow the reign of the current occupant of the Oval Office we cannot know but he himself is already running out of time.
I can’t avoid wondering at what point Trump and his circle grasp what a musket they’ve made about Putin.
That said, so many others did so, for varied reasons.
Winter is Coming, by Garry Kasparov, is required reading.
Funny, it doesn’t FEEL like Iran won the war. I can only assume we’re dealing with some alternate definition of “won” here.
The Iranian regime survives, it gets to keep its enriched uranium and ballistic missiles. It also appears to be in line for substantial unfrozen funds and a colossal rebuilding fund. No wonder they seem happy. You might say it’s hard to call that a win, but what has the US gained?
I assume this OBrien fellow is one of the self-regarding armchair pundits who sniffs that Trump “has no class or subtlety”….
Who gives a damn about Trump’s lack of class or subtly? How is that relevant to anything in the linked article?
IRI government remains in power, Hormuz is only open to shipping with Iranian sufferance, ballistic missile capabilities remain, nuclear material still in Iranian possession, Iranian proxies remain in play in Yemen, Iraq & Lebannon. Which war aims did the US achieve?
He has TDS…
https://defence-blog.com/russia-says-ukraine-used-new-agm-188-missiles-in-voronezh-strike/
And people still question my claim that the modern Western diet causes brain damage?
(NB: I am talking about OBrien’s brain here; which makes for a nice alliteration.)
That may well be true (it is a common affliction) but it doesn’t mean he’s wrong about this.
I may be wrong (I’ll recheck the gazillion Telegram channels I follow) but I think there are actual phone videos taken by Russians showing a Ukrainian ‘Flamingo’ cruise missile doing that strike.
“helped the Iranians win the war and defeat U.S. forces”.
Anyone who really believes that the Islamic Republic of Iran regime has “won the war” and “defeated U.S. forces” is a “rube” themselves.
Is Mr O’Brien trying to be funny?
As for Mr Putin – he is no position to give large scale help the IRI, he is busy with a war with Ukraine.
There is no great military difficulty in destroying the IRI – the difficulty is President’s Trump’s obsession with “talks” and “making a deal” – an approach that does not work with people who think that if they are killed fighting infidels they will go to paradise. Indeed it normally does not work with other enemies either – contrary to Vice President Vance, war does not normally end with “talks” and a “deal” – it ends with one side winning and the other side losing (the loser often being dead).
So send them there – all 31 commands of the Revolutionary Guard of the Islamic Republic of Iran, it could be done in a week.
Kill them – all 31 commands of the Revolutionary Guard of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
And kill their proxies – such as Hezbollah in Lebanon. All-of-them – they want to die for their deity, so give then their wish.
Again this is not particularly difficult from a military point of view – the difficulty is the squeamishness of President Trump, he is prepared to kill a few leaders – but has problems about killing large numbers of people.
President Trump needs to get over this squeamishness – people do not join groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah or the Houthies, or the Revolutionary Guard of the Islamic Republic of Iran, because they could not get into the local stamp collecting club, men join such groups because they want to kill and die for their faith.
Give them their wish – kill them. They will not keep any “deal” they make with you – they have to be killed.
I hope Mr O’Brien knows more about the military situation in Ukraine than he knows about the military situation in relation to the Islamic Republic of Iran.
His military assessment in relation to the Islamic Republic of Iran (with his absurd statements about how the IRI has “won the war” and “defeated U.S. forces”) is nonsense – and this raises doubts about how accurate his military assessment of the war in Ukraine is.
By the way – if Mr O’Brien’s assessment of the war in Ukraine is correct, then Mr Putin would certainly not be in a position to really support the IRI (which Mr O’Brien claims he has) – so Mr O’Brien has contradicted himself.
Which is it? Is it Russia is falling apart – or is it Russia is helping the IRI “win the war” and “defeat U.S. forces”?
The Iranian government did not “defeat US forces”, they just did not lose, which means the USA did not win. If US war aims were removing the Islamic Republic of Iran’s government or removing Iran’s missile capabilities or preventing Iran from controlling access via Hormuz or dispossessing the vile regime of it’s enriched nuclear materials, then fair to say USA has regrettably achieved exactly none of those war aims. And for Iran to “win” all it has to do it prevent USA from achieving said war aims.
Seeing large number of leading Islamo-fascists sent to hell was very gratifying, to say the least, but that still does not achieve any of the US’s war aims beyond the warm fuzzy glow of making the world a slightly better place without those people in it.
War is about imposing your political objectives on an enemy by violence, so hard to see how this is a win for America. And believe me, I would *really* have preferred Trump to have emerged victorious regardless of my broader views of the man.
Perry – what you have written, is not what Mr O’Brien wrote.
And what Mr O’Brien wrote – is nonsense.
“Kill them – all 31 commands of the Revolutionary Guard of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
Surely a worthy goal. But – it’s easier said than done.
While the US has considerable destructive power – it lacks effective defensive power. Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and all other states in the region are vulnerable to Iran missile and drone attacks. As are the US bases in the region.
These states are not keen on a mutual destruction war with Iran. They have made their position clear to Trump, and without their permission the US can’t use it’s bases there.
I wish it were as simple as “kill them all”.
Iran has also achieved control over the strait of Hormuz, that it did not have before the war.
Which bits of his very detailed post about Ukrainian strategic strikes on Russian POL targets you are dubious about?
Please explain in what way has the US been successful against Iran? In spite of US/IDF attacks, unfortunately Iran has preserved enough military capability to control Hormuz & continue to threaten maritime and theatre-level infrastructure targets.
Unfortunate phraseology as that implies to laymen they “outshot US & Israel”, which they didn’t. But it’s also not strictly speaking incorrect.
IRI inflicted very high value losses on US forces (including an AWACS for goodness sake!) due to breathtakingly inept defensive posturing at Prince Sultan Air Base and elsewhere. But more to the point, IRI retained enough capability to remain militarily viable. That means technically speaking, they really did “defeat” the US & IDF by denying them their aim of reducing Iran to military ineffectiveness. They are still able to attack intermediate range targets.
Hamas hides itself amongst the Palestinian population for safety and ventures out to kill Israelis.
The IRI is now hiding itself amongst the Iranian population and venturing out to kill whoever it can kill.
If we push harder, I’m sure we can convince Trump to treat the non-insane Iranians as roughly as Israel had to treat Gaza.
(And, yes, I support what Israel had to do, against an essentially hostile population. It would be shameful to have to do the same thing to an Iranian population that is still very much on our side.)
Would that satisfy your definition of winning?
I understand that I should expect a lot of TDS amongst y’all, but the extent still sometimes surprises me. Your “the IRI is winning!” comes off as a celebration that your hated Trump might be diminished, at the expense of the liberation of Iran.
The Alliance is just about dead.
Perry I have already explained why what Mr O’Brien wrote was nonsense.
You know that his claims about the military situation in relation to Iran are incorrect – and his claims were military (not political), supposedly Russia had helped the IRI “defeat U.S. forces” – the idea that U.S. forces were defeated is false, Mr O’Brien (who claims that President Trump lied) has clearly lied in relation to the military situation with the IRI.
My point, as you well know, is that a man who will lie about one war – casts doubt on what he says about another war.
So no one has any reason to believe Mr O’Brien when he claims that Ukraine is wining the war with Mr Putin – he may be telling the truth, but he may not be, and he has undermined his credibility by what he has said about the war with the IRI tyranny.
Mr O’Brien has also contradicted himself – claiming in one breath that Russia is in terrible trouble in relation to the war in Ukraine, whilst also claiming (with the next breath) that Mr Putin has sent vital aid for the (made-up – mythical) IRI defeat of “U.S. forces” – who, in reality, have not suffered major casualties – let alone been defeated).
These two claims can not BOTH be true – either Mr Putin is some sort of Superman who has helped the IRI “defeat U.S. forces” with massive military aid – or the regime of Mr Putin is being militarily defeated by the Armed Forces of Ukraine and Russia is falling apart.
The first claim is obviously false – as there has been no defeat of the United States Armed Forces.
The second claim (which is in contradiction to the first claim – as Mr Putin would be in no position to help the IRI if he was being defeated by Ukraine) may be true – or it may be another or Mr O’Brien’s false claims. I do not know – I make no judgement on whether-or-not Mr O’Brien is correct about the second claim.
Jacob – you are wrong on the overall military position.
Old Jack Tar – you are wrong on the overall military position. All honour to your military service (Royal Navy in your case) – that still does not mean that the United States armed forces have suffered major casualties (they have not).
You are both wrong on the military side of the war – although the political side of the war is (as so often) a totally different matter.
In reality the IRI military has been smashed – but President Trump (and Vice President Vance) appear unwilling to wipe-out the IRI regime.
The United States military could do it – but are not being allowed to do it.
If the objective of the war is “talks” and a “deal” then I am not interested. When the Commander in Chief will not allow the enemy to be eliminated – there is little anyone can do.
It would seem that there’s a new syndrome at work these days – let’s call it TDS2 where the D stands for denial.
That’s where the US president’s acolytes can’t bring themselves to admit that their man isn’t quite the 3D chess player they thought he was.
bobby b.
They are echoing the mainstream media – which I did NOT expect (but I should have).
I have heard high ranking British military people echo the media, and the education system, on many subjects – and the monarch himself do the same. And the American establishment is no better.
As for Israel and Gaza – a war that should have lasted a week, has dragged on for years.
And Israeli weakness (yes – weakness) is responsible for that.
Mr Ed predicted such weakness, predicted it almost at once – I should have listened to him.
And the weakness has NOT saved civilian lives – all these rules and regulations and other such have, by dragging out the war, INCREASED civilian casualties.
The same is true in relation to Iran – the Iranian people. Vast numbers of Iranians have been murdered by a regime the Americans allowed to come to power in 1979 (in spite of its attack on the American embassy – which was an act of war).
Many times the Americans could have sent the IRI regime to Hell – but choose not to do so. This condemned many Americans to death – more in Lebanon alone than have died in the current war (vastly more Americans were killed in Lebanon by the IRI proxies than in the current war).
Is President Trump going to do the same? Choose “talks” and a “deal”?
If so he destroys himself – as well as everyone else.
Destroy the enemy – or be destroyed.
That is war.
And the war is not optional – the IRI makes war on all infidels, but especially the main infidel power – the United States.
JJM – I have made no claim that President Trump is a good chess player – 3D or otherwise.
On the contrary I have been highly critical. I have also been highly critical (for a long time) of the Israeli government – just not in the approved establishment way.
What I will not tolerate is people telling stupid lies about a military defeat. The “defeat of American forces” (supposedly this mythical great victory by the IRI being aided by the vast legions of Mr Putin – who, at the same time as being some sort of Superman, is also supposedly incredibly weak and losing the war in Ukraine – with Russia falling apart and in no shape to do anything).
At least people should decide on a propaganda line and stick to it.
Do not make random claims that are contradicted by other claims from the same sources.
As for the Trump Administration – destroy the enemy, the IRI and its proxies, or be destroyed.
Both you and your families – for if you do not win the war, you will not win the midterms (you need a tidal wave of real votes to overcome the rigging), and your families (not just you) will be destroyed by the Democrats. By the Red/Green alliance they represent.
Paul, mine was a general statement and not specifically directed at you.
(Also, I’m not an American.)
For my own part, I don’t think Trump is a 3D or 4D chess player.
But I do think that he has a capacity to change his mind quickly when data suggests.
I just see so many people who have condemned many of his initial moves, only to see him pull a rabbit out at the end. I think those people are too used to cemented positions, too easily convinced that change is weakness.
“Acolyte”? No, there’s an element of mindlessness inherent in that label that I’m pretty sure I’m missing. My belief that Trump deserves a bit of latitude is more experientially-driven. Y’all want to crow “defeat!” at the end of the first quarter. Trump has a better record than most when it comes to taking it back.
Agree. Now the question becomes, what’s the best way to accomplish that?
And I think Trump has the best shot at devising such a way of any politician in the world right now.
American casualties in this campaign have been SMALL – yes SMALL.
IRI military casualties have been vast – their Navy and Air Force have mostly been destroyed, and their missile forces greatly reduced.
Also, if allowed to do so, the United States military could destroy the IRI regime and liberate the Iranian people – who have been slaughtered and persecuted for many years, by the IRI regime that has also done this to other people – including to Americans, as it is at war with infidels around-the-world and “hypocrites” (a “hypocrite” in Islamic doctrine is someone who claims to be a Muslim – but does not join in the campaigns against infidels, and does not live their lives in accordance with Islamic law – the penalty for being such a “hypocrite” is death).
“But what of their friendship with Mr Putin and far-more-importantly their friendship with the atheist People’s Republic of China?”
These are tactical alliances – part of the general Red-Green alliance around the world (including the Democratic Party in the United States) – Mr Putin has not been forgiven for his killing of Muslims in the past, or for not being a Muslim himself, and the PRC (which has also slaughtered Muslims – and is atheist) has not been forgiven either.
Once the West with its doctrine of liberty (much decayed and distorted – but still existing) is destroyed – the world Red-Green alliance will break down, including in Britain and the United States.
The “Gays for Palestine” will find themselves thrown off buildings by their “friends”, and the “feminists” will be enslaved.
By the way – Mr Putin and the People’s Republic of China also despise these groups, but they find them useful in the war on the West – and the PRC (privately) despises Mr Putin (because he is not Chinese – the PRC tyranny despises everyone who is not Chinese) and is just USING him (Mr Putin thinks he is using them – but he is mistaken).
I repeat,
American casualties in this campaign have been small and the IRI air and naval forces have, mostly, been destroyed. Claims that the enemy control the straits (attacking some ships, other ships have-got-through, does not mean you control something – it means it is a battle space, which should be ended by killing the IRI forces based in Iran) or have inflicted severe casualties on American forces are false, and claims that they have defeated American forces are wild lies.
The United States military, if allowed to do so, could destroy the IRI regime and liberate the people.
But the key words are “if allowed to do so”.
Whilst the goal remains “talks” and “a deal” – the IRI regime will continue. As it did with President Carter, President Reagan and all the other Presidents who let the IRI continue – in spite of all its acts of war against the United States (such as the invasion of the embassy and holding Americans diplomats hostage – and its killing of Americans around the world).
“talks” and “a deal” with the IRI or its proxies (such as Hezbollah or the Houthis) are folly.
You kill them – or they kill you. War with them is not optional – their doctrines demand war – real war. They will wage war against you – regardless of how peaceful you are.
That is just horseshit and defensive bluster. Tell us what the US has achieved.
To quote Perry:
I might add that Iran is shortly to receive the first instalment of frozen cash and is in line for more.
I’d be delighted to see Trump win this war against the Islamic Republic of Iran, as in over-the-moon singing hosannah delighted. Truly, truly, TRULY, I want absolute victory for the IDF & US forces in the Gulf & I’d argue Trump would deserve a Roman style Victory procession through Washington DC. Hell, I’d settle for a bit of victory, like at least *some* of the war aims achieved. And if the Iranian people were able to rise up successfully, that would be a rare moment of sublime historical bliss.
But I’m just saying it the way I see it. The Islamic Republic has thus far shown it can remain militarily capable even under huge pressure and after astonishing losses. They remain able to threaten Gulf infrastructure and prevent freedom of navigation through Hormuz with cheap dispersed but reasonably effective air & maritime drones. And that means the war has thus far been a failure for US/Israel. The conventional Iranian navy & airforce have been obliterated and this has had remarkably little impact of the vile regime’s ability to project power to produce diplomatic effects.
I wish it was otherwise, I really do.
No, you haven’t. But my reply to bobby also applies to you.
Well sure, I’m fairly certain landing a couple corps in Iran would absolutely do the trick, but to state the obvious, there is very little appetite in USA for a boots-on-the-ground campaign to topple the Islamic Republic with consequent casualties. Would US win? Without a doubt. But it’s meaningless to speculate because it’s not going to happen. The United States’ theoretical ability to win any given war “if allowed to” means less than nothing if everyone knows it will not be allowed to by the US voters the US government answers to.
Old Jack Tar can answer you himself if he wants but note his use of words (emphasis added by me):
No one here is claiming US has lost large numbers of people, but the value of the losses is clear. Do you know how much an AWACS costs or how important they are?
That is like saying that UK having lost the king , the Prime Minister, lost Royal Navy , lost RAF, lost air defence and lots of industries destroyed won the war.
No, it really isn’t. It’s like saying Iran, having lost it’s government, airforce & navy, has still managed to deny US war aims & continues to have the ability to threaten other Gulf states & Hormuz.
All the Islamic Republic of Iran has to do to “win” is remain in power with the ability project power into the Middle East & retain it’s nuclear material. And that is the current situation.
And unfortunately they’ve proven they have enough institutional resilience that getting their governing elite killed over and over again is not enough to dislodge the regime. If Trump can turn this around, that would be great.
”American casualties in this campaign have been small and the IRI air and naval forces have, mostly, been destroyed.”
So what? The IRI achieved its war aims. The USA did not.
”…if allowed to do so, the United States military could destroy the IRI regime and liberate the Iranian people…”
Yes it could. So what? It will never be allowed to under this president.
Again, the IRI achieved its war goals. The USA did not. Everything else is just bluster.
mkent – on the first matter, I was pointing out that the claim in the post was nonsense, which it is.
And on the second point – “this President” is the same as every other President in our life time, none of them have understood the nature of Islam in general – or the IRI in particular.
Although it is certainly not “bluster” to destroy almost all of the IRI air force and navy – which has been done. So much for “the defeat of U.S. forces”.
“The IRI has achieved its war aims” – NO it has not.
The war aim of the IRI is, and has been been since 1979, that all infidels, everywhere, should be killed or enslaved. And that “hypocrites”, people who claim to be Muslim but do not live according to Islamic Law – for example in helping defeat infidels around the world, should be wiped out.
If (if) you do not understand what their real war aim is – then you have no right to be critical of President Trump (and every other President or our life time) for not understanding it. President Carter and President Reagan had no better understanding of these matters – I remember their statements only too well. And the reaction of President Bush to 9/11 was to rush off to the “Islamic Center” in Washington D.C. – NOT to destroy the place, but to make a speech about how wonderful Islam is.
As for Ukraine (Mr O’Brian’s other interest – and it is mentioned in the post) – I doubt what he says about that war, doubt – it is possible he is telling the truth about the war in Ukraine (in spite of his utterly absurd statements about the military conflict with the IRI).
A couple of hours ago I watched a British military officer being interviewed on GB News – he raised, WITHOUT being asked – he was being interviewed about something else, the standard talking points about how the Russians are being slaughtered on the battlefield – how the armed forces of Ukraine are taking back vast amounts of land, and-so-on.
I hear this all the time – and I am no longer confident of the truth of these talking points.
If all the institutions that lie about everything else, say XYZ about the war in Ukraine – this leads me to doubt XYZ.
Perhaps in this one case, they are indeed telling the truth – it is possible, but as they lie about everything else, and they keep coming out with the same talking points about Ukraine, even when they have NOT been asked about Ukraine – they have been asked about totally different matters, it leads to doubt.
President Trump comes out with the same talking points – 45 thousand Russians killed every week (and other dubious claims), and rubber stamps every aid and weapons plan – and I would do the same, at least on the rubber stamping (I want the Ukrainians to win).
But none of this will prevent the British establishment, the European establishment, and the American establishment (yes the American establishment as well) from blaming “Trump” if they do lose in Ukraine – they will never blame themselves, and even they will not blame the Ukrainians (who are greatly outnumbered and have fought with great bravery – not just against the Russians, but also against all the Muslims that Mr Putin has recruited into the “Russian” army, there is even a morning “call to prayer” now – in the great Jihad against the “Jew Zelensky”), and the Western establishment will certainly not blame THEMSELVES.
So that leaves “Trump” – no matter what he says and no matter what he agrees to, if defeat comes in Ukraine “Trump” will be blamed.
The “Goldstein” of our time.
Great discussion, as usual.
I wonder if we’re only in the first half of the game, per bobby b’s optimism?
Trump needs to win in the midterms for his second Administration’s efforts to have long term impact. He needs someone to win in 2028 to carry on this revolution.
A ground war in Iran now absolutely ensures the end of everything he’s trying to accomplish.
Once he’s past the midterms with success (we HOPE!), he could say, in true Trumpian fashion, and echoing Paul Mark’s words here, “we gave the IRI every chance at peace and they have lied in every single thing they’ve said, so now it’s all out war. We will arm the Iranian people and we will not stop until all of the world’s enemies in Iran are dead. They want to die for Allah and we’re going to give them that.”
I get the impression you aren’t understanding the replies, Paul. Has the Islamic Republic’s government lost control of Iran? No. Is Iran still capable of attacking shipping transiting Hormuz? Demonstrably yes. Has POTUS stated he accepts Iran can have some ballistic missiles “because everyone else does”? Yes, for some unfathomable reason. Has Iran been dispossessed of its enriched nuclear material? No. Has Iran been coerced into withdrawing their backing for Hezbollah & the Houthis & assorted Iraqi militias? No.
Sure, USAF/USN/IDF have blown up lots of the Iranian state assets, which is nice it must be said, but has it actually made Iran militarily impotent? Sadly not. And the dollar value of not achieving any war aims (in both losses & expenditure) has been substantial, albeit KIAs have been light.
So as of right now, what war aims have the good guys actually achieved? Blowing stuff up is how you achieve war aims, it is not in and of itself a war aim.
Well, it’s likely the bombing has yet again delayed assembly of a usable nuke & kicked that radioactive can down the road once more, which is absolutely on the plus side. Is the Gulf’s gas & oil infrastructure now safe from more Iranian attacks? No, but at least there is evidence the Gulf states are finally taking anti-drone defence seriously (with some Ukrainian help, irony of ironies).
This means as of now, this war has been full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Can Trump pull some rabbit out of the hat short of an invasion and make this a win? I don’t see how, as the question that was asked back in March (Israel and USA are fighting a new kind of war in Iran) seems to have an answer… unfortunately it didn’t work.
So, invasion or bust. My money is on bust but we will see.
I wish the same sort of defeat that Trump has suffered, to all my friends.
And i wish the same sort of victory that the Iranian regime has achieved, to all my enemies.
You bet we are. At most, the first half!
Not holding my breath but that would be great as I’d really love to see the end of the ghastly Islamic Republic of Iran.
I should have typed “4500 per week” NOT “45 thousand per week” – for the claims about Russian casualties, I apologize for my error.
Although I do not believe that 4 thousand Russians are being killed per week.
As for the IRI – it is pointless to write the same thing over and over again. I have told the truth – if people prefer nonsense about the “defeat of American forces” (and so on) that is up to them.
GregWA:
Perry dH:
Perry interprets Greg’s words to mean that Trump is poised to re-take the initiative. And that might well be what Greg meant.
But there is another possible interpretation of “we’re only in the first half of the game”: we are in the first half, because if the US does not retake the initiative, then the Iranian regime will; and in either case, we’ll get to the second half.
I think that Perry will agree with that; otherwise, why is he worried about the US suspending hostilities?
The IRI achieved its war aims.
So today it is reported that CENTCOM is beginning the process of vacating its facilities in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Bahrain and moving them to Israel, thus acceding to another of the IRI’s demands.
If Trump has any more “victories” like this, Tucker Carlson is going to throw him a party.
mKent – as I have already pointed out, the IRI has not achieved its war aims.
Are you alive? Are you still not a slave? Then the IRI has NOT achieved its war aims.
As for President Trump – he has no more knowledge of the basic facts of what Islam is, than any other President of our life time. And British Prime Ministers do not understand either – the Western establishment in general thinks that Islam is, basically, like Christianity – and the Western establishment is totally wrong.
President Trump wants “talks” and “a deal” – and he always has. And this is the wrong approach – totally wrong.
Paul Marks:
Good point.
I agree — up to a point.
For the Chamberlain-Carter-Obama school of international relations, “a deal” means signing a piece of paper, no matter what is written on it. (That also applies to Obamacare.)
All sorts of concessions can be made, any ally can be sold down the river, for the purpose of getting a piece of paper signed.
Which is why it is best to be unfriendly to the US when an Obama-like President is in office.
Paul will admit, i expect, that Trump is better than that.
Which is not saying much for Trump, i admit.
Paul, if your definition of the Islamic Republic of Iran not achieving their war aims is because the world has not ended in fire leading to the return of the Mahdi, then you are not serious about analysing *this* war.
As many others more sober commenters here have written, all Iran has to do to achieve its primary war aim in *this* war is to prevent Israel & USA from achieving their own war aims… ie the Islamic Republic remains in power, they keep their ability to produce ballistic missiles & drones (even if diminished), and they hold on to their fissile material. So far, Iran has achieved all those things.
The closest to Israel/USA has come to achieving any of their own war aims is to have at least delayed Iran’s ability to progress its nuclear programme. As that is the most urgent of Israel’s war aims, it could be argued that Israel at least has tenuously achieved at least one of *their* primary war aims, albeit clearly this is far from ended the threat, which would require regime change in Tehran.
Frankly, any end result that leaves the Ayatollahs in charge of Iran is a win for Iran unfortunately.
@Perry de Havilland (Prague)
The closest to Israel/USA has come to achieving any of their own war aims is to have at least delayed Iran’s ability to progress its nuclear programme.
And to be clear the United States achieved this in a truly remarkable one night bombing raid months before the present conflagration started.
I want to say “the United States won” to be supportive of President Trump, because the alternative to Trump and MAGA retaining power for a few more years is frankly just about as terrifying as Iran with a small nuclear weapon, but we do have to speak the truth, and that is not the truth.
Perry – I have written, for a very long time, that President Trump (like every other President in my life time) is wrong to follow a policy of “talks” seeking an “agreement”.
How can you miss all the times I have written this?
As for the war aims of the IRI – they are as I have written them, and have been since 1979.
None of this is a military failure – the people who claim that the United States military has lost are wrong – quite wrong.
This is a political failure – a failure of the Administration to understand that the enemy must be destroyed.
This has happened again and again in American history since World War II – an Administration refusing to allow the destruction of the enemy, because the Administration wants “talks” and an “agreement”.
The IRI could be ended in a week – and without the use of any nuclear weapons, but the Administration in Washington will not allow it.
When I am dealing with people who talk about the United States military making this or that mistakes, or (absurdly) about the military of the IRI having done well and having achieved XYZ, I know I am in the presence of people who do not understand the situation – not at all.
While i agree with the 1st paragraph, i am not sure about the 2nd: the US still holds all the cards.
I am inclined to think that Trump should have kept up the pressure. But what do i know?
As i said above: this is not your typical US deal, in the sense that it does not give up all leverage in exchange for signing a piece of paper.
Happy 4th of July btw!
PS: to put it another way:
Would you have said, at the end of 2022, that Ukraine lost the war, because it had not regained all occupied territories, including Crimea?
Equally, would you have said, at the end of 2022, that Putin had lost the war, because he had not achieved his war aims?
Everything is still in play. Which would not have been in a Kamala presidency.
If this is just the half-time break, sure… albeit that’s a weird way for the US to fight a war.
But if not, then Iran won by not losing.
So, hopefully the former.
Ukraine is a bit different as neither side are making serious peace offerings & the war has unambiguously not ended.
Surprising, as Trump is so normal and conventional of a leader.
😉
Remember Dune’s Tleilaxu? They could kill, but they always had to leave their enemy a way out. Maybe Trump is a Face Dancer. He keeps pausing things at strange times, in response to various roadblocks, and then begins again. He went at Maduro several times and then backed off before he finally swooped in and gathered him up. He’s done various things to Mexico and Canada in that same vein. He just has a weird style.
Allowing the enemy time & means to regenerate is indeed a far from normal or conventional approach to warfighting but hey, it might be 5D chess, or perhaps Trump is vastly more sporting than people give him credit for 😛
Perry:
But this is why i challenged you, above:
if you think that this is NOT a half-time break, then why do you disapprove?
If this is NOT a half-time break, then the IRI regime will not threaten Western interests again; because, to threaten Western interests, would be to resume play.
“Allowing the enemy time & means to regenerate” is indeed a mistake, in normal circumstances; but my guess is that, in the present circumstances, it would take a long time, like over a decade, for the IRI regime to regenerate.
A lot of things can happen in a decade. Besides, i do not think that the regime will wait a decade to act; and then all bets are off.
I admit, though, that if another Carter/Obama-like POTUS gets into office, then it might take less than a decade for the IRI regime to regenerate.
Yet again President Trump said (in his speech marking July 4th – the 250 anniversary of the Declaration of Independence) Iran “wants to settle” – yes they do, and that is precisely the problem.
Neither the President or the Vice President seem to understand that “talks” and an “settlement” (or “deal”, or “agreement”) is the wrong approach.
The United States military will do what it is ordered to do – but if the Administration does NOT want to destroy the enemy (if it wants “talks” and an “agreement”) there is nothing the United States military, or anyone else can do.
Talk of the American military making this or that mistake misses the point, and talk of the IRI military having done well and having achieved things (the Colonel McGregor line – and I thought he was not popular around here) is absurd.
However, the key political failure is relevant – and it has happened so many times before, starting with the betrayal of the Republic of China in the Manchurian Offensive of 1946 – when the Americans demanded that Chang stop the KMT offensive – which was defeating the Communists. The Americans wanted “talks” and a “deal”.
Such a policy nearly always ends in disaster.
I remember the Paris Peace Accords – and the Nixon Administration was following the same play-book as the Kennedy and Johnson Administration.
This “Star Trek” view of war – seeing war as a conflict that ends with “talks” and an “agreement”, rather than destroying the enemy, is sickening.
But there is nothing I can do about it – my rage is impotent.
Because that is *not* what is happening & they are still threatening western interests. Iran continues to help Hezbollah; plus it attacked a merchant ship in the Gulf just to show it still can, thereby re-establishing the credibility of its threat to choke Hormuz whenever it chooses to; it still has a ballistic missile program (unclear how much remains though); it still has enriched uranium; and it’s still in power. So… what exactly was this war supposed to achieve?
I’m sad to say the utterly evil Islamic Republic has demonstrated deep hydra-like institutional resilience by remaining in power in spite of it’s elite political class getting decapitated over and over again. I’d love to see some upside here but I really don’t.
Perry – it is just so incredibly depressing, and horribly familiar. I have seen it so many times in my life – and it was happening before I was born.
Snatching political defeat from the jaws of military victory.
“They want to settle” (President Trump) – yes of course they do, because a “settlement”, “deal”, or “agreement” means they win and we lose. The only way we win is if they are dead – but neither the President or the Vice President understand that, and forbid the military hitting XYZ targets (a political “war” – much like the antics that led Admiral Sharp, in despair, to write “Strategy for Defeat”).
I find myself torn between despair – and rage.
President Trump said, from the start, that his aim was an agreement by which the IRI agreed not to develop nuclear weapons.
I hoped, desperately hoped, that he was lying – that his real aim was to destroy the IRI.
But tragically it turned out he was telling the truth.
He also wants some sort of deal with Hezbollah.
He understands nothing about the basic principles of Islam – but then neither do most Western leaders.