upvote
The issue though is that this won't get us maritime supremacy. To get civilian tankers through the strait you need that. Iran will still take the occasional shot at these ships and who in their right mind would put their ship into a situation where there is even a 1 in 2000 chance you will be struck? At the end we will have boots on the ground, with real casualties, potentially a ship or two actually damaged and Iran unleashed and attacking everyone's critical oil infrastructure and water infrastructure. They will even probably find a way to hit a ship or two in the red sea just to spread the panic. My original point was that we could 'just blow things up' and get in there, not that we would succeed in achieving a great military objective.
reply
Yes, i think the Trump admin has escalated itself into a situation that either involves ground troops or leaving without opening the strait.

The first is bad due to the losses that will be incurred and the difficulty of holding territory.. for unclear strategic reasons (I thought we destroyed their nuclear program last summer / what was the urgency / is this even our war?). The second is bad because the strait was open before this started, so things are worse than starting conditions.

That is not to say Iran is winning. Remember this is not a sports game, and no one needs to win. It is possible, and likely, for everyone to lose (be in a worse position than prior).

reply
> either involves ground troops or leaving without opening the strait.

These options are not mutually exclusive.

> That is not to say Iran is winning.

They are though, the US administration has already lost it's patience, their strategic objectives (whatever they might have been have clearly not materialized), the talk about talks may very well be the administration preparing to make a bunch of concessions proclaim victory and walk away.

As it's possible for both parties to lose, a party can win all the battles and lose the war.

reply
Correct - we can send in ground troops and fail to open the strait
reply
In fact, that's the most likely outcome.
reply
It is hard to game out the best scenario here. Wait, it really isn't. We should just stop. Make a deal with Iran, accept egg on our face and step back. Why? Because they are destabilized. They are likely to crumble. If we keep attacking then they stay alive. If we go away then they have to deal with their broken infra and deeply unhappy population. They were on the path until we hit them. Then, like nearly every country ever, it gave their government legitimacy. If we walk away and focus, hard, on helping the gulf nations that we just hurt badly it will stabilize the region and allow them to fall. But that will never happen because we went into this due to ego and we will stay due to ego.
reply
> deeply unhappy population

A counterpoint is that perhaps we may have just radicalized a large portion of that unhappy population

reply
What if Iran escalates when US decides to go? I don’t think US can go without leaving a power vacuum, which, given current forces positioning, would benefit Iran most probably. I don’t see a path to helping Gulf nations, which will pragmatically be inclined to work with Iran as neither of them can leave like US can.
reply
>That is not to say Iran is winning. Remember this is not a sports game, and no one needs to win. It is possible, and likely, for everyone to lose (be in a worse position than prior).

As of right now, Iran looks likely to end the war with permanent control of the strait of Hormutz. They'll tax the gulf countries in perpetuity.

Gulf countries can't reasonably afford to go to war with Iran over this either, and it's even less likely that they could prevail in such a conflict. Gulf countries can't even afford to go to war with Iran now, with the US actively fighting there.

Iran can suffer terrible short-term and medium-term economic consequences while still establishing a whole new kind of dominance over the region.

reply
>"That is not to say Iran is winning"

This will sure warm one's heart when that one can no longer afford things.

reply
Normally I wouldn't think the American public would be so shallow.

But just tonight, while getting gas just outside St. Louis, a young woman was having an absolute meltdown outside her car about the price of gas being $3.65 a gallon. Wild.

So, yeah, perhaps the price of gas is high enough that the public would tolerate some heavy collateral damage at this point.

reply
>"So, yeah, perhaps the price of gas is high enough that the public would tolerate some heavy collateral damage at this point"

Or realize who had caused the whole thing.

reply
That might require thinking instead of feeling.
reply
Adding this to my #owned compilation.

- Reddit Ralph

reply
deleted
reply
> Or realize who had caused the whole thing.

Not sure I hold much hope for this one.

Trump once posted "THE BIDEN FBI PLACED 274 AGENTS INTO THE CROWD ON JANUARY 6".

It was, of course, still his FBI on that date.

reply
Number one Google search on our last Election Day:

"Did Biden drop out?"

Informed electorate, this is not.

reply
The issue is that the administration has kicked the bee hive, and is now claiming that securing passers by from angry bees has nothing to do with them.

Its a great way to diminish what lingering shreds of trust the (hopefully) former allies of the US may still have had.

The US has better ways to decrease oil prices internally that commit to losing boats in the strait.

reply
> the people will definitely demand war and a navy to escort private oil tankers if it means they get to drive for $0.01 less per gallon.

This was more true in the 70s: the various fuel economy improvements mean that the impact is reportedly less than half this fine, and the millions of people who bought a hybrid or BEV don’t even notice. I think there’s less of an “war at any cost” bloc now, especially after the humiliating collapse of the last Republican president’s big Middle Eastern learning opportunity, and a lot of people would be willing to abandon Israel to fight Netanyahu’s war alone if it saved them money at the pump.

reply