upvote
> Iran war will also probably still be going on in 5 years

The Russia/Ukraine war has a goal, to make Ukraine either part of Russia or a client state.

What's the goal of the US/Iran war? So far it seems like the goal is to mostly return to the status quo prior to the war. I can't imagine that could continue 5 years because there's just not an objective. Of course, I could easily be mistaken.

reply
> What's the goal of the US/Iran war?

To make certain people money by shorting the oil market. There is a reason why these "peace" deals are always announced on Fridays.

reply
That’s exactly why it could continue indefinitely. A war with no goal can’t be won. Nor can it be abandoned without bruising powerful egos.
reply
Per the spec of the last 25 years, they will let it run until the party in control of the White House changes. The new party will be responsible for the exit & cleanup phase.
reply
Once you've lost something (I think sooner or later, Iran will succeed in sinking a big US ship) then even if you cant win, you also cant leave else its an admission of defeat - so it drags on and on and on.
reply
There hasn't been a clear goal for an American war since the first Gulf War.
reply
The goals for intervention in the Serbia/Bosnia conflict were clear and noble, IMO.
reply
The US had the power to start the war. The US doesn't have the power to stop the war.
reply
It absolutely does, it can simply choose to not bomb Iran after Iran enforces regulations on its (shared with Oman) waterway.

Bombing Iran for a month because Iran fired on 4 ships that were violating its SoH rules is wildly disproportionate and optional.

reply
Initially it's unclear what the goal was. But now the goal must be opening the strait of Hormuz ASAP. There's going to be serious economic fallout if that doesn't happen[0]. It remains to be seen how realistic that goal actually is. Iran has big advantages in their favor.

[0] https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/08/business/iran-oil-trump-strai...

reply
Can we agree on "the strait was open before the war" so it can't be a goal for the war.
reply
the goal of the war in iran is to produce a regime change that will prevent them from having nukes targeting israel

islamic iran with nukes makes israel untennable and the us puppets in the gulf too

the us will be forced to physically invade now that the first strike failed

the us in its current form will not tolerate an existential threat to israel

reply
Pakistan has nukes and I don't see the Gulf/Levant quaking in their boots
reply
It has no way to deliver them to Israel, and it is in itself a US vassal
reply
> the us in its current form will not tolerate an existential threat to israel

It seems to be tolerating Netanyahu and Ben-Gvir just fine!

Imagine the different place Israel would be if it pursued Oct 7 as a criminal act instead of a pretext to commit genocide. Enormous strategic blunder by the Netanyahu regime. Israel would not be a global pariah state and it's entirely possible that regime change in Iran would have succeeded. But you are never going to regime change a people who know with certainty that they will be butchered/raped/tortured by their supposed "saviors" the Israelis. There is literally nothing worse than surrendering to Israel.

reply
the prevalence of secular jews in the state department makes them completely unable to read islamic countries. it's the third time this happens in a decade

by punching islamic regimes you create a feedback loop of islamic eschatology

the only way out now is forward ie boots on the ground. this is gonna happen whether dems or reps are in power

reply
This is not a very charitable explanation, it takes politicians at their word during a war. (One should not do that, and you can refer to Putin’s language at 2022 as a parallel example to Trump’s)

The initial US goals clearly were: 1. Regime change 2. Denial is of nuclear weapons

It’s also clear these goals were not achieved. So the US changed tactics and goals. (Same as Russia no longer plans on capturing Kiev it seems)

Most likely the US is stalling for time due to oil markets and has the same intentions as before, limited only by current capability.

reply
According to The Economist, the Iranian theocracy is no longer in power, the IRGC is. Still, not the regime change Trump was hoping for, that's for sure.

> Khamenei’s killing has accelerated Iran’s transition from a theocracy to an ambitious nationalistic state dominated by military men. The irgc appears to wield power with few constraints. Clerics who challenged its influence—including former Presidents Mohammad Khatami and Hassan Rouhani—were conspicuously absent from the [funeral] processions.

https://www.economist.com/interactive/middle-east-and-africa...

reply
I think regime change is likely to happen within two years. Just not in Iran.
reply
> What's the goal of the US/Iran war?

What's the goal?! The US/Iran war has a ton of goals! Every day a new goal, each as improbable as the last.

reply
Not only that, but even the status of the goals is insane.

Right now Republicans are just flipping a coin every day to decide whether each "goal" is (A) a critical need where only Dear Leader can save us or (B) a glorious victory for Dear Leader who has solved everything forever.

We saw the same with the the mutually-incompatible and shifting "goals" of the illegal taxes on American buyers (tariffs.) Some of those "goals" were being pre-declared as achieved simply by announcing the policy. (Narrator: "They weren't.")

reply
As with Ukraine, it's a David and Goliath kind of conflict and in both conflicts, the temptation for Goliath to escalate by leveraging scale is predictable, tempting and frought.
reply
Iran is not David in this case. They’ve shown that their drone warfare is just a little bit under what the US military can provide. Remember that they destroyed a quarter of a trillion dollars radar installation. And the US has spent billions on munitions. The US can’t actually keep going in this war.
reply
I once compared the historic GDP values, and IIRC if Iraq-vs-US in 2003 is 1x baseline, then Iran-vs-US today is 7x. Plus Iran (today) has 2x the population and 3x times the land area than Iraq (today).
reply
> What's the goal of the US/Iran war?

kneecaping china by cutting off a huge source of its oil imports. Russia will not be able to make up the difference.

reply
Write off depreciation on military hardware?
reply
> What's the goal of the US/Iran war?

Distract from the Epstein files. If you think anything else you:

    1 - Haven't been paying attention since 2008.

    2 - Are giving the administration way too much undeserved credit.
reply
I'm not sure anything is a distraction from the Epstein files. I don't think the administration cares about the Epstein files. What would be the fallout if they were all released? We already know that a lot of wealthy people were raping children. It's not like the US is going to prosecute.
reply
Depends on who's in it.
reply
> What's the goal of the US/Iran war?

It varies. Which is the problem.

I can think of a few:

1) Severely kneecap the Iranians' nuclear ambitions. This one might actually be working to an extent.

2) Severely kneecap the Iranians' military ambitions in the Middle East as a whole, particularly with respect to Israel. This remains unknown. Their neighbors seem content to give them a pass for launching missiles into their infrastructure, possibly on the grounds of shared religion. Maybe they'll get tired of it.

3) Cause regime change in Iran. Not happening now. Might not happen in the foreseeable future.

reply
The Trump administration forgot all of the lessons of Vietnam.
reply
If it weren't for those bone spurs maybe that war wouldn't be so forgotten
reply
Maybe because they dogged it?
reply
The goal is a very simple one: make Trump look good. It wouldn't be the first war in history to be driven by pure vanity of an absolute ruler.
reply
It's to distract from the Epstein files.
reply
[dead]
reply
Well at this point the goal is for Iran to stop randomly blowing up innocent cargo ships. Or firing missiles at airports and cities in retaliation.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/iran-war-live-us-says-iranian-...

reply
That sounds like it would be a return to the status quo.
reply
The don't blow randomly ships.

The US and Iran agreed (Point 4 and 5) on, for the next 60 days, Iran is "chief of traffic" in the strait.

Iran say now, ships have to take the route close to Iran. But some ships like to take the route close to Oman. Iran is just shooting on these ships.

reply
If that's the goal then the US and Israel are doing their best to stop it from happening. Iran is responding to provocations. Stop provoking them, no more blown up ships.
reply
Iran has shown a willingness to do these things through proxies regardless of anyone else before.

Furthermore, if they want to deal with the US or Israel, then they should target American or Israeli assets. Not third party ships manned by citizens of neutral nations who just want to get to port and remit cash to their families back home.

reply
Should they avoid doing that because it’s working really well at putting their opponents in a bad spot, while costing them almost nothing?

Those ships are bearing goods from (or taking goods to) countries that are hosting US forces attacking them. They’re valid targets, and blockading their shipping… I mean, the US does that to countries that haven’t even helped attack us, seems insane to suggest it’s somehow a foul to do that to countries that are helping attack you.

reply
Running a blockade is a risky proposition; it's not something that happens by accident.

A lot of these "neutral" countries either host US military bases, US companies, or are otherwise aligned generally with the US.

reply
People assumed Russia would press with their full might and that has just yet to ever happen. Why don't they carpet bomb all of the ukraine? Why not fire off a littany of missiles? Why not conscript the bulk of their manpower reserves and actually invade in earnest?

Everyone assumed the war would be over in two weeks, because it really could have ended in two weeks if russia went full throttle early on. But there must be some factors at play that prevent total war from seeming like an attractive option. Maybe fear of equal reprisal. And in the end you get this slog of a war, with an unchanging front line and various headlines every few weeks of some one off piece of infrastructure or industry being destroyed, and little coming after that. I'm not sure what these factors are exactly, but clearly they exist to quiet the beast and have this slow drip war be the optimal outcome compared to alternatives. Maybe the threat of NATO taking control of the war is what keeps it at its current slow pace.

reply
Other than nukes, Russia does not have significant spare capacity. They use missiles and drones with months of their production. They fly bomber aircraft as close to the front as they can. They've burned through most of their cold war era stockpiles of equipment. 0.5-1% of their entire population is a casualty of this war (so probably closer to 5% of their working age men).
reply
- Why don't they carpet bomb all of the Ukraine?

Russia does not have anywhere near enough aircraft to do that. If they tried, they'd lose more of their air force.[1] Russia does not have much of an aircraft industry left. For one thing, much of the USSR's aircraft industry was in Ukraine.

- Why not fire off a litany of missiles?

Nuclear? Russia so far has not wanted to cross that threshold and start WWIII. Non-nuclear, they have to build them.

- Why not conscript the bulk of their manpower reserves and actually invade in earnest?

Because Russia is running out of manpower reserves. The draft in Russia now covers all males from 18 to 30. In that age range, men can no longer leave Russia. Russia has 1.4 million military casualties so far, with about 400,000 deaths. Currently, the casualty rate is higher than the new recruit rate. Conscript soldiers serve for one year, but there is heavy pressure to sign up as a "volunteer" with no time limit. The Russian tradition of throwing recruits into battle with a huge casualty rate continues. It worked in WWII, but cost 20 million lives. It hasn't been working in Ukraine. The Ukrainian claim is that the survival time for a new soldier on the Russian front lines is four hours. This is probably exaggerated.

It was policy for a while that the draft wasn't enforced too strictly in Moscow and St. Petersburg. This was to avoid generating political opposition to the war. That seems to be over.

[1] https://nationalsecurityjournal.org/putin-cant-fix-this-the-...

reply
Russia has no ability to carpet bomb anyone anymore. They have only a handful of operational strategic bombers left and little or no capability to manufacture new ones. Much of the USSR's old heavy aircraft supply chain was in Ukraine. So Russia is unwilling to risk their aircraft in defended airspace because they need to preserve them as part of their strategic nuclear deterrent triad.
reply
My understanding is that Russia's "full throttle" isn't actually as strong as they had posed...
reply
It has to be stronger than Israel just from scale, and that seems plenty strong enough to level a modern city in a few days or weeks.
reply
> Iran will probably in a better place than they are now, strategically speaking

How could that be? Are they getting an influx of $300 billion dollars or something?

reply
It’s an odd declaration and maybe based on Rus/Ukraine. But Ukraine is doing better now than in the first week of the “Special Military Operation” due to having a lot of rich allies who have (in fits and starts) given them a lot of money and gear, and due to a Russia which has stretched its military and economy to the breaking point.

By contrast, Iran’s only allies are its terrorist affiliates in Lebanon, Gaza, and the Houthis. Those guys can’t do much to help. China and Russia (see above though) are willing to do business with them but don’t really give a crap about Iran surviving.

Anyway, the US and Israel can keep degrading Iran’s military and “government” by dropping bombs (or better, drones) on them every week for a decade and it won’t really be a big deal for the former. Iran though will not be better off for it, I’m pretty confident. (Other than their surviving religious fanatics will be even more suicidally devout.)

reply
Have you taken a look at Iran's targeting capabilities and the assets they were able to destroy? More importantly, have you considered who facilitated those targeting capabilities?

https://www.hudson.org/national-security-defense/war-above-w...

reply
> Anyway, the US and Israel can keep degrading Iran’s military and “government” by dropping bombs (or better, drones) on them every week for a decade and it won’t really be a big deal for the former.

Can they? https://www.csis.org/analysis/last-rounds-status-key-munitio... says

“In the 39 days of the air and missile campaign before the ceasefire, U.S. forces heavily used the seven munitions in Table 1. For four of them, the United States may have expended more than half of the prewar inventory”

According to that article, they expended ballpark a third of their inventory of expensive weapons systems such as Patriots or Tomahawk missiles, each with a production lead time of at least 3 years.

If so, they would run out of those expensive weapons in three more months.

reply
It's sarcasm, a bit, because the last published deal revealed the USA was going to pay Iran 300 billion to end the shooting war that Israel and the USA started. https://www.npr.org/2026/06/23/nx-s1-5866577/iran-trump-deal...
reply
I believe the assessment is based on the desire of the US to offer concessions (such as sanctions withdrawal) in order to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Which will be painful in the medium term, but less so in the long run as oil is diverted around it.
reply
> Anyway, the US and Israel can keep degrading Iran’s military and “government” by dropping bombs (or better, drones) on them every week for a decade and it won’t really be a big deal for the former.

I disagree. The huge problem here is that USAF is showing how they are doing things over and over again. For China it is a treasure trove of data and ideal place for testing of their gear to detect and later shoot down US stealth aircraft which USA is constantly threating to use against China.

reply
They'll be getting the Hormuz toll money.
reply
lol, no. no comparison between those wars
reply
It's hard to imagine them in a better place; they seem to have us by the balls already.
reply
History reveals that every war is won by the nation with superior industrial capacity.
reply
> History reveals that every war is won by the nation with superior industrial capacity.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Afghan_War

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–2021)

You’d be pretty hard pressed to refer the victor of any of these wars as having “superior industrial capacity” compared to their opponents.

reply
Is this some kind of subtle gag?
reply