← Back to context

Comment by refurb

11 hours ago

This is in no way a win for Iran.

Hundreds of regime leadership is gone. Massive destruction of infrastructure. Bombed all their neighbors who weren’t even at war with them. Pushed those same neighbors into closer partnership with Israel and the US.

Now the regime is severely weakened.

None of those things matter if they survive and control the straight, which seems to be the situation. The toll revenue will be enough to rebuild several times over. They have proven that they can absolutely crush the gulf states with missiles and drones.

I think the fact that Trump accepted their 10-point plan as the basis for negotiation, instead of them accepting the American 15-point plan, makes it obvious this is America taking the loss.

  • That’s a whole lot of “ifs”.

    And they haven’t come close to “crushing the gulf states”. Lobbing a middle at the oil facility is not “crushing”, it’s harassment. If anything the gulf states have decided to not retaliate themselves, but if they did it would be even worse for Iran.

    Trump did not “accept” the 10 point plan. Not even close. It’s simply a list of demands from Iran, nobody has agreed to anything.

    • Real world events are conditional. Would you prefer I talk in absolutes?

      Defacto Iran still controls the strait, as they have since the start of the war. If they start letting the ships through with no toll, I think that would indicate a tactical loss but strategic draw for Iran (well, the IRGC). If they don’t, it’s a strategic win. We’ll find out I guess.

      The small gulf states are incredibly fragile because of their water supply. Major disruption to their power or desalinisation directly renders them largely uninhabitable.

      You’re misquoting me on the 10 point plan. He accepted it as the _basis for negotiation_. Here’s direct quote from him on Truth Social:

      “We received a 10 point proposal from Iran, and believe it is a workable basis on which to negotiate”

    • Lining up multiple low probability events and talking like it’s certainty isn’t that helpful to understanding the conflict.

      Iran does not “control” the strait any more than neighbor controls my front door because he threatened to stop me from using it. If the US or other naval power tried to pass it would have no issue.

      Have you noticed when the Houthis did the same thing (fire on ships) last year the tone was very different? Many people noticed.

      Accepting something as a “basis for negotiation” means nothing. During the Korean War the US accepted a term forcing them to leave the Korean Peninsula when peace talks started and last I checked the US is still there.

      3 replies →

This would make sense if the regime command structure had apparently not designed itself for this exact type of conflict.

They were in a fight, took losses, and made significant gains.

They proved their planning was correct, that the distributed nature of their power grid was correct, that they are able to project force and genuinely destabilize the strait.

Things have been proven that were previously uncertain, and they have not been proven in America’s favour.

Crucially America’s ability to defend its allies was tested and found wanting. The entire conflict was of unit economics, in that a cheap 30k drone beat out billion dollar investments.

America also spent the better part of this administration alienating themselves from the one allied nation with extensive drone combat experience.

  • Admittedly, this is the interesting part. Ukraine via its leader apparently did try to reach US in exchange for money, but, and there stories get confused, was ignored. I have to wonder if Trump has some actual fixed winners table in his mind ( because he does not seem to follow the most optimal path ).