It will be ironic if Iran gets a stronger position than they had before the war as a consequence of a peace treaty.
That's precisely the trap the Trump administration has created for itself. If the only way out is to lose, then you've already lost. And Iran knows it.
To the extent that this ends in military action, it's going to be the rest of the world protecting the Iranian toll regime from USA piracy. Even Trump won't pull that trigger. Watch for the TACO.
I don't see that happening... Also if they want to escort tankers, they can escort tankers from US-allied countries, and I assume US would also help.
Overall, I legit do not see a way where countries would pick to fight against US instead of Iran if we ever get there. But maybe, I am wrong, so who knows :)
No, but I believe China and Europe believe that they can stare down Trump and force a TACO more than they believe in their ability to successfully navigate the ridiculous shitstorm in the gulf.
I repeat for like the ninth time: It is the USA, and not Iran, that is actually preventing commerce in the gulf as a matter of national policy. Iran just wants to get paid, basically. Trump wants... what, exactly? And that's the problem. The rest of the world needs a solution and not bluster. Iran offers one, Trump just yells a lot.
Why do you say that? IRGC lost 90% of their corrupt income when USA blockaded their shadow fleet of oil tankers, they are weaker than ever right now, it is hard for any organization to survive long when losing 90% of their income. They rely on a large amount of mercenaries currently to keep the population under house arrest, but what happens when those no longer get paid?
That seems like a very brittle position to me.
IRGC can't absorb that for more than a few months either, and if the world wants to open the strait they would rather attack Iran over the strait than attack USA, so there is no way this state will benefit IRGC if it keeps up.
It was IRGC mining friendly countries waters and attacking ships in friendly waters, every country affected has the right to go attack IRGC over that but they choose to wait and see for now. But if it gets as bad as you suggest then they will just force Iran to open it, they wont force USA to do anything since its not USA that is illegally blocking it.
The USA is literally blockading the strait to prevent tolling. I mean, in some sense you're right: the Trump threat is fake and he'll cave. But the policy you're ascribing to Iran, incorrectly, is actually what your government claims to be doing!
I remain just absolutely dumbfounded at the ability of this administration's defenders to just dig in on obvious lies. Surely on some level you get that you're being lied to, right?
USA is blockading Iran, they don't blockade anyone but Iran.
> But the policy you're ascribing to Iran, incorrectly, is actually what your government claims to be doing!
I'm not an american. And no, USA doesn't block anyone but Iran here, blockading an enemy nations ports is fair game during war, blockading third party ports that tries to sail through their own waters like Iran does is not. The strait isn't Irans strait, they put mines all over the place in Omans waters, that is extremely illegal and basically a declaration of war against Oman to do so.
Edit: Maybe you misunderstood USAs blockade as they blockading anyone who pay Iranian tolls. No they don't do that, that was just a deranged statement by Trump, CENTCOM later announced the real blockade and it was just a blockade against Iranian ports, nothing about Iranian tolls.
For fuck's sake, as it were: https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/2043344995181011027
"Effective immediately, the United States Navy, the Finest in the World, will begin the process of BLOCKADING any and all Ships trying to enter, or leave, the Strait of Hormuz." - President Donald J. Trump
The inability of people to reason from clear evidence about this president, and instead project onto him whatever rationalizations they've come up with, is absolutely astounding.
Now, again, that is what the president SAID. It is clearly not the actual military stance of the USN in the strait, because that would be insane. But it remains US policy and to argue otherwise is... yikes.
Other countries can see this as well, USA is letting them through and their navy there says they will, they all know Trump spouts a bunch of bullshit so you look at what they do instead of what they say. I haven't seen other countries say USA must stop blockading so they see this as well, they would complain if USA actually blocked any unrelated traffic through the strait but they never did do that.
The "facts on the ground" are that the strait is closed to shipping, has been closed, and seems likely to remain closed for the foreseeable future. Yet you think that is somehow not because of the very clearly stated policy of the world's sole superpower which has been pursuing a war in the region?
That's just... batshit. "OK, you said you'd do this. And you did this. And it happened. But you didn't do it!" Literally that's your logic.
Like I said: the ability of the right wing to create for itself a fantasy world that excuses away all the failings of their movement, even to the extent of disbelieving and writing off the actions of their leaders where they don't fit the desired narrative is just amazing.
Of course not, there were none.
This is not at all obvious to me. Money and economic power historically is downstream of military power - men with guns can expropriate whatever they want or need from their unarmed, isolated population. The only thing that is potentially upstream of military power is ideology, which also favors IRGC and Iran security forces as they seem to be most ideologically fervent faction in Iran.
Degrade land based strike sorties and support sorties and push CVG back to ~1000km (where strike stories drop to ~50% due to tanking) = entire strike sortie sustainment math breaks hard. Less strike sorties -> even more dependence on high-end munitions. Combined with resilient antiair also denied US ability to move to budget (i.e. JDAM) mop up phase. Strategically Iran being able to soak US damage and still fire back = US air campaign tactically failed to degrade Iran missile complex chokehold over region. Consider US used up ~half of highend standoff and interceptors (if you believe CSIS) then status quo after crippling forward bases simply broke US war logistics. US cannot sustain (not even matter of afford) to fight Iran with current highend munition burnrate + cvg sortie generation, and and defeat Iran tactically to rely on lowend munitions without more political exposure, i.e. a few more pilot rescues going to start meaningfully chip away at US CSAR fleet. Nevermind political fallout of failed rescue or F35 down in Iranian soil.
Hence Trump pivoted to threatened civil infra / counter-value, US saw limits / diminishing returns on ability to neutralize remaining Iranian counter-force threats. US simply cannot afford to prosecute prolonged counter-force standoff air campaig without further strategic exhaustion. Same reason Iran shifted to counter-value oil/infra because the damage to US basing already done, and their ability to degrade US CSG sorties limited.
Obviously this applies to WestPac.
much of what you are saying sounds plausible to me, but i really don't know much about modern military tactics. do you have any suggestions for where i can learn more about that topic wrt how it applies to this war?
> Obviously this applies to WestPac
do you mean a a potential war with China? i dont think China has leverage over a critical choke point like Hormuz and is instead exposed to one (Malacca) that US would surely blockade.
Iran as example: Iran is ~5x larger than Iraq by most metrics, US generated ~5x more sorties in Iraq than Iran (with more carriers and regional basing). Factor in hits on Iraq was with 10% precise munitions, Iran has 100%, but Iran doctrine also designed to tank hits by forcing US to expend more munitions etc... rough napkin match suggests mathematically unlikely for US to damage Iran on same scale vs Iraq given Iran's size, US+co sortie #s and air campaign time frame.
Then see initial claims that 100% of Iran regional strike complex destroyed, but Iran obviously still hitting regional targets at XYZ rate (online trackers etc) and you get better sense of picture. News of ~50% of US forward basing hit, enablers like AWACS or radars hit that will further reduce US efficiency, carrier moved from 500km to 1000km standoff, losing airframes flying over Iran, and it's clear Iran maintains ability to fire back, and what they can hit is effectively forcing US to adopt more conservative tactics to stay outside of Iranian fires. Which translates to even less efficiency - less strike sorties (more tanking) and more highend munitions (to reduce risk). Integrate relevant stats as they become available - CSIS report on ~50% of high end stand off, ~50% of high end interceptors expended and numbers suggest US can not mathematically sustain air campaign tempo which has reached marginal effect in terms of suppressing Iranian ability to fire back without unsustainably burning through high end munition stockpiles for much longer before complete strategic insolvency (US cannot fight peer war without these munitions). It all comports to US air campaign cannot defang Iran militarily, even if it might, continuing would be Pyrrhic, then all the talk about blowing up Iranian civilian infra, doing counter blockade to conserve munitions, moving to negotiations suddenly makes sense.
>i dont think China has leverage
In terms of immediate leverage ~90% of highend semi production and/or semi supply chain, reminder many, many, sole source semi suppliers feeding TSMC Arizona / US fabs from east Asia. Arguably bespoke semi supply chain is currently MORE vulnerable, i.e. less redundant than global oil which have many geographic sources.
In terms of blockade, draw a 5000km circle around PRC. That is PRC IRBM / Antiship range covers Malacca, Hormuz, Aden, aka all critical energy SLOCs. PRC have demonstrate coordinated hypersonic antiship missile strike on moving target at sea, with sufficient space ISR to track US shipping in these regions + PRC industrial base = PRC has magnitude greater potential than Iran to degrade US in much broader geographic theaters, and not just land basing but actively deployed navy, i.e. US not capable of blocking Malacca for long because PRC IRBMs can (at least according to demonstrations) take out US ships, their replenishment fleet or the basing that tops up the replenishment fleet... every piece of logistic chain that sustains USN is exquisitely vulnerable to PRC fires. Ditto with USAF tanking/sustainment/logistics.
In terms of REAL PRC leverage, Draw a 8000km circle, this reaches CONUS - 2025 DoD/W China report finally acknowledges PRC has ability conventionally strike west coast. Note earlier disclaimer that important to filter motivations, i.e. these capabilities have existed for years, it was only acknowledged in 2025. Now ask if PRC can make their 10000km+ missiles conventional, then simple geography math will inform that will reach Texas... that's PADD3, i.e. most of US oil strategic production. That's PRC actual leverage to US blockade (legally act of war) - escalating to reciprocal energy disruption on CONUS. US blockade was only viable strategy if damage unilateral/lowcost (i.e. PRC 10-15 years ago / Iran now). Current consequence with respect to PRC is PRC has option to reciprocally degrade CONUS energy extraction/refining at source for mutual disruption. All signs point to PRC skipping US model of CSGs, B21s for rocket based conventional global strike. Hence game theory behind blockade is broken. I surmise will take a few more years before DoD China report acknowledges broader CONUS vulnerability, and once PRC's CONUS level leverage is treated as baseline, a lot of strategic calculations / narratives will have to shift.