Internet traffic in Iran increasing
radar.cloudflare.com
radar.cloudflare.com
Those two were supposed to be backstops against any externally induced regime change. Now any country at odds with United States currently owning nukes is looking at escalating straight to warning shot doctrine. Having enriched uraniums or some land based ICBM is no longer enough. Something tactical and small enough to be used to limit nuclear fallout but make regional allies absolutely against engaging in war at behest of the US seems like it would test US nuclear umbrella.
ex) Any NATO countries willing to have a low yield tactical nuke detonate near their border but inside a disputed territory/land? Which non-nuclear EU country is willing to erase themselves off the map to shield their European brothers?
This is just one of many many ways that people in the west fundamentally misunderstand Russia, and why so many people made fools of themselves thinking that Putin would not invade. The other really big one is that Russia never admitted that it lost the Cold War and thinks the war is still going on, and that it's the fault of the US and others that Russia is so backwards and poor, not a result of their own mismanagement, the weakness of their people, and the general corruption.
Why is Russia so backwards and poor? Russia and Iran are two countries that seem to way underperform their fundamentals.
Prosperity correlates with powerful institutions (not necessarily democratic). But ultimately you need a set of rules that even the state has to follow.
Medieval Russia was not too different from the rest of Europe, with all the little monarchies and merchant republics. The period of centralization that followed was also similar. But the accidents of history almost all went the same way. Monarchies defeating merchant republics and free cities. Muscovy being too good at conquering its neighbors, turning Russia into a huge centralized empire with little direct competition. The assassination of Alexander II before he could complete his reforms. The unholy mess of 1917–1922. The idealism of Gorbachev and Yeltsin that turned their reforms into a disaster.
Another big piece is how easy it is to invade; how hard it is to defend. History records 50 invasions of Russia. For centuries Russian looked in envy at the very fertile land in what is now Southern Russia and Eastern Ukraine, but dared not farm it because it was swept regularly by quite fierce nomads on horses. That farmland became secure enough to farm only about 250 years ago.
On the opposite end of the spectrum is Great Britain, which has been successfully invaded, but not after Britain got serious (about 4 centuries ago?) about having a good navy. When the risk of the investment's being destroyed by an invading army is low, more investment happens. And a navy profits more than an army does from technological investment: 100 years before Britain's industrial revolution, London was investing heavily in copper mining and copper refining so that it could give all of its warships a copper bottom.
The US is even more secure than Great Britain because any great power or middle power contemplating an invasion of the US would need to cross either the Atlantic or the Pacific to start the attack. (Yes, the invader could try to get Mexico to agree to host the invading army, but the US would probably find out about that plan and respond by either blockading Mexico or invading it if it doesn't immediately abandon the plan.)
Policies that work great for secure countries like the US and Britain work terribly for countries like Russia, China, Iraq or Iran that must always worry about a land invasion. The basic strategy the US and the UK used in WWII had been worked out by Britain during the Napoleonic wars. Japan and Australia can follow the same basic strategy. Russia cannot because except for a few heady decades during the Soviet Union and maybe in the 1890s, the best way to increase Russian security was always to invest more in the army what with the country's being so hard to defend against a hostile army.
I think a country like Russia is still influenced by its experience centuries ago (when it was invaded for a time every single year) and by its experience in WWII. One can argue that (because of nukes and because satellite recon and cheap drones give a tech advantage to the defender) Russia is in a new situation where it can relax and start worrying much less about invasions, but I think that even if the leaders of a country realized that, it would be hard for them to actually change the country. I think for example a big reason that the US is so rich is that (for the white settlers) life in America was always easy. The economy has changed drastically since Colonial American times, when most adults were farmers, but the experience of plentiful high-quality farmland (especially when the settlers started crossing into the Ohio Valley) and plentiful timber and rivers that were a great help to transportation even without doing much work to improve the river system (by adding canals for example) produced a culture that remained adaptive and useful even as the economy was transformed by steam, railroads, the telegraph, cars, electricity, etc.
Germany for example introduced a welfare system in 1871 IIRC. For the average commoner to make a living in Germany was hard enough that the German government of that time (who cannot be accused of having been bleeding hearts) considered it essential to national security for the government to help the commoner out. In contrast, when (many decades after Germany introduced welfare) the Dust Bowl devastated large regions of the US in the 1930s, there were no governmental programs to assist them because most Americans and most American decisionmakers considered such programs to be largely unnecessary.
I believe these governing traditions in the US (which started to change in the 1930s with the election of FDR, who transformed the country more than any previous president except maybe Lincoln) of small-government and individual freedom were conducive to wealth generation whereas the Russian governing tradition where a powerful state is seen as essential to protecting the nation from invasions and where the population tends to depend heavily on the government for its economic security tends to keep a country poor. And again I hypothesize that these governing traditions are difficult to change.
And maybe the reason Poland never develop a strong national-security culture like Russia did is that it was in a hopeless situation with respect to invasions and such (except during the ascendancy of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, but I don't think that coalition lasted long) because it was surrounded by more populous, more-cohesive neighbors and did not have much in the way of mountains or bodies of water to slow down invasions from those neighbors: namely, France, Germany, the Austrian empire and Russia. In fact, I believe even Sweden invaded Poland at one point (although it had to cross the Baltic Sea to do so). No matter how much the government of Poland invested in national security, it wouldn't have been enough to move the needle much. In contrast, Russia was a big enough country with enough natural resources (e.g., good farm land, timber) that if it tried really hard over a span of decades, it usually could increase its national security considerably, which led to a national culture that emphasizes a powerful state with a powerful army (and a powerful spy system to suppress uprisings by already-conquered ethnic minorities).
Also, it is in the national interest of the US to prevent Russian re-expansion westward, and between 1989 and 2022 its main two allies in this regard were Poland and Romania (with NATO taking a secondary role), so after 1989 Poland could feel secure (at least till Trump came to power) without having to spend much on defense whereas Russia has felt (and still feels) that they are 100% responsible for their own national security.
Which is why the current Paypal Mafia obsession with inflicting the US with Russia-style oligarchy and corruption should be so terrifying to anybody in Silicon Valley that isn't already a billionaire: it will crater the future of the US as leading market for developing new tech, and hand it all over to China, to the extent that China wants to be the home to new tech.
Too much centralized power at the top destroys economic growth, whether it's officially a socialist one, or merely a corrupt one, or just unchecked capitalism where disruption has been squashed by those at the top.
Curious, how viable would this strategy be when invading via Canada?
Europe is sending the jet engines for the drones that are shooting Moscow, and Germany is very actively preparing for war with Russia.
It's not the first time in history that this has been done, and Russia still remembers.
Because Russian drones have European parts as well (and Chinese and and), and the army recruits are not only Russian either.
They could use nukes as part of their campaign of imperial expansion but they'd get a lot of push back from the rest of the world.
I think the Iran war was a dumb idea, but you’re repeating propaganda.[1] Khamenei called the shots in Iran. The country had a nuclear weapons program because he wanted it. Iran isn’t an autocracy in the same way China isn’t an autocracy—the mullahs run the country in the same way as the CCP runs China. But major defense programs don’t happen without the supreme leader’s approval.
Khamenei was also a hardliner. Over the last two decades, there have been many moderate candidates for Iran’s presidency. But the Guardian Council banned all of them from running. (The Guardian Council has six members appointed by the Ayatollah, and six appointed by the Chief Justice, who is appointed by the Ayatollah.)
[1] I find it interesting people feel the need to make excuses for the Iranian regime. I guess non-interference with a sovereign country’s internal affairs is not, by itself, a very satisfying principle. So there is a desire to make it seem like Iran’s leadership didn’t deserve to get blown up.
The popular theory that all Iranian internet was shut off like Johnny pulling the plug out of the socket in Airplane is simplistic and beyond ludicrous.
It makes me wonder if something has shifted with the internal power dynamics in Iran, and the civilian government at least is worried about being ousted if this continues. The usual reason why you would lie about peace being around the corner is to placate the citizenry and prevent them from revolting.
Also relatedly, Trump is now doubling down on U.S. demands and threats of more military action. This is what you do if you sense your opponent is weak. Does U.S. intelligence know something we don't?
Hasn’t he done this every week since it started? He constantly bounces between “we’ve almost got a great deal” and “we are going to ABSOLUTELY OBLITERATE IRAN1!!!1!”
There is a conflict of narratives and one way to help push your narrative is to act like it is the reality on the ground. Unless the US is going to send in a ground army or nuke Iran then all we have at the moment is a pointless stalemate and the longer this goes on the more people will be upset at Trump and Israel for creating this situation.
Although this conflict has seen both sides consistently choose the wrong response in basically every situation, which is why it's still going on.
The strategy is clear: out Iran as a paper tiger (accomplished last year), disarm the mullahs by sinking their boats and destroying the few aircrafts they had left, and humiliate the regime so that an uprising becomes more likely. Same strategy that has already realigned Syria and Venezuela with U.S. interests, and that will soon take Cuba too.
I don't think that anything should be negotiated at this stage. Return to combat operations, destroy Iran's ability to threaten traffic through the Strait, escort the ships that are currently trapped in the Gulf, and maintain the blockade on Iranian ports.
Your claims are not what Trump said. He has claimed it was about regime change, then about an uprising, then about the nuclear program (though it was apparently destroyed forever during the previous war, it must have magically rebuilt itself), then about opening the strait (which was open before the war), then about blockading it, then about who knows what. The man can't keep his story straight and keeps flip-flopping about this. Meanwhile, there are real hints it's Israel leading the US into wars it doesn't want but there's no backing down now.
Just the fact the US wasn't able to foresee the closure of the Hormuz Strait, or at least effectively handle it without turning it into a major crisis, is evidence enough there was no strategy.
The US can very well destroy Iran, at great cost, and this isn't in doubt. But so far there's one country completely humiliated by this war, and it's not Iran.
> Same strategy that has already realigned Syria and Venezuela with U.S. interests, and that will soon take Cuba too.
Syria is more or less a failed country and the strategy was different anyway (and the world still doesn't completely understand the fallout from that collapse). Venezuela's regime didn't fall (they were humiliated into cooperation with the US while keeping their political structure intact; that war has a similarity with the current one in that Trump couldn't make up his mind, was it about freedom and democracy, about drugs, or about oil? Or maybe about getting a Nobel Peace Prize?). Cuba is a completely different case which has nothing to do with Iran (or do you think Cuba is months away from having nukes?).
I mean, come on, try not to be a cartoon hawk.
He does this every day even if hes not at war. He threatens to nuke canada and destroy the EU. You literally can never take him seriously.
Trump is doubling down on Israel's demands. That's the true stumbling block here. Israel wanted this war. They still do. Israel thinks they can turn Iran into a failed-state like Somalia.
Trump is also the least reliable indicator of what's going to happen becausee, as we all hopefully know by now, he just rants stream-of-consciousness like. The Joint Chiefs, the intelligence community and allies all knew this was doomed to failure. Closing the Strait of Hormuz has been historically modeled in terms of military exercises and capability for decades. It was unproven prior to this war if the US could reopen the Strait. Well, now we know. Congratulations, everybody, the system works.
I don't know what increased Internet traffic from Iran means. As was proven last year though, Israel used that access for intelligence and assassination purposes (ie to identify target locations, particularly through the large number of of Afghan refugees that were in the country at the time, allegedly [1]).
There is no grand strategy. There are no cards left to play by the US short of the use of nuclear weapons. I mean that literally. The uS has lost but unwillingness to break with Israel has stopped the administration from admitting it publicly.
It's interesting to see how far they think they can get away with this, but they are not in an easy situation.
Soldiers and civil infrastructure don't last on $0.
That money stops is the 'most likely thing' that will cause a real revolution.
Both sides are hoping for 'regime change' by embargo it seems!
Sanctions force an enemy to build an economy to withstand those sanctions. This is easier when you can grow food, have water and have energy. Also, they've built their entire military to resist the one card you can play: strategic bombardment. Cheap missiles, super-cheap drones, both easy to produce and launch and underground facilities that are largely immune to bombing.
Strategic oil reserves are getting perilously low [1] and everybody understands that Trump would rather let the world burn than restrain Israel in the slightest.
- The Soviet Union fell apart for economic reasons, not due to ideology or anything else.
- Sanctions 100% work. North Korea is a powerless useless state due to sanctions. They have not collapsed, but they can't do anything otherwise.
- Sanctions on Russia are absolutely effective - we can see how the state budget gets drained and how it affects their ability to fight.
Russia is finally at the 'end of it's rope' ad Putin is talking about 'the war coming to an end' - why? Because the economic engine is failing, and people are starting to turn against him.
The 'hardship at home' is finally starting to take root, and it's putting a lot of pressure on Putin.
It doesn't mean the economy or regime collapses, but it puts Putin in a corner, in a weakened position.
- Iran is not North Korea - the leadership is not popular and the people are not 'brainwashed' like in NK, and economic sanctions will hit very hard.
The JCPOA put in place by Obama was by far the best deal, but failing that, the 'oil blockade' is by far the best option for getting Iran to the table, probably more effective than any of the kinetic actions. Iran has bout 3 months until the pain starts to hit.
The pain will hit 'the world' hard, but the US will only face mild inflation.
Paradoxically - that mild inflation will infuriate voters and cause 'regime change' in the US at midterms. So - you can see 'sanctions' are working for Iran as well.
- " Trump would rather let the world burn than restrain Israel in the slightest." this is false, and a total misunderstanding about Trump's position on Israel.
Trump has restrained Israel on many occasions. He went after Iran for his own benefit not for anyone else. It worked last year to bolster his image, then after 'Venezuela' Trump saw the obvious path to popularity. Netenyahu told him 'it would be easy' to win - and even do 'regime change' aka appealed to Trump's ego, not to the plight of Israel. Even on the domestic issues, DJT is mostly after AIPAC money and votes. He's not strongly ideologically aligned, and he's happy to do deals with Qatar, UAE, Saudi that throws Israel's security interest to the window.
Literally yesterday - Trump was plausibly going to offer 'a deal' that would have given Iran quite a lot, but it was his own pro-Israel senior political that forced him to backpedal. Senior GOP people came out and warned him off.
DJT wants out of this situation and would throw all of us - including Israel to the wind.
Note that Iran can re-organize their budget, change spending, get some Oil out otherwise, and 'prolong their burn' which then gives impetus for Trump to strike a deal.
But time is not really on Iran's side - they think they have a bit of an edge, but it's definitely a game of chicken.
USSR? Sanctions werne't the primary cause.
North Korea? The Kims have ruled for 60 years with no end in sight. So really we're just starving North Koreans for literally no reason. How has that "worked"?
Russia? That's funny. Russia has been weeks away from collapse for 3+ years now. It's not happening. Russia is going to sit on the Ukrainian territory they have until the West gets bored and the West will get bored. It's a war of attrition and Ukraine will run out of fighting men first. This was my prediction in 2023 after the last serious Ukrainina counteroffensive failed. The Iran situation makes this even more likely because Europe will need Russia's energy exports and that situation is only getting worse.
Iran's leadership? Whatever Iranians think of their leadership, they despise the US and Israel more. As always happens, factions unite against foreign invaders, particularly colonizers. Iranians remember well what the US has done to them.
There are actually two schools of thought on Iran:
1. they should've developed a nuke so they'd be left alone like North Korea. The Ayatollah who got assassinated actually had a fatwa against doing it. Many view this as a strategic error. Many think the region would actually be much more stable if Iran had a nuke because it would restrain Israel's child murder regime [1]; or
2. Closing the Strait is like a nuke but it's a nuke they can use. As such they don't need a nuke.
As for the pain, the US is torching the international order they've spent 70 years building at a rapid pace. NATO, the Island Chain Strategy for China, Taiwan, even the status of the US dollar as a reserve currency are all unravelling. The big winner here is China who simply has to... do nothing.
As for Trump, Israel and Iran, you kind of contradict yourself here. You say Bibi whispered in his ear. This is true and has been true for every president since at least Reagan. Only Trump was dumb enough to take the bait. I'd also love to know when you think Trump has ever restrained Israel. You might be tempted to argue the Gaza "ceasefire" but it wasn't really. The Gazans are still being bombed and starved, just not quite so much. Is that restraint? Not really. They've just moved their bloodlust to Lebanon with zero consequences.
As for the rumors about what Trump was about to do, yeah that's all bullshit. It's just market manipulation for personal profit and to desperately try to keep oil below $100/barrel.
I will agree DJT wants out of this situation. And he also thought he could do a decapitation strike like in Venezuela. And he could end it today but doing so requires breaking with Israel and he just won't do it. Not yet at least.
And yes, time is on Iran's side. I imagine much like North Korea, if this went on for 60 years there'd still be people insisting that Iran was weeks away from collapsing.
[1]: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/nuclear-armed-iran-would-b...
Sanctions are a tool - nobody expects them to necessarily 'cause a regime' do collapse.
+ Sanctions were an important part of driving the Soviet Union to collapse.
+ "So really we're just starving North Koreans for literally no reason. " - no - we are 'sanctioning' North Korea to keep them in box.
Sanctions on North Korea are very effective at keeping them powerless.
+ Russia, again your analysis is glib and false. Sanctions are effective - they stop Russian from obtaining certain materials, they hollow out the budget faster, make it more difficult for them to fight.
If Russia were not sanctioned, it's possible they might have overwhelmed Ukraine already.
If you were paying attention, you'd see that Russia is actually showing strain, economically and socially.
Just three days ago Putin signalled the 'war coming to an end' and used conciliatory language when referring to Zelensky.
This is a big shift (among a few others) and sanctions have been a primary tool to coerce his regime.
"Russia has always been 3 weeks from failing" is just nonsense you've made up.
+ "Whatever Iranians think of their leadership, they despise the US and Israel more"
It's irrelevant because the US is not invading and if the regime stops paying them, their anger will be against the regime.
+ "status of the US dollar as a reserve currency are all unravelling"
Again, uninformed hyperbole. USD has strengthened, bond yields are up - those are different things.
+ "Trump has never restrained Israel" - is also false, use Google. Trump defies Israel often, but most critically, the 'deal on offer' that seems to be coming out of the White House would be a 'very bad deal' for Israel.
Trump is throwing Israel under the bus as we speak, by offering Iran fairly good terms, it's why in the last 2 days you've seen Republicans come out on TV to reinforce how Trump should 'seek a strong deal'.
Summary: the sanctions are effective, and the best tool to coerce the regime in Iran, which is horrible, and it will be extremely bad for everyone.
All of that notwithstanding none of this should have happened in the first place.
You read far too much Reddit.
It's not clear to me that the "world" will come down on Iran's side on this one. On the one hand you have a country that is perpetrating a violation of international norms by establishing a toll on the straight of hormuz and is shooting at or is threatening to shoot at the "world"'s ships, on the other hand you have a country that violated international norms by invading another country (ho hum, everyone does this) but isn't shooting at or threatening to shoot at your ships (mostly just iranian or dark ships). When the oil reserves run out, do you side with the bad guys that are making a token effort at helping to get oil to you, or do you side with the bad guys that are preventing oil from getting to you just to middle finger trump?
No, just US, Israel, and Russia.
Uh, when? I couldn't find any information suggesting that such a thing happened. Fishing rights and other minor maritime disputes don't make an invasion.
Americans as a whole don't understand the history of the region or know about all the sins the US has committed against Iran over a century, including being responsible for the current regime, overthrowing their democratically elected government in 1953 and stole their oil. They also propped up the Iran-Iraq war and destabilized Afghanistan to flood Iran with heroin.
There was a perfectly good deal with Iran called the JCPOA but Trump tore it out because it had Obama's name on it and Israel hated it. Everything that has happened since is Trump's (and Biden's) fault.
Iran is defending itself against an unprovoked attack by the biggest bully on the planet. The tolls are e complex issue because the navigable lanes through the Strait of Hormuz go through, in part, Iranian territorial waters. There were no tolls. The us started an unprovoked war, caused countless deaths, blew up a school through of girls and assassinated a bunch of leaders. So the tolls are viewed by many as, well, reparations. Iran never closed the Strait or enforced a toll prior to this war.
Iran also acted in good faith last year after yet another unprovoked attack (ie the 12 day war) that was ultimately called off because the US and Israel were losing the ability to intercept Iranian missiles. Why? Critically depelted munitions. And what did the US do? turned around and made another unprovoked, surprise attack rather than negotiating. Because Israel told them to.
So Iran has been forced into the position that they need to make the economic damage of this so high that the US and Israel never think about doing this again. And if you can't see why they might do that, consider what the US did after 9/11.
you see, the problem is this "unprovoked attack by the biggest bully on the planet" framing requires some sense of "international order" but thats a myth, always has been, and, now its being seen for what it is. in that world iran doesn't do so well, especially since the claims it makes (controlling the hormuz) depend on rejecting the international order. you cant have your cake and eat it too. im not saying its right or wrong, I'm saying it is what will be. countries will revert to self interest, and a hormuz controlled by iran is in no one's interest. well maybe it will be good for the environment, since co2 emissions will go down.
"Trump is now doubling down on U.S. demands and threats of more military action. "
No - he's been backing down over and over for weeks. There limited strikes today.
The US Admin is wary of escalation, Tehran knows it (or seems to be acting as though they believe that) and are dragging this along.
Well, yes probably.
Unlikely. They thought a dose of shock and awe would get people out on the streets for a rapid regime change and it didn't work.
There has also been reporting that a top general in the Joint Chiefs of Staff warned Trump about starting a conflict with Iran[0]. The only party that believes, or wants others to believe that Iran is a huge threat, is Israel.
0: https://www.axios.com/2026/02/23/iran-strike-trump-gen-dan-c...
1. Trump had a bee in his bonnet since the 80s
2. Iran has oil
3. Israel willed it
4. Disrupt global energy markets
5. All of the above
It's really the opposite. Trump is grasping at anything he can use as leverage in a deal he doesn't seem to be able to close.
During the rest of the conflict Trump has doubled down on threats, I mean "a civilization will die tonight" is not peacefully. I wouldn't doubt that Trump might believe Iran is weak, but I also think is more than proved that US wartime messaging is mostly directed internally to keep people dumb.