I’m well aware of today’s events. My point was that those events weren’t the first ones that violated whatever “ceasefire” anyone thinks might have still been in effect.
Long term consequences are a b*tch …
The US (and Israel) may have bombed Iran and destroyed some of its military, but the war will not end with a victory. Even with some of the country’s leadership dead, the Iranian govt still hasn’t collapsed. The Strait of Hormuz will no longer be open as it once was, and Iran now has more power over global trade and shipping. And Iranian allies China and Russia have seen their positions in the world strengthened, while the United States’ reputation has been weakened.
“Far from demonstrating American prowess, as supporters of the war have repeatedly claimed, the conflict has revealed an America that is unreliable and incapable of finishing what it started” … “That is going to set off a chain reaction around the world as friends and foes adjust to America’s failure.”
Ya it seems that the same thing that happened to Russia is now going on here. Biting off what seemed to be a slam dunk on some small country, turned into an exposure of just how impotent the supposedly greatest militaries in the world are. And just how unprepared that both of our countries were for the new paradigm of drone warfare, and how to defend against it..
They had that power before the war.
Yes, but the author seems to say that they have far more of that power today.
Kagan is a weird guy.
There’s no change in the power dynamic. Iran could have done the same thing at any time in the past.
As far as his claim of America’s defeat… not really. The administration is holding back because they know they promised to stop “forever wars”. But they could easily change their minds. Or they could walk away. OR they could do what they should’ve done in the first place - build a coalition.
None of that points to a checkmate, IMO.
Sometimes, just showing the stupid leadership, strategic disorganization, and overall impotence of a major military power is huge win on the world stage.
I think it is very easy to argue that Iran has done exactly that to the usa.
Unfortunately.
There’s absolutely a change. Iran maybe could have done this in the past, but never did. There was always the impression that the US could punish them, and that they were unwilling to try to exert this level of influence over the SoH unless absolutely pushed to need to. Now it’s clear that we aren’t able or willing to really prevent them from controlling traffic, and the barriers to them doing so have been removed. The way we went about this conflict has cast us in the role of the insigator and the bad guy, has weakend international confidence in our legitimacy as an ally and our capability to keep Iran check, and has left Iran in a better position to bargain for the future. There’s real conversation about whether then end of this conflict includes a deal where they have some sort of toll system in place for the transit of an international strait. It’s a huge black eye for us. Pretending nothing has changed because this “could have” happened previously is a bit silly.
5 Likes
I would say it was unclear before the war they had that power. The war solidified it. There is a big difference between theoretical capabilities and demonstrated capacity.
Prior to the war there were many unknowns if Iran could actually pull it off. Sure it was likely, but nobody knew for sure and know they do. It was a risk on Iran’s part to try, since if it didn’t work they would have been shown to be very weak.
Some of the unknowns:
-Would Iran’s weapons work (probably the lowest risk here)
-Could Iran’s military coordinate the deployment of weapons under a war (probably second lowest)
- would the US be able to counter Iran and keep the strait open, maybe through a new secret system or just by competence (this was a real risk Iran could know for sure wouldn’t happen)
- Would the other countries in the region be more pissed at Iran for doing this, further isolating them, than the region would be pissed at the US for starting this dumb idea (real risk here)
- Would China immediately tell Iran to knock it off and force them to open the strait
- Etc
Really coming into this nobody could at with 100% confidence Iran would succeed as much as they have, sure it was likely, but the downside of Iran trying and failing was huge.
If Iran had exerted that power prior to the US attack, a coalition to defeat Iran would have quickly formed to defeat Iran and retake the SoH. And Iran knew it.
But since the US is the inept instigator that has caused so much pain in the world because of this attack, all those countries are loath to come to the defense of the US position. And Iran knows it.
2 Likes
The Strait of Hormuz is about 21 miles wide. The in and out shipping lanes are about 2 miles wide each.
Iran has had missiles and drones for years (edit: and mines), so from a purely logistical standpoint there was nothing theoretical about what I’m saying. slowguy can call it silly but the entire movement of commerce through there wasn’t due to the U.S. protecting the strait, but rather because Khamenei left ships alone.
Khamenei was 86 years old. Even if he died of natural causes there’s a strong chance the IRGC would have won the ensuing power struggle and still been in a position to toll the waterway.
The only real unknown Iran was facing, was whether the U.S. was willing to start another ground invasion. That was probably a real concern in past years after seeing what happened to Iraq. But in the current war the U.S. has (so far) been pretty transparently unwilling to go that far.
1 Like
I think the US has played this badly, for reasons recently pointed out.
I think Israel’s managed it well. They seem to have conveniently left quietly. Perhaps mission mostly accomplished from their POV. Haven’t seen them in the news lately.
You should probably ask, why did Khamenei leave shipping alone?
1 Like
That gif has been waiting for this moment it’s entire life.
1 Like
If that’s the case then it begs the question of whether the international community lets that happen. If it is illegal to enact such a toll system across and international waterway then the rest of the world swallows that pill and allows Iran to leverage an international waterway because of the proverbial black eye we gave ourselves?
Or am I misunderstanding the geographical and political nature of the straight? Very honest questions; not argumentative.
Edit: just reading up afte posting and seeing that there is no part of the SoH that is recognized as international high seas due to maritime law establishing territorial waters up to 12 miles off the coast. In my head I knew that but I didn’t realize the SoH didn’t have any international waters and instead has overlapping territorial waters.
The SoH has overlapping territorial seas for Oman and Iran, but it’s also a “strait used for international navigation.” As such, all vessels enjoy the right of “transit passage” which means you get to sail through those waters continuously and expeditiously. The countries bordering the strait are not allowed to impede transit passage rights.
The US has, for the past several decades, put significant effort into enforcing freedom of navigation rights around the world, despite not being a signatory to the UNCLOS treaty that formally establishes the rules. We do this in the SoH, in the Taiwan Strait, around the South China Sea, the Arctic, and various other places to challenge excessive claims of control. If we and/or the international community allow an outcome where Iran gets to require payment to transit through the SoH, we will have undone decades of work, and we’ll be opening the door to all those other countries who don’t want to abide by the law. China will be first. It would be a significant failure for the US.
I don’t see the rest of the world swallowing that set of circumstances, but there’s a lot going on that I didn’t think would happen.
Overflights of Austria not permitted? Who cares?
If Iran had unilaterally closed the Strait of their own volitation instead of as response to US aggression, then you would have had a 1990 Iraq situation. The value of a Casus Belli is that you would have a whole coalition that would form to open the Strait. Iran vs the World. The power dynamic is very different than the US initiating with no cause and the world upset with the US for doing so.
I think that’s a toss up. Consider: Iran closes the strait to its “enemies” but allows China and others to pass unobstructed. Do you really think Europe supporting the U.S. would be enough? And it’s a big leap to assume Europe would support the current U.S. administration in the first place.
Anyhow my point remains: Iran had the option in their pocket at any time.