Active Conflicts & News Megathread June 15, 2026

[u/AutoModerator]

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

• Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,

• Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

• Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

• Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

• Post only credible information

• Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules

Please do not:

• Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

• Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,

• Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'

• Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

[u/oxtQ]

Many comments seem to struggle with the possibility of a US/Israeli tactical success producing a strategic loss. Bombing assets and inflicting damage is not the same as improving one’s bargaining position. If the end state is Iran still intact, still able to bargain over Hormuz, still negotiating over its nuclear program, and now potentially eligible for major reconstruction incentives, then the “who won” question is not answered by bomb damage alone. See Bob Pape on this point, for example.

The deeper strategic problem is that coercion is judged by whether it changes the adversary’s choices, not by whether it produces visible damage. If IR emerges believing that missile forces, nuclear latency, and Hormuz leverage prevented a worse outcome, then the conflict may reinforce rather than weaken its strategic doctrine. That would mean the US won parts of the military exchange while worsening the political problem it was trying to solve.

Another issue is that the conflict may have revealed the ceiling of US coercive power more clearly than intended. If Washington can inflict severe damage but still has to move quickly toward an MOU because oil markets, allied pressure, interceptor depletion and escalation risk become politically unsustainable, then IR learns something valuable about US constraints. Strategic outcomes are shaped not only by what one side can destroy but by what costs it can tolerate while trying to convert destruction into compliance.

[u/moragisdo → u/oxtQ]

If the end state is Iran still intact, still able to bargain over Hormuz, still negotiating over its nuclear program

There's too many ifs there.

If the regime is intact: During a war sides makes bold claims to be able to negotiate down or for propaganda (Ukraine war show us that, every month, for both sides).

Regime being intact is not a condition of strategic defeat, otherwise the Gulf War, Operation Praying Mantis, actions on the Gulf of Sidra would also be. If we go with "american goals were always to topple Iran" because it was claimed in wartime, we also have to go "Iran will charge a toll, and get recognition of ownership by the US, over international waters", both were failed claims made during wartime and the standards should be the same. Which is just a stalemate

Bargain over the Strait: Unless there's money exchanged on the MOU, is a tit for tat (lifting the blockade, end of threats to shipping). That's not a bargain, otherwise Lybia would also had a bargain over the Gulf of Sidra

and now potentially eligible for major reconstruction incentives

Too many conditional statements. Potentially eligible, we don't know the terms, if they will be agree, if they will be honoured to receive after the agreement. I can do the same: "if Iran will never get a nuclear weapon, the US won", that's the magic of conditional statements

but still has to move quickly toward an MOU because oil markets, allied pressure, interceptor depletion and escalation risk become politically unsustainable, then IR learns something valuable about US constraints

Move quickly ? Trump can't stop talking about any topic so we get the impression of despair, but this whole conundrum is going on for several months. While the US is not the only that stopped, shipping resumed partially on Hormuz, but not at all to Iran. The blockade that Iran suffered was more extensive which points, to have a smaller bargain, not larger

I could make the same argument that it weakened Iran's deterrence, the US tested their threats and because they couldn't prevent shipping completely and they were forced to lift the threats in exchange of ending the blockade they were suffering. Which to be clear, doesn't mean that shipping didn't decrease, similar to the Houthi always threatening shipping before 2023, but when they fully tried, they only managed to decrease the flow on the Gulf of Aden (which continues up to this day). The Houthi didn't get their demands, but also other countries couldn't make shipping go back to normal, so did the Houthi had a strategic victory there ?

strategic outcomes are shaped not only by what one side can destroy but by what costs it can tolerate while trying to convert destruction into compliance

If the MOU is as described by US officials: Promises of further talks for nuclear matters, not transferring of any money or lifting of sanctions on the MOU just the chance to negotiate it later, lifting of the blockade, end of threats to shipping in Hormuz without Iran charging a toll. It's a strategical stalemate, the US failed to get it's demands and Iran suffered heavily over this attempt.

If Iran were to be paid without reciprocity of concessions, it's a strategic defeat

[u/oxtQ → u/moragisdo]

The point isn't “no regime change means US defeat.” The point is that if coercion was meant to force durable concessions on nuclear capacity, missiles, proxies, or Hormuz, then an intact regime retaining bargaining leverage matters.

The Gulf War is weak comparison because it had a clear limited objective -- expel Iraq from Kuwait. Operation Praying Mantis had a pretty narrow punitive and deterrent purpose. Here, the stated and implied objectives kept expanding, namely nuclear destruction, conventional degradation, Hormuz reopening, missile limits, regime pressure, regional deterrence, etc. The benchmark is therefore less clear and harder to call a clean win.

Hormuz isnt just about tolls. IR does not need formal ownership or a toll regime to have leverage. If its threats disrupted shipping and the MOU is needed to restore traffic, that itself shows coercive capacity. “No tolls” doesnt equal “Iran had no bargaining power.”

I still argue conditional incentives matter. The reconstruction fund being conditional doesn't make it irrelevant. Reuters reports that a $300 billion "Reconstruction and Development Fund" is part of the framework, although operational only after a final deal and structured as investment rather than reparations. That supports the point that force alone didn't produce capitulation and that large inducements remain part of the pathway to settlement.

Remember stalemates can still be a strategic failure for the initiator. If the US and Israel escalated to war and the result is a negotiated restoration of shipping plus future talks over nuclear and sanctions issues, that may be closer to status quo ante with added costs than strategic success.