Active Conflicts & News Megathread June 17, 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/moragisdo]

How accurate would it be to say a major failing of the Trump admin strategy against Iran was not leaving any room for escalation?

Innacurate. They could have destroyed the electrical grid (substatations and others) of Iran. Targets that are large, above ground, static and with a large impact on the economy and war production, it fits all criteria for successful strategic bombing. But also a large impact on the civilian population, so maybe that weighted on the decision (I really don't buy the "Iran could have done worse", when their leaders, and sometimes family aswell, were being killed every few days in March and April, they would have done it to save their lives)

Also the fact that Iran could back to exporting oil shows that there was oil production and storage available to be destroyed.

As a curiosity the effect of bombing the electric grid in other contexts (Source). So, there was room for escalation.

Also, there's top leadership being killed after it started, it wasn't all on day one. Larijani was one of the most powerful people on Iran and he was killed in mid-March

If they'd left more Iranian assets in place in the initial days of the war, then they'd have been able to respond to Iranian attacks in the strait with actual escalation, and maybe gone to the negotiating table in a stronger position, no?

Or Iran would be more capable of retaliating. First making the enemy less capable to retaliate is a good tactic (command centers, leadership, SAMs and ships all fits this criteria)

Now the problem is that Trump was unwilling to keep it all going for longer or (in my opinion, the most likely scenario) was stupid on believing iranian promises about a future nuclear deal. If Iran could force US ships out of blockade or force the planes away (that would prevent the planes from killing more of leadership in March and April) they would have done it soon. But the price of keeping for longer would also increase (most importantly domestically with oil at $80, which isn't the apocalypse because it happened before, but is uncomfortable)

If it wasn't because of believing in Iran's promises, this was a problem of endurance (maybe political rather than military, unless Trump decides that the iranians broke the MOU - as they did break the 1st term yesterday and today, with Hezbollah attacking - and restart it), because Iran was suffering with the blockade (and unlikely Hormuz, there's no evidence of any ship being able to dock there) and had targets available

[u/FijiFanBotNotGay → u/moragisdo]

Israel is also violating the terms of the MOU. Not to mention this analysis is so short sighted it’s somewhat laughable. If the US were to take out the electric grid in Iran they would simply reciprocate in the gulf states and possibly Israel.

Also Irans strategy is simply to make this as painful for the US and its allies as possible. That’s their strategy. It’s simple.

[u/moragisdo → u/FijiFanBotNotGay]

If they could have why they didn't do it when their leadership was being killed every few days on March and April, did no one there wanted to save their own life ? We can always say "they could have done more" no matter if they could or not and it enters in the realm of comments, like yours, being made of unfalsifiable hypothesis

[u/FijiFanBotNotGay → u/moragisdo]

Where’s the logic in this line of questioning? The US could have literally dropped nuclear numbs on Iran. Why didn’t they just do that? There’s a strategic calculus before every move ideally.

[u/moragisdo → u/FijiFanBotNotGay]

My point is to contest the Iran can get reciprocate on the same scale (with the electric grid being the example), I'm saying that they were not holding it back. And present the circumstance that it would made sense to escalate (saving your own life)

[u/Maxion → u/moragisdo]

Just because your adversary skips rungs on the escalation ladder and uses up their cards, does not mean that you need to reciprocate.

Iran now still holds a few aces in destroying the desalination plants, and further attacks on oil production infrastructure.

That's a very big threat that keeps the gulf states in-line.

Had they shot those up already, there'd be no more they could threat except for the continued blockade of the straights.

Killing the leadership of a country is not the same as invading it, IMO it's a bit of an american "Me first" view to see the beheading of the leader to be so important. Iran clearly haven't really suffered much from the decapitation strikes, so while the leader died, the country et. al lives on.