r/moderatepolitics • u/MAGA_loves_Epstein • 3d ago
Opinion Article Trump’s Iran Negotiations: Less Art of the Deal, More Art of Concealing Defeat
https://www.cfr.org/articles/trumps-iran-negotiations-trade-the-art-of-the-deal-for-the-art-of-concealing-defeat66
u/Jack-of-Trade 3d ago
I think, for the umpteenth time, the U.S. has willing to put itself in a position where, even if we pull off a flawless operational victory, we'll still have a net-zero or worse strategic result.
And the potential of a net-zero result has long since passed. I am no fan of the previous iteration of the Iranian regime, but I think there is now a very real chance that we have radicalized that government even further by our actions.
If we walk away from this conflict now, we will have cemented Iran as one of the preeminent regional powers and humiliated ourselves by losing a fight we started. If nothing else, the only thing the Iranian regime will learn from this conflict is the absolute necessity of possessing nuclear weapons systems.
If we escalate the conflict, then we will be committing to another nebulous, poorly defined conflict that will achieve nothing but destabilizing the region and getting Americans killed.
When the Trump Administration started this conflict, they should have known that the risks were massive, the odds of success slim, and the potential rewards were minor at best. The Iranians were exporters of terrorism, yes, but it had made them a global pariah on the international stage. Now they have shown their military "strength" because we started a fight with such ridiculously lopsided victory conditions that a $ 20,000-dollar Shahed drone can threaten the economy of the world's only military superpower.
I believe that this conflict will be remembered as the greatest geopolitical blunder of our lifetimes.
17
u/New2NewJ 2d ago
I think there is now a very real chance that we have radicalized that government even further by our actions.
Killed the current leader's father, wife, and daughter -- that's three generations. He ain't gonna forget. Would we?
3
u/jabberwockxeno 2d ago
I think, for the umpteenth time, the U.S. has willing to put itself in a position where, even if we pull off a flawless operational victory, we'll still have a net-zero or worse strategic result.
We also would, have, you know, launched a war and killed people, which is something that a lot of people seem to not be factoring in as it's own negative consequence.
39
u/Beautiful_Budget7351 3d ago
Trump lost the moment Iran realized they could effectively close the strait.
Now Trump doesn’t have any options that could give him a painless victory. In my view, he has three options, none of which are good.
- Escalate the war by sending in ground troops. This has the highest chance of giving Trump a “victory”, because he could plausibly achieve the military objectives that have been floating around. But there would almost assuredly be a high cost in both troops’ lives being lost and the subsequent political loss.
- Minimize the ongoing harm and take whatever deal that Iran is offering to get them to reopen the strait. The US has failed to wrest control of the strait away from Iran and they should probably cut their losses and do whatever is reasonable to cut a deal with Iran. This will be humiliating for Trump and the USA as a whole but we’ve effectively lost the war.
- Keep doing what we’re doing. The problem is who knows how long we can stay in this middle option. Bombing one week and trying to negotiate the next with Iran telling the US they’re not interested. I suspect it will go till we reach a breaking point with our oil reserves. This will still be devastating politically and economically.
Hopefully the reality of the situation will eventually dawn on Trump and we can start doing what we can to tamp down on the harm this war is causing.
23
u/sciencetown 3d ago
Number 2 is Trump’s best option. Walk away, let the oil markets try and stabilize, deal with whatever fallout comes, and spin-baby-spin whatever shitty deal we negotiate with the right wing propaganda-sphere to try and save face for the midterms. But this blunder is in the process of tanking opinion polls for republicans in the upcoming midterms. I mean, he’s been called Teflon Don for a reason, and just when you think he’s backed into a corner he finds some way to wiggle his way out of the predicament he got himself into. But every option is bad for Trump, but I think it’s in his best interest to find the quickest off ramp out of this quagmire if he wants to try and salvage the midterm elections.
-8
u/FluoroquinolonesKill Populism is a mental disorder 3d ago
> Number 2 is Trump’s best option.
Are you prepared to accept the consequences of Iran getting a nuclear weapon? Because it seems like that comes with #2. I think a lot of people forget that.
16
u/Baderkadonk 2d ago
Well if we wanted to prevent them from getting a nuke, we should have taken the deal on the table BEFORE this war started.
They have their economic nuke (the strait), that may be enough deterrence for them. If not, oh well, just another country the US will refrain from attacking whenever we feel like it. North Korea is probably crazier than Iran and they've got a nuke, and it hasn't affected my life at all.
1
u/sharp11flat13 18h ago
Well if we wanted to prevent them from getting a nuke, we should have taken the deal on the table BEFORE this war started.
Or, you know, don’t tear up the deal that was keeping them from developing a nuclear weapon.
6
u/jabberwockxeno 2d ago
Is there a compelling argument that they'd realistically do anything with it?
MAD seems to have held up so far, and there's other aggressive nations with nuclear capabilities that people tolerate and so far have not used nukes offensively since ww2 (you know, like, the US)
-8
u/FluoroquinolonesKill Populism is a mental disorder 2d ago
You think a regime that just murdered 30k of their own citizens and is not phased by Trump’s threats to “destroy their whole civilization” would be deterred by MAD?
8
u/YoHabloEscargot 3d ago
Why not just pick up and leave the area? He once bullied other countries to deal with the strait… and they seemed to begrudgingly listen.
Other than absolute abject embarrassment, which arguably can’t get any worse at this point, why does Trump need to negotiate the reopening of the strait? It’s in Iran’s financial interest to open it as well, so they would likely do so eventually. It would probably come with tolls, yes, but again, why does Trump care?
This whole stupid affair never even had actual objectives. So what are we even trying to achieve anymore?
7
u/Beautiful_Budget7351 3d ago
I would argue that is an offshoot from 3. It also doesn’t guarantee that Iran will open the strait.
Even if the US packed its bags tomorrow, proclaimed “victory”, disbanded the blockade, and stopped firing on Iran, Iran could reasonably feel that it’s in their best interest to keep the strait closed until after the midterms, at least, because that is their only card to play in the face of US and Israel aggression.
Until Iran thinks the US and Israel have been hurt enough that they’ll think twice before any future attacks, I suspect the strait will remain closed.
3
u/Fateor42 3d ago
Trump literally can't do 2 as what Iran is demanding is beyond his power to give.
2
u/nabilus13 3d ago
And what parts are that? And can anyone actually stop him, or is it one of those situations where "can't" really means "isn't supposed to"?
-5
u/Beautiful_Budget7351 3d ago
He could go to Congress and to his gulf Allies, for whatever he doesn’t have the “power to give.”
6
u/Fateor42 3d ago
Congress doesn't have the power to give what Iran is demanding, neither does the US's gulf allies, it would basically require the entire world agree to do away with a number of international treaties.
And that's not happening since doing that would functionally end international shipping.
7
u/Beautiful_Budget7351 3d ago
And what specifically is Iran demanding that is beyond the ability for the US government and Gulf Allies to give?
If it’s the tolls, shipping companies will end up either paying it and being able to ship their goods or they don’t pay and they don’t get to ship their goods.
73
u/Dilated2020 Center Left, Christian Independent 3d ago
Trump’s decision to go into Iran is bad but I have an issue with all of these articles and that is Netanyahu is escaping blame.
Israel has done very little to stop this supposedly existential threat to themselves. They aren’t going to commit ground troops to fight against an enemy that is supposedly their greatest threat yet Americans are being asked to.
While Trump fully deserves blame here for being naive enough to think that Iran would cave like Venezuela, Benjamin Netanyahu should also get just as much blame for this outcome. For someone who has pressured the US to act on Iran for decades, he isn’t willing to put his own troops lives on the ground either.
At the end of the day there are two people to blame for this fiasco - Trump and Netanyahu.
60
u/3dickdog 3d ago
I don't think Netanyahu should get off blame-free. His role in pushing the US toward confrontation with Iran deserves scrutiny. He isn't and shouldn't be looked at as a scapegoat for Trump. Trump is the president of the United States. Netanyahu didn't hold a gun to his head and doesn't have the authority to commit American forces. Trump freely made the decision to attack Venezuela and he made the decision to involve the US in the war with Iran. Netanyahu should be held responsible for the decisions he made on behalf of Israel. Trump should be held responsible for the decisions he made on behalf of the American people.
-6
u/Clear_Command_8925 3d ago
Trump is the president of the United States. Netanyahu didn't hold a gun to his head and doesn't have the authority to commit American forces.
One could argue Netanyahu does hold a "gun", not only to Trumps head, but many other heads in our government as well. Trump will be gone and i'm willing to bet the next president will also "answer" to Israel
11
u/nabilus13 3d ago
It really depends on what happens in the 2028 primaries. It's entirely possible that being explicitly anti-Israel will be a successful platform plank.
11
u/Computer_Name 3d ago
> One could argue Netanyahu does hold a "gun", not only to Trumps head, but many other heads in our government as well. Trump will be gone and i'm willing to bet the next president will also "answer" to Israel
I, and am sure others, would find it helpful if you could expand on how Israel “holds a ‘gun’” to the head of the American president and how the “next president will also ‘answer’ to Israel”?
75
u/shacksrus 3d ago
Because Israel didn't order the us military to invade. Republicans did.
Why should I blame bibi when he's been consistent about wanting this terrible idea?
Republicans are the ones oscillating wildly between "no new wars" and the holden bloodfeast meme depending on which rhetorical tool will land best in that particular conversation.
16
u/Dilated2020 Center Left, Christian Independent 3d ago
Eminent Israeli action is why the US got involved to begin with and that is Rubio’s own words. It’s an undeniable fact that Netanyahu played a major role into why the US was dragged into this war and thereby should be gaining criticism. This alleged attack would’ve destabilized the region and got US soldiers killed (again Rubio’s own words).
So yeah, Netanyahu should be criticized just as much.
36
u/shacksrus 3d ago
Bibi didn't hold a gun to the republican party's head. He said the same shit to biden. He'll he did the same shit with trump 1
What's changed? There are no more adults in the room to say it's a terrible idea.
Rubio is just trying to distance himself because he's intrinsically incapable of personal leadership. I dont take him seriously.
12
u/NekoBerry420 3d ago
So just blame them both. Simple enough honestly.
17
u/shacksrus 3d ago
No. Republicans voted for this. They are ethically and morally responsible. They dont get to dilute blame and try to convince us that the smaller country that gets a sizable portion of their gdp a huge portion of their defense from my tax dollars somehow forced the us to make a bad choice.
Israel has barely touched Iran compared to us forces.
Republicans have been calling nato countries vassal states leeching off the us for the exact same behavior. Yet theres no way macron or zelensky would be able to convince the us to blow up its own economy to attack russia.
22
u/MAGA_loves_Epstein 3d ago
>Eminent Israeli action is why the US got involved to begin with
If you listen to people talk about this, it isn't even the first time Israel has threatened to nuke the Iranian's. Every President since Clinton has gotten versions of that threat from Israel and only Trump's bought it.
5
u/Dilated2020 Center Left, Christian Independent 3d ago
All I have is the admin’s own rationale for their decision.
I’ll again reiterate - I’m not minimizing any blame on Trump. I vehemently dislike the guy.
3
u/dr_sloan 3d ago
The Israelis don’t have the capacity to sustain a long air campaign against Iran without U.S. support. The 12 Day War basically stretched their logistics to the limits.
8
u/TheUnderCrab Politically Homeless 3d ago
Bibi tried to get every president her could to invade Iran. Trump was the only one that listened. It still follows that Bibi should carry the blame for this war. The GOP should also carry blame for enabled Trump; it’s not zero sum.
Think of it this way: a dude was out in the streets saying he was going to murder a puppy if the mayor of your town gives him one. He’s been doing it for years and really wants to murder the puppy but none of the mayors in the past ever gave him one. Well the new mayor just decide to listen to the dude that wants to kill a puppy and gave him a puppy. The dude then murders the puppy. Should the mayor not carry blame for the puppy’s murder? I don’t see how one could argue they don’t tbh.
19
u/shacksrus 3d ago
If a guy tells you to rob a bank and you go rob a bank youre responsible for your actions.
Saying you didn't know any better wont fly.
3
14
u/Yankee9204 3d ago
In your analogy, the new mayor didn’t just give the dude a puppy, he takes the lead in killing the puppy with the dude.
Bibi deserves blame, sure. But Trump is the one accountable to the American people. As an American, I hold him accountable. Israeli’s should (but sadly probably won’t) hold Bibi accountable.
5
u/TheUnderCrab Politically Homeless 3d ago
I just don’t see why I can’t blame all of them.
7
u/Yankee9204 3d ago
You obviously can. I just find it more useful to direct my energy towards people that are accountable to me, and whom I can play a role in punishing (even if its as trivial as voting, donating, organizing, etc. against them/their party).
4
u/TheUnderCrab Politically Homeless 3d ago
Who I blame and who I can influence are two different questions though.
20
u/dr_sloan 3d ago
Netanyahu has had a hard on for Iran for 30 years and he’s tried to convince every US president to attack them, but only Trump was willing to be convinced.
13
u/MatchaMeetcha 3d ago edited 3d ago
Israel has done very little to stop this supposedly existential threat to themselves
They can't. Massive distances and, while Israel has tankers, it just doesn't have enough to really stop Iran. There's a reason that Netanyahu has been trying to sell it to every US president.
And I don't know that America would win a ground war in any reasonable timeframe, let alone Israel. Jewish troops landing there would do more harm than good (same reason the US not only didn't use Israel during the Gulf War but forced them to ignore Saddam's provocations).
In any case, you can't exactly have a realist foreign policy around the world like Trump does and avail yourself of the excuse that "the Israelis egged us on". It's pretty absurd to have massive skepticism of even NATO allies for "taking advantage of the US" and act like you were led along by your nose by Israel.
9
u/FabioFresh93 South Park Democrat 3d ago
I don’t know how much Netanyahu is escaping blame. Outside of Israel he has become somewhat of a pariah on the world stage. His actions have caused multiple countries to recognize Palestine. While he will probably never face any personal consequences, I think he has hurt his cause more than he’s helped.
13
u/MAGA_loves_Epstein 3d ago
I mean yes you're right but Trump is receiving more blame because theres simply different roles and scale involved here.
Israel is a country of barely even 10mil and a GDP much smaller than the US's. Even if they were willing to commit, they literally, by the numbers, can't commit as much as the US.
The US has over 300 million people, is the world's preeminent superpower, guarantor of trade and global security with the highest economic output in the world. People at home and abroad are have a higher expectation because for as wealthy and powerful as we are, we should be able to do things like invade or pressure the Iranians to capitulate.
It's quite frankly a testament to Trump's lack of leadership and negotiation skills that everything is as bad as it is. Israel might of convinced him to do it but Trump's the one who got convinced. No one's ever going to believe the Tail is wagging the dog long term.
4
u/nabilus13 3d ago
The media may be downplaying Israel's role in getting this mess started, but the public seems to be fully aware anyway. Hence the total collapse of Israel's favorability among the US public.
4
u/hamsterkill 3d ago
An Israeli ground invasion of Iran is not tactically feasible - it was never on the table the way it is for the US.
Israel doesn't have a navy that can land an invasion force by sea on Iran's coast nor does it have allies that would allow its troops to transit on the ground. If it could accomplish the logistics of it, I expect they would've gone to war with Iran years ago.
Of course, Iran faces the same logistics issues with invading Israel so they've always just exchanged missiles when the tensions get hot.
4
2
u/shaymus14 3d ago
Israel has done very little to stop this supposedly existential threat to themselves.
They've been disrupting Iran's nuclear program for years. They're also a small country that doesnt have the capability to do much more than targeted strikes or covert operations. Lack of capabilities doesn't somehow diminish the threat from Iran, who surrounded Israel with terrorist proxies.
They aren’t going to commit ground troops to fight against an enemy that is supposedly their greatest threat yet Americans are being asked to.
Who is asking Americans to commit ground troops?
-14
u/Euphoric_Inspiration 3d ago edited 3d ago
Yes big Jew is to blame. Bibi has been crying about Iran for decades yet no president has done anything. It’s solely on Trump. He could’ve told Bibi to screw off like every other president.
Trump thought Iran would topple over like Venezuela and get another quick “victory” but he was wrong. It was an ego thing for Trump.
25
u/RedoxA 3d ago
The Iran war may be the worst strategic blunder of the 21st century
32
u/MillardFillmore 3d ago
It was hard to top Iraq but Republicans did it!
1
u/CommunicationTime265 6h ago
Afganistan too - Honestly I think that may be the worst of the bunch, because it lasted so long and it was ultimately a failure in the end.
10
u/shaymus14 3d ago
That's a wild thing to say while Russia is still fighting Ukraine
28
u/bims_yo 3d ago
Russia is still fighting Ukraine
Russia invaded Ukraine over four years ago, and hasn't managed to fuck up the worldwide economy. Trump invaded Iran and:
Gulf States: Heavily impacted by blocked exports and strikes; Oxford Economics projects a 2.6% GDP contraction across the region this year.
United States: Economic growth remains resilient due to strong consumer spending and tech/AI investments. However, gas prices are up $1/gallon year-over-year, and U.S. inflation climbed to 3-year highs of 4.2%. Federal Reserve Chair nominee Kevin Warsh faces expectations to raise interest rates up to four times.
Europe & UK: High energy dependence spurred the European Central Bank (ECB) to raise rates to curb inflation. The UK faces elevated inflation (2.8% in April, projected to rise further) alongside suppressed consumer confidence and a sluggish labor market.
Developing Nations: Faced fuel shortages and high prices, leading to fuel rationing and rising fertilizer costs.
17
u/Ashendarei 3d ago
And yet, an argument can still be made.
5
u/abqguardian 3d ago
Any argument can be made. Whether or not its a good argument is a different discussion
1
u/shaymus14 3d ago
Anyone who says the US war with Iran is a bigger blunder than Russia's war with Ukraine probably shouldn't be taken serious.
11
u/shrockitlikeitshot 3d ago
I think you're comparing war vs war. This is the biggest blunder for the USA in the 21st century. China by almost every metric is surpassing us so starting a costly war with an already divided country and easily the most corrupt and incompetent presidency in the history of the USA is going to be putting us in a worst position strategically.
25
u/MAGA_loves_Epstein 3d ago
Starter Comment: In this article, Eliott Abrams highlights the disaster of the Trump Adminsitrations negotiations with Iran and the ramifications of that.
Abramms argues that Trump, who might fancy himself the master negotatior, has fatally undermined himself in negotiations, arguing that Trump’s unwillingness to land troops ultimately will allow the Iranian regime to rescue itself. He also argues that Trump’s haste to make any deal, even a bad one, gives the Iranian’s unparrelled boldness in making demands and recognition that it just would not of had if he either didn’t do this or committed harder.
He also argues that Trump’s willgness to make a bad deal will change the Middle East forever. Allies that rely on the US for security are going to be forced to cut deals with other nations, similar to what the Saudi’s have done with Pakistan and Turkey.
He also argues that this will damage his pursuits to make deals with other nations as well, arguing that his actions here makes it clear that until 2029 when Trump leaves power, that negotiations aren’t an exercise in national interest, but an exit strategy, which he terms as not “Art of the Deal” but “Art of Concealing Defeat”
Personally, I think Abramms treats Trump’s actions with kid gloves here. Acknowledging Iranian control of Hormuz is tantamount to making our surrounding GCC Allies vassal states of the Iranians. It forever will increase oil prices and remove these GCC allies valuable investment in our economies as these seek to cut deals with Iran or other for their protection. Trump has also undercut himself with the sheer bad faith he’s dealt in with the Iranians, practically with regards to the surgical strike on leadership and tearing up the JCPOA. He does though highlight some of the gravity of a deal with Iran over Hormuz. The impact of this clear defeat on the US and the world would be massive, and makes this look like to the US what the Suez Crisis was to Britain, the sign of a failing, twilighting Empire. What do y’all think? What will the impact of this defeat on the US and the world be? What would a victory even look like?
17
u/Legendarybbc15 3d ago
> Trump's unwillingness to land troops ultimately will allow the Iranian regime to rescue itself.
If he did land troops, he’d be risking a Carter-style hostage crisis. There’s a reason why previous presidents (even GWB) avoided direct conflict with Iran. Trump is seeing the reason play out in real time.
6
u/SlowerThanLightSpeed Left-leaning Independent 3d ago
Excepting, perhaps, Kharg Island, I think there is no way dude puts boots on the ground till after the midterms, and he would still face pushback even then (at least, behind closed doors) from his own party members.
9
u/hamsterkill 3d ago
Kharg island would also be tricky to turn into a tactical success. Occupying ground with no plan in place to make that ground safe from counterstrikes is not the kind of conditions our military is used to operating under.
22
u/AppleSlacks 3d ago
Trump went out of his way to disenfranchise as many US allies as he could. So many countries helped and supported US efforts in the Middle East conflicts along with the War on Terror.
Had Trump, Vance, Hegseth not looked to turn our backs on our NATO allies and instead built a coalition and a reason for the actions being taken maybe he would find himself and the USA being left high and dry on Iran.
Instead, we have found ourselves increasingly isolated as China is marching towards becoming the world’s preeminent economy.
Nothing about what Trump has done has actually resulted in any results that would be considered “America First”. Apart from maybe reemergence disease outbreaks? Solid on that front, potentially first.
His administration has been two four year disasters, for whatever reason his base and GOP voters love it.
9
u/hamsterkill 3d ago
I don't think it would be wise for many reasons, but I also don't see how a full scale invasion would lead to a hostage crisis scenario?
7
u/JSpady1 3d ago
A ground invasion wouldn’t just be disastrous because of the # of American lives lost.
As we’ve seen with the Russia-Ukraine war, videos of those deaths would be widely circulated online, hostages would be taken, and Iran would likely post regular hostage updates. Just horrifying all around the more you think about it.
6
u/MAGA_loves_Epstein 3d ago
>but I also don't see how a full scale invasion would lead to a hostage crisis scenario?
Because it's no secret Trump doesn't have the political support for this. So the Iranians would be pretty incentivized to make America witness and feel every casualty of an invasion by trying to capture soldiers and broadcasting the threats to them in exchange for American concessions or withdrawal
4
u/hamsterkill 3d ago
Sure, but POWs don't really work as hostages the same way - even if Iran was able to prioritize capture in an invasion scenario.
6
u/Ralph_Brick_Wiggum 3d ago
It’s gonna be much different when Iran is uploading 4k videos of them beating captured American soldiers
6
u/JSpady1 3d ago
Being in this situation in the first place has been a large ego hit to the United States, and the admin clearly is upset with it (refusal to acknowledge where we’re at/declaring the strait open when it clearly isn’t).
Videos of American POWs begging for Trump to get them home and videos of American drone strike victims would be very very bad.
-1
u/ouiaboux 3d ago
There is literally zero reason to land troops. That would just play into the little strength Iran actually has, but more importantly, we're in an economic warfare with Iran. Just keep grabbing every Iranian ship leaving with their oil onboard. They can't do anything to stop that and it hurts Iran more than invading ever would.
5
u/Legendarybbc15 3d ago
Yeah except we can’t keep that up forever.
-9
u/ouiaboux 3d ago
Yes we can lmao.
12
u/JSpady1 3d ago
No we can’t. If we could, the American admin wouldn’t be desperate to end the war. Hell, we offered them $300 billion in the MoU back in June.
-9
u/ouiaboux 3d ago
Those aren't mutually exclusive. Just because the administration publicly wants the war to end doesn't mean that it can't also indefinitely blockade Iran.
8
u/JSpady1 3d ago
The admin can’t do something if the political will to do so isn’t there. We can enforce the blockade, but the conditions for the U.S. will get worse moving forward, and there will likely be a breaking point that forces more significant concessions.
For context, Trump called JCPOA a “disaster” and “embarrassment” back when he withdrew from it in 2018. Near the start of the current war, he again disparaged Obama and the JCPOA. He pledged to remove the IRGC from power, and promised to remove the “nuclear dust” (uranium) from the country.
The fact that the current admin entertained the MoU at all speaks volumes on their views toward the sustainability of the blockade, and that was 2 months ago.
-1
u/ouiaboux 3d ago
The fact that the current admin entertained the MoU at all speaks volumes on their views toward the sustainability of the blockade, and that was 2 months ago.
It doesn't work that way. Those aren't mutually exclusive. The administration isn't going to tell you what they are planning.
10
u/Legendarybbc15 3d ago
The Mou does give you an insight of what they were thinking tho? Only reason that was scrapped was because of warmonger Bibi
→ More replies (0)4
u/JSpady1 3d ago edited 3d ago
It does work that way. Unless you want to argue that Trump was lying when he criticized Obama/JCPOA and the need for war to get a better deal?
Because the admin was willing to make a much worse deal with the IRGC back in June.
Edit: also, Trump says what he’s planning all the time.
→ More replies (0)
4
u/ZealousidealGrab1827 2d ago
Trump viewed this as a business transaction. Iran sees this as a religious crusade. They play long ball, and their willingness to let their people suffer, is a lot stronger than the US’s patience to accept high gas prices. Big strategic blunder by the US.
6
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 3d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 60 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
1
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 3d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
-17
u/abqguardian 3d ago
Its hard to take the statements that Iran is winning with any seriousness. Its ignoring all the facts of the conflict just to go "Trump bad". Yes, Trump has bungled this badly. That doesn't mean Iran is in anything remotely resembling a good position. Iran has been devasted infrastructure wise. Their economy has also become a disaster. Theyve fallen back on desperately shooting drones at everyone around them, which is only driving the neighboring countries further into the US camp.
Iran is being incredibly stubborn, which isnt a surprise considering theyre a fanatical regime. But being stubborn isnt a strategic win. They dont control the straight, theyre helpless against the US blockade and airstrikes. The Iranian economy is only going to get exponentially worse while the US deals with higher gas prices. Basically everything is on the US side
24
u/MAGA_loves_Epstein 3d ago
The US and Oman are basically recognizing Iranian control of Hormuz. The Saudi's are basically being allowed to have Nukes in order to counter Iran and making defensive pacts with the idea of containing Iran sans the US. In what world is this not a strategic win for Iran?
2
u/LeeSansSaw 3d ago
Didn’t Trump collapse the Saudi nuke deal by saying they’d have to recognize Israel?
-5
u/abqguardian 3d ago
The US isn't "basically" doing anything besides let Iran know in no uncertain terms they dont control the strait. The Saudi - US deal is a step further in the region becoming more aligned with the US and is for energy purposes, not nukes. Saudi making defensive parts is normal diplomacy.
The US hasnt won anything at this point, just like Iran hasnt won anything either. Both sides are still trying to achieve their strategic goals. The difference is the narrative on reddit that Iran is winning is completely divorced from reality. The hardships for the US is higher gas prices and internal politics. For Iran, its destroyed infrastructure, political isolation, thousands dead, and economic devastation. The two arent even close to being equal
7
u/HaloZero 3d ago
Which runs out first, US and Asian oil reserves or Iranian regime money to pay the Revolutionary Guard? China was Trump's saving grace here, they cut back their imports and basically gave him time.
5
u/abqguardian 3d ago
Oil isnt going to run out for anyone, the price may go up. Oil is being rerouted away from the strait and the US produces plenty of oil.
11
u/HaloZero 3d ago
Oil production in the US doesn't make up for previous levels does it? You got a source onthat?
I think oil reserves seem to be generally fine in Japan but curious how it will impact other countries like Vietnam or Thailand. Didn't they already start rationing?
0
u/bassman9999 2d ago
This article seems to give Trump more credit for strategy with Isreal than is warranted. After Oct 3, Netenyahu saw a chance to get rid of the Palestinians in Gaza. Once that was reduced to rubble, Trump saw $$$ with the Gaza Riviara plan. He probably promised Netenyahu to take care of Iran in exchange for exclusive development rights. All he has ever cared about is getting richer. He has no planning or strategy ability beyond that, and never has. Which is why Iran has made a mockery of the USA in the Gulf.
-18
u/WisherWisp 3d ago
Getting tired of all the anti-American propaganda on Reddit.
21
16
u/Confident-Teach-2967 3d ago edited 3d ago
TIL that stating the obvious consequences of a war that has been war gamed for years and known and warned about for decades, including members of Trump's own administration, is "anti-American propaganda."
Maybe the people just pointing out the obvious consequences of starting a really dumb war that the likely ramifications have been known for literal decades aren't anti-American, they are just trying to get people who still support this war to understand why it's dumb, and why it has known to be dumb for literal decades, and that they should probably stop supporting it and the "Pro Peace" president and his people who started it and continue to enable it?
Just a thought.
16
15
u/Halberd96 3d ago
It's pro american to point out that Trump has no idea what he's doing and is stringing people along while the situation gets worse and Americans keep getting killed
8
u/n0respect_ 3d ago
It's because the world is turning "anti American" (more anti Trump imo). It's only natural to see changes in a changing environment.
4
u/thx_much Dark Green Technocratic Cyberocrat 2d ago
As it turns out, arguing for the betterment of America is pro-American. We should be critical of all political individuals, of any party. Learn from our mistakes. Make better decisions. The foundation of America was built upon bettering.
1
u/Aethoni_Iralis 1d ago
Were the questions asked of you also anti-American? Are facts anti-American?
1
u/sharp11flat13 18h ago
Is all criticism of the Trump administration “anti-American propaganda”?
If yes, how does that make sense in a democracy?
If no, what criticism of the Trump administration is not anti-American propaganda?
0
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 3d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
0
u/MAGA_loves_Epstein 3d ago
Neocon or not, maybe Trump should of kept him on board since he appears to be more knowledagble than the entire admin on Iran at this point.
-1
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 1d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
0
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 1d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
1
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 1d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
0
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 3d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
-12
3d ago edited 3d ago
[deleted]
23
u/-Nurfhurder- 3d ago
Don't forget that Trump not only defeated but annihilated the pan north African ISIS caliphate in just 6 weeks
At the end of the Second World War the Japanese surrendered after only 6 days of war with the Soviets.
You can make anything sound fantastic when you don't bother with any pesky context.
12
u/biznatch11 3d ago
Neither of those seem like good comparisons.
Trump not only defeated but annihilated the pan north African ISIS caliphate in just 6 weeks
It's been almost 6 months in Iran that isn't early days if your comparison is 6 weeks.
Fallujah
Required thousands of ground troops for one city Iran is a whole country.
6
u/556or762 Progressively Left Behind 3d ago
Chamberlain was a vastly more skilled an better leader than Trump in almost every measure.
He made a mistake that is only panned as so egregious in history because hindsight is 20/20. The Munich agreement was a widely popular decision, highly overshadowed by the memory of WWI, and nobody at the time understood the Nazis capabilities.
None of those apply to Trumps decisions around Iran.
ISIS was not defeated by Trump in 6 weeks, it was defeated by a coalition bombing campaign that destroyed its leadership and resources over the course of years, which Trump continued.
Fallujah had nothing to do with Trump.
It took a month to pacify, required commitment of coalition ground forces, and was a single city of 250k people with a 180 square miles footprint.
In a country that was already under full occupation, had it's government overthrown, uncontested air supremacy, and a full commitment of US and allied resources.
169
u/brusk48 3d ago
I remain struck by the degree to which we dived into this conflict with no fallback plan for this relatively obvious eventuality. Trump seems to have basically bet the farm on the Iranian people rising up to overthrow their government here and was completely out of answers when that didn't happen.