Middle East Defence & Security

Looks like over a dozen radars have now been destroyed by the Iranian strikes.

Anyone seen the actuel USA-Iran Deal? Well, Thatßs what I am calling a US surrender.
Israel won´t be happy.

Hoover said:

Anyone seen the actuel USA-Iran Deal? Well, Thatßs what I am calling a US surrender.
Israel won´t be happy.

Click to expand...

No choice, the Iran $hitshow is a mega problem for the 2026 midterm elections and his MAGA morons. Probably just about out of precision strike weapons and tier one AD missiles as well.

Benjamin must be going mad over the common sense (not Trump’s usual characteristic):

Hoover said:

Anyone seen the actuel USA-Iran Deal? Well, Thatßs what I am calling a US surrender.
Israel won´t be happy.

Click to expand...

If this deal becomes reality, I think it amounts to a US defeat in their war with Iran. That's a pretty surprising outcome all in all.

^ Don’t think it is all that surprising and we discussed some of it in this thread back in March. @SinisterMinister provided some greater detail on this outcome as he expected, if I recall correctly - I didn’t disagree, but thought he was very generous in his prediction. Turned out he was rather conservative. Adds to the irony:



One thing to note, however, this isn’t the end of things by any stretch, yet. Things can go all kind of ways from here. Nothing good that I can think of though.

The worst part is that Iran doesn’t even have to sell this as their victory, it sells itself. Who could have predicted that this war was a bad idea though? FDD think tankers are ripping their hair out, which is well-deserved. Some are still pretty confused about how things work:



Israel appears to be in the worst position of all players. Again, who could have predicted! Certainly not them.



They were holding 17+ and tapped for another card. Iran should have been left alone after last year strike on the nuclear program facilities, it was clear as day. A close parallel to Russia not invading Ukraine in 2022 (or leaving it alone after Crimea take over even).

Here is the MOU, as per Axios (via the archive) for those who missed it:


Here is a kicker in point 8: […]Iran reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons[…] “Reaffirms”… (the dictionary’s formatting I am not bothering myself with changing, so ignore the highlighting):

To reaffirm means to state or declare something again clearly and firmly. It serves to strengthen, confirm, or renew a previous commitment, belief, or statement, especially when it has been called into question.

All at a nominal (direct) cost of military action of about $30B and estimated economic costs of about $130B (mostly at gas pumps) and up to $1T in long-term macro. Then include the rest of the world (as the previous numbers are for the US only), things yet to come, etc.

Another kicker in the same section: […]disposition of stockpiled enriched material pursuant to a mechanism that will be mutually agreed upon[…] with the minimum methodology to be down-blending on site[…]

Art of the deal. And what an effing mess. One could only wish Trump had some double personality disorder (is that what it is called?) and personality one went all open-minded on personality two on twitter. That would be a fun few days. Maybe Obama can take up trolling. Too bad he is a better man.

One thing I have to say in Trump’s favour though and credit is due where it is: he quit (for now) and (hopefully) realized where to take the losses and move on; many others would double down, send troops in, countless years of war, death and destruction, sunk costs, etc.

Re Israel, they should have considered the outcomes. Killing the Supreme Leader, key IRGC leaders and hoping a popular revolt overthrowing the regime was a best case, long shot scenario. If that revolt didn't materialise, a new wartime leader is always likely to take the hardline regardless whether IRGC or not and try to wait it out. Survival is victory.

I was mulling whether Iran might give up or at least curtail their nuclear ambitions because they found a better tool, the Strait of Hormuz. The nuclear option was useful more as a bargaining chip than a real military threat, which the US and Israel sees it to be.

"Americans realizing they spent $75 billion fighting Iran..."
The US MIC won the war.

On the other hand...
The BBC is not talking of Trump so, it doesn't have to explain his victory.

What a mess this whole thing is.

Why go in there at all if you are not willing to make the sacrifices required to truly project power against Iran? I get why nobody wants boots on the ground, casualties, nasty footage online, and all the political fallout that comes with it. But if you are not willing to go that far, then don’t attack Iran in the first place.

You knew they had the ability to inflict serious economic damage in response. So unless you were prepared to neutralize that capability, what are you doing?

^ That’s what happens when you put interests of others before your country’s and think you know better because you are an idiot and you surrounded yourself with a nodding cult, while firing everyone who disagrees and objects.

And Netanyahu is pretty good at playing Trump. But if you can’t see the upper limit of your influence and achieved success, you are just as much (or more) of an idiot than the idiot you are playing.



One thing about the MOU and the $300B fund. In my opinion, it is highly unlikely to happen. Seems to me it is in the likes of “we will invest $2T in America” or whatever the amount was. Iranians probably know that too, but it was needed for internal audience. Regardless of the outcome here, Iran is still a loser with likely hundreds of billions of dollars worth of damage. The celebrations can only go so far and so long, before the realization of lack of funds for rebuilding the country settles in. Sanctions relief will not be sufficient to repair the scale of destruction and especially in a relatively short period of time.

More demonstration of lack of understanding (or for internal consumption, for people who cannot read or comprehend - a good chunk of the supporting base, I am assuming):



But, per point 11 of the MOU:

The United States of America undertakes to make fully available for use the frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon the implementation of the MOU.[…] Such funds, whether retained in the original account or transferred, shall be made fully usable for payment to any ultimate beneficiary designated by the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Just a reminder to all, this whole military operation was destined to be a $hitshow without boots on the ground, something that the US wasn’t willing to do (understandably given previous efforts in the region). Nevertheless that sort of commitment might have resulted in a better outcome in conjunction with a coordinated domestic uprising.

John Fedup said:

Just a reminder to all, this whole military operation was destined to be a $hitshow without boots on the ground, something that the US wasn’t willing to do (understandably given previous efforts in the region). Nevertheless that sort of commitment might have resulted in a better outcome in conjunction with a coordinated domestic uprising.

Click to expand...

Like the invasion of Ukraine? Plans were great, I am sure.
What "coordinated" anything? How long do you need to do that? Dropping weapons by parachute, like the other guy was saying? It could also be another Afghanistan, correct? "Expectation tended to outrun execution", wildly.

John Fedup said:

Just a reminder to all, this whole military operation was destined to be a $hitshow without boots on the ground, something that the US wasn’t willing to do (understandably given previous efforts in the region). Nevertheless that sort of commitment might have resulted in a better outcome in conjunction with a coordinated domestic uprising.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree, but that'd be a very long-shot assumption to build a war plan around.

Feanor said:

If this deal becomes reality, I think it amounts to a US defeat in their war with Iran. That's a pretty surprising outcome all in all.

Click to expand...

Indeed. Won all the battles & lost the war. I think we've been here before. People are saying it was a victory for the US military, but that misses the point.

John Fedup said:

Just a reminder to all, this whole military operation was destined to be a $hitshow without boots on the ground, something that the US wasn’t willing to do (understandably given previous efforts in the region). Nevertheless that sort of commitment might have resulted in a better outcome in conjunction with a coordinated domestic uprising.

Click to expand...

Not sure there is a good argument for that to be true. There is certainly an argument to be made that it would make to war much more costly, but it is not suggestive of a better outcome. It also appears to me that there was a realization that the widely advertised civic uprising was a pipe dream that was highly unlikely. “Help is on the way” went out of circulation in a very quick fashion.

It also appears to me that a complete lack of understanding of Iran and its “operation” was a huge and the main factor for the things to settle (for now) where they are. I would also suggest that Israelis likely had no such illusions and knew exactly what they were doing. The bet was made on (Trump’s stupidity aside) the Americans doubling down and digging themselves in a prolonged war, which is historically an appropriate bet to make, I guess. But! This is like “betting your last” (readers of the other thread will understand the reference) and the whole strategic outcome on one bet, even if it appears to be generously favourable (bets with huge payouts never are and it is certainly hard to underestimate the pot here). Thus, again, one has to know the extent of their fortunes and where to set the limit (there is no stop-loss here, only the roll of the ball that sets the action).

And again, I genuinely believe this is where credit is due as far as Trump is concerned (setting aside the fact that the whole thing is on him to begin with). I don’t know if this outcome (cessation of hostilities, temporary or permanent is yet to be seen) is due to rational thinking (I doubt) or due to his character: simply give up and move on when the going gets tough and the winning becomes an elusive concept because the initial assumptions were wrong - that is, the fear of losing more takes over, so he quits to save face. This was a great miscalculation by Netanyahu, in my opinion. He thought (in my theory, of course) that killing the Iranian leadership and a whole bunch of other people will not bring the regime down, but harden it, which would lead to further escalation and involvement of the Americans until they are neck deep, etc.

Lastly, what this has proven once again, as it always had previously, air campaigns alone, no matter how successful, never win wars. It’s a dumb theory and simple to understand, but many have been promoting it like no tomorrow yet again. Hopefully, people will learn, but I am not holding my breath. If your strategy is to bomb the place, kill whoever, regardless of who it is - the main bad guy, for example, always has a man behind waiting for his turn, and the same is true for this very man and so on - you will always lose. Throw in an ideology and religion into the mix and one is as dumb as one can be even attempting such an endeavour.

swerve said:

Indeed. Won all the battles & lost the war. I think we've been here before. People are saying it was a victory for the US military, but that misses the point.

Click to expand...

I don’t think this is true either. Have they won every battle? Or have hey won the easy ones? Would one define the events in Hormuz as a battle, a battle of Hormuz? Has the USA showed its inability to counter the Iranian actions in the Strait? Have showed inability to protect their assets (and allies, whose security they guarantee) in the region against the Iranian attacks? Those were the battles that (maybe, since it is not over until it is over) had won the war for Iran, no?

I fail to believe this “won every battle” theory. Furthermore, when one operates a fleet of aircraft from the 70s and 80s (at best) and protecting themselves with the Russian AD systems from the 90’s (about 2 decades before F-35 entered the service, for example), the outcome of air superiority (and even supremacy) challenge is a given, no?

I do fully agree though, regardless of the outcome of that debate, it missies the point entirely.

A kind of funny personal real-life thing: some people who have annoyed the shit out of me with all this nonsense of 8D chess and whatever, brilliancy of Trump’s (and Israel’s) strategy, how epic it was all going to be, enormous/historic victory is ahead, and so on, have been proven dead wrong. Almost everything I argued turned into reality (have little doubt most of the rest will come as well). They are in a complete disbelief and at a loss. Wish it had brought a satisfaction one thinks it should. No dice here though, laughing.

Another funny (or not so funny?) thing is that the consensus among them seems to be that there is sufficient time for Netanyahu to screw the whole thing up and the return of war, subsequent annihilation of Iran, etc.

Other thing: I surely do hope this will put the end to Netanyahu once and for good. That dude caused more shit In his lifetime than a person should reasonably be allowed to.

Edit: correction: consensus is not the right word, genuine hope is, or consensus for hope, if there is such a thing.

Hezbollah is giving Israel quite the fight and their usage of FPV drones has improved. In the back of my mind, I wonder if Turkey is quietly supplying them with some drones(Just a speculation).