Professoe Robert Pape (University of Chicago) has 2 substacks where he have been discussing the exactly topic heavily, as well as having webinar/ live discussiok with some heavy hitters about the topic. Unfortunately both of the substacks are both subscription-only
I would rather not paraphrasing or rewrite in my interpretation too much, as the topic is difficult enough as-is. But the short version is that the mainstream analysis of "worst case" is nowhere near his level of worst-case scenario and that the US has no control of the situations any more (the US can still control its actions, but Iran is already emboldened enough to take actions on its own strategic plan). The worst-case scenario has Iran with nuke as the baseline, and Iran also growing to be the dominant regional power in Middle East, on-par with Russian in the peak strength in 2010s.
It's hard to overstate how poorly this whole thing was thought out and executed. They obviously had no plan for what we'd do when Iran seized the strait. This is going to go down as the definitive beginning of the decline leading to the eventual end of US global hegemony. To think anyone ever mentioned defending Taiwan from China lol
Well, Iran is a huge mess, but in terms of strategic lessons, it actually tips the balance closer to "Taiwan, with US help and proper preparation, can deny China control of the strait of Taiwan" (and vice versa, of course). It's clear that asymmetric warfare is good now at denying access to ocean and turning it into no-man's-zone.
In a lot of ways, helping defending Taiwan (a very well-scoped objective, "do not let China land troops") would have been a lot easier than convincing a nation of 90 million to just roll over and give up rather than chucking drones across the gulf every so often.
Aaaaaand right on cue the flagging brigade promptly flagged this to get it off the front page.
What's stunning is that there doesn't seem to be a single way in which the United States has come out ahead on this conflict.
We have
* Established that US zero ability or will to protect it's 'allies' in region beyond Israel.
* Permanently ceded de facto control over the straits of Hormuz to Iran
* Significantly strengthened the hardliners in the Iranian regime and cleared the way for them to have absolute power by eliminating all moderates
* Spiked inflation at home and doubled down on pissing off pretty much every single country except Russia by heaping sky rocketing energy costs on them
* Exploded the myth of US military superiority with US warplanes unable to approach Iran and the carrier groups unable to go anywhere near the straits.
And to think we got this in exchange for spending more on our military than the next few countries combined, and the military is asking for 1.5 Trillion more to continue to fight this war.
All of this to get to a point where we are negotiating a deal which is worse than what we already had with the JCPOA.
I think we will look back on this as the US version of the Suez crisis, the beginning of the end of the US empire.
Well, people don't want to talk politics, but will gladly engage in climate conversations and other random things that are affected by politics, because the one thing where people are chosen to lead on popularity than merit is not interesting while it affects us and is currently causing more deaths than anything else (DOGE defunding, 'eradicated' viruses returning, unauthorised wars).
The front page only has so much space anyways, and they can't flag everything forever.
This is closer to the end of the Roman Republic — and strange events such as threats against Greenland and Canada can be interpreted in that context as well.
That is, we’re not seeing the downfall of the US empire but the downfall of the US republic that will eventually retreat to North America and retrench its position — hence moving Canada and Greenland (and Cuba and…) from informal relations to a hegemon to formal vassals of an empire. And emerge as an actual empire, much like Rome before.
While I understand the emotional temptation, using the word “empire” in place of “hegemony” can lead to inaccurate predictions — eg, total US collapse versus pullback for retrenchment and reformation.
Could you make an HN moment out of the climate, belly fat discussions? You could have at least read the article instead of asking about things not mentioned.
It's about the slow acceptance of what many saw as an entirely predictable and already foreseen outcome before the US dropped the first bomb on Iran :/
This is going to leave a mark for centuries, history books are going to look back on this period in the US in complete dismay and horror for what this country continues to do.
As an American, and from my point of view, this is a headline moment where this country commits to its slide to just a middling country with "only" 380 million people mismanaged to inefficiency and un competitiveness and brain drain. The whole rest of the world has their own agency and is wising up to the fact that the US is limited to financial instruments and 5-13 functional aircraft carriers to project force. Soft power and goodwill is spent and we're just ignorant bullies who elected a rapist twice and can't be trusted
> No one seems to have a solid strategy to win the war in Iran.
> “What do you mean by ‘win’?”
I doubt that the US regime leader and its military leaders know what a win looks like. Given that Trump and the regime have launched terror on countries to distract from their own accountability and to keep corruption at highs; a cynnical non-US reader/observer could say that they're "winning" at manipulating markets and lining their pockets through military corruption. Not mentioning local terrorism via ICE, the weaponising of the justice system, and corrupt lawsuits to shake down opponents and acquisition targets.
---
I deliberately used "US regime" because why must Iran be labelled a regime when the US isn't?
The days of the US being a powerhouse will end, and we will remember it. Even their media are losing credibility.
> “I don’t believe that if you break it you necessarily own it,” one such hawk, a former U.S. official, told me when I asked if the U.S. would be responsible for fixing a failed Iran
Yes, we noted that republicans and especially conservatives dont believe that in general. Applies to billionaires too.
> The U.S. should preserve the naval blockade while preparing to stand with Iranians when they again demand a future free from repression.”
If only US stood for liberarion. We and also Iranians know all too well US is trying to destroy democracies and install puppet dictators.
Is Venezuela democratic now? US literally threatened civilization destruction, it literally talked about keeping Iranian regime and just changing head for someone making oil deals. What a liberation.
Even liberal Iranians are now thankful IRCG defended them against external aggressor. That was what journalists who had contacts in Iran said. Congrats.
Professoe Robert Pape (University of Chicago) has 2 substacks where he have been discussing the exactly topic heavily, as well as having webinar/ live discussiok with some heavy hitters about the topic. Unfortunately both of the substacks are both subscription-only
https://professorrobertpape.substack.com/
https://escalationtrap.substack.com
I would rather not paraphrasing or rewrite in my interpretation too much, as the topic is difficult enough as-is. But the short version is that the mainstream analysis of "worst case" is nowhere near his level of worst-case scenario and that the US has no control of the situations any more (the US can still control its actions, but Iran is already emboldened enough to take actions on its own strategic plan). The worst-case scenario has Iran with nuke as the baseline, and Iran also growing to be the dominant regional power in Middle East, on-par with Russian in the peak strength in 2010s.
Robert Pape has been giving interviews on Mario Nawfal’s channel, among others.
I also appreciate his perspective.
https://www.youtube.com/@MarioNawfal/search?query=Robert+pap...
It's hard to overstate how poorly this whole thing was thought out and executed. They obviously had no plan for what we'd do when Iran seized the strait. This is going to go down as the definitive beginning of the decline leading to the eventual end of US global hegemony. To think anyone ever mentioned defending Taiwan from China lol
> To think anyone ever mentioned defending Taiwan from China lol
There are still countries willing to defend democracy out there - Ukraine/Europe/Canada/Japan/S-Korea/Australia.
Just not USA.
Well, Iran is a huge mess, but in terms of strategic lessons, it actually tips the balance closer to "Taiwan, with US help and proper preparation, can deny China control of the strait of Taiwan" (and vice versa, of course). It's clear that asymmetric warfare is good now at denying access to ocean and turning it into no-man's-zone.
In a lot of ways, helping defending Taiwan (a very well-scoped objective, "do not let China land troops") would have been a lot easier than convincing a nation of 90 million to just roll over and give up rather than chucking drones across the gulf every so often.
Is Taiwan going to construct a hundred secret underground missile and drone cities like Iran? It would take decades to make them in the best case.
If anything, Iran has proved that is what they should be doing right now.
Yes — the US has helped Taiwan build them all over their mountains.
Aaaaaand right on cue the flagging brigade promptly flagged this to get it off the front page.
What's stunning is that there doesn't seem to be a single way in which the United States has come out ahead on this conflict.
We have
* Established that US zero ability or will to protect it's 'allies' in region beyond Israel.
* Permanently ceded de facto control over the straits of Hormuz to Iran
* Significantly strengthened the hardliners in the Iranian regime and cleared the way for them to have absolute power by eliminating all moderates
* Spiked inflation at home and doubled down on pissing off pretty much every single country except Russia by heaping sky rocketing energy costs on them
* Exploded the myth of US military superiority with US warplanes unable to approach Iran and the carrier groups unable to go anywhere near the straits.
And to think we got this in exchange for spending more on our military than the next few countries combined, and the military is asking for 1.5 Trillion more to continue to fight this war.
All of this to get to a point where we are negotiating a deal which is worse than what we already had with the JCPOA.
I think we will look back on this as the US version of the Suez crisis, the beginning of the end of the US empire.
Well, people don't want to talk politics, but will gladly engage in climate conversations and other random things that are affected by politics, because the one thing where people are chosen to lead on popularity than merit is not interesting while it affects us and is currently causing more deaths than anything else (DOGE defunding, 'eradicated' viruses returning, unauthorised wars).
The front page only has so much space anyways, and they can't flag everything forever.
I agree with you right until the end:
This is closer to the end of the Roman Republic — and strange events such as threats against Greenland and Canada can be interpreted in that context as well.
That is, we’re not seeing the downfall of the US empire but the downfall of the US republic that will eventually retreat to North America and retrench its position — hence moving Canada and Greenland (and Cuba and…) from informal relations to a hegemon to formal vassals of an empire. And emerge as an actual empire, much like Rome before.
While I understand the emotional temptation, using the word “empire” in place of “hegemony” can lead to inaccurate predictions — eg, total US collapse versus pullback for retrenchment and reformation.
I'm down for a good political rant as much as the next guy but I can't make an HN moment in this.
Is it about department of war using AI instead of people to decide things? Or Amazon's material losses in DC assets?
Could you make an HN moment out of the climate, belly fat discussions? You could have at least read the article instead of asking about things not mentioned.
One can post practically anything to HN it doesnt have to be just purely about technology.
It's about the slow acceptance of what many saw as an entirely predictable and already foreseen outcome before the US dropped the first bomb on Iran :/
Crazy idea: what if the US starts minding its own business and stops bombing countries just because it can?
How many hours do you think our current President could stick to that strategy, if it didn't instantly - Poof! Magic! - make everything better?
That's what Trump told everyone during the campaign. Then, after he got elected, well, he changed his mind, I guess.
This is going to leave a mark for centuries, history books are going to look back on this period in the US in complete dismay and horror for what this country continues to do. As an American, and from my point of view, this is a headline moment where this country commits to its slide to just a middling country with "only" 380 million people mismanaged to inefficiency and un competitiveness and brain drain. The whole rest of the world has their own agency and is wising up to the fact that the US is limited to financial instruments and 5-13 functional aircraft carriers to project force. Soft power and goodwill is spent and we're just ignorant bullies who elected a rapist twice and can't be trusted
> No one seems to have a solid strategy to win the war in Iran.
> “What do you mean by ‘win’?”
I doubt that the US regime leader and its military leaders know what a win looks like. Given that Trump and the regime have launched terror on countries to distract from their own accountability and to keep corruption at highs; a cynnical non-US reader/observer could say that they're "winning" at manipulating markets and lining their pockets through military corruption. Not mentioning local terrorism via ICE, the weaponising of the justice system, and corrupt lawsuits to shake down opponents and acquisition targets.
---
I deliberately used "US regime" because why must Iran be labelled a regime when the US isn't?
The days of the US being a powerhouse will end, and we will remember it. Even their media are losing credibility.
> “I don’t believe that if you break it you necessarily own it,” one such hawk, a former U.S. official, told me when I asked if the U.S. would be responsible for fixing a failed Iran
Yes, we noted that republicans and especially conservatives dont believe that in general. Applies to billionaires too.
> The U.S. should preserve the naval blockade while preparing to stand with Iranians when they again demand a future free from repression.”
If only US stood for liberarion. We and also Iranians know all too well US is trying to destroy democracies and install puppet dictators.
Is Venezuela democratic now? US literally threatened civilization destruction, it literally talked about keeping Iranian regime and just changing head for someone making oil deals. What a liberation.
Even liberal Iranians are now thankful IRCG defended them against external aggressor. That was what journalists who had contacts in Iran said. Congrats.