Iran US relations: Tehran demands the release of frozen assets upfront and adds Yemen conditions following the collapse of a prior agreement, hardening its stance against Washington in the ongoing Middle East conflict.
I guess where I would differ is that while they achieved those short-term goals, I think it can be strongly argued that none of those goals adequately served the US’ long term geopolitical interests
We don’t differ. The empire the overstretched and cannot continue doing the same playbook indefinitely, and a failure as big as the Iran war is a huge a result of that, it’s similar to WWII Germany, the US military is arrogant and thinks it’s untouchable and can invade any nation at will, and the rest of the world are tired of it and starting to realize they might be next. Modern drone warfare renders American air superiority not as much of a threat, and yes the empire’s expansion cannot be sustained. Celebration!
while the US did succeed, operationally, in achieving their strategic goals, Iraq also demonstrated some long-standing issues with the US military that have only worsened with time. Something that’s not talked about enough in regard to both Iraq and Afghanistan is that there were multiple units that were activated for those invasions only to repeatedly fail their workups and ultimately end up sitting out the initial stages of those wars. That’s shockingly bad. When you have whole divisions that are so incompetently trained that they are literally undeployable… Well, what are they even there for? The US military is huge, but it’s becoming increasingly apparent that it’s also extremely badly managed, and that these issues are not new. I know people who work alongside American soldiers, and the general consensus is that they are some of the least professional, most poorly trained in all of NATO. That’s unbelievably bad for a military with that kind of budget and history.
I agree with that.
These recent issues didn’t come out of nowhere.
I agree. For months before the war every expert worth listening to said this is how it’s going to go, and now they’re scrambling to sell opening the strait as a victory.
They counted on being able to use death and destruction to compensate for all the issues you highlighted. I hope it was clear I was not complementing the US on their destruction of Iraq, but as you said they achieved their primary objectives, it was a military success.
I hope it was clear I was not complementing the US on their destruction of Iraq
Oh, 100% clear.
My only point of contention here would be with your assertion that drones mitigate air superiority. That’s not my read on what’s happening in Ukraine, as an example.
In some specific aspects, drones allow long range strikes in areas where air dominance might otherwise prevent them, but we already had that capability with missiles. Modern drones just make it much more economical. But air power still matters. The reason Russian air power has been such a limited factor in Ukraine isn’t because of drones, it’s a combination of very effective Ukrainian air defence and limited Russian resources. Basically Russia can’t afford to lose expensive aircraft and Ukraine has gotten very good at shooting them down.
More broadly, however, we’re increasingly learning the limits of air power as a whole. This isn’t something that arose from drones so much as something that’s been naturally coming together for decades. In the advent of a full invasion of Iran, for example, much of the fighting would take place in the mountains where caves and geography make close air support and strategic bombing highly ineffective. That same terrain would also limit the use of armour and artillery, robbing the US of most of their force multipliers. The same thing happened in Afghanistan
Essentially, I agree that American air superiority is often over valued, but I don’t think I agree that drones are the reason for that.
The US depends on friendly bases around Iran to refuel, reload, and launch their bombers. Iran used drones to overwhelm the air defense systems and put the bases out of service. Iranian drones are cheap, and American interceptors are extremely expensive.
Iran’s use of drones is what tipped the equation and made it a war of attrition instead of just a one sided endless bombing campaign.
It changes the playing field, not makes air superiority obsolete.
We don’t differ. The empire the overstretched and cannot continue doing the same playbook indefinitely, and a failure as big as the Iran war is a huge a result of that, it’s similar to WWII Germany, the US military is arrogant and thinks it’s untouchable and can invade any nation at will, and the rest of the world are tired of it and starting to realize they might be next. Modern drone warfare renders American air superiority not as much of a threat, and yes the empire’s expansion cannot be sustained. Celebration!
I agree with that.
I agree. For months before the war every expert worth listening to said this is how it’s going to go, and now they’re scrambling to sell opening the strait as a victory.
They counted on being able to use death and destruction to compensate for all the issues you highlighted. I hope it was clear I was not complementing the US on their destruction of Iraq, but as you said they achieved their primary objectives, it was a military success.
Oh, 100% clear.
My only point of contention here would be with your assertion that drones mitigate air superiority. That’s not my read on what’s happening in Ukraine, as an example.
In some specific aspects, drones allow long range strikes in areas where air dominance might otherwise prevent them, but we already had that capability with missiles. Modern drones just make it much more economical. But air power still matters. The reason Russian air power has been such a limited factor in Ukraine isn’t because of drones, it’s a combination of very effective Ukrainian air defence and limited Russian resources. Basically Russia can’t afford to lose expensive aircraft and Ukraine has gotten very good at shooting them down.
More broadly, however, we’re increasingly learning the limits of air power as a whole. This isn’t something that arose from drones so much as something that’s been naturally coming together for decades. In the advent of a full invasion of Iran, for example, much of the fighting would take place in the mountains where caves and geography make close air support and strategic bombing highly ineffective. That same terrain would also limit the use of armour and artillery, robbing the US of most of their force multipliers. The same thing happened in Afghanistan
Essentially, I agree that American air superiority is often over valued, but I don’t think I agree that drones are the reason for that.
The US depends on friendly bases around Iran to refuel, reload, and launch their bombers. Iran used drones to overwhelm the air defense systems and put the bases out of service. Iranian drones are cheap, and American interceptors are extremely expensive.
Iran’s use of drones is what tipped the equation and made it a war of attrition instead of just a one sided endless bombing campaign.
It changes the playing field, not makes air superiority obsolete.
OK, yeah, I can definitely see your argument there.