The WaPo reported yesterday what we all already knew: the damage to US bases in the Gulf region is more extensive than the Trump admin admits to.
-
Second--and maybe a counterargument--but the way to make Americans lose the will to fight often IS to kill a bunch of us. See: Beirut embassy bombing in 83, Somalia in 93 ("Black Hawk Down"), et al.
Our modern will to war is married to our ability to conduct it w/o blood cost. I think Iran is quite happy to hit at the soft support network behind the direct military effort, but if they're able to kill 300 at a stroke, we'll suddenly be having a different national conversation.
@venya @artemis Only if they can kill hundreds in a way that can’t be hidden from view. One of the lessons the US military did learn from Vietnam is that the reality and horror of war being beamed nightly into people’s televisions destroyed any notion of popular support for the war. The media has been kept at arm’s length from every US military action since. And now the military industrial complex owns the media.
-
@venya @artemis Only if they can kill hundreds in a way that can’t be hidden from view. One of the lessons the US military did learn from Vietnam is that the reality and horror of war being beamed nightly into people’s televisions destroyed any notion of popular support for the war. The media has been kept at arm’s length from every US military action since. And now the military industrial complex owns the media.
I think that is perhaps overstating the case. The media was heavily embedded in both Iraq wars and Afghanistan. The coverage was pretty heavy for counter-ISIS in 2016-7 when I was there.
That said, the current regime is active about keeping the media effectively cut off or force fed.
-
According to this theory, the idea WAS to be exposed militarily, but not for long, & I think the fact that some of this shit was out in the fucking open supports that theory.
I do NOT however think the plan was (for instance) for the 5th Fleet HQ to be bombed out & become non-operational. The idea was that the "out of control" IR would attack them & they could immediately respond with maximum force.
I do not think they anticipated the sort of damage Iran could do either.
Frankly, I don't think the IR was formerly capable of this. That may perhaps have been true even as recently as last year.
There is reason to believe that the attacks in June 2025, spurred on rapid development & preparation for a major conflict with the US. It is something they have always known was in the cards, but the events of last year a) told them that further attack was imminent and b) gave them insight into how the airstrikes would be conducted.
-
Additionally
>[Experts] also pointed to structural challenges, including a shortfall of fortified shelters that could protect troops and equipment at key positions and likely targets.
My spouse, who was at one time stationed on a Navy ship sitting off the coast of Iran believes that the US plan for Iran has always been to give them some soft targets in hopes that Iran would start the aggression & then the US would respond with overwhelming force with the support of NATO.
According to this theory, the idea WAS to be exposed militarily, but not for long, & I think the fact that some of this shit was out in the fucking open supports that theory.
I do NOT however think the plan was (for instance) for the 5th Fleet HQ to be bombed out & become non-operational. The idea was that the "out of control" IR would attack them & they could immediately respond with maximum force.
I do not think they anticipated the sort of damage Iran could do either.
-
One of the reasons the IR may not consider inflicting mass casualties on US Forces a good idea is that Americans tend to start to see red when they feel like "the troops" have been harmed en masse.
I don't believe "maximum lethality" is an advantage for them when their diplomatic situation in most of the world is so shaky, & I just don't see evidence that they were trying to do that.
Additionally
>[Experts] also pointed to structural challenges, including a shortfall of fortified shelters that could protect troops and equipment at key positions and likely targets.
My spouse, who was at one time stationed on a Navy ship sitting off the coast of Iran believes that the US plan for Iran has always been to give them some soft targets in hopes that Iran would start the aggression & then the US would respond with overwhelming force with the support of NATO.
-
Frankly, I don't think the IR was formerly capable of this. That may perhaps have been true even as recently as last year.
There is reason to believe that the attacks in June 2025, spurred on rapid development & preparation for a major conflict with the US. It is something they have always known was in the cards, but the events of last year a) told them that further attack was imminent and b) gave them insight into how the airstrikes would be conducted.
It's likely that the attack last year also caused the IR to tighten up on information security. My guess would be that good military intel inside Iran got significantly harder to acquire after that attack.
It seems as though even those who told Trump the attack was a horrible idea did not have a full picture of Iran's capabilities. It wasn't recognizable at the time, but Trump's first big blunder in this military conflict may have happened almost a year ago at this point.
-
To hit them & walk away & think that was that?
Are you KIDDING me?
Sure, all they did in response was a few warning missiles to let everyone know "we are not defenseless, & we know where to hit you." I saw the news describe those missiles as "symbolic" because of course they were shot down by US & Israeli air defense, but then again...was that a test to see the air defense in action & look for weakness? Was that practice?
Just because they didn't do any real damage then doesn't mean they gained nothing from the exercise. Trump played his hand waaaaaay too early & may have given the IRGC a lot of useful information & good practice in the process.
-
It's likely that the attack last year also caused the IR to tighten up on information security. My guess would be that good military intel inside Iran got significantly harder to acquire after that attack.
It seems as though even those who told Trump the attack was a horrible idea did not have a full picture of Iran's capabilities. It wasn't recognizable at the time, but Trump's first big blunder in this military conflict may have happened almost a year ago at this point.
To hit them & walk away & think that was that?
Are you KIDDING me?
Sure, all they did in response was a few warning missiles to let everyone know "we are not defenseless, & we know where to hit you." I saw the news describe those missiles as "symbolic" because of course they were shot down by US & Israeli air defense, but then again...was that a test to see the air defense in action & look for weakness? Was that practice?
-
Just because they didn't do any real damage then doesn't mean they gained nothing from the exercise. Trump played his hand waaaaaay too early & may have given the IRGC a lot of useful information & good practice in the process.
About 9 months before they started this war these fuckers gave the IRGC a trial run.
️ -
To hit them & walk away & think that was that?
Are you KIDDING me?
Sure, all they did in response was a few warning missiles to let everyone know "we are not defenseless, & we know where to hit you." I saw the news describe those missiles as "symbolic" because of course they were shot down by US & Israeli air defense, but then again...was that a test to see the air defense in action & look for weakness? Was that practice?
@artemis Practice, and mapping future targets.
And sure enough, they started by blowing up most of our radar network with cheap drones and then started sending out the big bombs.
-
Frankly, I don't think the IR was formerly capable of this. That may perhaps have been true even as recently as last year.
There is reason to believe that the attacks in June 2025, spurred on rapid development & preparation for a major conflict with the US. It is something they have always known was in the cards, but the events of last year a) told them that further attack was imminent and b) gave them insight into how the airstrikes would be conducted.
@artemis the Iranian government has been paying attention. they have seen what it takes to stall Russia, and they have seen how Palestinian and Lebanese resistance have used whatever limited weaponry they have to attack only military targets. they seem to know that they will be heavily criticised if they do what the USA military does.
-
Just because they didn't do any real damage then doesn't mean they gained nothing from the exercise. Trump played his hand waaaaaay too early & may have given the IRGC a lot of useful information & good practice in the process.
@artemis the mistake was in playing the game at all.
-
One of the reasons the IR may not consider inflicting mass casualties on US Forces a good idea is that Americans tend to start to see red when they feel like "the troops" have been harmed en masse.
I don't believe "maximum lethality" is an advantage for them when their diplomatic situation in most of the world is so shaky, & I just don't see evidence that they were trying to do that.
@artemis I've been thinking about this some this morning, and I think I'm landing on the theory that Iran sees it as much more in their interest to behave like the adult in this conflict.
Like, the US is a toddler throwing a tantrum and Iran is simply taking away its toys.
It very much looks like Iran saying "we didn't pick this fight so we're just trying to stop getting hit". That would be the reason to take out materiel not soldiers.
-
@artemis I've been thinking about this some this morning, and I think I'm landing on the theory that Iran sees it as much more in their interest to behave like the adult in this conflict.
Like, the US is a toddler throwing a tantrum and Iran is simply taking away its toys.
It very much looks like Iran saying "we didn't pick this fight so we're just trying to stop getting hit". That would be the reason to take out materiel not soldiers.
@artemis it's also possible that Iran knows full well it's actually fighting Israel, not the US, so it's not trying to kill Americans if it can help it.
-
@artemis I've been thinking about this some this morning, and I think I'm landing on the theory that Iran sees it as much more in their interest to behave like the adult in this conflict.
Like, the US is a toddler throwing a tantrum and Iran is simply taking away its toys.
It very much looks like Iran saying "we didn't pick this fight so we're just trying to stop getting hit". That would be the reason to take out materiel not soldiers.
@dave @artemis Notably, the reason the hostages in the 1973 bank robbery in Stockholm (from which we got the notion of "Stockholm Syndrome") began siding with the robber was because he was seen to be negotiating in good faith and taking steps to preserve the lives of the hostages, whereas the police seemed to be acting recklessly, without regard for the lives of the hostages. The behavior of Iran versus the US in this war has been bringing this to mind for me quite often as of late.
-
@dave @artemis Notably, the reason the hostages in the 1973 bank robbery in Stockholm (from which we got the notion of "Stockholm Syndrome") began siding with the robber was because he was seen to be negotiating in good faith and taking steps to preserve the lives of the hostages, whereas the police seemed to be acting recklessly, without regard for the lives of the hostages. The behavior of Iran versus the US in this war has been bringing this to mind for me quite often as of late.
@lykso yep. Also it's clear from their propaganda campaign, Iran *really* understands the American people. They clearly understand that they don't have to fight the US to get them out of the Strait of Hormuz. $5/gal gas will do that for them.
-
In many areas, we're already careening into $7 and $8 gallons. And it's truly just the beginning.
Just wait until the cost of food skyrockets in the fall...just before elections.
Dems are going to win so much they might have to actually impeach someone, which would *really* piss them off.
-
Everything on a US military base is infrastructure, even the McDonald's. This is where they house, feed, & placate their personnel.
Spouse says stopping at the 5th Fleet HQ in Bahrain was such a relief because it was like stepping into a mini-America. It felt like home, & that was part of its purpose.
This quote makes it sound like the only thing on a military base an enemy could actually want to destroy is the stuff with the most direct "military" function. That's just fucking silly.
@artemis I think there's value to thinking about how the US military is funded by talking about cool weapons and how you could kill people with your thing. There's a lot of money in tools to setup military equipment quickly on the field. There's no money on setting up a gym in a few hours. The US can easily replace weapons and defenses. It can't replace comforts and things that let people live. -
For Iran, destroying US military infrastructure has a lot more fucking value than taking lives, but they're still not talking about that, even when they are reporting on the damage done.
They aren't talking about what the damage means.
@artemis How do all those quotes go? Something something logistics win wars?
-
@artemis How do all those quotes go? Something something logistics win wars?
@eldersea amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics.
