So as I read on the Iran war, somewhere I saw speculation Iran wants the US to invade.
-
So as I read on the Iran war, somewhere I saw speculation Iran wants the US to invade. I wanted to ruminate on that.
Note I'm doing this as a Project/Program Manager. I'm no military or political expert. So this is "systems" thinking that's best used to supplement other experts.
1/
-
So as I read on the Iran war, somewhere I saw speculation Iran wants the US to invade. I wanted to ruminate on that.
Note I'm doing this as a Project/Program Manager. I'm no military or political expert. So this is "systems" thinking that's best used to supplement other experts.
1/
So simply put, let's assume Iran wants to survive and have independence, a reasonable assumption. They've got definite enemies in the US and Israel as well as having US allies around them (some of which have been more reluctant). The Straight of Hormuz is a chokepoint they can control, their "nuclear bomb" as it were - a deterrent - and a potential income source.
So you have a goal and a major resource, while having enemies. Your major enemies are completely untrustworthy and you can't trust any agreement.
2/
-
So simply put, let's assume Iran wants to survive and have independence, a reasonable assumption. They've got definite enemies in the US and Israel as well as having US allies around them (some of which have been more reluctant). The Straight of Hormuz is a chokepoint they can control, their "nuclear bomb" as it were - a deterrent - and a potential income source.
So you have a goal and a major resource, while having enemies. Your major enemies are completely untrustworthy and you can't trust any agreement.
2/
So Iran has a goal (survive), a challenge (untrustworthy, powerful enemies) and a weapon (the strait). The goal is clear. The weapon is pretty easy (blockade and/or exploit ships). So can you use the weapon to hold off your enemies to reach your goal? Maybe, in time - Iran can use the strait to wear down the US and allies until there's a LARGER agreement.
But it's maybe. Thats where I think Iran wanting an invasion is "in the cards" but not THE card.
3/
-
So Iran has a goal (survive), a challenge (untrustworthy, powerful enemies) and a weapon (the strait). The goal is clear. The weapon is pretty easy (blockade and/or exploit ships). So can you use the weapon to hold off your enemies to reach your goal? Maybe, in time - Iran can use the strait to wear down the US and allies until there's a LARGER agreement.
But it's maybe. Thats where I think Iran wanting an invasion is "in the cards" but not THE card.
3/
Iran needs to be sure Israel and the US aren't going to keep attacking it, and the Straight MIGHT be enough of a weapon to do it. Iran also has the ability (doubtlessly being reconstituted and extended) to hurt the US and it's allies, which may provide additional deterrent.
But you also need them to eventually back off. In a way you can trust. An invasion provides an opportunity.
4/
-
Iran needs to be sure Israel and the US aren't going to keep attacking it, and the Straight MIGHT be enough of a weapon to do it. Iran also has the ability (doubtlessly being reconstituted and extended) to hurt the US and it's allies, which may provide additional deterrent.
But you also need them to eventually back off. In a way you can trust. An invasion provides an opportunity.
4/
Now imagine the US invades Iran to look for nuclear materials that have doubtlessly been moved, defended, trapped, had misinfo spread about, etc. A US invasion, even limited, gives the chance for US failure and embarassment AND amplifies the pain the US and world feels. The US has to get, say, an action to capture materials right from start to finish - Iran just has to disrupt it enough at one point in the process to claim victory and humiliate the US.
(And yes, I saw the speculation the "rescue" was cover for a failed attempt already).
5/
-
Now imagine the US invades Iran to look for nuclear materials that have doubtlessly been moved, defended, trapped, had misinfo spread about, etc. A US invasion, even limited, gives the chance for US failure and embarassment AND amplifies the pain the US and world feels. The US has to get, say, an action to capture materials right from start to finish - Iran just has to disrupt it enough at one point in the process to claim victory and humiliate the US.
(And yes, I saw the speculation the "rescue" was cover for a failed attempt already).
5/
The Iranian government clearly doesn't care about any civillian damage. A victory over a US invasion would be a humiliation and a huge waste of US resources - and hurt Trump and his party. A real success over an invasion - parading captured troops, etc. - is a huge PR win. Meanwhile the US and world economy continues to suffer. Other nations may come to broker a believable peace.
So an Invasion has a chance to pay off for Iran (which I suspect current military planners know, but may be ignored). Odds are in Iran's favor.
6/
-
The Iranian government clearly doesn't care about any civillian damage. A victory over a US invasion would be a humiliation and a huge waste of US resources - and hurt Trump and his party. A real success over an invasion - parading captured troops, etc. - is a huge PR win. Meanwhile the US and world economy continues to suffer. Other nations may come to broker a believable peace.
So an Invasion has a chance to pay off for Iran (which I suspect current military planners know, but may be ignored). Odds are in Iran's favor.
6/
Do I think Iran is PLANNING for an invasion, wanting to make one happen? No I don't think it's THE goal. I think it's seen as both option and possibility - that one could bait Trump and if he backs down OR goes forward you can win either way. There is risk, but also high payoff, against a surprisingly weak adversary, and it might lead to a definitive conclusion.
My take: Iran's goal is not to get invaded by the US, but sees it as a possibility and maybe an option to bait Trump IF needed. And it would more likely pay off for them.
7/
-
Do I think Iran is PLANNING for an invasion, wanting to make one happen? No I don't think it's THE goal. I think it's seen as both option and possibility - that one could bait Trump and if he backs down OR goes forward you can win either way. There is risk, but also high payoff, against a surprisingly weak adversary, and it might lead to a definitive conclusion.
My take: Iran's goal is not to get invaded by the US, but sees it as a possibility and maybe an option to bait Trump IF needed. And it would more likely pay off for them.
7/
Now, yes, there's the danger Trump goes crazier and calls for nukes. But that risk is ALWAYS there. It's there NOW. He's also proven to be a coward. So Iran might as well go forward.
Anyway, Project Manager and Org guy's thoughts on this. Again, not a military expert, so my thoughts are supplemental.
8/
-
R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topicR relay@relay.mycrowd.ca shared this topic
