The math is simple. If Iran keeps firing, and the US/Israel does not take out the launchers and missile stockpiles in large numbers, Iran will run the US and Israel (it has its own variants, but the same supply issues) out of interceptors. At that point Iran hits everything it shoots at.
If Iran just keeps going long enough, it WILL win the war. The main danger is Iran’s leaders accepting a cease-fire too soon.
Well, confirmation from within the government:
“The U.S. is planning for a wider war,” said one U.S. official familiar with internal administration discussions, adding that the Pentagon was increasing the number of military aircraft in the region.But the official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media, cautioned that the expansion of U.S. operations will be limited by dwindling stockpiles of air defense and long-range munitions and constraints on the ability to surge more troops and aircraft into the area because of battle damage.“We do not have enough to safely sustain operations, and I don’t think the White House is aware of that,” the official said.
You will notice that I said the main mistake the Iranians could make was going to peace too soon. At least militarily speaking, there were diplomatic reasons to do so, since both Pakistan and China wanted a peace deal, and Pakistan has a defense pact with Saudi Arabia. Iran needed to prove that they had made all possible efforts, to continue receiving the support they need from China and to keep Pakistan out of the war.
There were also significant internal political reasons. What most people don’t understand is that the supreme leader almost never over-rides government consensus. Elijah Manjier is reliable on this (part behind a paywall). He has a lot of contacts in Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas.
The Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Sayyed Mojtaba Khamenei, never trusted the Memorandum of Understanding negotiated with Washington that was too good to be true. From the outset, he reportedly expressed reservations about American real and honest intentions and questioned whether the United States would ultimately implement its commitments. Nevertheless, despite his scepticism, he did not impose his personal assessment on the country’s political institutions or prevent the agreement from proceeding once it had secured substantial institutional support equivalent to the majority of the National Security Council voting.
In doing so, Sayyed Mojtaba Khamenei reportedly followed the political approach adopted by his assassinated father, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, during the negotiations that produced the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Although the late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei repeatedly warned that the United States could not be fully trusted, he allowed President Hassan Rouhani, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and the majority supporting them within the Supreme National Security Council to pursue the nuclear agreement because they believed diplomacy remained preferable to confrontation.
This position reflected a broader principle within Iran’s strategic decision-making system. The Leader establishes the general direction of national policy, but crucial security decisions are debated within institutions that include officials elected directly or indirectly by the population and their representatives, among them the president, the parliamentary speaker and senior government and military representatives. When a substantial institutional majority supports a particular course, the Leader permitted that collective judgement to be tested, even where it conflicts with his personal assessment of the risks involved.
However, the MOU’s failure strengthens those in the government who thought it was a waste of time.
The damage extends beyond the current political leadership. Future Iranian governments, regardless of their ideological orientation, will judge the risks of dealing with Washington against the combined experiences of the JCPOA and the more recent Memorandum. Even officials inclined towards negotiation may conclude that engagement carries prohibitive domestic costs unless future arrangements include enforceable guarantees, simultaneous implementation and mechanisms preventing one party from receiving concessions before abandoning its own obligations…
…Yet diplomatic options have not disappeared completely. The Memorandum itself showed that both sides remain capable of negotiating when the military, political and economic costs become sufficiently high. Any renewed process, however, would require a substantially different structure based on reciprocal implementation, verifiable sequencing, the release of assets alongside measurable Iranian steps, and guarantees sufficiently credible to survive political change in Washington or Tehran.
Manjier’s connected. I’d assume the last paragraph reflects what the Iranian government wants said about any possible new agreement.
Meanwhile in the war itself the Iranians are concentrating on taking out US bases, radars, supply depots, command/communications centers and so on. They’re systematically degrading the infrastructure the US uses. Note that they have started attacking in Jordan, which they had rarely done before. Jordan could be considered the “last shield” before Israel, and Israel’s basing of US assets is the next big goal, I suspect.
It seems clear that Iran is taking apart US logistics and command and control, and depleting weapon stocks faster than the US is doing this to Iran.
Again, the simple math.
Anything can happen in war, but I don’t see any way for the US to win this war if Iran stays the course, and we haven’t even included all the shortages coming down the line, especially now Ansar-Allah has closed another strait. The only people with serious leverage over Iran are China and Pakistan (and Pakistan’s is limited. There’s a deal, but they’d have mass riots if they tried to attack Iran. Pakistan’s population support for Iran polls around 80%.)
If America were even marginally competently run this would be the point where Congress would impeach Trump. He won’t admit defeat and oil stockpiles are running low. He has no viable part to victory, but keeps acting as if he does. He’s turning a military defeat into an economic catastrophe thru his delusional disconnect from reality, or perhaps because he’s being blackmailed. Whatever the reason for his behaviour, he needs to go. (Yes, I’m aware this won’t happen, that’s the point.)
In all my life, and I’m getting old now, I have never seen a stupider war or an American elite more determinedly detached from reality.
What I write here is for the benefit of everyone, but alas, I live in capitalism and I, and the site, take money to keep running. If you value the writing here and can, please subscribe or donate.
x
