This will offend some people because supposedly outsiders aren’t supposed to do anything but cheer Resistance actors or something.
- Russia offered them a formal military alliance and they refused;
- They have and had sufficient missiles and drones to overwhelm Israeli defenses;
- During the Gaza war they did not attack Israel which allowed Israel to defeat Hamas (note that if they had, Hezbollah would have gone all in if they encouraged it, so it would have been absolutely massive, 80% of Hezbollah’s missile stockpile had not been destroyed at that point.)
- They did not send troops to save Assad and keep Syria in their sphere,
- During the brief Israeli/Iran war, they were winning and Israel was a week or so from running out of interceptors. Israel asked for a ceasefire and they agreed;, and,
- They keep refusing to get nukes despite having the capability.
These are deeply foolish people and if they keep refusing to actually fight or make alliance, and keep letting Israel and the US take swings at Iran at times and places of their choosing they are eventually going to lose.
They should also get that formal alliance with Russia and make whatever agreements are necessary to get full economic support from China, which could end their inflation problems in half a year
The counter-argument is that winning the missile war might lead to nuking. I don’t think Israel would do that unless it was existential, nuking Iran would cost them extremely. But Israel having nukes is precisely why Iran either needs to get their own or to get under a nuclear powers umbrella. (Ideally you first make an alliance with Russia, then you get the nukes.)
I don’t know what the dysfunction is, exactly, but if they don’t fix it, it’s likely to be terminal. I suspect a lot comes from Khameini, certainly the nuclear ban does.
This site is only viable due to reader donations. If you value it and can, please subscribe or donate.




The Interstate Bridge crosses the Columbia River, connecting Oregon and Washington State. It has a moderate length, about 1km, and was built first in 1917 and then twinned in 1958.
There has been talk of replacing it for decades, but it was reported today that the estimated cost has risen to a range of $14bn – $18bn (USD), with the new estimate so high that is simply may not be feasible to replace the bridge. Part of the eye-watering price tag is the expected timeline for construction, with the replacement taking 20 years and finishing in 2045.
By way of comparison, and barely scratching the surface, China completed the Huajiang Canyon Bridge a few months ago. The bridge is not particularly long by Chinese standards, 2.8km, but is noteworthy for being the highest bridge in the world. It was constructed in under 4 years, for a cost of roughly $300mn USD.
Nothing more really needs to be said, in my opinion.