"Iran - What Worked, and What Didn't Work?" Topic

Iran's Strategic Logic of Instability

"…Iran will likely avoid a full-scale war that risks its destruction, instead preferring a continued proxy-driven, tension-filled regional environment to maintain deterrence and project power without escalation. Recent talks on uranium and safe passage through the Hormuz Strait will fuel Iran's resistance to normalization with the U.S. and GCC.

For Iran, pushing for regional instability or proxy confrontations is not merely a temporary policy dispute. It has become embedded in the state's architecture itself. Iran has built and framed its domestic popularity and regional legitimacy around the concept of resistance against Western pressure, particularly from the U.S. and Israel. This narrative was deeply institutionalized within Iran's regional strategy, military doctrine, and its main controlling security establishments, the IRGC and Basij forces. In this regard, a comprehensive peace deal with the U.S. would create profound structural questions inside Iran, including the rationale of the "resistance" doctrine in place for decades, the logic of maintaining extensive regional proxy networks, and preserving a missile- and drone-heavy militarized regional posture.

In different ways, a controlled conflict has become part of the regime's survival and operating environment. Therefore, achieving a sustainable peace agreement can entirely destabilize internal balances of power more than maintaining them. This explains why, even during periods of increased international diplomatic efforts, Iran often preserves parallel escalation mechanisms in addition to never conceding any of its nuclear program development to date. Thus, pursuing negotiations alongside adding pressure on multiple fronts is not a contradiction within Iranian strategic thinking. Instead, they are complementary tools…"

link

Armand

Operation Midnight Hammer – Impressive but Fragile

"…Last year's air and sea-launched attack crippled Iran's most sensitive nuclear facilities, the deeply buried enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordow. Seven B-2 Spirit stealth bombers delivered the 30,000-pound Massive Ordinance Penetrator munitions that damaged those facilities, the central component of more than 100 aircraft that participated in the strikes. President Trump was absolutely correct when he posted last June that "there is not another military in the World that could have done this." Understanding why this is the case is important if policymakers want the U.S. forces of tomorrow to maintain their unique ability to project power globally.

The seven B-2s that executed Midnight Hammer flew 36-hours and 14,000 miles roundtrip from Missouri. Only the United States has such global range at this scale. In this case the mission required "dozens and dozens" of tankers to execute multiple aerial refuelings along an "air bridge" to get the bombers to their targets. Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink correctly thanked Air Mobility Command (AMC), with responsibility for this capability, for its critical contributions to the attacks.

Aerial refueling hardly constitutes a frontier technology, yet U.S. capabilities are unmatched in this area. The enabling diplomatic and alliance network the United States has built over the past decades is a big part of why…"

link

Armand

Sailors on the USS Abraham Lincoln reportedly dealing with poor conditions, weak morale, families say

link

The U.S. Can Easily Seize Iran's Strategic Islands

link

Armand

While not a game changer, these conditions are what happens when you can't follow the maintenance schedule and rest the crews. With a little more planning before the sudden start of the war, some of this might have been avoided. The military can't just jump around from deployment to deployment without some consequences. You have to take care of your tools.

But remember Tort, the administration believed and told us this would last only a couple for weeks. They were not prepared for this to last months. Trump believed what Netanyahu told him, Iran was ready to fall, and it would be a very short campaign. So long term planning for equipment and personal was not done.

Been busy with a lot of Vet events, including a funeral, trips to the airbase, VA and of course hours in the Y pools. Too many better things to do that sent volleys back and forth. With no real affect …

So I have not planned on spending too much time on here. Besides its the same he said, we said, they said, etc., etc.

I pretty much know what many are going to say anyway. And vis versa … It is no longer a Chess game or GO. More like ping pong. I know I have not changed my opinion little to at all.

But I have been posting on my FB page to my comrades, assorted mutants and friends, etc.

On my FB page …

Turkey + Pakistan nowhere mutual defense treaty with Saudi Arabia (Mid-East Treaty Organization ?) the potential for these nations to attack via ground access into Iran if Saudi's can activate the new treaty could be a game changer. No doubt the Turks & Pakis would want to grab resources so I need to look at oilfield areas to see what might be within range of their ground force logistics?

This alliance could certainly change the situation. At least somewhat. Turkey has the 2d largest military in NATO. Behind the USA. The Paks have nukes. And the KSA has massive amounts of oil money. They all have something to bring to the table. But will/if they use any of it ? Regardless Iran is a very big place. Even if most of their assets have been destroyed or killed …

[Going to pools … see ya later s!!] 😁😎🤩😏🏊‍♂️🏄‍♂️🤽‍♂️

What the US Navy Can Learn from Iran

link

Armand

Legion 4 wrote:
"The Paks have nukes"
You mean a terrorist harbouring muslim country has nukes? How come the world has not ended yet?

Easy answer right now.

Pakistani government is not a theocracy like Iran, though it is an Islamic republic with significant conservative and extremist influences. While Iran is ruled by a Shia clerical establishment under a supreme leader, Pakistan operates as a hybrid parliamentary republic heavily influenced by its military, balancing democratic structures, secular law traditions, and strict religious legislation.

Not a Theocracy: Unlike Iran, where religious clerics hold supreme political and legal authority, Pakistan has a constitutional framework featuring a parliament, civilian prime ministers, and a powerful military apparatus.

Hybrid Legal System: Pakistan combines British-style common law with Islamic constitutional provisions. The Council of Islamic Ideology advises parliament, but laws must pass through a legislative branch rather than a clerical council.

Sectarian and Religious Diversity: Pakistan is predominantly Sunni Muslim, unlike Iran's official Twelver Shia identity. It also contains significant Shia, Christian, Hindu, and Ahmadi minorities, whereas Iran's state structure explicitly enforces Shia governance.

Of course having Muslims in country who do practice radical fundamentalist Islam. That could always change. Just like it did in IRAN.

But even then, it has been a close run.

Yes, Pakistan and India have come alarmingly close to a nuclear exchange on at least three distinct occasions, with top intelligence officials describing some of these standoffs as more frightening than the Cuban Missile Crisis. Because Pakistan maintains an asymmetric conventional disadvantage against India, its official military doctrine explicitly rejects a "No First Use" policy, relying instead on a low threshold for nuclear deployment to deter a full-scale ground invasion. [1, 2, 3]
The three primary nuclear "close calls" between the two nations occurred during major geopolitical crises: [1]

1. The 1990 Kashmir Crisis
* The Context: Mass uprisings in Indian-administered Kashmir severely heightened tensions, prompting heavy troop mobilizations on both sides.
* The Nuclear Threat: According to declassified CIA intelligence, the United States detected that Pakistan had actively assembled nuclear components and evacuated them from storage facilities. Former CIA Deputy Director Richard J. Kerr famously noted that it was the "most dangerous nuclear situation" he had ever faced, warning that Pakistan was prepared to hit New Delhi if India initiated a ground invasion. A high-level U.S. diplomatic mission successfully defused the situation before weapons could be deployed. [1, 2]

2. The 1999 Kargil War
* The Context: Pakistani forces and Kashmiri militants infiltrated Indian-controlled territory in the Kargil district, sparking a direct, high-altitude military conflict.
* The Nuclear Threat: This was the first direct war fought after both nations publicly tested their nuclear weapons in 1998. U.S. satellite intelligence discovered that Pakistan's military had begun moving and preparing its nuclear-capable missile arsenal for potential operational use. Recognizing the immediate risk of a nuclear outbreak, U.S. President Bill Clinton fiercely pressured Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif during an emergency meeting in Washington, leading to a Pakistani withdrawal. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

3. The 2019 Balakot Standoff
* The Context: Following a terrorist attack in Pulwama, India launched retaliatory airstrikes inside Pakistani territory, resulting in aerial dogfights and the downing of an Indian fighter jet.
* The Nuclear Threat: Former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo revealed that the crisis came incredibly close to a "nuclear conflagration". During the height of the standoff, Indian leadership informed U.S. officials that they believed Pakistan was actively preparing its nuclear arsenal for a strike. Urgent, overnight interventions by U.S. diplomats and national security teams successfully opened communication channels between the two militaries to assure each other that neither side was preparing an immediate nuclear attack. [1]

Good thing a "radical fundamentalist Islamic death cult" wasn't in charge.

Thanx for answering my rhetorical question.

Obviously the world sat back when the Paks got it.

In the U.S. Bill Clinton was president.

How did he respond?

May 1998: Pakistan detonated five nuclear devices in the Chagai hills under Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, immediately following neighbor India's nuclear tests.

U.S. Response: President Bill Clinton strongly condemned the tests and imposed mandatory economic and military sanctions on Pakistan under U.S. non-proliferation laws (the Glenn Amendment).

So did condemnation and sanctions work? 🤔

The rest of the world:

Executive Condemnation and Sanctions
* United Nations Security Council: The Council unanimously passed Resolution 1172, which strictly condemned both India's and Pakistan's nuclear tests and demanded that both countries cease further testing.
* The G8 Nations: The world's leading industrialized democracies jointly condemned the actions, immediately suspended non-humanitarian foreign aid, and blocked billions of dollars in loans from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF).
* United States: Beyond the initial Glenn Amendment sanctions, the U.S. restricted dual-use technology transfers and heavily penalized international banks doing business with Pakistan.
* Japan: As one of Pakistan's largest bilateral aid donors, Japan immediately froze all new economic loans and grants, heavily disrupting Pakistan's foreign-currency reserves.

European Union: EU member nations issued strong diplomatic condemnations, though countries like France and the United Kingdom generally opposed sweeping, permanent economic sanctions, arguing that isolating Pakistan would further destabilize the region.

China: While Beijing expressed deep regret over the nuclear escalation, it positioned the primary blame on India for initiating the crisis and maintained its close strategic alliance with Pakistan.

Was Pakistan stopped? 🤔

But now, how did the Muslim world respond?

The Muslim World: Many nations across the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, offered political solidarity and financial support, with some stepping in with oil subsidies to help Pakistan mitigate the impact of Western sanctions.

What!?!?

No response necessary. My questions were rhetorical too. 😉

Enabling Iranian Regime Change Without American Nation-Building

link

Armand

OVI +1

Legion 4 wrote:
"The Paks have nukes"
You mean a terrorist harbouring muslim country has nukes? How come the world has not ended yet?

You may want to read up on Pak-India relations. The Paks have nukes to use on India. And vis versa … The probability of the Paks using nukes on anyone is extremely remote …

That being said, Pakistan as a large number of their population who are very hard-core militant islamists. But chances of those fanatics getting ahold of those nukes is tiny.

Not all moslems want to get nukes and end Western civilization, start the end times, etc. You may want to do a little more studying on the topic of Sunni and Shia relations. Radical militant islamists vs. moslems … etc.

Is Iran Rebuilding Its Ballistic Missile Production Capacity?

"Has Tehran built back better when it comes to its ballistic missile infrastructure? That is the question set to decide how effective Operations Epic Fury and Roaring Lion by the U.S. and Israel, respectively, have been against the Islamic Republic of Iran this spring.

The Jerusalem Post recently reported that it had independently confirmed the claims of Iranian officials about their renewed ballistic missile production capacity in the post-war Islamic Republic. Although the Post did not publish any separate evidence to bolster this claim or shed light on its sources and methods for verification, prudence dictates that Washington and Jerusalem at least factor-in such worst-case analyses when assessing the effectiveness of their attacks against Iran's missile production nodes…"

link

Armand

We would call that a target rich environment … The IDF knows a lot about Iran's plans. When the time is right, IMO both the US and IDF will again strike.

U.S. conducting stealth operation to transport oil through Hormuz

"The U.S. military has quietly established a shipping corridor in and out of the Strait of Hormuz to transport millions of barrels of oil each day — a notable success even as the broader war remains at a stalemate, two U.S. officials told Axios.

Under the operation, which has been underway for the last several weeks, 15–20 tankers have entered and exited the strait each night through a southern channel along the coast of Oman.
About 10 million barrels of oil a day — roughly half the pre-war volume — are being transported out of the strait and injected into the global energy market, the officials said.
Why it matters: The U.S.-led operation is mitigating one of the most painful aspects of the war: the disruption to oil supplies that sent crude prices soaring. While the amount of oil coming out of the strait is still below pre-war levels, it is making a discernible difference in global supplies, officials say…"

link

Armand

Is America now a Barbary pirate?

"The Iran War continues to turn unexpectedly. One recent twist surprised much of the world: President Trump announcing a 20 percent toll for safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz. The very next day, he changed his mind. Rightfully so. Secretary of State Marco Rubio was on record stating that such action violates international law.

Nonetheless, Trump's announced replacement plan is problematic. Although accepting financial investments from the Gulf States in lieu of these tolls may be legal, Trump is still flouting a core principle held by the U.S. since its inception. In doing so, he flies in the face of the origin stories of two branches of our military, negates American efforts in two world wars and flips a position taken by the United States in the Middle East during the Cold War.

In short, it would upend almost 250 years of America's history as a beacon for commercial freedom…"

link

Armand

Trump is a transactional president, loosely running a gigantic business. His understanding of American history and traditional norms appears to be quite limited based on various statements over the years. Washington secured no airports during the Revolution. Sometimes he gives us new perspectives on things, other times we are embarrassed by the business approach, which is based on profits as the bottom line.