The problem is, if you tell everyone that you are a superpower, but then go on to not only not achieve your strategic goals (during a conflict of your choosing), but get to an unconfortable stalemate (that you cannot forcibly break) where you get to the point that you have to throw allies under the bus (not just Ukraine).. that's losing.
I mean, they could break it, but the devastation would be immense and then everyone would hate us even more. Getting involved was always a losing strategy.
The war in Iran has meant that the military resources of many actors are getting used for that conflict and are no longer available. Think patriot missiles to protect against balistic missiles.
It also means that the eyes of the world are distracted.
Unsurprisingly, the Trump administration is now getting anxious about the economical damage that Iran is inflicting, and has been forced to cut a deal with Russia.
But as said, that is just Ukraine.
The US has also been forced to reposition assets in Asia, to make up for the ones lost or expended in the Iran theater. They have shown to their allies in the middle east that having a US base is not a protection, but rather an invitation to be attacked.
Despite extensive military investment, Iran's neighbours are now realizing that the US presence and weapons they bought don't work.
The fact that a "muslim NATO" was recently created is not a coincidence. The world has taken notice.
Iran have been utterly destroyed, but they can still hurt the US. When your're a superpower, not winning when fighting a regional power IS losing.
If America had launched nukes during the cold war, the USSR would retaliate. Maybe via submarine-launched ICBM, maybe using a dead man's switch; methodology is irrelevant, because the question is this: If both countries end up radioactive desert, which country would be declared the winner? Or is it possible for neither country to be the definitive winner of a war?
I was born in 1979. We have always been at odds with Iran and have had a few skirmishes, but this notion that we have been at war with them for 47 years only became a thing several months ago. There was never a time we were "at war" with them until Trump started one. You should stop consuming propaganda and learn more history.
That's brave, friend. I, living here, am annoyed of geriatrics in the wheelhouse.
That doesn't make their treatment of other countries go away.
[flagged]
> Inability to project power beyond a few random pot shots at neighbors that aren't even the US.
This is a very funny way of saying “has de facto control of one of the world’s most important shipping lanes”.
Nobody said Iran was winning.
The problem is, if you tell everyone that you are a superpower, but then go on to not only not achieve your strategic goals (during a conflict of your choosing), but get to an unconfortable stalemate (that you cannot forcibly break) where you get to the point that you have to throw allies under the bus (not just Ukraine).. that's losing.
I mean, they could break it, but the devastation would be immense and then everyone would hate us even more. Getting involved was always a losing strategy.
I don't think anyone in Ukraine is losing sleep over Iran getting bombed.
They are?
The war in Iran has meant that the military resources of many actors are getting used for that conflict and are no longer available. Think patriot missiles to protect against balistic missiles.
It also means that the eyes of the world are distracted.
Unsurprisingly, the Trump administration is now getting anxious about the economical damage that Iran is inflicting, and has been forced to cut a deal with Russia.
But as said, that is just Ukraine.
The US has also been forced to reposition assets in Asia, to make up for the ones lost or expended in the Iran theater. They have shown to their allies in the middle east that having a US base is not a protection, but rather an invitation to be attacked.
Despite extensive military investment, Iran's neighbours are now realizing that the US presence and weapons they bought don't work.
The fact that a "muslim NATO" was recently created is not a coincidence. The world has taken notice.
Iran have been utterly destroyed, but they can still hurt the US. When your're a superpower, not winning when fighting a regional power IS losing.
brent crude futures are trading above 109$/barrel right now. America didn't want that to happen, Iran did. They won that one.
Note that the comment you’re replying to does not claim Iran is winning.
> Note that the comment you’re replying to does not claim Iran is winning.
Well the comment literally says "you lost a war with Iran". If the US lost a war with Iran, the Iran won a war with the US.
But maybe that was an old war, from a few months ago, that Iran won. And now there's a new war and Iran ain't winning that one?
If America had launched nukes during the cold war, the USSR would retaliate. Maybe via submarine-launched ICBM, maybe using a dead man's switch; methodology is irrelevant, because the question is this: If both countries end up radioactive desert, which country would be declared the winner? Or is it possible for neither country to be the definitive winner of a war?
A pyrrhic victory and a loss are colloquially synonyms.
You're wrong about intervention in Iran, it started far earlier, with the coup to Mossadegh
That's actually a fair point.
I was born in 1979. We have always been at odds with Iran and have had a few skirmishes, but this notion that we have been at war with them for 47 years only became a thing several months ago. There was never a time we were "at war" with them until Trump started one. You should stop consuming propaganda and learn more history.
"We've always been at war with Eurasia." - Republicans
Not a Republican. They tend to pussy out instead of getting the job done. Not a fan.
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1989/may/air-view...
I agree. History is important. What would you call this?
We have always been at war with Eastasia.