|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States43736 Posts
On March 24 2026 07:58 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2026 07:13 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2026 07:08 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On March 24 2026 06:46 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2026 06:38 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On March 24 2026 02:37 Gorsameth wrote:On March 24 2026 02:23 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On March 24 2026 01:11 Yurie wrote:On March 20 2026 17:03 Yurie wrote:On March 20 2026 09:30 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
[quote]
I'm not sure this is so much resolution, as 'neither actually involved sides see much viability of reaching resolution' so everyone else is trying to find ways around the problem so the world economy can keep chugging along (since they sure as hell can't actually resolve it).
And Iran is just reasonable enough to come to agreements with some third parties (probably because 'everyone else' involves some of their allies).
I'm not sure if this will do anything to actually end the fighting, Iran won't just let all the ships through, because this is their primary leverage towards no longer getting bombed. And even the rest of the world combined can't pressure the US/Israel into meeting Iranian demands.
While the US/Israel can just lose interest/stop bombing Iran, I don't think Iran will trust that it's not just a short reload then they are back in a few months/years again. I don't envision a world where Israel doesn't actually just come back after a short reload, dragging the US back in.
So either ground troops actually go in, or somehow the US pressures other countries into some kind of reparations/rebuild package for Iran (the US is sure as hell not going to pay Iran reparations). Or there needs to be at least a change in attitude on the side of the US, eg telling Israel, 'Next time you bomb them you are on your own'. In which case the fight sort of fizzles out, and Iran eventually believes it's not just a short break to restock munitions.
None of these options look particularly likely.
Either that or Trump gets either China or his russian friends to agree to help Iran rebuild in lieu of actual reparations. They might accept it because it basically guarantees their influence in the region for the forseeable future, and Trump might accept it because compared to not having to deal with either a disastrous ground campaign in Iran or a humiliating meeting of actual Iranian terms probably outweighs actual US geopolitical interest every time.
Even there I don't think Russia is even in an economic state to help, and China might just not be that interested in cleaning up a US mess.
Well Iran - US relations are dead unless there is a regime change in Iran. Which currently seems unlikely as the US public doesn't want boots on the ground and there is an election soon. Though the US is putting enough marines into the area to be able to do it if they want to. I basically see it as Iran will let Chinese, Indian etc ships through. Ships that are not from those nations will instead move to other trade regions, causing a local monopoly on ship capacity. They can then start charging ships passing through similar to Seuz or Panama canals and things stabilize. It seems to be acceptable to the US as well since they prioritize global trade over crippling Iran (as Iranian oil exports are up since the start of the war). The US is also seriously discussing stopping sanctions on Iranian oil to keep prices down, same as they did for Russian oil. (If I am from a European country bordering Russia I would be furious at that removal of sanctions.) So seems they are trying to leverage their control of the strait into switching from the US dollar to the Yuan for oil trade. That is actually more dangerous to the US than a few nukes in Iran. (Also seems to be old news, I just missed it a few days ago.) The other topic I replied to. The UK is now allowing US to use their bases. I still think they would have allowed this if they had time to consider it and got some small concession for it. Only 20% of the oil supply goes through the strait. I don't think forcing an actual switch to Yuan based dollar is feasible. Honestly, I think it's more about extending China's ability to weather the oil shock. While China was somehow better prepared for the oil shock than the US, despite the US + Israel causing the situation to begin with, they will eventually run out of oil (not soon, but eventually). Once Iran's richest ally is no longer able to wear the shock, Iran pretty much has to open up the strait at that stage. So their leverage does have a use by date, they are just trying to extend it a bit. I think your vastly overestimating the influence China has over Iran or Iran's dependance on China. China does not get to decide when Iran needs to surrender and it takes very little resources to keep the strait closed, the threat itself does almost all the work. It's not about China deciding when Iran gets to surrender, it's about once it's directly against China's direct material interest to continue running political interference for Iran, they are likely to... stop doing that. While many individuals around the world are maybe hoping Iran wins (or at least hoping US/Israel loses), on the global stage of nation states very few countries are actually on Iran's side. At best, many of the US's traditional allies are just unenthusiastic on getting involved. Russia and China are two of a very few countries that are. They run political interference, provide intel, and China is responsible for buying most of Iran's oil, as well as selling them vital parts to keep what industrial economy they have going to keep building drones. It's very hard for Iran to actually go completely alone, what allies it has are invaluable to it. I'm not imagining China just telling Iran enough is enough, and to open the strait. It's more likely going to be a 'sorry we can't help anymore, we need to worry about our own situation' If you follow much of how the Chinese government does things, it's that it's very serious about noone fucking with the Chinese economy, not even itself. While it stands on principle on the Iran issue, if it had to choose between principle or its own economic growth, it's going to choose its own economy every time. While Iran will still have Russia, who do not suffer from the oil shock the same way, it's hard to hold out when your only ally is also pretty broke. Russia is only broke if Iran capitulates. Russia is rolling in cash if Iran keeps going. And Russia is the world’s one way attack biggest drone manufacturer. They are rolling in cash on hand, but the state of their industry throughout the country isn't great (it's not especially bad now, it's just not been good for a long time). Even on drones, China (well, chinese companies) are the biggest supplier of drone parts to both Russia and Ukraine, by far. I would be surprised if they weren't also the biggest supplier of drone parts to Iran. Cash on hand is nice, but you still need someone to make the stuff you want to buy. It’s not an evenly bad economy, it’s a dual economy that averages worse than before. But some segments of the economy are absolutely thriving (offset by others collapsing). Russia has gone from relying on Iran for drones to launching dozens to launching hundreds to launching thousands. The Soviet economy in 1945 wasn’t in great shape (tens of millions dead, tens of millions in uniform) but T 34 production was at absurd levels. Giving drones to Iran pays for itself. The point is Russia is broke in basically the same areas as Iran is. Eg, it's not providing much other than intel that Iran doesn't also have. Currently, Russia basically has military equipment, oil and money. While some of this military equipment (eg anti air defense systems) isn't what Iran can make and is useful, a lot of it is just stuff that would get instantly destroyed if actual bombs/missiles were to drop again. Oil, drones and money are also what Iran has. Even on the political inteference front, other than the weird influence Russia sometimes has over the US right now, Russia is itself a global pariah. Whereas China appears to be too big and too connected to be that now. The point is Russia can only provide so much assistance to Iran, not because it is unwilling, but because it is unable. Since what it has/makes a lot of, overlaps significantly with what Iran has/makes.
I don’t know what to say other than that I strongly disagree. Their economies couldn’t be more different. Their populaces couldn’t be more different. Their adversaries couldn’t be more different. Russia can make large drone factories staffed by patriotic workers paid with a strong currency located safe from attack. Iran has to engage in distributed resilient production using a hostile population paid with a collapsing currency while under a US bombing campaign.
|
United States43736 Posts
It occurs to me that there’s a fundamental mismatch in the objectives of the Israel/US coalition. As far as we know they didn’t have an equivalent of the Casablanca conference where allied war goals were converged and established. The allies want very different things out of this war.
The senior party in the alliance wants Iran destroyed. It wants no nukes, no missiles, no proxy wars, no IRGC control. Full regime change. It lacks the military forces to do that so they’d quite like the junior party to actually do the invasion. They have no expeditionary army and lack the logistics and population to possibly invade Iran, only the US could do it.
The junior party mostly just wants things to go back to how they were. Ceasefire, strait open, Iran survives. There was no real ideological conviction, Rubio made it clear on day 1 that Israel decided on unilateral action and the assessment was that if the US would be dragged in anyway then they might as well take part in day 1 bombing.
Not only does Israel not agree with US war goals at this point, US war goals are in direct opposition to Israeli war goals. The US wants deescalation and normalization, Israel wants intensification until an eventual rubicon moment in which the US is forced to invade on Israel’s behalf.
And if Israel doesn’t agree to whatever ceasefire the US proposes then the war continues and the strait remains closed until eventually the US has to launch a ground invasion. The worse an ally Israel is the more likely they are to get what they want. Israel doesn’t want Iran to succeed in getting a nuke but they’d really like it if Iran was successful in the next few months of this war. The more bogged down the Americans get the more likely they are to try to fight their way out. And if ever the fighting slows Israel can just bomb a few things and trigger an Iranian response.
I’m becoming increasingly convinced of the possibility of a forced regime change scenario. It’s not like Trump can rein Israel in and it’s not like Israel has anything to lose from keeping things escalating. It’s the same basic scenario as it was on day 0, if Israel attacks and Iran counterattacks then American interests are threatened. That gives Israel the ability to create an Iranian threat more or less at will, to be solved by the US army. And if Israel weren’t willing to twist America’s arm on this and get them drawn in deeper then we wouldn’t be in this position in the first place. We know they’re willing.
|
I'm sure the IDF in general would be delighted at regime change in Iran, but Netanyahu/Likud only needs to bomb them just enough to clinch the Israeli election happening in October.
|
Northern Ireland26426 Posts
On March 24 2026 09:49 KwarK wrote:
It occurs to me that there’s a fundamental mismatch in the objectives of the Israel/US coalition. As far as we know they didn’t have an equivalent of the Casablanca conference where allied war goals were converged and established. The allies want very different things out of this war.
The senior party in the alliance wants Iran destroyed. It wants no nukes, no missiles, no proxy wars, no IRGC control. Full regime change. It lacks the military forces to do that so they’d quite like the junior party to actually do the invasion. They have no expeditionary army and lack the logistics and population to possibly invade Iran, only the US could do it.
The junior party mostly just wants things to go back to how they were. Ceasefire, strait open, Iran survives. There was no real ideological conviction, Rubio made it clear on day 1 that Israel decided on unilateral action and the assessment was that if the US would be dragged in anyway then they might as well take part in day 1 bombing.
Not only does Israel not agree with US war goals at this point, US war goals are in direct opposition to Israeli war goals. The US wants deescalation and normalization, Israel wants intensification until an eventual rubicon moment in which the US is forced to invade on Israel’s behalf.
And if Israel doesn’t agree to whatever ceasefire the US proposes then the war continues and the strait remains closed until eventually the US has to launch a ground invasion. The worse an ally Israel is the more likely they are to get what they want. Israel doesn’t want Iran to succeed in getting a nuke but they’d really like it if Iran was successful in the next few months of this war. The more bogged down the Americans get the more likely they are to try to fight their way out. And if ever the fighting slows Israel can just bomb a few things and trigger an Iranian response.
I’m becoming increasingly convinced of the possibility of a forced regime change scenario. It’s not like Trump can rein Israel in and it’s not like Israel has anything to lose from keeping things escalating. It’s the same basic scenario as it was on day 0, if Israel attacks and Iran counterattacks then American interests are threatened. That gives Israel the ability to create an Iranian threat more or less at will, to be solved by the US army. And if Israel weren’t willing to twist America’s arm on this and get them drawn in deeper then we wouldn’t be in this position in the first place. We know they’re willing.
I fear you may be correct with this analysis.
|
On March 24 2026 09:49 KwarK wrote:+ Show Spoiler +It occurs to me that there’s a fundamental mismatch in the objectives of the Israel/US coalition. As far as we know they didn’t have an equivalent of the Casablanca conference where allied war goals were converged and established. The allies want very different things out of this war.
The senior party in the alliance wants Iran destroyed. It wants no nukes, no missiles, no proxy wars, no IRGC control. Full regime change. It lacks the military forces to do that so they’d quite like the junior party to actually do the invasion. They have no expeditionary army and lack the logistics and population to possibly invade Iran, only the US could do it.
The junior party mostly just wants things to go back to how they were. Ceasefire, strait open, Iran survives. There was no real ideological conviction, Rubio made it clear on day 1 that Israel decided on unilateral action and the assessment was that if the US would be dragged in anyway then they might as well take part in day 1 bombing.
Not only does Israel not agree with US war goals at this point, US war goals are in direct opposition to Israeli war goals. The US wants deescalation and normalization, Israel wants intensification until an eventual rubicon moment in which the US is forced to invade on Israel’s behalf.
And if Israel doesn’t agree to whatever ceasefire the US proposes then the war continues and the strait remains closed until eventually the US has to launch a ground invasion. The worse an ally Israel is the more likely they are to get what they want. Israel doesn’t want Iran to succeed in getting a nuke but they’d really like it if Iran was successful in the next few months of this war. The more bogged down the Americans get the more likely they are to try to fight their way out. And if ever the fighting slows Israel can just bomb a few things and trigger an Iranian response. I’m becoming increasingly convinced of the possibility of a forced regime change scenario. + Show Spoiler + It’s not like Trump can rein Israel in and it’s not like Israel has anything to lose from keeping things escalating. It’s the same basic scenario as it was on day 0, if Israel attacks and Iran counterattacks then American interests are threatened. That gives Israel the ability to create an Iranian threat more or less at will, to be solved by the US army. And if Israel weren’t willing to twist America’s arm on this and get them drawn in deeper then we wouldn’t be in this position in the first place. We know they’re willing.
Seems like a salient post. Though I think it might be a bit too neat with what the "US wants" given your rather thorough demonstration of its general incoherence as articulated by Trump and his administration  .
When you say this part, is that like De-Ba'athification but with the IRGC, or what do you mean when you say "forced regime change" is increasingly possible/likely?
|
United States43736 Posts
I’m not Nostradamus and even the best educated guess is still probably unlikely to be right, just most likely out of a dozen outcomes. It’s a limited and speculative hypothesis derived from 3 core assumptions.
1. the US doesn’t have the ability to make a unilateral peace without their ally
2. the longer this goes the more necessary troops on the ground becomes
3. their ally would prefer that outcome
I’m more likely wrong than not but I can absolutely see a pathway to a ground invasion of Iran.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
