Escalation only favors Iran:
America and Israel may have bitten off more than they can chew.
www.foreignaffairs.com
Don't know who this Pape guy is, but I disagree with his assessment.
Robert Pape said:
Iran’s strikes cannot be dismissed as acts of scattered retaliation, the flailing lashing out of a dying regime. Rather, they represent a strategy of horizontal escalation, a bid to transform the stakes of a conflict by widening its scope and extending its duration.
I am sure the Regime and it's supporters, including the tankies and the useful idiots in the West, would like it to be some sort of stroke of strategic genius. But it sure looks like "scattered retaliation" and "flailing lashing out" of a regime that may not yet be dying, but is certainly wounded. The attacks on their neighbors, including those with relatively good relations with Iran such as Qatar and Omar serve no strategic purpose. It is pretty much "do as much damage to everyone and hope for the best".
Horizontal escalation occurs when a state widens the geographic and political scope of a conflict rather than intensifying it vertically in a single theater. It is especially appealing as a strategy for the weaker parties in a military contest. Instead of trying to defeat a stronger adversary head-on, the weaker side multiplies arenas of risk—drawing additional states, economic sectors, and domestic publics into the remit of the conflict. Iran cannot defeat the United States or Israel in a conventional military contest. It does not need to. Its objective is to gain greater political leverage.
Winning by making other countries mad at it is some insane troll logic.
The strategy of horizontal escalation follows a recognizable pattern. First, Iran has demonstrated resilience. U.S. decapitation strikes intended to paralyze the Iranian military. By launching large-scale retaliation within hours of losing the supreme leader and many senior commanders, Tehran signaled continuity of command and operational capacity.
Did they though? When President Pezeshkian said that Iran will halt attacks against uninvolved neighbors, but IRGC still attacks them, that hardly demonstrates continuous and unified leadership.
There is also a question about how many missiles and drones they have left. They have shot many at all and sundry in the opening week of the war, but US and Israel have also taken out many on the ground. It is highly questionable that Iran can maintain this "horizontal escalation" (aka "flailing lashing out") for weeks, much less months. And this is pretty much all they have.
Second, Iran has widened the conflict well beyond Iranian territory, effecting what scholars call “multiplication of exposure.” Rather than confining retaliation to just Israel, Iran struck or aimed at targets in at least nine countries, most hosting U.S. forces: Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Greece, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. The message was unmistakable: those countries that host American forces would face severe consequences and the war that Israel and the United States started will spread.
Greece? Anyway, what I see is happening is that this will make its neighbors angry with Iran.
And it goes like that. Iran' situation is interpreted in the most favorable light possible. This is not analysis, it's a puff piece.
back to SLD said:
Pretty much what a lot of people have been saying here. Iran cannot attack the US head on, so it seeks to broaden the attacks and effectively force the U.S. to invade with ground troops, where they will be worn down and it will be politically unpopular at home.
Again, I do not think Iran can maintain what they are doing ("flailing lashing out") much longer due to their stockpiles of especially missiles. The Shahed drones are slow and much cheaper to defend against - helicopters can take them out.
Apache, Merlin, Wildcats: The drone-destroying helicopters shooting down Iran’s arsenal
The only real hope is that Trump surrenders.
LMAO!
As the article points out, Trump has a serious dilemma on his hands. If he continues the strikes he risks long term political and economic fallout. If he declares victory and quits, he risks being labelled for basically surrendering; but the public may forget in 6 months. The problem is that Iran may not agree. If they keep up with attacks on shipping in the straits then Trump has no choice but to continue to try to degrade their capabilities. But he may have to escalate. Ground troops? What happens if China objects and says that's a bridge too far for them to accept and make threats to defend Iran? Russia is already providing them with the necessary intel. China is saying they will give them missile technology.
This was published days before the attack. Maybe that's why the war started when it did. US did not want to wait until the Mullahs got these missiles.
Exclusive: Iran nears deal to buy supersonic anti-ship missiles from China
I think it is shortsighted for Russia and China to support an Islamist regime like Iran. Just like it was shortsighted for Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and Charlie Wilson to support the Mujahedeen against USSR is Afghanistan. Sure, USSR was an adversary, but even communists are orders of magnitude better than Islamists.
That's why I say the only real option is for Trump to "surrender." That is he has to stop the bombing but also go further. Maybe he has to offer to help them rebuild their infrastructure? Gives them funds to pay for reconstruction? What else?
Complete non-starter. Helping Iran rebuild their infrastructure will be important for the future of Iran, but can occur iff (if and only if) there is a regime change and there is a stable, liberal-democratic government running things.
Can he do that and politically survive?
No. Giving up and paying some sort of tribute to the Ayatollah regime would be a political suicide, and rightly so.
He has to find a way to make a deal whereby they agree to allow shipments of oil and they too get to ship oil to China. Trump's gotta blink. Not sure he has that in him. He's looking at a serious loss in the polls come the November mid terms.
I think it is the Regime that needs to blink. Accept exile to Moscow like al Asad and get to live.
apnews.com
