I agree with the point you have demonstrated . However, America is not willing to do the work suggested in your thesis. America is not willing to follow Trump anywhere.
Then we will lose, plain and simple. This matters not who the president may be. If we rely on air supremacy and technology alone, nothing will be accomplished, I am afraid.
The assumption here is that this is a war about regime change. It is not. It is about containment. Revolution might happen, state failure might happen, but if the Iranian ability to project terrorism beyond its borders is destroyed and kept from regenerating, it will be victory. I think we have the power (not by any means only air power) do that, if focus is maintained. Necessity arises.
Removing the psychotic government would be good, but drawing their fangs will still be a victory. We have plenty of power to contain these people, especially as the Arab powers are against them. The Trump Administration has articulated a narrow goal: no nukes, no missiles, no terrorism. There has been explicitly no commitment to Iraq-style regime change.
I understand what you are saying, but reject the premise. I point out, in the article: “The objective in Iran is not merely the destruction of military assets, but the removal of a government that has spent decades destabilizing the Middle East. By analyzing both the triumphs of the post-WWII era and the frustrations of the early twenty-first century, planners can develop a more realistic strategy for the transition of power in Tehran. The historical record suggests that while the path of regime change is fraught with risk, the alternative of leaving a dangerous regime in power can often lead to a much greater catastrophe in the long term.”
If you leave the current mechanisms in place, they have the ability to simply rearm and rebuild. Think of Germany post-1919. I don’t know how any of the objectives are achieved without replacing the current regime. I do not believe that containment will suffice.
Thank you for a thoughtful and in-depth, historically informed engagement with the ongoing crisis.
This was a great listen, far higher in quality than what one usually gets from YouTube slob merchants peddling the war narratives of various combatants that forces me to approached with the same critical ear that one would have brought to reading Pravda in 1941😆
I agree with the point you have demonstrated . However, America is not willing to do the work suggested in your thesis. America is not willing to follow Trump anywhere.
Then we will lose, plain and simple. This matters not who the president may be. If we rely on air supremacy and technology alone, nothing will be accomplished, I am afraid.
Great post. Agree with your assessment.
Thank you. Glad you enjoyed it!
This is well thought-out and thorough, while covering past, present, and future. Thanks for this.
You are welcome. Thank you. I am glad you enjoyed this.
The assumption here is that this is a war about regime change. It is not. It is about containment. Revolution might happen, state failure might happen, but if the Iranian ability to project terrorism beyond its borders is destroyed and kept from regenerating, it will be victory. I think we have the power (not by any means only air power) do that, if focus is maintained. Necessity arises.
Removing the psychotic government would be good, but drawing their fangs will still be a victory. We have plenty of power to contain these people, especially as the Arab powers are against them. The Trump Administration has articulated a narrow goal: no nukes, no missiles, no terrorism. There has been explicitly no commitment to Iraq-style regime change.
I understand what you are saying, but reject the premise. I point out, in the article: “The objective in Iran is not merely the destruction of military assets, but the removal of a government that has spent decades destabilizing the Middle East. By analyzing both the triumphs of the post-WWII era and the frustrations of the early twenty-first century, planners can develop a more realistic strategy for the transition of power in Tehran. The historical record suggests that while the path of regime change is fraught with risk, the alternative of leaving a dangerous regime in power can often lead to a much greater catastrophe in the long term.”
If you leave the current mechanisms in place, they have the ability to simply rearm and rebuild. Think of Germany post-1919. I don’t know how any of the objectives are achieved without replacing the current regime. I do not believe that containment will suffice.
Thank you for a thoughtful and in-depth, historically informed engagement with the ongoing crisis.
This was a great listen, far higher in quality than what one usually gets from YouTube slob merchants peddling the war narratives of various combatants that forces me to approached with the same critical ear that one would have brought to reading Pravda in 1941😆
Glad you enjoyed it. I usually only deal with battles that already have happened. This was my first foray into an ongoing battle.