Woodrow Wilson only joined WW1 once the Lusitania was sunk, which caused American deaths. FDR only joined WW2 once Pearl Harbor was attacked. Reagan got away with Grenada because it was a quick and dirty operation. Same with GHWB and First Gulf War. The younger Bush could justify the Afghan invasion only because of WTC, yet even as more Intel dropped on the identity of the terrorists and the lack of progress in locating Bin Laden, domestic support fell.

> But if America stops playing as cautiously as it does, it turns into a very different war machine.

Good luck trying to convince average Americans to do that. On the other hand, the US and Israel have managed to convince the same for the Iranians. They literally rained bombs on the upper class neighborhoods of Teheran, the places where moderates and regime opposition actually lived.

My analysis and my comment I linked to agrees. And that is a strategic victory for Iran, Russia, China and a defeat for Israel, and the US. The worst will be the Gulf States hostages of their dueling stock pile of defense missiles running out...to which they will have to queue for, with US DOD at the front of the queue.

No one ever really wins in war, except those not participating.

  * Korea: Stalemate, which is still a problem now 70
    years later
  * Vietnam: Loss
  * Gulf War: Victory
  * Afganistan: Loss, after 20 years of fighting
  * Iraq: Mixed results after 8 years: Saddam Hussein threat
    eliminated, Iran and ISIS made significant gains

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F...

Iran is far more capable militarily than Iraq and Afghanistan and, particulary, their military may be world's the leading experts on assymetric warfare; they train everyone else - Hezbollah, the Houthis, etc. Their proxies held off the US military and allies in Iraq, a neighboring country, where Iran had far less motivation than to defend their own homes from a US invasion.

The US could win given unlimited political will and time, but it would be very costly and anyway, the US couldn't sustain that will for much easier situations in the prior two wars. Nobody is crazy enough to launch a ground invasion of Iran, I hope.

If you step back, in 1979 Iran launched a revolution that had an avowed goal of “death to America”. If the Iranians play the kinetic scenario to the bitter end, they simply are demonstrating this was not mere poetry and there never was any other off-ramp, just tactically deciding at what relative strength these two systems will collide.

So Iran loses by demonstrating irrational resolve in antisocial tactics, like firing missiles randomly at neutral neighbors, which is the same precondition you take as gating victory. Conflicts are played out in the real world specifically to resolve inconsistent modeling like this held by different sides, and all parties would be well served by finding a better way to resolve the conflicting modeling here, because the most likely scenario currently is that everyone loses.

The US is an oil exporting country and the people pulling the puppet strings of the dominant party in power directly benefit from high oil prices.

Further, oligarchical political-economic structures also benefit from "chaos is a ladder" scenarios where their privileged knowledge and access to decision makers gives them the ability to benefit from every new conflagration. The insider trading examples are only the trip of the iceberg.

The "war" will wind down after they've made their profits and redistributed the wealth and control as they set out to do.

Gone are the days where ruling elites benefited from international commercial stability. Those with power right now want chaos, and they will continue to create it until they are held to account.

Note that all of above applies just as well to the rulers of Iran as it does to the United States. It is the people who suffer, not the elites.

On the other hand an inadvertant success, like Venezuela, could accelerate those plans.

All conflicts, with the exception of genocidal or total war style conflicts - end with some kind of settlement, in which each side makes concessions, and then tries to sell it as a victory to their domestic audience.

This will be no different, which is why people are already lining up to spin everything and argue about who is the real winner or loser. That they have no problem expoliting the conflict for domestic political gain makes it clear that no one takes this war very seriously.

If there was a real winner or loser, no one would need to argue about it, it would be clear to everyone, since the loser would be under occupation, and that's not going to happen here, neither to the US, nor to Iran. This entire war is two sides shooting missiles and bombs at each other from a safe distance.

.. per [John] on Krugman's substack.

Trump war goal are to destroy Iranian nuclear capabilities, and to change the Iranian government.

If he succeed, victory. Otherwise, defeat.

So can the US leaving Iran without means for existence. Right now Iran can export own oil but denies Arab countries form exporting their oil, I don't think such arrangement could last indefinitely.