undefined | Better HN

0 pointsandrewflnr1d ago0 comments

If Iran was having great success with their attacks, they wouldn't therefore tail off the intensity if they could help it. They would just start scoring more hits with the same, presumably maximum, rate of fire.

I think the obvious answer is the correct one here, that Iran's launch capacity has been degraded. That's not to say it will ever go to zero, so a lot of your other points still have some merit.

0 comments

fc417fc8021d ago

That assumes they want to escalate. So far at least their official statements have been clear about tit-for-tat.

It could also backfire spectacularly. If a bunch of civilians suddenly get killed or other war crimes committed unilaterally by them (such as targeting energy infrastructure) their adversaries could gain political support for the current effort. Whereas gradually forcing all interceptors to be expended is a massively expensive slow bleed and gives the opponent little to nothing to spin in their favor.

andrewflnrOP7h ago

The strategy of throwing ballistic missiles at all of their neighbors doesn't seem like one that's overly concerned with political support among their adversaries. And a fast bleed of interceptors works for them too, maybe better since it spends less time in this phase of the conflict. I don't buy it. The Iranians aren't stupid but I don't think they're playing 5d chess either.

fc417fc8026h ago

I agree that it's probably not 5D chess. But I have to contest that speed is to their advantage given such asymmetric military strength. A slow bleed prolongs the process while the world looks on and energy prices steadily rise. They certainly aren't endearing themselves with their neighbors but at the same time by only striking a minimum amount of infrastructure they avoid mobilizing the sentiment of the broader US or EU populations against them.

My impression is that an overly intense or otherwise disproportionate attack would risk inviting a significant increase in political support. Whereas so far it seems to be a wildly unpopular military campaign.

IMO the US botched this quite badly. I'm almost certain we could have found a way to go about disposing of someone who guns down protesters en masse and funds terrorism without inviting so much negative sentiment or economic volatility.

1 more reply

watwut22h ago

> f Iran was having great success with their attacks, they wouldn't therefore tail off the intensity if they could help it.

They would for pragmatical reasons - they do not want to spend more ammunition then necessary. They very clearly do eye for eye thing - when something is attacked inside their territory, they attack similar thing outside.

They are not running the "operation epic fury to prove we are manly men" thing. They are running the "operation regime survives in a long term" thing.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse