Time for a quick Iran war status update.
As we’ve discussed many times on this blog, what are the
requirements to actually win a war?
With those basic requirements in mind, let’s check the
status of the Iran war.
Objectives and End
State
Although there has never been a formal, public listing of
our objectives, certain objectives have clearly emerged. They are:
Total Commitment
At the start of hostilities, it seemed that the US was fully
committed to the listed objectives.
Certainly, we were using significant portions of our military
might. However, after a few weeks, the
force commitment declined sharply and became sporadic demonstrating that we
were not fully committed. A plausible,
alternate explanation is that our weapon stockpiles have been reduced to levels
that preclude additional, significant expenditures while maintaining an “adequate”
reserve for dealing with China.
Centers of Gravity
Iran has a few readily apparent centers of gravity that
should have been prioritized in any war.
Leadership – Iran was run by the dictatorial mullahs,
as opposed to the people, and that group determined the country’s goals and objectives. Eliminating them was vital. This was achieved but the assumption of power
by the IRGC was not anticipated and an adjustment should have been made when it
became apparent what was happening. For
unknown reasons, the US has declined to go after the IRGC leadership in any
significant manner.
Nuclear – Iran’s main world wide bargaining power
stemmed from its nuclear threat. Without
a doubt, this had to be eliminated.
Without a nuclear threat, Iran is a severe nuisance but not an
existential threat to anyone. This was
the true source of Iran’s geopolitical power.
It has been largely or totally eliminated.
Strait of Hormuz – Along with its nuclear threat,
control of the strait was another source of geopolitical power for Iran and the
importance of control of the strait was painfully obvious to all. The US failure to quickly and thoroughly
establish control is inexplicable and the continued failure to establish
control is even more baffling.
Finance – Though of a somewhat lesser degree, Iran’s
financial resources represented a source of power and great vulnerability. The US has imposed sanctions and degraded
Iran’s financial resources and access to an extent but has stopped well short
of total financial war. Much more could
be done, as evidenced by the periodic announcement of additional sanctions. Obviously, if additional sanctions can be
imposed then that means that financial combat options were left unused which is
inexplicable.
Financial combat is one of the overlooked “domains” of
modern regional war. It can be
devastating and the US has the ability to pretty much totally isolate and “starve”
Iran financially but, for inexplicable reasons, has opted not to do so.
Discussion
We see, then, that the US has recognized a couple of Iran’s
centers of gravity while missing/ignoring or only partially acting on a couple
others. This points back to the war
requirement of total commitment. It is
clear that the US is not completely invested in winning this war and, thus, has
worked itself into a stalemate despite achieving some goals and inflicting a
great deal of damage. Unless the
situation changes drastically, the cost of this war will continue to rise while
the gains stagnate. This is what happens
when you enter a war without total commitment and a clear vision of the desired
end state. To be fair, I suspect that
the Administration did have a clear vision of the end state but it did not
match reality and now we are floundering.
We have overwhelming strength but no clear idea how to best use it.
As I have posted in the past, failure to pursue a war to
total victory inevitably leads to having to refight the war down the road. Disappointingly, it seems we are firmly on
that path.
Note: This is purely a military assessment and we
will not be discussing the political aspects and I will not tolerate personal attacks on President Trump. Discuss his military policies, if you wish, but refrain from personal attacks. You are warned.
- Clear Objective and End State – This is mandatory before the first shot is fired. If you don’t have a crystal clear objective/end state then you are guaranteed to fail.
- Total Commitment – In it to win it or don’t get in it. Half measures have never won a war and lead, inevitably, to failure.
- Centers of Gravity – You can’t formulate an effective political or military strategy if you don’t correctly identify the enemy’s center(s) of gravity, meaning the “things” that are absolutely vital to the enemy and represent both the enemy’s strengths and vulnerabilities. Every center of gravity is simultaneously a strength and, because it can be destroyed, a vulnerability.
- Decapitate Iranian leadership, meaning, kill the mullahs. This has been achieved. The leadership role has passed to (or been taken by) the Iranian military (IRGC). We clearly failed to anticipate that this would happen.
- Destroy Iran’s nuclear capability forever. This appears to have been totally or largely achieved based on the few public reports we have.
- Eliminate Iran’s ability to strike neighboring countries. This has not been achieved although Iran’s strike capabilities have been severely degraded. They are no longer capable of launching hundreds of missiles and are now reduced to a few launches at a time.
- Eliminate Iran as a functioning, rogue nation. This has been partially achieved as Iran’s Navy has been destroyed, missile production has been severely degraded, missile stockpiles have been significantly reduced, Iran’s air force is non-existent, and Iran’s financial wherewithal has been crippled, all of which significantly reduce, but have not eliminated, Iran’s ability to export terrorism.
Iran is one of the most studied areas with OPLANs for every contingency. We have plans but lack the commitment to see the troop casualties required to take Queshm Island or the Tunbs to keep the Strait open.
ReplyDeleteOur only total commitment was to favorable Tweets, but we lost our resolve when the Tweets lost likes and retweets.
"OPLANs for every contingency"
DeleteWell, we clearly didn't have a plan for keeping the strait open which would have been an incredibly obvious thing to plan for.
We clearly don't have a plan for dealing with the IRGC leadership.
We seem not to have had a plan for protecting neighboring countries from Iran's lashing out with missile attacks.
OP plan A was the Mossad's, decapitate the leadership and the people will rise up (with some Mossad help). That hasn't happened
ReplyDeleteyet. Instead the Waffen SS is in now in charge.
OP plan B, seems to be blockade, till the Iranian economy collapses,
there is progress, inflation is at 400%, lot's of shortages etc.
Why the old OP plans to secure the strait from the 1980 &90s haven't been used is a mystery. Strait secure was common
war game subject back in those good old days.
The Financial war is on going, additional sanctions mean our finwarriors have figured how the Iranian were evading the existing
sanctions and plugging those holes. The Iranians have had years of practice at sanctions evasion, their money launderers and sanctions busters are the equal of the old South African masters.
"desalination"
ReplyDeleteComment deleted. You have zero evidence to support your claim and, even presented as speculation, it's unsupported by any circumstantial evidence and, in fact, a good deal to the contrary. Stick to facts or well founded speculation, please.
To everyone ... This blog is not going to be a platform for unfounded speculation and absurd pet theories.
ReplyDeleteThe Administration has made a number of conflicting statements in regard to how much damage has been done to Iran’s ability to move forward with the development of a nuclear weapon and to its stockpile of heavily enriched uranium but there’s no reliable or definitive evidence about this within the public domain. I think that remains an open question therefore.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to Iran’s missile inventory that too has clearly suffered significant attrition, but again there’s no way of knowing how quickly it can be rebuilt.
Iran therefore remains a deadly enemy; badly wounded but by no means destroyed.
Speculation on my part, however I doubt we’re willing to do what you seem to suggest, and with which I agree, and destroy the country as a functioning unitary state. This is probably because of a misplaced concern as to the likely humanitarian and geopolitical consequences of doing so.
We have a rapidly closing window in which we can end this war with a clear cut victory against a permanent enemy state; the only things preventing us are our excessive concern for military casualties and loss of assets, and, seemingly, an incomprehensible fear that a tanker might be sunk by a mine and cause an oil spill (or something).
Regime change was a stated goal. Without ground troops or a credible threat thereof, that was not going to happen. I suspect we did not deploy the 500,000 plus troops it would take because congress would not approve it. The administration did a very poor job selling this war to the American people and building political support for it.
ReplyDeleteAny Iranian proxies would be wary of getting left out to dry, so expecting g them to rise up and do that work was pure fantasy
Because we don’t have the ability to deploy anything like 500,000 troops to support a ground invasion of Iran.
DeleteYes, our total number of our active duty military is upwards of 1.3 million, but that number is irrelevant for practical purposes.
What matters is the deployable, sustainment-capable force that can be moved into the region and supported once they were there, which is in the region of several tens of thousands and definitely not something approaching the whole active-duty force.
If we stripped every base we had around the entire world, we might, at a stretch, be able to field a force of around 200,000 men, but that would take forever to organize, and once they were in theater, we absolutely couldn’t sustain or supply them.
"Regime change was a stated goal. Without ground troops or a credible threat thereof, that was not going to happen. I suspect we did not deploy the 500,000 plus troops it would take"
DeleteWhere did you get that figure? I don't think that's a requirement. History shows we can effect regime change without 500,000 troops. Examples, include Libya's Gaddafi, the 2003 invasion of Iraq that toppled Hussein which involved 200K troops (140K US), the collapse of the Afghanistan regime in 2001 by some 5k US troops, overthrow of the Grenada regime in 1983, and the 1989 invasion of Panama which toppled Noriega's regime and involved ~20k US troops. This is most especially true if occupation is not part of the plan (which it shouldn't be!).
We went in too light for Iraq. See General Shinseki's thoughts on that at the time. Iran has tougher terrain, and a population roughly twice the size. That is the back of the napkin math.
DeleteI understand that would involve a very large call up of guards and reserves. Hence the lack of political will and search for easier answers.
Without a credible invasion threat, all Iran has to do is wait. They knew that from the start.
Whether or not I think invasion good idea or not, easy or not, doesn't change that.
"We went in too light for Iraq. "
DeleteIt all depends on what our goal was. If it was to occupy Iran then, certainly, the zero troops we committed were too few. If it was to destroy the nuclear facilities and kill the Iranian leadership then it was the right level of force as evidenced by the success in achieving both those goals. The problems came after that when we paused and didn't seem to have a clear plan from that point on.
Ground invasion of Iran was never part of our plan. Whether it should have been is a separate, debatable issue.
The one aspect that is very curious for me is: did the generals give Trump ground force options? We all heard about Marines moving in theater, (are they still there waiting BTW? USS Lincoln I think is still there) we heard air assault or airborne moved in/or were on stand by.... and then nothing happened? So why and what happened? I always here Kharg is the target but that seems like that option went away or nothing else really was considered? Just seems like DoD was very "narrow minded" on this whole operation, nothing really was surprising or actually, tried to surprise the enemy, apart from first day decapitation strike but after that1st day, it's like US military is just following a SCRIPT and not really adapting to evolving conditions....Iran seems to have a more coherent and adaptive strategy than the USA, we just seem to able to drop bombs and that's about it....is ANYONE at DoD trying to think of other options???
ReplyDeleteMy biggest complaint is US media, Ive been around the block a few times and this war has BY FAR been the worst covered, period, not even close. We have very poor coverage and sad I have to go to foreign news to hear what's going on.
There is no U.S. media coverage, not 'bad,' none. Not a single U.S. TV network, newspaper, or online media outlet has offices staffed with full-time American journalists in the region. At best there might be a handful of foreign nationals, but forget the old gum-shoe with decades-old relationships, understanding, and insights into the situation. What we have is reporters like Anderson Cooper, who 'parachute' into a country for three-four days once a quarter, get briefed by who knows who, and return with an 'exclusive report.'
DeleteGAB
Honestly I've wondered why we haven't gone ahead and gone after their oil infrastructure, like Kharg. I understood in the initial phases, but now?? Nope. Destroy their ability to export any oil, or have any income, from China or...anywhere. Their economy is already a disaster, and the reality of absolutely zero oil exports for years... might put the regime on shakier ground.
DeleteThe difficulty with that plan is that the world needs Iranian oil, and without it prices at the pump will ultimately be higher than otherwise. So
DeleteIdeally we want Iranian oil to keep flowing while denying the Iranian government the revenues from it.
If we prevent the current Iranian government from exporting oil via a blockade (eg interdicting their tankers in the Red Sea) we give ourselves flexibility to ease or tighten the noose according to circumstance, or to tax or confiscate the cargo at our discretion.
If we destroy Iran’s oil export facilities and infrastructure they’re gone for good, and we’ve lost all our flexibility because we can’t un-destroy them if, for example, we wanted to ‘reward’ a new Iranian regime, or possibly make use of the facilities ourselves.
Also, seizing and holding Kharg Island would likely be a bloody business, and nowadays we’re all very casualty averse.
"The difficulty with that plan is that the world needs Iranian oil,"
DeleteFalse. You've got to do your research. From a Google AI search about the amount of oil Iran supplies to the West,
"Western countries receive effectively negligible direct oil imports from Iran due to sanctions, with most Iranian oil exported to regional hubs and Asian markets."
The only significant impact on stopping Iranian oil exports would be on China - and that's a good thing!
Step up the quality and accuracy of your comments.
There's no way to avoid the law of demand. If China can no longer buy Iranian oil, they'll buy it from elsewhere and prices will rise.
Delete"prices will rise"
DeleteOr ... OPEC will increase production and prices will fall.
Or ... The West could use oil as a financial extortion to gain concessions from China just as China has been using rare earths to extort and blackmail the US/West.
You need to open your imagination a bit!
‘The only significant impact on stopping Iranian oil exports would be on China.’
DeleteThis is totally incorrect.
If Iranian oil exports, including LNG and condensates, were shut down the countries hardest hit would - obviously - be those with the least ability to replace supplies quickly and absorb price spikes. Most exposed would be Japan, South Korea, India and the Philippines, while China’s exposure would in fact be lower.
As well as direct supply dependence you need to look at fungibility limits, refinery configurations and vulnerabilities to specific refined product shortages eg diesel and jet fuel.
This is all very basic stuff.
" Most exposed would be Japan, South Korea, India and the Philippines"
DeleteYou fail to see the benefits and are focused only on the drawbacks. Japan and the rest should never have allowed themselves to get into a position where an enemy controls a strategic resource (oil). This is exactly analogous to the US dependence on China for rare earths. This would force Japan et.al. to sever their strategic vulnerability and that could be easily accomplished by increasing US and OPEC oil production which would benefit OPEC and the US in addition to Japan and the rest. Wins all around!
This is all very basic stuff.
Desperately trying not be political here but the military side does impact on the geopolitical. From that point of view I worry about how much of the military shortcomings are due to lack of munitions, poor availability and overall strength in depth. If so this is sending a very unsatisfactory message to the Chinese.
ReplyDeleteTwo take away lessons for China:
Delete1. it is very difficult and costly to defeat a smaller but prepared opposition (see RU/UKr, US/Iran) even though by numbers that shouldn't be the case.
2. A smart blockade scenario (e.g. Iran threatening Hormuz transits with missiles and drones, or us knocking out engine rooms of ships) can force the opposition to an eventual deal.
Taiwan has about 1-2 mo. worth of oil & LNG storage (or a weekly delivery of a tanker or two worth of oil or LNG). Without oil/LNG for transportation and electricity generation Taiwan's economy will wither on the vine, and no democratically elected leader can withstand economic pressure to held off peace talk with China. For Taiwan, it is energy resilience, more so than guns and bullets, that will decide its fate.
"Two take away lessons for China:"
DeleteGotta just about completely disagree.
1. All war is costly. That's not a lesson, it's just a fact. Defeating a smaller opponent is not difficult IF you have the focus and will as described in the post. At the start of the Iran conflict, the US appeared to have it and devastated Iran. For reasons unknown, the US then paused, not because finishing the job of defeating Iran would be difficult but because our focus and will evaporated.
2. Iran was not able to impose a blockade and force the US to negotiate. The US imposed the blockade through inaction and chose to negotiate with a beaten foe for reasons unknown.
"Taiwan ... oil"
Oil will not be an issue. Civilian oil consumption will practically cease as citizens focus on basic survival as opposed to driving around or going to work. The only "work" that will be conducted is at vital defense related factories and those will be targeted by China so those probably won't be operating. Under those conditions, there is no significant oil consumption.
Oil will be needed by the military but it won't be a case of Patton's army crossing Europe and guzzling huge quantities of fuel/oil. Taiwan will be conducting a static defense, dug into the mountains. Static defenses don't require large quantities of fuel/oil. This situation will most closely resemble the Japanese defending Iwo Jima. The Japanese had no oil/fuel reserves but didn't need much for their static defense.
When this settles down as it likely will short of a full result, it will be interesting to see how quickly China moves in to support Iran. It is the obvious outcome and will likely see China acting as Iran's white knight and setting up an enduring long term presence in the straits.
ReplyDeleteHow is that for the stuff of nightmares.
Method, Purpose, End state. The essence of good strategic planning.
ReplyDeleteGAB
We’ve inflicted a limited and temporary operational defeat on Iran, and we’ve met some of our initial tactical objectives, but strategically we’ve achieved nothing.
ReplyDeleteEverything we’ve damaged or destroyed can or has been rebuilt or replaced, and we’ll likely be left in a worse position after the war than we were before it.
We’ve killed their leaders and they’ve replaced them with people who seem even worse/crazier.
We’ve destroyed most of their airforce but the Chinese or the Russians will sell them new and better aircraft.
We’ve degraded their air defense system but they can just buy themselves a new one.
We’ve hit their missile storage and production facilities but they’re hitting us right back, and we’re the ones who are running short.
We’ve killed a bunch of their scientists and caused a lot of damage to their nuclear program but likely we’ve just set it back a ways - the technology itself is eighty years old!
We’re losing this war because Iran has ‘escalatory dominance’ - they’ve calculated that they can just keep raising the stakes until we fold, and it looks like we’re doing just that.
We’re losing not because we’ve got a bad hand, but because we’re not prepared to pay what it takes to stay in the game.
I truly hope that’s not how this is going to work out, but if we’ve got another plan I don’t know what it is.
"strategically we’ve achieved nothing."
DeleteThat's not true. Our main strategic objective was to destroy Uran's nuclear capabilities and potential and we've achieved that. It doesn't mean they can't rebuild it (if we foolishly allow it) but, for the moderate term future, Iran has lost its nuclear threat. Our other objectives have been met to varying degrees as noted in the post.
"Everything we’ve damaged or destroyed can or has been rebuilt or replaced"
Of course it can ... if we allow it. Using your criteria, we lost WWII because Germany and Japan have rebuilt their cities, industry, and military. Your logic needs some adjustment.
"We’re losing"
Don't be absurd. We're not losing. We've achieved some of our objectives and Iran is devastated. We've simply stopped short of total victory for reasons unknown but we're hardly losing. Don't let whatever feelings you may have towards Trump alter your perception of reality.
My comment above wasn’t intended as a critique of President Trump, with whose policies I generally agree.
DeleteThere’s another ‘anonymous’ a couple of posts down who isn’t me :)
"We’re losing this war because Iran has ‘escalatory dominance’ - they’ve calculated that they can just keep raising the stakes..."
ReplyDeleteDecent points until this, where I have to disagree. Maybe it's just convenient to say, but there's no possible way to look at this as a "loss". If it wasn't impacting fuel prices for the avarage Joe at home, there'd really be no downside to this at all. I'm not seeing any escalation, and certainly no dominance by Iran. A quick look at a chart of missile/drone launches shows that. Hundreds a day, to a handful. Iran's only capability is to continue shooting at their neighbors and our bases in the region, which are basically just an annoyance at this point.
The baffling question is why we ever paused, and chased a ceasefire. Iran is a boxer on the ropes... beaten but stubborn... still resilient and hanging in their, but their ability to do any real damage, especially to us, is basically nil. ( I'll qualify that by saying yes, they could hit bases, kill service members, destroy equipment, etc, as well as continue doing damage to neighbors, but in the grand scheme, it's irrelevant). So why we aren't going full bore, and going after the IRGC and government leadership, until there is none, and we force an end to this on our terms, is somthing I wish I had an answer for... because as CNO has said, uncompleted wars end up being fought again...
‘Escalatory dominance’ isn’t about which side is currently firing the most missiles.
DeleteIran has escalatory dominance because for the leadership of the regime which controls the country the war is existential, and defeat would mean not only that the Islamic Republic would not survive, but that they personally would not survive.
We, on the other hand, can walk away at any time, and spin the status quo as a victory, and I would speculate that ultimately that’s exactly what we’re going to do.
Iran is not a ‘normal’ country, that can be defeated in a conventional sense in the way that Germany was defeated in WW2. There’s no sacrifice its leaders are not prepared to inflict on their fellow citizens, and no limits on the level or extent of the retaliatory measures that they’re prepared to take if we attack them again. To make the above point clear Iran has helpfully provided a list of the regional targets that it intends to strike should we do so, which encompasses virtually every piece of infrastructure in the Gulf, specifically including the Saudi’s east/west pipeline and the Red Sea desalination plants that keep Riyadh supplied with drinking water. Think through the implications should that happen.
We on the other hand have already struck every worthwhile Iranian target within safe bombing range, and our inventory of stand-off deep strike weapons is heavily depleted.
But even if - hypothetically - we did launch a huge new wave of air strikes and killed a million Iranians in the process, their leaders wouldn’t care enough to change their thinking or their policies.
There are lessons that we should be drawing from all that, but there’s no indication that we’re doing so.
And that’s why Iran has escalatory dominance.
" There’s no sacrifice its leaders are not prepared to inflict on their fellow citizens,"
DeleteYou've just invalidated your own argument. Germany inflicted horrendous sacrifices on their own people such child soldiers, concentration camps, etc. We're not even going to debate that.
"Iran has helpfully provided a list of the regional targets that it intends to strike"
So, your contention is that because Iran has a list we should capitulate? LOL! They lack the ability to execute such a list and the US could almost totally prevent that, if we got serious about what we're doing.
"We on the other hand have already struck every worthwhile Iranian target "
Clearly not! For reasons unfathomable, we have refrained from hitting all types of military facilities and capabilities as evidence by our retaliations which hit another set of C2, launch sites, warehouses, etc. The only mystery is why, since we appear to know exactly where they all are, we have opted not to destroy them out of hand.
"their leaders wouldn’t care enough to change their thinking"
Another mystery is why we aren't hitting their leaders. We surely have a pretty good idea where they are. You can't effectively command from a cave. We have total surveillance dominance and, combined with Israel's extensive intel, we should be able to eliminate the IRGC leadership.
‘Clearly not’.
DeleteI referenced Centcom Commander Adm. Brad Cooper’s comments that US strikes had degraded Iran’s ability to attack ships, but ‘exhausted most targets’, and that together with interceptor shortages had shaped the President’s decisions.
‘Iran lacks the ability to execute such a list’ (of targets including Gulf energy infrastructure, etc.).
DeleteAnd ‘The US could almost totally prevent that (Iranian missile strikes) if we got serious…’
The potential targets listed are well within the range of Iranian missiles and in many cases cover areas of several square miles.
So if the Iranians decided to attack them they could certainly hit them, and I doubt there would be much we could do to defend them.
‘
The war against Germany was a ‘conventional’ war.
DeleteWe and our allies invaded the country and occupied its capital city. Then, and only then, did their leaders sit down around a table and sign a formal surrender agreement.
That will never happen with Iran, and just like Germany, they won’t ‘surrender’ no matter how many millions of tons of bombs we drop, nor how many of their people we kill.
"‘exhausted most targets’"
DeleteWhich is obviously not true since we keep finding dozens of worthwhile targets to strike after each Iran attack on a ship.
" if the Iranians decided to attack them they could certainly hit them, and I doubt there would be much we could do to defend them."
DeleteThe Iranians have lost the capacity to mount wholesale attacks and occasional, sporadic attacks accomplish little except making enemies of every other country in the region - countries that were previously neutral, if not quietly supportive, of Iran before.
For reasons unknown, we have opted to stop striking Iranian launch sites and missile storage sites. If we would continue, Iran would lose even the meager capabilities it still has.
" just like Germany, they won’t ‘surrender’ no matter how many millions of tons of bombs we drop, nor how many of their people we kill."
DeleteHave you read any history? Germany did, indeed surrender after Hitler died. Japan surrendered without a single American soldier entering the country. Your vision is historically unfounded and logically false.
Reports indicate that Iran's "civilian" leadership has already tried to surrender (capitulate to US terms) but has been thwarted by IRGC leaders who, for unfathomable reasons, we refuse to go after.
I don’t know how many drones and missiles Iran has remaining and what capacity they have to launch attacks on regional infrastructure.
DeleteI also don’t know if they could attack a DDG in the Strait with a drone and missile swarm and do some damage.
I also don’t know if the targets we’re still hitting are ‘worthwhile’ as you say, or if the Centcom commander is correct when he says we’ve pretty much exhausted them all.
Point is that unless you have access to classified information neither do you.
Generally best not to be overconfident and not to underestimate the enemy, which is pretty much what we’ve been doing so far.
"I don’t know"
DeleteSo why are you commenting if you don't know anything?
I do not see that any of the 4 objectives are even partially successful. 1) decapitating the mullahs should not have been an objective, it should have been decapitating all the hardliners, clerics and laics 2) the nuclear capability has certainly not been destroyed "forever" there are enough scientists to start again, and Iran has even more incentive than before to go full speed 3) Iran capability to strike neighbouring countries has obviously not been obliterated, and just a few drones / missiles per day are sufficient to be a problem, and to bring Ormuz strait to a standstill 4) Iran continue to be a rogue nation, leveraging its clients eg. Huthis & Hezbollah
ReplyDeleteTo summarise, the situation is worse than it was before, it's clearly a political and a military blunder, again, after the Afghanistan and Irak 2 fiascos.
"it should have been decapitating all the hardliners"
DeleteCome on, now. You're applying hindsight. NO ONE, including you, saw the IRGC taking over the way they have. We had a reasonable objective to kill the religious leadership and we succeeded. No one anticipated the IRGC's actions.
"nuclear capability has certainly not been destroyed "forever"
It most certainly has unless we foolishly allow them to rebuild.
"Ormuz strait to a standstill "
That is purely our doing. For reasons unfathomable, we've declined to protect the strait despite having more than enough capability to do so.
" the situation is worse than it was before"
This is just patently untrue. Even if we were to simply walk away at this point, we've certainly eliminated Iran as a nuclear threat for many years to come. That's an undisputed positive outcome. I've listed the other benefits we've achieved in the post. To state that the situation is worse now than when this began is allowing your obvious hatred of Trump to alter your perception of reality. The Trump administration ahs made some puzzling decisions during the course of this conflict and I, myself, have questioned and criticized them, however, I do so with a firm grip on reality - a grip you seem to have lost.
By the way, we are NOT going to discuss Trump, personally. Be warned.
"few drones / missiles per day are sufficient to be a problem"
Are you under the impression that in a war the enemy will never strike back and, if they do, it means we've lost? Of course the enemy will strike back. A "problem" is when the British were forced to abandon Europe or when France fell. A few odd missiles is an annoyance in the context of a war, not a problem.
If you wish to comment again, be sure your include reality. If not ...
Those few Iranian missiles have caused absolutely no significant damage and have had the effect of eliminating any sympathies the other Middle East countries may have harbored toward Iran. Iran's missiles have solidified the anti-Iran consensus in the region the way all our previous diplomatic efforts could not. Those missiles have been the equivalent of Iran committing diplomatic suicide. If you can't see that then your view of reality is badly flawed.
I didn’t write the post to which you responded, however;
DeleteAlthough you state that ‘Iran’s nuclear capability ‘most certainly has’ been destroyed forever’ there really isn’t any solid publicly available evidence that the U.S. bombing eliminated Iran’s nuclear-weapon capability in the sense of making the development of a nuclear weapon impossible. What the evidence does support is (a) that some strikes damaged parts of Iran’s nuclear fuel/enrichment-related infrastructure, and (b) that weapons-weaponization activities subsequently appear to have been suspended/absent for a period - although Iran continued enrichment activities and kept enough relevant capabilities that significant concern within the IAEA remained.
Terms such as “permanently eliminated” and “destroyed forever” fall more into the category of political slogans than evidenced factual statements.
I stand by my comment 3:14. It was obvious for anybody that the the hardliners were not only the clerics eg. Quassem Soleimani head of Quds force killed by the USA in 2020. The nuclear threat was a threat in being, it was not yet an immediate "clear and present danger" cf. Tulsi Gabard ex. DNI. And unless the USA engage either in permanent bombing or occupation of Iran or succeed in regime change, I do not see how Iran can be prevented to rebuild nuclear & missiles facilities. The trafic in Ormuz is nearly stopped, gaz prices are high, how can you pretend that the situation is not worse than before. I am not saying that the USA cannot win this war nor cannot obliterate Iran, but so far we have not seen strategic success.
Delete"I didn’t write the post to which you responded"
DeleteAdd a simple username to the end of your comments and there won't be any confusion.
"there really isn’t any solid publicly available evidence that the U.S. bombing eliminated Iran’s nuclear-weapon capability"
DeleteOf course not but the publicly available information all strongly suggests that. Conversely, there is no publicly available evidence that shows their nuclear capabilities WEREN'T destroyed. The preponderance of available news strongly supports the position. Until evidence to the contrary emerges, the US and Israel seem satisfied that Iran has lost the ability to pursue nuclear weapons for the foreseeable future and I accept that.
"It was obvious for anybody"
DeleteWithout a doubt, you're engaging in hindsight. If you actually anticipated what has developed then you're the only one in the world who did and you should be on the uppermost planning sessions for the US!
"nuclear threat was a threat in being, it was not yet an immediate "clear and present danger"
LOL! Most estimates I've seen indicate that Iran was weeks or months away from a nuclear weapon. I call that a "clear and present danger". If you want to wait until a nuclear weapon has been launched and is seconds away from hitting to call it a "clear and present danger", I guess that's your opinion.
"I do not see how Iran can be prevented to rebuild nuclear & missiles facilities."
You're not only defeatist, you're oblivious defeatist! You would have said the same thing about Germany and Japan at the end of WWII, I guess. You prevent rebuilding by changing the regime so that they don't want to rebuild and, if they attempt to rebuild, you bomb every effort to do so.
"how can you pretend that the situation is not worse than before"
Because I have the benefit of a grasp on reality. I've listed all the benefits we've gained so far so I won't bother repeating it. You are objectivity-challenged.
As far as Iran’s nuclear weapons program goes, those who know don’t talk, and those who talk don’t know.
DeleteBut if the Pentagon really believes that it’s been obliterated then why is the President talking about bombing Pickax Mountain?
"But if the Pentagon really believes that it’s been obliterated then why is the President talking about bombing Pickax Mountain?"
DeleteBecause reports indicate that it is not functional. From an MSN website article:
"ISIS’ [Institute for Science and International Security] assessment, based on satellite imagery, is that the facility is not yet operational, but construction continues.
According to ISIS, it “remains unclear when Pickaxe Mountain could be operational… It is also unclear if Iran still plans on installing a large-scale assembly facility, given the destruction of Iran’s centrifuge program, including Iran’s ability to make centrifuge components needed for an assembly plant.”
"...we've declined to protect the strait despite having more than enough capability to do so..."
ReplyDeleteWith all the units in theatre, not just the Navy, but Air Force especially.. I'd think that being able to put an overwhelming umbrella over the strait and coastal Iran... Im struggling to see why we don't put a group of DDGs together that operates in the Gulf/Strait continuously. Sure there's some threat... but the ships can defend themselves, plus any launcher or facilities involved could be targeted and hit immediately. Yea, the ships would be acting as bait but it feels like the risk is better than not asserting ourselves and making things happen. (Do you think doing somthing like this is too high risk?). I understand it's the insurance companies, not Iran that have "closed" the strait... but surely we can undertake more aggressive action to eliminate threats as well as be more reassuring to the shippers and insurance companies that the threat is being dismantled, and that the Iranians don't truly control anything. Why do you think we aren't being more aggressive with the Navy? Is the Navy being too risk-averse, or more a matter of political/higher level decisions?
Ultimately this has to be down to the Government. If they tell the Navy to be more aggressive then surely they have to perform the ultimate task of the Navy, to keep shipping lanes open against all threats. Sorry if that appears to be a criticism of the Trump administration but that seems to be what's happening!
DeleteAt its narrowest the Strait of Hormuz is only about 20 miles wide, so a DDG would be less than 15 miles or so from the Iranian coastline.
DeleteThey would likely swarm it with UAVs, missiles, naval drones and anything else they had in their toolbox.
They probably couldn’t sink it, but they could do some serious damage and maybe kill some crew.
Basically we’d just be giving the Iranians some target practice, and setting ourselves up for more failure and humiliation.
Fortunately someone in the Pentagon seems to have worked that out, hence lots of talk but no escorts.
"They would likely swarm it with UAVs, missiles, naval drones and anything else they had in their toolbox."
DeleteLOL. The Houthis tried this and failed completely. Iran has no "swarm" capability left and an Aegis cruiser has more than enough capability to deal with the odd drone. Add in air support and it's not even an issue. Do it right and actually secure the strait by attacking all the sites that we clearly know about but are refraining from hitting and it becomes laughable. Really do it right and put troops ashore to sweep the coastal region and we don't even need a ship.
You need a modicum of realistic knowledge about combat capabilities to comment on this site. Please drastically improve the quality of your comments and include just a bit of reality.
"Sorry if that appears to be a criticism of the Trump administration but that seems to be what's happening!"
ReplyDeleteThat's a simple statement of fact. The administration, for reasons unknown, have elected not to make a serious effort to secure the strait. Of course, it's plausible that the administration wanted the Navy to secure the strait and the Navy responded that they couldn't surge enough ships and resources to do the job. That would be a separate, major problem. For the moment, I assume that the administration just didn't want to make the effort to secure the strait. I have my own theory about why, contrary to all military common sense, that would be the case but I'll refrain from sharing that since it involves politics rather than military matters.
I do too, but as it's political I won't mention it either. On the military front I'd love to know how the munitions stocks are looking and how big a factor that is playing.
DeleteHere's a question I haven't heard addressed. From time to time I see suggestions that we occupy Kharg Island with ground troops to prevent Iran from exporting oil. But I don't understand why this is necessary. Wouldn't it be simpler to place underwater mines in the approaches to the island? It can be done by air, even with standoff of somewhere between 15 and 40 miles if I recall correctly. Obviously that's not long enough under normal conditions to protect the bombers, but supposedly we've destroyed most of Iran's long range radar systems and can probably at least temporarily suppress the rest. So it seems like the risk should be acceptable (says the guy who wouldn't actually be flying the mission, so there's that ...)
ReplyDelete"don't understand why this is necessary."
DeleteI do not understand why seizure or your suggestion, mining, would be necessary. We have already halted all Iranian oil shipments through the strait so Kharg Island is already useless to Iran.
Militarily, it seems clear that we need to revise our doctrines and weapons systems to enable us to protect forces, ships, and installations against $30k drones in a cost-effective way. This was an anticipated issue before the war, but looms especially stark now.
ReplyDeleteI have no idea why one would think we had a total commitment at the beginning. It's easy to shoot a Tomahawk, much harder to justify putting troops on the ground, and our current Commander in Chief has long excoriated former presidents for miring ground troops in the Middle East.
It seems rather clear that closing the Straits and the missile shortage were both foreseen possibilities, but the war was undertaken in the hopes that it could be won quickly by a decapitation strike followed by captiulation of the second tier officials ala Venezuela. When this didn't happen (and given that Israel has killed the top leadership of Hamas and Hezbolah many times over without those organizations collapsing, that's maybe not surprising), we ran up against the limits of our commitment rather quickly.
At no point have I seen evidence of any appetite among senior leadership to risk either putting US forces into the range of drones without plentiful interceptor missiles to protect them, or in fact putting ground troops into Iran at all. I'm sure the military brass is happy with these things, but as far as I can tell, civilian leadership shares that perspective.
"I have no idea why one would think we had a total commitment at the beginning."
DeleteWe most certainly did have pretty much total commitment initially. We were running non-stop strikes from all manner of platforms and were surging ground troops to the area. Unfortunately, that commitment evaporated after a few weeks.
It seems to me that the "inexplicable" military items are very explicable by the fact that war is politics continued through other means. I understand the desire to leave politics out, but I don't think it's possible to have a meaningful discussion without it.
ReplyDeleteWhat is "commitment" but political will? I
"I understand the desire to leave politics out"
DeleteGood! Then you understand why this is a dead end conversation.
We lost our focus. We are supposed to be preparing for a fight with China, but we chose to shift our focus and make an unforced error in attacking Iran. We've demonstrated our might and our capabilities, but China has a better grasp of what we can do and is not going to be as unprepared as before.
ReplyDeleteIt's going to take time to rebuild our weapons to fight China. We had better hope they're still filling their missiles with water instead of fuel.
"We lost our focus."
DeleteHardly. The publicly stated reason for war was to prevent Iran from attaining nuclear capability and acting to prevent that is hardly losing one's focus.
I was under the impression that Midnight Hammer 2025 had achieved that.
DeleteI feel troubled that this administration does not seem as focused on preparing for war against China.
"I was under the impression that Midnight Hammer 2025 had achieved that."
DeleteI was under the impression that you knew that operation targeted only three sites, not Iran's entire nuclear program. Setting Trump's customary hyperbole aside, most assessments concluded that the Iranian nuclear program was set back a few to several years with severe damage to all sites. Assessments differ on how much, if any, of Iran's stockpile of uranium was lost at any of the sites.
"...we chose to shift our focus and make an unforced error in attacking Iran."
ReplyDeleteWe don't know exactly what prompted the attack on Iran. But, I do recall there being some mention early on of an urgency to do so. Maybe we got Intel that they were close with the nuclear program, or we got wind of their longer ranged missiles... or perhaps a big order of antiair systems from Russia or China that we didnt want to have to deal with later... so the administration felt compelled to act... but whatever triggered it isn't somthing that's ever truly been spelled out, and the nuclear program reasoning that's constantly repeated might be a half-truth to protect Intel sources and the true reason. I don't think the administration did this randomly or out of boredom, and I think the constant reports that nobody expected the strait to be "closed " are ridiculous. Anyone with a smattering of knowledge about Iran and regional history anticipated the strait, insurance companies, and the oil flow would become issues.
So yes, China had started to become the focus, but I don't think that anything we've done, or anything we've used in Iran is a big secret to China. We've depleted weapons stocks, but frankly we didn't have enough for a China fight beforehand. The only difference now is that everyone who reads or watches the news knows, but at least it's finally being addressed.
Ukraine and recent warfare have taught us you go all in early, or its going to be a long drawn-out expensive affair against an adversary who can threaten billions in assets by drone or missiles built in a cave. Iran has won not by beating us in a military sense but by persevering and outright showing that the overall premise, that the US could overturn JCPOA and get a better deal through a military operation has failed. JCPOA was the best option and it's cost us billions and lost political favor in the region to learn a hard lesson. We needed anti mine assets, ground troops and establish a no fly zone with drone patrols constantly on overwatch over missile launch sites on day 1.
ReplyDeleteI truly wonder if the military looks at Ukraine or any of the middle east wars with any sense of learning and adapting based on their results. The old paradigms have changed, a tank or aircraft carrier is currently a big target that can be taken out or at least given a bloody nose with ease by something as simple as guy operating from a minivan or from an old tugboat sitting off the coast.
The race is on for someone to build a mobile platform laser based system that can take down drones with a decent firing rate. I consider it only a matter of time before a drone swarm goes after something big like a base or ship.
The military has to reform itself into something smaller, cheaper and more effective. It may have to start by outright replacing the current military leadership, especially procurement
"JCPOA was the best option"
DeleteThat's a debatable statement, to put it mildly. JCPOA was a failure as Iran routinely flouted it. For example, from Factually website,
"After Iran began breaching JCPOA limits from 2018 onward, western and independent monitors warned that enrichment capacity and high‑enriched stockpiles cut breakout to months and by some accounts to “10–15 days” for the fissile material alone ..."
https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/how-close-was-iran-to-a-nuclear-weapon-timeline-projections-f75eb2
It is widely accepted that Iran evaded inspections, hid materials, lied, and enriched material beyond the prescribed limits. JCPOA was a failure.
The options were continue the JCPOA path and allow Iran to achieve nuclear weapons or destroy their nuclear capability. Very few sane people would want to see Iran with nuclear weapons. The choice was clear.
This, however, is more a political issue than military so you've had your say and I've offered mine. That's the end of this discussion. We'll now return to military matters. Thank you.
#ComNavOps
ReplyDeletein Centers of Gravity
1) Leadership
"For unknown reasons, the US has declined to go after the IRGC leadership in any significant manner."
This is incomplete info
both US and Israel went after IRGC leadership and killed many of them but
IRGC leadership positions have well-established succession mechanisms, allowing senior leadership losses to be replaced rapidly.
as soon as you kill one other pre-decided person takes his place
Iran has long maintained formal chains of succession for:
IRGC commanders
Aerospace Force leadership
regional commands
Quds Force
General Staff positions
3) Strait of Hormuz:
it's not just Strait of Hormuz it's the entire path
from Kuwait to Strait of Hormuz to Bab el-Mandeb, through red sea to Suez Canal.
4) Finance: Trans-shipment of Iranian Oil in Malaysian waters needs to be considered
"declined to go after the IRGC leadership"
DeleteGoing after the leadership means continuing to go after them until there are none left. We have declined to do that for unknown reasons.
"it's not just Strait of Hormuz it's the entire path"
Everyone understands that without needing to spell it out.
"Trans-shipment of Iranian Oil in Malaysian waters needs to be considered"
?? No idea what you're talking about.