Addressing the UN General Assembly, the US president defended the war against Iran, saying it stopped Tehran from getting a nuclear weapon. He predicted a future deal and warned of severe consequences if diplomacy fails.
It’d mean that the US ran out of escalation potential and still lost. I don’t necessarily agree with their conclusion, but America losing escalation dominance (the ability to out-escalate the enemy) would be a pretty big deal.
I think it comes down to strategy. The US has certainly inflicted more damage and death on Iran. Iran has used cheaper weapons and cost the US a fortune.
Clearly the US strategy of parking ships in the Strait and bombing has failed. All they could do now is commit to a land invasion which is not politically feasible.
I wouldn’t use this as a gauge of full US capabilities. This isn’t a full invasion like Ukraine. Although it is demonstrating the new economics of war through drones, and of course the instability of American politics.
That all being said I doubt a ground invasion would be successful unless the goal was limited to only control the Strait. Iran has a lot in its favor in terms of a ground war.
A land invasion is also not militarily feasible. Iran can hit pretty much any point in West Asia with tens of metres precision. If the US tried to land troops anywhere near the Iranian borders, they’d be droned in a matter of hours.
Yeah. A typical strategy would be missiles to take out anti-air, bombing to soften them up, then the ground invasion.
But Iran’s anti-air can be pulled back into mountain tunnels for safety. And the IRGC and irregulars would fight back hard. This wouldn’t be like rolling into Iraq, toppling Saddam, and seeing everyone drop their guns and uniforms and scatter.
Now maybe if the US was capable of manufacturing millions of cheap drones it might be possible, but Raytheon will ensure that everything is as complicated and expensive as possible.
It’d mean that the US ran out of escalation potential and still lost. I don’t necessarily agree with their conclusion, but America losing escalation dominance (the ability to out-escalate the enemy) would be a pretty big deal.
I think it comes down to strategy. The US has certainly inflicted more damage and death on Iran. Iran has used cheaper weapons and cost the US a fortune.
Clearly the US strategy of parking ships in the Strait and bombing has failed. All they could do now is commit to a land invasion which is not politically feasible.
I wouldn’t use this as a gauge of full US capabilities. This isn’t a full invasion like Ukraine. Although it is demonstrating the new economics of war through drones, and of course the instability of American politics.
That all being said I doubt a ground invasion would be successful unless the goal was limited to only control the Strait. Iran has a lot in its favor in terms of a ground war.
A land invasion is also not militarily feasible. Iran can hit pretty much any point in West Asia with tens of metres precision. If the US tried to land troops anywhere near the Iranian borders, they’d be droned in a matter of hours.
Yeah. A typical strategy would be missiles to take out anti-air, bombing to soften them up, then the ground invasion.
But Iran’s anti-air can be pulled back into mountain tunnels for safety. And the IRGC and irregulars would fight back hard. This wouldn’t be like rolling into Iraq, toppling Saddam, and seeing everyone drop their guns and uniforms and scatter.
Now maybe if the US was capable of manufacturing millions of cheap drones it might be possible, but Raytheon will ensure that everything is as complicated and expensive as possible.