Your essays are always so well thoughtout and informative. I agree with all the points here but one aspect of our dealings with Iran sort of mystifies me. Your essay contains this paragraph:
"Military intervention—direct or indirect—is not a viable option. Iran is not Libya. It is not Iraq in 2003. It is a large, cohesive state with capable conventional forces, powerful proxy networks, and a population that would rally against foreign invasion even while opposing its own rulers."
I very much agree with this concern. What mystifies me is that Operation Midnight Hammer, while not an invasion, seemed to have the same concerns. Iran had resources that could strike back at us one way or another. But, nothing seems to have come of our action (as far as I know).
Did we overestimate them? Are we more threatening than I give us credit for? Did Israel really weaken them? (My money is on the third option).
Regardless, I am not sure how big is the threat of retribution. I am concerned, but glad to be wrong (for now, it seems) about blowback from Midnight Hammer.
Ken, the discontinuity with Midnight Hammer is the fact that Iranian nuclear capabilities, and their ability to employ them is a global threat. Our direct involvement supporting protestors will tie them to us and justify drastic countermeasures. But I do appreciate you giving this feedback. Makes me think.
Fair enough! Involvement at this time does get us mixed up in their affairs. I wonder about their ability to respond… but that’s a thought experiment because I don’t think we should act. It’s a tense time there. Thanks for the response!
Fourth option: infiltrate more Star Link terminals, destroy their recently launched satellites, cut off their oil exports to China, and foment the unrest. This guy is being groomed to replace the Islamists: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Reza-Pahlavi
Another great essay, brother, but I have to challenge you on this point:
"Direct military intervention in Iran would be catastrophic. It would unify the regime, fracture alliances, destabilize the region, endanger U.S. forces, and—most importantly—destroy the very protest movement it claims to support. History is unambiguous on this point."
We just took military action in June, and Operation 'Midnight Hammer' (as of now) seems to be the opposite of that. That military action against the regime appears to be, in part, the catalyst for what is happening now and why it is more widespread.
I am in full agreement with you on pretty much everything else.
Mike I am “kinda” in agreement with your post that Midnight Hammer may have help precipitate this uprising, although I believe it has actually been building for years. Having said that, Midnight Hammer was clearly in response to the threat posed by the regime to US interests and allies in the region, so therefore had at least tacit if no active approval of others and was not in support of an insurgency.
If we immediately throw our public support to the protestors, we will play into the narrative that this protest is not about the Iranian government but rather foreign invasion. The few Iranians I have had contact with believe that such support would give the theocracy all the justification it needs to unleash massive force against the protests.
Thanks for reading sir, and thanks for the feedback.
Your essays are always so well thoughtout and informative. I agree with all the points here but one aspect of our dealings with Iran sort of mystifies me. Your essay contains this paragraph:
"Military intervention—direct or indirect—is not a viable option. Iran is not Libya. It is not Iraq in 2003. It is a large, cohesive state with capable conventional forces, powerful proxy networks, and a population that would rally against foreign invasion even while opposing its own rulers."
I very much agree with this concern. What mystifies me is that Operation Midnight Hammer, while not an invasion, seemed to have the same concerns. Iran had resources that could strike back at us one way or another. But, nothing seems to have come of our action (as far as I know).
Did we overestimate them? Are we more threatening than I give us credit for? Did Israel really weaken them? (My money is on the third option).
Regardless, I am not sure how big is the threat of retribution. I am concerned, but glad to be wrong (for now, it seems) about blowback from Midnight Hammer.
Ken, the discontinuity with Midnight Hammer is the fact that Iranian nuclear capabilities, and their ability to employ them is a global threat. Our direct involvement supporting protestors will tie them to us and justify drastic countermeasures. But I do appreciate you giving this feedback. Makes me think.
Fair enough! Involvement at this time does get us mixed up in their affairs. I wonder about their ability to respond… but that’s a thought experiment because I don’t think we should act. It’s a tense time there. Thanks for the response!
Fourth option: infiltrate more Star Link terminals, destroy their recently launched satellites, cut off their oil exports to China, and foment the unrest. This guy is being groomed to replace the Islamists: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Reza-Pahlavi
Another great essay, brother, but I have to challenge you on this point:
"Direct military intervention in Iran would be catastrophic. It would unify the regime, fracture alliances, destabilize the region, endanger U.S. forces, and—most importantly—destroy the very protest movement it claims to support. History is unambiguous on this point."
We just took military action in June, and Operation 'Midnight Hammer' (as of now) seems to be the opposite of that. That military action against the regime appears to be, in part, the catalyst for what is happening now and why it is more widespread.
I am in full agreement with you on pretty much everything else.
Mike I am “kinda” in agreement with your post that Midnight Hammer may have help precipitate this uprising, although I believe it has actually been building for years. Having said that, Midnight Hammer was clearly in response to the threat posed by the regime to US interests and allies in the region, so therefore had at least tacit if no active approval of others and was not in support of an insurgency.
If we immediately throw our public support to the protestors, we will play into the narrative that this protest is not about the Iranian government but rather foreign invasion. The few Iranians I have had contact with believe that such support would give the theocracy all the justification it needs to unleash massive force against the protests.
Thanks for reading sir, and thanks for the feedback.