this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2026
600 points (98.4% liked)
People Twitter
9763 readers
1598 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They can just hold the world’s supply of oil, ammonia and helium to ransom. Breaking an Iranian blockade by force would require a WW2-scale effort, with the US, Europe, China and the gulf states fighting alongside each other to take Tehran and impose some kind of regime change all parties find acceptable.
China and Russia would be fighting against the EU and US in that hypothetical wwiii scenario
Isnt china and Iran allies and already have agreements for discounted oil trades?
Unless Dickhead drops a nuke and threatens more. Which I wouldn't put past him.
Iran also has nukes.
Says who? Definitely not Iran or any international organisation, and even Netanyahu only claims they are two weeks away for the last 20 years.
They probably could make dirty bombs with the enriched Uranium they have, but unless they are playing the world's best feint, they aren't going to have a working nuke any time soon.
Still wouldn’t put it past him unfortunately
Have you looked at a map? Do you know how far Hormuz is from Tehran?
That's the point. You would need to conquer the entire country to a point where firing off truck-launched ballistic missiles and Shahed drones isn't viable any more.
You don't think the US army would be enough to conquer Iran if they actually started puttng boots on the ground?
You mean the same army that spent 20 years replacing the Taliban with the Taliban? And is now under new, significantly dumber management? No, no I don't.
As an Afghan friend of mine says, it was not the fault of the US. The Afghan people is not ready to form a western-style government, as it's a land of a hundred tribes where most just think of themselves. This is why the government fell so quickly when the US left. Few are motivated to defend the country, corruption is immense.
In her words, it was totally understandable for them to leave, as they saw this and realized they would be fighting a losing battle for decades by staying.
Pretty much spot on; the only way for Afghanistan to have succeeded as a democracy would have required multiple generations of occupation, in order to permanently impact the culture through ideological immersion.
Only once the pre-occupation population dies out (or at least severely diminished due to old age) - and are replaced by successive generations that grew up in that environment - would it become self-sustaining.
It’s very easy to dismiss the Afghan people have “always been like that” - all the while forgetting that the current religious ferver is mostly due to a power vacuum following the failed Soviet invasion of the late ‘80s.
Prior to that, the metropolitan areas weren’t all that different to pre-revolution Iran.
So America can at max half ass all their decisions without thinking of the long term aside from the money the private military contractors made during 20 years? Got it make sure the USA stays the fuck out of the middle east
Shouldn't have started started a war without intending to 'win the peace', in a Marshall Plan sort of way.
Oh, absolutely. My point is more that the US shouldn't have been there to begin with, just like the US shouldn't be bombing Iranian children now.
Perhaps. The same friend is thankful that the US did try to save them from the Taliban, at least.
Winning a war and installing a lasting regime are two very different things. The US crushed the war part and fumbled the regime building.
So they won the battle but lost the war?
They won the war but failed at installing a lasting regime that aligns with their interests. A decades-long occupation is not generally counted as part of a war.
So... they lost the war?
It really is. War means you crush your enemies. We absolutely did not.
That is correct, and don't let anybody tell you you are wrong.
Given how well they did in Afghanistan and Iraq, sure.
And Vietnam. Our military isn't great with boots on the ground because that's not the point. This is for making military money and that's it.
That isn't quite accurate. The US military is very good at killing people and destroying things. To win you need a strategy that goes beyond those things. It involves aspects outside the military. You need diplomats to coordinate and negotiate with allies, diplomats to meet and negotiate with the opposition in conflicts where that is feasible, a strategy that has end goals and a reasonable way to get to those goals, political entities to explain to the US citizenry and the world at large why the conflict is necessary, and a bunch more. The military doesn't really do most of that, and the US hasn't bothered with having any of those things for a long time. The problem is the US government keeps just saying to 'conquer' some country and giving no real sense of what that even means.
And making Petrobarons* spelling richer and maintaining USD hegemony through petrodollar. We invaded Iraq because Hussein was trying to convert Iraq's UN Food-for-Oil account from petrodollar to petroeuro.
That's kind of my point. The US military is pretty good at doing what militaries are for. Its other parts of the government that decide where to point them. And where they have been pointed has been stupid/destructive/dictated by oligarchs for a long time.
Pretty sure at this point we know what it means.
It's an attempt to distract from the Epstein files.
They conquere Iraq and Afghanistan quite fast, what they half-heartedly tried and failed at was building a lasting regime that they didn't directly control.
Trump has fired a lot of our best generals, alienated NATO, and screwed over the young men he'd need to join up.
One thing that people overlook is that FDR had been helping Americans for almost a decade when WW2 broke out. And there was still a memory of the draft from WW1. Trump's already having to reduce military standards and the War hasn't gotten out of first gear yet.
Considering how bad Afghanistan was with half population and no stranglehold on critical shortcut... yeah not a chance. USA population is what 300mil+? Iran is about 90+.
How bad what was? America took that entire country in two months. Iraq was just one.
America took parts of it and camped out in the cities for 20 years. The rest of it ebbed and flowed depending on the date.
I'm all in favor of getting rid of the US military, I'm not sure I support doing so by sending American troops to die
Fuckall.