The idea that using direct force as a means of intimidation hasn’t been viable since the rise of nationalism in the 19th century. Attacks like this are only useful insofar as they can cripple an enemy - in the case of both Japan-US in WW2 and US-Iran now, such is not the case.
At best, their nuclear program has been setback a few years - at worst, only a few months. And in both cases, the perception that it is necessary will have been strengthened considerably.
This is only a non-foolish move if, in context, either a war is going to start very soon or Iran’s government is about to be overthrown. The latter I wouldn’t count on; the former is just a different form of foolishness - and a worse one at that.
tl;dr; sucker-punching someone in the face is not how you make them eager for peace. It’s how you make them realize that all you understand is war, which is a bit antithetical to negotiating a lasting peace.
I acknowledge that nationalism (and the accompanying phenomenon of mass conscription) have changed the nature of warfare, but I don’t think that that is as much a deciding factor in these circumstances as you apparently do. The Iranian people could be mobilized for war despite the odds if the Iranian government chose to do so, but the government itself can still be intimidated. (And, in the conflict you referenced in the meme, it was in fact an act of intimidation by the USA which ended that war.)
However, my more central disagreement with you is that I think that this bombing should be thought of as the start of a war rather than as an alternative to war. Iran might choose to make the war very brief by negotiating a surrender before further military action takes place, or Trump may be foolish enough to have started a war he does not intend to actually fight if Iran does not surrender immediately, but if I were Trump then I would not have ordered this attack unless I was ready and willing to fight until Iranian surrender. Unlike the USA in World War II, Iran has no plausible means to win the war if the USA has the will to follow through.
In short, arguments that the Iranian nuclear program has only been set back a small amount are only true if we don’t keep bombing them, but my conclusion from that is that we should keep bombing them now that we’ve decided to start. If we do, they can’t build a bomb.
The Iranian people could be mobilized for war despite the odds if the Iranian government chose to do so, but the government itself can still be intimidated.
That’s just the problem - the nature of nationalism makes that abstract, realist negotiation extremely difficult. Extremely powerful countries can sometimes get away with it by the apathy of their citizens to far-off conflicts, but direct threats to a polity rally citizenry around even repulsive national governments - whether the national government wills it or no. Iran is no democracy, but it is still built on the compliance of its citizenry - if the opinions of the citizenry are not “We should lay down and take it” - an opinion rarely expressed even by highly outmatched peoples - then the Iranian government has no choice but to respond. Even if an overthrow of the government directly is not possible, internal politiking would spell doom for the careers of those who failed to take action, and propel ambitious politicians to the forefront.
You don’t need a democracy to have politiking.
(And, in the conflict you referenced in the meme, it was in fact an act of intimidation by the USA which ended that war.)
“Intimidation” is a funny way to describe wiping out two major military-industrial centers after four years of brutal warfare stripping Japan of all holdings east of the home islands and the surrender of all its allies.
However, my more central disagreement with you is that I think that this bombing should be thought of the start of a war as opposed to a potential alternative to war.
In which case the barking about peace from Trump is nonsense.
Iran might choose to make the war very brief by negotiating a surrender before further military action takes place, or Trump may be foolish enough to have started a war he does not intend to actually fight if Iran does not surrender immediately, but if I were Trump then I would not have ordered this attack unless I was ready and willing to fight until Iranian surrender.
Trump is foolish enough that anything is possible.
Again, using this to start another war in the Sandbox is just a different - and worse - flavor of foolishness than thinking “NOW is the time for PEACE”.
In short, arguments that the Iranian nuclear program has only been set back a small amount are only true if we don’t keep bombing them, but my conclusion from that is that we should keep bombing them now that we’ve decided to start. If we do, they can’t build a bomb.
… what level of bombing do you think would be necessary to maintain Iran’s inability to construct a nuclear weapon anywhere inside of Iran?
What level of military involvement do you think would be necessary for such an undertaking?
direct threats to a polity rally citizenry around even repulsive national governments
This is true but I suspect that attacks on remote, secret uranium enrichment facilities will not lead to particularly strong public outrage unless the Iranian government wants to stir up that outrage. If it doesn’t, it can claim that the damage wasn’t severe (as it has been doing) and then later obscure the impact of whatever restrictions it agrees to abide by. The average Iranian isn’t going to know the difference between an agreement that leaves Iran on the brink of building a bomb and an agreement that leaves it with purely symbolic enrichment capability nowhere near what building a bomb would require.
The more visible Israeli attacks may be less easy to downplay, but even there the government can ameliorate public opinion by exaggerate the scope of the damage to Israel that has already been done.
wiping out two major military-industrial centers
By that point in the war, Japan effectively had no military-industrial capability left. Its only remaining strategy was guerilla warfare in order to make conquest of the home islands cost more than what the USA was willing to pay, and in this context the atomic bombs were an act of intimidation.
In which case the barking about peace from Trump is nonsense.
Since I do think that the Iranian government still has the option to back down, I disagree with you here. I suppose we’ll see which one of us is right over the course of the coming weeks.
Trump is foolish enough that anything is possible.
I agree, and that makes me very worried even though I think that the attack on Iran is not inherently a mistake.
This is true but I suspect that attacks on remote, secret uranium enrichment facilities will not lead to particularly strong public outrage unless the Iranian government wants to stir up that outrage.
Imagine if Iran bombed remote, secret military bases on US soil and then bragged about it.
Do you think that there wouldn’t be public outrage, even if the US government tried to cover it up?
It isn’t about the nature of the target. It’s being targeted that raises hackles.
By that point in the war, Japan effectively had no military-industrial capability.
That’s not even close to true. Being horrifically outmatched is not the same as having no capacity.
The objectives are different. If the USA set out to try nation-building then I would be opposed for exactly the reasons you have in mind, but I don’t think that the USA has any intention of occupying Iran in any circumstances.
The idea that using direct force as a means of intimidation hasn’t been viable since the rise of nationalism in the 19th century. Attacks like this are only useful insofar as they can cripple an enemy - in the case of both Japan-US in WW2 and US-Iran now, such is not the case.
At best, their nuclear program has been setback a few years - at worst, only a few months. And in both cases, the perception that it is necessary will have been strengthened considerably.
This is only a non-foolish move if, in context, either a war is going to start very soon or Iran’s government is about to be overthrown. The latter I wouldn’t count on; the former is just a different form of foolishness - and a worse one at that.
tl;dr; sucker-punching someone in the face is not how you make them eager for peace. It’s how you make them realize that all you understand is war, which is a bit antithetical to negotiating a lasting peace.
Akshully, at worst, they have working nukes already.
Fuu-
insert terminator nuclear explosion gif
I acknowledge that nationalism (and the accompanying phenomenon of mass conscription) have changed the nature of warfare, but I don’t think that that is as much a deciding factor in these circumstances as you apparently do. The Iranian people could be mobilized for war despite the odds if the Iranian government chose to do so, but the government itself can still be intimidated. (And, in the conflict you referenced in the meme, it was in fact an act of intimidation by the USA which ended that war.)
However, my more central disagreement with you is that I think that this bombing should be thought of as the start of a war rather than as an alternative to war. Iran might choose to make the war very brief by negotiating a surrender before further military action takes place, or Trump may be foolish enough to have started a war he does not intend to actually fight if Iran does not surrender immediately, but if I were Trump then I would not have ordered this attack unless I was ready and willing to fight until Iranian surrender. Unlike the USA in World War II, Iran has no plausible means to win the war if the USA has the will to follow through.
In short, arguments that the Iranian nuclear program has only been set back a small amount are only true if we don’t keep bombing them, but my conclusion from that is that we should keep bombing them now that we’ve decided to start. If we do, they can’t build a bomb.
That’s just the problem - the nature of nationalism makes that abstract, realist negotiation extremely difficult. Extremely powerful countries can sometimes get away with it by the apathy of their citizens to far-off conflicts, but direct threats to a polity rally citizenry around even repulsive national governments - whether the national government wills it or no. Iran is no democracy, but it is still built on the compliance of its citizenry - if the opinions of the citizenry are not “We should lay down and take it” - an opinion rarely expressed even by highly outmatched peoples - then the Iranian government has no choice but to respond. Even if an overthrow of the government directly is not possible, internal politiking would spell doom for the careers of those who failed to take action, and propel ambitious politicians to the forefront.
You don’t need a democracy to have politiking.
“Intimidation” is a funny way to describe wiping out two major military-industrial centers after four years of brutal warfare stripping Japan of all holdings east of the home islands and the surrender of all its allies.
In which case the barking about peace from Trump is nonsense.
Trump is foolish enough that anything is possible.
Again, using this to start another war in the Sandbox is just a different - and worse - flavor of foolishness than thinking “NOW is the time for PEACE”.
… what level of bombing do you think would be necessary to maintain Iran’s inability to construct a nuclear weapon anywhere inside of Iran?
What level of military involvement do you think would be necessary for such an undertaking?
This is true but I suspect that attacks on remote, secret uranium enrichment facilities will not lead to particularly strong public outrage unless the Iranian government wants to stir up that outrage. If it doesn’t, it can claim that the damage wasn’t severe (as it has been doing) and then later obscure the impact of whatever restrictions it agrees to abide by. The average Iranian isn’t going to know the difference between an agreement that leaves Iran on the brink of building a bomb and an agreement that leaves it with purely symbolic enrichment capability nowhere near what building a bomb would require.
The more visible Israeli attacks may be less easy to downplay, but even there the government can ameliorate public opinion by exaggerate the scope of the damage to Israel that has already been done.
By that point in the war, Japan effectively had no military-industrial capability left. Its only remaining strategy was guerilla warfare in order to make conquest of the home islands cost more than what the USA was willing to pay, and in this context the atomic bombs were an act of intimidation.
Since I do think that the Iranian government still has the option to back down, I disagree with you here. I suppose we’ll see which one of us is right over the course of the coming weeks.
I agree, and that makes me very worried even though I think that the attack on Iran is not inherently a mistake.
Imagine if Iran bombed remote, secret military bases on US soil and then bragged about it.
Do you think that there wouldn’t be public outrage, even if the US government tried to cover it up?
It isn’t about the nature of the target. It’s being targeted that raises hackles.
That’s not even close to true. Being horrifically outmatched is not the same as having no capacity.
Just like Afghanistan? That worked out so well, right? Right?
The objectives are different. If the USA set out to try nation-building then I would be opposed for exactly the reasons you have in mind, but I don’t think that the USA has any intention of occupying Iran in any circumstances.
Well Trump has already “truthed” some nonsense about Regime Change and “Making Iran Great Again! MIGA”