By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Amidst ongoing nuclear negotiations in Geneva, Iran conducted live missile drills near the Strait of Hormuz. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a warning regarding the presence of US warships in the Gulf. Despite these tensions, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi reported that both nations reached broad agreement on guiding principles during their talks, laying the groundwork for a potential deal.
Read the original article here
The recent pronouncements from Iran, including missile firings and Supreme Leader Khamenei’s stark threats, are making waves, especially as they coincide with the resumption of nuclear talks. It’s a potent mix of aggression and diplomacy, and understanding the dynamics at play requires sifting through a lot of commentary and speculation.
There’s a prevailing sentiment that Iran’s military posturing, while loud, might not hold up under serious scrutiny, particularly in light of recent events where Israel’s capabilities were highlighted. The idea is that any direct confrontation, especially with figures like Trump in the picture, could lead to an outcome that favors the US. Khamenei’s attitude is often described as reckless, almost akin to that of a suicide bomber, implying a disregard for consequences and a willingness to push boundaries even when facing setbacks. This consistent pattern of aggressive posturing, regardless of the actual outcome, seems to be a recurring theme in how Iran’s actions are perceived.
It’s important to note that, so far, no actual shots have been fired in this immediate escalation, which suggests that the more alarming headlines might be an exaggeration, a form of clickbait. The US, for its part, appears to be exercising considerable caution. Many observers expected a more immediate and perhaps less restrained response from the US by now, but the deployment of a second carrier group hints at a deliberate and potentially strategic approach, rather than a rushed reaction. This might also be influenced by other geopolitical distractions, like the situation in Cuba and the upcoming US elections, where a focus on foreign intervention might not be the most popular platform.
The idea of directly engaging with Iranian naval assets is a contentious one. There’s a strong current of opinion that directly challenging American boats is a monumental misstep, akin to breaking a cardinal rule in any conflict with the US. The consequences of such an action are widely believed to be severe and predictable. Some even suggest that Iran’s current actions are a form of self-sabotage, a “typical flex” that could ultimately backfire. There’s a segment of opinion that even hopes for a direct provocation, not out of malice, but perhaps out of a desire to see a decisive action taken, though ideally without bloodshed.
The underlying desire for regime change in Iran is palpable for some. The hope is for the Iranian people to achieve freedom and for the funding of global extremist groups to be curtailed by replacing the current leadership with a more democratic society. This perspective sees actions that might provoke a stronger US response as potentially leading to such an outcome, though the efficacy of past interventions is also a point of discussion, with Afghanistan being cited as a cautionary tale.
Iran’s approach to military modernization is also under scrutiny, with some suggesting they haven’t learned lessons from conflicts like the one in Ukraine, potentially underestimating the sheer volume of drones and missiles that could be deployed, and the challenges of defending against them. The focus on building up drone and robot military capabilities is seen as crucial for any nation looking to maintain its defenses in the modern era. The idea of long-planned surprise attacks, including the smuggling of armed drones to disable air defenses, also surfaces as a potential tactic.
There’s a feeling of disappointment and even embarrassment regarding Iran’s perceived military weakness. Their anti-aircraft systems are described as ineffective, and their regional alliances as a “paper tiger,” draining resources without yielding significant benefits. The more Iran engages in loud pronouncements and aggressive displays, the more it risks becoming a laughingstock, diminishing its credibility on the international stage.
From an Iranian perspective, there are deep-seated anxieties about Khamenei’s leadership. There’s a fear that he might resort to extreme measures, even turning on his own people, as he faces potential decline. However, there’s also a stark contrast drawn between his personal safety and the sacrifices expected of his followers, portraying him as self-serving rather than truly dedicated to a greater cause. His perceived hiding during internal protests further fuels this image of a leader prioritizing his own survival. The question of whether military escalation would truly benefit the Iranian people, or lead to yet another protracted ground war, is a significant concern.
The discussion also touches upon the broader geopolitical landscape. The capacity of nations to replenish depleted military stocks, like the significant expenditure of THAAD ammunition, is a factor. The potential existence of missing fissile material adds another layer of complexity and concern. While domestic political considerations in the US, like elections, are present, there’s also a pragmatic view that ignores political niceties when fundamental security issues are at stake, such as preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
The characterization of both nations as “out of control” is a recurring sentiment, with criticism directed at US actions such as mass deportations, child detentions, and allegations of misconduct within law enforcement. The US President’s foreign policy decisions, particularly his handling of international crises, are also brought into question, leading to a sense of global unease. The idea that any US intervention, especially under certain leadership, might not be aimed at genuine liberation but at installing more controllable regimes, perhaps even mirroring domestic political strategies, is a strong undercurrent.
The effectiveness of past interventions, like in Afghanistan, where significant resources were spent with seemingly little positive long-term outcome, is often raised as a counterpoint to the idea that direct military action against Iran would be a guaranteed success. The capabilities of the US military to overwhelm Iranian defenses with superior firepower, such as utilizing HARM and Tomahawk missiles, are acknowledged. However, the timing of any such action, and the potential for Iran to retaliate, as it did against Israel, leading to ceasefires, remains a significant consideration. The fear that similar retaliatory actions could be a concern for the US leader underscores the volatile nature of the current situation. Ultimately, the complex web of military threats, diplomatic maneuvers, and deeply held political motivations makes this a tense and uncertain period.