Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

The IDF has already replaced the Lebanese crucifix, the soldier and the one who filmed it are getting 30 days in military prison, and the other IDF witnesses are getting extra training on the subject. I'm not sure I'd call 30 days terribly harsh, especially when it's 30 days away from the dangers of military action.

The news today is that upon the request of the Pakistani government, President Trump has agreed to extend the cease fire and to hold off blasting Iran back into a medieval subsistence existence by destroying their electricity, bridges, transport and communications.

https://x.com/CMShehbaz/status/2046699163065438515

This doesn't mean that Hormuz is open or that the US blockade of Iranian ports has been relaxed.

For his part, I think that it's abundantly clear that President Trump doesn't want to do anything to hurt the Iranian people. He's trying (perhaps too hard) to find a way not to. So for now he's waiting for shutting off 90% of Iran's foreign trade to have its effect. Unfortunately, our friends Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain are being hurt equally by having their own oil exports cut off. (The UAE has already asked the US for financial assistance.) So there's a limit on how long this can go on if Hormuz isn't opened. I still expect to see US protected convoys moving through Hormuz, so as to give our friends a way to sell their oil and keep their economies afloat.

For their part, I think that while Iran's IRGC leadership loves to bluster about how they are still in the battle militarily, I think that their real strategy is watching how the left-media portray European and Democratic party opposition here at home. It gives Iran hope that that they can win this simply by waiting out the United States until political pressure becomes so powerful against Trump here at home that he has to back off, without Iran having made any concessions. Which they would spin as a victory, with the willing help of many here and in Europe.

Perhaps President Trump's mistake is placing too much emphasis on diplomacy and on making a deal. First off, there's little chance that the IRGC will willingly agree to give up their nuclear aspirations or halt support for their "axis of resistance" proxies. Second, even if they did sign such an agreement, who in their right mind expects them to abide by it? I'm inclined to think that the United States should emphasize physical facts rather than words. Obliterate Iran's nuclear program. Destroy its ability to provide meaningful aid to its proxies.

Which leaves Iran's highly enriched uranium. If, as seems to be the case, it's buried deep underground in collapsed tunnels, it would take months and lots of heavy equipment to dig it out. One option would be to insert US forces by air. But that would be difficult and dangerous. We would probably need thousands of soldiers to protect the diggers for an extended period, and would need to construct an airstrip to fly the soldiers and their equipment in and out. They would constantly be vulnerable to attack, although our total control of the air would enable us to provide the temporary enclave with strong air-support. And it all depends on whether we know where the highly enriched uranium actually is.

Another option is Iran digging it out under US supervision, then handing it over to us. That's clearly what President Trump wants, but has little chance of getting the Iranians to agree to it.

The third option is blasting the nuclear sites as thoroughly as possible, then simply watching. If it's necessary to conduct excavations to reach the uranium, we should be able to use spy satellites to see if the Iranians are making those efforts. If we see that they are, just attack the sites again to ensure the uranium remains buried.

"upon the request of the Pakistani government" really means China. So yeah, he might be trying to hard not to impose on the citizens, who would likely welcome it, if it means freedom (which isn't necessarily the US goal). Yeah, we can't believe anything the regime or IRGC claim to agree to. Much like Neville Chamberlain getting an agreement from Hitler.

Yeah, watching the uranium sites, if known, is probably the best/most likely option. The only problem with monitoring and rebombing when needed is that the next Democrat won't. Hell, they might help dig it up, for the IRGC.

(Apr 22, 2026 06:49 AM)Yazata Wrote: [ -> ]The news today is that upon the request of the Pakistani government, President Trump has agreed to extend the cease fire and to hold off blasting Iran back into a medieval subsistence existence by destroying their electricity, bridges, transport and communications.

https://x.com/CMShehbaz/status/2046699163065438515

This doesn't mean that Hormuz is open or that the US blockade of Iranian ports has been relaxed.

For his part, I think that it's abundantly clear that President Trump doesn't want to do anything to hurt the Iranian people. He's trying (perhaps too hard) to find a way not to. So for now he's waiting for shutting off 90% of Iran's foreign trade to have its effect. [...]

Even if Trump finally did pull the trigger on power and infrastructure, the Iranian military doesn't care about civilian hardships. As illustrated by the massacres of protesters under martial law. Collapse of the economy from the blockade won't even nettle it until maybe a full year or two down the road. What probably would undermine their indifference is disabling the already vulnerable water supply in a way that backup generators couldn't remedy, but that would really be screaming war crime and mass deaths of citizens.

(Apr 23, 2026 11:12 AM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]Even if Trump finally did pull the trigger on power and infrastructure, the Iranian military doesn't care about civilian hardships. As illustrated by the massacres of protesters under martial law. Collapse of the economy from the blockade won't even nettle it until maybe a full year or two down the road. What probably would undermine their indifference is disabling the already vulnerable water supply in a way that backup generators couldn't remedy, but that would really be screaming war crime and mass deaths of citizens.

You think the IRGC can operate effectively without power and roads? You think those only effect the civilians?

(Apr 23, 2026 09:35 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]

(Apr 23, 2026 11:12 AM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]Even if Trump finally did pull the trigger on power and infrastructure, the Iranian military doesn't care about civilian hardships. As illustrated by the massacres of protesters under martial law. Collapse of the economy from the blockade won't even nettle it until maybe a full year or two down the road. What probably would undermine their indifference is disabling the already vulnerable water supply in a way that backup generators couldn't remedy, but that would really be screaming war crime and mass deaths of citizens.

You think the IRGC can operate effectively without power and roads? You think those only effect the civilians?

Attacks prior to the cease-fire directly "affected" the military establishment itself (and that included plenty of infrastructure strikes as well). Neither eliminates their control over the easily intimidated population nor moves them toward giving up. The regime's very psychology feeds on motivating the US to proceed toward anything that it can portray as war crimes. Their self-sufficient strategy revolves around backups, alternatives, independent units, and rapid recovery systems; and inducing crazy fervor even under prolonged primitive situations.

Attacking Iran’s energy and water infrastructure is not a winning strategy
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/dispatch...-strategy/

"Washington and Tehran do not approach military strategy the same way. In general, Iranian officials don’t follow the history and doctrines taught at Western military academies and political science departments. [...] very few US leaders have taken the time to study how the brutal 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War shaped revolutionary Iran’s strategy. Tehran took several lessons away from that experience, including that the regime must be self-reliant. [...] Iran took away that religious zeal was more important to victory than sophisticated military equipment."

(Apr 23, 2026 11:20 PM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]Attacks prior to the cease-fire directly "affected" the military establishment itself (and that included plenty of infrastructure strikes as well). Neither eliminates their control over the easily intimidated population nor moves them toward giving up. The regime's very psychology feeds on motivating the US to proceed toward anything that it can portray as war crimes. Their self-sufficient strategy revolves around backups, alternatives, independent units, and rapid recovery systems; and inducing crazy fervor even under prolonged primitive situations.

Attacking Iran’s energy and water infrastructure is not a winning strategy
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/dispatch...-strategy/

"Washington and Tehran do not approach military strategy the same way. In general, Iranian officials don’t follow the history and doctrines taught at Western military academies and political science departments. [...] very few US leaders have taken the time to study how the brutal 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War shaped revolutionary Iran’s strategy. Tehran took several lessons away from that experience, including that the regime must be self-reliant. [...] Iran took away that religious zeal was more important to victory than sophisticated military equipment."

Attacks prior to the cease fire where focused on the objectives of their weapons, weapons manufacturing, etc.. We were not attacking general infrastructure. Citing "a senior Iranian official"? Really? 9_9

Operation Epic Fury (launched Feb 28, 2026) was a 38-day US/Israeli campaign that destroyed 85% of Iran's defense industrial base, including missile/drone production, naval forces, and military infrastructure, to dismantle Iran's ability to project power. While strikes targeted military infrastructure, one report indicates airstrikes came within 82 yards of a nuclear power plant.
- Gemini

And you think targeting power and roads wouldn't hinder the regime?

Destroying power and road infrastructure in Iran would severely hurt the regime by shattering its central authority, undermining its capacity to suppress domestic dissent, and plunging the economy into a crisis that could threaten the survival of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and clerical rule. By targeting the electrical grid and transportation networks, the regime's control mechanisms—ranging from surveillance to military logistics—would be crippled, accelerating instability.
- Gemini

You have to be able to communicate and move troops in order to exert control.

Considering the left has already accused the operation of being a war crime, at best, the regime is playing a waiting game, hoping Trump faces enough pressure at home to end it.

Yes, based on reports as of April 2026, numerous legal experts, human rights organizations, and various Democratic legislators in the U.S. have condemned U.S. and Israeli military actions against Iran as potential "war crimes".
- Gemini

Iran’s peculiar sense of symmetry means that Tehran will almost certainly retaliate by attacking Arab Gulf states’ energy and drinking water infrastructure—with potentially catastrophic consequences.
- https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/dispatch...-strategy/

Galvanizing the rest of the Arab world around the US and Israel. If Israel and the Arab countries take on more of the responsibility, as allies, we could withdraw. Win win.

(Apr 23, 2026 11:12 AM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]Even if Trump finally did pull the trigger on power and infrastructure, the Iranian military doesn't care about civilian hardships.

I think that the purpose of destroying Iran's electric grid and cutting their road and rail links wouldn't be to cause civilian hardships. It would be to cut military and regime communications and hinder their ability to move military/police forces and military equipment around the country.

It would obviously impact the civilian population if they no longer have electricity, communications, food in their markets or perhaps even running water. But that would be collateral damage and not the objective.

The objective is to disrupt communications from the capital to the outlying provinces. The objective is to cut apart the transport and communication links that tie the country together. We hear a lot about how many drones the Iranians supposedly still have (never mind that perhaps half of them appear to be unreachable in tunnels whose entrances are collapsed). But supposing that the Iranians can still get at them, are they located where they will be needed? If they aren't, how will the Iranians transport them if the railways are blown up and the roads are impassable?

Quote:As illustrated by the massacres of protesters under martial law.

Yes, the strongest thing that the regime has going are probably the armed Basij enforcers embedded in every community. They are hard to eliminate with air strikes because they are dispersed and gather in schools, hospitals and private homes. But even their grip might start to weaken in many places when they are no longer getting paid and no longer receiving orders or supplies from higher up the command chain. The local Iranians probably know who many/most of them are. I would expect successful insurgencies to arise here and there, as dissidents take over a few towns. (And probably plead for help from the US.)

The danger then would be getting sucked into another never-ending Middle Eastern war. Maybe only 20% of Iran's population are hard-core Islamists and regime supporters, but in a country of 80 million, that's still 16 million people. Thankfully, I think that President Trump, and certainly Vice-President Vance, are very aware of that danger.

The US is capable of severely weakening the regime, assuming they refuse to make a deal. But creating a new Iran is a job for the Iranian people themselves, not for the United States. Though we might be able to help by giving insurgents weapons and some training, to enable them to take on the IRGC remnants. I suspect that if things ever got to that point, some surviving elements of the regular military (as opposed to the IRGC) might start to switch sides.

(Apr 24, 2026 05:49 AM)Yazata Wrote: [ -> ]

(Apr 23, 2026 11:12 AM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]As illustrated by the massacres of protesters under martial law.

Yes, the strongest thing that the regime has going are probably the armed Basij enforcers embedded in every community. They are hard to eliminate with air strikes because they are dispersed and gather in schools, hospitals and private homes. But even their grip might start to weaken in many places when they are no longer getting paid and no longer receiving orders or supplies from higher up the command chain. The local Iranians probably know who many/most of them are. I would expect successful insurgencies to arise here and there, as dissidents take over a few towns. (And probably plead for help from the US.)

Good point. Without the threat of local Basij being reinforced from elsewhere, the people would have a much better chance at overwhelming them.

Quote:The danger then would be getting sucked into another never-ending Middle Eastern war. Maybe only 20% of Iran's population are hard-core Islamists and regime supporters, but in a country of 80 million, that's still 16 million people. Thankfully, I think that President Trump, and certainly Vice-President Vance, are very aware of that danger.

The US is capable of severely weakening the regime, assuming they refuse to make a deal. But creating a new Iran is a job for the Iranian people themselves, not for the United States. Though we might be able to help by giving insurgents weapons and some training, to enable them to take on the IRGC remnants. I suspect that if things ever got to that point, some surviving elements of the regular military (as opposed to the IRGC) might start to switch sides.

I suspect that, regardless of where Iran stands, we will be out by July, at the very latest... with our initial goals fully accomplished. Domestic politics will start to take priority by then.

Of (many) options that could be offered to a potential leader of Iran..

1/ You could have one of the richest and most beautiful countries in the world and your people would love you.

2/ From space we can see everything you do .. anything we don't like the look of will be destroyed. Your country will be poor and covered in bomb craters. From the Internet your people will know what you are doing and question your sanity. You will spend your life in fear of sudden death.