Will Iran regime fall, or just another umpteenth fail of protesters? (rerun hobbies)

[Yazata]

Reports are coming in that US warships have transited the Strait of Hormuz and that the US has commenced mine hunting operations.

Two US Navy guided missile destroyers identified as USS Frank E. Peterson (DDG-121) and USS Michael Murphy (DDG-112) entered the Persian Gulf by passing through the Strait of Hormuz on a freedom-of-navigation mission and reported no issues.

President Trump says, "We're now starting the process of clearing out the strait of Hormuz as a favor to countries all over the world, including China, Japan, South Korea, France, Germany and many others. Incredibly, they don't have the courage or will to do this work themselves."

[Image: HFpOZhxXAAAYAfL?format=jpg&name=small]

[Syne]

It's past 1 AM in Pakistan and talks between the United States and Iran are continuing at this late hour.

The tone is said to be mutually respectful, but neither side seems willing to move off its own red lines, which appear to be deeply incompatible.

Frankly, I expect these talks to fail and the war to resume.

Considering Pakistan is really negotiating for China to get its oil again, I seriously doubt that it's more than a delay tactic.

The US might not go for a total knockout blow to the Iranian economy, which Trump seems loathe to do. But the US might again pursue more limited objectives such as cutting off Iran's oil exports in such a way that they can be turned on again fairly quickly if Iran cooperates.

Yes, we'd love to retain infrastructure for the Iranian people, should they ever prevail.

And again, I expect to see use of graphite bombs to take down large parts of the Iranian power grid without seriously damaging it (by creating short circuits that trigger protective circuit breakers). Perhaps cyber attacks, stuff like that. A less-lethal attack on the Iranian economy, coupled with redoubled attacks on anything remaining of the Iranian military and defense industries.

I suspect that Kharg island will be the primary target. If needed, it would be a limited boots on the ground operation, but it would severely cut off regime funding and prove the lengths we're willing to go. It would also be an obvious step to apply pressure before resorting to civilian infrastructure (talk of which could be a distraction).

And we will probably see warships escorting convoys of oil tankers through Hormuz. Our "allies" really need to be part of that, since they (and China) are the ones who consume that oil. About the only way that Iran has left (they no longer have a navy or an air force) to attack convoys would be drones, and modern warships should be able to defeat them in the great majority of cases. While wasting million dollar missiles on $30K drones would be wasteful, aircraft can splash drones, phalanx type close in weapons systems are effective, and there are all kinds of radio jamming things. Plus punitive attacks on wherever drones are observed being stored or launched from.

Much like already done in Iran and it's proxies, provoking weapons launches have proven effective at exposing their positions.

As of March 30, the Iranians had fired 1,941 drones at the United Arab Emirates. It's probably well over 2,000 now. The country has suffered some damage, but it's still doing reasonably well due to effective drone defenses.

The UAE and other Arab countries seemed willing to join in the offensive, but I haven't heard of any yet.

[Magical Realist]

Translators do not make up for incompatible cultures. You'd know that if you understood them at all. But you naively presume they share your values.

You think labelling them savages is understanding them? How? A "savage" is basically an animal-like primitive incapable of reasoning and moral judgement. How does calling them that in any way foster any kind of dialogue or diplomatic prospect for common partnership and peace. It doesn't. If anything it justifies wholesale genocide. Is that what you're aiming for? Who's the real savage here?

[Syne]

Translators do not make up for incompatible cultures. You'd know that if you understood them at all. But you naively presume they share your values.

You think labelling them savages is understanding them? How? A "savage" is basically an animal-like primitive incapable of reasoning and moral judgement. How does calling them that in any way foster any kind of dialogue or diplomatic prospect for common partnership and peace. It doesn't. If anything it justifies wholesale genocide. Is that what you're aiming for?

It's an objective descriptor of their actual actions. I would provide you with definitions, but I'm sure you've already cherry-picked the only one you will acknowledge to exist... and ignore all else. Like the intellectually dishonest you are. 9_9

You cannot foster dialogue with bad actors. You can only understand their motives well enough to anticipate their actions. Those you fail to learn from history...
The only ones seeking genocide are the Iranian Islamists. Too bad you see everything so black and white (often morally inverted).

[Magical Realist]

You cannot foster dialogue with bad actors.

As long as you define them as savages incapable of reason or moral judgement then you'd conclude that. But obviously Trump and Co. disagrees as they are at this very moment negotiating with them for peace. How is that possible with "dumb savages" or "bad actors"? Maybe you're living in a hate bubble with no clue about real life.

[confused2]

Some will recall Trump telling Iranian protesters "Help is on the way" and now we're looking at graphite bombing the electricity network in a fit of pique. I can see why Trump would want allies to support him with whatever he thinks is reasonable. Some (many?) might suggest he's already overstepped the mark of what 'reasonable' people might 'reasonably' be expected to support simply because the things he is expecting them to support aren't 'reasonable'.
When the lights go out in Iran I'm sure any remaining protesters will say "Oh yeah - that's helpful".

[Yazata]

Observers on X think that all this is part of a well thought out American plan:

1. The US didn't have the ships to conduct mine clearance or convoy escort through the strait.

2. So we pushed for a cease fire. That freed up the ships needed to open the Strait and gave us the opportunity for resupply.

3. Expect convoys of backed up tankers and container ships to quickly start moving through Hormuz.

4. If ships start moving through the strait under US protection, that eliminates IRGC claims to dictate what happens in the strait and removes whatever leverage they thought they had in the Pakistan talks.

[confused2]

Observers on X think that all this is part of a well thought out American plan:

1. The US didn't have the ships to conduct mine clearance or convoy escort through the strait.

2. So we pushed for a cease fire. That freed up the ships needed to open the Strait and gave us the opportunity for resupply.

3. Expect convoys of backed up tankers and container ships to quickly start moving through Hormuz.

3. If ships start moving through the strait, that eliminates IRGC claims to dictate what happens in the strait and removes whatever leverage they thought they had in the Pakistan talks.

And take out the Iranian electricity network.

[Yazata]

Observers on X think that all this is part of a well thought out American plan:

1. The US didn't have the ships to conduct mine clearance or convoy escort through the strait.

2. So we pushed for a cease fire. That freed up the ships needed to open the Strait and gave us the opportunity for resupply.

3. Expect convoys of backed up tankers and container ships to quickly start moving through Hormuz.

4. If ships start moving through the strait, that eliminates IRGC claims to dictate what happens in the strait and removes whatever leverage they thought they had in the Pakistan talks.

And take out the Iranian electricity network.

Maybe not. If Iran's nuclear program has effectively been halted, if their ballistic missile program is damaged to the point where it's little threat to Iran's neighbors, if their ability to manufacture more drones is largely destroyed, if they are in no position to support Hezbollah and the Houthis in the manner they used to, if we are in position to more or less control their oil exports... then if we can open the Strait of Hormuz, American objectives have pretty much been achieved. We could just declare victory and call it a day.

Regime change isn't really something that we could impose from outside, it's something that the Iranians have to do themselves. We could help create better conditions for them to do that, I guess, by weakening regime forces and (yes) by shutting off electricity temporarily. Without the lights on, the regime dissidents could scuttle around like cockroaches.

[Syne]

You cannot foster dialogue with bad actors.

As long as you define them as savages incapable of reason or moral judgement then you'd conclude that. But obviously Trump and Co. disagrees as they are at this very moment negotiating with them for peace. How is that possible with "dumb savages" or "bad actors"? Maybe you're living in a hate bubble with no clue about real life.

Again, you keep making up bullshit, by cherry-picking definitions as strawmen to attack. But I'm sure you convince yourself you're proud of that transparent intellectual dishonesty. You're even dumb enough to conflate "dumb savages" and "bad actors," even though you're obviously the latter. 9_9

No one said, nor implied, that anyone was "incapable of reason or moral judgement," only that they have their own reasons and a morality that is incompatible with ours. You're a naive little child.

Some will recall Trump telling Iranian protesters "Help is on the way" and now we're looking at graphite bombing the electricity network in a fit of pique.

It's actually strategy... that the Iranian people welcome.

I can see why Trump would want allies to support him with whatever he thinks is reasonable. Some (many?) might suggest he's already overstepped the mark of what 'reasonable' people might 'reasonably' be expected to support simply because the things he is expecting them to support aren't 'reasonable'.

Some (many?) are useless chickenshits who would twiddle their thumbs while Iran gains nuclear missiles capable of reaching the UK.

When the lights go out in Iran I'm sure any remaining protesters will say "Oh yeah - that's helpful".

Why don't you ask an Iranian? Many abroad have been in contact with family in Iran, and/or share the same outlook.

---

History, which many are doomed to repeat:

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/SRvJDrsEPRU