• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Monitoring the situation in Iran

The end goal is MIGA apparently

v5YEsWwlb4nA6a9I.jpeg

Good luck asking for an unconditional surrender (after less than a week of bombing) from a country that fought a ten year war with hundreds of thousands of people killed and didn't give up.

The US would need to put boots on the ground to achieve that goal. The coalition force that invaded Iraq in 2003 consisted of 200K soldiers from multiple countries. An invasion of Iran would need many more troops.
 
I'm really not. All you had to do was answer the question.
Ok. I think it's a negligible short term expense.

Edit: To elaborate, for the current operation to cost 1 trillion dollars, it would have to go on at this level of intensity for roughly 5 or 6 years.

Since most posters seem to be far more worried about the secondary costs from rising oil prices and delays to trade, it seems far more reasonable than not, to wish for a swift and decisive end, even if it requires using more expensive munitions than is ideally necessary.
 
Last edited:
Do you think firing missiles worth a cool million each at tinfoil Iranian drones is cheap?

It depends if the tin foil drone is going to fly directly into a multi billion dollar radar, refinery, Hotel, residential area, etc.

It's not about the price of the ammo.
It's about the price of the target.
 
Last edited:
It depends if the tin foil drone is going to fly directly into a multi billion dollar radar, refinery, Hotel, residential are, etc.

It's not about the price of the ammo.
It's about the price of the target.

The relative values of the opportunity costs of the munitions and targets is significant, indeed. Now figure what the opportunity cost is if Iran didn't have a reason to fly their tinfoil drones at these multi billion dollar targets.
 
The relative values of the opportunity costs of the munitions and targets is significant, indeed. Now figure what the opportunity cost is if Iran didn't have a reason to fly their tinfoil drones at these multi billion dollar targets.
The point is that these cheap drones are HIGHLY ineffective overall, even if they are costly to eliminate. The success rate is quite low. Compare that to the destruction and target success of manned aircraft against Iran, or the guided missile strikes, and you can see that relying on these types of drones isn't gonna really turn the tide your way.

Plus I think we will see more cost effective "drone killer" munitions as I gotta think they are much easier to intercept than a higher speed missile, at least these long range big ones.
 
The point is that these cheap drones are HIGHLY ineffective overall, even if they are costly to eliminate. The success rate is quite low. Compare that to the destruction and target success of manned aircraft against Iran, or the guided missile strikes, and you can see that relying on these types of drones isn't gonna really turn the tide your way.

Plus I think we will see more cost effective "drone killer" munitions as I gotta think they are much easier to intercept than a higher speed missile, at least these long range big ones.

Combat effectiveness isn't what we were talking about. We were talking about cost.
 
That's up for discussion. I fought all the top brass were crazy about "Art of War" - the perfect battle is the one you don't need to have. US should have normalized relations with Iran decades ago to make Israel and Saudis bend over to court favor with the US.
Normalize relations with the country that openly and actively seeks to destroy Israel --> Israel bends over --> Peace in the middle east.

Is that the scenario you're imagining?

Edit: also, I find it strange that Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and other countries devastated by internal wars with Iranian proxies (including Palestinians in Gaza, btw) are just swept under the rug in these types of analysis. Have those people not paid a price? Have the citizens of Iran not paid a price?
 
Last edited:
Combat effectiveness isn't what we were talking about. We were talking about cost.
But that IS cost. Iran is losing billions of dollars worth of equipment, personnel, and infrastructure each day. Their "drone strike program" is doing almost nothing other than soaking up missiles and jet fuel. The US and allies are operating with almost total impunity. The only real efficacy of drones is halting maritime trade near Iran's coasts, and even that is probably just a few days longer (and would hinge on Iran resorting to war crime levels of international waters atrocities against neutral shipping, which the US -could- retaliate with massive carpet bombing campaigns if we were really serious about removing Iran as a physical entity upon Earth).
 
But that IS cost. Iran is losing billions of dollars worth of equipment, personnel, and infrastructure each day. Their "drone strike program" is doing almost nothing other than soaking up missiles and jet fuel. The US and allies are operating with almost total impunity. The only real efficacy of drones is halting maritime trade near Iran's coasts, and even that is probably just a few days longer (and would hinge on Iran resorting to war crime levels of international waters atrocities against neutral shipping, which the US -could- retaliate with massive carpet bombing campaigns if we were really serious about removing Iran as a physical entity upon Earth).
Sure, but that's not the core of what we're originally talking about. I made the claim that this war isn't cheap for us. The longer it goes on, the more expensive it's going to get. This seems fairly obvious to me.
 
Normalize relations with the country that openly and actively seeks to destroy Israel --> Israel bends over --> Peace in the middle east.
I'm sorry, are we pretending this is somehow a moral conflict? "Seek to destroy Israel" as Egypt did before it became the first country in the region to sign a peace treaty with them? That Saudis seem to have a normal relations with Jews and Christians even if they don't allow any other faith than Islam in their country?
 
For the record, I think the single worst part of this whole operation so far has been the attack on the school. Many other things can be explained, but not that.
There's no way to justify this. I'm sure it'll be investigated, but I have little or no faith in anyone actually being held accountable for the decision.
At the end of the day, none of the sides care about it. Ultimately, whenever people choose conflict/war, it's an acceptance that lives (innocents and combatants) will be sacrificed because of the all important objective.
 
I'm sorry, are we pretending this is somehow a moral conflict? "Seek to destroy Israel" as Egypt did before it became the first country in the region to sign a peace treaty with them? That Saudis seem to have a normal relations with Jews and Christians even if they don't allow any other faith than Islam in their country?
It is absolutely a moral conflict, even if you ignore Israel (see my edit on that).
 
Edit: To elaborate, for the current operation to cost 1 trillion dollars, it would have to go on at this level of intensity for roughly 5 or 6 years.

Since most posters seem to be far more worried about the secondary costs from rising oil prices and delays to trade, it seems far more reasonable than not, to wish for a swift and decisive end, even if it requires using more expensive munitions than is ideally necessary.

I just noticed you edited your post. This is key here. I'm not talking about what I wish for. I'm talking about what's realistic. What has more legs, Iran's capacity to launch $10 Cracker Jack shitjets at us, or our capacity to shoot them down with million dollar missiles?
 
You shouldn't use Palestinians as an example, knowing that every single Arab country refuses to take them in.
That just reinforces my point that normalizing relations with Iran would not create a stable middle east. It would, however, continue to fuel one of the countries doing the most to destabilize it (once again, not just in Israel).
 
I just noticed you edited your post. This is key here. I'm not talking about what I wish for. I'm talking about what's realistic. What has more legs, Iran's capacity to launch $10 Cracker Jack shitjets at us, or our capacity to shoot them down with million dollar missiles?
I should have made a new post for that, I apologize. In the mean time it seems like the more significant cost is to trade and oil, but you may disagree.
 
That just reinforces my point that normalizing relations with Iran would not create a stable middle east. It would, however, continue to fuel one of the countries doing the most to destabilize it (once again, not just in Israel).
Considering the US never tried you can't really say what could have happened. Important to note Ariel Sharon was as close as anyone to giving Palestinians their own country before he suffered a stroke.
 
I should have made a new post for that, I apologize. In the mean time it seems like the more significant cost is to trade and oil, but you may disagree.

I'm including that in the overall cost. That shit is going to leave lasting repercussions too. But you didn't answer the question. Which one can be sustained longer?
 
Last edited:
Considering the US never tried you can't really say what could have happened. Important to note Ariel Sharon was as close as anyone to giving Palestinians their own country before he suffered a stroke.
The disagreement between us seems to be that you believe Iran is anti Israel because of the Palestinian conflict. I don't believe that. I believe Iran supports the Palestinians only insofar as it furthers their agenda to wage war on Israel until it is destroyed. Hence its support of Hamas and no other Palestinian movement. Hence its support of Hezbollah and the Houthis in Yemen. Hence its suppression of internal secular movements.
 
I'm including that in the overall cost. That shit is going to leave lasting repercussions too. But you didn't answer the question. Which one can be sustained longer?
In a complete vacuum, Iran lasts longer of course. But once you try applying that conclusion to reality it doesn't really provide any useful actionable advice. Luckily, reality isn't a complete vacuum.
 
The disagreement between us seems to be that you believe Iran is anti Israel because of the Palestinian conflict.
I don't agree. I think at a high level Iran can be against Israel since it thinks its creation was artificial and came at an expense of native population of Arabs there - which is true, but 80 years later it's a strange hill to die on. Israel existence is a fact, time to move on.
A most likely explanation is Iran is simply seeing Israel as a regional rival - nothing more, nothing less.
 

March 5 (Reuters) - U.S. military investigators believe it is likely that U.S. forces were responsible for an apparent strike on an Iranian girls' school that killed scores of children on Saturday but have not ‌yet reached a final conclusion or completed their investigation, two U.S. officials told Reuters.

According to archived copies of the school's official website, the school is adjacent to a compound operated by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the military force that reports to Iran's supreme leader.

Missiles can sometimes miss, so if it was a US missile, then the IRGC are mostly to blame.

The fuckers had a base next to a school.

And yes, I am aware that some US military bases have schools in them. The US would evacuate all civilians if they thought an attack were likely.
 
In a complete vacuum, Iran lasts longer of course. But once you try applying that conclusion to reality it doesn't really provide any useful actionable advice. Luckily, reality isn't a complete vacuum.

Why wouldn't it be useful? I think it's very useful. It gives a straightforward realistic projection once we can figure out more clearly how big our money buckets, logistics buckets, and willpower buckets are compared to theirs.
 
I don't agree. I think at a high level Iran can be against Israel since it thinks its creation was artificial and came at an expense of native population of Arabs there - which is true, but 80 years later it's a strange hill to die on. Israel existence is a fact, time to move on.
A most likely explanation is Iran is simply seeing Israel as a regional rival - nothing more, nothing less.
Alright, so you have two regional rivals waging war, directly and indirectly, at the expense of millions of lives in the region. How do you put a stop to it?
 
It's funny that people underestimate the Iranian drones. They are so effective that Russia is mass producing as many as they can in their own factory in Russia now. Shahed drones are EXTREMELY effective in Ukraine and low costs are the cherry on top.

In fact the design is so good that the US is literally copying it.
 
Last edited:
Alright, so you have two regional rivals waging war, directly and indirectly, at the expense of millions of lives in the region. How do you put a stop to it?
Isreal for decades has been behaving as a bully on the playground knowing they have US support, sometimes directly forcing US support as a "fait accompli". How about the US did some spanking on their little brother that is always calling on them to sort out their mess?
It might shock you, but holy clerics still wage 1400 year holy wars. Iran is no longer a secular nation.
Are you telling me Jewish clerics do not claim Israel as a promised land and nation chosen by God?

Shocked Cynthia Erivo GIF
 
And yes, I am aware that some US military bases have schools in them. The US would evacuate all civilians if they thought an attack were likely.

That base was attacked on the first day of an undeclared war.
 
Isreal for decades has been behaving as a bully on the playground knowing they have US support, sometimes directly forcing US support as a "fait accompli". How about the US did some spanking on their little brother that is always calling on them to sort out their mess?
Isn't that what the Obama admin did?

Are you telling me Jewish clerics do not claim Israel as a promised land and nation chosen by God?

Shocked Cynthia Erivo GIF
Who are these Jewish clerics you refer to?
 
Top Bottom