re: Vice President says U.S. expects Strait of Hormuz to be open ‘toll free’ long term

quote:

---

Mushroom1968

---

I have a Covid mask just like that. That’s pretty nice, thank you

quote:

---

Virtually every military action in history has failed to result in regime change? That's odd. I can think of hundreds that did.

---

Reading comprehension is hard, I know.

I said if your standard for success is that anything short of regime change is a failure, then virtually every military action in history would be considered a failure by your standard.

again: destroying capabilities, killing enemy leadership, disrupting operations, deterring aggression, and forcing concessions are all military objectives that exist outside of regime change.

quote:

---

So it's your position that Donald Trump lied to the American people? Why would he do that?

---

My position is that presidents oversell military results. All of them. Trump included. But he's the king of bombastic language, I can admit that despite having voted for 3x.

“Completely eliminated” can be political shorthand for “severely damaged and set back.” That doesn’t mean Iran stopped being a nuclear concern forever. Obviously they didn’t, or there would be no inspections, no enrichment talks, no sanctions debate, and no ongoing concern.

quote:

---

There's no reason to frick with Iran if you're not going for regime change

---

.

That's a fascinating theory.

So when the U.S. killed Soleimani, was the objective regime change?

When we bombed ISIS, was the objective regime change?

When we struck Al Qaeda, was the objective regime change?

It seems you've invented a rule that military force only counts if it ends with a new government taking power.

History doesn't support that view.

quote:

---

They don't need long-term control. 2 months of disruption was enough.

---

Enough for what?

That's the part you keep skipping.

Enough to cause economic pain? Sure.

Enough to make headlines? Sure.

Enough to prove they can disrupt shipping? Sure.

Enough to achieve their broader strategic objectives? That's the claim you're making, not the one you're proving.

quote:

---

So I guess your answer to what was achieved essentially boils down to "not much"

---

No, my answer is the same as it was when you first asked the question:

Military infrastructure was damaged.

High ranking rersonnel was eliminated.

Iran's options were narrowed.

Pressure was applied.

Negotiations occurred from a weaker position.

You simply keep responding with, "Okay, but why wasn't there regime change?"

At this point, it feels less like you're responding to my argument and more like you're having a completely different conversation with yourself. And hey bud, I'm along for the ride. :-)

quote:

---

Who said that's my standard for success for any and all military conflicts? Not me. Did you just make that up?

---

You literally said: LINK

quote:

---

There's no reason to frick with Iran if you're not going for regime change.

---

That's your quote, not mine. another convenient memory lapse i suppose?

Or are we moving the goal posts, again?

If there's "no reason" to take military action absent regime change, then by definition you've made regime change the standard by which you're judging success in this specific conflict.

I'm responding to your stated position.

quote:

---

No. It seems like you invented something I said, despite me never saying it. We're talking about Iran, remember?

---

Correct. We're talking about Iran.

And again, your exact words were:

"There's no reason to frick with Iran if you're not going for regime change.". LINK

If you now believe there are legitimate military objectives short of regime change, great.
Welcome aboard. That's been my position the entire time. Glad I could bring you over to the side of reality and common sense.

quote:

---

To remain in power ....Mission Accomplished.

---

Interesting.

So your position is that because Iran wasn't completely destroyed and still exists, they therefore achieved all of their objectives.

By that logic, Germany won World War II because the German state continued to exist after the war.

The question isn't whether the regime survived. The question is whether it is stronger, weaker, or unchanged compared to before the conflict.

You've spent this entire discussion carefully avoiding that question.

quote:

---

You realize that was our goal on day 1 of the conflict, right? If Trump says we're going in to remove the IRGC from power, and the IRGC remains in power after our peace deal, then that's why nothing of note was achieved.

---

No, that just means the final outcome didn’t match the most aggressive version of the opening rhetoric (which even I would've have predicted).
Welcome to foreign policy, where politicians overstate goals, circumstances change, and outcomes are usually measured in tradeoffs instead of fantasy-land absolutes.

You keep saying “nothing of note” because the result wasn’t total victory.

But let’s be honest: if this exact outcome happened under an administration you voted for, you and the national media would call it “measured,” “strategic,” and “a responsible de-escalation.”
We both know that. :-)

quote:

---

I'm very impressed that you got real conversation rather than drive-by drivel out of that guy.

---

quote:

---

by ATrillionaire

---

quote:

---

The chatgpt advertisers

---

Chicken needs to embed that service into the TD Premium+ package so that it can generate thread summaries.

quote:

---

That's control whether or not you want to admit it.

---

absolute control or just regular control now? if we move the goalposts again to “influence” instead of control, we’ll be aligned.

Pretty simple.

Influence is making people change their behavior because of the risk you create.

Control is deciding who passes, who doesn’t, and having the ability to enforce it indefinitely.

If tomorrow Iran decided every ship from Country X was forbidden from transiting the Strait, could they actually stop every one of them long-term against the combined naval power of the U.S. and its allies?

If the answer is no, then we’re talking about influence and disruption, not control.

quote:

---

Well that and several layers of their old regime leadership and proxies are dead. Their army, navy, and air defense is effectively eliminated. Their inflation has sky rocketed, their nuclear capabilities have been completely destroyed…..

But yeah, just like you said…. Nerd

---

Then why the frick did we negotiate?

Seriously. Walk me through that part slowly.

We negotiated because your premise is false. Iran was damaged, not defeated. The regime survived. The proxies survived. The missile program survived. The nuclear issue survived. And most importantly, Iran still had Hormuz as leverage.

You do not offer sanctions relief, frozen funds, and a massive reconstruction/investment package to a country whose military, nuclear program, and bargaining power have been “completely eliminated.” That is not what surrender looks like. That is what a negotiated exit looks like after the war fails to produce surrender.

That is the problem with this cheap victory-lap bullshite. Compare the situation before and after.

Before the war, the Strait of Hormuz was open in practice. Iran threatened it, but global shipping was not dependent on a ceasefire framework, sanctions relief, asset releases, and a possible reconstruction package. The Iranian regime was in power. Its missile program existed. Its proxies existed. Its nuclear program was the main dispute.

After the war, the Strait is not simply “open.” It is conditionally open. It is open because Iran demonstrated that it can make the global economy bleed by threatening one chokepoint.

Congratulations, we taught Tehran a valuable lesson: nukes are long-term deterrence, but Hormuz is immediate leverage. A nuclear site can be bombed. The Strait of Hormuz makes oil prices, shipping insurance, inflation, Asian energy markets, allies, and domestic politics all start screaming at once.

So what changed?

Iran got badly hurt. Fine. Nobody is denying that.

But the regime is still there. It did not surrender. Its missile program is apparently not on the table. Its proxy network is apparently not on the table. The nuclear issue has been kicked into another round of talks. The Strait went from open before the war to conditionally open after the war.

That is not “we crushed them.”

That is “we fought them, failed to force surrender, and then negotiated with the same regime because they still had leverage.”

Now compare that to the Obama-era JCPOA.

The JCPOA had real flaws. The sunset clauses were a legitimate criticism. It did not solve missiles. It did not solve Hezbollah. It did not solve the nature of the Iranian regime. Nobody serious has to pretend it was perfect.

But it did put Iran under enforceable nuclear limits without a war. It capped enrichment. It reduced the uranium stockpile. It reduced centrifuges. It converted Fordow away from enrichment. It redesigned Arak. It put the program under intrusive IAEA inspection.

Again, flawed deal. But it was nuclear containment, and it achieved nuclear containment without burning through U.S. munitions, spiking global energy prices, killing people, frightening allies, and giving China a live demonstration of our strike packages, munition burn rate, air defense usage, logistics chain, and political pain tolerance.

So the question is not whether Iran took a beating.

It did.

The question is whether this war bought us anything better than what we already had before Trump tore up the JCPOA so he could replace it with his usual genius-level strategy of breaking something, making it worse, and then demanding applause for partially duct-taping it back together.

We got a more expensive, bloodier, strategically dumber path back to a weaker version of the same diplomacy these same people like you spent years calling appeasement.

And the truly amazing part is watching you declare victory while describing a negotiation we supposedly did not need with a regime you swear had no leverage.

I will never stop being amazed by the gravitational pull Trump has on some of you. He can turn a worse version of the thing you hated into a “masterstroke,” and you will line up to clap like trained seals.