359
Iran destroys five US refueling aircraft.
(www.vietnam.vn)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2026
359 points (98.4% liked)
World News
40084 readers
674 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
A population of 90 million people is irrelevant to the question of military capability. It is absolutely relevant to a discussion about the insurgency and guerilla warfare that would inevitably follow the conventional war, but I think you and I already agree that there's no way for the U.S. to win that (nor should we try).
But I don't think the bits of relatively small damage Iran has done to U.S. forces in the region is convincing evidence that they're capable of taking on the full brunt of U.S. capabilities, even without going nuclear. Launch enough drones and missiles and a few will inevitably get through. But we've also been using our own drones for more than 20 years now, longer than most other countries. Most importantly though, we have significantly more resources poured into everything that would follow the drones in a full-scale invasion.
And just to reiterate: I don't think any of this is a good idea, and I don't support any of it. But when you're talking about the significance of damage and casualties caused by Iran, you can't ignore the fact that the U.S. is holding back so far.
The key is that due to our kleptocratic military industrial complex, we're not able to produce these drones cheaply. Our military and its supply chains are built around producing very small numbers of very expensive weapons. We can't even get Congress to pass a military right to repair. Contractors bilk the taxpayers for spare parts at a 10000% markup, and our system is too corrupt to end their thievery.
The hard truth is that our military isn't actually built to win wars against competent peer or near-peer opponents. It's built to line the pockets of defense contractors. Or, to use a car analogy, Iran is producing cheap $5k k trucks. Our military is running on $100,000 low margin, high profit SUVs.
The F35 for all purchasors, except Israel, but Including US military, requires Lockheed contractor repair services. No manual is provided with purchase.
And that's why Iran could actually win this war. Iran doesn't have to send an expeditionary force to lay siege to Washington DC to win this war. They just need to turtle in and hold out long enough for either US will or treasure to break.
Honestly, I think Bin Ladin will go down as the greatest strategic genius of the 21st century. For the cost of a handful of lives and a few hundred grand, he tricked a superpower into burning through trillions of dollars and thousands of soldiers. All he had to do was hit the superpower where it hurt the most - its sense of pride. And now, a quarter century later, we're still stuck in Bin Ladin's world, never having learned a damn thing. And we can't keep this up forever. Eventually people will simply stop wanting to buy US treasuries, and the whole debt empire falls to pieces. Simply by forcing the US to spend itself into the poorhouse, Iran can defeat the US without ever striking a single target on American soil.
Right you just made his point? Cost is relevant as the conflict continues. If the US committed everything it could likely overwhelm the government (probably leading to an Afghanistan 2), but the longer the conflict goes the scales tip in favor of Iran due to these costs.
meanwhile in the real world https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2026/03/11/war-without-a-center-irans-mosaic-defense/
Right this goes to attrition.
Can this prevent the collapse of the government and a US occupation? Maybe, if it doesn't though it will cause endless insurgency even if the US props up a friendly government.
Then we just get Afghanistan all over again.
The real question is can these autonomous cells continue operating their regions independently and for how long. Maintaining governance and a prolonged guerilla campaign aren't the same.
And you know I hope they do repel the US, but I feel like it's crazy to dismiss it as impossible
Look at Ukraine, Russia has not been able to collapse the government there so far, and it has an army of one and a half million fighting there, and has been bombing Ukraine for four years now. Russia has a far better situation logistically being situated right next to Ukraine and being able to transport troops and materiel by rail. Based on that, in what possible universe, does the US manage to break a country three times the size of Ukraine that's half away across the globe from it?
They don't need to take on the full brunt of the US, they just need to keep the Strait closed to US-friendly traffic until the US economy collapses.
Unless that encourages the US to deploy everything to avoid that. We can't even begin to predict what the idiot in charge will do.
If he goes that route the government of Iran would probably fall after a lot of death and then a long bloody, and ultimately unsuccessful, occupation would follow.
Hopefully he's not dumb enough to try, and everyday the US doesn't fully invade does tilt the scales in Iran's favor
The government of Iran won't fall before they mine the Strait, and then it'll be closed without any further input. Then all Iran has to do is survive the occupation while the global economy collapses, eventually starving the occupation of the funds it needs.
That is a very good point and seems likely if anyone tries to mount a full scale invasion.
US strategic options made public are like 300 but instead of guarding a choke point, they rush into higher defense ratios.
US is not among the 4 drone superpowers. Iran is one of these. US tech is old, expensive, and not high volume production.
The option they have threatened is mutual assured destruction of global economy. US has avoided Iran oil, and unsanctioned them during this war. It's hard to see why they would escalate more, even if Israel gets to veto.
I don't see any evidence to suggest that Tue US has superior military capability to Iran.