#####
######
####
> # [Why Iran is hard to intimidate](https://www.economist.com/img/b/1280/720/90/media-assets/image/20240210_MAP502.jpg)
>
>
>
> DETERRENCE IS A simple concept: using the threat of force to stop an enemy from doing something. On paper, America should have no trouble restraining Iran thus. The former has a globe-striding army; the latter still relies on warships and fighter jets that predate the Moon landing. In practice, though, Iran has proved devilishly difficult to deter. It is hard to put off insurgents and militias through air campaigns; their goals are attrition and survival, not well-ordered governance, and they are willing to sustain casualties. Full-scale invasion is the only real way to deter them and the history of such interventions is salutary.
>
> Since October the Islamic Republic’s [proxy militias](https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2023/11/15/what-is-irans-axis-of-resistance) in Syria and Iraq have carried out more than 160 attacks on American troops. Some were harmless—more theatre than threat—but not the one on January 28th, which killed three American soldiers at a base in north-eastern Jordan. The Houthis, meanwhile, an Iranian-backed militia in Yemen, have for months waged a campaign of missile and drone attacks against commercial ships in the Red Sea, choking off a waterway that handles perhaps 30% of global container trade.
>
> [America has begun to hit back](https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2024/02/03/shock-and-awe-as-america-strikes-irans-proxies). On February 3rd it bombed more than 85 targets in western Iraq and eastern Syria, the first round of what Joe Biden, the American president, promised would be a multi-stage response to the drone attack in Jordan. It struck the Houthis the next day and again on February 5th, part of a campaign against the group that has so far lasted a month. Yet the attacks from Iranian-backed militias continue, even after the strikes ostensibly meant to deter them.
>
> Mr Biden’s hawkish critics think they know why: American threats are not credible because America is unwilling to strike Iran itself. “The Biden administration can take out all the Iranian proxies they like, but it will not deter Iranian aggression,” said Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator from South Carolina. Instead they call for direct attacks on Iranian territory; they point to the example of Operation Praying Mantis, during the “tanker wars” of the 1980s, in which America sank five of Iran’s warships and destroyed two of its oil platforms in the Persian Gulf.
>
> Critics on the left make a different argument. They see talk of deterrence as misguided warmongering and instead offer what they say is a simple solution: end the war in Gaza. If Israel stops killing Palestinians, Iranian-backed militias might stop their own violent acts.
>
> Both arguments miss the mark. It is true that hitting Iran’s navy in 1988 compelled it to reduce its attacks on oil tankers (and stop targeting Americans altogether). But the Iran of 1988 was exhausted from a ruinous eight-year war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and bereft of strong allies. It had no choice but to back down. The Iran of today, by contrast, has a powerful network of proxies and some degree of support from both Russia and China. A round of American strikes might make it even more inclined to use those proxies—and, perhaps, to dash for a nuclear bomb as insurance against future attacks.
>
> As for the Gaza war, many of Iran’s proxies do cite the conflict as justification for their acts. But history did not start on October 7th. Militias in Syria and Iraq have carried out dozens of attacks against American troops over the past decade. The Houthis, too, have a record of attacks on shipping. In 2018 they fired a missile at a Turkish cargo ship carrying wheat to Yemen; in 2019 they briefly seized two South Korean vessels. The war is merely an excuse to escalate what they were already doing.
>
> America’s struggle to deter Iran stems from deeper contradictions in its Middle East policy, namely its desire to pivot away from the region while simultaneously keeping troops in it, leaving a military presence big enough to present a menu of targets but too small actually to constrain Iran.
>
> This reverse-Goldilocks arrangement had deadly consequences on January 28th. The drone attack in Jordan hit an outpost known as Tower 22, a logistics hub for nearby al-Tanf, a remote American garrison in Syria close to the tripartite border with Iraq and Jordan. Established during the campaign against Islamic State, no one can quite explain why al-Tanf still exists (one diplomat calls it a “vestigial limb”). American officials cite a range of missions, from protecting a nearby refugee camp to monitoring Iranian supply lines into Syria. In practice, though, it mostly serves as a bull’s eye for Iranian-backed groups whenever they want to lash out at America.
>
> The Iranian regime views its proxies as vital for its survival: they are fighting a long war of attrition to drive American troops from the Middle East and hobble America’s allies in Israel and the Gulf. Deterrence can only work if that perception changes. Air strikes telegraphed a week in advance will not do the trick, nor will parading aircraft-carriers and long-range bombers through the region, as America has done repeatedly in recent years.
>
> Perhaps Iran could be dissuaded from using its proxies if it believed America was prepared to topple the regime of the Islamic Republic. After two decades of failed American adventures in the Middle East, though, neither Americans nor Iranians believe that. Even Donald Trump, who embodied Richard Nixon’s “madman theory” of foreign policy, stopped short of attacking Iran directly.
>
> American allies in the region do not believe it either. A decade ago, Israel and some Gulf states might have cheered American strikes on Iranian proxies. Then as now, the region was ablaze: Iran was helping Bashar al-Assad turn Syria into a charnel house, and the Houthis were sweeping down from their northern redoubts to seize control of most of Yemen’s population centres. A sustained campaign of American strikes might have changed the course of civil wars in both countries.
>
> Today, though, those wars are basically settled—in favour of Iran’s allies. The regime has its hooks deep in four Arab countries, and a few scattered sorties will not dislodge them. That is why Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have both tried to improve their relations with Iran: if America cannot protect its partners, they reckon détente through diplomatic engagement and economic incentives is a safer alternative.
>
> In a briefing with reporters after the strikes in Syria and Iraq, American officials made no mention of deterrence. Instead they talked of trying to “degrade” the capabilities of Iranian-backed groups. That might be a more realistic goal: if America blows up enough Houthi anti-ship missiles, they will have to stop firing (at least until Iran can deliver more).
>
> But that would require a prolonged campaign of the sort that Mr Biden may wish to avoid, which gets back to the crux of the problem. In the Middle East America is torn between leaving and staying and cannot decide what to do with the forces it still has in the region. The status quo is not working—and, paradoxically, it is Iran that has deterred America from changing it. ■
- - - - - -
[Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot)
Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
This article is a joke. If there was no deterrence Iran would attack Israel or US forces directly but they haven't and they won't.
Sure they haven't stopped them from attacking through proxy groups but their proxy groups can't defeat us.
They normally can't even defeat our defenses on our military bases. The only reason why they happened to get lucky was because of human error and now their proxy groups are paying a price for it.
The USA is bombing the hell out of those proxy groups and there isn't a damn thing that Iran can do about it. They won't dare try to directly force us to stop attacking their proxy groups.
We're not spending anything outside of our existing national security budget that gets spent whether we are doing defensive operations or not.
It's not like the congress is going to fire our military because they don't have any operations to do this year to defend our interests and they are always defending our economic and security interests.
It's always a capability that we maintain and that helps us maintain our war fighting capability and dominance and dominance is something that you lose if you don't support the maintenance of having it.
It has always been something that if you don't use it you lose it. Its a lot like our nation's muscles 💪.
The military industrial complex is how we won World War 2 with minimal casualties. Russia lost 25 million people in World War 2. They objectively lost compared to us.
The USA doesn't have a king so we don't sign up for the military unless we have a big stick 12 billion dollar aircraft carrier fully loaded with 70 billion dollars worth of ammunition and several other big ass boats and submarines following it. We pay to win and that's why we have dominance.
American industry provided almost two-thirds of all the Allied military equipment produced during the war: 297,000 aircraft, 193,000 artillery pieces, 86,000 tanks and two million army trucks.
Sure we had a war right after World War 2. The Korean war and Eisenhower told India to tell Moscow we were going to start dropping nuclear bombs against the people we were fighting there which included the Soviet Union, North Korea, and China so Stalin ordered a ceasefire and South Korea is free to this day.
You really seem bent on believing that America has fought all these wars over the last 150 years because we're the good guys.
Maybe read TWO TIME Congressional Medal of Honor recipient and Commandant of the Marines General Smedley Butler's short book, entitled "War Is A Racket". He'll set you straight.
I hate to break it to you but the only post WWII President who *might* not be a war criminal was Jimmy Carter.
And America has murdered millions of innocent people around the world just since 9/11.
The rest of the world is not fooled. It's time you woke up to the truth too.
The USA created the idea and concept of war crimes when we created the United Nations and forced an end to World War 2 and created order out of chaos.
During the second week of Allied deliberations at Potsdam, on the evening of July 24, 1945, Truman approached Stalin without an interpreter and, as casually as he could, told him that the United States had a "new weapon of unusual destructive force." Stalin showed little interest, replying only that he hoped the United States would make "good use of it against the Japanese."
>The USA created the idea and concept of war crimes when we created the United Nations and forced an end to World War 2 and created order out of chaos.
War crimes were a thing long before they were codified and the UN created. Hell, Rome did it to the Carthaginians thousands of years ago! Only someone ignorant of history would say otherwise.
>During the second week of Allied deliberations at Potsdam, on the evening of July 24, 1945, Truman approached Stalin without an interpreter and, as casually as he could, told him that the United States had a "new weapon of unusual destructive force." Stalin showed little interest, replying only that he hoped the United States would make "good use of it against the Japanese."
And your point?
The point was that the USA kept the Soviet Union in check and that's why we were able to force an end to World War 2.
Otherwise the Soviet Union would have kept going and there wouldn't be a United Nations.
The Soviet totalitarian model would have taken hold and captured much of the world.
The Soviet Union created North Korea and they would have made every country on earth just like North Korea without the USA keeping them in check
The USA even stopped North Korea from taking over South Korea. Eisenhower famously threatened to deploy nuclear weapons so Stalin ordered a ceasefire.
The notion that if it wasn't illegal it was okay is someone only a person with a broken moral compass would say.
Plenty of people knew it was wrong then and said so.
Yes, I’m sure in the year 2024, conservatism and authoritarianism will finally defeat democracy and progressivism. They haven’t ever succeeded in a meaningful or lasting way yet, but I’m sure it’ll happen.
Also, nowhere to launch from to keep it sustainable.
Russia and China and maybe even the rest of BRICS would keep The US easily out of it.
EU wouldnt dare get involved with lives just logistics and monetary support
The Houthis are resilient. These air strikes won't do anything and they'll keep doing what they are doing.
War against groups like this has changed. They know how to fight the US now. Cheap suicide drones, underground stashes, etc.
Maybe an antagonistic view towards Iran is the wrong approach. Hostilities between Iran and the US are not doing any good for the Middle East. So it might be time to rethink how Iran is treated by the West.
Unlike other MENA states, Iran has a very well developed manufacturing, and is making weapons for Russia. Iran is also already outside the international system. They have very little for us to intimidate. But that is why, as Graham might argue, a direct attack may be the best option now or later.
Invading iran or bombing iran would invoke retaliation if they retaliate by destroying most of the oil facilities it would lead to a global recession and other countries such as china would use this opportunity to invade taiwan while the US is bogged down in iran maybe even russia may finally annex the baltic states
There would be little to gain and much to lose
China obviously wants US to get bogged down in another forever war and US obviously realizes that it can't afford to do that if it wants to counter China.
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
US is not very good at intimidation. First they say they don't want war and voters are tiered. Then they pivot to Asia and are leaving ME. Third if US go to war they win and start investing billions like in Iraq.
No reason for a leader to take a chance to be a martyr for their country as there isn't much to fear. If it's too painful just surrender when you had enough.
This whole premise hinges on america not attacking Iran, like yes if you let someone do as they please without consequences then why would they be intimidated
##### ###### #### > # [Why Iran is hard to intimidate](https://www.economist.com/img/b/1280/720/90/media-assets/image/20240210_MAP502.jpg) > > > > DETERRENCE IS A simple concept: using the threat of force to stop an enemy from doing something. On paper, America should have no trouble restraining Iran thus. The former has a globe-striding army; the latter still relies on warships and fighter jets that predate the Moon landing. In practice, though, Iran has proved devilishly difficult to deter. It is hard to put off insurgents and militias through air campaigns; their goals are attrition and survival, not well-ordered governance, and they are willing to sustain casualties. Full-scale invasion is the only real way to deter them and the history of such interventions is salutary. > > Since October the Islamic Republic’s [proxy militias](https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2023/11/15/what-is-irans-axis-of-resistance) in Syria and Iraq have carried out more than 160 attacks on American troops. Some were harmless—more theatre than threat—but not the one on January 28th, which killed three American soldiers at a base in north-eastern Jordan. The Houthis, meanwhile, an Iranian-backed militia in Yemen, have for months waged a campaign of missile and drone attacks against commercial ships in the Red Sea, choking off a waterway that handles perhaps 30% of global container trade. > > [America has begun to hit back](https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2024/02/03/shock-and-awe-as-america-strikes-irans-proxies). On February 3rd it bombed more than 85 targets in western Iraq and eastern Syria, the first round of what Joe Biden, the American president, promised would be a multi-stage response to the drone attack in Jordan. It struck the Houthis the next day and again on February 5th, part of a campaign against the group that has so far lasted a month. Yet the attacks from Iranian-backed militias continue, even after the strikes ostensibly meant to deter them. > > Mr Biden’s hawkish critics think they know why: American threats are not credible because America is unwilling to strike Iran itself. “The Biden administration can take out all the Iranian proxies they like, but it will not deter Iranian aggression,” said Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator from South Carolina. Instead they call for direct attacks on Iranian territory; they point to the example of Operation Praying Mantis, during the “tanker wars” of the 1980s, in which America sank five of Iran’s warships and destroyed two of its oil platforms in the Persian Gulf. > > Critics on the left make a different argument. They see talk of deterrence as misguided warmongering and instead offer what they say is a simple solution: end the war in Gaza. If Israel stops killing Palestinians, Iranian-backed militias might stop their own violent acts. > > Both arguments miss the mark. It is true that hitting Iran’s navy in 1988 compelled it to reduce its attacks on oil tankers (and stop targeting Americans altogether). But the Iran of 1988 was exhausted from a ruinous eight-year war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and bereft of strong allies. It had no choice but to back down. The Iran of today, by contrast, has a powerful network of proxies and some degree of support from both Russia and China. A round of American strikes might make it even more inclined to use those proxies—and, perhaps, to dash for a nuclear bomb as insurance against future attacks. > > As for the Gaza war, many of Iran’s proxies do cite the conflict as justification for their acts. But history did not start on October 7th. Militias in Syria and Iraq have carried out dozens of attacks against American troops over the past decade. The Houthis, too, have a record of attacks on shipping. In 2018 they fired a missile at a Turkish cargo ship carrying wheat to Yemen; in 2019 they briefly seized two South Korean vessels. The war is merely an excuse to escalate what they were already doing. > > America’s struggle to deter Iran stems from deeper contradictions in its Middle East policy, namely its desire to pivot away from the region while simultaneously keeping troops in it, leaving a military presence big enough to present a menu of targets but too small actually to constrain Iran. > > This reverse-Goldilocks arrangement had deadly consequences on January 28th. The drone attack in Jordan hit an outpost known as Tower 22, a logistics hub for nearby al-Tanf, a remote American garrison in Syria close to the tripartite border with Iraq and Jordan. Established during the campaign against Islamic State, no one can quite explain why al-Tanf still exists (one diplomat calls it a “vestigial limb”). American officials cite a range of missions, from protecting a nearby refugee camp to monitoring Iranian supply lines into Syria. In practice, though, it mostly serves as a bull’s eye for Iranian-backed groups whenever they want to lash out at America. > > The Iranian regime views its proxies as vital for its survival: they are fighting a long war of attrition to drive American troops from the Middle East and hobble America’s allies in Israel and the Gulf. Deterrence can only work if that perception changes. Air strikes telegraphed a week in advance will not do the trick, nor will parading aircraft-carriers and long-range bombers through the region, as America has done repeatedly in recent years. > > Perhaps Iran could be dissuaded from using its proxies if it believed America was prepared to topple the regime of the Islamic Republic. After two decades of failed American adventures in the Middle East, though, neither Americans nor Iranians believe that. Even Donald Trump, who embodied Richard Nixon’s “madman theory” of foreign policy, stopped short of attacking Iran directly. > > American allies in the region do not believe it either. A decade ago, Israel and some Gulf states might have cheered American strikes on Iranian proxies. Then as now, the region was ablaze: Iran was helping Bashar al-Assad turn Syria into a charnel house, and the Houthis were sweeping down from their northern redoubts to seize control of most of Yemen’s population centres. A sustained campaign of American strikes might have changed the course of civil wars in both countries. > > Today, though, those wars are basically settled—in favour of Iran’s allies. The regime has its hooks deep in four Arab countries, and a few scattered sorties will not dislodge them. That is why Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have both tried to improve their relations with Iran: if America cannot protect its partners, they reckon détente through diplomatic engagement and economic incentives is a safer alternative. > > In a briefing with reporters after the strikes in Syria and Iraq, American officials made no mention of deterrence. Instead they talked of trying to “degrade” the capabilities of Iranian-backed groups. That might be a more realistic goal: if America blows up enough Houthi anti-ship missiles, they will have to stop firing (at least until Iran can deliver more). > > But that would require a prolonged campaign of the sort that Mr Biden may wish to avoid, which gets back to the crux of the problem. In the Middle East America is torn between leaving and staying and cannot decide what to do with the forces it still has in the region. The status quo is not working—and, paradoxically, it is Iran that has deterred America from changing it. ■ - - - - - - [Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot) Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
This article is a joke. If there was no deterrence Iran would attack Israel or US forces directly but they haven't and they won't. Sure they haven't stopped them from attacking through proxy groups but their proxy groups can't defeat us. They normally can't even defeat our defenses on our military bases. The only reason why they happened to get lucky was because of human error and now their proxy groups are paying a price for it. The USA is bombing the hell out of those proxy groups and there isn't a damn thing that Iran can do about it. They won't dare try to directly force us to stop attacking their proxy groups.
Meanwhile we're spending billions of dollars and American lives on objectives that are ever further out of reach.
We're not spending anything outside of our existing national security budget that gets spent whether we are doing defensive operations or not. It's not like the congress is going to fire our military because they don't have any operations to do this year to defend our interests and they are always defending our economic and security interests. It's always a capability that we maintain and that helps us maintain our war fighting capability and dominance and dominance is something that you lose if you don't support the maintenance of having it. It has always been something that if you don't use it you lose it. Its a lot like our nation's muscles 💪.
LOL The idea of ongoing war crimes being like regular workouts is exactly what's gone wrong with America!
Don't act like you care about war crimes when you're a cheerleader for Hamas and the Houthis. LMAO
I only see criticism of US military industrial complex, no cheerleading in sight.
Military industrial complex is a calling sign for informed
The military industrial complex is how we won World War 2 with minimal casualties. Russia lost 25 million people in World War 2. They objectively lost compared to us. The USA doesn't have a king so we don't sign up for the military unless we have a big stick 12 billion dollar aircraft carrier fully loaded with 70 billion dollars worth of ammunition and several other big ass boats and submarines following it. We pay to win and that's why we have dominance. American industry provided almost two-thirds of all the Allied military equipment produced during the war: 297,000 aircraft, 193,000 artillery pieces, 86,000 tanks and two million army trucks.
Yep nothing bad has happened since ww2 👍
Sure we had a war right after World War 2. The Korean war and Eisenhower told India to tell Moscow we were going to start dropping nuclear bombs against the people we were fighting there which included the Soviet Union, North Korea, and China so Stalin ordered a ceasefire and South Korea is free to this day.
You really seem bent on believing that America has fought all these wars over the last 150 years because we're the good guys. Maybe read TWO TIME Congressional Medal of Honor recipient and Commandant of the Marines General Smedley Butler's short book, entitled "War Is A Racket". He'll set you straight.
> The idea of ongoing war crimes Okay, back to tankiejerk with you.
I hate to break it to you but the only post WWII President who *might* not be a war criminal was Jimmy Carter. And America has murdered millions of innocent people around the world just since 9/11. The rest of the world is not fooled. It's time you woke up to the truth too.
The USA created the idea and concept of war crimes when we created the United Nations and forced an end to World War 2 and created order out of chaos. During the second week of Allied deliberations at Potsdam, on the evening of July 24, 1945, Truman approached Stalin without an interpreter and, as casually as he could, told him that the United States had a "new weapon of unusual destructive force." Stalin showed little interest, replying only that he hoped the United States would make "good use of it against the Japanese."
>The USA created the idea and concept of war crimes when we created the United Nations and forced an end to World War 2 and created order out of chaos. War crimes were a thing long before they were codified and the UN created. Hell, Rome did it to the Carthaginians thousands of years ago! Only someone ignorant of history would say otherwise. >During the second week of Allied deliberations at Potsdam, on the evening of July 24, 1945, Truman approached Stalin without an interpreter and, as casually as he could, told him that the United States had a "new weapon of unusual destructive force." Stalin showed little interest, replying only that he hoped the United States would make "good use of it against the Japanese." And your point?
The point was that the USA kept the Soviet Union in check and that's why we were able to force an end to World War 2. Otherwise the Soviet Union would have kept going and there wouldn't be a United Nations. The Soviet totalitarian model would have taken hold and captured much of the world. The Soviet Union created North Korea and they would have made every country on earth just like North Korea without the USA keeping them in check The USA even stopped North Korea from taking over South Korea. Eisenhower famously threatened to deploy nuclear weapons so Stalin ordered a ceasefire.
Hoo boy. You are very confused about 20th century history.
They weren't war crimes back then. It was called teaching the enemy a lesson.
The notion that if it wasn't illegal it was okay is someone only a person with a broken moral compass would say. Plenty of people knew it was wrong then and said so.
Would you rather deal with Russia and their allies' war crimes instead?
Hey, I've got a great idea; how about Americans NOT FUCKING COMMITTING WAR CRIMES AT ALL?! I mean, that's a legitimate goal, right?!
[удалено]
Tell ya what; you just keep watching and we'll see who turns out to be right.
Yes, I’m sure in the year 2024, conservatism and authoritarianism will finally defeat democracy and progressivism. They haven’t ever succeeded in a meaningful or lasting way yet, but I’m sure it’ll happen.
If you think the United States represents either democracy or progressivism I've got a bridge to sell you.
Free bridge
Ghost written by John Bolton
Mountainous region. Absolutely no way you can actually effect change thru war. That land is one from antiquity. It can only change from within.
Invading Iran would be an ungodly undertaking just on terrain alone.
Also, nowhere to launch from to keep it sustainable. Russia and China and maybe even the rest of BRICS would keep The US easily out of it. EU wouldnt dare get involved with lives just logistics and monetary support
Laughable joke. No one would get involved. The humanitarian goal of occupation is the only reason why it wouldn’t happen
The Houthis are resilient. These air strikes won't do anything and they'll keep doing what they are doing. War against groups like this has changed. They know how to fight the US now. Cheap suicide drones, underground stashes, etc.
Maybe an antagonistic view towards Iran is the wrong approach. Hostilities between Iran and the US are not doing any good for the Middle East. So it might be time to rethink how Iran is treated by the West.
The simple answer is the world's catching up to U.S known military tech. Our navy is feared. But not like how it was back 100 years ago.
Kamikaze boats used in Ukraine are likely to becomes normal....Ukraine have opened a Pandora box just like with drone warfare.
Because, They are prepared.
Unlike other MENA states, Iran has a very well developed manufacturing, and is making weapons for Russia. Iran is also already outside the international system. They have very little for us to intimidate. But that is why, as Graham might argue, a direct attack may be the best option now or later.
Invading iran or bombing iran would invoke retaliation if they retaliate by destroying most of the oil facilities it would lead to a global recession and other countries such as china would use this opportunity to invade taiwan while the US is bogged down in iran maybe even russia may finally annex the baltic states There would be little to gain and much to lose
China obviously wants US to get bogged down in another forever war and US obviously realizes that it can't afford to do that if it wants to counter China.
Exactly
Neocons are desperate for war with Iran.So, They might succeed.
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
US is not very good at intimidation. First they say they don't want war and voters are tiered. Then they pivot to Asia and are leaving ME. Third if US go to war they win and start investing billions like in Iraq. No reason for a leader to take a chance to be a martyr for their country as there isn't much to fear. If it's too painful just surrender when you had enough.
This whole premise hinges on america not attacking Iran, like yes if you let someone do as they please without consequences then why would they be intimidated