2026 Israeli–United States strikes on Iran

[deirdre]

Coming to the end of week two, Ian Bremmer of G-Zero media has some thoughts on where things stand.

... asymmetry is the whole ballgame. Militarily, this fight is wildly lopsided in America's favor. Strategically, it tilts toward Tehran. Yes, the US and Israel keep destroying Iranian capabilities every day, but with diminishing returns. The longer it goes, the more the balance shifts as Iran imposes mounting costs on the world economy and Trump's political standing.

https://www.gzeromedia.com/by-ian-bremmer/how-trumps-iran-gamble-backfired

i personally dont think higher gas prices ( i mean we made through Bidenflation) is a "diminishing return" to destroying Iran's arsenal in full...even if it does only buy us like 5 years of relative peace, and only like a 25% chance the [non terrorist] Iranian people can be free.

i mean it sucks for the midterms, but the opposition party almost always wins the mid terms anyway.
i personally think -especially compared to all the other stuff the world wastes money on- this is a damn good reason to spend money.

 

[Mendel]

[Off topic because bunk.]

I wonder how many comments in this thread are nothing more than "Trump is dumb".

Ironically,

Bidenflation

And, well, ...

https://bidentotrump.com/data/inflation-rate/

If you look at this graph, consider the worldwide effect of Covid and Ukraine sanctions, Trump's claims of "inflation has stopped" after he "inherited the worst inflation in the history of our country" are another example of "Trump is dumb". Or maybe he just thinks Americans are dumb.

 

[Mendel]

Deirdre, you appear to be oblivious to the overwhelming negative views that most of the world (and most of this country) has of Donald. We're here to enlighten you. You're welcome.

Note: this is an aggregate from a number of different polls.

An updating polling average of Donald Trump's approval rating and disapproval rating in his second term, accounting for each poll's quality, recency, sample size, and partisan lean
View attachment 89018

https://www.natesilver.net/p/trump-approval-ratings-nate-silver-bulletin

Edit to add: I see the end of the graph is cut off, at least on my display. It ends at disapproval 54.9%, approval 41.3%.

Internationally, surveys show similar approval ratings, with the majority of respondents against the war.
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-eas...ans-oppose-us-israeli-strikes-on-iran/3853988

About 75% said they are concerned that the conflict could spread to other countries, while trust in the US fell to 15%, the lowest level in the past 20 years.

 

[deirdre]

If you look at this graph, consider the worldwide effect of Covid and Ukraine sanctions, Trump's claims of "inflation has stopped" after he "inherited the worst inflation in the history of our country" are another example of "Trump is dumb". Or maybe he just thinks Americans are dumb.

whatever, we still made it through it.

(not sure why you are picking on a term like Bidenflation-its how newspapers know the period under discussion- and then proving me right about more "trump is dumb" rants.)

 

[FatPhil]

(not sure why you are picking on a term like Bidenflation-its how newspapers know the period under discussion- and then proving me right about more "trump is dumb" rants.)
View attachment 89065

Is showing a non-inflammatory usage of 'Bidenomics' really your best evidence that 'Bidenflation' is used non-inflammatorily?

 

[Mendel]

not sure why you are picking on a term like Bidenflation

I'm picking on your use of it because it's unwarranted criticism of Biden in a thread that isn't about him or the economy, after you complained about people criticising Trump in a thread about a war he started.

Spoiler: 7 years ago

Source: https://youtu.be/cWGFQKDdEiM

Wiktionary calls the term "Bidenflation (uncountable) (informal, derogatory, humorous)", and shows no precedent.
On the other hand, Bidenomics has ample precedent (e.g. "Reaganomics" denoting the 'trickle down' concept).
X-nomics denotes economic policy originating with president X.
In analogy, X-flation would denote inflation originating with president X, but a) there's no precedent, and b) it's false, despite being a Republican talking point.

Article:

Inflation rate, United States (blue) and eurozone (red), January 1960 through July 2025

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021%E2%80%932023_inflation_surge

Since Biden did not set EU economic policy, the cause of the inflation did not originate with Biden.
Please think before you use propaganda terms uncritically.

Generally speaking, "Trump is dumb" cannot logically be countered by "Biden was dumb"; such a counter would be considered a derail.

When Trump is critized on his stance regarding the war this thread is about, then that's on topic, and that criticism can be refuted on its merits (or not).

 

[deirdre]

I'm picking on your use of it because it's unwarranted criticism of Biden in a thread that isn't about him or the economy

you're picking on it because you're petty and hypocritical.

usually you try to demonize me constantly for taking an off topic comment someone made and answering it. you accuse me of "there goes deirdre again derailing the thread. you always do this."

guess what, bucko... you are proving once again that you all do it ALL the time too.

Is showing a non-inflammatory usage of 'Bidenomics' really your best evidence that 'Bidenflation' is used non-inflammatorily?

Bidenomics is inflammatory too. Best remember the term, because i will and i will use it in the future and watch you all freak out about it.

 

[Gary C]

you're picking on it because you're petty and hypocritical.

usually you try to demonize me constantly for taking an off topic comment someone made and answering it. you accuse me of "there goes deirdre again derailing the thread. you always do this."

guess what, bucko... you are proving once again that you all do it ALL the time too.


Bidenomics is inflammatory too. Best remember the term, because i will and i will use it in the future and watch you all freak out about it.

He just proved you were wholly incorrect in your statement.
That suggests but doesn't prove that your intent was to deflect attention from the multiple flaws in Trump's war of choice as laid out in the article. Since you have specifically stated that you feel destroying Iran's "capabilities" is worth the cost, a better course might have been to specify which capabilities you want to see destroyed and why.

 

[deirdre]

He just proved you were wholly incorrect in your statement.

really? you might want to go back and reread my opinion.

That suggests but doesn't prove that your intent was to deflect attention from the multiple flaws in Trump's war of choice as laid out in the article.

yes GOD FORBID someone have a different opinion to you.

a better course might have been to specify which capabilities you want to see destroyed and why.

ALL of them. i dont understand why you are asking why? are you familiar with the iranian regime?

 

[Gary C]

really? you might want to go back and reread my opinion.

Unnecessary, I read it correctly the first time

yes GOD FORBID someone have a different opinion to you.

Opinions unsupported by facts don't interest me much. That's why I'm here.

ALL of them. i dont understand why you are asking why? are you familiar with the iranian regime?

About an order of magnitude more that you are from the evidence of this thread.

Without using the internet, can you discuss the roles of the IRGC, the Artesh, the Basij, or the Al Ouds Force and how each contributes to maintaining the regime and projecting Iranian power abroad?

 

[deirdre]

I read it correctly the first time

apparently not.

Opinions unsupported by facts don't interest me much.

then ignore them. 3/4th of both these iran threads are opinion and you havent whined about those.

Without using the internet, can you discuss the roles of the IRGC, the Artesh, the Basij, or the Al Ouds Force and how each contributes to maintaining the regime and projecting Iranian power abroad?

I dont see what that has to do with thousands of murdered citizens and torturing women (and men).

 

[Gary C]

Now back to the actual war.

The US says it destroyed Iran's space command. Experts say it wasn't much of a threat.​

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps announced the existence of its own space command in April 2020 during the launch of its first reconnaissance satellite. Iran has launched a total of 26 satellites since 2005, and 13 of them are still operational, according to the American Enterprise Institute's space data navigator tool. Three of those are registered to the IRGC.

https://www.defenseone.com/threats/...mand-experts-say-it-wasnt-much-threat/411938/

My take: As the Chinese just want this to wrap up quickly and since a number of the cargoes held up in the Persian Gulf either originated in China or were bound for China, Beijing is probably not eager to provide Iran with access to its own space based intelligence. Russia on the other hand benefits in the short term from higher prices for its smuggled oil, US weapons being expended that might have otherwise been sold to Ukraine, and Washington generally being tied down looking at things other than Russia.

Iran's space based assets represented a far greater threat to Israel, which its missiles can reach, than to the US. Israel maintains far tighter security domestically making it harder for Iran to get good targeting data there using human agents.

As far as the Gulf Arab states are concerned, this is probably a moot point. The western coast of the Persian Gulf is heavily Shiite with that sect comprising a majority of the labor force in some cities. Everyone with a cell phone and grudge against the local government is a potential source of targeting information for the Iranians.

edited to separate information drawn from the article vs my my comments.

 

[Gary C]

then ignore them. 3/4th of both these iran threads are opinion and you havent whined about those.

They did not quote me or make misattributions about my posts

I dont see what that has to do with thousands of murdered citizens and torturing women (and men).

So you don't actually know much about the regime and are now substituting a moral argument. If you feel this is a valid justification for war, when should we expect Trump to take US forces into Myanmar or South Sudan?

 

[deirdre]

They did not quote me or make misattributions about my posts

i made a misattribution? you didnt even say anything, you posted an article.

If you feel this is a valid justification for war,

its a military operation. and i do.

 

[Mendel]

Trump has told Congress that he aims to "ensure the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran ceases being a threat to the United States, its allies, and the international community." Since a big part of that justification is the threat posed by Hamas and Hezbollah, as written, the goal would entail
- defeat and occupy Iran
- defeat and eliminate Hezbollah and Hamas

Iran is twice as large and populous as Ukraine, and more mountainous.
If it wasn't as diplomatically isolated, and had more access to military aid, it'd be harder to beat.
But as a point of note, Russia has been bombing Ukraine relentlessly for 4 years, and Ukraine is still "capable" of posing a threat.

I don't see how Trump's "operation" can be anything less than full-fledged war, or miss its stated goal.

 

[deirdre]

Ukraine is still "capable" of posing a threat.

only because western countries are funding it.

i dont want to start a fight on this topic, but if iranian regime stops funding the terrorists (because there is no longer an iranian regime) wouldnt that help at least some?

 

[Gary C]

Trump has told Congress that he aims to "ensure the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran ceases being a threat to the United States, its allies, and the international community." Since a big part of that justification is the threat posed by Hamas and Hezbollah, as written, the goal would entail
- defeat and occupy Iran
- defeat and eliminate Hezbollah and Hamas

Iran is twice as large and populous as Ukraine, and more mountainous.
If it wasn't as diplomatically isolated, and had more access to military aid, it'd be harder to beat.
But as a point of note, Russia has been bombing Ukraine relentlessly for 4 years, and Ukraine is still "capable" of posing a threat.

I don't see how Trump's "operation" can be anything less than full-fledged war, or miss its stated goal.

Hence his reversion to habit in tossing out multiple possible goals from which he will eventually pick one, claim it was what he wanted all along, ignore the rest, and declare victory. None of which addresses the geopolitical realities now unfolding.

Iran has multiple seminaries cranking out clerics in the mold of Khamenei, many of whom have decades of experience in government and could easily replace the son now assuming power. Iran has hundreds of senior officers and operatives with experience operating against Israel, the Gulf Arab states, and the US. Iran has thousands of scientists and engineers. IOW Iran has the knowledge base needed to reconstitute any physical assets the US or Israel destroy. There is no possible future in which all these people get bombed out of existence.

They can dig deeper than bombs can penetrate. They can adopt and adapt widely distributed methods for making long range weapons and nuclear devices. They can recruit new proxies who want revenge for the losses inflicted by Israeli and now US strikes.

You can't destroy knowledge. When a politician says, "never" you have to consider it a rhetorical exercise that ignores human history.

For context -
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ1h6Ki2-8U


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RF4Y_BebfNI

The use of force almost always gives rise to unintended consequences and it is almost always far more costly than the advocates of force are willing to acknowledge. In this two part episode of The Massachusetts School of Law's program, Books of Our Time, Dean Lawrence R. Velvel interviews Andrew J. Bacevich, former U.S. Army Colonel and Professor of international relations and history at Boston University, on his book: The Limits of Power - The End of American Exceptionalism.

(Edited to include both parts of the presentation)

 

[Gary C]

I've seen several commentators state that the war will be short because one or more of the players will run out of advanced weapons. Unfortunately that was also used by many of the same talking heads to predict an end to the Ukraine war which (so far) has failed to materialize. As PERUN explained in one his videos on that topic, both the Russians and the Ukrainians were smart enough to throttle back their attacks to ensure they did not use up key weapons faster than they could resupply.

A similar logic applies in the Persian Gulf. As a bonus, PERUN begins with a quick segment on misinformation regarding the war and some techniques for debunking them.

Much of the war is still too cloaked in the fog of war to describe with much certainty, but what is clear is that concerns about munitions shortages (on all sides) that may have felt very familiar to those who have followed the war in Ukraine. With the U.S. emphasising the depletion of Iran's missile launch capability while concerns surfaced about everything from Tomahawks to interceptor missiles, the question often asked was would a munitions shortage force one side or the other to end the war in a matter of days?

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP_rr859r8w

 

[Hevach]

Iran (like Russia) isn't really dependent on top shelf advanced weapons. Shahed drones are cheap, they're produced domestically, produced in Russia, claimed (but not last I knew proven) to be produced in North Korea and at offshore Russian companies in Africa. Russia makes their version from different sourced parts leading to different capabilities than their domestic counterparts, which shows they're not chained to any particular supply lines to get them made, in turn meaning production could be spun up anywhere with friendly economic policies. Even if they're not being made any of these places yet that could still be changed now that demand is stepping up with a second country actively expending them.

There are things with long lead times and big price tags that the US might run out of but there are also a lot of things we have substantial continuous production on and a few producers of those things like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin have said they're upping production while the checkbook is open.

At best there'll be a slowdown in cadence of strikes like we saw in Ukraine but there's no particular reason to think either country is not in a position to do what they're doing right now for a very long time.

 

[deirdre]

Iran (like Russia) isn't really dependent on top shelf advanced weapons. Shahed drones are cheap, they're produced domestically, produced in Russia, claimed (but not last I knew proven) to be produced in North Korea and at offshore Russian companies in Africa. Russia makes their version from different sourced parts leading to different capabilities than their domestic counterparts, which shows they're not chained to any particular supply lines to get them made, in turn meaning production could be spun up anywhere with friendly economic policies. Even if they're not being made any of these places yet that could still be changed now that demand is stepping up with a second country actively expending them.

There are things with long lead times and big price tags that the US might run out of but there are also a lot of things we have substantial continuous production on and a few producers of those things like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin have said they're upping production while the checkbook is open.

At best there'll be a slowdown in cadence of strikes like we saw in Ukraine but there's no particular reason to think either country is not in a position to do what they're doing right now for a very long time.

i saw something (maybe cnn?) that said iran can pump out drones and it only costs them like $100 to do it. < thats an exaggeration but its like 1000x cheaper then it costs us.

our guys, CENTCOM, said once we control the sky we (and Israel) will be using jets to drop gravity bombs and that we have plenty of those.

 

[deirdre]

not sure how much it matters, but is it interesting that Russia and China abstained? <i dont follow UN stuff much, so that is an actual question.

Article:

The United Nations Security Council adopted a draft resolution condemning Iran's attacks on Gulf countries and Jordan, demanding that Tehran immediately halt hostilities.

Thirteen of the 15 members of the UNSC voted on Wednesday in favour of the resolution sponsored by the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and cosponsored by an extraordinary 135 other UN member states.

"It was overwhelming. It was 13 votes on the Council in favour, two abstentions," Al Jazeera's Gabriel Elizondo said, reporting from UN headquarters in New York.

"Both China and Russia abstained but notably decided not to use their veto power to block this resolution, probably because it got a lot of support, not only in the Security Council but with other member states – 135 other countries cosponsored this resolution that has now been adopted," Elizondo said.

Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/12/un-security-council-adopts-resolution-condemning-irans-attacks-in-the-gulf

 

[Gary C]

Yes it is interesting.

China would benefit from normal shipping operations resuming as early as possible. I would not expect a veto but by abstaining they perhaps intend to insert themselves as unbiased mediators toward any future peace deal by not taking sides now.

Russia might see some benefit from the conflict continuing for reasons I suggested earlier. That would have been helped by a veto but perhaps they see this as just a side show with no real long term relevance. Putin and Lavarov have been at this a long time, successfully supporting Iran against Western interests when it suited them.

 

[FatPhil]

Yes it is interesting.

China would benefit from normal shipping operations resuming as early as possible. I would not expect a veto but by abstaining they perhaps intend to insert themselves as unbiased mediators toward any future peace deal by not taking sides now.

Russia might see some benefit from the conflict continuing for reasons I suggested earlier. That would have been helped by a veto but perhaps they see this as just a side show with no real long term relevance. Putin and Lavarov have been at this a long time, successfully supporting Iran against Western interests when it suited them.

I'd like to know the flow network for the Iran-sourced missiles, as the path from Iran to Russia surely must have stalled. And that doesn't favour Russia.

 

[Hevach]

Once Iran escalated to blocking Hormuz they started stepping on a lot more toes.

As for the abstain rather than voting either way, my guess is the wording of the resolution goes too far but a veto supports something they won't support. Neither one is going to tell Iran to stop blowing up America or their allies' stuff but they're also not going to openly support the current situation while the Oligarchs are angrily pointing at big red numbers.

 

[John J.]

...not sure how much it matters, but is it interesting that Russia and China abstained? <i dont follow UN stuff much, so that is an actual question.

It might be significant (particularly re. Russia) because allowing the resolution to go through shows the governments of Russia, China feel it is more important not to antagonise the nations Iran is targeting than it is to show support for Iran.

Though most of the states Iran is attacking might be seen as broadly pro-Western/ pro-US, they aren't on all issues and historically have sometimes acted against US/ Western interests (e.g. the 1973 oil embargo, which had real effects in the USA and elsewhere); the UAE appears to have supported the RSF in Sudan. The governments of Saudi Arabia and several Gulf states often seem to resent Western criticism of their domestic policies, which they don't generally receive from Russia or China, which are less vocal about personal liberty and the rights of dissenters (and perhaps more likely to stifle opinions from their people that go against government views).

I'd guess the governments of Russia and China have decided it could be more useful to maintain reasonable relations with Saudi Arabia and the smaller Gulf states (and a few other nations affected by Iranian action) than it would be to overtly support Iran, which has a shambolic economy and little influence outside of some militant groups in the Middle East. It makes sense diplomatically; the autocratic Gulf states might not be naturally supportive of some "Western" criticism of Russian/ Chinese policies (particularly internal actions against dissidents or minorities) and keeping them on-side to some degree might help in e.g. future votes in the UN- both Russia and China have vetoes, but the optics of how many votes are received for and against a resolution still matter. The Gulf states are wealthy, and some have made efforts to promote a positive image on the global stage in recent years (through e.g. sports sponsorship, high-end tourism, media acquisitions) which might increase their credibility with publics around the world; Iran is not in that position.

 

[Gary C]

Speaking of China ...

Ships identify themselves as Chinese around Strait of Hormuz during Iran war to avoid attacks

HONG KONG (AP) — Some commercial ships near or in the Strait of Hormuz and Persian Gulf have declared themselves as China-linked since the Iran war began, marine traffic data show, as their operators apparently try to reduce risks of being targeted in attacks.

At least eight vessels in or near the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman changed their declared destination signals to short messages such as "CHINA OWNER" or "CHINA OWNER&CREW," according to data on the ship tracking platform MarineTraffic analyzed by The Associated Press./ex]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...-during-iran-war-to-avoid-attacks/ar-AA1Ytsjw

 

[jplaza]

Yes it is interesting.

China would benefit from normal shipping operations resuming as early as possible. I would not expect a veto but by abstaining they perhaps intend to insert themselves as unbiased mediators toward any future peace deal by not taking sides now.

Russia might see some benefit from the conflict continuing for reasons I suggested earlier. That would have been helped by a veto but perhaps they see this as just a side show with no real long term relevance. Putin and Lavarov have been at this a long time, successfully supporting Iran against Western interests when it suited them.

This may be an important factor for not vetoing the resolution:
https://edition.cnn.com/2026/03/13/...73379672&utm_medium=social&utm_source=bluesky

US temporarily lifts sanctions on Russian oil stranded at sea in boost for Kremlin

The Trump administration on Thursday issued a new license allowing countries to temporarily purchase certain Russian oil products, the latest efforts by the US to mitigate surging crude prices following the war it launched with Iran.

It benefits both Russia and China. So it may be the result of a negotiation

 

[NoParty]

This might be the first time in history that starting a war & conquering a country didn't turn out to be as quick & easy as a politician said it would be.

 

[Ann K]

This might be the first time in history that starting a war & conquering a country didn't turn out to be as quick & easy as a politician said it would be.

I'm going to assume that's sarcasm...

 

[Gary C]

FWIW the current focus on Iranian use of missiles, drones and mines to close the Straight of Hormuz glosses over the physical limitations of the waterway itself.

VLCCs (supertankers) and large container ships can be easily ten times the size of similar ships in previous wars. They can't hide or maneuver to evade attack. At the some points ships will be less than 20 miles from the Iranian shore or Iranian controlled islands. Modern computer directed artillery, unguided rockets fired in high volumes, and short range tactical missiles can cover that distance and ammunition stocks for those weapons are at least an order of magnitude greater than the higher technology ordinance being exchanged now.

 

[JMartJr]

FWIW the current focus on Iranian use of missiles, drones and mines to close the Straight of Hormuz glosses over the physical limitations of the waterway itself.

Looking at that map, I am struck by the opportunity presented by the peninsula on which UAE and Oman sit.. A canal there would have little use during normal times, but might be handy when anybody, Iran or somebody else, might try to choke of shipping at the choke-point represented by the straits. Because it would not be handy for the vast majority of the time, it will never be done, I'd wager -- but UAE likes mega-projects like the Palm Jumeira or the Burj Kalifa, maybe if somebody thought of some World Record that could be set along with digging such a canal...

 

[NoParty]

So, Trump said recently:
TRUMP: "When you have energy and when you have gasoline less, everything else follows. It's such a big category. So when you have lower energy prices, which I think you admit we do, substantially, that means everything else."
https://www.npr.org/2026/03/12/nx-s...the-war-with-iran-is-challenging-that-promise

I don't get to say this often, but Trump is mostly right! In Econ 110 you learn that high fuel prices get added to the cost
of many goods trucked around the country, etc., so high fuel costs do tend to make many, many things less affordable.

Unfortunately, the current circumstances: A war that he is unambiguously responsible for starting + the inescapable reality
that "his" war is driving up gas prices, big league (over $5/gallon is common now, in my corner of SoCal), leads to the
undeniable reality that he is currently making life much less affordable, for Americans.

Now, if you're thinking, "Wow! What a great opportunity for him to frankly concede that sometimes his choices bring hardship,"
well, you just don't know Donald J. Trump. No, instead of admitting the obvious, he is trying to gaslight us, yet again:
What if stratospheric gas prices are actually (now) a good thing?!?
"The United States is the largest Oil Producer in the World, by far, so when oil prices go up, we make a lot of money,"
Trump said in a post on Truth Social. Wow, what a fresh, 180 degree pivot!
Now, when he says "we," I don't recommend that you wait breathlessly for your share of that big pile of money. Your role is
to pay a lot more at the pump. ExxonMobil and Chevron, etc. are in place to bank the profits of the higher oil prices.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5780543-us-oil-prices-trump/

 

[Ann K]

Looking at that map, I am struck by the opportunity presented by the peninsula on which UAE and Oman sit.. A canal there would have little use during normal times, but might be handy when anybody, Iran or somebody else, might try to choke of shipping at the choke-point represented by the straits. Because it would not be handy for the vast majority of the time, it will never be done, I'd wager -- but UAE likes mega-projects like the Palm Jumeira or the Burj Kalifa, maybe if somebody thought of some World Record that could be set along with digging such a canal...

Caveat: it's mountainous, so digging a canal would be a monumental undertaking. And given the enormous size of current tanker ships, it would seem to pose an even greater challenge to create a canal that would accommodate them. There's also the problem that it's within range of current armaments, so it could probably be closed by a hostile power even more easily than the strait.