Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Investment Strategies / Mechanical Investing
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (53) |
Author: albaby1 SILVER
SHREWD
  😊 😞

Number: of 84361 
Subject: Re: The strategy,...is working
Date: 03/18/26 12:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 14
You're narrowing it down to only the nuclear component but the broader plan has always been about Iranian power projection across the region...and that certainly is being degraded severely.

Is that the goal of the war? To degrade Iranian power projection in the region?

The Administration most frequently talks about the need to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon - not generally degrading Iran's power projection. Because, of course, that kind of conventional regional military power is probably not something that would really warrant a pre-emptive war against Iran. I don't think that anyone was arguing that U.S. interests were especially threatened by the fact that Iran had a navy, or had an air force. So while destroying those things certainly weakens their conventional military power, the improvement to our security interests from removing that aspect of their power isn't all that high. Particularly given the significant costs of waging this kind of war.

And, of course, given that they will certainly rebuild some of that capacity after the bombing stops. No one seriously thinks that Iran's going to throw up their hands and say, "Well, I guess we'll never have an air force again." Missiles are easy to rebuild - nearly all of their missiles were either destroyed or launched during the 12 Day War, and most of their launchers as well, and they completely replenished them within less than a year. Sure - we've made great strides in degrading Iran's conventional military capabilities -which weren't really a significant security threat to the U.S. (or quite frankly to the region, since Iran's ability to project power wasn't really predicated on their relatively modest navy or air force). We've used up most of their ballistic missiles, at the cost of using up the lion's share of our available missile defense systems - they'll have to replenish the former, and we'll have to replenish the latter. Is that worth tens of billions of dollars and precipitating a global energy crisis? Doesn't seem like a particularly "working" strategy to me. We're notching the goals that aren't especially valuable (neutralizing the Iranian naval threat), while not achieving the goals that were arguably more important (neutralizing the Iranian nuclear threat)...and all at great cost.
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to albaby1 here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 84,309 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (53) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of MI | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community