No. of Recommendations: 3
It's the playbook for every opponent that's on the "weak" side of asymmetric warfare. From driving the Brits out of Ireland to fighting the Russians in Afghanistan to, well, fighting the Russians also in Ukraine. And, of course, the Americans in Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan. The invading forces can always decide it isn't worth it and just go home, while the domestic forces have nowhere to go but fight to the bitter end. If the domestic forces can make it painful enough to the invading forces to keep fighting, then they can exercise the choice to leave and just leave - but it's harder for the invading force to get the domestic forces to give up, because they have no option but to keep fighting.
You're not describing what I'm talking about. You're describing insurgent warfare. I'm describing playing to American political opinion. They're not the same thing; a successful insurgent campaign can generate American political pressure as an outcome.
It's why hoping that something like a blockade might change that dynamic is....well, it sure is optimistic. Sure, they'd rather not have to turn off their oil wells. It's time consuming and costly to restart them
Change the word "costly" to the phrase "...may be impossible". Much of Iran's oil fields are low pressure and they lack the tech to do much about it. Once they stop pumping - when they run out of storage - those wells may never restart. As to the "optimistic" part, that's a take for sure. Say, how much gaoline does Iran produce?
