US Perspective on the Iran - Israel / US War

[royalharris]

It is unjustifiable for the United States to back Israel in launching a pre-emptive strike against Iran.
That said, Iran itself harbors a stark regional hegemonist mindset: it bullies Gulf Arab states and seeks exclusive control over the Strait of Hormuz. Its pursuit of nuclear weapons is something the entire world cannot tolerate
China, too, does not endorse such actions taken by Iran.

As the military conflict between the United States and Iran drags on, I believe a growing number of countries will join the coalition against Iran, led first by nations of the European Union

 

[EugeneP]

It is unjustifiable for the United States to back Israel in launching a pre-emptive strike against Iran.
That said, Iran itself harbors a stark regional hegemonist mindset: it bullies Gulf Arab states and seeks exclusive control over the Strait of Hormuz. Its pursuit of nuclear weapons is something the entire world cannot tolerate
China, too, does not endorse such actions taken by Iran.

As the military conflict between the United States and Iran drags on, I believe a growing number of countries will join the coalition against Iran, led first by nations of the European Union

What does "coalition against Iran, led first by nations of the European Union" mean? Do you mean like Iraq and Afghanistan wars? If so, that ship has sailed with Trump as POTUS. He has been singularly a failure in getting Europeans on board, let alone rest of the world, over any action. EU may issue supporting statements, but they will never join combat under current U.S. leadership. Things may change if the war drags on and there is a new leadership in 2029.

 

[royalharris]

What does "coalition against Iran, led first by nations of the European Union" mean? Do you mean like Iraq and Afghanistan wars? If so, that ship has sailed with Trump as POTUS. He has been singularly a failure in getting Europeans on board, let alone rest of the world, over any action. EU may issue supporting statements, but they will never join combat under current U.S. leadership. Things may change if the war drags on and there is a new leadership in 2029.

The United States and the European Union do not need to launch a ground invasion. They only need to maintain this bombing campaign.
Iran's economy is already fragile, and if this level of bombardment continues for another six months to a year, Iran could be brought to the point of collapse

 

[EugeneP]

The U.S.-Iran war will drag on for an extremely long time. Neither side can secure a decisive victory on the battlefield, making it extremely difficult for the two parties to reach any consensus at the negotiating table

In a way, this may be considered as the 'hot' phase of a 47-year-old war. It was "cold and warm" for 46 years and turned hot now.

 

[Pakistan Space Agency]

This is probably why Iran is current undergoing a secret crash program for a modest nuclear arsenal, and will use that threshold status as a bargaining chip. If negotiations fail, and Iran pissed say half a dozen nukes and signals that it has them, it will change the balance.

Before the Iranians cross that threshold, the US can still negotiate a less conciliatory deal, and avoid getting bogged down. Unless Trump doesn’t mind keeping the nation at some level of perpetual war with Iran for the rest of his term. It could be the next congress that forces him out of the war in early 2027, if the democrats win.

I don't believe Iran is going nuclear. If there were even a realistic prospect of that happening, I suspect Saudi Arabia would already have taken comparable steps.

One point that is often overlooked is what happened after the A.Q. Khan proliferation scandal. In my view, sometime after 2004—following the exposure of Pakistan's nuclear technology transfers to Iran and other countries—Pakistan's strategic calculus shifted towards preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Relevant reading:

• 24/12/2003: Pakistan admits it may be source of Iran's nuclear expertise: The Guardian
• 23/01/2004: Full text of Musharraf interview: CNN
• 15/02/2004: Interview With Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf, February 15: The Acronym Institute
• 01/05/2007: Tenet showed nuclear blueprints to Musharraf: Dawn

 

[Watandar]

In a way, this may be considered as the 'hot' phase of a 47-year-old war. It was "cold and warm" for 46 years and turned hot now.

I think this speaks more to the American addiction to war rather than tensions or frictions that can exist between states and can be managed. The US has practiced a very interventionist and aggressive foreign policy around the world and started many un-necessary wars.

 

[royalharris]

In a way, this may be considered as the 'hot' phase of a 47-year-old war. It was "cold and warm" for 46 years and turned hot now.

A military conflict between the United States and Iran is inevitable sooner or later.
The U.S. will not allow any hegemonic power to emerge in the Middle East, while Iran harbors an intense ambition to become the region’s dominant hegemon — this constitutes an irreconcilable contradiction

 

[EugeneP]

I think this speaks more to the American addiction to war rather than tensions or frictions that can exist between states and can be managed. The US has practiced a very interventionist and aggressive foreign policy around the world and started many un-necessary wars.

While it is true that U.S. policy has been interventionist and aggressive, mainly in support of allies in the area (Israel, Gulf Arab states), Iran has pursued its own strange campaign of aggression and intervention through proxies (Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis etc.) for no obvious reason other than opposition to Israel (and to lesser extent Arab neighbors).

 

[royalharris]

Iran is inherently incapable of achieving grain self-sufficiency. Coupled with the cutoff of its oil exports and sustained U.S. airstrikes targeting its infrastructure, Iran’s economy will collapse completely within half a year, sliding into an economic predicament identical to that of Afghanistan.

 

[Pakistan Space Agency]

... That said, Iran itself harbors a stark regional hegemonist mindset: it bullies Gulf Arab states and seeks exclusive control over the Strait of Hormuz. Its pursuit of nuclear weapons is something the entire world cannot tolerate ...

What could possibly go wrong with fanatical mullahs armed with nuclear weapons—especially after spending 47 years encouraging millions of people to chant "Death to America"?

 

[Pakistan Space Agency]

.... He has been singularly a failure in getting Europeans on board, let alone rest of the world, over any action. EU may issue supporting statements, but they will never join combat under current U.S. leadership. ...

Europeans are well and truly on board. According to the NATO Secretary General, the United States flew around 5,000 sorties from bases in Europe during the first 40 days of the campaign against Iran.

They're also smart enough to keep a low profile and let the United States and Israel absorb most of the criticism.

01/07/2026: NATO chief says US flew 5,000 sorties from bases in Europe during operation against Iran: TASS

Think about that: 5,000 sorties taking off from Europe, yet Iranian propaganda remains overwhelmingly focused on the Arabs. Quite the curious set of priorities.

 

[Yasser76]

Its not change of heart but concern that the war-hawks everywhere are taking this to levels even they will regret soon.
I supported and cheered fir iran during the initial war.
I’m just not in favour of muslims dying on both sides while israel laughs at us.
I had wanted iran to hit isrsel the hardest which is very disappointing. Right now its muslims fighting each other (iran and gcc arabs), israel not being hit while it uses americans to hit iran as well as the gulfies. We will be collective losers on both ends and can’t save anyone.
Hopefully hoping against escalation of this war and chaos. The muslims need to unite and not fight each other no matter what our differences

100% agree on this. Iran have massively overplayed their hands, now we have members of this forum celebrating as desalination plants get hit and children injured but its ok as they are Arab. What logic is that?

This is just a tamasha by Iran and seems like the last roll of the dice., As you say, if they were serious they would have attacked Israel, but instead they choose to pick on Kuwait and Bahrain. More a sign of wekness then strength.

Thankfully I can write this freely on this thread as some Mods get sensitive in others

 

[RescueRanger]

Iraq is not free to exercise full control over the proceeds from its oil exports. Much of the revenue from Iraq's oil sales is held through an account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, giving Washington significant financial leverage over Baghdad and allowing the US considerable influence over the flow of those funds.

I suspect Iran could eventually find itself in a similar position if it were defeated and subjected to a US-backed post-war administration. Control over its oil revenues could become one of the mechanisms used to shape its future policies and limit its ability to challenge the United States.

23/01/2026: How the U.S. controls Iraq's oil revenues: Reuters

Iraq being free or not is a moot point. You have to see the way the winds are moving right now in the region. From Iraq to Lebanon and Syria... You don't need to be a Rand analyst to see where this is all going.

 

[Davey Crockett]

Iraq being free or not is a moot point. You have to see the way the winds are moving right now in the region. From Iraq to Lebanon and Syria... You don't need to be a Rand analyst to see where this is all going.

 

[RescueRanger]

Why are they holding back the bombers?

Because getting the BUFFS and Bones into the region costs a lot of logistics and money.

A single 12 hour sortie using B52s/B1 is estimated to be around 850,000 USD, this doesn't include the logistical costs, cost of munitions, and support needed when these birds are in the air. [Source: https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/bombers-in-2050]

Comparatively, it is far more cost effective to use smaller operations using a combination of stand off munitions, one way attack drones and fighters to conduct air to ground stirkes:




The estimated cost to the US for a 4-hour strike mission is approximately 12.3 million USD.
A much larger operation over the course of 24 hours would cost the USG between 186-217 million US$ per day


These costs don't the following:

• aircraft carrier operating costs
• destroyer and cruiser operations
• submarine operations
• intelligence and surveillance aircraft (E-3, RC-135, Rivet Joint)
• satellite support
• electronic warfare
• personnel
• maintenance
• logistics
• ammunition stockpile replenishment
• long-term depreciation and sustainment

Based on information in the public domain and on the tempo of operations reported over the past several days- which include repeated strikes, cruise missile launches, CAPs, aerial refueling it would be safe to say that the US is currently spending between 180-350 million US$ per day on direct military operations.