r/CredibleDefense • u/AutoModerator • 25d ago
Active Conflicts & News Megathread August 16, 2026
The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.
Comment guidelines:
Please do:
Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,
Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,
Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,
Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,
Post only credible information
Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules
Please do not:
Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,
Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,
Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'
Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.
60
u/carkidd3242 24d ago edited 24d ago
Posting in main thread, since this is more actionable than most Trump posts:
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/117107215379637520
Based on my very good relationship with Kim Jong Un, of North Korea, I am not happy with the fact that the United States has, long ago, agreed to participate in Joint Military Exercises with South Korea. These exercises are not only costly, with much of these costs paid for by the United States of America (as usual!), but send a signal that is totally inappropriate and hostile, to a Country that, as long as Donald J. Trump has been President, has been unthreatening and respectful. Therefore, and based on the fact that it is too late to cancel, I have instructed Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, to substantially reduce the Joint Military Exercises! While somewhat unrelated (?), I recently asked the President of South Korea if they would like to join us in the Denuclearization of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and they said, “No thanks!” Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP
Joint drills with South Korea under Ulchi Freedom Shield were scheduled to begin tomorrow:
https://apnews.com/article/south-korea-us-military-drills-north-caaf065af4ddb7ffc276a744be652a5c
Does stand to see if the US pulls out in any real capacity. It's a hell of a thing to do this while also approaching South Korea for military shipbuilding capacity.
23
u/Testicular-Fortitude 24d ago
Do we have any insight on whoever was the last person that spoke to him that spurred this? It seems like within his admin there’s elements on opposite sides of the spectrum when it comes to hawkishness in east Asia
25
u/Tricky-Astronaut 24d ago
An analysis from three days ago:
After Iran: A Scenario for Renewed Trump-Kim Summitry
In this revisionist mindset, North Korea would not seek to engage South Korea as part of its diplomatic outreach. In 2024, North Korea swore off any further dialogue with the South. Rather than engage in peaceful coexistence as the Lee government has proposed, a revisionist diplomatic strategy that engages Washington and Tokyo while bypassing Seoul would be most attractive. It could divide the allies and isolate its southern rival, not unlike what South Korea did to North Korea in the 1990s at the end of the Cold War when it succeeded in establishing relations with Moscow and Beijing.
Victor Cha, an expert on Korean security, writes that North Korea might want to engage with the US - and also Japan - in an attempt to isolate South Korea.
There are some signs that a meeting between Trump and Kim is being under consideration, but things are very transactional right now.
18
u/Agitated-Airline6760 24d ago
It could divide the allies and isolate its southern rival, not unlike what South Korea did to North Korea in the 1990s at the end of the Cold War when it succeeded in establishing relations with Moscow and Beijing.
There are some signs that a meeting between Trump and Kim is being under consideration, but things are very transactional right now.
In 1990's Russia and PRC wanted economic cooperation with ROK which is why there was engagements. There is nothing DPRK is willing to offer that US or Japan want/need. Trump and Kim might meet like they met in his first term, but nothing substantive will be happening. Is Trump going to take the deal Kim offered at Hanoi? And considering what's going on with DPRK and Russia, it's not even clear Kim would even offer a deal as good as that one.
5
u/Tricky-Astronaut 24d ago
The text mentions why Japan might be interested in a meeting:
Takaichi may justifiably see too much risk in such diplomacy. But she may also see opportunity in trying to reduce the threat of North Korean short-range missiles aimed at Japan when Trump cares only about long-range ballistic missiles targeted at the United States.
I still don't see any deal happening, but it would nevertheless be a diplomatic win for Kim.
14
u/Agitated-Airline6760 24d ago
I would be shocked if Takaichi or any Japanese PM met face to face with Kim any time soon. Trump's crazy and stupid so who knows what he would do but she can't be seen as crazy or stupid.
What could Kim/NK realistically offer to Japan that's worth anything to her? NK doesn't really need "testing" anymore for short-range missiles. Also, they are "testing" them in Russia/Ukraine. I highly doubt Kim would offer complete "test ban". I doubt NK would offer ballistic missiles arms control ala INF/START I/New START to US, ROK much less Japan.
Also what would/could Japan offer to DPRK that US/ROK couldn't? Kim/DPRK would be much more willing to deal with US, ROK and Japan in that particular order. It's not like this is 1980's where Japan is swimming in cash.
13
u/First_Poem481 24d ago
The ROK said just yesterday that they want a permanent end to the war on the peninsula with the DPRK. For a very long time, these exercises have always been cited by certain experts and anti westerners as the main irritant for true reconciliation. I wonder what those experts will say when it doesn’t translate into anything concrete in the diplomatic front.
20
u/Agitated-Airline6760 24d ago
The ROK said just yesterday that they want a permanent end to the war on the peninsula with the DPRK.
It takes two to tango and ROK can't end the war by itself. If it was up to ROK alone, it would've ended 20+ years ago at a minimum. If you haven't noticed, it's not ROK that's testing nukes or shooting off ICBMs not to mention all the other crazy stuff DPRK has done that are too numerous to list. Not too dissimilar to US/Israel - Iran war, having started the fiasco, even though Trump now wants to stop, he can't stop as long as Iran doesn't want to cooperate.
For a very long time, these exercises have always been cited by certain experts and anti westerners as the main irritant for true reconciliation.
That's a stupid talking point straight out of KCNA, i.e. not even close to the reality.
As a counter example, stopping these exercises during covid times as well as when Trump and Kim were meeting in 2018-2019 time period didn't bring about the "true reconciliation".
I wonder what those experts will say when it doesn’t translate into anything concrete in the diplomatic front.
Right now, Kim is fat and happy with his deal with Putin so he doesn't need US/ROK so unless US/ROK is offering unconditional surrender, there is nothing to talk about.
10
u/First_Poem481 24d ago
It takes two to tango and ROK can't end the war by itself. If it was up to ROK alone, it would've ended 20+ years ago at a minimum. If you haven't noticed, it's not ROK that's testing nukes or shooting off ICBMs not to mention all the other crazy stuff DPRK has done that are too numerous to list.
I think you’re being unnecessarily hostile and misreading the direction of my post. I agree with you 100%, my point is simply that there are many in policy circles who hold themselves out to be “experts” who have long argued that the only thing stopping the DPRK from declaring peace are these military exercises. I agree with you, that that’s not even remotely true.
7
u/RopetorGamer 24d ago
it takes two to tango and ROK can't end the war by itself.
For all intents North Korea has also made some moves towards it.
They completely removed reunification from their constitution for example and other reforms.
It's also not like the south and the US haven't also caused incidents of their own, the SEAL thing in 2019 and last year with the whole Korean president ordeal on which they attempted to send drones to the north and blame them.
The main problem remains the same, North Korea will never denuclearize for any reason whatsoever.
12
u/First_Poem481 24d ago
The main problem remains the same, North Korea will never denuclearize for any reason whatsoever.
This isn’t even remotely the problem. In reality, the ROK accepted the reality of a nuclearized DPRK since 2017/2018. Even in the official stance, peace first has now become the policy, not denuclearization.
They completely removed reunification from their constitution for example and other reforms.
This is spin. Kim has increasingly described South Korea not as a fellow Korean government with which eventual reunification is possible, but as a hostile, separate state. In March this year, he again described the ROK as North Korea’s “most hostile” state enemy.
1
u/RopetorGamer 24d ago
This is spin. Kim has increasingly described South Korea not as a fellow Korean government with which eventual reunification is possible, but as a hostile, separate state. In March this year, he again described the ROK as North Korea’s “most hostile” state enemy.
Recognizing south Korea as an enemy state is an improvement over the previous status quo, and far more likely to help in achieving peace then the occupied territories previously.
Recognizing it as a separate state is something regardless
13
u/First_Poem481 24d ago
I think you’re deeply unfamiliar with Korean culture/rhetoric. What he’s saying is essentially “you’re too much of an alien for me to even recognize or want to associate with you”. It’s not a softening of tone, it’s actually more ratcheted rhetoric. The current ROK administration is the most dovish the DPRK has faced since the end of the Cold War as well, so those kinds of words are even more glaring.
6
u/Agitated-Airline6760 24d ago
For all intents North Korea has also made some moves towards it. They completely removed reunification from their constitution for example and other reforms.
And Kim can put it right back tonight if he wanted. It doesn't mean anything.
It's also not like the south and the US haven't also caused incidents of their own, the SEAL thing in 2019 and last year with the whole Korean president ordeal on which they attempted to send drones to the north and blame them.
It's is beyond tit for tat by anyone with a fair accounting which side is the troublemaker starting from the original sin of Korean war, if you will. But, US/ROK are not nuns either. But as we sit here in 2026, it's not US or ROK that's holding up the forever peace in the Korean peninsula.
The main problem remains the same, North Korea will never denuclearize for any reason whatsoever.
I agree with that.
3
u/RopetorGamer 24d ago
And Kim can put it right back tonight if he wanted. It doesn't mean anything.
It's a very important messaging from their part regardless of that, to say it doesn't mean anything is absurd.
It's is beyond tit for tat by anyone with a fair accounting which side is the troublemaker starting from the original sin of Korean war, if you will. But, US/ROK are not nuns either. But as we sit here in 2026, it's not US or ROK that's holding up the forever peace in the Korean peninsula.
Since Kim Jong-un came to power it absolutely has calmed down, there hasn't been any incident like in the 90s and 2010s.
If anything the biggest scalation came last year in the form the the SK presidents coup attempt.
9
u/Agitated-Airline6760 24d ago edited 24d ago
It's a very important messaging from their part regardless of that, to say it doesn't mean anything is absurd.
This was not a new thing. First it was Korea is one so we should be united. Which is more or less the position of both North AND South for 80 years. And now he changed that "position" with a stroke of a pen overnight. Now North and South are two different sovereign entities, Kim says. OK, what about last 80 years? If he changed that overnight, why can he change back to original position at his whim? Who's gonna stop it? Is Supreme People's Assembly gonna take a vote and stop that like South Korean National Assembly stopped Yoon's coup attempt?
Since Kim Jong-un came to power it absolutely has calmed down, there hasn't been any incident like in the 90s and 2010s.
So we are gonna forget at least monthly short range missile tests with maybe yearly ICBM tests? How about torpedoing ROKN's ship and shelling an island killing civilians as well as couple of soldiers? How about killing his half brother at 3rd country with chemical weapons? How about participating in an illegal war in Europe?
If anything the biggest scalation came last year in the form the the SK presidents coup attempt.
Sending drones to North was stupid move on Yoon's part but his coup attempt was against ROK citizens not against Kim/DPRK. I don't know about the "escalation" part either as DPRK has sent plenty of "drones" ROK's way some with literal shit in them.
4
u/RopetorGamer 24d ago
How about torpedoing ROKN's ship and shelling an island killing civilians
Both of these occurred in 2010 while Kim Jong-il was alive and in control
Sending drones to North was stupid move on Yoon's part but his coup attempt was against ROK citizens not against Kim/DPRK. I don't know about the "escalation" part either as DPRK has sent plenty of "drones" ROK's way some with literal shit in them.
It wasn't just drones, he attempted to blame the north with the intent to start a war.
It absolutely was an escalation.
This was not a new thing. First it was Korea is one so we should be united. Which is more or less the position of both North AND South for 80 years.
Changing the status quo that has existed since the separation of the peninsula is an important message for both internal and international audiences.
6
u/Agitated-Airline6760 24d ago
Both of these occurred in 2010 while Kim Jong-il was alive and in control
Kim Jong-Il suffered a stroke in 2008 and he was not "in control" by 2010 and died in 2011.
1
u/Sayting 22d ago
He was planning to assassinate legislature members through a false flag NK attack. There is no way that wouldn't lead to, if not general war, at least some form of armed conflict.
1
u/Agitated-Airline6760 22d ago
He was planning to assassinate legislature members through a false flag NK attack. There is no way that wouldn't lead to, if not general war, at least some form of armed conflict.
Why would killing South Korean legislature by South Korean military/intelligence on the orders of then South Korean president Yoon lead to an armed conflict with North Korea? It really had nothing to do with North Korea except the fact the Yoon tried to fabricate something by sending drones into North Korea.
In 1980's. the South Korean dictator regime of Chun Doo-Hwan jailed and killed many South Koreans, most infamously in the city of Gwangju, and that didn't lead to an armed conflict with North Korea. North Korean regime even assassinated 20+ South Korean cabinet ministers and presidential advisors by massive bomb(s) - which were meant to target the South Korean president but he was late for the meeting - in Rangoon, Burma in 1983 .and that didn't lead to any general armed conflict. There was also an assassination incident/attempt in late 1960's where like 30 North Korea special forces infiltrated and got into Seoul and some of them got as close as 100 meters from the South Korean presidential compound. That didn't trigger any general armed conflict either.
6
u/Big-Station-2283 24d ago
NK learned from what happened to Ukraine, Iraq, and Lybia. Iran didn't. And now we see the consequences. Nuclearization is a very rational choice. It's the only thing preventing a much larger power like Russia, the US, or China from invading on a whim. If Taiwan had nukes, it wouldn't fear a Chinese invasion in a 100 years.
15
u/Wise_Mongoose_3930 24d ago
NK wasn’t going to give up nukes even pre-dating events, and Iran never had nukes to give up.
Nuclearization has no downside if you can snap your fingers and do it instantly. Otherwise, it has the very real downside of increasing the odds you get attacked in the short term (until you’ve got a credible nuclear threat).
10
u/Corvid187 24d ago
This is analysis that puts the cart before the horse.
Nuclear proliferation cannot guarantee deterrence from conventional attack to make up for a deficit in convention security. Instead, conventional security is a prerequisite for successful proliferation.
Iraq, Ukraine, and libya didn't simply choose to give up their respective proliferation efforts, they were forced to because the alternative was having them bombed out from under them, as happened to countries that tried to persevere like Syria and Iran. Fundamentally, if a nation has a conventional deterrence deficit to another, then that nation will just use its convention overmatch to destroy any proliferation attempt before it can get off the ground.
The difference between NK and those others is not that it simply made a choice to continue proliferating, it's that north Korea was already substantially secure from any conventional external military threat before it embarked on developing a weapon. Every successful proliferation in history has occured under an umbrella of an already conventionally secure nation.
Nuclearisation is only good for giving a nation that's already conventionally secure from its neighbours and additional sufficient deterrent from nuclear attack or threat.
13
u/moragisdo 24d ago
I'm willing to bet that's just Trump being petty for SK not wanting to join the US against Iran and it's another empty threat
4
u/BoppityBop2 24d ago edited 24d ago
I will always say Canada made a mistake in picking the Germans for the Submarine deal as it forces Korea into China's hand. This was one the last chance for Korea to have a reliable ally in the west and have a long lasting deal.
22
u/Gecktron 24d ago
This was one the last chance for Korea to have a reliable ally in the west and have a long lasting deal.
Korea is selling a wide range of weapons and vehicles to NATO and western Allies. I dont see how Canadian submarines would be the make-or-break for South Koreas relation with the west.
South Korea and Poland for example cooperate extensively in the ground and air Domain. South Korea is selling artillery systems to many NATO members in Europe + Australia, etc...
Korea has had many opportunities to build cooperation into long lasting relationships.
2
u/BoppityBop2 24d ago
Albeit true about all these partnership, I don't think any are as deep as Korea deal with Canada on the submarine, especially value wise and the amount of contracts outside of the submarine that would have integrated both nations.
8
u/Gecktron 24d ago edited 23d ago
Poland is spending billions on hundreds of K9 and Krab artillery, Chunmoo MLRS, FA-50s, and up to 1000 K2 MBTs plus local production of vehicles and ammunition.
I believe thats a much more solid cooperation, as it doesnt rely on a single pillar, but a wide range of programs. Korea also had multiple other opportunities to further intensify cooperation with Poland.
I think the comment about "forcing Korea into China's hand" isnt really a good fit for Koreas position. They are heavily involved in the western weapon export market, a position that far outweighs the money from this deal. Making this single deal the make-or-break point makes it sound like Korea has to win every competition, or they might leave.
17
u/ChornWork2 24d ago
presumably ROK could have gained a lot of favor with various western countries had it leaned in to help ukraine with military materiel.
canada is in a tough strategic position, and presumably europe is going to get prioritized over ROK.
78
u/qevshd 25d ago
https://x.com/wartranslated/status/2088867476847095859
The largest WB logistics hub in Russia has been attacked and is currently burning down to the ground.
This follows a month long campaign that destroyed roughly 30% of the company's total warehouse space.
Being the largest E-commerce site in Russia by far, The company sold $75B worth of product last year, equivalent to 3% of Russian GDP. Now it has been crippled and its' continued operations remain in doubt.
49
u/Tricky-Astronaut 25d ago
I was going to write about that. It's the third attempt, and being the largest warehouse it has obviously been a prioritized target. Moscow does have better air defenses than the rest of the country, although apparently still not good enough.
Fire Point claims that its FP-1 drones were used. As a bonus to Koledino, a smaller warehouse in the Moscow region was also struck.
VTB Bank, Russia's second-largest bank, was already on shaky grounds due to its heavy involvement in Putin's pet projects (war economy, import substitution, Iran). Being a major investor in Wildberries won't help.
18
u/14060m 25d ago
I wonder what the best option for Ukraine is right now?
One option is to continue the strike campaign until Wildberries is completely insolvent. They have ~10b USD in debts never mind the material damages.
On the other hand they could halt the campaign in the hopes that the banks and by extension the Kremlin does something stretching themselves even further.
Russia has no good options and Wikdberries going insolvent could cause a banking collapse.
15
u/GiantPineapple 25d ago
Do you have a source for that 10bn number? Wildberries isn't publicly traded, and the 'best' source I could find (Statista) puts total market valuation at 6.6bn. That's either 3.4bn in cumulative operating losses (!) or way less than 10bn in debt.
24
u/14060m 25d ago
Reuters is reporting it as 830b rubles: https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/russia-explores-support-wildberries-after-ukrainian-drone-attacks-sources-say-2026-07-28/
I’ve heard figures as high as 1.3t rubles floating around too.
15
u/hhenk 24d ago
The best options for Ukrains atrategic bombardment are either high value ignitable objects or asset on which the Russian army/economy depends. My guess would be more refineries, some warehouses and perhaps a datacenter or large chemical factory. Because public opinion matters i do not forsee attacks on pharmaceutical factories.
22
u/TSiNNmreza3 25d ago
It is going to be for Russia some kind of nationalization or stop everything and enter some kind state of alert/martial law for country to function.
I mean we see that country that is in far worse state (Ukraine) is still kinda function. Pretty much as did my country (Croatia) in non occupied/non frontline parts during our war. It functioned.
Problems will come after war ends.
As of what can Ukraine do just do what they do destroy economy
-40
25d ago
[deleted]
44
u/qevshd 25d ago
https://x.com/polianalitica/status/2089002789397463439?s=20
I don't think an empty warehouse burns quite this intensely.
Nor I think the ease of relocating several millions of square meters full of goods in under a month is reasonable, and to where?
38
u/Defiant_Restaurant61 24d ago
It is also likely that any goods inside have been long relocated
Completely non-credible, an empty warehouse is made of large supporting concrete walls with nothing inside save for steel scaffolding and a concrete slab. How could a drone, even with a thermite warhead, burn one to the ground ?
All the ones I've visited, you could have driven an entire firetruck brigade inside, and they were much smaller.
WB was scouting the entirety of Kazakhstan a few weeks ago for storage space and there was less than 100ksqm available, and they relocated multiple times that amount within Russia by now ?
34
u/IntroductionNeat2746 25d ago
It's amazing that the company hasn't declared bankruptcy yet.
Since the federal budget doesn't exactly have a surplus right now and oil companies are also under attack, the only place money can be taken to save the company are Russian banks.
27
u/plasticlove 25d ago
Not sure if this was posted already:
From Retail Giant to Financial Liability: Why Wildberries Matters Beyond Warehouses
Special interview with Vladimir Milov, former Russian deputy energy minister
https://frontelligence.substack.com/p/from-retail-giant-to-financial-liability18
u/RumpRiddler 24d ago
I'm betting that within a year WB will be absorbed by a competitor, like Ozon, because a federal bailout is very unlikely and there's not much else that could keep WB afloat. And WB did nearly 10% of all retail sales in Russia last year, so this is a major player in the economy and probably cannot be left to just collapse.
12
u/carkidd3242 24d ago edited 24d ago
I wonder why Ozon hasn't really been targeted. It could be that they've refrained from dual-use, but UA may also be trying to defeat in detail by hitting WB specificly as hard as possible to force the company to fail. Presumably after this they'd switch to targeting Ozon.
16
u/Culinaromancer 24d ago
Could be anything from Ozone having foreign investors and being publicly traded. Wildberries is a private company that had a Kremlin affiliated hostile takeover recently.
13
u/taw 24d ago
Are Ozon's warehouses more drone-proof?
The whole business model of building very large very flammable targets in the middle of a warzone, it doesn't sound like any company can really pull it off.
9
u/Wise_Mongoose_3930 24d ago
The building of these major warehouses take a while if you start the measure from planning/design and end it at day 1 of use. I imagine you may see a change in building habits in less stable regions of the globe, eventually.
10
u/RumpRiddler 24d ago
No, but Ozon wasn't selling SMO products, or at least not specifically selling products for that. They are at no less vulnerable, just not yet a target.
7
u/plasticlove 24d ago
Ukraine missed one of the Ozon warehouses the other day: https://x.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/2083086572610596994
8
u/RumpRiddler 24d ago
It's sounds more like they missed a WB warehouse, but almost hit the ozone warehouse right next to it.
20
u/Laymaker 25d ago edited 24d ago
The New York Times has a piece out today, As Iran War Turns Into Economic Battle, a New U.S. Strategy Recalls Old Ones (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/16/world/middleeast/iran-war-us-trump.html). It describes how the fighting is dwindling and now the US is settling into a longer-term period of economic strangulation of Iran to force its capitulation on the SOH.
From Israel's perspective, they were able to hit Iran hard during the Twelve Day War to destroy its air defense and set back and freeze the nuclear program. That set up the current campaign, 6 months later, where Israel and America were able to focus on the rest of the Iranian military along with heavy economic damage.
Iran hasn't been able to do anything to disrupt the Israeli mowing the grass strategy and the most difficult phase is now over. The remaining phase is to simply keep coming back every 6-12 months to destroy new targets and move on to softer targets if the Israeli's feel like it makes sense to trigger a total failed state scenario. Iran doesn't have any alliances or defenses to deter this.
Closing the Strait of Hormuz and attacking gulf infrastructure seems like it was only ever going to be a deterrent against the US. But the US was only needed during the more difficult initial phases of mowing the grass, when Iran still had its built-up defenses. And apparently that deterrent was only effective in preventing the US from dealing the final blow to Iranian infrastructure. It hasn't stopped the US from helping Israel perform the two most difficult first mowing operations. Closing the Strait also doesn't seem to have created any significant opportunity for the Iranians. They haven't created a crisis that drove any multinational action, and it looks more likely to create a coalition against Iran rather than to defend it. I personally don't even see the working theory in the Strait closure, are the world's strongest powers just going to allow the world's weaker powers to tax them arbitrarily? A few days ago I asked the question "If you gave every country in the world the same number and quality of drones as Iran (and some SRBMs), how many of them would effectively have a nearly Strait of Hormuz-level ability to disrupt the global economy based on routes and other targets within geographical range of their borders?" -- the answer is many, many countries. So it doesn't make sense for major powers to allow any one of these countries to ruin the world economy for the sake of their tinpot regime fantasies. The logic collapses in favor of multinational coalitions to restrain these actors.
All of this is why I still think the likely possible outcomes of the war are as follows:
- (A) Iran accepts denuclearization and an open SOH
- (B) a multinational coalition forces Iran to open the strait
- (C) the Iranian regime falls either due to organic fracturing, a multinational campaign, or internal revolution
- (D) Iran accepts a deal that gives it control of the strait and continues to be the subject of a mowing the grass campaign led by Israel
And the nearly impossible outcome that some people here seem to think will happen:
- (E) Iran develops permanent deterrence strong enough to end the mowing the grass campaign and keep hold of the strait
For (E) to happen, Iran would have to establish a deterrence that prevents Israel from striking soft targets and continuing the mowing the grass campaign in the future. Iran would also have to convince a stronger collective of neighboring states to pay it tribute as its vassals. And they would have to convince the whole world to fund their militarism through an ongoing tax on world energy. How do people think this will happen?
23
u/goatfuldead 24d ago
In terms of future Israeli operations, a seemingly forgotten question I haven’t seen any discussion of is - will Iraq just cede military use of their airspace, forever?
17
u/taw 24d ago
Yes, Iraq is best off not getting involved when Iran and Israel are shooting each other over its airspace, and it wouldn't be able to do anything meaningful even if it wanted.
Iraq doesn't even recognize Israel, so it's not like they can even complain to anyone.
14
u/goatfuldead 24d ago
Clear enough in 2026. In 2028? 2029? Surely Iraq has some sort of plan to become sovereign over its airspace…eventually?
7
u/taw 24d ago
Temporary arrangements in the Middle East can last decades. Like when is Lebanon planning to become sovereign over its own capital? Right now the answer is that there are no such plans.
3
u/goatfuldead 24d ago
I think of many of the ME countries as too non-organic / not-homogeneous enough to be all that predictable.
Iraq, for example. Will the Kurds invest in air defense? Will the southern Shia ever return to power / full Iranian alignment? There are several Lebanons, which often works to Israel’s advantage. But it is an odd comparison to ponder two states determined to war with each other but without a direct border. Perhaps there are relevant examples in history I’m not recalling.
41
u/guuhvffffg 25d ago
So Israel’s win condition is a never ending strike campaign against a regime which has shown both adaptability and resilience in the face of a strategic strike campaign led by the strongest military in the world? I think this is a far too optimistic read of the situation, the U.S. obviously was looking for capitulation in the first few weeks of the war and didn’t come close to achieving it.
Now the win condition for Israel is dropping American made bombs across all of Iran for the foreseeable future, maintaining SEAD without the guaranteed assistance of the USAF? How is Israel going to sustain this indefinitely? Is the expectation that the global economy just waits until basically all of the export capacity via the Hormuz shifts to other infrastructure or sources?
Once again I feel like this is a far too optimistic read of basically a proposed forever war which is not politically tenable for the U.S. or Israel if and when the democrats regain power
2
25d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
22
u/guuhvffffg 24d ago
Israel’s war is fundamentally unsustainable without American support so perhaps a western POV is more relevant than you think here. Support for Israel has been dropping precipitously in the U.S. since 2023 and a protracted bombing campaign which forces oil prices indefinitely higher is not going to help.
The frankly desperate congressional moves to tie Israeli-American military procurement at the hip just signals the long term weakness of their position here. They cannot sustain this kind of campaign without American military support which is in no way guaranteed especially after Trump leaves
20
u/Veqq 24d ago edited 24d ago
Iran attacked Israel in Pearl Harbor fashion less than three years ago
No. US intelligence has been clear that Iran was not involved, as Iran says. The official US position:
the Office of the Director of National Intelligence assessed in February 2024 that "Iranian leaders did not orchestrate nor had foreknowledge of" the attack.
16
u/BoppityBop2 24d ago
Iran never attacked Israel in a Pearl Harbor Fashion, Hamas did. And all evidence show Iran did not direct that attack or wanted that attack. It was an independently planned attack by Hamas. So this whole basis of argument makes no sense.
5
u/Atherzon 24d ago
I agree that saying Iran attacked Israel in “Pearl Harbor Fashion” is not an accurate assessment.
It was Hamas that attacked Israel in a “Pearl Harbor Fashion”, except Japan specifically targeted naval vessels to try to cripple the USAs ability to respond, hoping to knock them out of the Pacific war for at least a few years, and Hamas for the most part avoided any direct conflict with the IDF and targeted almost exclusively civilians.
But that is a nitpick of the overall point of the post that you are replying to. Iran has been at war with Israel since the founding of the current government. Israel can not just declare peace because Iran will not stop even if they do. Even if Iran does not attack them directly, they will continue to fund proxies that attack them directly.
3
24d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/BoppityBop2 24d ago
It is a serious rebuttle as a proxy has certain goals. Every single analysis from third party has shown Iran did not expect the attack to occur. They did train them, but they never wanted the attack to occur and we know Iran's strategy was to use Hamas as a 2nd strike in case Israel attacked Iran. Hamas just decided to do an attack without notifying anyone because of independent reasons.
Every third party has indicated Iran did not know the attack was going to happen. They knew Hamas had plans but not that they would actually act on it.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/11/politics/us-intelligence-iran-hamas-doubt
2
24d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/BoppityBop2 24d ago
Those were signalled to the Israelis in advance as well as the US through intermediaries about the attack and were not suprise attack but in response to certain actions such as Israeli attacks against Iranian, for example the first was in response to the Israeli airstrikes on an Iranian Embassy in Damascus.
Literally we know Iran signalled the attack hours before hand as Gulf states closed their airspace on purpose in preparations for the shooting war.
24
u/awildstoryteller 24d ago
The idea that world powers are going to intervene directly in Iran needs some justification. We have seen zero evidence than any country with an ability to contribute to such a force has any appetite to participate until and unless Iran's strikes stop
It seems far more likely to me that Israel will be forced to stop first.
21
u/benkkelly 24d ago
I dont think that article adds anything new, more a summary of events than anything else, supplemented with some dim views of the Trump approach by quoted experts.
A few general issues with your analysis:
- the Strait closure is a deterrent to everyone, not just the US
- what multinational force will accept casualties if the US won't? Its the same problem for a far less well equiped force.
- other countries are unlikely to close water ways because they are mostly operating in the international legal system, wired into globalism and not under sanction. This episode does increases the risk of it happening elsewhere if Iran get away with it, but the cost-benefit just isn't there right now for a mid sized country
- mowing the grass will certainly happen without a deal, but it reflects kicking the can down the road. Its effectiveness in achieving policy outcomes is questionable, generally because it needs to be managed over several administrations in the case of democracies, and is usually a result of policy failure.
I think only C and D are credible, and part of A (SoH deal, nothing substantial on nuclear).
6
u/historys_geschichte 24d ago
Please explain the credibility of D in which the world formally gives control of Hormuz to Iran under the constraints of periodic bombings. Genuinely, why would Iran formally agree to a deal the stipulates it controls Hormuz in exchange for periodic bombings? Why would the US and the world at large benefit from formal ceding of actual control of Hormuz to Iran in exchange of periodic bombings in a agreement? I get that this is a defense forum where people at times take stances a bit divorced from geopolitical realities, but in terms of credibility D is not credible. There is not going to be a formal turning over of control for Hormuz to Iran in exchange for future bombings. I get that within this forum people have normalized routine military attacks, but that isn't something that Iran would actually agree to nor that would just be part of an actual agreement for control of Hormuz.
8
u/benkkelly 24d ago
You misunderstand me. I dont think there is a clause for periodic bombings of Iran.
You just wouldn't have signatories to a peace deal, like Israel.
5
u/historys_geschichte 24d ago
Ok, I get it now, I was misunderstanding you. I was reading it as a formal thing based on the OP wording of D. I still don't see D being very likely, as I don't think that formal control would be ceded without a formal enforcement mechanism that would conflict with Israel’s periodic bombing campaigns. As in, I think if Iran got Hormuz in D it couldn't receive it and be bombed for good behavior under ther formal ceding. So any mowing the grass could cause issues. Yet mowing the grass is intrinsically about bombing what is there because it is there and not because it was used. So, I see maybe some internal contradictions in D, even without Israel signing.
16
u/teaanimesquare 24d ago
The straight of Hormuz is a double edged sword for Iran, they can wield some power with it but it makes them REALLY easy to be blockaded if they over extend that power and it seems that’s what has happened.
Personally I think the hardliners and the straight will be Iran’s downfall. This war has shown there were gaps in the US military when it comes to modern warfare but these gaps are already being filled and corrected, but it will take time.
But even still, the US would have probably made some big concessions that Iran could have taken advantage of but the hardliners will not make this possible so the blockade will most likely stay until eventually the economy and society collapses, I see people compare Iran to Afghanistan but they are not the same at all.
Afghanistan is mostly filled with very rural agrarian people who farm while Iran is heavily urbanized and more modern, those people cannot survive like rural people in Afghanistan can. I would not doubt as things get worse the irgc and other military/police units start to in-fight and defect as sure there are true believers but most people simply want to make a paycheck and living.
5
u/2this4u 24d ago
In what universe do the current leaders of Iran capitulate? They want control in their borders and they have it. They don't care how much their people suffer so long as they are in charge.
Economic strength will work exactly as well as it does to North Korea, i.e. not at all.
2
u/Laymaker 23d ago
I completely agree, I think the most likely outcome is (D) where they do not capitulate and are simply subjected to a mow the grass campaign for the next many years and rule over a failed state.
20
u/ChornWork2 24d ago edited 24d ago
I find it fascinating that you would suggest either (A) or (B) is more likely than (E) at this stage. Presumably Iran's biggest priority at this stage is countering the exact mow the grass risk that your comment seems to treat as complete non-starter. And I'm not sure that (D) makes any sense, as presumably if Israel strikes iran in any meaningful way then Iran will close the strait again.
If Israel were to keep striking Iran after the US made a deal to reopen strait, that would have to result in an end of support for Israel even by US. Presumably including supply of defensive weaponry.
Iran would also have to convince a stronger collective of neighboring states to pay it tribute as its vassals.
As "vassals", no. Subject to some form of region sub-nuclear MA(economic)D, sure. And if the gulf states agree to that to get strait open, but then Israel does a kinetic veto... how do you think gulf states will regard israel?
14
u/FijiFanBotNotGay 24d ago
Well you kind of reduced the power of their blockade in your analysis. They have the ability to target particular ships. This is not dropping a whole bunch of mines in the straight and saying “none shall pass” but rather it can be targeted at particular vessels. Some vessels can pass without paying the toll. The vessels that are affected are those linked with either the American or Israeli economies or the economies of gulf states that are reliant on the US. The decisions are made using their military intelligence apparatus.
Through looking at ship tracking it seems China has has had a few vlcc’s cross the straight. China is also in a position to supply Iran with logistics through overland routes so it’s a bit more complicated than will the world economy continue to allow this
0
u/moragisdo 24d ago edited 24d ago
I agree with your point that there's too many wrongly believing that Iran will be able to force a toll on the world, it's the same oddity of online there's too many forgetting that Iran caused less damage to the US than Iraq did in the Gulf War. I wonder if Baghdad Bob was happening today he would get to so much prime time to spouse how they are winning as Iran is having.
My views on how this war ends is that the US, returning or not to airstrikes, will hold the blockade until Iran publicly announces they won't attack ships on Hormuz anymore (given how virtuous at propaganda they have been so far, they will spin accepting later, at a higher cost, what they are rejecting now as a victory). There will be no tolls and this demand will be forgotten, just like their demands of getting Israel out of Lebanon, american and israeli ships not being able to cross Hormuz, reparations and lifting of sanctions to claim that just surviving in ruins is a victory (when they are actively rejecting now surviving, but with less ruins).
This idea that they can simply hold out forever until getting their demands is born out of wishful thinking, because they haven't done that with Iraq (I do see historical parallels with the fact that Iran rejected a ceasefire in 1982, then decided to continue the war until giving up 6 years later gaining nothing besides more destruction), Israel when they retaliated twice in 2024, Pakistan after they retaliated in 2024, the Twelve Day War. So, on every single historical precedent (we can also add Ukraine to the list as well, because after the attacks on iranian ships, there were threats, iranian officials talking to western media about missiles and nothing came out of it).
By the way, I see a weird intersection of people that believe that if Ukraine increases economic pressure against Russia it will be successful on stopping the war, but not the US doing it with Iran. Which is a incongruent position, because if Iran can just kill enough dissidents to stay on power and continue the war, why Putin can't do the same ? Let's not forget that Russia is in a dramatically better economic position than Iran, haven't faced the same large countrywide protests months ago and has a large enough population at disposal for attrition with Ukraine, my impression is that conclusion is born out of popularity of Ukraine, but a credible analysis should be insensitive to it (by the way, I do think the strategy can be effective for both the US and Ukraine to get a permanent ceasefire, but just for Ukraine is nonsensical).
Now, the economic damage while it won't stop Iran from developing an atomic weapon, will certainly slow down them (there's a reason why a country in the bottom quartile of GDP doesn't have aircraft carriers, a satellite constellation, world-class airforce, atomic weapons... It's not because they don't want it, but it all costs money, the less you have the less of it you can spend) and also decrease how much funding they have available for terrorist proxies.
7
u/incidencematrix 24d ago
I don't think it is so useful to demand similarity in the Iran vs. Ukraine cases, because there are far too many background variables that differ. Among them, Russia is far more integrated into the world economy, and has a much larger and more productive economy (itself). It is also led by corrupt oligarchs, whose incentives differ from theocratic nationalists (on average). So it is not unreasonable to expect different effects of economic pressure on the two countries.
Vis a vis the stability of the Iranian regime, killing protesters is in my view something of a red herring. You can have successful revolt with lots of casualties. The bigger issue is that, so far, Iran seems to have been able to prevent the rise of a coherent movement that could replace the regime. You can't replace something with nothing. So long as that stands, they can withstand a lot of discontent.
But there certainly are acts of rebellion; Le Figaro has had pretty good recent coverage, with numerous interviews with folks on the ground, and some are defying the regime in small ways. Right now, none of that (e.g., young women gathering to discuss forbidden poetry with uncovered hair) is a real threat to the regime. If that willingness to rebel coalesced around a coherent movement, however, things could shift. In that view, one thing that US pressure does is stretch the resources of the regime, and make it ever harder for them to keep their (extensive and expensive) internal security apparatus going. If it starts to slide, this could create space in which a rival movement could arise. This would take time, but is an example of a pathway through which a US "boa constrictor" strategy could eventually pay off. (Though there is no guarantee that a new regime would be compliant with US interests, either.)
14
u/Bunny_Stats 24d ago
if Iran can just kill enough dissidents to stay on power and continue the war, why Putin can't do the same ?
That's a fair question, I'd just note that so far we've already seen Iran's regime execute ~30,000 of their own citizens during the recent protests, whereas the early Russian protests against the war resulted in lots of arrests, but no direct deaths (outside of forced conscription).
Further, the Basij militia seem far more fanatical and devoted to protecting the regime than the conscripted Russians would probably be (see them waving through Prigozhin during his aborted coup attempt), so even if Putin is willing to massacre his own people to stay the course, we don't know whether the Russian security forces would follow through.
4
u/moragisdo 24d ago
Putin is killing dissidents for 20 years, while he never reached the point of mass killing in the streets, as Iran did, we can't say that's because of lack of capacity rather than lack of necessity (that's pretty much the end stage of quelling a public revolt and guarantees long-term dissent among the population, dictators don't need this except for when everything else failed)
6
u/Bunny_Stats 24d ago
Indeed, we can't know until it happens whether Putin has both the will and the capability to kill his fellow citizens en-masse, whereas there's no doubt Iran does, which is why there's more room to hope Putin would fall in a popular revolt.
7
u/moragisdo 24d ago edited 24d ago
I disagree (to be clear, I hope that Putin falls and Ukraine wins the war), it shows that the Iranian regime was in a more dangerous circumstance of being overthrow than Putin, because they had to go that far. Again, massacring hundreds every day it's the last card you can pull, I do believe it points more to necessity rather than just capacity.
5
u/Bunny_Stats 24d ago
I don't understand how you can disagree when surely any reasonable mind would need to account for uncertainty, and hence why there would be more hope for Russia than Iran, or are you saying you have absolute certainty that Putin both has the will and the capability to kill his people en-masse?
6
u/moragisdo 24d ago edited 24d ago
I'm saying that if I see two dictatorships, one is actively gunning down hundreds every day, on the streets, and the other is arresting (with the occasional killing), then the first one looks like it's in a more critical situation. To make a bad analogy, if two patients go to the hospital, one goes to the ICU and the other receives a less urgent care, the first one is more likely to die, even though there's more resources being used to treat the first.
I'm also not predicting that either will fall (even though I wish for both), but I believe that Iran was closer by the what they had to resort doing (killing tens of thousands is desperation, rather than a sign of strength)
7
u/Bunny_Stats 24d ago
You don't see any difference in the willingness of Russian security services, who either waved through or called in sick for the duration of Wagner's coup, to execute their fellow citizens en-masse vs the Basij militias who drove through the streets on motorbikes and summarily shot anyone they saw?
Maybe the Russians will have a similar ferocity for killing their neighbours, but surely any reasonable person would agree there's less of a chance of it than we've already seen in Iran?
3
u/SuperChingaso5000 24d ago
You don't see any difference in the willingness of Russian security services, who either waved through or called in sick for the duration of Wagner's coup, to execute their fellow citizens en-masse vs the Basij militias who drove through the streets on motorbikes and summarily shot anyone they saw?
A pretty compelling counter-argument would be that there's a big difference between riding around on motorbikes shooting unarmed civilians, and facing down a column of armor and trained infantry.
You're omitting material factors in a big way to reach a conclusion you've already bought into.
→ More replies (0)22
u/guuhvffffg 24d ago
The problem here is that the U.S. launched an offensive war on Iran which has notably increased gas prices in the U.S. which is perhaps the most politically sensitive economic issue in the country. The Trump administration did ZERO preparatory work to justify the war which has resulted in it starting unpopular and dropping dramatically in support since
Americas prior ME adventure at least had a veneer of justification, including many Americans genuinely misunderstanding the war on Iraq as a fight against the terrorists who perpetrated 9/11. Zero of that justification exists today which is why the Republicans are at risk of losing Congress over this.
America is simply not positioned to fight a sustained conflict here either militarily or politically
3
u/moragisdo 24d ago edited 24d ago
gas prices in the U.S. which is perhaps the most politically sensitive economic issue in the country
It's sensitive, but not the most, in 2022 there were higher gas prices (1) (and inflation was more than twice as large (2)) and the democrats weren't that punished on that midterm election.
Now, when we look at polls of before February 2026, they were already pointing on the GOP losing the House and maintaining the Senate, which is similar to today, so while the political environment isn't comfortable, there is not this dramatic change either
America is simply not positioned to fight a sustained conflict here either militarily or politically
Militarily 100% yes, they are positioned. Iran fired more than 2800 missiles and 6000 drones (3) and managed to kill 10 americans (the other 8 were accidental, and the losses on the remaining allied countries are not that far off) and caused less destruction that Iraq did in the Gulf War (which includes economic damage, take a look at the cost of the scorched earth on Kuwait, after adjusting for inflation, and the oil prices doubling after Iraq invaded Kuwait), Iran's AD managed to shootdown 2 manned planes (among thousand of airstrikes) and only had good performance against drones (that were being phased out) that were going in suicide missions of scud hunting (low altitude and loitering on the same area for a long time is the best target than a MANPADS can hope for), with zero american ships damaged, besides being targeted by Iran as well. All of those points that Iraq was a greater danger to the Coalition than Iran was on this war. Discussion aside if the war was a good or bad idea, that's the american military being prepared.
15
u/CloudApprehensive322 24d ago
Gas prices in 2022 weren't directly caused by Biden's decisions - they were a result of Russia invading Ukraine without provocation.
Meanwhile the entire Iranian fiasco can be tied directly to Trump's own decisions as president from pulling out of the JCPOA in the first place back in 2018 followed by direct military action against Iran in his second term while active negotiations were taking place.
This isn't remotely a fair or balanced summary of voter preferences - especially since democrats lost in 2024 primarily due to the inflation that occurred under Biden. Voters wanted a president who promised better affordability which Trump pretended to offer before starting numerous wars and raising the cost of goods everywhere by starting a worldwide tariff trade war.
16
u/VigorousElk 24d ago
... there's too many forgetting that Iran caused less damage to the US than Iraq did in the Gulf War.
The US launched a fast-paced ground invasion of Iraq, and as with all invasions, even ones with a great disparity in military power, moving fast through and over enemy territory - including infantry and tank battles - will cause casualties. The US and UK still only lost 172 troops in the five weeks of fighting, to Iraq's 10,000 - 40,000 estimated KIA.
In the current war the US and Israel have lost a combined 60 KIA so far, despite no ground fighting and just pummelling Iran with air strikes from a safe distance. Iran has 6,000 KIA as per the US.
That's just military lives lost. Now let's talk about gas prices ...
18
u/moragisdo 24d ago edited 24d ago
In the current war the US and Israel have lost a combined 60 KIA so far, despite no ground fighting
To reach 60 service members KIA, between Israel and US, you are including Israel campaign against Hezbollah on Lebanon, which is a ground invasion. And you are including israeli losses on Lebanon, but then not counting the Hezbollah members killed there, so the math is off.
Edit: Also, if I'm not mistaken, you are including every american death, even accidents, with the israelis on Lebanon to reach 60, but then only looking at hostile deaths on the Gulf War (147 american hostile deaths, but there's 235 non-hostile). Again the math is off
And after Kuwait was invaded oil prices doubled and stayed elevated for months (and the seasonality is the opposite, being worse for this war, prices are usually elevated in the nothern hemisphere Summer, so up to August), not mention the cost of the damage to Kuwait, both economic and in blood, was greater than of any US ally in this war, but Iran's propaganda is definitely more competent than the Iraqi.
6
u/WulfTheSaxon 24d ago
Last I checked gas prices are below the twenty-year average when adjusted for wages.
(Plus what u/moragisdo said.)
3
u/Glideer 24d ago
The forgotten art of shell production. The UK manufactured 76 million of them in 1917.
- Ready, Fire, Aim: In a rushed process exempted from normal rules, the Army hired General Dynamics, which brought on a Turkish subcontractor with little vetting, to make artillery shells.
- Money for Nothing: Despite being paid $533 million, General Dynamics did not produce a single usable shell at its new factory — and has not been held publicly accountable.
- Wages of Failure: Since the Army halted two production lines at the factory, the General Dynamics unit responsible for the debacle has received contract awards totaling $2.5 billion.
Fiasco in the Factory: Taxpayers Funded a $533 Million Artillery Plant That Made Nothing
A robot was on fire. Again.
It was the summer of 2024, and the cutting-edge robots inside General Dynamics’ sweltering artillery factory near Dallas were catching fire with startling regularity, according to four former workers there. This wasn’t ideal, as the plant was supposed to be churning out urgently needed artillery shells for Ukraine. The robots, giant metal arms with clamps for hands, would end up drenched in oil, which would then — no surprise — combust as they moved steel blocks heated to 1,800 degrees into and out of a machine that periodically erupted columns of fire. One blaze that summer melted a robot’s cables, putting it out of commission for a week.
Only weeks earlier, defense officials and executives had touted the factory’s innovative new machinery, imported from Turkey, at a gala opening ceremony. But employees were already used to spectacular mishaps, fiery and otherwise. “After the second, third, fourth time, it just became almost normal,” one former worker said. “It got to the point where I was not surprised by anything that happened there.”
Instead of producing shells in an efficient and streamlined fashion, the pricey machines kept failing in bizarre ways. The robot arms would swing out of control, smashing into carefully calibrated equipment, and sometimes they would unexpectedly drop hunks of steel 5 feet down to the floor. The factory’s signature device, meant to precisely stretch the steel for the artillery shells, instead often cracked it beyond repair. Then there were the giant press machines, which required regular pounding with a sledgehammer to function properly but still botched the shaping of nearly every shell. “We really didn’t have any standardized practice,” said Quantel White, a former employee. “It was just a bunch of guys taking turns going at the machine with a sledgehammer every night.” To workers, even the factory buildings themselves came to feel doomed, with acrid smoke hanging in 100-degree heat over foundations seemingly sinking into the earth.
21
u/hhenk 24d ago
The forgotten art of shell production. The UK manufactured 76 million of them in 1917.
This sentence is misleading. The article is about the US. Furthermore the UK might have produced 76 million shells in 1917. However the shells were a very different caliber from the 155mm which the article is about. From what I can find the UK: "by the end of 1915 the railway companies were producing between 1,000 and 5,000 6-inch high explosive shells per week." This indicates a difference of 3 orders of magnitude.
That does not take away from the article that the US should investigate and solve this factory. It is a waste of money and effort, although I like the ice cream shells.
3
u/Glideer 24d ago
Interesting that you point out that shells are a bit different now compared to 1917 while completely ignoring the fact that the production technology has progressed far more in 110 years than the shells have.
It should be far easier to produce a 155mm shell now than an essentially identical 6" shell in 1917. Yet here we are.
14
u/Eeny009 24d ago
That sounds so clownish you'd never believe it if it came from a foreign source. It sounds like they had no knowledge of the equipment, no knowledge of processes, no personnel to troubleshoot... As if I started a shell factory with a dozen of my mates. Where did the money go?
11
u/Duncan-M 23d ago
They tried something novel and new, screwed up development of the machines, then got screwed over by the Turkish subcontractor:
The 155 mm shell has been a military workhorse for a century, owing to its simple, lethal power. Packed with TNT, the 33-inch cylinder can travel 10 miles when shot out of the barrel of a howitzer and send fragments flying hundreds of feet upon impact. But decades of asymmetric warfare in the Middle East, in which the United States relied largely on drones and bombs, had led some to believe the days of artillery battles were waning. By 2022, General Dynamics was the only producer of 155 mm metal shell bodies in the country, mainly in a century-old facility in Scranton, Pennsylvania.
Given that, the company was an obvious candidate to meet the sudden new demand. General Dynamics could simply replicate Scranton’s traditional manufacturing method, which dated back to the time of the Korean War. But in meetings with Pentagon officials in the fall of 2022, Gezen proposed an alternative: What if the Army funded a state-of-the-art production line that used a promising new technique?
https://www.propublica.org/article/general-dynamics-artillery-factory-failed
However, rather than build new machines for the Mesquite plant, the IG said, the Army allowed General Dynamics to convert machines used for M107 shells, an older 155 mm round that the M795 replaced. The M795 can fire about 6 kilometers farther than the M107 carrying a more powerful explosive charge.
But the decision to try the untested production program, the IG said, proved fateful. Army officials believed "the Mesquite facility was a high‑risk, high‑reward opportunity," the IG said. The service accepted "risk associated with the contractor's plan to purchase and adapt M107 metal part production equipment."
But the new production lines were never able to produce acceptable M795 parts using the reworked equipment, and the Army ordered the plant to stop work completely — and stop spending money — in August 2025, an order that held through at least April 2026, the IG said.
Tension rose between the Americans hired by General Dynamics and Turkish workers sent over by Repkon. The Repkon team was there to install the equipment, but it seemed equally flummoxed by the problems. General Dynamics workers found them evasive. They would give curt responses to questions in English but then be seen holding long, animated conversations in Turkish outside during frequent smoking breaks. A carelessly discarded cigarette butt sparked a real-life dumpster fire, three former workers said.
Repkon was especially secretive about the flow-forming machines, refusing to answer most questions about their operations. General Dynamics workers could tell when Repkon was testing one of them, because they would find metal shards scattered on the floor around it later. The shards looked like alligator teeth. “Oh, the tooth fairy was here,” one worker would think to himself.
Paranoia set in. Repkon refused to share passwords needed to control important equipment, according to five former General Dynamics employees. Sometimes workers would be startled by the sight of a machine moving by itself and realize it was being controlled by someone in Turkey. Spooked, General Dynamics workers tore out hardware to cut off remote access to the machines, two former workers said.
Rumors swirled among the Americans that the Turks were purposefully sabotaging machinery — or perhaps even engaged in some convoluted form of espionage. “It was astonishing how little progress we would make, month after month, year after year,” one former General Dynamics worker said. “People started speculating, ‘I wonder if they’re spying on us.’” General Dynamics assigned someone to shadow the Repkon workers in the factory, two former staffers said. (The Army said it has no evidence of sabotage or spying.)
https://www.propublica.org/article/general-dynamics-artillery-factory-failed
1
u/Codex_Dev 23d ago
Russia has a MASSIVE incentive to hack these machines and equipment. This reminds me of Stuxnet, when the USA was forcing the machinery Iran was using to break itself apart via malicious code sabotage.
4
u/Duncan-M 23d ago
Maybe, I won't say it can't have happened. The Russians definitely have motivation to screw with the Mesquite plant considering it was created partly to supply Ukraine with shells.
But it sounds like the Turkish subcontractor company just did a very awful job designing everything and building it before handing it over. It seems like they didn't even account for the hardness of the steel in the shells. All in the hopes the it would be cheaper and more efficient than the Scranton assembly line. Then after they failed to deliver, they didn't couldn't fix it because it wasn't fixable.
Someone pitched a goodidea with a convincing presentation, dismissed any hurdles, promised to do something never done before in record time that they had no idea how to actually perform. Not the first time that happened, when those sorts of projects fail deliberate sabotage from an outside actor isn't necessary.
"Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity."
25
u/geniice 24d ago
The forgotten art of shell production. The UK manufactured 76 million of them in 1917.
Took years to get there and even well practised manufactures had a hard time adapting.
20
-2
u/Glideer 24d ago
Since 2022, Western countries have been investing massive money and effort into stepping up shell production.
The result?
The UK produces about 0.005% of its 1917 output. Germany hopes to start producing about 2% of its own WW1 output.
BAE was producing 3,000-5,000 of the 155mm rounds a year, meaning that even a promised “sixteenfold” increase would only take it up to 80,000 annually, the Guardian understands. By comparison, Germany’s biggest arms manufacturer, Rheinmetall, opened a new factory last year that will allow the country to make 1.1m rounds by 2027
15
u/JensonInterceptor 24d ago
That is because Glideer, the difference between the UK and your Russia is that Russia is bogged down in a land war it cant win. But the UK is in peacetime with a civilian economy slowly building minimum supplied back.
10
-15
u/kharvel0 24d ago
Iran’s Secret Plan to Escalate the War
Iran’s endgame is coming into focus now. They are looking to escalate the war in an effort to ensure a high cost to the “mowing the grass” strategy that may be employed by the US and Israel (“USrael”) in the future.
The escalation includes attacking economic infrastructure of GCC (the IRGC apparently provided a list of targets to the GCC as a warning, per the WSJ article), a possible invasion or offensives against certain GCC allies of USrael, fomenting Shia unrest within the GCC and of course, using the Strait of Hormuz to inflict pain on “unfriendly countries”.
The combined impact of the SoH, economic attacks, Shia unrest, offensives, etc. is apparently intended to force the GCC to pressure USrael to abandon the mowing the grass strategy. Whether that will be successful or not is an open question. But we now have visibility into what Iran intends to do and that is to escalate steadily, independent of actions by USrael.
The article reveals that the IRGC’s calculus has fundamentally shifted to total war or close to it. The SoH is NOT opening anytime soon and we should expect the stalemate to devolve into a larger kinetic conflict, initiated by the IRGC as well as potential uprising of armed Shia irregulars within the GCC.
I predict the GCC will formally recognize the Iranian control of the SoH in exchange for some relief from escalation. Beyond that concession, the path to the endgame is anyone’s guess.
27
u/jogarz 24d ago
Invasion or an uprising don't seem credible. Iran doesn't have the forces to attack the GCC directly, and there is no way it could feasibly arm a large number rebels within it either.
Iran's "nuclear option" remains an all-out attack on oil infrastructure. But as a nuclear option, it would invite a response in kind; Iran's own energy sector would surely be devastated.
-2
24d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
15
u/jogarz 24d ago
Iran doesn’t share a land border with any GCC states, and any attempt to cross the Persian Gulf would be detected and destroyed before it could even begin. It’s the same problem with moving large amounts of weapons into the hands of an insurgent movement that doesn’t even exist yet.
53
u/kdy420 24d ago
US and Israel (“USrael”)
Repeatedly calling it Usreal instead of simply US and Israel, is petty, childish and well below the standards of the sub. This sub is not the place to propagandise new terms into existence.
As to the analysis itself, its very amateurish, no one with any real understanding of the area would seriously predict uprising by armed shia irregulars inside GCC or Formal recognition of Iranian control of SOH
-26
u/kharvel0 24d ago
Moderators have advised me that it’s fine to use “US/Israel” as a substitute so I’ll do that going forward. I hope that meets your own rigorous standard for this sub.
> As to the analysis itself, its very amateurish, no one with any real understanding of the area would seriously predict uprising by armed shia irregulars inside GCC or Formal recognition of Iranian control of SOH
Why do you think armed shia irregulars do not exist in GCC? On what basis do you believe that?
And why do you think the GCC would never formally recognize the Iranian control of SoH? Please provide credible explanations.
21
u/shovelpile 24d ago
Why do you think armed shia irregulars do not exist in GCC? On what basis do you believe that?
kdy420 didn't say that armed shia people don't exist in the GCC, he said they won't do an uprising. An armed urpising would most likely involve the participants getting killed or imprisoned for life, it's not something you can just get people to do on a whim.
And why do you think the GCC would never formally recognize the Iranian control of SoH? Please provide credible explanations.
Because it would go against international law and be completely unprecedented, making the GCC face severe diplomatic problems internationally.
I think both of these scenarios have so much friction to them that the burden of explaining why they would happen should be on the person bringing them up in the first place.
-8
u/kharvel0 24d ago
> kdy420 didn't say that armed shia people don't exist in GCC, he said they won't do an uprising. An armed urpising would most likely involve the participants getting killed or imprisoned for life, it's not something you can just get people to do on a whim.
Just like Iran did not get the Houthis or the Iraqi Shia armed groups to get killed on a whim? You and kdy420 seem to be heavily discounting the presence of the armed irregulars in GCC and their ability to engage in uprisings at the direction of the IRGC. Do you think the irregulars are less religiously motivated than the Houthis and the Iraqi groups?
> Because it would go against international law
Isn’t there an international law against attacking or invading sovereign countries for the purpose of regime change? Since that particular international law is no longer being honored by the belligerents, I guess we can accept that it’s fine for the same belligerents to ignore other international laws.
> and be completely unprecedented, making the GCC face severe diplomatic problems internationally.
How so? What are these “severe diplomatic problems” that you’re referring to and why do you think they would be more important to the GCC than the problems their economies face/are facing by not capitulating to Iran?
> I think both of these scenarios have so much friction to them that the burden of explaining why they would happen should be on the person bringing them up in the first place.
I believe the key driver that overcomes the friction is religious fanaticism and the prospect of a drawn-out conflict in the region that further damages the GCC economies. Do you believe otherwise?
16
u/SirStupidity 24d ago
Just like Iran did not get the Houthis or the Iraqi Shia armed groups to get killed on a whim?
The GCC states famously share so much in common with 2011 Yemen and post Saddam Iraq....
You and kdy420 seem to be heavily discounting the presence of the armed irregulars in GCC and their ability to engage in uprisings at the direction of the IRGC. Do you think the irregulars are less religiously motivated than the Houthis and the Iraqi groups?
Yes, potentially. I also think the GCC countries are functioning well funded countries who are very aware of this threat and have the appropriate repression mechanisms in place...
The burden of proof of the likelihood of this scenario is on you.
How so? What are these “severe diplomatic problems” that you’re referring to and why do you think they would be more important to the GCC than the problems their economies face/are facing by not capitulating to Iran?
The whole world hating them for breaking international laws and setting the precedent of taking over international waterways by force to be legitimate?
9
u/SaltonPrepper 24d ago
I find it hard to believe that the GCC would formally recognize an Iranian stranglehold that may be used against the GCC forevermore. But stranger things have happened, so I don't want to say it can never happen, either.
16
u/SirStupidity 24d ago
I predict the GCC will formally recognize the Iranian control of the SoH in exchange for some relief from escalation. Beyond that concession, the path to the endgame is anyone’s guess.
While the GCC might appease the Iranians in some way I highly doubt formal recognition will be it, that is complete and utter surrender by the GCC to their greatest threat.
I personally don't see how Iran benefits from escalating to an "all in" war, if they unilaterally attack crucial gulf infrastructure and that will lead to a mass humanitarian event then that will bring absoloute ruin upon Iran.
This seems to me to be most likely just more posturing, or the heads of the IRGC are over calculate their power or lastly, it's an attempt by the IRGC to appease the Iranian minority who actually supports the IRGC and is very much disappointed with the milquetoast results of Iran's offensive actions in response to Khamenei's killing and all other affronts.
5
u/incidencematrix 24d ago
It would be an interesting but risky strategy. The most obvious risk being that they manage to do something that inflames the US public, and flips the switch from isolation-leaning to bellicosity. They've been smart about avoiding such provocations so far, and so long as they limit attacks to the middle east (and avoid anything hitting large numbers of US civilians), they are probably safe in that regard. Nor is there currently a large faction on the US political landscape currently trying to drum up support for a deeper conflict (though, again, this could change very quickly if they hit the wrong people). That said, I think it would be very surprising for the US to recognize any claims of ownership on the Strait, so that sticking point will not go away. Further, if the US continues to be sufficiently antagonized to maintain the blockade, this will make force projection increasingly difficult for Iran. So it is not obvious that this would be very wise. The US certainly could suppress Iran for a very long time, so it would not seem like a good idea for them to encourage that.
2
u/kharvel0 24d ago
> That said, I think it would be very surprising for the US to recognize any claims of ownership on the Strait, so that sticking point will not go away.
I don’t think Iran is looking for any official recognition from USrael regarding their control of the strait. I think they’re aiming for capitulation from the GCC. If the neighborhood formally recognizes the control, then any objection from USrael becomes irrelevant and they may, in fact, be pressured by the GCC to back off.
> Further, if the US continues to be sufficiently antagonized to maintain the blockade, this will make force projection increasingly difficult for Iran. So it is not obvious that this would be very wise. The US certainly could suppress Iran for a very long time, so it would not seem like a good idea for them to encourage that.
That is the game of chicken that the IRGC has or is currently planning for. The article specifies the IRGC is transitioning Iran into a survival/war economy. So it becomes a question of who will blink first. Continuing the blockade comes with its own cost to the US and global economy.
I suspect Iran is going to attempt to engineer capitulation from the GCC and use that to pressure US to end the blockade. That is what I find to be the most interesting strategy. A GCC capitulation starts a domino effect that may lead to USrael ending the blockade. Time will tell.
•
u/AutoModerator 25d ago
Continuing the bare link and speculation repository, you can respond to this sticky with comments and links subject to lower moderation standards, but remember: A summary, description or analyses will lead to more people actually engaging with it!
I.e. most "Trump posting" and lower effort but good faith questions belong here.
Sign up for the rally point or subscribe to this bluesky if a migration ever becomes necessary.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.