We are 3 weeks in.
And yes, easily.
90,000,000 people.
During the Korean war we destroyed all but 2 buildings in the NK capital and they fought on
We leveled entire cities throughout Germany in WW2 Not only did they not quit they increased production.
In Vietnam we dropped how may millions of bombs? Did that help us win?
Hamas didn't quit after 2 years of absolute devastation and starvation.
We are dropping 5,000 lb bunker busters to take out missile launchers (assuming they were actually in those caves). Is that a cost benefit ratio in our favor?
AND WE MURDERED THEIR LEADER WHO HAPPENED TO BE THEIR RELIGIOUS LEADER.
They can stand 4 more MONTHS of this. I can't understand how people think they WOULDN'T fight on. Especially since we attacked during negotiations twice, we murdered their leaders, and this is existential for them. No they won't have a problem continuing this fight.
Can we? NOPE.
$200,000,000,0000 and that is just the beginning.
Countries are already running out of oil and LNG. Fertilizer will be through the roof-the planting season will be hurt badly, and it is too late to fix that meaning food shortages come summer and fall.
How much pressure do you think Piggy can take when all of these economic hits start stacking up?
Again, air power will not work no matter how much is destroyed. It in many ways unites the country against a common enemy. Killing their children will tend to foster a nihilistic attitude of hatred.
And all they need to do is keep like 5% of their military capability to keep the strait closed.
Do yourself a favor and research the military end of it, not just the war porn guys by the strategists the ones who study this stuff. They are ALL saying this is a disaster unfolding of historic proportions.
Military strategists largely agree that a U.S.-Israel war with Iran would achieve immediate tactical goals"destroying nuclear facilities, missile sites, and weakening the IRGC"but would fail to deliver a clear long-term endgame. The conflict risks creating a long-term, entrenched conflict rather than regime change, with Iran potentially becoming more hardline.
Key points of consensus include:
Tactical Success vs. Strategic Failure: While the U.S. and Israel can inflict devastating damage on Iranian infrastructure, there is no clear political mechanism for converting this military pressure into a successful, stable post-war government.
Resilience of the Regime: Despite leadership decapitation, Iranian leadership remains resilient, with a high likelihood that the regime would stay in power, or be replaced by a similar, more entrenched hardline faction rather than a pro-Western government.
Regional Instability and Proxies: The conflict risks expanding, with Iranian proxies potentially unleashing attacks throughout the Middle East, leading to a broader regional conflict.
Backfire Risk: Strategists warn of a multidimensional "backfire," where targeted killings harden Iranian public opinion, boost the regime's legitimacy through nationalism, and strain Western alliances, particularly regarding the diversion of resources from the Ukraine-Russia conflict.
Limited Utility of Airpower: Air campaigns, while effective at destroying physical assets, are unlikely to cause a regime collapse and may accelerate Iran's drive for nuclear weaponization as a survival mechanism.
The prevailing view is that while tactical victories are likely, they may not lead to a lasting or beneficial strategic outcome.