I'm seeing some people saying the Iran war is over. It's really not over until they agree to a ceasefire and re-opening of the Strait of Hormuz.
To be clear, there's is a reason why Iran would do this: In a war scenario, the senior leadership ("the regime") will all be wiped out, so they may prefer to get punched in the face every 6 months or so, and never retaliate.
But there's also a reason why they wouldn't: If senior leadership is already too fragmented to create a unifying call for ceasefire ("the government loses control of the country"), then it's a runaway train and there's not going to be any peace until the entire country has been conquered - which is an Afghanistan-like problem.
And most of the attacks on Iran since 2020 have had the effect of pushing the country closer to this brink. Killing senior leadership does two things:
1. Obviously, removes unifying forces, increasing the chance the govt loses control over the country
2. Less obviously, replaces (relatively conservative) incumbent leaders with much more extremist and competent up-and-comers.
#2 is not intuitively obvious when you think about a far off country, but when you think about your own government it becomes simple. If somebody would get rid of your corrupt loser government, it'd be the best thing that could happen. It would allow True Leaders to emerge, and give the people a sense of unity and purpose.
That doesn't mean (as some pundits have fantasized) that Americans would be "Welcomed As Liberators" any more than Americans or Europeans would welcome Russians or Chinese (even if they do oust a shitty government).
So, my take is that US and IL are pushing IR toward governmental collapse - which would effectively prevent any further possibility of ceasefire because there would be no one capable of calling it. When this happens, the middle east will become a chaotic mess that can only be tamed by total conquest of the Iranian territory. Something which could be accomplished if nobody aids and arms the insurgency - but Russia is strongly incentivized to do just that.
To be clear, there's is a reason why Iran would do this: In a war scenario, the senior leadership ("the regime") will all be wiped out, so they may prefer to get punched in the face every 6 months or so, and never retaliate.
But there's also a reason why they wouldn't: If senior leadership is already too fragmented to create a unifying call for ceasefire ("the government loses control of the country"), then it's a runaway train and there's not going to be any peace until the entire country has been conquered - which is an Afghanistan-like problem.
And most of the attacks on Iran since 2020 have had the effect of pushing the country closer to this brink. Killing senior leadership does two things:
1. Obviously, removes unifying forces, increasing the chance the govt loses control over the country
2. Less obviously, replaces (relatively conservative) incumbent leaders with much more extremist and competent up-and-comers.
#2 is not intuitively obvious when you think about a far off country, but when you think about your own government it becomes simple. If somebody would get rid of your corrupt loser government, it'd be the best thing that could happen. It would allow True Leaders to emerge, and give the people a sense of unity and purpose.
That doesn't mean (as some pundits have fantasized) that Americans would be "Welcomed As Liberators" any more than Americans or Europeans would welcome Russians or Chinese (even if they do oust a shitty government).
So, my take is that US and IL are pushing IR toward governmental collapse - which would effectively prevent any further possibility of ceasefire because there would be no one capable of calling it. When this happens, the middle east will become a chaotic mess that can only be tamed by total conquest of the Iranian territory. Something which could be accomplished if nobody aids and arms the insurgency - but Russia is strongly incentivized to do just that.
