What A Real American Victory Looks Like

By most measures, the US, on the surface, is winning the war in Iran: the Iranian Supreme Leader was taken out a few weeks ago, along with much of the head-honchos of the Iranian government; and, according to the US Secretary of Defence, Iran's weapon arsenal appears to be greatly diminished; while the now deceased Ayatollah's son, his anointed successor, is nowhere to be found. Meanwhile, much of the country's infrastructure remains a shell of its former self, particularly in the capital.

Those measures are the same that comprise Pete Hegseth's criteria for what really signals America's "imminent" victory in the region.

Many have pointed to the fact that, for all of Iran's suffering so far, all it has to do to "win"- is survive. I.e, forbear the repeated onslaught of its people, which it evidently has little care for, and more importantly, maintain the Ayatollah's grip on power, wherever he may be. 

This comes at the chagrin of the Trump administration, who have figured that war in the 21st century is a hell of a lot different from war in the 20th century, so those criteria really count for nothing. Sure, the above would typically indicate what "winning" looks like, but as the US is observing, as have countless military officers for hundreds, nay, thousands of years, Iran is a force to be reckoned with, much more than what meets the eye.

The Trump administration, from the outset, has vacillated on what their aims have been, sparking much skepticism from commentators and the American public. According to the Pew Research Center: 

About six-in-ten Americans (61%) disapprove of Trump’s handling of the conflict, while 37% approve.

This will be for myriad reasons, but mainly: 1) This being a flagrant violation of the president's "no new wars" campaign pledge 2) Maybe more significantly, there has yet to be a clear justification for how this helps Joe Average in the Middle States. Trump, in response, has cited two main justifications:

1. If Iran were to have a nuclear weapon, it would take them not a hint of hesitation to use it on the United States. Therefore, intervention is critical.

2. To go along with this, the president has been fairly emphatic on achieving regime change, thus allowing for a far more US sympathetic government to be implemented. "When we are finished, take over your government," said Trump in February. "It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.

Unfortunately, both justifications lack credibility. In regards to the first, here was the Secretary of Defence, following the conclusion of "Operation Midnight Hammer", last June:

"President Donald J. Trump directed the most complex and secretive military operation in history, and it was a resounding success...Because of decisive military action, President Trump created the conditions to end the war, decimating — choose your word — obliterating, destroying, Iran's nuclear capabilities."

So where does the current attack fall in line with this? If it took the best part of a year for the Iranians to rebuild their nuclear facilities, "Midnight Hammer" seems to have been a resounding failure.

As for regime change, Trump's Reagan-era posturing is crass and hilariously uninformed. When the Islamic Revolution came to fruition in 1979, ending what was then a several thousand year monarchy, the opposition towards the Shah, composed of hard left-wing and Islamist zealots, successfully came together. 

Fast forward 47 years and the 47th US president has arrived at the conclusion that a similar sort of thing might occur between the more moderate Muslims of Iran, which constitutes, oh yeah, over 90% of the Iranian population, and, what...the progressive, liberals of Iran? Can't see that to be a likely probability. Not least because, as has been demonstrated on the streets of Iran, the "desire for freedom" that "resides in every human heart," evidently doesn't preside in the Islamic Republic, au contraire to George Bush Jr. 

Which goes without mentioning the importance of the control of the Strait of Hormuz. Forget nuclear weapons, the strategic and economic weapon that is control of the Strait knocked the president for six, in his infamous, expletive-laden "Truth" social. Over 20% of the world's liquefied natural gas passes through it, along with much of the Arab nations' fertiliser production, meaning that, should push come to shove, the Mullahs in hiding in Tehran can, essentially hold the world ransom for its supplies. 

Again, if the war began with the Strait open, with it now closed, how can the US claim victory? 

The more time goes on, the more that America's issues are exacerbated, because the solutions to its issues are always focused on how the government can help. The American government can’t help Iranian people if it can't even help its own. No institution that owes nearly $40 trillion dollars to its creditors can "help" anyone or anything.

The real threats are evidently in Washington, not Tehran. Trump should go to Congress telling those "crazy bastrads" to agree to a cease-spend. Or perhaps a cease-open-border. That would be an American victory.