The Iran miscalculations that we were warned about
The article discusses the miscalculations made by supporters of the Iran war, highlighting the disconnect between expectations and reality. It emphasizes that assumptions about Iran's fragility and compliance were flawed, as well as the belief in limited retaliation and regional coalition support. The piece critiques the shifting objectives of the war, suggesting that a lack of clear goals has led to significant failures.
- ▪Supporters of the Iran war believed that a weakened Iran would easily comply with pressure and that surgical strikes would lead to quick victories.
- ▪The assumption that Iran would respond to attacks with limited retaliation has proven incorrect, as the country has aggressively targeted American bases across the region.
- ▪The anticipated regional coalition against Iran has not materialized, with Gulf states showing ambivalence and even engaging with Iran despite the conflict.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
There is a particular kind of silence that follows a war’s opening salvos — the silence of think-tank papers being quietly archived, of cable-news predictions being scrubbed from the chyron, of confident assurances that “this time it will be different” colliding with the stubborn evidence that, in fact, it never is. Twelve weeks into the Iran war, that silence is louder than the bombing. Let’s review what the war’s supporters told us, because we owe ourselves the discipline of remembering. We were told that the strikes would be surgical. We were told that a weakened Iran would prove brittle — that a regime battered by sanctions, decapitated of Hezbollah’s deterrent shield, and abandoned by a collapsed Assad in Damascus would fold under sufficient pressure.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Asia Times.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Asia Times
