unlikely to be willing or able to "contain" Iran in the traditional military sense => that’s just laughable given that Irans entire economy can be crippled with a few dozen targeted attacks against ports, oil pipelines, roads and manufacturing sites. And Iran can’t retaliate in kind, lest it wants Tehran to look like Aleppo within a month.

@JonathanReez, Really? And, what about Irans massive underground missile arsenal? Ever heard of M.A.D. in the context of nuclear attacks? Visualize something similar in conventional warfare.

Said arsenal could be used against Israel or the U.S. only in exchange for turning Tehran into the next Aleppo and creating tens of millions of refugees with nowhere to go.

@JonathanReez, As I said, first get the basic idea of M.A.D., then post comments here. Given the present scenario, no one has a clear upper hand, and that was the essence of my answer.

@JonathanReez: Iran already said they plan to implement a "nobody safe" strategy if they are attacked. I.e. all the oil sailing through the Gulf is at risk, like it was in the earlier tanker wars. The US + allies may be able to win that, eventually, but look how easy it's going against the Houthis. China's economy will be the most directly affected, which might look like a side win, but that will only strengthen their energy ties with Russia even more, which may or may not be what the US wants, depending on their strat in Ukraine. (It would be compatible with JD Vance's strategy though.)

Upvoted, but I think the first paragraphs, about the relative lack of pressure on Bibi and betting that the West will not turn against Israel are good (yes, ok, you just had to put in a "Zionist" which is going to earn you DVs). So is the - speculation - that he may not see clear alternatives or goals. The part about Iran/Lebanon is a different aspect, really. Most of what you state concerns the US, not Bibi. Iran + Lebanon is more likely to be resolvable by conventional military means and deterrence. Plus it just started so there is maybe less ground to ask what the endgoals are.

@IVFcomesfromthetip The fight against Houthis was not happenijg in earnest: they were allowed to continue importing food as just one example. No such restrain will exist in case of a serious war: Israel and the U.S. will just keep on bombing Iran until it turns into the next Syria.

@JonathanReez, The fight against Houthis was not happenijg in earnest: they were allowed to continue importing food as just one example. --- Do you mean the Houthi fighters or do you mean the common houthi people? Like professional armies, Houthi fighters will have no food crisis—they will make their way anyhow and will continue fighting. Common people might suffer. The same is evident in the ongoing Gaza War. So, your understanding is fundamentally flawed. Afghans did the same in fight against Soviet occupation. They ate only one piece of bread and tea and continued fighting.

@user366312 Israel and the U.S. don’t need to occupy Iran. They just need to turn it into a rubble incapable of threatening anyone. As for the Houthis - the current fighters might be fine but if you prevent new ones from being born, the cycle won’t last much longer. Also see how Russia/Kadyrov dealt with Chechnya or how Israel is dealing with Gaza today. Kill enough people and the resistance will cease to exist.

@JonathanReez, I don't reply to circular arguments.

@JonathanReez: you're giving Israel too much credit there. Putin managed to turn a sizeable portion of Chechens to be on his side, besides laying waste to the region. So far Netanyahu hasn't managed to produce a Kadyrov to do his bidding in Gaza. And he looks like he plans nothing like the reconstruction that Putin did in Chechnya. Yeah, Putin may have [re]built an authoritarian state, but he built something.

Like it or not, Chechnya looks good on TV nowadays youtu.be/2zGeOl6E2xQ?t=30, as Trump would say.

Plus kissy-kissy tiktok.com/@islamchanneltv/video/7407819662521634081

@IVFcomesfromthetip if you bomb and shoot at people long enough you’ll eventually exhaust their will to fight back. If Israel keeps the war going for something like two years, takes out 10% of fighting age males (something like 5% are already taken out) and credibly commits to take out 25% next time if October 7th repeats, they might just be able to breakdown the will to resist for the next 50 years. Which would of course be a fantastic outcome for Gaza overall, as they could focus on working and living a peaceful life.

@JonathanReez: Sounds like the Roman empire vs the barbarians. Not very far from how Netanyahu phrases it.

@JonathanReez "if you bomb and shoot at people long enough you’ll eventually exhaust their will to fight back." Uhh... I know this makes sense but historically this hasn't worked so well (see French Algeria, British India etc.), do you have a more detailed analysis of why it should work now? E.g. in the Chechen wars, Russia also tried to create local partners they could work with (see Kadyrov), in addition to carpet bombing. But Netanyahu seems to be trying to use only the stick and no carrot, and I cannot think of many situations in which that worked.

This answer gave me a good laugh. The US isn't scared in the slightest of Iran's military capabilities. Apparently you may be unaware of 1988's US response in which the US obliterated half of Iran's navy in 8 hours after 1 US destroyer hit an Iranian sea mine. The US military is restricted by the will of its people and the political expense of engagements, it is not contained by any viable military threat from Iran.

@DenisNardin see the Sri Lankan civil war for the most recent example of brutality successfully ending a conflict.