2026 Iran War Strategy and Analysis

T

temporary1

New Member
Registered Member
As I said, keep calm and carry on. Trump blinked first and humiliated himself and the US.

Now with more or less zero GDP Q1 growth (and very likely contraction next quarter) while China speeds ahead, US falls into a deeper quagmire.

Well done Trump, you played yourself. I am sure Xi will give you a hug, best US president ever
 
sheogorath

sheogorath

Colonel
Registered Member
bebops said:
This is on the front page of CNN. Houthis is difficult to be defeated by just aerial bombing or naval blockade. However, if the Houthis decided to blockade the other strait, I think the US will send ground invasion into Yemen to clean out the Houthis. I am not sure if Iran had thought this through. US ground invasion might have great difficulty in Iran but might not be for Yemen though.

Iran’s military threatens Red Sea shipping if US blockade continues​

Click to expand...

Saudi Arabia and the UAE invaded Yemen with the support of the US to just do that for around a decade and had nothing to show for it besides images of Abrams getting Kornet'd. What exactly will be different this time considering the US track record in COIN isn't any better?
 
T

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
bebops said:
This is on the front page of CNN. Houthis is difficult to be defeated by just aerial bombing or naval blockade. However, if the Houthis decided to blockade the other strait, I think the US will send ground invasion into Yemen to clean out the Houthis. I am not sure if Iran had thought this through. US ground invasion might have great difficulty in Iran but might not be for Yemen though.
Click to expand...
You mean like US ground invasions in Iraq and particularly in Afghanistan? Fighting in people's home turf who has nothing to loose.
 
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
FriedRiceNSpice said:
Sending ships to the area is fine, there have been Chinese ships in the area since before the start of hostilities. As long as no attempt is made to unnilaterally escort tankers through the blockade.
Click to expand...

Well right now there isn’t even credible evidence the blockade is happening. All we’ve seen are some Twitter posts. Nothing from the Chinese government or the Iranian government, no spike in oil prices.

By sending a naval presence to the region, China controls the escalation ladder. If the US doesn’t do anything, the Chinese ships can just observe. If the US takes any action, Chinese vessels will be in position to respond appropriately.

Puss in Boots said:
Is your brain only capable of thinking about military matters and nothing else?
For example, expressing a willingness to export anti-ship weapons to Iran, discussing RMB settlement with Middle Eastern oil-producing countries, or reinstating rare earth restrictions—aren't these risk-free forms of deterrence far more reliable than sending warships into the eye of a storm?
Click to expand...

Do you realize that the actions you listed are way more provocative and escalatory than sending military vessels to the area?

You really have a warped perception of how these things work. It’s as if you think the USN are Khorne berserkers and the PLAN are going to get attacked the moment they arrive in the area.
 
Last edited:
FriedRiceNSpice

FriedRiceNSpice

Major
solarz said:
Well right now there isn’t even credible evidence the blockade is happening. All we’ve seen are some Twitter posts. Nothing from the Chinese government or the Iranian government, no spike in oil prices.

By sending a naval presence to the region, China controls the escalation ladder. If the US doesn’t do anything, the Chinese ships can just observe. If the US takes any action, Chinese vessels will be in position to respond appropriately.
Click to expand...
If its about naval presence, then PLAN ships have been in the region since long before the start of the conflict: so what exactly are you proposing they do? Send more ships? Send the ships closer to the strait? Send bigger ships?
 
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
FriedRiceNSpice said:
If its about naval presence, then PLAN ships have been in the region since long before the start of the conflict: so what exactly are you proposing they do? Send more ships? Send the ships closer to the strait? Send bigger ships?
Click to expand...

Closer of course. Give the US a visible reminder that China is not going to tolerate any interference with Chinese shipping. Start with a few ships, this allows room for escalation if necessary.
 
Puss in Boots

Puss in Boots

Junior Member
Registered Member
solarz said:
Do you realize that the actions you listed are way more provocative and escalatory than sending military vessels to the area?

You really have a warped perception of how these things work. It’s as if you think the USN are Khorne berserkers and the PLAN are going to get attacked the moment they arrive in the area.
Click to expand...
If China were to send warships to the Strait of Hormuz, it's easy to imagine only two outcomes:

1. China passes through unscathed, which in the public eye signifies that the US has conceded defeat.

2. A standoff occurs between Chinese and US warships, and China withdraws, implying defeat.

So if you insist that China send its warships into the Strait of Hormuz, it means that one of China and the United States must concede defeat on this issue. This is a typical zero-sum game. This strategy means that neither side will easily give in on this matter; they will only keep escalating the stakes.

My proposed solution doesn't require either side to take any concrete action. As Trump said, "China has agreed not to export weapons to Iran, and I will keep the strait open." In reality, China's message to Trump is that "the US is interfering in China's internal affairs, and China will have to consider strengthening Iran's resistance capabilities."

This kind of behind-the-scenes maneuvering allows both sides room for negotiation.
 
Last edited:
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
Puss in Boots said:
If China were to send warships to the Strait of Hormuz, it's easy to imagine only two outcomes:

1. China passes through unscathed, which in the public eye signifies that the US has conceded defeat.

2. A standoff occurs between Chinese and US warships, and China withdraws, implying defeat.

So if you insist that China send its warships into the Strait of Hormuz, it means that one of China and the United States must concede defeat on this issue. This is a typical zero-sum game. This strategy means that neither side will easily give in on this matter; they will only keep escalating the stakes.

My proposed solution doesn't require either side to take any concrete action. As Trump said, "China has agreed not to export weapons to Iran, and I will keep the strait open." In reality, China's message to Trump is that "the US is interfering in China's internal affairs, and China will have to consider strengthening Iran's resistance capabilities."

This kind of behind-the-scenes maneuvering allows both sides room for negotiation.
Click to expand...

No, PLAN vessels sailing through the Strait of Hormuz or escorting Chinese tankers would be escalatory moves. I think this is what you have a problem with. You are seeing things as black and white, zero and one. In your mind, China sending military vessels to the Hormuz region has no other purpose than to sail through the Strait of Hormuz. This is obviously false.

By declaring a blockade that potentially affects Chinese ships, Trump has made a move that requires an appropriate response from China. Sending a few military vessels to the area is that appropriate response. That's it, there's no sudden standoff (don't know why you assume China will withdraw in defeat), no immediate FON-style sailing through the Strait, which would be counter-productive at the moment, but the immediate presence of those vessels offer options in case of US escalation.

Unlike what you imagine, your proposed solution, that of announcing that China will strengthen Iran's military capabilities to Trump, is actually far more inflammatory and escalatory than sending a few military vessels to the area (which are SOP for many nations in such situations).
 
Puss in Boots

Puss in Boots

Junior Member
Registered Member
solarz said:
No, PLAN vessels sailing through the Strait of Hormuz or escorting Chinese tankers would be escalatory moves. I think this is what you have a problem with. You are seeing things as black and white, zero and one. In your mind, China sending military vessels to the Hormuz region has no other purpose than to sail through the Strait of Hormuz. This is obviously false.

By declaring a blockade that potentially affects Chinese ships, Trump has made a move that requires an appropriate response from China. Sending a few military vessels to the area is that appropriate response. That's it, there's no sudden standoff (don't know why you assume China will withdraw in defeat), no immediate FON-style sailing through the Strait, which would be counter-productive at the moment, but the immediate presence of those vessels offer options in case of US escalation.

Unlike what you imagine, your proposed solution, that of announcing that China will strengthen Iran's military capabilities to Trump, is actually far more inflammatory and escalatory than sending a few military vessels to the area (which are SOP for many nations in such situations).
Click to expand...
I don't want to discuss this issue with you anymore. I've already explained to you the two possible outcomes of sending warships in. Do you think there could be a third possibility? If you send warships there but don't enter the strait, the US can completely ignore your presence; it has no deterrent effect whatsoever.

Even if China has a thousand legitimate reasons to send its warships to the Strait of Hormuz, it will not change the fact that the US and China will ultimately have to reach a point where one side has to back down. When neither side is willing to compromise easily, they will only escalate the situation until it spirals out of control.

This only proves that sending warships was a mistake from the very beginning.

Westerners are accustomed to using force as a bargaining chip, while the Chinese are accustomed to using force as a last resort.
This is the meaning of the first sentence of Sun Tzu's Art of War that I initially explained to you: once the Chinese resort to force, it inevitably means that things have reached a point where there is no room for negotiation.
 
Last edited:
D

drowingfish

Senior Member
Registered Member
bebops said:
I can see exports of EV cars and renewable energy products will skyrocket after this oil shortage experience. BYD car sales in Philippines had increased 3X folds this year.

Trump says asked China's Xi not to give weapons to Iran: Fox Business
China could always send materials and dual use parts to make missiles and drones..
Click to expand...
I think perhaps a surge in demand for electric buses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top