Daniel Davis Deep Dive@DanielLDavis1
This is a little more than a hunt for targets to attack. Everything we’re doing here is devoid of a strategy.
If you’re going to use military force against a country, it needs to be very carefully calibrated to obtain a specific political objective, and use militarily attainable tactical objectives that have a reasonable chance at accomplishing the political tasks.
The things reported in this article are evidence of a mindset that says we’re going to find things to shoot at, and then just sit back and wait and see what happens.
Any basic analysis would scream that all such attacks are going to accomplish is to make the Hornets mad, and ensure that they launch commence strikes against the US, and our allies in the region, increasing the pain on them/us. But it’s virtually impossible that these strikes would compel submission by the Iranians.
Just think of how illogical this is: 40 days of full on bombing with over 14,000 targets attacked did not cause Iran to submit, and now a few relative pinprick strikes are?
The only thing that continues to make any sense at all, is a diplomatic deal that is minimally acceptable to both sides, and an end to the war. That means that we would have to give something to Iran, some things we don’t want to give, and Iran would have to give some things they don’t want to, but both benefit from an end into the war.
And it seems pretty likely that the Iranians will not agree to any terms unless they have some sort of even quasi security guarantees, in one form or another, and that’s gonna be a bitter pill for the US to swallow.
But let me reinforce a critical fundamental here: if we don’t take the bitter pill by choice, we will be forced to eat an even worse deal later.
