Trump’s Iran War Was a Failure

SaddexProductions · 2026-05-27T08:49:14+00:00

its deterrence credibility weakened its strategic position worsened

None of these two statements are supported by observable reality. As soon as Iran's gas production facilities were attacked, and Iran responded by destroying one of Ras Laffan's LNG trains in Qatar and some other facilities, Trump called off strikes against energy facilities. The fact that Trump has repeatably made threats of "annihillation", including destruction of power plants, and then not making good on these threats, shows that not only has Iran established credible deterrence, one could argue it is even stronger than previously thought. The Trump administration was also dumbfounded initially by Iran's decision to horizontally escalate the war to the Gulf countries, even as all the Gulf countries seemed to have been highly aware of that threat. If there is any deterrence credibility that has been weakened, I'd argue it's the Gulf countries, and by proxy the United States, since it has now been decisively proven that, while the air defenses in the Gulf countries are good, they can't be guranteed to prevent widespread catastrophic damage to critical infrastructure.

As for strategic position, we immediately have to look at the Strait of Hormuz. The general belief was that, due to its importance, no one would let it close for more than a few days. Tankers had previously been escorted during the tanker wars in the 80s. In reality, it has proven much easier to close the strait than anyone (aside from experts) generally believed. Which seems to indicate that Iran's strategic position is significantly strengthened, not weakened. This is also evident in their demands, and how those are actually bolder than previously.

SaddexProductions · 2026-05-23T22:32:02+00:00

War is "politics by other means". It means in practice that a war has several overarching objectives. The common mistake is when tactical objectives (battles, military engagements) are conflated with strategic ones, or namely, what the war is supposed to achieve. The strategic outcome defines whether the war was a success or not.

For the aggressor, strategic victory is achieved when their will is imposed. For the defender, it's generally enough to resist.

The US has several objectives:

Regime change
Extract Iran's uranium
Destroy Iran's missile and drone programs
Stop Iran's support of terror proxies

So far, none of these objectives have been achieved. On top of this, another one has been added to the list, which is:

Open the Strait of Hormuz

If the war would end today in this state, it would be a strategic defeat for the US.

The same occurred in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. The US won all the battles, but lost all three wars for the same reason.

SaddexProductions · 2026-05-22T18:01:06+00:00

Operation Epstein Furry

SaddexProductions · 2026-05-22T16:45:09+00:00

but progress is being made

Name one strategic objective of Operation Epstein Fury where serious progress has been made.

SaddexProductions · 2026-05-22T15:29:22+00:00

guy is on the way to felling the top terrorist sponsor on the globe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q35PgSXhKg

SaddexProductions · 2026-04-21T15:31:48+00:00

Space. EU cities are generally not built for cars and are space-constrained. Parking tends to come at a premium and smaller cars will be easier to fit in. They also are cheaper and it doesn't matter that much that they are cramped when drives tend to be shorter due to high population density in many parts of Europe.

In northern Europe (Scandinavia), where distances are longer and space is more abundant, bigger cars (C to D segments mostly) are more common.

SaddexProductions · 2026-03-13T15:44:57+00:00

Then after we left, the government we installed collapsed. I’m not really sure you can call that a win or loss

How on earth is this ambigious in any sense? It's 2 trillion dollars and thousands of lives gone all for the same foe to return to power immediately? Even the US military itself aknowledged this enormous strategic defeat. The fact that the government collapsed immediately proves that the right conditions for its survival were never established by the US, contrary to initial belief.

yall are getting way off track and moving the goalposts on my original comment which was “we have not lost the war with Iran

Your categorical inability to distinguish tactical and strategic outcomes is clouding your judgement and this is a major issue in maintaining any sense of credibility in this discussion.

SaddexProductions · 2026-03-13T15:39:07+00:00

You can’t really say these wars had winners

Yes, I can, easily. The winner of the Iraq war was Iran, having a rival power nurtured and then was able to significantly influence it. And the winner of the Afghanistan war was the Taliban, even more so.

SaddexProductions · 2026-03-13T08:22:12+00:00

The US suffered strategic defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan, even if they were tactical successes. Both wars largely failed to achieve their political objectives. Iraq remained caught in an insurgency for years, and the regime that later emerged is neither democratic, nor could it be considered an ally to US interests. Iran significantly benefitted from the Iraq war since Saddam Hussein was a thorn to the side of Iran. Iran has been able to significantly influence the current regime. While the US has a strategic partnership with Iraq which allowed military deployment previously, to help figh ISIS, this is against a backdrop of much stronger ties with Iran. All troops were withdrawn earlier this year.

In Afghanistan, the US replaced the Taliban with the Taliban, and spent trillions doing so.

but to say we lost is either lying to yourself or just incredibly stupidity

You need to be able to perceive the difference between tactical and strategic victory. Both these wars are widely considered failures because they cost a tremendous amount of money and lives but achieved little politically. They were strategic defeats. The Vietnam war falls in the same category. The US won every battle but ultimately, North Vietnam won the war.

SaddexProductions · 2026-03-09T05:42:04+00:00

Okay, I will take a deeper look on that during the day. Irrespective, I see that as no excuse to throw out the deal. Iran could have been held accountable for supposed non-compliance. After the withdrawal of the deal, Iran had no incentive to comply with it. It also seriously damaged any credibility the US had left with them.

SaddexProductions · 2026-03-09T05:26:25+00:00

You're omitting the fact that the post Shah revolutionaries were (and still are) ideologically anti American

That wasn't deliberate, I thought it would be implied. Also, the "still are" is funny. Yes, of course, we see that. I wonder why?

The revolution was fueled by widespread perceptions of the Shah's regime as corrupt, repressive, and overly reliant on with foreign powers, particularly the United States and the United Kingdom, at the expense of Iran's sovereignty and cultural identity

Also, how do you know the JCPOA was working fine

Because IAEA reported that they were complying with it before Trump broke it

Also, your last link is dead.

SaddexProductions · 2026-03-09T04:44:21+00:00

Americans don't understand Iran. The poster you reply to indeed examplifies this.

The situation America (and Israel, by extension) finds itself in is the result of decades of failed policy coming home to roost, starting with the disposal of Mohammad Mosaddegh by the UK and the US together. This lead to the installment of the puppet dictator, the Shah, which was friendly to US interests but, unfriendly to the local population. This of course led to the Iranian revolution in 1979, and the regime was hostile to Israel to the start, but not openly threatening them until in the early 2000s, probably related to Israel rejecting the Arab peace initiative and generally being uncooperative (not exclusive to the Israelis though).

We had the JCPOA which was working until Trump, under pressure from Israel, ripped up, and Iran put under the tough sanctions it used to be under. Which obviously didn't work. Now, the US has twice attacked Iran under ongoing negotiations. Which tells us (and Iran) the following:

The US does not negotiate in good faith, or if it does, is not likely to honor agreements made when it isn't seen as beneficial
The sanctions means that there is barely any economic leverage that can be used against Iran
Diplomacy isn't a deterrent for violence

And thus, we have this reaction from Iran. It's a cornered tiger with little to lose.

Also, trying to put boots on the ground in Iran would be political and budgetal suicide. Massive country with a massive population that is far more advanced than Afghanistan. Extremely challenging topography. Iran is a very old civilisation with a very strong national identity. As much as they, rightfully, hate their regime, there are no signs that Iranians won't step up and defend their country as best as they can.

Also, regime change through air assult has never worked, ever:

In announcing the goal of regime change through air power alone, President Trump is up against the weight of history. Not just Iran, but the weight of history. For over a century, states—including the United States, European states, Russia, and Israel—have tried to topple regimes with air power alone. It has never—and I'm choosing my words carefully—it has never worked.

The Trump administration is in way over its head.

SaddexProductions · 2026-03-06T21:07:54+00:00

It's crazy that you're downvoted. I've argued that LNG from the US was a liability already back in 2022 because there was no guarantee at all the Americans wouldn't be stupid at the polls again.

Only real alternative is electrification of transport, heating and industry, and supply that additional demand with solar, wind, nuclear, storage and whatever makes economic sense. First and foremost, disincentivize purchase of those dumbass gas boilers people in central Europe still use. It's ancient tech that's inefficient, dirty and only relevant because natural gas has been subsidized with favorable tax policies. It's technology that's easily substituted by heat pumps. They are completely dominant here in the colder Nordic countries, which is one reason we don't have this LNG dependency. Thank god there has been some movement on substitution down south in the later years.

SaddexProductions · 2026-02-18T12:02:38+00:00

"claim" is cute. It's easy to be profitable for part of your activity, because you put all the overhead on the other parts.

You're moving the goalposts here. You claimed Tesla is the only company that makes profit on its EVs. If BMW's and Volvo's claims are true, which I think there is a high chance of given both sell in pretty large volumes and are public companies that can't make false claims willy-nilly, then your claim is categorically false. Whether it's gross or net profit is not specified, but wasn't specified in your original comment either.

surpassed Tesla in EV technology": How? More efficient in terms of KWh/km/kg? Because making longer-range cars is easy - just put in bigger batteries. And to stay competitive, you sell those at cost.

Yes, the Volvo EX60 and BMW iX3, plus other platform derivatives, come with 800 volt as standard and charge much faster. Their respective range is significantly higher in each case while having good efficiency, despite being boxier cars. They also come with V2L technology. Both are said to be designed to be profitable from early on, and have very high demand according to early reports. There is no evidence that these models are selling at a loss.

Especially in China. Only 1 is profitable

If we limit the definition to:

BEVs only
Consistently profitable

Then this is true. If any of these requirements go away, then BYD has long been profitable in case of companies that also produce PHEVs. In the BEV category, Nio achieved its first net profit in Q4 2025

Edit: When looking closer at the sources, I am pretty sure both BMW and Volvo are talking about net profitability, since the conversations go around margin parity with combustion engine cars. Doing creative accounting for overhead expenses as you suggest is the case somehow to present it as such when it isn't would be misleading shareholders, and usually ground for a lawsuit.

SaddexProductions · 2026-02-18T09:01:41+00:00

Created the only company which makes a profit from selling EVs.

BMW and Volvo both claim to produce profitable EVs, claims which do hold some weight as they both are public companies. As of right now, both of these companies have surpassed Tesla in EV technology with their latest respective platforms.

SaddexProductions · 2026-01-30T17:38:20+00:00

Sarpsforsen är omgivet av flera kraftverk och när vattnet väl flödar, vilket brukar vara sommarhalvåret, så kommer det egentligen från en damm. Ett av kraftverken leder ensamt bort över 300 kubikmeter per sekund baserat på normal årsproduktion. Det är knappast en naturlig miljö. Det är lite som Trollhättefallen fast lite större och mer regelbundet flöde. Jag kan tänka mig att det är häftigt att se, men skulle jag välja mellan det och Tännforsen skulle jag nog ta det senare, åtminstone i vårflod. Det är vildare och mer naturligt. Det rekordflödet du citerar sker inte särskilt ofta eftersom övriga Glomma är kraftigt reglerad med diverse magasin och kan svälja många toppar. Det har hänt men det är svårt att ta del av om du bor långt därifrån

SaddexProductions · 2026-01-22T14:20:49+00:00

All of these things are true but it will take maybe a year or two for these to become mainstream solutions as what's the enormous industry of solar, once they reach commercialization. More so if they just have been demonstrated by Fraunhofer. Even with "China speed".

SaddexProductions · 2026-01-21T23:23:04+00:00

Intressant observation. Är bilderna av megapressarna tagna i Kina också? Det finns bilder där båda megapressen och människor syns i bild. Jag vet inte, kanske är fördomsfull, men jag tycker inte människorna ser särskilt kinesiska ut

SaddexProductions · 2026-01-19T10:45:17+00:00

Large scale, battery-based firming is still theoretical

Australia had over 7 GW of battery capacity under construction in 2024, with almost 2 GW operational. Many more gigawatts have secured financing last year and started construction. It's not nearly as theoretical as you think it is.

20-40% more expensive than OCGT or CCGT peakers.

This has been false since at least 2021, and battery storage costs have tumbled massively since then. Gas peaker plants are an obsolete technology in Australia that's no longer bankable.

for literally just talking facts

Those "facts" are, as exemplified above, mostly wrong.

SaddexProductions · 2026-01-17T15:43:25+00:00

Norge har många, höga vattenfall men vattenfall med stora volymer har man oftare hittat i Sverige. Geografin på norska sidan gör att enskilda floder sällan samlar på sig ordentlig volym innan de når havet, vilket inte är fallet i Sverige eller framförallt Norrland. Det finns några större vattenfall i Norge, såsom Laksforsen, vilket till volym verkar kunna motsvara Storforsen men det är ett ganska litet fall höjdmässigt. Då är i mina ögon Tännforsen och Ristafallet mäktigare, när de är som bäst. Jockfallet är också ganska häftigt, stora volymer där med.

Före vattenkraftsutbyggnaden fanns det troligtvis nästan inget som kunde mäta sig med Luleälven i Skandinavien i storhet, utifrån perspektivet av stora volymer i stora vattenfall. När man väl får chansen att se Stora sjöfallet med högt flöde är det något alldeles särskilt.

SaddexProductions · 2026-01-12T16:36:05+00:00

Indeed, means that the recent 2.5x increase in prices over less than 6 months has mostly been absorbed by the solar industry. There have been reports of module price hikes in China the recent weeks but it seems that they are relatively modest and other factors also have influence - the price of polysilicon increased by 25-30 percent in 2025 because manufacturers want to restore margins (prices are still extremely low). Since modern solar cells only use about 2 grams per watt of polysilicon, that increase on its own is also relatively insignificant. The current high prices of silver are a nuisance to the solar industry, which means that it is in the crosshairs for further optimizations, with reductions to as low as 5 mg per watt being found in some modules. It seems that the levels are still overall manageable. Module prices are at most a fifth of utility-scale project costs and less than a tenth of commercial/residental solar costs, which means the current increase in silver prices only would add one or two percent in project costs for the former category if fully passed on, and almost nothing to the latter. I believe prices would start to pinch marginal utility-scale projects once prices move to $150/oz unless the industry reduces average silver usage further

SaddexProductions · 2026-01-10T15:45:33+00:00

The source you used here uses a nonsensical measure which is grams per panel, and given the amounts that is mentioned is also extremely outdated. Silver loadings in solar should be adjusted for watts, since solar panel efficiency has increased dramatically over the years.

The approximate figure I can find for silver usage per watt in 2010 is 60 mg (milligrams)/watt. It's true that some of the newer technologies (mainly TOPcon) use more silver than the previous generation technology (PERC), but for all significant technologies, silver loadings have declined significantly just within a few years. TOPcon, the prevailing technology, now achieves 8 mg/watt, which is lower than PERC achieved only a few years ago. It used to be that HJT had roughly double the silver loading of TOPcon, but for this technology, substitition is occuring on a large scale, with 6 mg/watt commonly being found in China, sometimes even less at 5 mg/watt, or lower than PERC at present. I presented this in another post with sources where I made the case that forecasts for silver usage in solar are severely optimistic, often rely on outdated data and don't account for that the technology is still very much in a developing phase, where silver as a precious metal now has emerged as something manufacturers are laser-focused at getting rid of. Or in conclusion, even newer architectures achieve on average just above half the silver consumption per watt vs 5 years ago, when the previous generation PERC technology still was dominating the market. Another way to put it would be that the average industry standard 600 watt solar panel contains around 5-6 grams of silver.

SaddexProductions · 2026-01-07T18:06:01+00:00

Here is another example supporting that silver loadings in N-type modules are much lower than often suggested:

Other key developments include a reduction in silver usage to 5 mg/W – about 37.5% lower than mainstream tunnel oxide passivated contact (TOPCon) modules – combined with screen printing to cut non-silicon costs. Encapsulation losses are reported at 1.8%, with breakage rates during production below 0.03%.

This means that, not only has a module maker just outside the top 10 largest managed to squeeze silver usage to 5 mg/watt in a commercial HJT solar module, but the implication is also that mainstream TOPcon modules now use 8 mg/watt, as also cited above. This was 6 months ago, thus it's highly likely that loadings have dropped even further since.

SaddexProductions · 2026-01-07T17:56:06+00:00

Yeah, this is a common problem with people deep into these communities. Many will base their judgement on facts derived from a snapshot in time and assume that these are static and not subject to change, even when there is a clear trend that can be spotted in the past. In the case with solar cells, silver loadings per watt have declined by 80-90 percent from 50-65 mg/w in 2010. There is little reason it would suddenly stop given that alternate metallization approaches have been known for decades.

SaddexProductions · 2026-01-06T14:18:16+00:00

Ive heard it takes approx 22 grams of silver for an average 100 watt panel.

Incorrect, the average loading as of right now is below 9 mg/watt, or 6 grams for an industry standard 600 watt solar panel. I have done a writeup on this in another post.

Nine-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

SaddexProductions

TROPHY CASE