Since your column is called "Bet on It," perhaps you'd like to offer odds of a specific outcome. Your analysis of military operations ("if we fight, we win") is questionable, and your forecast of disaster("there will be no victory") may be premature.
The US hasn't had a well planned peace since the end of WWII. Though it would be difficult to see a modern day MacArthur running any mideast country. One problem is both Liberals and Conservatives in this country think everyone wants to be an American and have an American style government. They don't. The genius of the Marshall Plan was that it was like to like. From a Western Style Democracy to other countries that were also Western and had at least a nodding acquaintance with Democracy in their histories. Before Hitler there was the Weimar Republic. We send people to the mideast that want to lecture them on how many sexes there are or Duchamp's Fountain. They want better education for their girls as well as the boys, electricity, clean water and not being ruled by fanatics.
Mr. Joe can put a perfect circular hole in the wall but he has problem patching it up. The solution is not to put holes in the wall, perfect or not. Can't blame Mr. Joe for "he ain't putting those holes in the wall anymore".
USA turning its ships from Persian gulf back home would be an excellent outcome for Americans, people of Iran and everyone else in the region. They should not have gone there in first place. Calling this "we can't even win wars anymore" is not correct, as the desire to not escalate the war might be coming from the fact that USA might have learned its lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan.
May be the current admin miscalculated and hoped a lot will be achieved with very little. But miscalculations are part of the war. They are not falling for the sunk cost fallacy here an escalating further.
It is best for everyone to pretend this war is a huge success and give the current admin the golden bridge to retreat.
That or a full scale invasion comes after midterms.
Do you want the US to put ground troops in Iran? To genocide the Iranian people? Cause those are your options for forcing a peace on them right now.
What do you dislike about the peace in 1991?
Personally I don’t think we should have sanctioned Saddam afterwards but I think I’m in lonely company.
The 2003 Iraq war was “finishing the job”. I wish it went unfinished.
Similarly while I don’t think the Iran war should have been started, I’m quite glad it’s not escalating. I’d rather “lose” than win by blowing the entire region up and/or doing another Iraq.
Reading comprehension is hard apparently. The post you are replying to did not state "the US is in the process of attempting to genocide Iran." The post in question stated "the US government's stated end goals: an Iran that is not hostile to the US or its allies, which also renounces pursuit of a nuclear weapon, are unlikely to be achieved without marching into Iran and occupying Tehran, or genociding the Iranian people. Neither is on the table for very good reasons, ergo, the end goal 'force Iran to not be hostile to the US or its allies and also renounce seeking nuclear weapons' is very unlikely to be achieved via current means under current circumstances."
This is why it's important to argue based on logically analyzing factual claims ("is it true or false that to destroy a large industrial project like a nuclear program requires a ground occupation? Is it true or false that airpower is insufficient to make a narrow waterway safely traversable? If so on either count, is a ground occupation within America's capabilities or not? Or is one in America's interests, or not?") and not primitive word association (the post uses the word genocide, genocide is a bad word, ergo the post makes bad arguments) if you want people to take you seriously.
Do you think we can change Irans government by bombing them even more? How much? Why would that work when it hasn’t so far?
We have caused regime change precisely one war from the air in our entire history. Japan in ww2. This did leave some japanese alive, so it wasn’t a total genocide, but we sure killed a lot of civilians!
And the japanese in that scenario had no way to attack our civilians (which Iran can do in the gulf). Once you start going down the “firebomb and starve them till they surrender” route Iran can devastate the civilians of our gulf allies, something Japan could never do in ww2. So if you want to prevent that you would need to escalate so hard and so quick that your completely eliminated all retaliatory capability at once. Given the failure to do that with six months of bombing, it stands to reason that such an escalation would require essentially indiscriminate use of WMD.
So if you want to “win” the Iran war and you don’t want ground troops, the best case you’re looking at is doing what we did to Japan in ww2. Worst case you have to go even harder, because there is nobody over there that is willing and able to enforce a surrender. If they don’t surrender you literally have to kill them to the last man.
If that’s not “genocide” it’s sure in the same ballpark.
I would add there was an episode during the war where Trump threatened to destroy Irans power and water facilities (something about ending a great civilization). He was no doubt I formed that Iran could easily retaliate by destroying the power and water facilities of our gulf allies (and perhaps our military bases as well, which I’m told have proven vulnerable).
He backed down. This shows that if we really wanted to escalate the air campaign to the point where Iran could not retaliate, we would need to go even further (then an attack designed to slowly kill many civilians indirectly) and basically remove their retaliatory capability completely. I can’t see how this is done with Iranians still alive.
In 1991 perhaps air dominance was great enough that America could impose its will that way (though people in that era didn’t try to bomb Iran). But in 2026 the tech stack doesn’t seem to favor air dominance. Furthermore, due to our unprovoked attack and the fact we are providing weapons and targeting data to Ukraine, Russia and China seem to have no problem doing the same for Iran. This places satellites and industrial production completely outside our escalation capabilities without starting a world war.
So again, I don’t see a way to win from the air without literally reducing Iran to a smoking crater.
He tossed off genocide as if it were a possible way to end the Iran war, other than just quitting.
I tossed of several ways of committing genocide, such as nuclear war, poison gas, burning the entire country.
He said he was suggesting ways to win the war and he would rather lose, and he did not understand.
I said I was playing his hyperbole game.
He said he did not understand.
I said apparently his genocide hyperbole was meaningless then.
He again said he literally didn’t understand.
And you jump in as if you’re the wise elder whose patronizing lecture will bring lightness to my darkness? You’re claiming his hyperbole about genocide was factual?
I think not. Best stick with your day job instead of applying to be a mediator.
I literally said I think we should quit the war, because the alternative are a ground invasion or genocide.
Bryan is complaining that the US isn't "winning" the Iran War. But the only way to "win" the Iran war is to do something horrible.
In 1991 it "won" the Iraq war by leaving Saddam in power and sanctioning his people for 12 years, causing untold death and suffering.
In 2003 is "won" the Iraq war by sending in a ground army, which promptly turned into a quagmire.
So I'm not sure what Bryan is complaining about in his post. The current Iran war is basically 1991 Iraq, but Iran has better geographical advantages and the tech stack is different enough from 1991 that we are even less capable of imposing our will from the air. Why is he even making this post then? What does he want the USA to do so that it can "win"?
This may have to do with a blind spot that contemporary Americans, and especially contemporary American statesmen and stateswomen, have for ideological allies, neutrals, and enemies, in particular but without limitation religious enemies, especially Muslim enemies.
We--I should say parenthetically that by "we" I of course mean "they," as in any political essay. Especially contemporary American stateswomen and statesmen, and this goes more for the author of "The Art of the Deal" than for any man alive. We always believe that we can always make a deal (absent the few very bad men that we can clear away by force).
We cannot wrap our heads around the idea that there are lots of people who believe in what they consider higher things and absolutely will not settle for money or anything money can buy, either for their alliances, their nations, their parties, their cronies, or themselves.
They forget that as Americans we ought to be ideological ourselves. I refer the interested reader to the authoritative explanation in our official papers: the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.
I'm curious regarding the reason you seem to posit 'return to status quo' as the best (best achievable?) end state. Maybe I've misunderstood. There is already obviously no returning to the prior status quo, for one thing. (The threat to close Hormuz was latent and unclear but now has been triggered, defined, and governments and private actors are investing in alternatives; the powers that be in Iran are redefined and resources reallocated if not depleted; the blockade functions & serves US purposes in important ways; gas prices are only moderately higher in the US and most of that owes to previous self-inflicted limitations on refinery capacity; etc. etc.).
Besides that closed door to a prior status quo, more positive outcomes are imminently achievable with unknown but certainly nonzero likelihood: a new equilibrium where Iran's oil is less accessible (extractable) per technical requirements to reduce output in the meanwhile; oil profits are reduced further thru ongoing blockades and inability of its engineers to implement more sophisticated technologies to extract it; reallocation of Iranian resources to economic survival through other means; new regional & global energy routes permanently defang the threat or reality of Iran's ability to inflict damage within Hormuz; global strategy continues to shift away from Iran-Hamas-jihad avenues of influence in effectively anti-communist Western nations, and so forth.
The US won't rebuild Iran because it is not in the US's interest to have a rebuilt Iran. It's within the realm of possibility although not possible for me to imagine that Iranian leaders could choose a Venezuelan path to managed nonaggression in some form that does not threaten or contributes to US interests. Otherwise, seems to me the Iranians are working hard to ensure Saudis/Israelis et al. mop up the rest of their proxies while they decay over time into something like North Korea, only less dangerous. That's a very different plan from unpeace by fractious committee (Iraq) or chaotic withdrawal (Afghanistan) but it is not self-evidently a bad plan.
Since your column is called "Bet on It," perhaps you'd like to offer odds of a specific outcome. Your analysis of military operations ("if we fight, we win") is questionable, and your forecast of disaster("there will be no victory") may be premature.
There's already a market for that: https://polymarket.com/event/will-the-iranian-regime-fall-by-the-end-of-2026
Sure, but I am asking for Bryan's odds, not Polymarket's
The US hasn't had a well planned peace since the end of WWII. Though it would be difficult to see a modern day MacArthur running any mideast country. One problem is both Liberals and Conservatives in this country think everyone wants to be an American and have an American style government. They don't. The genius of the Marshall Plan was that it was like to like. From a Western Style Democracy to other countries that were also Western and had at least a nodding acquaintance with Democracy in their histories. Before Hitler there was the Weimar Republic. We send people to the mideast that want to lecture them on how many sexes there are or Duchamp's Fountain. They want better education for their girls as well as the boys, electricity, clean water and not being ruled by fanatics.
Mr. Joe can put a perfect circular hole in the wall but he has problem patching it up. The solution is not to put holes in the wall, perfect or not. Can't blame Mr. Joe for "he ain't putting those holes in the wall anymore".
USA turning its ships from Persian gulf back home would be an excellent outcome for Americans, people of Iran and everyone else in the region. They should not have gone there in first place. Calling this "we can't even win wars anymore" is not correct, as the desire to not escalate the war might be coming from the fact that USA might have learned its lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan.
May be the current admin miscalculated and hoped a lot will be achieved with very little. But miscalculations are part of the war. They are not falling for the sunk cost fallacy here an escalating further.
It is best for everyone to pretend this war is a huge success and give the current admin the golden bridge to retreat.
That or a full scale invasion comes after midterms.
Do you want the US to put ground troops in Iran? To genocide the Iranian people? Cause those are your options for forcing a peace on them right now.
What do you dislike about the peace in 1991?
Personally I don’t think we should have sanctioned Saddam afterwards but I think I’m in lonely company.
The 2003 Iraq war was “finishing the job”. I wish it went unfinished.
Similarly while I don’t think the Iran war should have been started, I’m quite glad it’s not escalating. I’d rather “lose” than win by blowing the entire region up and/or doing another Iraq.
Genocide, really? You lost the argument right there, as dumb as claiming Israel is genociding Gaza.
Reading comprehension is hard apparently. The post you are replying to did not state "the US is in the process of attempting to genocide Iran." The post in question stated "the US government's stated end goals: an Iran that is not hostile to the US or its allies, which also renounces pursuit of a nuclear weapon, are unlikely to be achieved without marching into Iran and occupying Tehran, or genociding the Iranian people. Neither is on the table for very good reasons, ergo, the end goal 'force Iran to not be hostile to the US or its allies and also renounce seeking nuclear weapons' is very unlikely to be achieved via current means under current circumstances."
This is why it's important to argue based on logically analyzing factual claims ("is it true or false that to destroy a large industrial project like a nuclear program requires a ground occupation? Is it true or false that airpower is insufficient to make a narrow waterway safely traversable? If so on either count, is a ground occupation within America's capabilities or not? Or is one in America's interests, or not?") and not primitive word association (the post uses the word genocide, genocide is a bad word, ergo the post makes bad arguments) if you want people to take you seriously.
Anyhow, everything I have to say about Iran was said here (https://substack.com/@zmflavius/note/c-305687187), and my opinion has not much changed since.
Dude your comment was pretty sensible, until you repeated “genociding the Iranian people”.
Your claim is unlikely to be true, mostly because doing so would be both unnecessary and unhelpful to the aim of regime change.
Yes, many Iranians likely would die if the U.S. attempted regime change.
But that does not make it genocide!!!!!!!
The word genocide does not merely mean “many people die”. 🙄
Do you think we can change Irans government by bombing them even more? How much? Why would that work when it hasn’t so far?
We have caused regime change precisely one war from the air in our entire history. Japan in ww2. This did leave some japanese alive, so it wasn’t a total genocide, but we sure killed a lot of civilians!
And the japanese in that scenario had no way to attack our civilians (which Iran can do in the gulf). Once you start going down the “firebomb and starve them till they surrender” route Iran can devastate the civilians of our gulf allies, something Japan could never do in ww2. So if you want to prevent that you would need to escalate so hard and so quick that your completely eliminated all retaliatory capability at once. Given the failure to do that with six months of bombing, it stands to reason that such an escalation would require essentially indiscriminate use of WMD.
So if you want to “win” the Iran war and you don’t want ground troops, the best case you’re looking at is doing what we did to Japan in ww2. Worst case you have to go even harder, because there is nobody over there that is willing and able to enforce a surrender. If they don’t surrender you literally have to kill them to the last man.
If that’s not “genocide” it’s sure in the same ballpark.
Thank you!
I would add there was an episode during the war where Trump threatened to destroy Irans power and water facilities (something about ending a great civilization). He was no doubt I formed that Iran could easily retaliate by destroying the power and water facilities of our gulf allies (and perhaps our military bases as well, which I’m told have proven vulnerable).
He backed down. This shows that if we really wanted to escalate the air campaign to the point where Iran could not retaliate, we would need to go even further (then an attack designed to slowly kill many civilians indirectly) and basically remove their retaliatory capability completely. I can’t see how this is done with Iranians still alive.
In 1991 perhaps air dominance was great enough that America could impose its will that way (though people in that era didn’t try to bomb Iran). But in 2026 the tech stack doesn’t seem to favor air dominance. Furthermore, due to our unprovoked attack and the fact we are providing weapons and targeting data to Ukraine, Russia and China seem to have no problem doing the same for Iran. This places satellites and industrial production completely outside our escalation capabilities without starting a world war.
So again, I don’t see a way to win from the air without literally reducing Iran to a smoking crater.
You’re telling me?
He tossed off genocide as if it were a possible way to end the Iran war, other than just quitting.
I tossed of several ways of committing genocide, such as nuclear war, poison gas, burning the entire country.
He said he was suggesting ways to win the war and he would rather lose, and he did not understand.
I said I was playing his hyperbole game.
He said he did not understand.
I said apparently his genocide hyperbole was meaningless then.
He again said he literally didn’t understand.
And you jump in as if you’re the wise elder whose patronizing lecture will bring lightness to my darkness? You’re claiming his hyperbole about genocide was factual?
I think not. Best stick with your day job instead of applying to be a mediator.
I literally said I think we should quit the war, because the alternative are a ground invasion or genocide.
Bryan is complaining that the US isn't "winning" the Iran War. But the only way to "win" the Iran war is to do something horrible.
In 1991 it "won" the Iraq war by leaving Saddam in power and sanctioning his people for 12 years, causing untold death and suffering.
In 2003 is "won" the Iraq war by sending in a ground army, which promptly turned into a quagmire.
So I'm not sure what Bryan is complaining about in his post. The current Iran war is basically 1991 Iraq, but Iran has better geographical advantages and the tech stack is different enough from 1991 that we are even less capable of imposing our will from the air. Why is he even making this post then? What does he want the USA to do so that it can "win"?
Apparently my reply is hidden by Bryan.
It’s not by Bryan. it’s by Substack, despite what Substack claims about it being because of Bryan.
I do concede of all the awful “hide” decisions by Substack’s algorithm, this one is the most absurd of all.
It’s got to be based on the phrase “could eliminate the Iranîan population”.
Completely idiotic.
This may have to do with a blind spot that contemporary Americans, and especially contemporary American statesmen and stateswomen, have for ideological allies, neutrals, and enemies, in particular but without limitation religious enemies, especially Muslim enemies.
We--I should say parenthetically that by "we" I of course mean "they," as in any political essay. Especially contemporary American stateswomen and statesmen, and this goes more for the author of "The Art of the Deal" than for any man alive. We always believe that we can always make a deal (absent the few very bad men that we can clear away by force).
We cannot wrap our heads around the idea that there are lots of people who believe in what they consider higher things and absolutely will not settle for money or anything money can buy, either for their alliances, their nations, their parties, their cronies, or themselves.
They forget that as Americans we ought to be ideological ourselves. I refer the interested reader to the authoritative explanation in our official papers: the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.
I'm curious regarding the reason you seem to posit 'return to status quo' as the best (best achievable?) end state. Maybe I've misunderstood. There is already obviously no returning to the prior status quo, for one thing. (The threat to close Hormuz was latent and unclear but now has been triggered, defined, and governments and private actors are investing in alternatives; the powers that be in Iran are redefined and resources reallocated if not depleted; the blockade functions & serves US purposes in important ways; gas prices are only moderately higher in the US and most of that owes to previous self-inflicted limitations on refinery capacity; etc. etc.).
Besides that closed door to a prior status quo, more positive outcomes are imminently achievable with unknown but certainly nonzero likelihood: a new equilibrium where Iran's oil is less accessible (extractable) per technical requirements to reduce output in the meanwhile; oil profits are reduced further thru ongoing blockades and inability of its engineers to implement more sophisticated technologies to extract it; reallocation of Iranian resources to economic survival through other means; new regional & global energy routes permanently defang the threat or reality of Iran's ability to inflict damage within Hormuz; global strategy continues to shift away from Iran-Hamas-jihad avenues of influence in effectively anti-communist Western nations, and so forth.
The US won't rebuild Iran because it is not in the US's interest to have a rebuilt Iran. It's within the realm of possibility although not possible for me to imagine that Iranian leaders could choose a Venezuelan path to managed nonaggression in some form that does not threaten or contributes to US interests. Otherwise, seems to me the Iranians are working hard to ensure Saudis/Israelis et al. mop up the rest of their proxies while they decay over time into something like North Korea, only less dangerous. That's a very different plan from unpeace by fractious committee (Iraq) or chaotic withdrawal (Afghanistan) but it is not self-evidently a bad plan.