America makes sure its retaliatory responses are overwhelming making a tit for tat deterrence useless against them, this is the advantage of having the largest stick in the world.

Boots on the ground will be needed, you can’t win a war with stand off munitions alone. America was entirely unsuccessful with their previous two attempts at regime change by force this century, why would they do better against a bigger and better armed country?

Not sure what is the point you’re trying to argue here. You assume that US escalation is so overwhelming which makes deterrence useless against them; at the same time you correctly point out that US intervention usually fails when they deploy on the ground, let alone how this would go in a country like Iran. So clearly, American escalation reaches a limit when they have have to actually put boots on the ground, if we keep to the realm of conventional action. My point is, if it has to come to this anyway, Iran should have been more assertive with its retaliation and NP to try and prevent the war altogether.

This also assumes Iran is dealing with a rational actor acting logically, there is no evidence Trump is one in this case.

In very few cases is the leader of a state solely responsible for the military actions of said state. A significant portion of his personnel; generals, the MIC, Israeli advisors, economists would have to support or at least assent to this war for it to go ahead. Could they all be crazy? It’s possible. But once again, they will have to fight with the options they have, and these options are limited. Iran could have limited them further, but chose not to. And it’s unlikely that Trump started this war solely because Israel has “something” on him, because then he’d have to make this case in front of all these people, and it just wouldn’t make sense.

The point about the Zulus was to point out the nature of imperialism; the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must. Ultimately, the reason wars are launched is that because they believe that they can be won. I speculate that the whole rationale on the American side goes something like this: that they can decapitate the regime, bomb relentlessly, let protesters fill the power vacuum, and finally overthrow the Islamic Republic (the Israelis probably have a more eschatological reason). This is a fantasy. The Nazis tried to do the same with Britain, the British eventually retaliated all the same.

The American war machine is essentially a glorified, very expensive police force (much like their actual police depts). It can do overwhelming force, but it isn’t going to win a war of (military or economic) attrition. It can’t do much for protecting its allies in the GCC, not even its own bases in the region. The likely ending to all this is that the US, just like with Afghanistan, will announce that it “accomplished all its objectives”, pack up, and leave. Iran complains, but eventually does nothing like by the past. This just puts the Iranians back to square one, where they were in 2020. I’ll guess we’ll see if they actually learnt from their mistakes.

Apologies, your Majesty. A Great White is indeed a formidable creature. Trump is nothing like that, although he is trying too hard to be…

Reasons for the invasion matter of course, but they matter for different people. The American people deserve to know why their treasury is being expended on a war half across the world instead of being used to improve life at home. Or exactly what improvements they reap in terms of security by fighting this war, if their administration is going to tell them that Iran is two weeks from getting the bomb for the last decade anyway.

But these reasons are irrelevant for Iran. Trump could be attacking Iran because he legitimately feels threatened; or for its oil; or to distract the public, or maybe simply because he wants to build a Trump Tower&Casino in Persepolis. The point is that, whatever the insane reasons the United States have for their attack, Iran CANNOT prevent them from acting upon them. Nor can it change the minds of those in charge of writing American foreign policy; no more than the Zulus could change the reasons for why the British Empire attacked them, for example.

What Iran CAN do is set clear consequences for attacks on its sovereignty. “You strike our Consulate. Fine.” Two days later Hzb retaliates on a diplomatic mission of the Epstein Coalition. “You kill our officials. Okay” A week later an American military contractor happens to “disappear”. And so on. This is tit-for-tat retaliation.

Reasons for war are for the American people to debate on. And I agree with the idea that with such baseless reasons, it really does show the corruption of the leadership that started this war, as well as of those who do nothing to prevent it. But for Iran, it isn’t about determining whether the reasons of their attacker are good or bad. It is about making the likelihood of an attack go from possible to impossible, without significant casualties. And Iran has blundered massively on the latter.

The Iranians’ biggest mistake here were to be weak. Ever since 2020 when Trump first attacked them, they failed to achieve any meaningful retaliation, and they have successively failed to achieve any till today.

Seeing that Iran did nothing but a face saving strike when the US took down Solemeni, the Israelis went ahead with striking their consulate in 2024. Seeing yet another weak response, they went for all out strikes on their facilities in 2025. Yet again no retort from Iran. Well, guess what? Now they’re rampaging all over the bloody country.

The Americans’ assessment of Iran was clear. Iran would not establish any form of deterrence because it clings to the delusions of having a negotiated settlement being ratified, which the Americans themselves never had any intention of signing.

Had the IRGC and Hizbullah replied in a tit-for-tat each time to punish American and Israeli assets in the region for their illegal and insane actions, clear deterrence would have been established and Iran’s red lines would have been backed with some credibility. The Americans would not have been so keen to act with such impunity. But again, because of the Ayatollah’s futile hope to keep the door open for future negotiations, they’ve sabotaged their own position as well as their nuclear program. And the result now is that both the IRGC and Hzb have been split apart and are being destroyed one at a time.

Ironically, the Ayatollah’s half-hearted policy towards American aggression is what probably cost him his life and those of his immediate family today.

Trump is essentially a shark in the water (no disrespect meant towards sharks). If it smells blood, it will pounce on its prey, no questions asked. But if its prey is willing to struggle, it will move on to another already injured target.

The biggest mistake to make against this kind of adversary is to show weakness. But Iran could not understand that.

He essentially calls himself a hypocrite for following a lie when convenient,

Then suddenly, it is the greatest speech ever.