Even if the peace holds the whole thing feels like a definite L for the following reasons:
Materiel
- a huge amount of expensive and long lead time to replace missiles/interceptors expended
- a $300,000,000 radar station destroyed
- like 30 Reaper drones (approximately 1/5 of the total)
- 1 AWACs destroyed and 3-5 others heavily damaged (we only have about 20 of them
- tons of damage to infrastructure in the area (like refineries, ports, chemical plants)
Geopolitical
- primacy of American military power shown to be truly questionable (I consider this as the biggest part of the L; can't decide if it's an unforced error or it was bound to happen under any administration)
- Iran now knows it can leverage its drones and missiles to influence the region and world; they don't even need a nuke anymore to project power
I guess if there is a silver lining it's that the conflict has exposed how unprepared some of our doctrines and orders of battle are when dealing against an adversary that needs to operate on a more asymmetric level. But also it feels like that should be already known after years of monitoring the Ukrainian conflict.
> Iran now knows it can leverage its drones and missiles to influence the region and world; they don't even need a nuke anymore to project power
Tehran probably needs nukes to project power. As in reärm its proxies and have them go off and start being a nuisance again without real fear of facing any consequences for it.
What Iran has learned–and globally demonstrated–is America is willing to pay more to its enemies than it's willing to spend defending its allies. (We're discussing arranging financing for Iran in an amount equal to what it costs us to support NATO for a decade.)
> conflict has exposed how unprepared some of our doctrines and orders of battle are when dealing against an adversary that needs to operate on a more asymmetric level
That is known for almost 25 years since Millennium Challenge. However US military decided that to cove their ears, close their eyes and start screaming
If anything I think that demonstrating how worthless all this “war materiel” is, well it s a good thing. Can we please cut “defense” spending in half and just let me keep more of my own money or better yet stop going into so much debt?
A bad peace will be better than this war. I know people want to stick this into some kind of winners vs losers discussion but I for one would be happy if it reliably ended.
It's very difficult for me to think of such a terrible peace agreement that I'd personally reject it.
We're no longer in a position to unilaterally disengage. If the IRGC decides its political establishment is wrong and starts potting random shit again, we'll be dragged back in.
I know Iran likely has a fractured government, but more assassinations vs various Iranian leadership won't exactly solve that issue. (Indeed, it's incredibly stupid that we assassinated so many leaders to the point that the peace deal is so shaky)
This is as unified as Iran is going to get in the near future. So we gotta work with what we have.
I'm not saying we don't negotiate. I'm saying we shouldn't expect the results of any negotiations to hold. Various parties will keep trying to torpedo the peace, including by attacking American interests, because they either think they can get more or profited from the war.
I mean, the stock market is idiotic if that's what you mean and I agree.
But I will perpetually trust and hope in the peace process.
Not much to do but offer my support for the end of this war. No matter how unlikely it is.
--------
No one here knows how bad the peace deal is. It's not even published yet (and it's not even a real*(edit) peace deal but instead only a Memorandum of Understanding). I guess I do reserve the right to grow disgusted at whatever was negotiated as the details come out.
> the stock market is idiotic if that's what you mean and I agree
I'm referring to elements in the IRGC that consolidate power and wealth through the war. The ones agitatig for autarky.
> I do reserve the right to grow disgusted at whatever was negotiated as the details come out
I'm super curious about the timeline for payouts. If they fucked that up, it's literally in Tehran's interest to start shooting rockets into the Strait right before the midterms to try and get another goody bag.
And let's be clear, we now have a straight throughline to two directly antagonist, racist governed-by autocratic genocidalist nuclear states in the Middle East with weapons ranged for each others' territories, interspersed with a sea of un-coordinated air-defence systems which even in good times have trouble distinguishing friend from foe, thereby making the best-case ending for the next 50 years being Jordan and Lebanon littered with fallout from intercepted nukes.
We started this by assassinating IRGC leaders (and also other leaders who could have served as moderates or counter-balances to them).
All of this is basically the full of shitty planning. Further continuation of the war will likely only fracture the IRGC and make further peace deals even more unreachable.
Now if we actually had competent leadership who could make wartime decisions that actually lead to our benefit, the calculus would be different. But as it stands now, further war only strengthens the worst of the worst actors in Iran.
---------
Like seriously, it's like people didn't study WW2 and our decision to keep the Japanese Emperor alive/protected (why our nukes and firebombings were so far away from the Emperor). We used to think ahead and figure out the correct people worth negotiating with as part of our wartime strategy.
As bad as the whole Iran situation has been, I'm glad that there are still rational actors pushing back within the military. If Trump had his way completely, I wouldn't put off the chance of an offensive nuke being used.
It ain't over until Bibi says it's over. Trump is pissing his pants trying to get out of this anyway he can but Bibi won't let him. I'm sure our military was against this from day one, but the Fox news host and the Real Estate developer thought they knew better but, in the end Bibi and Israel call the shots and America obeys....
The real game is that the US isn’t in charge, and the guy in the White House is in over his head along with his yes men and the rest of the world appears to be making arrangements and moving on.
I don't know. It's a quagmire where America finds itself with no good options.
Bibi and Israel set in motion a trap that the USA can't easily escape. Netanyahu never believed America would back down, and America never believed it could lose.
So what now?
Do you surrender? Do you invade?
Trump and Hegseth, being the fools they are, were never equipped to deal with a situation like this. The only outcome they seriously considered was Iranian surrender. They seemed convinced that Iran would fold, and gave little thought to what happens if it doesn't.
There is enough frustration between Bibi and Trump that I could see Israel unilaterally trying to blow up this deal massively backfiring. (To the point that it might be in e.g. Hezbollah's strategic interest to goad them into it.)
Meanwhile Murica distracts itself with idiotic 'wealth creation' ponzis like SPCX IPOs built on absolutely nothing of value and games for the simple people in front of the White House lawn
"America has lost" seems to be a matter of plain fact rather than opinion. What singular goal of this Iran invasion was achieved? It seems the US has gained literally nothing in this war, meanwhile causing trillions in global economic damage.
It vaguely sounds as though there is some sort of nuclear deal in the works ... but the US already had a nuclear deal with Iran, that Trump tore up. So I guess you could squint and say that the US won something back that was previously foolishly discarded.
> If you start a war and you don’t win, then you lose
This is reductive. One can absolutely stalemate. Regardless of whether you start a war, if it ends with you worse off and the other party either where they were at the start or arguably better off, you lost.
If all that happened was the Strait was reopened, I'd call it a stalemate. The fact that Tehran got reparations equal to a third of a trillion dollars–over $800 from every American and $1,100 from each and every voter–makes it an Irania victory and American defeat.
Even if the peace holds the whole thing feels like a definite L for the following reasons:
Materiel - a huge amount of expensive and long lead time to replace missiles/interceptors expended - a $300,000,000 radar station destroyed - like 30 Reaper drones (approximately 1/5 of the total) - 1 AWACs destroyed and 3-5 others heavily damaged (we only have about 20 of them - tons of damage to infrastructure in the area (like refineries, ports, chemical plants)
Geopolitical - primacy of American military power shown to be truly questionable (I consider this as the biggest part of the L; can't decide if it's an unforced error or it was bound to happen under any administration) - Iran now knows it can leverage its drones and missiles to influence the region and world; they don't even need a nuke anymore to project power
I guess if there is a silver lining it's that the conflict has exposed how unprepared some of our doctrines and orders of battle are when dealing against an adversary that needs to operate on a more asymmetric level. But also it feels like that should be already known after years of monitoring the Ukrainian conflict.
> Iran now knows it can leverage its drones and missiles to influence the region and world; they don't even need a nuke anymore to project power
Tehran probably needs nukes to project power. As in reärm its proxies and have them go off and start being a nuisance again without real fear of facing any consequences for it.
What Iran has learned–and globally demonstrated–is America is willing to pay more to its enemies than it's willing to spend defending its allies. (We're discussing arranging financing for Iran in an amount equal to what it costs us to support NATO for a decade.)
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/088c14d3-f708-44d8-a306-7996aa521...
… and let's not forget about Iran's Lego videos!
> conflict has exposed how unprepared some of our doctrines and orders of battle are when dealing against an adversary that needs to operate on a more asymmetric level
That is known for almost 25 years since Millennium Challenge. However US military decided that to cove their ears, close their eyes and start screaming
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
If anything I think that demonstrating how worthless all this “war materiel” is, well it s a good thing. Can we please cut “defense” spending in half and just let me keep more of my own money or better yet stop going into so much debt?
A bad peace will be better than this war. I know people want to stick this into some kind of winners vs losers discussion but I for one would be happy if it reliably ended.
It's very difficult for me to think of such a terrible peace agreement that I'd personally reject it.
It's just sad how much wealth and how many lives have been spent for absolutely nothing.
Sounds like the Trump Musk government since day one. The utter destruction of lives impacted by the 'DOGE' scandal alone...
[flagged]
So we are pretending that we care about Iranian civilians today?
The Iranian civilians would never back a US / Israeli backed coup of their government. They distrust us because of the Shah / 1960s.
> A bad peace will be better than this war
We're no longer in a position to unilaterally disengage. If the IRGC decides its political establishment is wrong and starts potting random shit again, we'll be dragged back in.
I know Iran likely has a fractured government, but more assassinations vs various Iranian leadership won't exactly solve that issue. (Indeed, it's incredibly stupid that we assassinated so many leaders to the point that the peace deal is so shaky)
This is as unified as Iran is going to get in the near future. So we gotta work with what we have.
> we gotta work with what we have
I'm not saying we don't negotiate. I'm saying we shouldn't expect the results of any negotiations to hold. Various parties will keep trying to torpedo the peace, including by attacking American interests, because they either think they can get more or profited from the war.
I mean, the stock market is idiotic if that's what you mean and I agree.
But I will perpetually trust and hope in the peace process.
Not much to do but offer my support for the end of this war. No matter how unlikely it is.
--------
No one here knows how bad the peace deal is. It's not even published yet (and it's not even a real*(edit) peace deal but instead only a Memorandum of Understanding). I guess I do reserve the right to grow disgusted at whatever was negotiated as the details come out.
> the stock market is idiotic if that's what you mean and I agree
I'm referring to elements in the IRGC that consolidate power and wealth through the war. The ones agitatig for autarky.
> I do reserve the right to grow disgusted at whatever was negotiated as the details come out
I'm super curious about the timeline for payouts. If they fucked that up, it's literally in Tehran's interest to start shooting rockets into the Strait right before the midterms to try and get another goody bag.
And let's be clear, we now have a straight throughline to two directly antagonist, racist governed-by autocratic genocidalist nuclear states in the Middle East with weapons ranged for each others' territories, interspersed with a sea of un-coordinated air-defence systems which even in good times have trouble distinguishing friend from foe, thereby making the best-case ending for the next 50 years being Jordan and Lebanon littered with fallout from intercepted nukes.
We started this by assassinating IRGC leaders (and also other leaders who could have served as moderates or counter-balances to them).
All of this is basically the full of shitty planning. Further continuation of the war will likely only fracture the IRGC and make further peace deals even more unreachable.
Now if we actually had competent leadership who could make wartime decisions that actually lead to our benefit, the calculus would be different. But as it stands now, further war only strengthens the worst of the worst actors in Iran.
---------
Like seriously, it's like people didn't study WW2 and our decision to keep the Japanese Emperor alive/protected (why our nukes and firebombings were so far away from the Emperor). We used to think ahead and figure out the correct people worth negotiating with as part of our wartime strategy.
As bad as the whole Iran situation has been, I'm glad that there are still rational actors pushing back within the military. If Trump had his way completely, I wouldn't put off the chance of an offensive nuke being used.
It ain't over until Bibi says it's over. Trump is pissing his pants trying to get out of this anyway he can but Bibi won't let him. I'm sure our military was against this from day one, but the Fox news host and the Real Estate developer thought they knew better but, in the end Bibi and Israel call the shots and America obeys....
Just saying...Junk away...
Let’s say this is the case it still does not explain what the real end game looks like. What do you think?
The real game is that the US isn’t in charge, and the guy in the White House is in over his head along with his yes men and the rest of the world appears to be making arrangements and moving on.
> ...and the rest of the world appears to be making arrangements and moving on.
This. Pax Americana is dead.
Which makes "the rest of the world appears to be making arrangements and moving on" a euphemism for the rest of the world is gearing up for war.
I don't know. It's a quagmire where America finds itself with no good options.
Bibi and Israel set in motion a trap that the USA can't easily escape. Netanyahu never believed America would back down, and America never believed it could lose.
So what now?
Do you surrender? Do you invade?
Trump and Hegseth, being the fools they are, were never equipped to deal with a situation like this. The only outcome they seriously considered was Iranian surrender. They seemed convinced that Iran would fold, and gave little thought to what happens if it doesn't.
> Bibi and Israel set in motion a trap that the USA can't easily escape.
More accurately, they've been pushing this trap for decades and US presidents have been sidestepping it for decades.
From that PoV it's always been easily avoided.
> Do you surrender? Do you invade?
Clearly the answer is you pay them off.
> until Bibi says it's over
There is enough frustration between Bibi and Trump that I could see Israel unilaterally trying to blow up this deal massively backfiring. (To the point that it might be in e.g. Hezbollah's strategic interest to goad them into it.)
Meanwhile Murica distracts itself with idiotic 'wealth creation' ponzis like SPCX IPOs built on absolutely nothing of value and games for the simple people in front of the White House lawn
I think a serious news institution would not run this title even in an Opinions section.
"America has lost" seems to be a matter of plain fact rather than opinion. What singular goal of this Iran invasion was achieved? It seems the US has gained literally nothing in this war, meanwhile causing trillions in global economic damage.
It vaguely sounds as though there is some sort of nuclear deal in the works ... but the US already had a nuclear deal with Iran, that Trump tore up. So I guess you could squint and say that the US won something back that was previously foolishly discarded.
Why? The only question left is what humiliation awaits the USA in return for its blood, treasure and reputation?
> ### Trump’s Iran Truce Has the Hallmarks of Defeat ### (Bloomberg - https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2026-06-15/iran-u...)
Does this answer your note? (That's Bloomberg above - "phrase it as you want...")
Everyone says the same because they are speaking the simple truth.
Trump Celebrates While America Capitulates The peace deal with Tehran is an Iranian victory.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/06/trump-iran-deal/68...
I mean, it’d be very hard to spin it as a win.
In today's world where nuance is a disappearing diaphanous concept, the USA didn't win, so they lost.
Nuance has nothing to do with it. If you start a war and you don’t win, then you lose.
> If you start a war and you don’t win, then you lose
This is reductive. One can absolutely stalemate. Regardless of whether you start a war, if it ends with you worse off and the other party either where they were at the start or arguably better off, you lost.
If all that happened was the Strait was reopened, I'd call it a stalemate. The fact that Tehran got reparations equal to a third of a trillion dollars–over $800 from every American and $1,100 from each and every voter–makes it an Irania victory and American defeat.