alt Hacker News> * really cheap, making it possible to saturate target's defence
Which is precisely the reason to attack now before this problem becomes much worse and then Iran adds in nuclear weapons too.
> However, right now Iran seems to have the strategic and weapons (no really*) advantages vs. the USA that Ukraine has vs. Russia, so it is a risk worth taking seriously.
I just disagree. Even in your scenario for example the US GDP falling 10%, well, we can stomach that. If we can't, we should pack up the military because any war is going to threaten GDP and we won't be able to defend NATO against a Russian attack (nor can Europe because GDP will fall) nor can we defend Taiwan. I think you and many others are confusing "I don't like this war" with "we can't tolerate temporary disruptions and price shocks".
But in any case Iran's GDP falls 90%, that's much more devastating. Their unemployment rate goes close to 90%. They are already blockaded and we control the Strait of Hormuz too (in order to control the Strait they have to be able to allow access as well, not just deny - we deny too so technically either neither party controls it or we both do).
You're certainly right to point out additional potential damage to regional partners and allies (which further proves the point that this problem must be resolved else Iran can threaten this at any time), but if Iran were to attempt to execute such an attack, it would create a global problem necessitating a global response, troops on the ground, the actual Iranian regime dead - don't forget they do have lives they want to live and we can ensure they and their families don't have that privilege. Iran just the other day struck a ship in the Suez Canal - these global chokepoints can't live hostage to an Iranian regime just because whoops they decided they don't like that the US sold Patriot missiles to Ukraine which they're using to defend against Iran's buddy Russia so you better stop or we'll attack the Strait and the Red Sea and the Suez Canal. We simply cannot and will not live under threat.
Separately I wouldn't liken Russia vs Ukraine to Iran vs America. They're not at all similar outside of a small discussion about the increasing important of drone warfare which the US is already well aware of.
> Which is precisely the reason to attack now before this problem becomes much worse and then Iran adds in nuclear weapons too.
Perhaps. However, there are many alternatives to "attack" besides "do nothing".
> Even in your scenario for example the US GDP falling 10%, well, we can stomach that. If we can't, we should pack up the military because any war is going to threaten GDP and we won't be able to defend NATO against a Russian attack (nor can Europe because GDP will fall) nor can we defend Taiwan.
You can't defend Taiwan, full stop. If and when China decides to attack, they're smart enough to make sure to use the right weapons for the conflict, and that any allies Taiwan has won't get involved.
Right now, the US is making this even easier for China by depleting the only weapons it does have, though this is only of minor relevance as what the US has is not even a good match for a China conflict in the first place. The best Taiwan can hope for in the near-term is a mix of promising it will be pyrrhic, and possibly surprising everyone with some anti-drone solution that has yet to be demonstrated.
> I think you and many others are confusing "I don't like this war" with "we can't tolerate temporary disruptions and price shocks".
> But in any case Iran's GDP falls 90%, that's much more devastating.
With this, you are making the same mistake as with Vietnam, "We thought we were winning because we killed more of them than they killed of us", or whatever the quote was.
Iran's a dictatorship, they DGAF. You're not a dictatorship (not yet, and long may it remain so), your government answers to the people, and the people repeatedly demonstrate they can't tolerate temporary (though in this case I mean "a year or two") disruptions and price shocks.
This issue in your nation has been made worse by the piss-poor comms from the White House, that seems to simultaneously want everyone to think they totally wiped out all possible threat from Iran in the previous strikes, and yet also simultaneously Iran remains a threat requiring further and more expensive military expenses and action.
> Iran were to attempt to execute such an attack, it would create a global problem necessitating a global response, troops on the ground, the actual Iranian regime dead - don't forget they do have lives they want to live and we can ensure they and their families don't have that privilege. Iran just the other day struck a ship in the Suez Canal - these global chokepoints can't live hostage to an Iranian regime just because whoops they decided they don't like that the US sold Patriot missiles to Ukraine which they're using to defend against Iran's buddy Russia so you better stop or we'll attack the Strait and the Red Sea and the Suez Canal. We simply cannot and will not live under threat.
The global response so far has been "America caused this mess. Sure almost all of us think Iran's leadership is awful, but this is America's mess, America can damn well clean up after itself."
Quite a lot of us are even hoping you'll get stuck there, wasting your weapons and personnel, just so you don't make another threat against the sovereignties of technically-still-allies.
The allies in the region have the more immediate threat from Iran. But half of Europe already noped out in no small part because of Greenland.