Ajax - are you now quite clear about the facts here? Do you agree that the short answer to your implied question is "Because the US simply does not have the military capacity to do that?"
And a second question: given that Trump knows all those facts (I mean, he is Commander in Chief), do you think he is justified in claiming that the US has basically won this war?
If you can answer those questions directly, you will have my respect, even if I don't agree with you. But if you don't, you will show yourself to be no more than a troll.
It’s hard to pin down “lost” if you’ve never defined what “win” looks like. You could say we “won” against the first set of ambiguous objectives while shifting to a new set of ambiguous objectives.
I’ve no doubt we could destroy Iran’s military capability, given enough lead time and force flow, though you’d have to accept risk in other theaters. It’s what follows that would be challenging, to put it lightly—the transition from “winning the war” to “winning the peace.” The past couple of decades should be sufficient to demonstrate those difficulties.
I’ve no doubt we could destroy Iran’s military capability,
What, for you, would constitute destroying "Iran’s military capability". Please answer in terms that actually make it clear what material and human resources currently constitute "Iran’s military capability", and what degree of damage to those material and human resources would justify an adversary in stating that they had been destroyed.
Kind of answers not allowed "Iran would be unable to do X, Y, or Z". Kind of answers allowed "X% of their missile launch sites and missile stocks would be destroyed".
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
