The Iran War and How It Might End

Geopolitical Futures ^ | 4/27/26 | George Friedman

[EnderWiggin1970]

The U.S.-Israel war against Iran was to a great extent predictable. The United States feared Iran becoming a nuclear power. Israel feared that as well, and was also concerned about the Islamist forces – in this case, Hezbollah – that Iran supported in Lebanon. For the United States, the latter was at most a secondary concern, but the nuclear threat was potentially existential. The United States attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities almost one year ago, damaging but not destroying the program. In subsequent negotiations, Iran rejected the U.S. and Israeli demand that it end its nuclear program, and so war was initiated on Feb. 28.

Some have argued that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, convinced U.S. President Donald Trump to join it in attacking Iran by claiming to possess intelligence suggesting that, if there were an attack, the Iranian people would rise up against their regime. This strikes me as dubious for three reasons. First, the American interest in preventing a nuclear Iran was very real based on Iran’s support for the forces that launched the 9/11 attack on the United States and its continued provision of a safe haven to al-Qaida leaders in Iran. With or without Israel, this was a very significant reason. Second, although I have never met Trump, I do not see him as particularly amenable to persuasion. Finally, although Israel may have presented the U.S. with intelligence on the likelihood of an uprising, I suspect that more persuasive was the fact that before the war there had been very large demonstrations in Iran against the government – which dissipated only after the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps killed untold thousands of civilians.

---

TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; Iran; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bibiswarsuspays; china; iran; trump

[EnderWiggin1970]

Friedman gives 3 options:

1. Victory through the air campaign. My take: Trump has already given up on the air campaign and shows no sign of being willing to renew it. I suspect the heavy losses in aircraft during the pilot rescue freaked out the Pentagon and maybe Trump as well, contributing (along with the placement of children at target sites after Trump threatened to destroy Iranian civilization, checkmating the US) to the abrupt ceasefire immediately afterwards. In any case there's no precedent for driving a force like the IRGC from power solely through bombing.

2. Ground invasion. My take: This is the only chance for success, but the US is completely averse to the casualties required to achieve victory in this manner. And the Iranian people won't rise up without a ground invasion supporting them, so don't expect anything from them absent US boots on the ground.

3. Negotiated victory. My take: Friedman pins his hopes here on the US 'paying' China to take our side against Iran. Good luck with that. Rather, I expect China to find ways to undermine the US in this theater, as it has already been doing with exercises near Taiwan to keep US naval assets tied up there. What happens when a tanker fleet escorted by Chinese warships challenges the US blockade?

[PGR88]

There seem to be three possibilities. First, a U.S. victory through airpower alone. Second, the deployment of ground forces to destroy the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and occupy Iran. Third, a negotiated settlement.

The 4th option: Iran's own government overcomes the IRGC and removes them.

This is really the only way.

And Trump has all the time in the world. I just don't know why media continue to blather that the US/Trump needs a settlement soon.

The USA has some higher gasoline prices, but it's hardly a crisis. Meanwhile, Europe is shutting down and China is getting squeezed. That's a win-win for Trump. He's already told Europe and China: "You want oil? Come and help open the Straits." It can't be more clear - you lot also have to get behind regime change in Iran.

Trump literally can wait forever.

[Wuli]

The U.S. simply should not blink. Iran needs to sell oil and China needs Iran’s oil it has been getting at great discount. The U.S. just keeps and extends the blockade. The U.S. does not need China to “pressure” Iran to change its positions. The blockade is pressure on both of them. The situation only needs China to strategically abandon Iran as any sort of partner because maintaining their alliance is costing China too much. China does that by merely telling Iran it is on its own as regards the U.S. Then Iran will either make a deal or be militarily forced to capitulate, after which Iran’s oil will flow again, but without heavy discounts to China. The global oil price will decline and China will learn to live with global prices for oil. But the Middle East will be greatly changed.

[Biblebelter]

And for the United States, the other options are to end the Iran war without any ability to claim success

I'd say a good deal of success can be claimed now.

What can't be claimed is closure which I'm not smart enough to forsee what that is nor is this author.

[Responsibility2nd]

Trump has repeatedly and often said that “We Won”.

The best outcome now is to declare victory and move on.

[central_va]

Trump has not given up on the air campaign. LOL

[FlingWingFlyer]

The world’s largest parking lot would be best.

[Old Retired Army Guy]

The clock is ticking on Iran’s oil wells shutting down.

[unclebankster]

I’ve been skeptical of this operation from the start, but our adversaries & potential adversaries over the next three years will be “taking note.”

The Iran campaign could work in our favor with the future geopolitical events that are likely to occur.

[Resolute Conservative]

I for one am tired of 46 years of nuclear threats, aiding terrorist, and sustaining a constant apprehensive ME.

[Responsibility2nd]

If The Chinese do indeed send warships along with their oil tankers to the Strait - fine.

Let them in. Only after first securing Kharg Island and all other terminals.

Insuring that their tankers leave with nothing.

[Jim Noble]

For the United States, the latter was at most a secondary concern, but the nuclear threat was potentially existential.

In what way is Iran having a nuclear weapon, or several, "existential" to the United States?

It just isn't, it's a false argument made either to deceive or through ignorance, and no amount of repetition can make it true. In responding please do not cite the 12th Imam or a well in Qom.

Regarding the poster's #2 analysis of a ground invasion. Iran is the size of Europe and more mountainous than Afghanistan. The distance from the Indian Ocean coast to Teheran is slightly greater than the distance from Stalingrad to Berlin. What would be the objectives of a ground invasion? What size force would you send, and from where would they stage (we sent 600,000 to liberate Kuwait, and the staged from safe bases in Saudi Arabia on the Kuwait border)? How many casualties would occur in your ground invasion before it triggered regime change in Washington?

[ncalburt]

These Gas Prices are a HUGE Problem .

People on fixed incomes and people making minimum wages
are getting creamed.

Trump is heading into Bill Clinton
midterm disaster territory.

Trump ignoring the average folks looks like

He is a Billionaire with a Lack of Concern for the little guy
could be devastating for the GOP.

These is looking like a quagmire and we killed off
the crazies that would talk.

[allendale]

Either it ends with a regime change and the enriched uranium secured or it will end up with the demonic Democrats in power in America. Then the American people, the American nation and the world will suffer immensely.

[Deo volente]

“heavy losses in aircraft during the pilot rescue”
What?! That’s the first time I’ve heard of this. Is this true? I know we lost one plane and rescued the pilot, but “heavy losses”? When did that happen?

[lonestar67]

We have three carrier group there.

I think bringing two home and leaving one to maintain the blockade is essentially our economic occupation of Iran.

They would be doomed and we could wait years for an internal overthrow.

We could create no fly zones anywhere we wanted and harass all military concentrations.

We need more patient war strategies that cost us little.

[Wuli]

“The best outcome now is to declare victory and move on.”

List the “good” results of doing that.

[thegagline]

Step 1: Redefine victory from “unconditional surrender” to something far less than unconditional surrender.
Step 2: Declare victory. The best victory ever! Tell anyone who will listen that “Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.” Hope nobody notices that this fallacious claim was also made on June 21, 2025.
Step 3: Attempt to salvage the midterms.

[Liz]

Damages to US bases from Iran’s retaliatory strikes in seven Middle Eastern countries
were far worse than acknowledged and is expected to cost billions of dollars to repair.

Iran hit dozens of US targets, including
<><>warehouses, command headquarters,
<><>aircraft hangars, satellite communications infrastructure,
<><>runways, high-end radar systems
<><>and dozens of aircraft, a report said.

Iran used missiles, drones and even F-5 fighter jets to target US bases, despite previous claims
that the Iranian air force was defunct and had failed to use fighter jets against American targets.

[Mariner]

The idea of leaving Iran’s nukes material and missile program intact is repugnant to any thinking person.