Article

2026-08-04 Home Front: WoT

Trump is winning every battle in Iran‐and risking the war that matters

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Skidmark 2026-08-04 03:53|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [287 views ] Top
File under: Govt of Iran

1 Trump is not fighting a war - he makes a deal (the idea that the rules of business he learned in his life are NOT laws of the Universe doesn't seem to penetrate).

Posted by Grom the Reflective 2026-08-04 07:34|| 2026-08-04 07:34|| Front Page Top

2 When this is all over, I strongly suspect that there will be information, that we the public don't have now, explaining why the US took the actions it did in dealing with the IRGC

Posted by Chantry 2026-08-04 08:31|| 2026-08-04 08:31|| Front Page Top

3 [AI]
why is Trump coddling the IRGC

There is no evidence in the provided context that President Donald Trump is "coddling" the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC); rather, he has issued ultimatums for them to **surrender or face death** and recently threatened to **"wipe out"** the organization. While Trump announced on August 2, 2026, that he was **cancelling planned strikes** because the "perimeters of a deal" had been agreed upon, he explicitly conditioned this pause on the **immediate opening of the Strait of Hormuz** and an end to Iran's nuclear threat. Iranian officials rejected Trump's claim that Tehran requested the pause, labeling it a **"new lie"** designed to blackmail Gulf rulers, while Trump warned that US forces remain **"locked and loaded."**

The perception of leniency may stem from the complexities of negotiating with the IRGC, which controls a vast **financial empire** and dominates Iran's economy, leading some analysts to argue that military strikes alone cannot dismantle the regime without causing a **"forever war."** Critics suggest that any deal involving the release of frozen funds could effectively **refinance the IRGC**, yet Trump has simultaneously pursued a strategy of **economic blockade** to sever the group's funding sources and force defections. The situation remains volatile, with the US and Iran having resumed strikes in late July after a brief ceasefire collapsed, indicating a strategy of **coercive pressure** rather than appeasement.

A compensatory facade for the midterm masses.
Not capitulation.

Posted by Skidmark 2026-08-04 13:16|| 2026-08-04 13:16|| Front Page Top

4 What is actually happening and what the US voter thinks is happening are two different things.

Sadly I believe that if there is no positive decisive end to the Iran conflict before say 10/1, the mid terms are unlikely to go the way we want them to.

Posted by Chantry 2026-08-04 14:23|| 2026-08-04 14:23|| Front Page Top

5 Everyone asked one time or another, if you can go back in time and kill Hitler to stop all that happened to the world. Now ask if you have the ability to stop the crazies in Iran from getting the bomb would you? How far are you willing to go?

Posted by Procopius2k 2026-08-04 15:16|| 2026-08-04 15:16|| Front Page Top

6 #5 Everyone asked one time or another, if you can go back in time and kill Hitler to stop all that happened to the world.

Bad idea. Wikihistory by Desmond Warzel

tl;dr: no Hitler means no Third Reich, no World War II, no rocketry programs, no electronics, no computers, no time travel.

Posted by SteveS 2026-08-04 16:58|| 2026-08-04 16:58|| Front Page Top

7 #1 Trump is not fighting a war - he makes a deal (the idea that the rules of business he learned in his life are NOT laws of the Universe doesn't seem to penetrate).

It may not be the laws of physics, but Trump's moves are straight out of the modern game theory playbook. Thomas Schelling proposed the bargaining model of war back in the 60's. It seems to have caught on. One example

Two dynamics make this situation confusing. The first is a what the meaning of "is" is when it comes to "Who is Iran?". If the Grand Duchy of Fenwick declares war or signs a treaty, you are dealing with a single entity. All nice and tidy.

With Iran, there are two main factions, distinct but intertwined. On one hand, you have the Ayatollahs/IRGC who have been running the country, although with fewer Ayatollahs than before. These guys want the bomb and are happy to see the war continue at a low level. The other faction is the civilian government and economic interests. They are more interesting in surviving another day to keep making money, running the country, and oppressing the citizenry. (MikeKozlowski laid this out the other day in a post I cannot find)

tl;dr: if you see conflicting messaging from "the Iranians", it is because there are two competing factions, each with their set of interests.

The second issue is that the world is big and the war is far away. Most of us have no direct contact with it. We don't get read in on Presidential briefings or see bomb damage assessments. All we know is filtered and curated by the news media. Walter Lippman called this a "pseudo-environment" in his book Public Opinion (1922).

When we hear "Trump says yes, but the Iranians say no", the media is shaping the story by emphasizing or omitting interesting facts in order to create a certain mental picture. In this particular case, the omitted fact is that the yes and no come from competing Iranian factions. But as long as Orange Man Bad and Chaos Everywhere, then the message has been delivered.

Posted by SteveS 2026-08-04 20:27|| 2026-08-04 20:27|| Front Page Top

21:05 Shomoger Hupeagum3945
20:42 SteveS
20:27 SteveS
19:46 Hellfish
18:24 trailing wife
18:12 Lord Garth
17:09 Grom the Reflective
17:03 trailing wife
16:58 SteveS
16:56 mossomo
16:48 mossomo
16:09 trailing wife
15:18 Procopius2k
15:17 Grom the Reflective
15:16 Procopius2k
15:14 Procopius2k
14:46 Grom the Reflective
14:45 NoMoreBS
14:38 Grom the Reflective
14:31 Skidmark
14:23 Chantry
14:18 MikeKozlowski
14:13 Skidmark
14:09 Skidmark
Merry-Go-Blog