How long would the Iran war have to continue to have cost as much as to fund the NASA mission, or have we already passed that point ?
Also, the war cannot be won without boots on the ground, and that is also not feasible as you need 2-4x the amount of soldiers that the enemy nation has to successfully conquer a nation (as per the US Army / CIA handbook), and Iran has about a million soldiers, so 2-4 million US soldiers would be required for that.
It would literally turn into another Vietnam or Afghanistan. Unfriendly terrain where everything needs to be flown or sailed in, hostile population where the US has been painted as the "big devil" for 50+ years.
Speaking of Afghanistan, Taliban had 58,000 "soldiers", and we sent almost 600,000 soldiers there (peak strength) and still lost the war, and Iran is very similar to Afghanistan.
On the other hand, a US retreat would mean Iran keeps the chokehold on global oil reserves, and are free to develop nukes, with any future missions by the US to limit their nuclear weapon research resulting in a worse situation than before.
So yeah, basically a forever war, one that everybody that knows even the tiniest bit about the Middle East has advised against pretty much forever.
Unless the President decides to eat some humble pie and basically surrender, this one is end up much worse than Vietnam, and the ramifications global.
What worries me the most is that I can’t imagine students and citizens going to protest en masse on the streets against the war. They’re too busy to complain on X and Tiktok to do anything about it.
> Unless the President decides to eat some humble pie and basically surrender
I don't think that option even exists. In my opinion the world order changed this year, the USA w/ it's trillions of dollars of GDP and huge military lost it's grip on the ME.
Even assuming a diffrent president, the situation is much worse than it was 7 months ago.
Iran basically holds global oil supplies in a chokehold, and should the US choose to withdraw unconditionally today, Iran would still collect tariffs on all ships passing the strait, and be free to develop nuclear weapons.
Who's going to stop them ? Any attack would simply further constrain oil supplies, with increased costs as a direct consequence.
Regardless of the outcome, global oil prices have taken a permanent hike up. They'll likely drop quite a bit if/when the war ends, and Iran (or allies) stops bombing Saudi oil pipes, and likely also when the Ukraine/Russia war ends, where Russia can alleviate some of the pressure on asia.
If nothing else, its at least driving adoption of the electrification of the western society, and I'm seeing heat pumps and EVs selling at an increased pace. That obviously doesn't help if your electrical grid is also fossil fuel based, but there are also major renewable energy plants being commissioned.
The Iran war has points, namely preventing a dedicated American enemy from getting nuclear weapons, contributing to Trump's legacy, and probably something to do with Israel.
The problem is that it can't be won with current USA capabilities and everyone not in MAGA already knew this yet Trump started it anyway.
The Ukrainians even offered drone defences before it started and were publically rebuffed by Trump. The ignorance and hubris of the Trump administration is truly remarkable.
The JCPOA was effectively theatre, and I'm genuinely surprised to see someone defending it. Most notably, it restricted where the International Atomic Energy Agency could inspect. For example, Iran had broad remit to deny entry to military installations in part or whole. Further, even when the IAEA suspected enrichment at an undeclared site, it could take up to 24 days to receive permission to inspect. Even then, Iran guided inspectors to pre-approved sections of the sites.
Further, the agreement allowed Iran to develop more advanced centrifuges. The kind which could be used to enrich uranium to weapons grade.
Further, the agreement left substantial nuclear infrastructure and expertise intact. For example, Fordow was not dismantled and 1,044 IR-1 centrifuges remained there. Natanz also retained thousands of operating centrifuges.
In 2025, the IAEA concluded that Iran had failed to declare nuclear material and nuclear-related activities at Lavisan-Shian, Varamin, and Turquzabad, and could not determine the whereabouts of some nuclear material.
The JCPOA allowed Iran to significantly expand its military capabilities and strengthen the regime via economic sanction relief, the release of hundreds of billions of dollars of Iranian international assets, and normalisation of trade (most notably oil). Iran used this opportunity to consolidate power without any material commitment or action towards sustainable cessation of nuclear weapons research and capability.
One could argue that it was the best of all bad options on the table, but let us not pretend it was a good option. Iran has been funding death and terrorism all over the world for decades. Its stated goal is the annihilation of many Western nations. The treatment of its own people is beyond comprehension and description. It routinely practises the rape of virgin women before execution (for things like not dressing modestly, or protesting), so that these young women will end up in hell. If the world were just, the entire world would unite to invade Iran, remove the dictator class from power, and implement democracy.
Just to be crystal clear: none of what I have written states nor implies that Trump has handled this conflict well.
If, in reflection, I may contribute to that effort, 'the point' of something is much more about its goals than something 'being pointless' which is more about outcomes. Which is interesting since you would assume they would align in meaning more having the same base word.
When a person says something is pointless they either mean there was actually no significant intent behind it OR a judgement that the intent/plan/achievability behind whatever point there is, is of such low quality that there might as well not have been any intent behind it at all.
Trying to keep yourself dry with a newspaper over your head in a hurricane: pointless.
Preventing a dedicated American enemy to get nukes, an enemy of which the American intelligence agencies said there is currently no sign they work to get nukes and with which you had deals to prevent them from doing so.
Sorry, but all you did was:
1. Showed them and the world that treaties with you are worth nothing
2. Showed them and the world, to gain the respect of the US, you need nukes. Decades of loyalty, treaties or good partner have been shown to be worth nothing, while being an authoritarian dictatorship and having nukes are respected.
3. Showed them and the world that having US bases on your soil is a liability and not a protection.
All in all if you were US president and your task was to destroy the US' standing in the world, there is not much more you could have done.
IIRC it was the people from Pakistan that did 9/11, now these people have nuclear weapons. Iranians didn’t do any 9/11 in USA but somehow they are not allowed nuclear weapons? How is this supposed to make sense?
> Engages in pointless wars