this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2026
29 points (100.0% liked)
askchapo
23247 readers
309 users here now
Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.
Rules:
-
Posts must ask a question.
-
If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.
-
Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.
-
Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes
https://xcancel.com/Acyn/status/2036963832502055229
At this point I think troops on the ground is an inevitability mostly because the US doesn't have the munitions to sustain this war for as long as they need to. A couple different thoughts here.
First, the US has one overriding need in the war: open the Strait. As we all know, Iran is pressing the economic nuke button and it's going to explode in everyone's faces, especially the west. It will prompt instability across the world in all the places the US wants it least: Europe, Latin American comprador states, the Gulf monarchies, the East Asian US military outposts occasionally referred to as Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea. Revolutions are on the table in Latin America. US economic collapse, etc, etc. We all know the costs of Iran exerting control over the Strait. It's the most significant problem BY FAR for the US, since all of the empire's adventurism in West Asia is very specifically about This Thing Not Happening. There can be no US victory here without the Strait open to the flow of Arab family dictatorship oil - anything else is a worst case scenario defeat.
Second, opening it simply WILL NOT happen through an air campaign. The threshold for keeping it closed on Iran's part is so low - make Shaheds or the speedboat equivalent and be willing to use them. That's all that's required. The US hasn't knocked down this capacity substantially even before we account for the massive stores of drones they've got stored all around the country. The US would need to be able to maintain this pace for years, not months. Years of constant air campaigns launched from distant bases and rickety aircraft carriers on overstrained airframes with coked-out low morale pilots and expensive munitions. Though the close-up bombs are essentially infinite, the stand-off munitions are dwindling much more rapidly than they can be produced.
Third, therefore, the only way to actually open the Strait is to put in place a comprador government in Iran. The Israelis want state collapse, but that actually wouldn't meet the US objectives, because the endless militant factions that would emerge could just as easily keep the Strait closed to extract concessions or simply to punish the rest of the world for destroying their country. So the US needs to force actual surrender. That could be through a years long campaign (which we know the US is less able to withstand than Iran) or through successfully pulling off a Venezuela. But Trump fundamentally misunderstands what happened in Venezuela or why - it's not a comprador government he hand-picked, but a government following its normal succession procedures and carrying out a partial strategic retreat under immense overwhelming power it's unable to repel. However, the Golden Warfighters will continue to believe they can go in and kidnap Araghchi and Khamenei and whoever else to eventually get to Their Guy. But there is no Their Guy as long as Iran as a nation retains the capacity to resist. Delcy Rodriguez is not Their Guy, she just doesn't have any other choice but to surrender oil control - internally, the revolution remains intact. Iran has the choice to keep the Strait closed.
So the contradictions compel the US to further military entanglement. Retreat is surrendering the Strait and the political foundation for control over it. A gigantic mega epic spec ops beardy boy attack might kidnap and kill some Iranian leaders, but mostly it'll get all the US's best and most fanatical dudes wasted just like Azov in Ukraine. The US at that point can decide to push harder and attempt a larger-scale land invasion, but they'll all just get blown up on the way through Iraq. They can push through that, but it's the sort of thing that turns a US war into a political mass movement and threatens the foundation of the whole system (before even accounting for the economic disaster!). Eventually, the US will be forced to make the choice all empires do at this stage - surrender control over that valuable distant land and retrench around your closer, more pliable vassals. Decline and contraction are an inevitabilty, and boots on the ground are the next important step to make that happen.
All of this is true, but an actual invasion doesn't look to be possible in the necessary time frame. It took months for the Bush administration to recruit, train, and build up the ground forces necessary to invade and occupy Iraq in 2003, and that was a much easier country to invade for a whole host of reasons.
They think these smaller forces can carry out seizing an island and that somehow opening the Strait. How holding an island (which I doubt they can do anyways) opens the Strait I don't know - it doesn't stop Iran firing from the coast. But they must proceed through their available resources to resolve this if they aren't ready to just surrender.
GOOD post
Here you go
I'm curious what you think of the analysis I put further down this thread as someone much closer to the subject. I'm just a gringo who loves Che and Chavez and Evo. Not too much hopium?
Particularly with Colombia, where I think Cepeda goes further left than Petro and wages lawfare on the right, which I'm basing partially on his long running legal battle with Uribe.
Edit: I meant this one in the news mega: https://hexbear.net/comment/7039599
Thank you. That's very interesting analysis
Good post but I think it’s been proven that Delcy and the rest have been compromised, no? War nerd talked about and they really made it seem like they had sold off the country
I wouldn't say it is "selling off" but more "We compromise to avoid a war that will result in millions of our people dying." It sucks, but I don't really blame them for refusing to fight the US down to every last man, woman and child in Venezuela.
And even if you take a maximalist fight to avoid any concessions approach (which you shouldn't), what would they actually do? You can't wage a guerrilla war when the enemy troops aren't in your country. They'll just bomb the fuck out of you for as long as it takes. Venezuela is almost impenetrable to a land invasion and would slap the US if they tried to occupy, but they're extremely vulnerable to an air campaign. 93% of the population lives in dense cities in the north, the vast majority less than 20 miles from the mountainous coast. That makes it a nightmare to move troops in, but makes it extremely easy for the US to fly planes out of Puerto Rico or compliant Caribbean countries, go low through the coastal mountains, and unload on soft targets. You'd have a gargantuan internal refugee crisis with nowhere for those people to go but flood the two decent sized cities in the interior or the low-density rural plains. The economic damage would be far worse than the situation with the oil being seized.
What Rodriguez is doing is attempting to take advantage of the US's willingness to open economic activity and bring in foreign capital. The country's been under devastating sanctions for over a decade. This is an opportunity to reverse that, entangle foreign capital into the economy to offset the loss of oil revenue, diversify further away from oil dependence, and use the increased capital flowing through the economy to strengthen and expand the communal movement, which is the heart of the Bolivarian Revolution and an extremely advanced form of socialist construction. Of course this opening up introduces risks and contradictions. There will be more corruption. The US will wield its influence in sinister fashion to disrupt the political life of the revolution. In some cases, labor and environmental rights will surely suffer. It could lead to long-term weakening and liberalization of revolutionary forces.
There's a fundamental mistake here in thinking that socialist countries should not want foreign capital. It has never been the choice of socialist revolutions to expel all foreign capital - instead capital has fled and economic measures imposed by imperialists to starve socialism of necessary capital. Revolutionary governments operating on their own terms are more than capable of managing foreign capital, compressing and controlling the contradictions it produces, and socializing the benefits for their process of socialist construction. That's exactly why the US and Europe attempt to starve them of access to it!
I don't really think so. In what way has the country been sold off? The communal movement and SOEs remain in place. They're attempting to get foreign capital into the private sector, but they've been attempting to do that for a long time. Now they just have an opportunity.