> Iran's strategy is what caused the GOP their worst electoral disaster in living memory.
I think that is only a win if you have an extremely american centric perspective of this conflict.
So they did that. Then what? Do you really think that is going to translate into anything significant on the battle field? It might have some marginal benefits but it probably won't matter in the big picture for Iran.
So they should sit around and let the US and Israel 'destroy Iranian civilization' I guess? Is that your suggestion?
They're weaker than the countries attacking them. So causing inconvenience so that pressure will be put on the US to end the war by countries the US might listen to.
Is that strategy going to work? Not sure. But does it have a chance of working? Maybe.
> So they should sit around and let the US and Israel 'destroy Iranian civilization' I guess? Is that your suggestion?
I'm just saying it isn't going to win them the war. The president broadly controls what the us military does. He doesn't need congress or the senate.
You seem to be mixing up "wanting to win" with "actually winning". Of course Iran wants to win this conflict, but that doesn't mean they are actually winning.
> They're weaker than the countries attacking them.
Yes, getting into conflicts from a position of weakness is generally a bad plan. Succesful countries plan for this sort of thing well before the conflict starts which results in the conflict not happening in the first place.
Iran had strategies in place for this, but they ended up backfiring.
>Is that strategy going to work? Not sure. But does it have a chance of working? Maybe.
Imposing costs on your opponent is a tried and true strategy that almost certainly could work. However Iran actually has to impose real costs instead of just propaganda wins. It seems like they were doing this best earlier in the war and now have run out of steam.
> Imposing costs on your opponent is a tried and true strategy that almost certainly could work. However Iran actually has to impose real costs instead of just propaganda wins.
The price of oil, US midterm results, Gulf countries scrambling, that certainly doesn't look like they haven't imposed real costs.
> Yes, getting into conflicts from a position of weakness is generally a bad plan. Succesful countries plan for this sort of thing well before the conflict starts which results in the conflict not happening in the first place.
If by 'getting into conflicts' you mean 'getting invaded by the US and Israel' then sure. That just seems to be saying 'don't get invaded, sucker' which, while sound advice doesn't actually work out if someone's intent on invading you.
The Iranians are not trying to 'win' as such, but rather impose enough cost on the attackers that continuing the war no longer makes sense for them.
The truth is, you're not seemingly saying much of anything besides 'Iran bad'.
> That just seems to be saying 'don't get invaded, sucker' which, while sound advice doesn't actually work out if someone's intent on invading you.
Israel and USA have been intent on invading Iran for decades. But they didn't. Then suddenly they did. That didn't just happen randomly. Iran took a bunch of foreign policy risks that backfired spectacularly making them vulnerable to invasion. If they made different decisions, or if they just got luckier, they wouldn't have been in a vulnerable position and this wouldn't have happened.
In many ways, the art of war starts long before the battles start. The things Iran could have done differently to affect the outcome of this war would probably have to have been done back then. It is a bit too late for them now.
> The Iranians are not trying to 'win' as such, but rather impose enough cost on the attackers that continuing the war no longer makes sense for them.
Yes, that is how all wars where the sides aren't evenly matched work.
But all they have to show for it is slightly higher prices at the pump, and its unclear they will even be able to maintain that going forward. It isn't looking good for them.
> The truth is, you're not seemingly saying much of anything besides 'Iran bad'.
I'm just saying they are losing and don't seem to have good prospects going forward. If by bad, you mean in the sense of their strategic position - then yes, iran's strategic position is very bad.
> Israel and USA have been intent on invading Iran for decades. But they didn't. Then suddenly they did.
There is a war between the US/Israel and Iran, but there has not been an invasion. Attacks from a distance are not invasions. Contrast with the Russia-Ukraine war, where there actually has been an invasion.
If that's really the theory behind attacking France, then the Iranian regime is completely unmoored from reality. The last time the US listened to France was never.
It seems to me you're giving them even less credit by saying so. If the IRGC is attacking third party nations without any specificity, that would be even more unhinged than their simply having a misplaced belief that attacks on those countries could have influence on US policy (that would be favorable to them).
> the IRGC is attacking third party nations without any specificity, that would be even more unhinged
No it wouldn't because they're targeting the EU as well as the US with this. The EU has definitely been involved, France itself has sent an aircraft carrier to the region as well as military to Saudi Arabia. Not 'direct' involvement yet, but definitely 'unfriendly' towards Iran.
It's a warning to not get anymore involved because Iran could reach beyond where their missiles can.
I think there's been a lot of US/Israeli propaganda re Iran being 'unhinged' because without them being so, none of the actions taken by the US/Israel look in any way good. Apparently it works because there's a lot more unhinged partners the US has, starting with Israel, UAE and Saudi Arabia.
Iran is deemed 'unhinged' not because it's a religious government or because it's not a democracy, it's deemed 'unhinged' because it's a thorn for Israel to achieve total dominance in the region and therefore be able to occupy Palestinian, Lebanese, Syrian etc. territory without any fuss from anyone. Remember that Iran was not a democracy prior to 1979 and the US was extremely happy with them, torture of opposition and all. It's just now they're not 'ours' so we're upset.
When speaking of who wants to dominate the region or have extraterritorial control, it's strange to implicate Israel which pulled out of Lebanon and Gaza unilaterally. It's even more strange to attribute Iran's motivation in establishing extraterritorial proxy forces, which have/had taken complete control of territories a thousand miles from Iran's borders in Syria, Yemen, Lebanon and Gaza, as anything other than an expansionist, colonial effort.
The idea that Iran, by arming militant proxies in several distant countries, is merely acting as a protector against Israeli expansion is bonkers. It's Iran which is attempting to establish hegemony over the Middle East. Opposition to Israeli policy is merely a convenient excuse for them to pretend they aren't attempting to dominate the entire region.
The UAE and the Saudis are well aware of this. And to be honest, do you think either of those countries are afraid of an expansionist Israel?! That's laughable.
The quote you pulled is a statement of historical fact. What part of that is BS? Israel pulled out of both Gaza and Lebanon. It notably also gave back the Sinai to Egypt in exchange for a peace agreement, a land area larger than the State of Israel.
Anyone who reads a bit of history can see these facts and deduce whether Israel is "expansionist" or not.
"no longer works on anyone", by the way, is an immature schoolyard way to try to shut down debate (not that there's much to debate about these facts), and is below the level of conversation expected here.
America does tend to take geopolitical slights fairly personally relative to other countries.
Not to mention one of the limiting factors for america in this war is public opinion. I'm sure they would love some way to sell it to the american public.
interrupting your thread bcs what the law states directly is less interesting than what it puts the emphasis on: if maxing out measurement becomes the goal, it isn't measuring what it was supposed to. Take a concrete example - original point of schools/academia was education. Eventually grades started measuring education, and now grades are the goal instead of education. ppl started optimizing for grades by any means possible -> grades aren't good measure of education anymore.
Which is also why we, collectively, as an industry needs to not put up with that. It's easy for me to say from the comfort of it not being my job on the line, that if this happens to anybody they should quit and then name and shame the company, but a competent security team is going to have the idea of doing a fake phishing interview and then not do it because of how morale destroying that would be. The security awareness team sending fake phishing emails are embarrassing enough.
Consumers have rejected AI art when they are aware it's AI art. With how it's been flooding the platforms, most people listening to algorithmic mixes have likely unknowingly been exposed to AI-generated music.
It's already prevalent in gyms, restaurants, etc too. I can tell because I know what I'm listening for, but the average person isn't thinking anything of it. It certainly passes for serviceable background music.
Three years ago people were laughing at LLM arithmetic mistakes. Today the Simons Foundation is starting up a fund to keep professional mathematicians from suiciding:
> Under a partnership, the Simons Foundation, Anthropic and OpenAI will commit $15 million in combined funding and resources. The foundation will manage and award funding, including through an open call for proposals, to support workshops and initiatives that help researchers evaluate recent AI-assisted results, learn and use new tools, share perspectives and shape collective standards for AI use.
Yeah it is, but everyone forgets this board was launched in the 90s for discussion of the 1995 movie "Hackers", not for discussion of hacking in general.
Yeah, for all we know there's a creature at the bottom of the ocean that's just as intelligent as humans, but it's hard to build a civilization with fins.
It's also why the US is highly reluctant to return to high-tempo combat.
reply