Commentary in The Hill newspaper,
Petraeus: Iran could emerge from war ‘militarily weakened’ but ‘strategically strengthened’
Ok. But which Iran? No one seems to recall that the top several layers of Iranian leadership have been wiped out since the war began a few weeks ago. We are now dealing with the third and fourth stringers from earlier this year. The Iran of 2025 is not the same as the Iran of 2026.
There is a concept in philosophy known as the “Ship of Theseus.” Sometimes the object involved is a knife or an axe.
Stated simply: if you replaced all the components of an object, until no original parts remain, is it still the “same” object?
If you replace all of trhe component parts of the Iranian regime, is it the same regime? More importantly, will it behave the same toward its own people and neighbors as the one destroyed earlier this year?
As I understand it, the goal of this exercise is to end up with a “new” Iran: one not bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, and one not hostile to its neighbors.
JOHN adds: In my opinion, the idea that Iran (under its current leadership, whatever that is) could somehow emerge stronger from its recent devastation is idiotic. Its leadership is dead, its military has pretty much ceased to exist, the manufacturing capacity to replace its military has pretty much ceased to exist, the economy on which any future recovery will depend has been badly damaged, and its terrorist proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, are reeling and barely hanging on. In what world is this a picture of “strategic” strength? Especially given that the Gulf states are now open enemies of the mullahcracy.
I think there are more dumb things being said about the Iran conflict than we have seen for a very long time, for reasons that have everything to do with politics and nothing to do with military strategy.
