I also see that incoherence. To be charitable, I conjecture the author meant this: Iran is militarily weakened by the pummeling of its air defences, but it is geopolitically stronger because the sword of Damocles fell and turned it to be a Christmas ornament. Iran has shown that it can fuck the world's economy with impunity, by doing nothing more than claiming to have laid mines.
That said, "the enemy is strong but also weak" is a smell. It's a staple of demagogues.
> the sword of Damocles fell and turned it to be a Christmas ornament.
That was my impression as well. I think there was exactly one event in this war that has long-term consequences and that was the realization that the US military cannot undo a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz by force. That was an unexpected hard limit of US military power in the region, which otherwise feels practically unlimited. This realization gave Iran the increase in leverage it has now. But it doesn't change the fact that in direct military confrontation, they are weaker. (Though they have allies now)
(Ok, maybe a second change of long-term status quo was the realization that Iran will attack the gulf states, so they are suddenly at risk of becoming war zones. But that's more a change of status for the gulf states, not the rest of the world)
> by doing nothing more than claiming to have laid mines.
Where you do you get your news from?
Iran has literally attacked ships [1].
Honestly, if there was a guy outside my workplace shooting people I'd turn around and if they were there the next day I'd also turn around and probably stop going to work until they tell me he's gone.
http://archive.today/j7wg6
> Iran was a mouse compared to the American war elephant. After weeks of US-Israeli pummelling, it is now a shadow of its former mouse
> Israel is now even more disaffected than America’s other friends since Trump is leaving Iran stronger than it was before the war
I like this very coherent writing about how something can simultaneously be a shadow of its former self and also stronger than it was before
I also see that incoherence. To be charitable, I conjecture the author meant this: Iran is militarily weakened by the pummeling of its air defences, but it is geopolitically stronger because the sword of Damocles fell and turned it to be a Christmas ornament. Iran has shown that it can fuck the world's economy with impunity, by doing nothing more than claiming to have laid mines.
That said, "the enemy is strong but also weak" is a smell. It's a staple of demagogues.
> the sword of Damocles fell and turned it to be a Christmas ornament.
That was my impression as well. I think there was exactly one event in this war that has long-term consequences and that was the realization that the US military cannot undo a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz by force. That was an unexpected hard limit of US military power in the region, which otherwise feels practically unlimited. This realization gave Iran the increase in leverage it has now. But it doesn't change the fact that in direct military confrontation, they are weaker. (Though they have allies now)
(Ok, maybe a second change of long-term status quo was the realization that Iran will attack the gulf states, so they are suddenly at risk of becoming war zones. But that's more a change of status for the gulf states, not the rest of the world)
> by doing nothing more than claiming to have laid mines.
Where you do you get your news from?
Iran has literally attacked ships [1].
Honestly, if there was a guy outside my workplace shooting people I'd turn around and if they were there the next day I'd also turn around and probably stop going to work until they tell me he's gone.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_attacked_during_...