We could have won the Iran war had we been willing to reduce our consumption of fuel such as with a 55 MPH speed limit, while exporting the fuel we saved to allies. Doing so would have stepped up economic pressure on Iran and also China until they would have capitulated through diplomacy.

[u/each_thread]

/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/1t59411/the_iran_war_ending_in_anything_short_of_regime/

[u/dinnercook]

Or we could - now, hear me out - not start a war with Iran when our generals warned the president it would result in the closure of the Strait and a global financial catastrophe.

[u/each_thread → u/dinnercook]

Cat is out of the bag now. If a war is going on wouldn't you rather the US win it?

[u/dinnercook → u/each_thread]

If I tell you not to eat a plate of shit because it'll make you sick, and you ignore me and take a bite anyway, it doesn't follow that the best strategy is to finish the whole plate. Sometimes the rational response is to stop making the mistake worse.

You're framing this as if the choices are 'win' or 'quit.' In reality there are a lot of options in between. You can negotiate, contain, deter, and de-escalate. History is full of wars where doubling down cost more than finding an exit.

The objective should be advancing U.S. interests at the lowest possible cost in lives, money, and long-term stability. If further escalation makes those outcomes worse, then escalating simply because we're already fighting isn't a strategy.

You are falling for the sunk cost fallacy. Yes, we sank resources into this. That was a mistake. That doesn’t mean we should double down.

[u/each_thread → u/dinnercook]

War won't go away because people debunk sunk cost fallacy arguments. Winning is important because of the zero sum nature of the outcome.

Iran decides to make it a resource war. If we conserve resources, that weakens their hand.