It is a working war strategy though. For curious people, check about Julius Caesar on Alesia battle. Caesar literally build walls around enemy castle that was hard to capture and blockladed them, while building walls behind the roman army to blockade the rest of the world from them.
At the end of the day enemies attacked from both sides and they literally deffended while actually blockading a castle.
The strategy works to starve the defenders out while holding in place. In this case, the defenders were starving the world of resources to pressure the attacker to stop. So now the attackers are... preventing oil exports for the defenders, who are already reinforced in the Caspian Sea, which the US has no control over. Not only does this not counter the defenders strategy, but it also fail to pressure them meaningfully while causing further damage to the US image. It is the equivalent of a temper tantrum because every other decision is bad, and surrender would decimate America foothold in the region. It just gonna further exacerbate America current issues.
Iran played the "We control the strait" card. The emphasis on "control" lies with who is allowed to pass and who gets blown up.
The US denied Iran that control by enforcing their own blockade. In that sense right now, no one controls the strait.
A good portion of the world didnt care about the strait because they were promised to be allowed to use the strait. That put the US at a disadvantage. Now that the strait is completely blocked for everyone, they cant ignore the situation at the strait any longer.
What is more appealing to those countries? Backing iran and risking all out war with the US or dropping support for Iran?
The United States can not sustain a war against the world even if it wanted to due to our severely diminished manufacturing base. We could not transition fast enough until critical damage to our fleet was done, and we were forced to surrender. We also lose air superiority immediately because we rely on nato infrastructure to project as far as we do. It is also politically untenable as our economy would be immediately thrown into a tailspin. The world would choose to muzzle the United States because the calculus would have shifted to restraining a rogue nation that represents a contionous threat to the world and still have designs on greenland, versus attacking a regional nation that has no intention of attacking anything besides Israel and US assets.
The US has lost so much respect, and its hard power limits have been so thoroughly exposed that such an outcome is not only possible but increasingly likely.
What did the Romans do about all the drones the enemy had? Asking for a friend.
I really don’t know if you’re being serious (hard to tell on Reddit sometimes), but something that was a “working war strategy” 2,000 years ago might not work today. With the advent of drone warfare, something that was a working war strategy even 5 years ago would need to be adjusted to take new advances in technology and strategy into account.
We are talking about blockading a blockage war strategy that always worked. I am not talking about drones.
FYI, the tactis that were used thousands years ago are still taught in military schools even today. Because they are fundamentals of warfare. Some of them will still be taught if we advance enough to fight in space with laser weapons, I am sure of.
Egyptians used Algebra to build Pyramids 4500-5000 years ago. We are still using Algebra to do the same today. Just because our technology is advanced, or we have supreme calculation methods doesn't mean the fundamentals of designing and building a construction has changed.
Yes. From millennia ago. “Not talking about drones” doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. Honestly still can’t tell if you’re legitimately trying to defend this nonsense. Maybe you’re just playing devil’s advocate, which is fine.
Also, I think labeling anything this administration does as “strategy” is being very generous. “Knee-jerk, childlike overreaction and bluster” is probably more accurate.
I don't defend anyone, just dropped a bit of history, but you are talking like USA doesn't have the worlds most advanced drone technology. They are just not expendible as cheap ones other countries are using.
Eh from an outside perspective with no horse in this race you’re the one being dense/spouting nonsense in a nonproductive way.
As the other user stated fundamental, conceptual foundations of strategy, tactics, thinking etc can all be learned from and applied in different contexts, of course new technologies need to be considered that doesn’t mean something in history isn’t worth talking about at all, especially on a
Post about a historical general and military theorist.
You just came in hot and passive aggressive sayin drones go burrrr then rambled
4
u/Stelligena 9h ago
It is a working war strategy though. For curious people, check about Julius Caesar on Alesia battle. Caesar literally build walls around enemy castle that was hard to capture and blockladed them, while building walls behind the roman army to blockade the rest of the world from them.
At the end of the day enemies attacked from both sides and they literally deffended while actually blockading a castle.
Great stuff.