"In the 1950s, Iran had a democratic, secular government under Mohammad Mosaddegh. Mosaddegh was a social democrat and realised that with British control of Iranian oil there was little prospect of improving the well-being of the population. With the British unwilling to negotiate the terms of their colonial-era agreement with the Shah, Mosaddegh nationalised Iran’s oil reserves. Shortly thereafter, British and US foreign intelligence (MI6 and CIA) successfully instigated a coup, working with the Shah, local ‘strongmen’ and factions within the military. They reinstalled the Shah who re-established foreign control over Iranian oil and governed as a brutal dictator for more than two decades. Leaders of the previous democratic government were imprisoned, tortured and in some cases executed. In 1979 the Shah was overthrown with broad popular support. However, an Islamist grouping led by Ayatollah Khomeini took control of the post-Shah state. Under his control, leaders of other opposition groups were purged and executed, and Iran became an Islamic Republic. Under this system, there is an Islamic Supreme Leader who is unelected and a president who is elected every four years - but the candidates for election are subject to approval by the Supreme Leader and Guardian Council. The recently assassinated Ayatollah Khameini succeeded the first Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, in 1989.

"In short: Iran had democracy until the US and UK destroyed it. They had no qualms about Iran being governed by a brutal dictator provided it was one who served their geopolitical and economic interests."

"A key point I want to counter here is that the attempt at Iranian ‘regime change’ is primarily about Israel. That is false. It is primarily about US geopolitics. While Israel has had disproportionate influence over the US, the tail is not wagging the dog. And I have argued extensively that in fact the US is busy pivoting away from its unconditional support for Israel, even though it may seem otherwise."

Why should America do a defense agreement with a country like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia that is unwilling to join a fight of mutual interest?

Hopefully Gulf Cooperation Council countries will get more involved as this fight is in their backyard. If you are not willing to use your military now, when are you willing to use it?

Hopefully this changes soon. If not, consequences will follow.

Irrespective of the ever-shifting war aims peddled out by Administration officials, there is a clear and obvious sense in which strategic victory and defeat are defined here. If the United States cannot, either through direct denial or military coercion, suppress Iran’s attacks on its own assets and those of its allies and protectorates, that would constitute a strategic defeat for the United States. If the US declares mission accomplished whilst the Iranians are still firing their weapons at the oil monarchies, US military bases, Israel, and, above all, if Hormuz is still closed, that would constitute an unambiguous strategic defeat for the United States.

By the same token, if Iran can continue its attacks and keep Hormuz closed despite whatever the US throws at it, until such a time as the US offers a ceasefire, it would’ve succeeded in reestablishing deterrence. That would constitute a strategic victory for Iran. This is not a definitional question; it is a question of the perception of adversaries, third parties, and disinterested analysts. The Western media spin won’t count; it would just be too blatantly obvious.