So if Crumb The 1st walks away from Iran
and leaves the straits "closed" that sounds to me like Iran won. If he tries to paint it as anything else it would be like the US trying to say we were victorious in Vietnam. The US has always had a hard time coming to grips with the reality that we got our ass kicked in Vietnam and so the powers that be used all kinds of weasel words and phrasing. "Strategic withdrawal", "South Vietnam forces failed" etc. all in an effort to avoid the word "defeated".
People can argue about the Peace Talks and agreement and try to say that it was a "mutual cessation" etc. but that is just more weaseling around and just tries to cover for the fact that we employed our military to try and defeat a country and we failed. Sure there are all kinds of reasons for the failure but it was a defeat nonetheless.
Backing away from this fiasco in Iran in the way Crumb the 1st proposes shows the clear stupidity of going into a war without a clear mission and goals and just "winging it". Iran always had the straits to play as their weapon to use against the outside world attacking them. They knew they could cause widespread pain that can last well beyond the last bomb dropped on Tehran.
He was emboldened by how his attack on Venezuela unfolded. Only a complete fool would use that as a foundation to believe it could be similar in Iran. Netanyahu knew he was dealing with a fool and so he knew if he manipulated him then he would go for the attack.
= new reply since forum marked as read
