I don’t see how the majority of comments paint this as a victory for Iran. Your entire formal military apparatus was destroyed, nuclear sites in rubble, defense industrial complex leveled, two levels of leadership KIA, and the only thing preventing you from permanent destruction or regime change is an impotent threat of attacking ships? I guess I’m missing something. War sucks but in this case Iran is a shell of the threat it was a month ago.
1. Nuclear sites are not "in rubble", uranium is very much intact. They attempted to extract some of it with the failed F15 mission and had to scrap it (oversight by CIA) near Isfahan.
2. Leadership KIA doesn't matter, IRAN has a decentralized leadership, not a top down one.
3. Military apparatus is intact, majority of missile cities are still operating, over 1M IRGC forces mobilized with many more men willing to sign up.
4. Strait of Hormuz is fully under control of IRAN, "impotent threat of attacking ships" (even though IRAN has much more power) is more than enough to control it.
6. No regime change, IRGC is stronger than ever
7. Millions of dollars of damage to all US assets in the gulf
8. Multiple US air crafts damaged and many wounded (we'll see what the actual numbers are after CENTCOM releases them finally)
9. Sanctions lifted on Russia, helping them majorly profit. China is still collecting cheap oil.
10. Israel took heavy damage, losing many interceptors as well.
11. Brent 100$+ for 40 days, causing major global issues.
To be fair, US did manage to kill 170 kids on day 1 and bomb bridges, hospitals, universities and civilian areas.. so I guess that's a "win" for you?
The reality is far more nuanced, and not clearly a win to Iran. We saw how degraded their military capabilities became when they couldn't capture a pilot on their own land for nearly 48 hours. We also saw that the number of rockets that they used "in total" has only just recently reached the number they used in the June war last year with Israel.
Diplomatically, we saw Lebanon, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia expelling Iranian diplomats (some even threatening war with Iran). And the entire gulf region unite against Iran. All while Iran's allies were mostly passive.
It's quite likely that Iran would need to deal with the mess both internally (as the power grab in the leadership vacuum could take place), and externally with the neighbors it bombed. Iran needs to make it appear as a win internally, and that's something that would affect any long term agreement.
Regardless, whether it's a win to ETTHER side remains to be seen when a more permanent agreement is signed. If for example Iran actually manages to impose a fee on passing ships, then that's a major achievement for Iran, and could create a dangerous pretendant for other regions (like the strait of Malacca in Indonesia, Bab El-Mandeb and even the South China sea.
The only thing really destroyed is the image of the west and particularly it’s leader the US. Whatever you view of Iranian acts, even wars have laws related to portionality that has been broken.
Also if there ever was an ounce of internal resistance then this war have probably galvanized the population and is aligning everyone to common cause of working on the build up of particularly their national security.
Perceptions are fickle, and that includes the local population. There are many cases of countries the US bombed whose population later became strong supporters of the US.
Iran’s government haven’t been toppled. People are rallying and united in opposition to foreign invasion and interference.
Iran is a strategic important ally of China and Russia.
US is no longer the world superpower as it once was and has dropped it’s use of soft power completely and relies only upon military force or it’s threat and barely any diplomatic efforts.
The world is not what was even a decade ago. So don’t expect a repeat on what happened after Vietnam and Japan.
Not capturing the weapons officer (the pilot was quickly rescued) was a missed opportunity for Iran, not a failure. The Trump Admin was incredibly lucky there is not currently a hostage situation and no one else was killed or injured[1] in the rescue. "Merely" 10s or 100s(?) of millions of dollars in equipment was lost in the process.
A bunch of US servicemembers have died or been maimed to achieve a rocky ceasefire with the end state looking worse than before the operation.
I certainly feel for the civilians affected, but from a pure "America First" perspective, this is a complete and total US failure.
[1]: Though I'm skeptical about the truth in this when officials have been bragging about helicopters with bullet holes in them.
Can you refute them? This is an insane performance to distract from withheld Epstein files. The DOJ has not done their duty, and the only reason the American public is ignoring it is the Iran War.
The US was goaded by Israel into joining a war that has not achieved it's stated objectives. America is deriding NATO for not joining this suicide mission, burning goodwill that would be valuable in a Russia/China conflict, because it's more valuable for Israel's geopolitical microcosm. Hegseth gutted the US' officers leading up to the war, precipitating war crime-adjacent strikes that have been decried even by GOP politicians.
Neither America nor Israel are better off because of this conflict, and China (once again) wins by embracing diplomatic capitalism. The economic soft-power of the dollar is now even more precarious than before.
>We saw how degraded their military capabilities became when they couldn't capture a pilot on their own land for nearly 48 hours
This is a such a armchair opinion. One country has the location information and other has vast forest and mountains. How it took 48 hrs for US is a eye opening scene for rest of the world. Multiple trillion of defense budget still a minion.
All policy aimed at preventing nuclear Iran has one goal: buy time. I think it is hard to argue that time has not been bought (though how much and whether the price was right is another question). The only semi-stable long term option is a friendly Iranian government. The IRGC's main purpose is to occupy Iran, so anything that makes them weaker, less stable and more decentralized improves the odds of successful internal revolt in the long run. It is really hard for me to see how any of this has made the IRGC more stable in the long run.
The threat of the strait closure has always been a major factor in Iran policy from all relevant nations, it is just now explicit. It's hard to take the Russia point seriously when the war forced both Russia and Iran to shift resources form the Ukrainian theater to the Persian Gulf; it seems to be close to a wash. It's also kinda silly to gas up using interceptors for their intended purpose as "heavy damage" or catastrophize about rounding errors in damage to USA assets, while simulatenously writing off the total effect of all USA/Israel actions as inconsequential.
Disruption to global fossil fuel supply chains was also a goal of this war, so I am not sure you should list it as a negative. In the current state of the world, USA interests and global economic interests are becoming increasingly decoupled, and one shouldn't assume they are automatically aligned.
Also this has probably done more to hasten the world's weaning off fossil fuels than any action by any other government.
IRGS domestic propaganda has always been that US is a military murderous malevolent regime, mercilessly going after their land and their children.
With just a little bit of propaganda spin, or even without it, US just proved to the entire Iranian population that IRGS was right all along.
This should strengthen or even harden their regime as they will have new generation of hardliners join the movement.
This is like 1930s Germany kinda thing. Who won or lost is semantics at this point, the regime is free to spin it any way they want, and will have quite the support to do it.
> All policy aimed at preventing nuclear Iran has one goal: buy time. I think it is hard to argue that time has not been bought (though how much and whether the price was right is another question).
Given that Iran has been one week/one month/one year away from acquiring nuclear capabilities since 2014 - first Trump Presidency, and they are not any closer a decade later this "buying time" rhetoric is nothing short of "Iraq has WMD" level of absurdity.
It is not jist Bibi, but also the IAEA and other international organizations. And at least the last 5 US administrations. I suppose they could also all be in Israel's pocket though.
Iran's 60% enriched uranium stockpile is really not up for debate. Iran is happy to tell everyone that they have it. With the proper equipment, 60% can go to 90% in a single month. So the question is how advanced is the Iranian infrastructure for the final enrichment step, and (less commonly talked about) how ready they are to actually make a fission bomb out of that material. The latter task is not considered to be very hard, North Korea did it after all, so the main focus has been on the former. There does seem to be some decent information that the centrifuge array has been under active development at various points, and has been consitently, actively targetted by Mossad/CIA for at least the past 20 years or so. For example, Stuxnet was a joint CIA/Mossad operation that begain in 2005 and continued through both GWBush and Obama.
Unfortunately, even with some nice bribes from Obama, Iran was always a little cagey with the IAEA inspectors, and officially kicked them out in 2021. So after that, the only sources for the state of Irans nuclear infrastructure information effectively became Iran itself and Mossad.
I'm not gonna argue whether it is true or false, but the scale of the conspiracy you are proposing is pretty massive. Multiple orders of magnitude bigger than anything that is currently within the mainstream public consciousness.
In this case, I think a network of mostly independent actors whose interests happen to align makes more sense. But maybe sometimes those interests are a little different than what people commonly understand them to be.
>It is really hard for me to see how any of this has made the IRGC more stable in the long run.
It's not hard for me to see. It's very similar to the situation in Ukraine. They have suffered losses but I can only imagine that their morale and confidence is through the roof. Conversely, the population must feel that there is no hope of getting rid of them. The cavalry sounded the horns but mostly rode into the river.
>Disruption to global fossil fuel supply chains was also a goal of this war
I am not convinced that a population that just recently had 30k people die in a revolt is gonna immediately rally around their oppressors after a foreign power kills 2k. I have yet to see compelling evidence that formerly IGRC-hostile segments of the population have switched alleigances. It is possible. But one could also imagine an exhausted population that is tired of a goverment they despise putting a target on their backs. The Iranians I personally know suggest that the second idea is more true, but it is anecdotal evidence with heavy selection bias. Another factor is that Iran has an unstable food and water supply, and people who lack food and water tend to focus their anger on whoever is closest that has food and water.
The Trump administration is actively interested in the dissolution of the current global economic order. This is why they are relatively unbothtered by the global economic shock that is a Strait of Hormuz closure, whereas the globally-oriented neoliberal administrations of the past wanted to avoid this at all costs.
That will take hundreds of years to accomplish. No Iranian has forgotten Operation Ajax in 1953[0] - overthrowing the lawfully elected government of Iran and replacing it with a dictator[1].
> In the current state of the world, USA interests and global economic interests are becoming increasingly decoupled
This is entirely due to Trump constantly "ripping up" previous agreements and treaties. It has become obvious to all observers that the US can no longer be trusted to act in the interests of any other nation. For their own survival, they have to become independent of US economic and political interests.
> It is really hard for me to see how any of this has made the IRGC more stable in the long run.
It's not really that hard to see - if you open your eyes.
If you refuse to do that, to the point where you see nothing but the hint of a silver lining in every carcinogenic cloud, then yeah I guess things must look pretty silvery.
It’s a nation of 90 million people. Now that basically every facet of society has been hit by a single common enemy, they will galvanize and it won’t matter what name IRGC or whatever you give it they will start to work in unison for common security and deterrence.
> They attempted to extract some of it with the failed F15 mission
This is fake Iranian propaganda. It makes no logical sense. The force sent to extract the F15 officer (approx 2 C130s of equipment) is far to small to retrieve tons of nuclear material stored at Isfahan.
> Military apparatus is intact
No, the IRGC is struggling. After weeks of bombardment, they are unable to provide food or basic supplies for its own army. https://www.iranintl.com/en/202604074692
Sources said that over the past 72 hours, operational forces have faced acute shortages of basic supplies, including edible food, hygiene facilities and places to sleep.
Recent strikes on infrastructure and bases have left many Guards and Basij personnel sleeping in the streets, and in some areas they have had access to only one meal a day.
According to informed sources, some personnel were forced to buy food from shops and restaurants with their own money after expired rations were distributed.
At the same time, disruptions affecting Bank Sepah’s electronic systems have reportedly delayed the salaries and benefits of military personnel, fueling fresh anger and mistrust within the ranks.
Iran International had previously reported similarly dire conditions in field units, including severe shortages of ammunition, water and food, as well as growing desertions by exhausted soldiers.
Even in the Guards’ missile units, which have historically received priority treatment, sources reported serious communications failures and food shortages. They said commanders were continuing to send only technical components needed to keep missile systems operational, rather than food or basic individual supplies for personnel.
> majority of missile cities are still operating
Missile launch volume is down ~90% from the beginning days of the war.
> Millions of dollars of damage to all US assets in the gulf
Iran has taken $150-200 billion dollars in damage, to its assets, and also economy.
Their entire missile manufacturing supply chain was destroyed, with the destruction of both the Parchin Military Complex and Khojir Missile Production Center, they have no ability to produce more. The Iranian missile problem was one of the primary causes of this conflict.
Both the Mobarakeh Steel & Khuzestan Steel factories have shut down. They are responsible for 1% of Iran's GDP, and billions of dollars of profits which fund the Iranian economy.
If there were no ceasefire, Iranian power and petroleum facilities would be destroyed today. Both sides do not want this to happen, because it would set back the Iranian economy by a decade, and cause an enormous humanitarian crisis.
It is not possible to run a modern economy without fuel or electricity.
> Multiple US air crafts damaged and many wounded
Iran lost its entire air force, and navy; losses are far higher on the Iranian side than US/Israeli.
So far, the US/Israel have not lost any ability to continue combat operations; they can maintain this level of bombardment for months.
It is not possible to run an advanced economy, capable of manufacturing missiles and drones at scale, under perpetual bombardment.
I basically believe you're right, but I can't wrap my head around this: How is it that they still have any control at all of the strait after all of this? Is their significantly depleted missile force enough of a threat as long as they have any credible capability whatsoever left?
Iran "controls" the strait by shooting missiles at any ship that passes through without paying them a protection fee. This includes ships that pass through Omani waters, which it has no legal control of. It's terrorism, and also an act of war.
Iran built thousands of fast-attack speedboats which patrol the strait, get up close, fire a few missiles, and quickly return. This video gives a good explanation of their strategy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKJHaODzP-0
This can be mitigated by the US/Gulf Countries, with a large number of airplanes / drones patrolling the Iranian shore, and preventing these boats from launching.
Yes, Iran built underground caves specifically to store their attack speedboat fleet. The US and Israel bombed the entrance to one on Qeshm Island multiple times, and it's unknown how many boats are still functional.
The straight is narrow enough that they could use artillery to hit the ships in it.
And for US and/or Israel to prevent it, they would have to occupy the correspondingly wide strip of Iranian coast. At which point we're talking about a massive ground invasion (and of course then the same artillery would be firing at those troops, so you can't really just stop there either).
Desert Storm involved half a million troops on the ground. Iran is about 4x the size of Iraq and has more than 3x the population. The part of Iraq involved was flat desert terrain. Most of Iran is mountainous.
> During Desert Storm, US batteries returned fire before enemy rounds even hit apogee.
That's something ground-based. And to avoid counter-battery fire, tanks move after every shot.
The Arleigh Burke class of destroyers[0] might have similar capacity since each one holds 90 missiles in the vertical launch system[1] (so they might be loaded with anything: anti-ship, anti-sub, anti-satellite, anti-aircraft, ground attack or maybe anti-missile missiles). However, to reload those missiles involves several days in port. There are only 75 Arleigh Burke destroyers at this time. Not all are near the Gulf. It wouldn't be too hard for Iranian forces to fire $10k drones that require $1M missiles to stop.
1. There is only a narrow passage through the strait which is "navigable" (meaning deep enough for supertankers - many are too big for the Suez Canal). This passage is within artillery range of the coastal mountains along the strait.
2. Now that the region is a "war zone", no insurance company will cover ships entering/transiting the strait. This was an issue during the Iran-Iraq war only solved by US Naval vessels escorting tankers. At that time, hitting a US ship would have started a war. This time, the US is an active participant in this war and every ship escorted by US ships would be a valid/legitimate military target. Shipping companies work on razor thin margins and cannot afford the risk themselves. Losing one ship (or it being out of service for months due to missile strikes) is an existential threat to the smaller shipping companies.
> This is fake Iranian propaganda. It makes no logical sense. The force sent to extract the F15 officer (approx 2 C130s of people) is far to small to retrieve tons of nuclear material stored at Isfahan.
And how does it make any logical sense to send 100+ spec ops guys in two big planes to rescue one (1) guy in a remote mountainous location? That's begging for >1 casualties and PoWs in situation which would otherwise be capped at 1. Mickey mouse nonsense.
It's far more logical that there was a different operation planned, one that would actually require hundreds of special ops guys, like securing a strategic site. And just because two planes were "stuck in the mud" doesn't mean there weren't more involved or planned to be.
> And how does it make any logical sense to send 100+ spec ops guys in two big planes to rescue one (1) guy in a remote mountainous location?
I’m a former Air Force officer, and can attest that this is in fact a long-term standing policy. “Never leave a man behind” exists because if we didn’t have that policy, pilots would be too risk averse to fly the missions aggressively.
Check out the “Notable Missions” section for a few very public examples over the past decades:
I never claimed there was no CSAR operation, and you still can't explain why you need 100+ spec ops guys in two big landing planes for this particular operation.
The US military had information assymmetry and aerial dominance. They established contact with the missing WSO through a magical CIA technology known as a "satellite phone". They secured the area with aerial surveillance and strikes, then sent in a couple helicopters to do the extraction. Nowhere does this require 100s of operators on the ground, risking their lives and escalating to a ground war. This isn't the 1960s in Vietnam.
It's one of the reasons the US military is so good. As a soldier, you know they will come for you, behind enemy lines, so you can fight like hell, knowing that your fellows have your back.
> And how does it make any logical sense to send 100+ spec ops guys in two big planes to rescue one (1) guy in a remote mountainous location? That's begging for >1 casualties and PoWs in situation which would otherwise be capped at 1. Mickey mouse nonsense.
Fucking software engineer "logic." They're not playing starcraft, pushing around mindless units that will thoughtlessly follow any stupid order you give them?
I'm a person. You make it clear you'll abandon me the moment it's "logical," I will abandon you. If you make it clear you'll go the extra mile for me, I may be motivated to do the same for you.
No, I would absolutely not want 100s of guys blindly crawling over the dirt, I would want someone to pick up my satellite phone calls and send a couple helicopters.
1. Why pretend like you have any insight into the state of Iranian uranium? Just immediately makes you unreliable.
2. Ah yes, "supreme leader" doesn't sound "top down" at all
3. If by "still operating" you mean, not shooting missiles out of fear of getting destroyed. Sure. But that's silly.
4. For now. But very unlikely to last, imo.
6. "IRGC stronger than ever" is an insane take. How could they be stronger than before this war? They aren't. Again, shows that you're completely unreliable on this subject
7. "Millions of dollars" haha. Oh no, not millions with an "M"!
8. Sure. But how are you going to downplay the damage to Iran and then emphasize the damage to the US when they are many orders of magnitude different? Like, surely you don't think the damages are at all comparable
9. So long as Iran has oil to sell, yes
10. K.. again, playing up damages that are orders of magnitude less than what Iran has sustained
11. True
You seem to be very confident in your understanding of what is currently going on in Iran, despite the fact that you no longer live there. Obviously the IRGC has the internet turned off for a reason. They want to be able to control the narrative. And if it were all roses like you're making it out to be, they would personally be paying the internet bill of every Iranian to spread the word. Yet instead, they silence your people.
And do you really want to bring up the school, as tragic as it was, after your government slaughtered like 30,000 of its own citizens days before that? Motes and beams and all that.
you seems very confident about 30k casualties propagated by western media. all we, in the south east, see from west media and leader are just lies and hypocrisy
Wars are about objectives. The USA managed to accomplish none of its objectives. Iran forced USA to concede and call for ceasefire before US could achieve objectives. That’s the definition of defeat. Iran won by not losing and holding out.
Iran has more leverage at the end of this war than it did at the start. Iran has proven that it has the capability to catastrophically disrupt global economy.
Discovering? It was announced a thousand times, maybe you dismissed because none of them were easily achievable?
Opening the Strait, renouncing nuclear program, renouncing ballistic program, regime change. Even Israel will be forced to retreat from Lebanon.
Iran won by choking the Strait and telling USA and Israel they could endure far longer than their aggressors could endure a few missiles and domestic support drop.
A Pakistani-made taco was not in my radar for today.
Opening the Strait was not a goal of this action; the Strait was open before this war started. They are trying to sell as a win a return to the status quo ante.
I dismissed them because the president and the Pentagon could not seem to articulate the objectives of the war in a way that was cohesive with one another.
Yeah obviously opening the strait wasn’t an objective. I think what you’re suggesting is that the mentioned reason - denuclearization of Iran - is unlikely to be the real reason, which may have been something like distraction.
This war is happening today, to exchange a future nuclear war with Iran with a conventional war today.
The US and Israel can fight a conventional war with Iran. They cannot fight a nuclear one. In a nuclear war, Israel would be destroyed by nuclear missiles in the two days. The possibility of a nuclear Iran is an existential crisis for Israel, and Israel will do anything possible to prevent Iran from gaining nukes.
That is why we have this conventional war happening today, (with unclear goals), to prevent a nuclear one in the future.
This war was unavoidable btw, it was going to happen sometime this year or next.
> This war was unavoidable btw, it was going to happen sometime this year or next.
Iran was, as per the latest reports I've read, complying with terms and not enriching uranium to weapons-grade or close to weapons-grade. Are there credible reports suggesting otherwise?
Those reports are old. IAEA inspectors have not been able to access any of Iran's nuclear facilities since the start of the 12 day war on June 13, 2025. Currently, nobody knows what Iran is doing with their nuclear material.
Although it might reflect actual considerations of Israel and, by extension, the US, that's ultimately a very unreasonable take. Iran might not have been trying to build nuclear weapons in the past, as they claimed. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. In contrast, Iran will try to build nuclear weapons in the future with certainty. They'd be insane not to try now, after having been bombed for weeks in an illegal war of aggression against them and having been threatened with massive war crimes and genocide.
This sounds like goalpost moving. Like if you fail to acheive regime change, just say whateber the consequences of your failure were had been your objectives from the start. According to "some" who might "say"
You speak like you and I discussed this before, and you remember where the original goalposts were.
Many analysts suggested that the attack was a smoke-and-mirrors, and the actual goal has always been financial. Similar to the tariffs story. According to that opinion the outcome of the attempt is irrelevant. Regardless of whether the regime have changed or not, the goal is still achieved.
Come on man. The goal was regime change. They said its regime change. They were chasing the high of the maduro kidnapping. But then they ended up replacing Khamenei with Khamenei like they replaced the taliban with the taliban in afghanistan. Its fucking embarrassing
What action can Iran take today that they couldn't take a year ago? No one who has been paying attention should be surprised that Iran can shut down the straight. It has been a known factor for decades.
They have less leverage. The have so much less that they are forced to openly use their last and most powerful card for their survival, when they never have had to before. That is a position of weakness, not strength.
>The have so much less that they are forced to openly use their last and most powerful card for their survival
That is not their most powerful card. Their most powerful card is mining the Strait of Hormuz and taking out all GCC desalination and oil infrastructure. That would result in a global depression, and probably end the Gulf countries as we know them.
Destroying the gulf states would dramatically reduce the importance of the Strait, which would make mining it or otherwise shutting it down somewhat pointless anyway. It is a bit of mutually assured destruction, but the USA is probably in the best position of anyone to weather that storm.
I suppose it is more powerful in an absolute sense than just temporarily shutting down the Strait, but like Russia's nukes, I think the threat is more useful than the play itself. Unless they are just looking to take others down with them.
> What action can Iran take today that they couldn’t take a year ago?
Remove of sanctions, ability to monitize traffic through the strait, guarantees against aggression and a cessation of military bases in their region. IMO, a much stronger position than they were in a year ago.
1. The strait had freedom of navigation before, now Iran controls it.
2. It was suspected Iran would shut the strait in a conflict. Its ability to enforce the closure was question. Iran has now proven it can enforce control of the strait and American can’t do anything about it.
3. The negotiation plans mentions nothing of denuclearization. Iran doesn’t even need a nuclear deterrence now they have proven that closing the strait works so well.
4. The regime didnt collapse, leader replaced by the more hardline son. Command and control continued to function despite attempted decapitation.
5. Iran inflicted billions of dollars worth of damage to US assets forcing US soldiers to flee and reside in hotels.
6. Despite taking a pounding by America for over a month they can still target and destroy local targets as retaliation as they proved yesterday by striking large Saudi petrochemical plant and striking in the heart of Israel.
You keep making comments making it sound like you have a better view of the world than the people you're responding to, but just making personal attacks. The person you're responding to, for that specific point, is referring to: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/01/us/politics/troops-iran-h...
“Flee and reside in hotels” not equal to relocate and continue mission. The major operational staff at these bases still work there. Support was relocated not fleeing.
Iran looks like it will get a toll on Strait traffic. This money, plus even a partial lifting of sanctions, will be a windfall.
Any Iranian leadership whose brains are not made of sawdust will use that money to race to a nuclear weapon. Clearly, we are in an era where the only reliable nuclear umbrella is locally sourced and homegrown. Expect a dominant geopolitical theme to be proliferation as every state that feels somewhat threatened boots up a nuclear weapons program. From ~9 states today, we should expect to see ~30 within the next 10-15 years.
> Your entire formal military apparatus was destroyed, nuclear sites in rubble, defense industrial complex leveled, two levels of leadership KIA, and the only thing preventing you from permanent destruction or regime change is an impotent threat of attacking ships?
* Which doesn't mean much nowadays: see Ukraine, and the perseverance of the Taliban who eventually got their way.
* Are you talking about now? Or last year when everyone was told that the nuclear program was obliterated? If it was then, why was there a second round of attacks in this year? And it's not like the existing stockpiles of enriched uranium vanished.
* As Ukraine has shown, you can have a defence industry in people's basements churning out 4M drones per year that can do a lot of damage.
* Yes, the past leadership was KIA. And new people were put in place who are more hardliner hawks than what was taken out. So how is a more hawk-ish regime a "win" for the US?
* An "impotent attack" that has kept several thousand ships sidelined in the Gulf? That has caused fuel (petrol, diesel, kerosene, LNG) prices skyrocket? That have caused helium (needed in chip manufacturing, MRIs, etc) prices to triple? If that's "impotent" I would hate to see effective.
Perhaps stop taking the administration's claims at face value. Their army has not been destroyed. They continue to launch missiles daily and have been extraordinarily successful in targeting US/Israel radar and defensive assets throughout the region. They have suffered air force and naval losses, but if you look back at analysis from before the war started, exactly nobody considered the Iranian air force or navy to be of any strategic significance. Iran operates on a distributed military structure rather than a centralized command, so the assassination of senior political and military leaders is not the crippling blow the US expected it to be.
And really, that expectation is itself stupid. Suppose the US got involved in a hot conventional war with another superpower, and in the first week they killed the President, the vice President, a bunch of Representatives and Senators, and a bunch of senior figures at the Pentagon. Would the US just fold, or would it fill those positions via the line of succession, declare a national emergency, and fight back vigorously? You know the answer is #2, and the idea that other countries might do the same thing should not be a surprise. It appears the US administration has fallen into the trap of believing the shallowest version of its own propaganda about other countries, and assuming that Iran was just like Iraq under Saddam Hussein but with slightly different outfits.
The Iranian strategy is basically Mohammed Ali's Rope-a-dope: absorb punishment administered at exhausting cost (very expensive munitions with limited stocks) while spending relatively little of their own (dirt cheap drones with small payloads but effective targeting, continually degrading the aggressor's radar visibility and military infrastructure). The one limited ground incursion so far (ostensibly to rescue an airman, but almost certainly a cover for something else) resulted in the loss of multiple heavy transport aircraft, helicopters, and drones at a cost of hundred$ of million$.
The companies with billions on the line didn't seem to think Iran's threats to attack ships were impotent.
Their military capabilities are diminished in the short term, but if their ability to impose a toll on the Strait of Hormuz holds then that's a massive win for Iran in the medium/long term. A mere $2M per ship represents 10% of Iran's GDP. They would become the only country in the world to impose a toll on international waters, and they would have established a defensive deterrent almost as effective as having a nuclear bomb.
They took on the most powerful military ever seen and lived to tell the tale. It's hard to spin that as a loss for Iran.
The thing to remember about Iran is it's a country run by religious fanatics. Ask a secular democracy if they would trade the lives of most of their political and military leaders for a 10% boost to GDP and they would look at you like you're insane. Ask 86 year old Ali Khamenei if he would trade dying from an Israeli bomb landing on his house for Iran establishing a stranglehold on global oil trade and securing $100 billion in annual toll revenue, and he would have been ecstatic.
Yes, we basically pressed a magic button that eliminated two layers of leadership (as well as hundreds if not thousands of civilians). Now, what strategic objectives have we accomplished?
The best Iran could hope for given its inevitable defeat by a far superior aggressor was to deny the invader any kind of spoils. And by those standards they seem to be succeeding.
So now we have a pointless war that has resulted in thousands of dead with no tangible benefit to anybody, except of course those cronies of the administration doing insider trading.
This is not pointless. It exists to exchange a future nuclear war with Iran with a conventional war today.
The US and Israel can fight a conventional war with Iran. In a nuclear war, Israel would be destroyed by nuclear missiles in the two days. The possibility of a nuclear Iran is an existential crisis for Israel, and Israel will do anything possible to prevent Iran from gaining nukes.
Most people do not comprehend this conventional war is happening today, (with unclear goals), to prevent a nuclear one in the future.
Hitting desalination plants across the gulf isn't much better than a nuclear war. If anything, the takeaway from this conflict is that nobody is ready for even the modest number of conventional ballistic missiles produced by an impoverished and dysfunctional state.
So instead of using diplomacy to ensure Iran stopped short of acquiring nukes - which had been effective - the US preemptively has attacked them, disrupting the region, killing civilians... to continue to prevent them from getting nukes.
What is the cost to the US to go on this excursion in an effort to simply maintain the status quo wrt nukes? Of course there's the real cost in treasure and the damage to its gulf allies, but there's a continued erosion of soft power and a deeply weakened relationship with other NATO countries.
So the upside here - the reason to suddenly switch from "diplomacy" to "aggression" was - what exactly? Oh, it's that Israel saw its opening, Netanyahu wanted a boost in his polls, and the old man in charge of the US was glad to do what his friend asked of him [0].
People want to believe that there's some purpose here, that there's method in the madness. But that continued belief relies on being blind to the reality before us.
> It exists to exchange a future nuclear war with Iran with a conventional war today.
That's just ridiculous. Nobody can predict the future, so trading uncertain war in the future for a certain war today is completely irrational. (And for the same reason, the war today is unlikely gonna be easier than the war tomorrow.)
Besides, Iran has avoided having nuclear weapon, because it causes too many civilian casualties, and that's against their beliefs. In this, they're more civilized than Americans (and Europeans), despite that this might be considered to be an irrational view by barbarians like you.
I think you're just coping with the fact that this war was utterly pointless, destructive for almost everyone in the world, and a poor attempt to increase power by a small group of people.
Former Iranian Majles member Ali Motahari said in an April 24, 2022 interview on ISCA News (Iran) that when Iran began developing its nuclear program, the goal was to build a nuclear bomb. He said that there is no need to beat around the bush, and that the bomb would have been used as a "means of intimidation" in accordance with a Quranic verse about striking "fear in the hearts of the enemies of Allah."
"When we began our nuclear activity, our goal was indeed to build a bomb,” former Iranian politician Ali Motahari told ISCA News. “There is no need to beat around the bush,” he said.
Read the last two lines of that interview. Khamenei interpreted Islam as forbidding even building the bomb, and he is the moral authority on this, like it or not.
Japan could also have built a nuclear bomb, but chose not to. They decided that out of nothing else than their moral beliefs.
You simply don't want to accept than other cultures can be (in some respects, and even regardless of what individuals think on average - that's probably similar for large enough groups) more ethical than your own.
Iran enriched over 450kg of uranium to at least 60%.
There's no need for anything over 5% for powerplant use. They were preparing HEU for weapons; whether those weapons were to be built now or in 20 years is irrelevant.
Per international agreements, it was their right. The idiotic thing about this argument is that now everyone knows they want nukes and that not having ones is strategic mistake. Because Iran and Ukraine did not have one. Meanwhile, countries with nukes are safer.
Yes, I agree, except it's not irrelevant whether they built functional nuke or not, because this is used as a justification for war. (Not to mention, as a justification for war, "they could have built a nuke" is even more barbaric than "they have built a nuke".)
Still, that doesn't counter the fact they didn't actually make a nuclear bomb out of the material, nor the fact that their highest moral authority banned them from doing that, so it doesn't do anything to disprove that culturally they are more civilized (in that respect).
(Maybe an example from a corporation would clarify this better - the fact that there is a group of people in it doing things unethically doesn't mean that the company as a whole condones this behavior, even if structurally - how the corporation or capitalist society is constructed - might lead to some people doing it internally off the books. But once it is known to the CEO - the highest moral authority in a corporation, if he is not to be implicated in this, he must tell them to stop.)
It's frankly just moving the goalpost in an attempt not to accept your own barbarism. Is your culture OK with using nuclear weapons, even in self-defense? If yes, how do you dare to judge?
> their highest moral authority banned them from doing that
This means nothing. Iran says one thing publicly, then privately does another. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said his country will not develop ballistic missiles with a range exceeding 2,000 kilometers [0]; yet they secretly developed missiles with a range of 4,000 km [1].
> The best Iran could hope for given its inevitable defeat by a far superior aggressor was to deny the invader any kind of spoils
clearly not, they had an already planned goal to remove the american ability to impose sanctions, and implemented the plan, while sufferjng a ton of losses to personel and materiel.
this is a major improvement from where the US could impose sanctions and states would comply. surviving iranians are in a much better position now than before the war
I think the nature of war has changed. A slow moving swarm of drones, will keep large Aircraft carriers well outside the range of their fighter jets.
A nation can swarm an aircraft carrier with a 1000 drones, each costing about 40k USD. Only a few are needed to seriously damage the carrier. Not to mention ballistic missiles.
In this scenario, does a US massive, slow moving aircraft carrier possibly carrying hundreds of billions of assets really work ? Can the US meaningfully project power with these?
In this scenario, who holds more power or leverage ?
An aircraft carrier can project power within 500 miles. The idea is to use a few of these to knock out the air power of the opposing nation, basically airfields, missile stockpiles, factories, power infra, etc. And then drop in a ground invasion force.
Does this now work? I dont think so. 10 drones can be launched from the back of a truck.
The US Navy has quite a few more tricks up its sleeve apart from aircraft carriers. Just one publicly known that immediately comes to mind: amphibious assault ships, which can launch/land F35s.
Have you been living under a rock for the last quarter century?
It doesn’t take planes, ships, or missile launchers to defeat the US military. The average American gun owner is better equipped than the insurgents that have defeated our armed forces.
Define defeat here. I think everyone in this thread confuses actual defeat with indifference and political risk. If the US military could be defeated so easily America would cease to exist, no? It just loses interest and moves on. Nobody attacks the US because they would lose.
Defeat is failure to achieve strategic goals. (The fact that you’re even asking that question is a strong signal that you have no idea what you’re talking about, and that you think rhetorical questions are a substitute for critical thinking)
Anyone who thinks America would cease to exist due to foreign military action is a fool. Canada and Mexico do not have the logistical capabilities and no one else has trans-Pacific/Atlantic force projection.
That's why the US won in Vietnam. Guerrilla warfare was no match for the planes and ships of the US military which swiftly defeated the Vietnamese and installed a friendly capitalist government.
Air power alone does not win any conflict. This is well known and proven over and over. Iran is not giving up its nuclear material for the asking, and there is no way for the US to secure without committing ground forces. Iran would love th US to commit ground forces, because it has a massive defensive advantage due to its terrain and decades of preparation for asymmetric conflict.
The US military is a paper tiger. All of the planes, ships and missiles are of limited utility when they're so afraid of 1 pilot getting captured.
That's not to say the rescue mission was wrong, the psychological advantage of Iran capturing the pilot would have been immense. But, it demonstrates just how weird the US military is.
Most militaries would have had no choice but to let the pilot get captured and then negotiate a prisoner swap at a later date. The US had the option to mount a rescue mission, and merely having that option available is a strategic disadvantage. Now Iran knows that the US is very unwilling to suffer captures. Now Iran is incentivised to maximize captures in the case of a ground invasion.
The US could probably win with a ground invasion, if they committed all their forces. But they're definitely not willing to suffer the consequences, so the effect is that they cannot win[0]. The US Army is a supremely powerful force that nevertheless cannot be used offensively anymore because the US is unwilling to suffer the consequences of doing so, kind of like a nuclear weapon.
[0] it reminds of Feynman's anecdote about a stage hypnotist. When the hypnotist invites you on stage and tells you that your eyelids are heavy and you cannot open them, you are aware that you could open your eyes if you wanted to. But in front of the watching crowd, you of course "choose" to obey the hypnotist and keep your eyes closed. So were you really able to open your eyes? The US military "chooses" not to open its eyes.
Except there was fight and the US lost multiple aircraft in that rescue and required the use of the most elite personnel US has. Let’s just say I don’t take Trump for his word.
That’s where you’re wrong, kiddo. They don’t need to win a set piece battle like it’s a chessboard. They’ve already woken everyone up from Pax Americana. I’m not sure what’s going to happen when the GCC realizes that pumping billions into the United States economy comes with no security guarantees or real benefit at all. We’re operating from a highly leveraged position. It’s going to take a while, but with a few more years of hindsight, the depth of what a monumental strategic blunder this is will seem hard to believe. We’re not sending our best to Washington.
Those “few drones” have completely kept the US military, ships and all, far away since they can damage and sink large expensive vessels with tiny cheap drones.
How did the planes and ships and missles fare in Iraq or Afghanistan? Oh yeah, decades and trillions spent and nothing changed. Iran is much larger and well armed everywhere, with support by China and Russia and others….
Sure, but they can still hit critical infrastructure. Iran still has missiles that can hit Israel, they just launched some more tonight.
War is about achieving political gains, even if it means material losses.
Compare the proposal that the US rejected in February to the 10 point plan that Trump now says is a "a very significant step" which he now " believes it is a workable basis on which to negotiate."
The proposal in February mentions limiting nuclear enrichment.
"The Iranian proposal does not meet core US demands. US officials told the Wall Street Journal that Iran’s proposal would force Iran to reduce enrichment to as low as 1.5 percent, pause enrichment for a number of years, and process its enriched uranium through an Iran-based regional consortium.[11] Four unspecified Iranian officials told the New York Times on February 26 that Iran would also offer to dilute its 400 kg of 60 percent-enriched uranium in phases and allow IAEA inspectors to oversee all steps.”
The new 10 point agreement (see top comment on this story) explicitly mentions
"Acceptance of Iran's nuclear enrichment rights"
and
"Payment of damages to Iran for loss in the war" as conditions (along with lifting sanctions).
The new plan is CLEARLY a step backwards from the perspective of the USA and the fact that the US is entertaining it while Iran literally is still launching missiles to Israel means that this is clearly a step backwards for the US.
All the ships stuck in the Gulf probably didn't consider the threat impotent.
On the other side: what more can the US do? Target civilian infrastructure? There is no appetite for getting stuck with boots on the ground, and everyone (including Iran) knows this.
You're probably right that it won't a win for anyone. If some of the points includes removing sanctions from Iran, it might be a huge win -- for Iran, or at-least it's population.
This is true. 90% destruction of military is meaningless if 10% can wreck havoc on the strait. The cost associated with eliminating that 10% was deemed too much. That is Iran’s “win”.
It not that impotent. Attacking civilan targets in the age of drones is not that hard - a small motor boat with explosives or a shahed style drone is all you need. And to keep the strait closed they don't need to attack all ships. Even 0.1% probability of an attack (maybe even 0.01%) is enough to halt the traffic. And they don't need to sink the ship - a fire on board is enough to create an unacceptable security risk for tankers and LNG carriers.
It was a while since Houthis attacked any ships and yet traffic via Suez is still 60% down from what is was befor attacks started in 2023. Because the risk of an attack is not zero.
> Iran is a shell of the threat it was a month ago.
That's why it is crippling the entire world's economy and demanding concessions bigger than the status quo ante bellum, with the US powerless to stop it. Because it's no threat.
> 90% destruction of military is meaningless if 10% can wreck havoc on the strait. The cost associated with eliminating that 10% was deemed too much. That is Iran’s “win”.
You've been paying attention to what's happened over the last few weeks and you qualify that threat as impotent? That impotent threat basically brought the rest of the world to it's knees.
They hit like 20 ships, people died. That’s why insurance went up. Literally the US navy will not go near the strait due to the ballistic missile threat.
They've frustrated the biggest military on the planet to the point of issuing expletives. It's a huge moral win. Symbolism matters more than anything else in these situations.
I don't think its a victory for either Iran or the US.
Iran suffered a lot of losses in terms of people and widescale destruction of infrastructure.
But the US lost too, we come out of this war looking much weaker and more chaotic than we did going in, not to mention the amount of money we poured into it while accomplishing nothing (nothing we destroyed in Iran was a threat to us until we bombed them in the first place).
It's hard to see how the US benefits because the US is geographically very far away from this region but I don't think it was an expensive war: short duration, mostly just an air campaign. IMO Trump did this to send a message to the world.
Gulf countries and Israel should feel much better though, despite the losses, knowing that Iran's capacity is now limited to terrorist-like harassment. This is not the end however as the US, Israel and hopefully other countries should continue to monitor Iran closely.
"Not expensive" is a ridiculous claim. In another week or two we will have spent as much as the Department of Transportation's entire annual budget.
Worse than that, Iran has now proven that they have the ability to wreck the world economy at will, giving them a lot more leverage in all future negotiations.
If the proposal that Iran start collecting tolls on all traffic through the strait happens, that will give them such a large cash infusion that it's impossible to call this anything other than a decisive victory for Iran.
iran paid costs they expected to pay beforehand, but the result of negotation is that they dont need to give the concessions they were previously willing to give.
thats a pretty clear win. they paid a heavy cost for it sure, and war is expensive, but as a negotiation tactic goes, doing the war was a success
Asymmetric warfare shouldn't be measured on the metrics of conventional warfare. Iran can continue to cause enormous economic pain for the world without any of that.
> This is true. 90% destruction of military is meaningless if 10% can wreck havoc on the strait. The cost associated with eliminating that 10% was deemed too much. That is Iran’s “win”.
You arguably can't run gorilla large-scale manufacturing. There are obvious limits to what you can achieve when the opposition can run decapitation strikes every few months.
lol no, they both have lost substantial influence in Iran... the US has been chipping away at the spheres of influence for both China and Russia in recent months, first with Venezuela and now Iran. Hopefully Cuba is next.
And the US surveillance capabilities are substantially greater than they were during the Iraq and Vietnam wars. Smuggling in drones or missiles isn't some trivial affair.
And again, if they do that, we just decapitate their leadership again. And again. Until they stop.
This sounds a bit delusional. You do see the difference between venezuela and iran right? How the first went smoothly for the US and the other absolutely isnt.
And the talk of chipping away at russia and china's influence in iran, youdo know that iran is asking for payment in yuan to let ships through. The US invaded iraq to maintain the petro dollar and now iran os flagrantly subverting it and backing china's currency
Seeing diehard MAGAs in these comment threads is always so amusing. Clearly Agent Orange didn't think the threat was impotent if he crawled on his knees to negotiation table hastened by dire predictions of impending economic collapse but you somehow think it was "impotent" ? Astonishing :)
> Your entire formal military apparatus was destroyed, nuclear sites in rubble, defense industrial complex leveled, two levels of leadership KIA
the same thing the media keeps asking trump: what do these things matter?
there's a meaningful change to iran's negotiating position basically forever into the future: the US cannot impose sanctions without also banning states from using the strait, and its clear what states will choose between the two. I still dont think they care about nukes, but now they can keep enriching as much uranium as they want to 60% and they can use that as a negotiation chip for something else.
the US and israel are not nearly the threats they were a month ago, not just iran has paid the costs of war
the real problem for iran is that now they actually have to deliver good stuff for their citizens - for all the western bluster, its still a democracy, and they do have to hydrate their population
It's not clear to me they are much less of a threat than they ever were, but it's also not clear to me they were ever much of a threat.
They did everything they could in this war, didn't they, and apparently it didn't do too too much? (other than the economic damage of closing the strait, which seems to be what worked). But I think they could probably keep doing everything they've been doing still? (including controlling the strait).
With battery tech going the way its going in two years how far do you think these drones will fly? Enough to hit all surrounding countries and cause chaos. There is also the Al bab whatever its called strait as well to shutdown.
I worry this war has only made things worse in every regard and pulling out at a time like this is also bad. The reason no one wanted to get into this position is because it takes some fucked shit and some pain to get out properly.
That's asymmetric warfare basically. The regime is more or less intact. There are no US booths on the ground. And Iran just demonstrated it can majorly disrupt international energy markets by blocking the strait of Hormuz more or less indefinitely. With a major power like the US seemingly unable to prevent that or put a stop to it militarily.
Painting this as a victory for Iran would be a stretch. But they definitely did not lose either.
This is something that keeps on happening to the US. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. are all conflicts where the US won militarily and then had to withdraw anyway. Vietnam is still ruled by the communists, Afghanistan is ruled by the Taliban once more, and the regime in Iraq is nominally Iran supported and not exactly on the best of terms with the US either. This conflict seems to be a repeat of past mistakes. The US went in, bombed the shit out of stuff for a few weeks and only then steps back to literally think "Now what?!". It could have done that a few months ago and saved us all the trouble of having to deal with this BS.
Painting this as a US victory is also quite a stretch. Iran never really posed a credible military threat beyond its borders. Nor did Afghanistan or Iraq. I think China might consider this a win though. And they definitely pose a non trivial military threat. Some historians might end up arguing the US took some long term strategic hits here for essentially very little meaningful gains. And we'll see in November how Republicans fare on the economic aftermath of what you might describe as a gigantic cluster f** at this point.
1) Trump threatens stone age for Iran if they don't open the strait.
2) Iran agrees to open the strait if they're not attacked.
What happened here is they caved under Trump's threat but they're going to make it look like they're opening the strait on their terms, while Trump will make it look like they're opening the strait on his terms (which actually makes more sense, because if they didn't open the strait we'd have probably started bombing them)
And Iran's military hasn't been destroyed, they still control the strait. How do you explain that if they don't have a military?
I think you are right. Leadership vacuum will not resolve by itself: Iran either will go democratic way or into some internal fights (this one more probable IMHO).
It’s pretty clear it was your post/project you reference, but how do you know he got inspiration from you? Did OP post on your Reddit post, confirming they were even aware of it?
Creating a tool via a LLM based on a similar idea isn’t quite stealing.
A key difference is that in this C# package, `[Comptime]` is an attribute (annotation? not sure on the C# term) applied to methods. In Zig, the `comptime` keyword can be applied to pretty much any expression. In the C# package, if you want to do factorial at runtime and at compile time, (I think, from reading the README) you need to define the same function twice, one with `[Comptime]` and once without. Contrast this to Zig, where if you have a regular runtime factorial function, you can just execute it at compile time like:
const x = comptime factorial(n);
Another limitation of the C# package is it only works with primitive types and collections. Zig comptime works on any arbitrary types.
You don't. The way it works is that it intercepts the call site when the input args are constant. If they're not then it won't be replaced and it will call the original method. C# source generators can't replace method definitions, however a call site can be changed to another method via source generators.
You don't have to write the method twice. Source generators can only add new code, they cannot take away a method you declared, so it will still be there at runtime when called with non-constant arguments.
I’m annoyed they called it comptime when it isn’t the same as Zig’s more powerful comptime.
You can think of zig’s comptime as partial evaluation. Zig doesnt have a runtime type reflection system, but with comptime it makes it feel like you do.
I’m personally fine with US gov backstopping depositors (but leaving equity unbacked) for the specific case of SVB, but the ultimate question remains: if the US government insures unsecured deposits over $250k (even if no practical risk with long term assets on balance sheet as collateral), doesn’t this in effect create a precedent of no upper limit to FDIC insurance moving forward? So now taxpayers are on the hook for all bank deposits (thus, creating potential for more reckless behavior by regional bank CEO/CFO/CIOs). Isn’t that somewhat dangerous?
We don't have an uninstall script at this time, but the install is pretty localized. You get a directory called wasp-lang under ~/.local/share and a binary called wasp in ~/.local/bin.
Great question! Engineer on the team here - I will let our CEO, Matija, confirm tomorrow (they are in Croatia), but to me it comes down to the three most common options most OSS companies use for monetization:
- we will provide a managed hosting service, think Wasp Cloud, that will make it the best place to run your Wasp apps with easy deployments, simple 3rd party integrations, great observability, DX enhancements and flows vs rolling your own on AWS, etc.
- we provide some extra functionality that is more enterprise-focused and niche, but we charge for it (like more enterprise-focused forms of authentication, for example)
- we provide support and maintenance licenses for those who want someone to be there when they call :)
Hi there! Engineer on the team here (and the one actually doing some of our auth and jobs stuff recently). We currently integrate with Google via oauth2 for social login, and plan to add more providers soon (GitHub coming next). The underlying mechanism is using Passport.js, which in turn uses oauth2 for most of their provider integrations, but that is abstracted so we can change in the future without breaking Wasp users. How would you envision Wasp itself being an oauth2 provider as beneficial vs integrating with other more popular providers?
As for username & password - correct, we do not do any email verification and reset right now. We actually changed the name from email & password to username & password to reflect the fact that we don't have tight email integration yet in Wasp. However, that will be coming soon, and once we do have first-class email support we plan to enrich that login method to have email verification with password reset, perhaps magic links, etc.
So long story short, we are trying to move quickly to add more auth options but be deliberate in how we integrate everything to ensure they all play together nicely. Please do check us out if it seems interesting and drop into Discord to let us know how we can improve to fit your use cases. Thanks!
Jumping in on this, as someone who has evaluated a lot of these over the years… you cannot predict the auth needs of future customers… don’t waste time building bespoke per authentication provider OAuth2 based authentication options… just implement an OpenID relying party or just go all the way and support the OpenID Connect standards.
Then I can use anything I want, by way of the myriad of self hosted and commercial services providing OpenID based authentication service endpoints, Auth0, Keycloak, Okata, etc. The predominant mechanism for these sorts of “auth service” is OpenID Connect, because it really does immediately get you 80% of what you want from authentication out of the box with no additional work, saving heaps of time, provided you need these kinds of features and a built in framework username and password style auth system is inadequate and as long as the pain of running (or paying for) the separate service is acceptable.
And to tie this to their request, this would facilitate you offering an auth service by way of having the wasp DSL build infrastructure as code configurations for an open source auth service like keycloak, or even partner and white label an exiting vendor service as a premium service extra at $/month…
Thanks for the feedback. I agree that relying solely on per-provider integrations would not be ideal (for us as maintainers, or our users). But for now, we are using Passport.js just to help us quickly bootstrap maybe a half dozen social logins to get our users started. In the long run, I can imagine deeper integrations with Auth0 et al. and possibly building out some of the other mechanisms like you describe!
While supporting a couple of the most common ones directly is worth it, building deeper integration with a specific auth as a service provider is thinking about the process backwards.
The business value for the authentication as a service companies is to make it easy to Integrate with them in order to benefit from the extra capabilities they offer, via standard mechanisms that make their service a drop in component of a larger stack.
Authentication Services are already commoditised, and they are complementary to your business, and you don’t even have to do extra work to commoditise this particular complement! Just don’t fall into the trap of thinking it’s worth doing more. Auth0 can give me SMS based magic links, while simultaneously tying those to an azure Active Directory primary user to determine if the owner of the mobile phone number is authorised to use a given application. I have all that power, all that and more via your tools and frameworks… anywhere that supports the OpenID Connect standards as a relying party. Don’t think “deeper”, just think about getting the standard part done, and leave deeper authentication stuff to the company that want authentication to be their entire business. It’s worth noting that OpenID Connect does enable using almost any other social provider a customer might want, since having a big swathe of social auth options is usually feature #1 for an authentication as a service product or service.
Also it looks like passport.js supports being an OpenID Connect relying party already thanks to a couple of libraries already on NPM. Looks like it was a good choice of JS library/framework for this job, (I don’t live in JavaScript so I stopped keeping up with all the libraries and frameworks years ago, so I have no idea how ubiquitous or obvious the choice of Passport.js is)
Hi there! Yep, we plan to add many more social login options. I'm confident all of those on that site will be supported. As with our first implementation (Google), each will be enabled by Wasp users by changing a few lines in their Wasp file and adding the appropriate envars. We're just refactoring it a bit as we add a few more to speed up the internal process of exposing them. Thanks!
Thanks! Right now we do have an "expected" structure that differentiates between client/server/shared code. But as a former Rails person myself, I can say everyone on the team appreciates how "convention over configuration" plus best practices can really help devs and it is something we try to do as well. So I think we will continue to make improvements in this area. Feel free to give it a go and drop into Discord and let us know what you think!
reply