SCOTT RITTER: IRAN's WAR PLAN IS WORKING

** NEW MERCH ** Jackets & Sweatshirts, Thermo Mugs!!

Daniel Davis Deep Dive Merch: Etsy store

1. The War Was Predictably Destabilizing

The speaker begins by saying any competent analyst should have known that attacking Iran would disrupt global energy markets. Iran has the capability to interfere with oil flows (especially in key shipping lanes), so economic fallout was a “known known”—not a surprise.

2. Failure to Build International Support

They contrast this conflict with earlier U.S. wars:

1991 Gulf War: A broad coalition was built before combat—European allies, Arab states, and NATO partners were aligned.

2003 Iraq War: Even though controversial, the U.S. at least attempted to gain NATO backing and international legitimacy.

Current situation:

No real diplomatic effort was made to build a coalition.

Europe is refusing to participate.

European economies are already strained (e.g., from Russia sanctions), and this war is worsening their situation.

Conclusion: The U.S. acted unilaterally and now stands isolated.

3. No Serious War Planning

The speaker argues the war was launched with unrealistic assumptions:

Expected a quick regime collapse

Assumed no major Iranian retaliation

Believed it would be a fast, low-cost operation

But in reality:

No pre-positioned forces (e.g., airborne, special forces)

No clear contingency plans (Plan B, C, D)

Current troop movements are reactive, not planned

They describe the strategy as essentially: “boom, boom, boom → regime change → done”

4. Iran Controls the Conflict (OODA Loop Failure)

Using the concept of the OODA loop (Observe–Orient–Decide–Act):

Effective militaries get inside the enemy’s decision cycle

Here, the speaker claims the opposite is happening

Their claim:

Iran is dictating events

The U.S. is reacting step-by-step

Iran has a coherent long-term plan; the U.S. does not

Implication: In warfare, the side controlling the tempo usually wins—so they predict Iran will prevail.

5. Breakdown in Strategic Thinking

They say this reflects a deeper institutional problem:

No evidence of serious planning frameworks being used

No anticipation of second- and third-order effects

Decision-making appears ad hoc (“off the cuff”)

This suggests a failure at the highest levels of military and political leadership.

6. Politicization of the Military

A major part of the critique:

Since the 1990s, military leadership has become increasingly politicized

Officers perceived as “not aligned” politically were pushed out

Promotion system now favors:

Careerism

Bureaucratic management

Political compliance

Result:

Leaders act like managers, not warfighters

They support policy instead of critically evaluating it

They avoid telling civilian leaders “no”

7. Failure of Military Leadership to Challenge Policy

The speaker emphasizes a core principle:

Military leaders are obligated to give honest professional advice

If a plan is flawed or illegal, they must say so—even at personal cost

They argue:

Senior leaders today avoid confrontation

Even when given opportunities (e.g., press briefings), they deflect or give vague, non-answers

This creates a culture of silence and compliance

8. Legal and Moral Concerns (War Crimes / Illegality)

The speaker makes a strong claim that:

The war is illegal under international law

Potential targeting of civilian infrastructure (power plants, water systems, etc.) could constitute war crimes

They reference:

Law of Armed Conflict principles:

Distinction (civilian vs. military targets)

Proportionality (force must match military objective)

U.S. War Crimes Act (violations of Geneva Conventions are criminal offenses)

Key argument:

Military officers have a legal duty to refuse unlawful orders

If they comply, they could be personally liable

9. Constitutional Crisis Framing

They escalate the argument further:

Claim the President has violated the Constitution

Emphasize that military officers swear an oath to the Constitution—not the president

They argue the correct response would be:

Senior officers refusing unlawful orders

Even at the cost of being fired

Creating a chain reaction of resistance to illegal actions

10. Long-Term Consequences

The speaker warns of major fallout:

Economic:

Energy market disruption

Strain on global and allied economies

Political:

Loss of allied trust

Increased global instability

International system:

Erosion of international law

Shift toward a “lawless” global environment (“wild west” analogy)

Bottom Line

The speaker’s overall thesis is:

The U.S. entered a major war with Iran without proper planning, legal justification, or international support; military leadership failed to challenge flawed decisions; and as a result, the U.S. is now strategically adrift, legally exposed, and likely to suffer long-term global consequences—while Iran holds the advantage.