Ein Angriff auf die Energie- und Wasserinfrastruktur des Iran ist keine erfolgreiche Strategie

Here’s a quick AI summary for others:

The article’s core answer is that even if strikes on Iran’s power, oil, and desalination infrastructure work tactically, they fail strategically. Warrick argues that Iran has a long pattern of pursuing “symmetrical” retaliation: when hit in one domain, it tends to answer by hitting a roughly corresponding target. So a US campaign against Iran’s energy and water systems would likely trigger Iranian attacks on Gulf energy and drinking-water infrastructure, not compel capitulation.

He also argues that these attacks would not achieve the political objective. In his view, Iran’s leadership is oriented around regime survival, can absorb very severe infrastructure damage without changing core policy, and is unlikely to reopen the Strait of Hormuz just because its civilian infrastructure is bombed.

So the problem is not military feasibility. The article explicitly says these attacks would “almost certainly succeed” militarily. The problem is that success at destroying targets could still produce a worse strategic outcome: mass internal displacement in Iran, a refugee crisis, retaliatory Iranian strikes that could knock Gulf oil and gas exports offline for months, and even a broader global recession. In that scenario, Iran could present itself as having endured punishment while imposing comparable regional pain, letting Tehran claim victory and making the US president look like the loser.

So in one sentence: the article says these attacks are not winning strategies because they trade tactical destruction for strategic escalation, economic shock, and no reliable path to forcing Iran to yield.

See you guys in middle east 3.0 WW3 if we continue to go this way

It would be a war crime, also.