USA Goes to War Against Iran

I see you've switched to oil-based paints for your room.

The school that was bombed during the Sabbath when they knew it would be empty and no children were killed?

I don't agree with it, but it's far better than bombing a school that is in session and killing 170 kids.

Factually there’s a lot wrong with your post, including that Trump criticized going to war with Iran prior to his first term, and not because they were too powerful to attack, so it doesn’t seem like that was a calculation on his part. There’s just no evidence to that effect so it is essentially fan fiction.

Secondly they were still in talks prior to the start of the war.

The situation changed and Trump is flexible enough to change his mind.

The talks they were in were going nowhere. They were nothing more than a delay tactic by the Iranians.

How sweet of them to bomb an empty kindergarten.

I suppose you regret that 30 kindergartners weren't killed. The fact the school was unoccupied deprives you of a useful rhetorical device to imply moral equivalence.

How much of an L must it be to have had Iran on a short leash and your boy Trump tore up the deal?

I suppose so. I guess you can use the US excuse and say they thought it was a military base. Either way, the US killed 170 children and you're fine with it because you view those children as less than human, but keep carrying on about how an empty school being bombed is worse.

The US imports goods → dollars flow out → foreigners reinvest those same dollars into Treasuries, which finances the trade deficit. Rinse and repeat ad infinitum. So insolvency doesnt come into play. The constraint is when deficits start pushing beyond real productive capacity and show up as inflation.

And it’s not like Iran attacked Pearl Harbor and the US had to immediately retaliate and commit to a full-scale war before it was fully prepared, whether it was feasible or not. If the US can’t mobilize what it thinks it needs to accomplish its objectives, whatever that even is, it can simply decide not to not initiate it -which again points to how immediate this threat really is from Iran, and the justification of actually doing this.

If we go down the escalation ladder to proxy attacks or defending allies, the whole situation looks a bit more feasible through containment methods than mobilizing a million troops that ends up killing hundreds of thousands of people.

Can you expand a bit on what you mean here? The US issues debt in dollars. It can't be forced into bankruptcy in its own currency. The threat wouldn't be bankruptcy. There are very specific reasons why the deficit doomsdayer, packaged meal, ammo hoarding preppers remain waiting.

What are you talking about now, motivates posters to commit violence? You're a joke, mongidig.

For the reasons t/d mentioned a ground invasion isn't remotely in the cards, nor is it necessary to accomplish the main objectives. I had AI war game what I think would be a more realistic strategy:

Topic: The "Shiraz Cork" Strategy: Neutralizing Bandar Abbas via Inland Attrition
Scenario: Direct military action against Bandar Abbas—the IRGC’s naval fortress—is a high-casualty "meat grinder."
The Thesis: To neutralize the regime’s southern lifeline, you don’t need to storm the port. You need to arm an uprising in Shiraz, turning the city into a strategic cork that triggers a logistical war of attrition.
1. The Strategic Bottleneck (Highway 65)
Shiraz sits at the critical junction of Highway 65 and Highway 86. It is the primary artery connecting Tehran to the Persian Gulf. By holding Shiraz, an anti-regime element effectively severs the "umbilical cord" to the coast.
• Logistical Isolation: The IRGC Navy at the Strait is world-class at sea but relies on the interior for food, fuel, and reinforcements.
• The "Island" Effect: Without Shiraz, Bandar Abbas becomes a strategic island—well-armed but unable to sustain a long-term defense against a land-based siege.
2. Terrain as a Force Multiplier
The Zagros Mountains surrounding Shiraz offer the perfect "A2/AD" (Anti-Access/Area-Denial) environment for a lightly armed force:
• Kill Zones: Narrow mountain passes like Tang-e-Abulhayat allow small teams with ATGMs (Anti-Tank Guided Missiles) to stall entire armored divisions.
• Airspace Denial: Deploying MANPADS in the heights negates the regime’s drone and helicopter advantage, making it nearly impossible for Tehran to bypass the "cork" via airlift.
3. The Shift to Attrition
Once the road is cut, the "Fortress" of Bandar Abbas begins to starve. The war of attrition plays out in three stages:
• Resource Starvation: Bandar Abbas is a desert port. Within weeks, the regime must choose between feeding its elite units or the local civilians, likely triggering a secondary internal uprising.
• The Maintenance Trap: Modern coastal defenses (S-300s, Noor missiles) require constant parts and technicians from the north. Without them, the "high-tech" advantage literally begins to rust.
• Moral Collapse: When conscripts in the south realize their hometowns in the interior are in revolt and their exit route is closed, the will to fight for a blockade evaporates, leading to mass desertions.
4. The Tribal & Urban Synergy
• The Qashqai Network: The surrounding Fars Province tribes provide the "underground railroad" for smuggling arms from the coast while bypassing main highways.
• Urban Guerrilla Warfare: Shiraz’s dense core allows small, armed cells to hold territory through hit-and-run tactics, forcing the regime to divert frontline troops away from the Strait.
Conclusion:
Arming Shiraz isn't just about taking a city; it’s about choking the Strait. By forcing a siege by logistics, you turn the regime’s most powerful military asset into a starving, isolated liability.

End Game
The fall of the Shiraz "cork" triggers a strategic collapse that strips the regime of its primary global lever: the ability to hold the Strait of Hormuz hostage. As logistical lines vanish, the IRGC-N’s high-tech coastal batteries degrade into isolated, unmaintained relics. This logistical starvation creates the ultimate opening for the Artesh (the regular army). Historically sidelined by the elite IRGC, the Artesh units in the south—largely comprised of conscripts with ties to the local population—face a choice between sinking with a starving regime or defecting to protect the civilians. In this scenario, the Artesh acts as the final "tipping point," internalizing the rebellion and providing the conventional hardware needed to secure the coast once the IRGC’s command structure fractures. Ultimately, the "Shiraz Cork" makes the regime's most powerful military asset unsustainable, forcing a total retreat and a transition to a new security order.

By AI you mean a LLM?
Or you have access to advanced military sims?

You already know the answer to that. If you have an actual argument to make just make it.

That you are either mischaracterizing your posts and/or believe LLM are actual thoughts.
That you love chatGPT based on how often copy pasting from it.

I think it's bad.

Looks like the houthis are in.

While I generally oppose capital punishment, I think quoting ChatGPT in this forum should be added to that short list of capital offenses.

Isn't remotely in the cards? Like not this weekend or ever? So now you are fine being on the record saying that there will be no boots on the ground?

We're just spending lots of money sending tens of thousands of specialized troops to the region to encourage negotiations that the administration wasn't interested in having in the first place?

Anyone who thinks Trump/Hegseth are smart enough to understand (or listen to those who are) how bad of an idea it is, haven't been paying attention.

We will see.

They have been saying they are "banning Israeli shipping" for the last 2 years. So announcing they are "banning Israeli shipping" doesn't actually change anything. Talk is cheap.

IF they actually start attacking ships in the Red Sea again on the pretext they are "banning Israeli Shipping" then we can say they are in. So far they haven't done anything but talk.

In the last year a part of southern Yemen basically tried to secede and be a normal country and Saudi supported the Houthis militarily in stopping this. So the Houthis and Saudi Arabia have some sort of positive relationship right now. And if the Houthis get involved they will be on the wrong side of Saudi Arabia which they might not want to do, especially if Iran is going to be weakened moving forward.

For all the rhetoric about us over providing Israel with weaponry (which is mostly just bad faith propaganda), the US provides a tremendous amount of weapons to the GCC's. Pretty much all the GCCs actually have a tremendously large US made offensive arsenal they are not using at all right now. This graphic is a little dated, but as you can see we sell more weaponry to 3 separate GCC's than Israel.

They dont want to attack Iran directly, because they dont want a counter response against infrastructure and because of the optics of being on the same side as Israel in a war, but IF the war keeps escalating and the GCCs actually feel they have to commit and get involved offensively that is potentially A LOT of extra firepower that can be directed at Iran and Houthis. And Houthis might not actually want that right now.

But they are religious zealots who are literally high on drugs all the time, so very unpredictable. So we shall see.

I’d say Iran is on a shorter leash now. They are getting wrecked militarily. We are winning big. Iran will no longer be able to threaten the world. You all should give thanks Israel and the US.

I have no issues with Persians. I never said one bombing was necessarily worse than the other. I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy of you people.

Is this what you are talking about?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025%E2%80...

I dont think the Saudis ever backed the Ansar Allah (aka the "Houthis").

Nobody cares what you think. You are like background noise. You don’t have to comment on everything.

More stupidity.

How do you feel about being a useful idiot for the Iranians. They love your tacit support. I wonder how many more people will die because people like you eat up and parrot the Iranian propaganda. You do realize this is what they bank on.

They didnt officially back them. But my understanding is the Houthi's actually control some (all?) of the territory in dispute. So kind of the same side. Maybe they have no agreement, I suspect they do.

Yemen is weird where Houthis defacto control a lot of the country, and everyone just pretends the "official govt" is in control.