USA Goes to War Against Iran
Time for a dedicated thread to the war.
How long will it last and what will be the probable outcome?
No doubt Taiwan is taking prodigious notes on what Iran is doing and their island is ripe for missile fortress conversion.
No doubt Taiwan is taking prodigious notes on what Iran is doing and their island is ripe for missile fortress conversion.
You'd have Japan, South Korea, Australia and India all reacting in support of Taiwan in different ways. It would be far dumber and more suicidal than the US going for regime change in IRan.
After Trump declares 'Victory!' in Iran, he'll go after Cuba next.
(Full disclosure: My predictions are almost invariably wrong.)
We are blessed to have a President who doesn’t just say Iran shouldn’t have a nuclear weapon he is doing something about it.
Sure is taking them a long time. As far back as the mid-1990's Nety was warning us that Iran was a year away from having nukes.
conveniently, Netanyahu started fearmongering about Iranian nukes right around the time that Iran and Israel stopped trading weapons.
Sure is taking them a long time. As far back as the mid-1990's Nety was warning us that Iran was a year away from having nukes.
Aren’t we tired of Iran being a year away! Israel during that time has run covert missions to sabotage the Iranians. Fast forward to now and Iran was mass producing ballistic missiles to create a deterrent against attack. This deterrent would give the Iranians enough time to take the final steps.
Aren’t we tired of Iran being a year away! Israel during that time has run covert missions to sabotage the Iranians. Fast forward to now and Iran was mass producing ballistic missiles to create a deterrent against attack. This deterrent would give the Iranians enough time to take the final steps.
I don't want Iran to have nukes.
My point is that without the actions of prior U.S. presidents Iran may have had nukes many years ago.
Of course, we all know that Nety has always been a lying warmonger, and it should go without saying that Iran wasn't a year away from having nukes in 1996.
I don't want Iran to have nukes.
My point is that without the actions of prior U.S. presidents Iran may have had nukes many years ago.
Of course, we all know that Nety has always been a lying warmonger, and it should go without saying that Iran wasn't a year away from having nukes in 1996.
Other US Presidents just kicked the can down the road. Trump is taking decisive action. We are fighting against Iran and people like you who have no clue what you’re talking about.
everybody should have nukes. best way to get these genocidal psychopaths to **** off back to their own shitpiles
see: n.korea
After Trump declares 'Victory!' in Iran, he'll go after Cuba next.
(Full disclosure: My predictions are almost invariably wrong.)
And yet, if you had the ability to vote all over again knowing what you know now and you must choose Harris or Trump, you'd vote Trump again. Make it make sense.
The Pentagon is hiding how much damage Iran has done.
I wrote this about a month ago:
I stated when the war was still very fresh that Iran would score no meaningful tactical victories. [...]Still, we actually saw that the US failed in adequately protecting bases and airfields. Initially because the Iranian and response was miscalculated, and later on because it simply lacked the capacity to do so. Similarly, protection of obvious civilian targets failed for simi
I based that assessment based on reports of abandonment of bases in a manner that told of no expectation that this would be needed, losses of several AWACS on an operational airfield (typically the most heavily protected form of base from aerial attacks), enough videos of failed interdiction attempts to make it convincing that the current counter-measures were not up to the job, and the clampdown on social media by several gulf states to punish people who posted about Iranian strikes.
I thought at the time that it was fairly evident that the US was not prepared for the type of war this would become. Not to the level where you would suffer meaningful tactical defeats, but certainly at the level where you would take expensive and demoralizing losses. "Western" nations these days have a low tolerance for such things and our political systems makes them costly in terms of elections and the likelihood of staying in power.
The important question now is whether these losses were underreported due to operational concerns or whether they were underreported to protect the personal image of Hegseth and Trump, and also whether that in turn made it more difficult for the people on the ground to get the resources they needed or develop the resources they will need.
Downplaying the capacities of your enemy is a double-edged sword. On one hand it can certainly raise morale and boost political support for what you are doing, on the other hand it has a tendency to become the accepted truth on which you operate. In war, basing your operations on wrong assessments can be very costly.
How do you explain that Iran has been 'a year away from having nukes' for about thirty years in-a-row?
I don't know the exact timeframe, but they have likely been about a year away from nuclear weapons for at least two decades. If left unchecked by all who opposed it, they would have had them by now.
The first anyone have to realize is that countries are not monolithic. The differences in political opinion exist in all countries. In authoritarian and totalitarian countries the opinion of the public matter a lot less, but political disparity still exists in decisionmaking. So, we can for brevity's sake divide Iranian decisionmakers' view on nuclear weapons into three camps: "Not a good idea, we should not make them", "A good idea, we should make them" and "A good idea, but making them would be bad for us".
The idea of diplomacy is to backchannel to the first camp, try to undermine the second camp and negotiate to win support from the the third camp. The idea of war is to eradicate the second camp. Both approaches have dangerous consequences if they fail, because whether we like it or not, this region is of critical economic importance to the entire globe. And even beyond oil, a theocratic mafia with a history of corruption and proxy warfare is not the kind of people you want to have nukes. However, war is certainly the more unforgiving of the two approaches, you get far less second chances. Which leads us to this war's unfortunate component: It has more to do with the image of current US leaders, than with the reality of what can happen. It was started to make them look tough and decisive. Iran's nuclear capacities is not the priority. The regime that has now taken over are more likely to want to nuclear weapons, not less.
A worst case scenario is a repeat of the North Korea failures, whose nuclear weapons programme advanced freely after Trump's intervention during his first term, because it would have been political awkward for his administration to admit failure after he sat down in person with Kim Jong Un. Now, Iran has more eyes on it, but this is still a very dangerous scenario.
There is a reason we should use diplomats and sit still whenever diplomacy is on the table. Sure, you get less political glory when they succeed, but you can also quietly shuffle the deck when they fail - which is very advantageous.
And yet, if you had the ability to vote all over again knowing what you know now and you must choose Harris or Trump, you'd vote Trump again. Make it make sense.
You can speculate all you want. I'm holding firm on not addressing your impossible contrary-to-fact hypothetical.
That said, I'll be happy to answer virtually any question involving a scenario that can actually occur here in Reality Land.
You can speculate all you want. I'm holding firm on not addressing your impossible contrary-to-fact hypothetical.
I know. It's because every time we finally crack that egg, you agree that you would vote for Trump.
That said, I'll be happy to answer virtually any question involving a scenario that can actually occur here in Reality Land.
Okay. 2028. Harris + whichever VP vs Donald Trump Jr + Donald Trump 4547
It’s by design. They take as much leeway as they can given the scrutiny and pressure from the western world.
Speaking of people not living in Reality Land.
Other US Presidents just kicked the can down the road. Trump is taking decisive action. We are fighting against Iran and people like you who have no clue what you’re talking about.
Weird thing to say knowing full well other presidents had agreements in place with Iran that were mostly respected by Iran. Wasn't perfect, but sure seems better than what ever the **** is happening now.
Tehran Declaration (2003): Iran agreed to full IAEA cooperation and to temporarily suspend uranium enrichment.
Paris Agreement
(2004): Iran committed to temporarily suspending enrichment and conversion activities.
Joint Plan of Action (2013): An interim deal where Iran froze parts of its program in exchange for reduced economic sanctions
