Iran War?

[crazy canuck]

One option, of course is to go all in on being American clients and joining the impending quagmire in Iran in the hopes that oil and gas starts flowing sooner.

The oil and gas to Europe goes through the Suez Canal does it not? Asia is going to be far more fucked.

It is the high prices that are the problem for everybody. I question if even relying on Russian gas will do jack fuck about that. China and India will need that gas just as much.

Also I question the political strategy of fucking over Americans voters but thinking it is ok since other country's voters will be more fucked.

Europe needs to get burning coal, using green tech, and building nuclear plants. They need to reduce their reliance on foreign energy as much as possible because guess fucking what? World wide energy supplies are not going to get more stable in the future. The Trump policies of making everything into a sphere of influence national rivalry game will fuck everybody in the world. This is only the beginning my friends.

However, this is going to massively reduce emissions...so there is that.

Europe does not face an oil shortage.  It gets most of its needs filled from US and Norwegian exports

Depends on the countries, gas being different.
Some get their oil and gas through Africa (Nigeria) and North Africa (Algeria and Libya).
Azerbaijan for gas , as well.
Not exactly great.

Yes, and they have alternative sources.  Not so much for South East Asia

[Duque de Bragança]

One option, of course is to go all in on being American clients and joining the impending quagmire in Iran in the hopes that oil and gas starts flowing sooner.

The oil and gas to Europe goes through the Suez Canal does it not? Asia is going to be far more fucked.

It is the high prices that are the problem for everybody. I question if even relying on Russian gas will do jack fuck about that. China and India will need that gas just as much.

Also I question the political strategy of fucking over Americans voters but thinking it is ok since other country's voters will be more fucked.

Europe needs to get burning coal, using green tech, and building nuclear plants. They need to reduce their reliance on foreign energy as much as possible because guess fucking what? World wide energy supplies are not going to get more stable in the future. The Trump policies of making everything into a sphere of influence national rivalry game will fuck everybody in the world. This is only the beginning my friends.

However, this is going to massively reduce emissions...so there is that.

Europe does not face an oil shortage.  It gets most of its needs filled from US and Norwegian exports

Depends on the countries, gas being different.
Some get their oil and gas through Africa (Nigeria) and North Africa (Algeria and Libya).
Azerbaijan for gas , as well.
Not exactly great.

Yes, and they have alternative sources.  Not so much for South East Asia

Indeed.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

I want off this train.

Hegseth Invokes Divine Purpose to Justify Military Might

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has imbued U.S. military actions with a Christian moral underpinning that suggests they are divinely sanctioned.

He spoke of "overwhelming force" and the U.S. military's unmatched ability to rain "death and destruction from above" on its "apocalyptic" Iranian foes.

Then, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, standing in the Pentagon, issued a call to the American people for a specific kind of wartime prayer. He asked them to pray for victory in battle and the safety of their troops.

"Every day, on bended knee, with your family, in your schools, in your churches," he said, "in the name of Jesus Christ."

At a time when the U.S. and Israeli militaries are dropping thousands of bombs on a majority-Shiite Muslim nation, the explicitly Christian nature of Mr. Hegseth's call stood out.

More than any top American military leader in recent history, Mr. Hegseth has framed U.S. military operations in the Middle East, Africa and Latin America as bigger than politics or foreign policy. Often he has imbued these actions with a Christian moral underpinning that suggests they are divinely sanctioned.

It is this view of a higher power, married to lethal American firepower, that Mr. Hegseth says gives him confidence that the United States will prevail in Iran.

"Our capabilities are better. Our will is better. Our troops are better," he said in a recent interview with CBS News's "60 Minutes." "The providence of our almighty God is there protecting those troops, and we're committed to this mission."

At the same time, Mr. Hegseth has largely avoided casting Islam as the enemy. In a news conference on Thursday, he praised America's Gulf Arab allies for supporting the war after Iran attacked them.

"We're proud to be defending with them, standing with them," Mr. Hegseth said.

The conservative branch of American Christianity that Mr. Hegseth represents has long been central to President Trump's movement, and its ideas are frequently invoked by Mr. Trump and senior members of his administration.

"I was saved by God to make America great again," Mr. Trump said at his 2025 inauguration, referencing a sense of divine mission after surviving an assassination attempt. And last month in Munich, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said America and Europe were bonded together as civilizations by "Christian faith."

Mr. Hegseth speaks often of the important role that his faith plays in his life and, in his view, the life of the United States. He prayed to "King Jesus" in the White House at a February dinner for governors. Last month, speaking to a group of largely evangelical broadcasters, he described the United States as a nation founded on Christian principles. "There's a direct through line from the Old and New Testament Christian gospels to the development of Western civilization and the United States of America," he told them.

Such sentiments have long been common among Mr. Trump's evangelical supporters, who at times have described themselves as combatants in a holy war that seeks to advance their values and restore America by reconnecting it to what some of them see as its Christian roots.

Mr. Hegseth stands out as the civilian leader of the world's most powerful military in his willingness to blur the line between a metaphorical war, waged in a spiritual domain, and actual combat. Following the murder of the Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk in September, Mr. Hegseth posted a video that mixed audio of himself reciting the Lord's Prayer with video of missiles firing, warships steaming and paratroopers falling from the sky.

"A prayer for Charlie, our warriors, and our nation," he wrote.

Earlier this month, Mr. Hegseth described countercartel operations, including U.S. military strikes that have killed at least 157 people, as part of a broader war to defend Christian nations from the forces of godless "narco communism" and tyranny.

"We face an essential test," he told defense ministers from across the Western Hemisphere, "whether our nations will be and remain Western nations with distinct characteristics, Christian nations under God, proud of our shared heritage with strong borders and prosperous people."

Mr. Hegseth's calls to prayer in the Pentagon press room and the monthly, voluntary Christian worship services that he has organized in the Pentagon auditorium are a stark departure from the way military chaplains are taught to minister to their flock, which reflects the diversity of the nation. About 70 percent of troops identify as Christian, according a 2019 study by the Congressional Research Service.

"It is one thing to say, 'We should get on our knees and pray to God,' but when you say 'to Jesus Christ our Lord,' that really narrows the field," said the Rev. William D. Razz Waff, an Episcopal priest and board-certified chaplain who served in the Army. "Chaplains are there for everyone."

Mr. Hegseth's descriptions of U.S. military actions as divinely sanctioned also run counter to the views of many prominent leaders in different Christian traditions. Cardinal Robert McElroy of Washington drew a distinction between praying for America and its military men and women, which he said he does regularly, and the moral understanding of the war that Mr. Hegseth appears to be outlining.

"In my own view in the teaching of the church, this is not a moral war, it is an immoral war, and thus I am not praying that this immoral war continues," Cardinal McElroy said in an interview. "I see a moral imperative to end this war, to have a cease-fire."

That sentiment is shared by Pope Leo XIV, who also called for an end to the fighting in Iran. "Violence can never lead to the justice, the stability and the peace that peoples are awaiting," he said.

Mr. Hegseth, for his part, reaches back to an earlier era of the Catholic church to support his view.

Tattooed on Mr. Hegseth's right biceps is the Latin phrase "Deus vult," or "God wills it," which he has described as a "battle cry" of the Crusades, the ruthless medieval wars where Christian warriors fought to take over Jerusalem from Muslim rule. Mr. Hegseth sees those battles as perhaps the most formative moment in the history of the free world.

In his book "American Crusade," published in 2020, he describes the Crusades as "bloody" and "full of unspeakable tragedy," but argues that they were justified because they saved a Christian Europe from the onslaught of Islam.

"Do you enjoy Western civilization? Freedom? Equal justice? Thank a crusader," he writes in the book. "If not for the Crusades, there would have been no Protestant Reformation or Renaissance. There would be no Europe and no America."

This is the view of God, Christianity and war that dominates Mr. Hegseth's Pentagon prayer services.

"We know that God loves. But did you know that God also hates?" Franklin Graham, the evangelist, said at a Pentagon prayer service in December.

"Do you know that God also is a God of war?" he continued, flanked by Christmas trees and a Hanukkah menorah. "Many people don't want to think about that, or forget that."

[OttoVonBismarck]

Trump mulls risky Kharg Island takeover to force Iran to open strait

Maybe my geography is failing me, but Kharg Island isn't anywhere near the Strait of Hormuz. It is hundreds of miles away.

Trump's thinking here isn't wrong in a geographic sense--it doesn't matter that Kharg Island is not near the strait. Trump's belief is that if we hold Kharg Island, Iran will be forced to negotiate on our terms.

Unlike a lot of the things Trump has said or done in relation to this war, this idea is actually not as unrealistic. Why? For reasons I don't fully understand, instead of other coastal ports on Iran proper, Kharg Island handles the final processing and export of something like 90% of Iran's exported oil. The facilities there cannot be replaced in a medium term timeline, if Iran lost control of them, it would functionally no longer have any meaningful ability to export oil.

The thinking goes this would cripple their regime, which would force them into a capitulation.

Do I think that is how it would play out? I honestly don't know. I certainly wouldn't have great confidence in it. However, Kharg is not just symbolic, nor could the regime trivially persist if they literally lose the heart of their economy and the source of almost all their foreign currency.

It is entirely possible it could work--but it wouldn't work on day one. I think there would be a very heavy Iranian operation to impose steep costs on the American forces holding the island. Remember, those forces, likely Marines as part of one of the MEUs being moved to the theater, aren't in F-35s thousands of feet in the air. They'd be down on the ground, Iran has a ton of things they could do to attack our forces there since we don't control the Iranian coast--which is only 25km away. It's one thing to shoot down drones and ballistic missiles, but much harder if it's in the range of Iran's artillery (lots of modern artillery systems operate at over 40km, I have zero idea what sort of artillery systems Iran deploys as it isn't frequently a topic of discussion about Iran's military.)

There are some bigger logical questions though--seizing Kharg Island would likely push oil over $200/barrel, it would mean Iran's oil functionally being removed from the global market and Iran very likely going full gloves off--they'll be seeking to destroy or damage every gas and oil refining facility in the gulf as long as we hold it.

If our goal is to put pressure on the Iranian regime in that way, I'm confused why we also facilitate their current export of oil--seizure of Kharg would be a vastly more escalatory act than telling Iran it can't move its tankers through the strait, something we haven't attempted to do yet afaik.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

One of the many problems I see with the "seize Kharg Island" idea is that I don't think we're really going to gain any leverage that way.  In fact, I think it will end up being counterproductive.

I think if we did seize the island, Iran is going to level it.  Yes, that denies them its facilities for oil export, but they get the propaganda boost of potentially handing the US military its greatest losses per unit time since the Korean War.  We would be better off leveling its facilities ourselves from the air.

[Valmy]

I want off this train.

In his book "American Crusade," published in 2020, he describes the Crusades as "bloody" and "full of unspeakable tragedy," but argues that they were justified because they saved a Christian Europe from the onslaught of Islam.

"Do you enjoy Western civilization? Freedom? Equal justice? Thank a crusader," he writes in the book. "If not for the Crusades, there would have been no Protestant Reformation or Renaissance. There would be no Europe and no America."

LOL The only thing the Crusades achieved was the fatal weakening of the Byzantine Empire enabling the Ottomans to dominate southeastern Europe for 400 years. I fail to see how it saved shit.

And the Muslims were soon going to be slaughtered by the Mongols anyway, they weren't marching to conquer Europe in 1095.

Is he confusing the Crusades with Sieges of Constatinople by the Caliphate or the Battle of Tours?

Kind of amazing a dude who literally tatoos Crusader shit on his body and is the Secretary of War knows so little about the actual military history of the Crusades. At least watch a few movies about the Crusades. Maybe read a comic book.

Maybe the Crusaders helped the Reconquista along in Spain. But...even there I don't think the Muslims were in any position to sweep over the Pyrenees in 1095.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Kind of amazing a dude who literally tatoos Crusader shit on his body and is the Secretary of [Defense] knows so little about the actual military history of the Crusades.

Seems to be par for the course for most far-right morons.

[viper37]

Something that has really surprised me about this whole conflict is that there have been no large-scale protests in the West about the whole thing. Certainly, no mention of it in the MSM, but even on my social media feeds, very little has been mentioned re the whole situation.

Many people who disagree with this war might think demonstrating against it could be seen as a sign of support for the murderous Iranian clerics/rulers?

Though I do take your point, I'm surprised there isn't 'Stop the War Coalition' organised ones, especially as the UK is actively involved in this war, whatever the government says.

That didn't stop protests against both Iraq wars.

I suspect something else: No foreign interference.

There's no one paying agitators to incite a crow to protest against military actions because they want it to happen.  They want the US to commit troops to the Middle East and risk getting bogged down in another forever war and likely terrorist attack for years to come.

[Jacob]

On the lack of demonstrations, as someone who demonstrated against the invasions of Iraq and Ukraine here are some of the reasons why I'm not demonstrating about Iran:

- The regime in Iran is loathsome. Iraq's regime was pretty awful also, but...

- My government is largely taking the action I want it to, not getting involved. With Iraq, I wanted my government to stay out and with Ukraine, I wanted my government to take strong action.

- There wasn't a big leading up period to build a strong sentiment and conviction about the attack.

- The local Persian populations seems supportive of the attack, and it's unclear to me what Iranians in Iran think.

- At the time of Iraq, there was a sense of "we the West" invading even if the US did most of it, and as a citizen of the West I wanted to make my voice heard. Trump's attack on Iran was made on behalf of his clique, in the name of the US only. There's no "we the West" involved, so less of an incentive to take to the streets to reject it.

[Duque de Bragança]

Maybe the Crusaders helped the Reconquista along in Spain. But...even there I don't think the Muslims were in any position to sweep over the Pyrenees in 1095.

Second Crusade in 1147 was critical in securing Lisbon for Portugal, while a failure in Palestine.
No Portugal, no Age of Discovery.

Almoravids or Almohads even stopping at the Douro would have been a disaster but very unlikely.

As for the IVth crusade, blame Venice for that disaster.

More lasting results were achieved by crusading in the Baltic than on the Med, as a matter of fact.

Lastly, getting rid of the hot heads in Europe and shipping them to the Levant was beneficial for peace inside Europe.

[viper37]

On the lack of demonstrations, as someone who demonstrated against the invasions of Iraq and Ukraine here are some of the reasons why I'm not demonstrating about Iran:

- The regime in Iran is loathsome. Iraq's regime was pretty awful also, but...

- My government is largely taking the action I want it to, not getting involved. With Iraq, I wanted my government to stay out and with Ukraine, I wanted my government to take strong action.

- There wasn't a big leading up period to build a strong sentiment and conviction about the attack.

- The local Persian populations seems supportive of the attack, and it's unclear to me what Iranians in Iran think.

- At the time of Iraq, there was a sense of "we the West" invading even if the US did most of it, and as a citizen of the West I wanted to make my voice heard. Trump's attack on Iran was made on behalf of his clique, in the name of the US only. There's no "we the West" involved, so less of an incentive to take to the streets to reject it.

At the time of Iraq, most countries in the West sayed out of it despite the US trying to drum up support.

US, UK, Australia and Poland sent troops, although the US submitted a list of 49 countries, reduced to 48 after Costa Rica objected to its unwilling inclusion.

Edit #2:
Just wanted to add that with all the Euro-Wheenie discussions on P*dox forums, it seemed pretty clear that most European countries were against the war and laughed the US out of the UN.



Extract from Wikipedia:

The list of coalition members provided by the White House included several nations that did not intend to participate in actual military operations. Some of them, such as Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau and Solomon Islands, did not have standing armies. However, through the Compact of Free Association, citizens of the Marshall Islands, Palau and the Federated States of Micronesia are allowed to serve in the US military. The members of these island nations have deployed in a combined Pacific force consisting of Guamanian, Hawaiian and Samoan reserve units. They have been deployed twice to Iraq. The government of one country, the Solomon Islands, listed by the White House as a member of the coalition, was apparently unaware of any such membership and promptly denied it.^[4] According to a 2010 study, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau (and Tonga and the Solomon Islands to a lesser extent) were all economically dependent on economic aid from the United States, and thus had an economic incentive to join the Coalition of the Willing.^[5]

In December 2008, University of Illinois Professor Scott Althaus reported that he had learned that the White House was editing and back-dating revisions to the list of countries in the coalition.^[6][7] Althaus found that some versions of the list had been entirely removed from the record, and that others contradicted one another, as opposed to the procedure of archiving original documents and supplementing them with later revisions and updates.^[2]

By August 2009, all non-U.S./UK coalition members had withdrawn from Iraq.^[8] As a result, the Multinational Force – Iraq was renamed and reorganized to United States Forces – Iraq as of 1 January 2010. Thus the Coalition of the Willing came to an official end.

I remember being as equally for the war in 2003 as in 1990 as I believed the US to be there for nation building and Keynes convinced me the numbers didn't add up for the WMD part.

edit:

Also, in 1990, there were huge protests everywhere, including in Quebec and Canada against the war.  People were having anti war banners an chanting Let's give peace a chance in the streets of Montreal and Ottawa while our CF-18 were bombing Iraqi forces in Kuweit.

The protests were as equally short as was the war. But there were protests all over the world at the time.
https://libcom.org/article/1990-1991-resistance-gulf-war

[Legbiter]

Here's a map of the location of Kharg island.



The naval task force would have to go through Hormuz, dodging anti-ship missiles, naval drones, regular ole' drones and direct shore fire from tube artillery. Once through the strait, your task force has to steam ahead about...300 miles before you reach the island. Once there you execute a contested amphibious landing in a drone-infested airspace, secure the objectives and then have to sit there while getting pounded from the mainland.

No element of speed or surprise, the Iranians would know you were coming before you even reached Hormuz, russian and Chinese intelligence would make sure of that.

[Valmy]

I mean we protested before the war was going to happen and when there was a vote on whether Congress would support going to war.

Now the war happened without any discussion and there is no vote in Congress.

There is going to be a protest in about a week. I am sure the war will feature.

[Tonitrus]

Here's a map of the location of Kharg island.

The video below shows a way of doing a Marine invasion without having to transit the SoH.  Not sure the aerial method shown would be much better, though. (an extreme cynic like myself might also worry on whether Osprey accidents take out more Marines than the Iranians)

As a USAF puke, I don't know nuthin' about nuthin' about Marine landing operations...but an impulsive Kharg island operation gives me bad Gallipoli vibes.  I don't doubt we'd take it...but those Marines holding it will likely get rained upon.

Landing/taking/holding any of the Iranian mainland might be worse...the IRGC would probably be happy to throw human waves at them.  And that feels like a disaster for both sides...we'd be under a lot of constant pressure (with massive demands on supply/ordinance), and the likely Iranian casualties (from air strikes on ground force movements) would be immense.

[viper37]

No element of speed or surprise, the Iranians would know you were coming before you even reached Hormuz, russian and Chinese intelligence would make sure of that.

I'll give credit to Russian and Chinese intelligence.  They have good internet connections with English literate people able to read Truth Social.

Also, they have excellent psychiatrists to help their people after long term ops.