Nethanyahu is apparently saying that with US help, they can "finish the job" with Iran.
How far do you think that conflict is going to escalate?
Quote from: Jacob on February 16, 2025, 02:00:06 PMNethanyahu is apparently saying that with US help, they can "finish the job" with Iran.
Seems naive. I don't think Iran will help Israel and America to take over Gaza, even if the Ayatollahs are cut in on the golf club resorts.
Hard to say, he's already proven to be more crazier and more erratic than his first term. Almost anything could happen
I'm guessing the Israelis are going to do air strikes in Iran this year. The Iranians have had a rough last year, and they've shown that they have no real way to respond to US or Israeli attacks. The failure to respond to the Soleimani killing has left them wide open to attack. They could always do a terrorist attack, but unless it is against a military target they will suffer considerable blow back. And hitting a US or Israeli military target would be tough. The best bet would be a US military base in the Middle East, Africa or the rest of Asia, but those are pretty well guarded. They pulled if off 40 years ago though... Hitting a target in Europe would be... unwise.
Quote from: Jacob on February 16, 2025, 02:00:06 PMNethanyahu is apparently saying that with US help, they can "finish the job" with Iran.
How far do you think that conflict is going to escalate?
The sanctions against Russia are already unofficially lifted and they are free to do commerce with anyone unimpeded.
The US has announced 8 billion$ cuts to the Pentagon, and that includes Africa, where Russia anc China were already moving in to displace the US since 2016.
My guess is China will sell military hardware to Russia and they will resell it to Iran. There's no CIA to watch what is going on in Russia or China anymore and no other intelligence agency with a budget to watch what is going on either if there is US military secrets being stolen and resold to enemies of the US.
This will maximize damage and casualties, create more chaos. If Iran can get its hands on some nukes, or even dirty nukes, it will be fun time for Israel to stop a real terror attack. There likely won't be anymore deployment of a carrier strike group in the Red Sea by this summer.
It'll go as far as necessary to keep netanyahu out of jail.
Might as well keep this seat warm...
I expect the US to attack within the next 3 weeks or so. There is nothing the Iranians can do to prevent this short of Khamenei resigning.
Get a hold of the Epstein files and blackmail Trump?
It's kind of interesting (when putting aside the human and moral implications).
Between the impending action in Iran, the action in Venezuela, and Trump's "Board of Peace" it very much feels like taking internet pundit, over-simplified "why doesn't the US just do X" being taken from internet message boards and acted on in real life.
It'll be very interesting to see how it plays out.
Quote from: Jacob on February 20, 2026, 07:11:46 PMIt's kind of interesting (when putting aside the human and moral implications).
Between the impending action in Iran, the action in Venezuela, and Trump's "Board of Peace" it very much feels like taking internet pundit, over-simplified "why doesn't the US just do X" being taken from internet message boards and acted on in real life.
It'll be very interesting to see how it plays out.
God forbid anyone with any real authority/power is reading our forum. :P
Winter Olympics finish on Sunday so not before then. The F-22's are in place as of 2 days ago, no idea how long the stealth coating lasts before they have to go back to specialized hangars in the US. :hmm:
Why do you think the "stealth coating" doesn't last?
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on February 20, 2026, 09:35:53 PMWhy do you think the "stealth coating" doesn't last?
It's because of Executive Order BS.2112, which stipulates that all air force aircraft must now be regularly polished to a shinny finish, it's how the CIC like to see them.
Quote from: PJL on February 20, 2026, 07:07:46 PMI expect the US to attack within the next 3 weeks or so. There is nothing the Iranians can do to prevent this short of Khamenei resigning.
There are plenty they can do. There are all kinds of ways to pay tribute to the Trump family.
QuoteQuoteI expect the US to attack within the next 3 weeks or so. There is nothing the Iranians can do to prevent this short of Khamenei resigning.
There are plenty they can do. There are all kinds of ways to pay tribute to the Trump family.
'Render unto Caesar ....'
Quote from: Jacob on February 20, 2026, 07:11:46 PMIt's kind of interesting (when putting aside the human and moral implications).
Between the impending action in Iran, the action in Venezuela, and Trump's "Board of Peace" it very much feels like taking internet pundit, over-simplified "why doesn't the US just do X" being taken from internet message boards and acted on in real life.
It'll be very interesting to see how it plays out.
I wouldn't even be surprised if some of Trumps ideas were coming from social media. Maybe his plan to run Venezuela...
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn5gk15rr70o
QuoteTrump curious why Iran has not 'capitulated', US envoy Witkoff says
In his interview with Fox News, Witkoff said: "I don't want to use the word 'frustrated'... because he [Trump] understands he's got plenty of alternatives, but he's curious as to why they haven't... I don't want to use the word 'capitulated', but why they haven't capitulated."
"Why, under this sort of pressure, with the amount of sea power and naval power that we have over there, why haven't they come to us and said, 'We profess that we don't want a weapon, so here's what we're prepared to do?'"
"And yet it's hard to sort of get them to that place," Trump's envoy added.
I know we didn't need more proof...but he is such a fucking idiot.
Witkoff advising Trump, blind leading the blind without either being able to move their arms or legs.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 22, 2026, 03:11:18 PMWitkoff advising Trump, blind leading the blind without either being able to move their arms or legs.
My thinking it is more like Bozo the Clown leading Ronald McDonald.
Quote from: Bauer on February 21, 2026, 11:37:24 AMI wouldn't even be surprised if some of Trumps ideas were coming from social media. Maybe his plan to run Venezuela...
Close: Grok.
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 22, 2026, 03:20:11 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on February 22, 2026, 03:11:18 PMWitkoff advising Trump, blind leading the blind without either being able to move their arms or legs.
My thinking it is more like Bozo the Clown leading Ronald McDonald.
The other boneheaded thing about those comments...it is pretty much signaling to the other side that the entire thing is likely just a giant bluff (which it may very well be).
Quote from: viper37 on February 22, 2026, 04:32:16 PMQuote from: Bauer on February 21, 2026, 11:37:24 AMI wouldn't even be surprised if some of Trumps ideas were coming from social media. Maybe his plan to run Venezuela...
Close: Grok.
Hmm well it is probably more intelligent than regular x users ;)
"I don't want to use the word 'capitulated', but why they haven't capitulated."
How can anyone take a "diplomat" seriously when he can't even control the words that come out of his mouth.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 22, 2026, 03:11:18 PMWitkoff advising Trump, blind leading the blind without either being able to move their arms or legs.
But together they can grift billions.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 22, 2026, 05:51:56 PM"I don't want to use the word 'capitulated', but why they haven't capitulated."
How can anyone take a "diplomat" seriously when he can't even control the words that come out of his mouth.
Or keep putins cock out of it
Israel and the United States have started bombing Iran.
Yeah it's kicked off.
Quote from: Zanza on February 28, 2026, 02:45:22 AMIsrael and the United States have started bombing Iran.
The asshole with his board of peace and should have got a peace prize...
The wicked Iranian regime killed thousands of Iranians, so we are going to punish them by killing Iranians and bombing the nuclear sites we obliterated a few months ago.
I don't see the regime falling unless the Israelis have cut a deal with a large faction within it. Maybe the plan is simply to utterly trash the place, blow up all their military factories then declare victory and go home. The horse archer style of international interventions. :hmm:
It's a full on regional war now since Iran is shooting missiles into Bahrain, Quatar and UAE.
Behold Trump, the bringer of Peace.
At least this time the US has a plan for handling the situation in the medium and long term. They wouldn't make the same mistake twice.
So, how are the Saudi oil fields doing? Looks like Alberta might have just solved its deficit problems.
Quote from: HVC on February 28, 2026, 05:01:41 AMBehold Trump, the bringer of Peace.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HCPFg4gbEAQKdbA?format=jpg&name=small)
Trump has decided he'd rather be feared if he can't be loved.
Quote from: The Brain on February 28, 2026, 05:05:38 AMAt least this time the US has a plan for handling the situation in the medium and long term. They wouldn't make the same mistake twice.
^_^
-_-
They do have a plan:
1. Collapse the Iranian regime for not paying tribute and because Bibi does.
2.???
3. Receive tribute from next regime
1. Start war, stay out of prison.
2. There's no second point.
Quote from: HVC on February 28, 2026, 05:01:41 AMBehold Trump, the bringer of Peace.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant? :P
The powerplant supplying Kharg Island was apparently bombed. So no foreign currency for the regime. Rumors the IRGC commander himself was killed plus the defense minister. This evil regime is so comically inept.
QuoteThe powerplant supplying Kharg Island was apparently bombed. So no foreign currency for the regime. Rumors the IRGC commander himself was killed plus the defense minister. This evil regime is so comically inept.
I don't know they've managed to kill the defence minister of a foreign power.
Two national leaders who need a war to stay out of prison, start a war.
Or you can go with the stated reasons which are to destroy a nuclear capability that the orange one said was already destroyed, or the alternative reason which is to kill tens of thousands of Iranians because the Iranian government killed thousands of Iranians.
I have seen reported it as well:
Quotehttps://languish.org/forums/14:54 Le ministre iranien de la Défense et un commandant des Gardiens de la révolution auraient été tués dans les frappes Le ministre iranien de la Défense, Amir Nasirzadeh, et le commandant des Gardiens révolutionnaires, Mohammad Pakpour, auraient été tués lors d'attaques israéliennes, ont déclaré deux sources proches des opérations militaires israéliennes et une source régionale."]14:54 Le ministre iranien de la Défense et un commandant des Gardiens de la révolution auraient été tués dans les frappes Le ministre iranien de la Défense, Amir Nasirzadeh, et le commandant des Gardiens révolutionnaires, Mohammad Pakpour, auraient été tués lors d'attaques israéliennes, ont déclaré deux sources proches des opérations militaires israéliennes et une source régionale.
https://www.lefigaro.fr/international/en-direct-iran-israel-lance-une-attaque-preventive-plusieurs-explosions-recensees-a-teheran-20260228 (https://www.lefigaro.fr/international/en-direct-iran-israel-lance-une-attaque-preventive-plusieurs-explosions-recensees-a-teheran-20260228)
Israeli sources and a vaguely defined "regional source".
So is this a war or just airstrikes between friends?
Three years down the line, what's the last or least likely place to be bombed?
I was thinking, maybe the California governor's office, but no, more unlikely, but still a possibility, is the Pope's Vatican residency.
Then the answer dawned on me, the Kremlin.
So what are your betting odds for various 'targets' of the insanity?
Any takers for the Canadian PM's home?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 28, 2026, 10:12:18 AMSo is this a war or just airstrikes between friends?
It's the early days of ''god's' wrath from above', as trumpism hollows out ever more US institutions, increasingly the only efficient one left is the US military and navy, so ever more often those will be used to demonstrate trump's magnificent power and manliness.
War aim: Nobel peace prize when Trump stops attacking?
He's padding his stats on the number of wars he stops
God, what a fucking dick move now. Had the chance before the opposition got murdered.
While I'm always happy at the prospect of bad things for the Iranian regime, I don't see any realistic scenario where intensive airstrikes results in regime change.
I think the possibility exists of crippling Iran's IRGC so much that the country becomes destabilized, but at the end of the day the guys with the guns are still the ones loyal to the Ayatollah. Iran's opposition are all disorganized, unarmed civilians. That's not a basis for any kind of regime change. If Iran had any sort of history of armed insurgency that'd be one thing, but the only armed insurgent groups I'm aware of in Iran are all peripheral out in mostly unsettled border regions and tied to small ethnic conflicts not ideological regime change.
Has the US positioned assets for putting boots on the ground? I haven't followed things closely, but my assumption is they haven't.
No. There's been a naval and air power build up. The sort of invasion force to put any serious ground forces in place could not occur in secret, it would instead look like the pre-2003 invasion of Iraq build up, which took months and saw hundreds of thousands of infantry staged in the region. Nothing like that has happened, and if you take JD Vance's word to be worth anything, he was saying as recently as this week that "any sort of U.S. ground presence" was off the table in Iran.
Another important element of staging a large ground invasion force--it would be difficult and probably impossible to do without an AUMF and ensuing funding legislation from Congress, moving ships around is accounted for in the baseline budget, building a true invasion force is not covered by existing appropriations.
Quote from: Jacob on February 28, 2026, 11:19:49 AMHas the US positioned assets for putting boots on the ground? I haven't followed things closely, but my assumption is they haven't.
Iran has twice the population of Iraq, plus much more rugged geography. It's significantly less amenable to rapid mechanized advances I'd assume. I guess you could secure the coast?
(https://www.bluegreenatlas.com/maps/relief_map_of_iran.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/Y40rBgYV/image.png)
I have a terrible feeling there is no plan beyond "hope Iran just collapses". Iran has around 4 times the population of 2003 Iraq, and we couldn't pacify that country very well. To occupy Iran would require a draft.
What is the plan if Iran starts attacking ships in the Strait of Hormuz?
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 28, 2026, 10:41:29 AMHe's padding his stats on the number of wars he stops
:lol:
Very anemic response from Iran. A few Shaheds, a handful of medium range missiles per intermittent salvo that only serves to piss off the Gulf Arabs. Everything sent towards Israel intercepted. No massive barrages, their C&C must've been effectively suppressed. :hmm:
Quote from: Legbiter on February 28, 2026, 12:30:13 PMVery anemic response from Iran. A few Shaheds, a handful of medium range missiles per intermittent salvo that only serves to piss of the Gulf Arabs. Everything sent towards Israel intercepted. No massive barrages, their C&C must've been effectively suppressed. :hmm:
Yeah? What massive resources could a C&C deploy? They can't do shit unless we send in ground forces. But that has been the case for every conflict we have been in since the Korean War.
Quote from: Syt on February 28, 2026, 11:53:20 AMIran has twice the population of Iraq, plus much more rugged geography. It's significantly less amenable to rapid mechanized advances I'd assume. I guess you could secure the coast?
Yeah, I don't think invading Iran is a good idea for the US for a number of reasons, and I don't expect that's what the Trump regime is planning. I agree with those who think it's more of a "bomb and hope they collapse and/ or make concessions that look good on social media" thing.
Still, I'm trying to understand the US force dispositions. If they haven't pre-positioned much in the way of ground assets (and I don't think they have?), then obviously boots on the ground is much less likely than if they have.
Quote from: Legbiter on February 28, 2026, 12:30:13 PMVery anemic response from Iran. A few Shaheds, a handful of medium range missiles per intermittent salvo that only serves to piss off the Gulf Arabs. Everything sent towards Israel intercepted. No massive barrages, their C&C must've been effectively suppressed. :hmm:
Too many Shaheds sold to Russia for use against Ukraine? :hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on February 28, 2026, 12:32:38 PMYeah? What massive resources could a C&C deploy? They can't do shit unless we send in ground forces. But that has been the case for every conflict we have been in since the Korean War
Sorry I meant Iranian command-and-control. As in they're mostly dead or stuffing suitcases full of loot before GTFO of the country. Kharg Island is offline, the regime artery has been cut. Good luck making payroll for the security services that keep the clerics in place.
Quote from: Legbiter on February 28, 2026, 01:07:02 PMQuote from: Valmy on February 28, 2026, 12:32:38 PMYeah? What massive resources could a C&C deploy? They can't do shit unless we send in ground forces. But that has been the case for every conflict we have been in since the Korean War
Sorry I meant Iranian command-and-control. As in they're mostly dead or stuffing suitcases full of loot before GTFO of the country. Kharg Island is offline, the regime artery has been cut. Good luck making payroll for the security services that keep the clerics in place.
I know. I was questioning how their response would be significantly different otherwise.
The pro-Palestinian movement has now decided that Iranians should not be killed, so there is an upside to this at least.
Quote from: Valmy on February 28, 2026, 01:37:10 PMI know. I was questioning how their response would be significantly different otherwise.
Coordinated medium-range missile barrages and shahed drones numbering a couple hundred each to overwhelm and deplete AA defense. Day after day, week after week. Dubai looking like Bakhmut after a week. LRMs causing havoc in Israel, etc.
Turns out the core competency of the regime is machinegunning unarmed protesters. :hmm: Either the regime goes to play Battlefield with Assad in Moscow or they manage to hang on and continue killing their own people (same old). :hmm:
If the regime actually falls I gotta hand it to Trump, he has an animalistic sense for weakness.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 28, 2026, 01:56:40 PMThe pro-Palestinian movement has now decided that Iranians should not be killed, so there is an upside to this at least.
(https://media.tenor.com/7M4xlWgZotsAAAA1/austin-powers-dr-evil.webp)
From the Beeb.
QuoteIsraeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has just said that there's growing signs that Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is "gone".
^_^
Quote from: Tamas on February 28, 2026, 02:44:45 PMQuote from: Razgovory on February 28, 2026, 01:56:40 PMThe pro-Palestinian movement has now decided that Iranians should not be killed, so there is an upside to this at least.
(https://media.tenor.com/7M4xlWgZotsAAAA1/austin-powers-dr-evil.webp)
Right, don't bring up Israel in the Israel is bombing Iran thread. It might upset Zoupa and CC.
QuoteIsraeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has just said that there's growing signs that Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is "gone".
Wouldn't matter much...there are plenty of ayatollahs.
Interestingly/oddly...among all the headlines of the attack, I've seen all of "Israel strikes Iran (with U.S. help)", "U.S. strikes Iran (with Israeli help)" and "U.S. and Israel strike Iran".
All I could think of is those patriot missiles and tomahawks would be incredibly more useful to Ukraine. Then the DoD will say sorry Kyiv we can't sell you interceptors for your batteries we gotta replenish our own stocks. Result is more dead Ukrainian civilians.
I put the chance of successful regime change from airstrikes at <1%. It'd be nice...but I think there are too many layers of on-the-ground security forces who appear to pretty much have a monopoly on weaponry and every incentive to hold on to power.
Quote from: Zoupa on February 28, 2026, 03:02:24 PMAll I could think of is those patriot missiles and tomahawks would be incredibly more useful to Ukraine. Then the DoD will say sorry Kyiv we can't sell you interceptors for your batteries we gotta replenish our own stocks. Result is more dead Ukrainian civilians.
Yeah, PAC-3 will be an endangered species when hostilities cease. It's being produced in hilariously small artisanal quantities.
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 28, 2026, 03:00:27 PMWouldn't matter much...there are plenty of ayatollahs.
Interestingly/oddly...among all the headlines of the attack, I've seen all of "Israel strikes Iran (with U.S. help)", "U.S. strikes Iran (with Israeli help)" and "U.S. and Israel strike Iran".
The regime is now cut off from any oil revenue. Doesn't matter if they find another Ayatollah, the Praetorian Guard has to be paid. This is not some gentle benevolent regime change operation, this is Timur making an example of Khwarezm.
Quote from: Legbiter on February 28, 2026, 03:23:15 PMQuote from: Tonitrus on February 28, 2026, 03:00:27 PMWouldn't matter much...there are plenty of ayatollahs.
Interestingly/oddly...among all the headlines of the attack, I've seen all of "Israel strikes Iran (with U.S. help)", "U.S. strikes Iran (with Israeli help)" and "U.S. and Israel strike Iran".
The regime is now cut off from any oil revenue. Doesn't matter if they find another Ayatollah, the Praetorian Guard has to be paid. This is not some gentle benevolent regime change operation, this is Timur making an example of Khwarezm.
Sure, and the Praetorian guard will be able to cannibalize the host for years. The ayatollahs are mostly symbolic figureheads to give legitimacy to the "Islamic Revolutionary" part. The Praetorian guard was already in effective control, and will still be in control.
Sure, they won't get paid...but who will they turn on? Themselves? Nah.
The operation name is also dumbly dangerous. "Epic Fury" is too easy to be lampooned as "Epic Fail".
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 28, 2026, 03:26:31 PMSure, and the Praetorian guard will be able to cannibalize the host for years. The ayatollahs are mostly symbolic figureheads to give legitimacy to the "Islamic Revolutionary" part. The Praetorian guard was already in effective control, and will still be in control.
Sure, they won't get paid...but who will they turn on? Themselves? Nah.
Not disagreeing with you really. We are on the same page, the regime may well just endure even if you end up having to elevate the janitor to Ayatollah/IRGC). But it will rule over a wasteland that will make Somalia seem modern by comparison. It will not fund a Shia axis of resistance, Tehran may not have electricity except for a couple of hours like Cuba. Millions will try to get to anywhere else with say, clean drinking water.
Best case scenario is a military junta takes over who's leader charms Trump enough the US decides to relax sanctions. Rubio takes over as temporary Shāhanshāh.
Khamenei was/is also 86...they probably already had a guy or three in mind as his successor.
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 28, 2026, 03:56:45 PMKhamenei was/is also 86...they probably already had a guy or three in mind as his successor.
The intended successor died two years ago in a helicopter crash. Pretty much any other potential successor, Khameni's son, the head of the IRGC, the head of their intelligence service, and another 10 senior leaders are dead.
Iranians are overwhelmingly secular, and even amongst the shias, the regime represented a fringe millennial cult. Iran's economy had totally collapsed over the last year, mainly because they ran out of water due to mismanagement. This is why the protest had gotten so strong in the last few months. Heck, the President of Iran admitted that they didn't have any solutions to the problem and that Tehran might have to be abandoned.
The oil export money to pay off their supporters was the only real source of revenue left and with that gone they're pretty much done.
If the objective was to strengthen the internal opposition, then the strikes should have been US only and back in early January. It could have made a difference then, and validated Trump's pledge to protect the protestors.
Striking now and with the Israelis in the apparent lead, delegitimizes any internal force that would align with the US or use the strikes as a basis for anti-regime action.
I guess the question one has—is the reason Iran is so hostile to the West because they have a theocratic form of government or is it because they have a revolutionary government founded in opposition to the West?
There's a whole clerical caste in Iran, and they have a process for naming a new Ayatollah. Finding a replacement in that sense is easy. However, the only other time Iran had this transition, they named Khamenei who had long clearly been the successor and who was deeply entrenched in leadership in the revolutionary movement and had been President of Iran.
As in all such regimes the real power are the guys with weapons, they are not likely to make a random cleric who isn't already a significant leader of the regime into the Grand Ayatollah—-a position of considerable constitutional power.
Seems like you may see some sort of military leader explicitly in charge for a while.
"Hopefully, the IRGC and Police will peacefully merge with the Iranian Patriots, and work together as a unit to bring back the Country to the Greatness it deserves"
-Donald J. Trump
Well folks that's the "plan"
From the same people that brought you the "Let's grab Maduro and Then What?" plan for Venezuela.
Remember he said they were going to run Venezuela though :hmm:
What I'm really wondering about now is if terrorism starts rekindling. Any chance Iran has sleeper cells ?
Quote from: Jacob on February 28, 2026, 11:19:49 AMHas the US positioned assets for putting boots on the ground? I haven't followed things closely, but my assumption is they haven't.
I've no idea if this is the case now but I saw something last week comparing the amount of resources the US had moved ino the region. It is vast. But it is comparable with what Clinton used to bomb Saddam in the 90s, not the Gulf Wars or the like.
This whole assassination/kidnapping strategy with world leader or other state actors seems a significant shift. Obviously Israel and the US (and other states) have conducted military assassinations in the past but they have generally been of terrorists or dissidents or similar, but all non-state actors. With Soleimani, this attack, Caracas it seems the taboo against striking leaders and significant officials from other states (and particularly "sovereigns") has gone. I'm not sure where that leads us but it strikes me as a risky shift in world politics - not least because I suspect one of the reasons to avoid it in the past is possibly what OvB is pointing out - who succeeds? What comes next sems highly unpredictable and while I think there were forces in the regime in Venezuela in the know, I'm far less sure that'll be the case here.
I'd add from a European perspective this is not good - but there's nothing Europe can do to actually influence things becaue no power. But we should at least prepare for it - as an energy poor neighbouring region whose politics has already been destabilised by refugee flows (we my be depending more than ever on the good graces and effectiveness of Ankara).
Edit: I should add on the killing heads of state etc point - my assumption there is that this shift doesn't reflect a change in capability/capacity but self-imposed restraint. That this is the sort of thing the US (and perhaps some others) would have been able to do for various heads of state at various points in the past but have chosen not to. It is possible, but it seems unlikely to me, that it's only something they're able to do now for some reason.
DJT does not want to stop Iran's oil exports. Oil is globally traded and if the Chinese get less Iranian oil, they have to bid up the price on the world market.
DJT wants to show that the killed the bad guy and then find someone to do a "deal" with. I.e. someone who will say that they will let US oil companies in and stop the nuclear program. It does not matter whether any of this actually happens as long as someone will get on TV and say the right words.
So the plan is to deal with the IRGC and the rest of the Iranian siloviki, right over the heads of whatever ragtag Iranian opposition might speak up, just like he has sought to deal with the PSUV and has humiliated Machado. That fits the policy objective which is keep oil prices low no matter what and make things as smooth as possible for the kind of corrupt big business corporatism he favors.
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 28, 2026, 03:32:36 PMThe operation name is also dumbly dangerous. "Epic Fury" is too easy to be lampooned as "Epic Fail".
"Epstein Fury" is currently my second favorite.
Had to go to the dentist and was 20 minutes late in spite of leaving early due to large throngs of anti-regime demonstrators. The news said 45 000 locally, and more than 100 000 in Toronto.
As for what happens next, I have no idea. Trump and his advisors obviously subscribe to the swing-your-big-stick-around school of foreign policy, so I expect they'll keep doing it until such a time as it backfires.
Venezuela didn't, so far at least. Will the action in Iran backfire? Time will tell
Sheilbh's point on declaring open season on leaders is interesting. I wonder where it will lead.
I don't really know that leaders have ever been truly "sacrosanct", I think there's always been a willingness to kill them if the conditions were right. I think it's just generally been the case that there was recognition that killing an individual leader is unlikely to produce desired outcomes if it occurs in a vacuum, and certain leaders America has historically wanted dead might have been able to impose immense counterattacks.
There's some obvious examples--several of the Soviet Premiers at various times there was probably a desire by the American President to see that person dead, but the USSR could respond with nuclear weapons and killing a Soviet Premier doesn't make the USSR go away. They actually had a pretty decent process of replacing their top guy.
Saddam before the Iraq War I think the view was he had a long line of succession. He had at least one son who was absolutely positioned to take over. After that Saddam had a number of very high ranking generals who could have viably taken over without serious trouble. Almost all of those people did end up dead, but it was once we'd actually started the invasion. I assume outside the kinetic action of the war, there was an open question as to whether or not a surgical strike would have been able to get them all.
Bush was also concerned with having an American friendly regime, even if he had been able to take out the top half dozen Ba'athists, it wouldn't necessarily be any more likely that a pro-American ends up in charge.
With Iran I assume both the first and second Ayatollahs were considered for killing since at least 1980, but I think there are a number of reasons it was never tried before now.
Right after the revolution I think Reagan didn't want to risk something like Carter did in the failed hostage rescue, in a direct conflict with Iran, that could have been a huge political loss if it turned into a boondoggle. Reagan was also concerned with the more important conflict with the Soviets, and Vietnam's memory loomed large in that era--I think there were just too many uncertainties and bigger fish to fry.
Remember, the U.S. had just had a very pro-U.S. Shah that they thought ruled Iran with an iron fist. His regime fell so rapidly I think it instilled a lot of self doubt about the U.S. ability to monitor the situation on the ground there and likely made the U.S. doubtful any sort of puppet it might attempt to install would be able to survive without essentially a permanent U.S. security backing, which is the sort of Vietnam-esque commitment we were still stringently avoiding in that era.
As both the Cold War and the specter of Vietnam receded, I think the Ayatollah basically got another 20 years because of how badly the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan went, it made military adventurism in the Middle East a toxic political proposition.
Additionally, during that time Iran built a much feared network of militant groups all around the Middle East, and I think there were fears any attempts to take out Iran's government would result in the mass activation of these forces, imperiling Israel and other U.S. allies.
I think one of the things that made this most recent operation seem acceptable to at least some national security experts (my guess is Trump had at least some "adults in the room" that agreed this was a good gamble to take), is the Gaza War. Israel ended up more or less neutering Iran's axis of terror and then exposed Iran's air defense capabilities as being a paper tiger and Israel's ability to rule Iran's skies at will for over 10 days last year likely changed a lot of the thinking on Iranian capabilities with the professional national security types.
I would still guess no contemporary President or even possible President other than Trump does this--because even while I think others would have agreed with the assessment the Ayatollah was gettable, I think most would have serious concerns about what comes next.
The reality is this--Iran has been a revolutionary regime for almost 50 years, its leader was a man who was in his mid 80s. If killing a man in his mid 80s was enough to actually cause regime change, one questions if the regime's fall was almost imminent in any case.
But of course--we have no real indication his death will cause a serious regime change.
I think the Russian weakness and China's not actually interested in being a countermeasure to Imperialism is enabling this behaviour by the USA.
Quote from: Jacob on February 28, 2026, 07:50:15 PMHad to go to the dentist and was 20 minutes late in spite of leaving early due to large throngs of anti-regime demonstrators. The news said 45 000 locally, and more than 100 000 in Toronto.
As for what happens next, I have no idea. Trump and his advisors obviously subscribe to the swing-your-big-stick-around school of foreign policy, so I expect they'll keep doing it until such a time as it backfires.
Venezuela didn't, so far at least. Will the action in Iran backfire? Time will tell
Sheilbh's point on declaring open season on leaders is interesting. I wonder where it will lead.
I imagine it wouldn't be too hard to kill a fat ass on a golf course with a drone. All it would take is some people with expertise in bomb making and drone control and a bit of cash.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 28, 2026, 10:01:52 PMI imagine it wouldn't be too hard to kill a fat ass on a golf course with a drone. All it would take is some people with expertise in bomb making and drone control and a bit of cash.
There are easier ways to kill random fatasses on gold courses than using jury-rigger kamikaze drones.
Considering that kamikaze drones are being used in industrial quantities in Ukraine, I am almost surprised that random drone assassinations haven't already become more common.
Eventually that knowledge will spread out of Ukraine. Could we see gang hits with kamikaze drones flying through open windows soon?
Quote from: grumbler on February 28, 2026, 10:40:56 PMQuote from: Razgovory on February 28, 2026, 10:01:52 PMI imagine it wouldn't be too hard to kill a fat ass on a golf course with a drone. All it would take is some people with expertise in bomb making and drone control and a bit of cash.
There are easier ways to kill random fatasses on gold courses than using jury-rigger kamikaze drones.
Yeah, I'm not thinking random fat asses. This fat asses has been remarkably hard to kill. The Ukrainians smuggled in or built a bunch of drones that destroyed several Russian bombers deep within Russia. There is no reason a country like Iran couldn't do the same thing
I have to imagine said fatass travels with radio scramblers in tow
Quote from: HVC on March 01, 2026, 01:02:35 AMI have to imagine said fatass travels with radio scramblers in tow
Fiberoptic drones are currently used by both sides in the Ukraine war which you can't scramble. Russia could sell/lose a few off a truck.
I am sure national leadership protective services have had lots of agonizing meetings on the whole topic.
Quote from: Fate on March 01, 2026, 01:18:17 AMQuote from: HVC on March 01, 2026, 01:02:35 AMI have to imagine said fatass travels with radio scramblers in tow
Fiberoptic drones are currently used by both sides in the Ukraine war which you can't scramble. Russia could sell/lose a few off a truck.
Why would Russia want to kill their best asset? Whether he's corrupted or just corrupt he's a godsend for Russia.
Quote from: Bauer on February 28, 2026, 11:31:04 PMEventually that knowledge will spread out of Ukraine. Could we see gang hits with kamikaze drones flying through open windows soon?
It's already happened in Mexico. Cartel wars used fpv drones to strike rival members.
Quote from: Bauer on February 28, 2026, 11:31:04 PMEventually that knowledge will spread out of Ukraine. Could we see gang hits with kamikaze drones flying through open windows soon?
Mexican gangs have been using drones to off people, apoarently
Decapitation of the evil Iranian regime is great. Let's hope that something good arises from that.
A win for the Russians as oil prices are going to rise. A lot.
Trump has just ensured that they have the funds needed.
Quote from: Zanza on March 01, 2026, 04:56:36 AMDecapitation of the evil Iranian regime is great. Let's hope that something good arises from that.
I'd mostly be concerned that after dismantling the government infrastructure and getting rid of a number of senior leaders (good riddance to them) this turns into another civil war quagmire.
Quote from: Syt on March 01, 2026, 07:25:50 AMQuote from: Zanza on March 01, 2026, 04:56:36 AMDecapitation of the evil Iranian regime is great. Let's hope that something good arises from that.
I'd mostly be concerned that after dismantling the government infrastructure and getting rid of a number of senior leaders (good riddance to them) this turns into another civil war quagmire.
and lets not forget they border Afghanistan too...
The ongoing Pakistani blowback from Afghanistan is really interesting too.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 01, 2026, 07:55:48 AMThe ongoing Pakistani blowback from Afghanistan is really interesting too.
Is this the most predictable betrayal in history?
Anyways, an oil tanker was hit off of Oman
https://www.euronews.com/business/2026/03/01/first-oil-tanker-attacked-in-the-strait-of-hormuz-according-to-oman
Whether or not assassination of foreign leaders is a wise policy or not, it is a significant and consequential one. It's not a great sign that the neither the President nor any high-ranking American official has made a live national address. It only reinforces the sense that the administration does not want to or cannot give a rational explanation for the policy, either it to its own constituency, to America as a whole, or the rest of the world which is watching this.
I suppose it's possible there is some "Secret Plan" unfolding behind the scenes, but it certainly seems like this just a more elaborate and expensive Venezuela Part 2. American foreign policy is devolving to the South Park underpants gnomes stage.
Quote from: Fate on March 01, 2026, 01:18:17 AMQuote from: HVC on March 01, 2026, 01:02:35 AMI have to imagine said fatass travels with radio scramblers in tow
Fiberoptic drones are currently used by both sides in the Ukraine war which you can't scramble. Russia could sell/lose a few off a truck.
The Ukrainians have had multiple attacks foiled by radio jammers. And a fiber-optic drone has a very short range. You can bet that the Secret Service has plans to counter such an attack.
I think Witkoff may have revealed more than he intended when he said that Trump was curious about why Iran has not capitulated. They are supposed to give in, but so far they haven't and it seems that the straits of Hormuz are now effectively closed. That is 20m barrels of oil a day or thereabouts. What is the Great Helmsman and Light of the USA going to do about that?
The Iranian strategy given what's happened today seems to be just going through the most highly rated hotels in the Gulf on Tripadvisor and then blowing them up via shaheds. Same with airports. And then wait for the Gulf Arabs to put pressure on the US.
*edit* Also fired ballistic missiles toward Cyprus (shot down by the Brits) and attacks by shaheds on the French naval base at Abu Dhabi.
Active US servicemen have now died.
I hope that all the people who voted for Trump and I hope that he would not start any more wars turn against him.
Quote from: Legbiter on March 01, 2026, 12:27:49 PMThe Iranian strategy given what's happened today seems to be just going through the most highly rated hotels in the Gulf on Tripadvisor and then blowing them up via shaheds. Same with airports. And then wait for the Gulf Arabs to put pressure on the US.
Some people over here are making fun, more like Schadenfreude, of dumb Persian Gulf-based Western influencers discovering the instability of the Middle East.
Quote*edit* Also fired ballistic missiles toward Cyprus (shot down by the Brits) and attacks by shaheds on the French naval base at Abu Dhabi.
Cyprus? Quite optimistic. Striking by mistake Turkish-occupied Northern Cyprus would be ironic.
At this rate I expect Trump to drop a tactical nuke on Kim Jong Un's head by summer.
Quote from: Zanza on March 01, 2026, 04:56:36 AMDecapitation of the evil Iranian regime is great. Let's hope that something good arises from that.
I don't know man. They keep acting like if we just kill off a few more guys in charge everything will be fine.
We have been doing that for decades and everything has yet to be fine. But we'll see. Maybe these were the last few guys who needed killing.
I don't think there is any shortage of militant ayatollahs. Any regime change will require parts or most of the Revolutionary guard to throw in the towel; we have recently witnessed their brutality and willingness to kill thousands to keep the Islamic Republic going....if they do give up then their own lives will be on the line :hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on March 01, 2026, 01:53:47 PMQuote from: Zanza on March 01, 2026, 04:56:36 AMDecapitation of the evil Iranian regime is great. Let's hope that something good arises from that.
I don't know man. They keep acting like if we just kill off a few more guys in charge everything will be fine.
We have been doing that for decades and everything has yet to be fine. But we'll see. Maybe these were the last few guys who needed killing.
If you keep killing the bad replacements eventually a good one will show up, right? Like skimming the fat off the top of a pot. That's how politics works, isn't it :unsure:
I am sure we will eventually skim off enough until we find some seemingly pliant IRGC/ayatollah figurehead who will lead just-as-before oppressive regime that pays sufficient lip service to Trump while at the same time plotting revenge for our future leaders to have to deal with.
Or they can go to Russia...the more militant propagandists there have already invited the IRGC to come fight in Ukraine. :P
Quote from: Zanza on February 28, 2026, 12:22:17 PMWhat is the plan if Iran starts attacking ships in the Strait of Hormuz?
It's happening right now, so we'll know very soon.
Keep bombing shit and sink ships.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 01, 2026, 02:22:41 PMI am sure we will eventually skim off enough until we find some seemingly pliant IRGC/ayatollah figurehead who will lead just-as-before oppressive regime that pays sufficient lip service to Trump while at the same time plotting revenge for our future leaders to have to deal with.
Or they can go to Russia...the more militant propagandists there have already invited the IRGC to come fight in Ukraine. :P
Yeah what are far right Russian Euro supporters going to say when Islamic soldiers are invading Europe with his support? :hmm:
Didn't see it mentioned here, but Ahmadinejad was also whacked. Not sure why he was still of interest, I thought he wasn't an entity anymore, and was actually at odds with the clerics since his presidency?
Quote from: grumbler on March 01, 2026, 12:12:05 PMThe Ukrainians have had multiple attacks foiled by radio jammers. And a fiber-optic drone has a very short range. You can bet that the Secret Service has plans to counter such an attack.
Yeah I expect the president is a very hard target.
Were I looking to shock the American establishment with assassinations in response to attacks on my nation, I'd consider the various billionaires who fund and direct the Trump administration. I expect they have less tight security than the president and that targeting them would be pretty high impact.
Quote from: DGuller on March 01, 2026, 02:41:19 PMDidn't see it mentioned here, but Ahmadinejad was also whacked. Not sure why he was still of interest, I thought he wasn't an entity anymore, and was actually at odds with the clerics since his presidency?
I also heard the same thing. I also wasn't clear if he was specifically targetted, and why, or if he just happened to be killed.
Quote from: DGuller on March 01, 2026, 02:41:19 PMNot sure why he was still of interest,
To make sure the regime is destabilized as much as possible, no one they can easily turn to for a leadership role in the immediate aftermath of the strikes.
Quote from: viper37 on March 01, 2026, 02:43:53 PMQuote from: DGuller on March 01, 2026, 02:41:19 PMNot sure why he was still of interest,
To make sure the regime is destabilized as much as possible, no one they can easily turn to for a leadership role in the immediate aftermath of the strikes.
Was he even in the running?
Anyway destabilizing a place just means the most psychotic thug takes charge. I don't know why that would be better.
Or he could have just chosen the wrong bunker at the wrong time.
Ahmadinejad from what I understand was so unpopular with the regime he was at risk of being arrested / executed at one point, it seems like they eventually just opted to leave him alone. He certainly wasn't on any list of people to move in and start running the regime--no matter how long it was. But he may have been on some list of targets that was made without any real consideration to that reality.
Ahmadinejad was a bad dude so certainly not going to shed tears over him, but if he was deliberately targeted vs just being in the "wrong bunker" with other high value targets, it would seem to be a misread of his position in Iran.
It's also possible it was Israel that killed him, my understanding is they have more personal antipathy to him for his Holocaust denialism and other antisemitic rhetoric.
Quote from: Jacob on February 28, 2026, 07:50:15 PMHad to go to the dentist and was 20 minutes late in spite of leaving early due to large throngs of anti-regime demonstrators. The news said 45 000 locally, and more than 100 000 in Toronto.
Yeah I am slightly torn.
My instinct is conservative and better the devil you know.
But there was footage of Iranians and Jews celebrating together in the streets of Finchley (suburb in North London). And today I went to get my haircut and was chatting with the barber who was Syrian. He wasn't necessarily pro-bombing but just said that his country was destroyed by war and that man (Khamenei) sent the bombs and "mafia" who did it. And I'm not going to argue against those views.
The other side I suppose is all the footage of Bahrainis rocking up at the US base to cheer and laugh at them getting bombed.
Yeah, we have a close friend who's Persian. Her response was basically "today I'm getting out the Champagne to celebrate that that asshole is dead! Tomorrow I'll worry about what happens next."
Seen on TV Iranian refugees celebrating Khamenei's death in Portugal.
It would be fantastic if the end result was a half-decent, or better, regime for Iran. I just feel that is rather unlikely :(
Well, we will see.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on March 01, 2026, 03:15:55 PMSeen on TV Iranian refugees celebrating Khamenei's death in Portugal.
Yeah well good for them
Quote from: Jacob on March 01, 2026, 03:06:22 PMYeah, we have a close friend who's Persian. Her response was basically "today I'm getting out the Champagne to celebrate that that asshole is dead! Tomorrow I'll worry about what happens next."
a sensible sentiment
How many times do we have to play this old record? Crowds cheering the fall of Saddam, the fall of Qadaffi. And then what. What makes it even less optimistic is that there is literally no armed or organized opposition force on the ground, as distinct from the US Army in Iraq and powerful armed militias in Syria and Libya. There is literally nothing on the ground to take advantage of any regime weakness.
It's just nuts watching these MAGA people spend years lecturing the old Bush neocons on how naive they were to think they could blow stuff up in the Middle East and hope that something magical will happen only to rally around and cheer they same thing all over again, only less organized and thought through.
Britain is going to hurry in Ukrainian experts to the Gulf to help deal with the drone swarms.
https://x.com/Tendar/status/2028230160701342014 (https://x.com/Tendar/status/2028230160701342014)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 01, 2026, 04:52:22 PMHow many times do we have to play this old record? Crowds cheering the fall of Saddam, the fall of Qadaffi. And then what. What makes it even less optimistic is that there is literally no armed or organized opposition force on the ground, as distinct from the US Army in Iraq and powerful armed militias in Syria and Libya. There is literally nothing on the ground to take advantage of any regime weakness.
It's just nuts watching these MAGA people spend years lecturing the old Bush neocons on how naive they were to think they could blow stuff up in the Middle East and hope that something magical will happen only to rally around and cheer they same thing all over again, only less organized and thought through.
I think my wake up moment was when they interviewed one of the dudes who ripped down the Saddam statue and was all over the news back in 2003. And he lamented that things were actually better before we overthrew Saddam. Damn we even lost the statue ripping down guy.
Diaspora Persians often have quite different views than on the ground Iranians, too. See also: Cubans.
Doesn't make them wrong.
Quote from: Tamas on March 01, 2026, 06:36:00 PMDoesn't make them wrong.
It is not a question of them being wrong. It is a question as to whether killing this horrible man will actually do any good. History suggests no.
But maybe this time...
Incidentally it looks like these strikes have been targeting Basij HQs too which definitely suggests they're hoping for some form of regime change/revolution after this.
Also striking that Iran's retaliation has included strikes on Oman and Qatar who are the most friendly Gulf States - Oman has hosted many of the talks with Iran over the years. Iran's Foreign Minister has said the strike on Oman was not their choice and they have told the armed forces to be careful about the targets they choose. But the armed forces are currently independent, somewhat isolated and acting based on general instructions given to them in advance.
Ahmadinejad is back from the dead for now, according to Wiki.
Quote from: Jacob on March 01, 2026, 03:06:22 PMYeah, we have a close friend who's Persian. Her response was basically "today I'm getting out the Champagne to celebrate that that asshole is dead! Tomorrow I'll worry about what happens next."
Here is the scene from North Vancouver.
And yes, now the worry is what will happen next.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DVWXK1gjuiF/?igsh=MXhpMHBwaTR2eHlncQ==
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on March 01, 2026, 05:53:40 PMDiaspora Persians often have quite different views than on the ground Iranians, too. See also: Cubans.
What information do you have regarding the views of most Iranians on the ground in Iran?
And for context, here are some Iranians on the ground. Looks similar to the Iranians in North Vancouver.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DVUwUASji9w/?igsh=MWNnNXJwc2RkbDhkYw==
Here is Tehran
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DTVmxF1k6og/?igsh=MTJhenJvcHE3NmNpZQ==
Quote from: DGuller on March 01, 2026, 08:31:04 PMAhmadinejad is back from the dead for now, according to Wiki.
Ahmadinebackfromthedead?
https://apnews.com/article/iran-israel-us-03-02-2026-cb42936de1d8c261be8f30f11c6665fa
Quote[...]
Gulf Arab states have warned that they could retaliate against Iran after strikes that hit key sites and killed at least five civilians, and U.S. President Donald Trump promised Washington would "avenge" the deaths of three American troops who were killed in Kuwait.
"Sadly, there will likely be more before it ends," Trump said. "That's the way it is."
[...]
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/473/877/421.gif)
Quote[...]
Trump has urged Iranians to "take over" their government and, while he has also signaled he would be open to dialogue with new leadership there following the death of Khamenei, suggested Sunday there was no end in sight to the military operations.
"Combat operations continue at this time in full-force, and they will continue until all of our objectives are achieved," he said in a video message. "We have very strong objectives," he added, without elaborating.
[...]
So I guess they just asked the military to draw up a list of strategic targets and are now working down the list? I mean, I get it in a "We're tired of their shit and want to cripple them for good" way ... but this is not a video game.
Is the Peace Prize really a strong objective?
Saudi Aramco refinery was just hit with shahed drones. At this point the asymmetry in cost between 70k drones and Pac-3 missiles (several million per missile) becomes obvious. You need cheap, plentiful radar-guided ack-ack like the Ukrainians employ. :hmm:
https://x.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/2028369512119046632 (https://x.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/2028369512119046632)
Ukrainian skills might become really wanted now. And I'm sure they'll come at a premium cost.
Kuwaiti air defense shot down at least 1 American F-15.
https://x.com/sentdefender/status/2028336659314425950 (https://x.com/sentdefender/status/2028336659314425950)
Kuwaiti ministry of defense says "several" US warplanes have crashed.
https://x.com/yarotrof/status/2028379370637959515 (https://x.com/yarotrof/status/2028379370637959515)
Did Russia say or do anything so far? I can't imagine them letting their most important remaining ally just get pummeled without doing anything, if they're able to.
Quote from: DGuller on March 02, 2026, 07:13:25 AMDid Russia say or do anything so far? I can't imagine them letting their most important remaining ally just get pummeled without doing anything, if they're able to.
Yes.
Executive summary:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HCSawsbbkAE56W9?format=jpg&name=small)
Quote from: Valmy on March 01, 2026, 02:34:47 PMQuote from: Tonitrus on March 01, 2026, 02:22:41 PMI am sure we will eventually skim off enough until we find some seemingly pliant IRGC/ayatollah figurehead who will lead just-as-before oppressive regime that pays sufficient lip service to Trump while at the same time plotting revenge for our future leaders to have to deal with.
Or they can go to Russia...the more militant propagandists there have already invited the IRGC to come fight in Ukraine. :P
Yeah what are far right Russian Euro supporters going to say when Islamic soldiers are invading Europe with his support? :hmm:
I remember Zemmour being shocked when he discovered Moscow's islamist Chechens fighting in Ukraine, for Kadyrov and the Kremlin, chanted every now and Allahu Akbar! :P
Kuwait shot down...3 F-15's today. Friendly fire.
Sure Russia won't get those drones but their budget and economy is getting rescued as we speak.
Quote from: Tamas on March 02, 2026, 07:52:24 AMSure Russia won't get those drones but their budget and economy is getting rescued as we speak.
Yep, so thanks for that trump 🙄
Qatar halting LNG production is probably the most serious economic threat caused by the current hostilities. As a result natural gas prices are up sharply (42%).
Greece is sending warships to help defend Cyprus from Persian attack.
Quote from: PJL on March 02, 2026, 08:59:44 AMQatar halting LNG production is probably the most serious economic threat caused by the current hostilities. As a result natural gas prices are up sharply (42%).
Europe fucked in the ass again. Shit politicians who shuffle a lot of dossiers this way and that but are never ready for anything.
Plus assorted other idiots.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 02, 2026, 09:34:38 AMShit politicians who shuffle a lot of dossiers this way and that but are never ready for anything.
Being ready doesn't matter. There is a finite quantity of traded gas. If the Gulf closes prices go up. No way to get around that, other than by transitioning completely away from fossil fuels.
If more prepared European politicians could come up with some mechanism for neutralizing Trump's mindlessness, a lot of us in the United States would love to hear it.
Quote from: Legbiter on March 02, 2026, 07:50:40 AMKuwait shot down...3 F-15's today. Friendly fire.
I don't understand that could happen. Surely before beginning such a major military effort, the Pentagon would have carefully planned and coordinated with allies and friendly affected states. . . oh wait
The Kuwaitis were close. Just one number off.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 02, 2026, 09:55:32 AMI don't understand that could happen. Surely before beginning such a major military effort, the Pentagon would have carefully planned and coordinated with allies and friendly affected states. . . oh wait
The Kuwaitis were close. Just one number off.
The US doesn't need allies anymore, why would we have to coordinate with anybody?
How realistic is it to build up a large enough stockpiles of LNG to ride out storms ( ie americas mood swings)?although I guess at this point you've got a horse and barn door scenario.
The EU is currently consuming about 13 billion cubic meters of LNG per month.
I asked Gemini how much it costs to store 1 billion cubic meters (so treat the results with a grain of salt)
Answer is $150 million per month for on the water storage, or about $3 billion to construct permanent storage tanks. Which translates to about $2 billion in monthly cost for each month of consumption covered or close to $40 billion for a permanent storage solution. Again, that covers just a single month's usage.
I'm not aware of any long-term LNG storage facilities anywhere in the world. The system is designed to compress the natural gas into a liquid form for transport, and store it temporarily so that it is available when the ships pull in to load it and send it to its destination, or alternatively to send it down a pipeline to end users.
And user storage is similarly short-term in nature.
It's literally a flow through system.
It does seem like living with the spot price fluctuations is the only option. In theory you could try a financial hedge but the scale is so big it would tough to find a reliable counterparty and the costs would be very high.
EU is already pursuing lowering total gas demand because of Russia. If there is any blame to throw out in terms of preparation it would be not pushing nuclear harder.
I see, thanks. I recall Canada recently started shipping LNG out of BC. Wonder why it took so long, and why we don't ship out to Europe. Probably valid reasons, but I'll bring out the classic and blame Quebec with or without reason :P . I actually worked for a company that produced portable chilling units to facilitate the trapping of gasses from oil extraction instead of burning it off.
I joke with sheilbh, but given the shit going down south of the border we (Canada) really should have invested in our export infrastructure.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 02, 2026, 10:24:34 AMIf there is any blame to throw out in terms of preparation it would be not pushing nuclear harder.
See Norge, it's always the greens fault :P
Quote from: HVC on March 02, 2026, 10:26:21 AMSee Norge, it's always the greens fault :P
Except that without the greens, renewable capacity would be much lower, and then you'd really be screwed . . .
You just need more pro-nuclear radical environmentalists. Surely you can cobble a political majority on that platform.
The Green Party in Ontario has recently changed their tune regarding nuke power I believe. But I don't follow that end of the political spectrum enough to know why and how entrenched the new view is.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 02, 2026, 10:27:44 AMQuote from: HVC on March 02, 2026, 10:26:21 AMSee Norge, it's always the greens fault :P
Except that without the greens, renewable capacity would be much lower, and then you'd really be screwed . . .
You just need more pro-nuclear radical environmentalists. Surely you can cobble a political majority on that platform.
Germany led the world in solar panels right up until solar panels became a mainstream and successful technology...when they promptly gave up completely and let the Chinese take over. I never understood that, you subsidize this tech for decades right up until it becomes profitable than just...stop?
Quote from: Valmy on March 02, 2026, 10:30:38 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on March 02, 2026, 10:27:44 AMQuote from: HVC on March 02, 2026, 10:26:21 AMSee Norge, it's always the greens fault :P
Except that without the greens, renewable capacity would be much lower, and then you'd really be screwed . . .
You just need more pro-nuclear radical environmentalists. Surely you can cobble a political majority on that platform.
Germany led the world in solar panels right up until solar panels became a mainstream and successful technology...when they promptly gave up completely and let the Chinese take over. I never understood that, you subsidize this tech for decades right up until it becomes profitable than just...stop?
Russian fossil fuel lobby (bribe) money, maybe ?
Quote from: Valmy on March 02, 2026, 10:30:38 AMI never understood that, you subsidize this tech for decades right up until it becomes profitable than just...stop?
it wasn't profitable at the prices charged by the cheap Chinese imports.
(https://yt3.ggpht.com/LSxYMo8wDTflWkyjP09JtXpEF38xxLEvglWjDwpIHERuVRwtdIRtbP4fbM90WRmwUEnMi3NULOx0uA=s640-rw-nd-v1)
Morale might be kind of low for this war.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 02, 2026, 10:42:35 AMQuote from: Valmy on March 02, 2026, 10:30:38 AMI never understood that, you subsidize this tech for decades right up until it becomes profitable than just...stop?
it wasn't profitable at the prices charged by the cheap Chinese imports.
Seems weird to give up though after decades of subsidies. And for Germany, a country that desperately has needed alternative energy for at least a century. What happened to fortress Europe keeping out the cheap stuff?
Quote from: Legbiter on March 02, 2026, 07:50:40 AMKuwait shot down...3 F-15's today. Friendly fire.
With friends like these...
Quote from: DGuller on March 02, 2026, 10:53:52 AMQuote from: Legbiter on March 02, 2026, 07:50:40 AMKuwait shot down...3 F-15's today. Friendly fire.
With friends like these...
Fortunately the crews were all recovered safely.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 02, 2026, 09:55:32 AMQuote from: Legbiter on March 02, 2026, 07:50:40 AMKuwait shot down...3 F-15's today. Friendly fire.
I don't understand that could happen. Surely before beginning such a major military effort, the Pentagon would have carefully planned and coordinated with allies and friendly affected states. . . oh wait
The Kuwaitis were close. Just one number off.
It's not implausible that the Emir phone phoned his buddy, trump and asked for a favour/help and trump ordered/demanded the air force send in fighters to shot down the drones; no time for co-ordination and the Kuwaitis not having much experience, the rest is history for those jets.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HCYqa_5WEAEVZO1?format=jpg&name=small)
Pilot explaining he's not an Iranian.
QuoteStarmer: 'This government does not believe in regime change from the skies'
I wonder if he's listened to trump / nuttyarenow? :hmm:
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 02, 2026, 10:19:33 AMI'm not aware of any long-term LNG storage facilities anywhere in the world. The system is designed to compress the natural gas into a liquid form for transport, and store it temporarily so that it is available when the ships pull in to load it and send it to its destination, or alternatively to send it down a pipeline to end users.
And user storage is similarly short-term in nature.
It's literally a flow through system.
I think this is correct, there is long term gaseous storage of NG in the United States, where the NG storage industry is a decently large industry. But it isn't stored in liquid form and it's generally stored in underground chambers from which it had previously been extracted (and thus naturally remains sealed away when it is pumped back in.)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/02/uk-airbases-us-attack-iran-trump-starmer
Like I have said elsewhere UK is probably going to force the US to just unilaterally annex Diego Garcia. The Labour government's belief in the importance of fictitious international legal analyses to put the base at risk is not intelligent, and the U.S. isn't going to give a key military base to some random African country with no valid claim to it.
QuoteUK 'took far too long' to let US use its airbases to attack Iran, Trump says
US president also 'very disappointed' in Keir Starmer over UK government's deal to hand Chagos Islands to Mauritius
The UK "took far too long" to allow US forces to use its airbases to attack Iran, Donald Trump has said.
The US president added that he was "very disappointed" in Keir Starmer over the British government's deal to hand sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius as a means to preserve the status of the UK-US airbase on Diego Garcia, part of the Indian Ocean archipegalo.
The Chagos deal, which Trump initially supported before changing his mind, was a "very woke thing", the US president argued.
While Starmer and his ministers did not openly oppose Saturday's initial wave of US-Israeli attacks on Iran, which killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country's supreme leader, they did not allow US forces to use Diego Garcia or any UK airbases because of doubts about the legality of the strikes.
On Sunday evening, however, Starmer said this position had changed given that Iran had launched a wave of retaliatory missile and drone attacks on a range of targets in the Middle East, with one hitting a UK airbase in Cyprus.
Speaking to the Daily Telegraph, Trump said Starmer was too slow to change his mind, adding: "It took far too much time. Far too much time.
"That's probably never happened between our countries before. It sounds like he was worried about the legality."
The UK should have immediately allowed Diego Garcia to be used, Trump added, because Iran was responsible for killing a "lot of people from your country".
"[There are] people without arms and legs and faces that have been blown up. Iran is 95% of those. Those horrible events were caused by Iran," the president said, without elaborating on what he meant.
The UK government bill to formalise the deal with Mauritius is paused at its final stage in parliament after Trump changed his mind. Starmer has said that the plan will not go ahead without US agreement.
While Trump had previously criticised the plan, which is backed by the US state department, early in February he had described it as the "best" deal Starmer could make in the circumstances.
But in a change of heart later that month, the US president said on social media that Keir Starmer was "making a big mistake" by handing sovereignty of the islands to Mauritius in exchange for continued use by the UK and US of their airbase on one of the islands, Diego Garcia.
"All of a sudden [Mauritius] was claiming ownership," Trump told the British newspaper. "He should have fought it out and owned it or [made them] take it, if you want to know the truth. But no, we were very disappointed in Keir."
He added: "It would have been much better on the legal front if he just kept the ownership of the land and not given it to people that weren't the rightful owners."
On the strikes against Iran, Trump said the operation was "well ahead of schedule", adding: "We always anticipated four weeks. We also anticipated two to three weeks to take out some of the leadership, but we've taken out all of it in one day. So that was well ahead of schedule. We always viewed it as a four-week operation."
Trump has been vague about what the goals of the military strikes are, saying that the aim is for the Iranian people to rise up, but also talking about the idea of holding talks with successors to Khamenei.
While Trump peppered his statements with a number of low information and low intelligence falsehoods (as per the norm) proving that even an imbecile is sometimes right, he correctly notes that Mauritius has no valid claim to these islands and the UK is being quite stupid in accepting fictitious claims.
German newsticker this morning:
Quote8:43am - [German Foreign Minister] rules out military evacuation of travelers
German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul (CDU) has ruled out a military evacuation of German travelers currently stranded in the Gulf region due to the war. "We won't be able to do that, because the airspace is completely closed," Wadephul told the Bild newspaper. It is currently impossible to predict when those affected will be able to leave. The German Travel Association put the number of affected German travelers in the region at around 30,000. This figure refers to travelers with German tour operators who are currently in the region or have flights via hubs in the area.
8:47am - Britain prepares to evacuate citizens
Britain is preparing to evacuate its citizens from the Middle East. An estimated 300,000 Britons have registered their presence in the region, Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper told Sky News. The government is working on various options, including cooperation with the travel industry and state-organized evacuations. Intervention forces have also been deployed to the region.
German commenters say whoever ran the ticker knew what they were doing posting the news in this order. :P
At least they later changed their mind:
Quote2:20pm - German government plans to send planes for evacuation
The German government is preparing to send planes to the Middle East to bring stranded German tourists home. The aircraft are to be sent to Muscat in Oman and the Saudi capital, Riyadh, explained Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul. He stated that the airspace there is still open, but safety is the top priority for the deployment. He added that he had spoken with Lufthansa CEO Carsten Spohr, and that the airline has the necessary capacity.
Tagesschau.de also reports that France wants to increase its number of nuclear warheads, and:
QuoteMacron to Expand Nuclear Umbrella
France aims to reach an agreement with eight allied countries, including Germany and the United Kingdom, on extending its nuclear umbrella to encompass Europe. "Contacts have been established with an initial group of allies, starting, of course, with our most important partner, Germany," Macron said in a keynote address on France's nuclear deterrence. The other interested countries are Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, Sweden, and Denmark. Specifically, Macron suggested that partners could participate in French nuclear exercises. Furthermore, strategic elements could be temporarily redeployed to the allies. French air forces could also be deployed further into Europe.
I think that Iran and Venezuela have shown the US leadership has succumbed to CEO disease, thinking the only important person is the one in charge.
Once the leader is removed you can easily install someone you can control or whoever the replacement is will accede to your demands out of fear for their life. That just doesn't work.
Quote from: frunk on March 02, 2026, 12:03:40 PMI think that Iran and Venezuela have shown the US leadership has succumbed to CEO disease, thinking the only important person is the one in charge.
Once the leader is removed you can easily install someone you can control or whoever the replacement is will accede to your demands out of fear for their life. That just doesn't work.
I don't hear anything from the American rule of Venezuela, so it probably goes smoothly.
Quote from: Syt on March 02, 2026, 12:02:42 PMTagesschau.de also reports that France wants to increase its number of nuclear warheads, and:
QuoteMacron to Expand Nuclear Umbrella
France aims to reach an agreement with eight allied countries, including Germany and the United Kingdom, on extending its nuclear umbrella to encompass Europe. "Contacts have been established with an initial group of allies, starting, of course, with our most important partner, Germany," Macron said in a keynote address on France's nuclear deterrence. The other interested countries are Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, Sweden, and Denmark. Specifically, Macron suggested that partners could participate in French nuclear exercises. Furthermore, strategic elements could be temporarily redeployed to the allies. French air forces could also be deployed further into Europe.
I was about to post a more detailed on the French thread. Just dit it.
https://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,16371.1080.html (https://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,16371.1080.html)
Quote from: Syt on March 02, 2026, 12:02:42 PMTagesschau.de also reports that France wants to increase its number of nuclear warheads,
Macron aura farming as the kids say when announcing this.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HCaclT2XYAEKsBr?format=jpg&name=small)
DJT told Jonathan Karl that they had identified "candidates" in advance to take over Iran once Khamenei was removed.
He then explained: "The attack was so successful it knocked out most of the candidates. It's not going to anybody that we were thinking of because they are all dead. Second or third place is dead."
Idiocracy was not satire; it was a soberly understated documentary that projected out centuries too long.
Quote from: Valmy on March 02, 2026, 10:52:45 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on March 02, 2026, 10:42:35 AMQuote from: Valmy on March 02, 2026, 10:30:38 AMI never understood that, you subsidize this tech for decades right up until it becomes profitable than just...stop?
it wasn't profitable at the prices charged by the cheap Chinese imports.
Seems weird to give up though after decades of subsidies. And for Germany, a country that desperately has needed alternative energy for at least a century. What happened to fortress Europe keeping out the cheap stuff?
A conservative government. They destroyed that industry in the same year they decided to phase out nuclear energy.
Geniuses.
15 years later and they are just doing the same thing. Moving away from renewables to fossils. Conservatives here are utterly retarded on energy policy.
It does suggest a very personalized view of state to state interaction: States are an extension of the leader. You do things to the state to force the leader to comply; if you kill the leader then that's the ultimate sanction. The state and the population is almost incidental.
It'll be interesting to see how that view holds up.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 02, 2026, 10:24:34 AMIt does seem like living with the spot price fluctuations is the only option. In theory you could try a financial hedge but the scale is so big it would tough to find a reliable counterparty and the costs would be very high.
EU is already pursuing lowering total gas demand because of Russia. If there is any blame to throw out in terms of preparation it would be not pushing nuclear harder.
The sensible thing would be to invest massively into renewables, storage, transmission and electrify the economy, transport, and private heating. The only way to gain energy independence for Europe is solar and wind power.
Quote from: Jacob on March 02, 2026, 12:45:58 PMIt does suggest a very personalized view of state to state interaction: States are an extension of the leader. You do things to the state to force the leader to comply; if you kill the leader then that's the ultimate sanction. The state and the population is almost incidental.
It'll be interesting to see how that view holds up.
A very 17th century view.
Quote from: Jacob on March 02, 2026, 12:45:58 PMIt does suggest a very personalized view of state to state interaction: States are an extension of the leader. You do things to the state to force the leader to comply; if you kill the leader then that's the ultimate sanction. The state and the population is almost incidental.
It'll be interesting to see how that view holds up.
Not surprising in a country run by maybe the greatest narcissist alive.
I like how the Greens and Schröder (Herr Gazprom who called Putin a perfect democrat) are completely blameless on the whole nuclear affair in Germany. :lol:
Whereas a single opportunistic and demagogic "Conservative" leader, reneging conservative policies, serves as a strawman for the whole German conservatives, themselves in uneasy coalitions most of the time.
Quote from: Zanza on March 02, 2026, 12:45:58 PMThe sensible thing would be to invest massively into renewables, storage, transmission and electrify the economy, transport, and private heating. The only way to gain energy independence for Europe is solar and wind power.
The only way is not correct, both nuclear and coal is possible, with some input from oil, gas and hydro. Solar and wind is never going to cut it except as (important) complements to a good base supply.
Quote from: Jacob on March 02, 2026, 12:45:58 PMIt does suggest a very personalized view of state to state interaction
That has always been Trump's characteristic approach to foreign policy. It's all about the relationship between him as a person and the top leader of the other country. It's why he is most comfortable dealing with dictators where the individual personality is dominant, and least comfortable dealing with free democratic states where the leader is a public servant.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 02, 2026, 01:37:19 PMThat has always been Trump's characteristic approach to foreign policy. It's all about the relationship between him as a person and the top leader of the other country. It's why he is most comfortable dealing with dictators where the individual personality is dominant, and least comfortable dealing with free democratic states where the leader is a public servant.
I concur
What's the response in the US? I'm less looped in to American domestic media than I used to be, but I'm still curious -
How much rallying around the flag "defending freedom" are you seeing in American media and among the public?
I mean, I assume that the core of the Trumpists are 100% on board, and committed anti-Trumpists are against. But are there cracks in Republican unity on this? Are there Democrats who are "serious foreign policy people" who are in favour? And what are the prevailing "main street" narratives right now?
QuoteThe temporarily acting supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Arafeh, was killed after new strikes on Tehran, according to Israeli media.
He was appointed this morning to replace Khamenei, who was also killed yesterday in strikes by the US and Israel.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HCV6m6eXsAEtmvV?format=jpg&name=small)
https://x.com/GloOouD/status/2028162022345507244 (https://x.com/GloOouD/status/2028162022345507244)
Janitor strategy in full swing.
'He should have come to a deal sooner, he kept delaying it, now he's gone, too bad, his fault for starting the war in the first place.'
trump's likely response to a Russian assassination of Zelensky?
Followed a few hours later with a beautifully productive phone conversation with putin?
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on March 02, 2026, 01:01:51 PMI like how the Greens and Schröder (Herr Gazprom who called Putin a perfect democrat) are completely blameless on the whole nuclear affair in Germany. :lol:
They implemented a policy that was both popular and part of their electoral promises. And they did it open-ended and more flexible than the Conservatives & Liberals (not an uneasy coalition!) in 2011. And they did kickstart the aforementioned renewables boom. Overall, a much more balanced policy in the early 2000s than the one implemented by the Conservatives in 2011. Even acknowledging Schröders role in Nordstream I.
QuoteWhereas a single opportunistic and demagogic "Conservative" leader, reneging conservative policies, serves as a strawman for the whole German conservatives, themselves in uneasy coalitions most of the time.
:lol: Sure. Germany stopped building nuclear reactors in the 80s when Kohl ruled, notably also in conservative regions like Bavaria or Baden-Wurttemberg. In 2011, besides Merkel, leading conservatives like Söder, Röttgen etc. supported the policy and the support by the parliamentary faction was unanimous...
These days our conservatives are following fantasy concepts like e-fuels or so. Not serious.
Quote from: Threviel on March 02, 2026, 01:29:17 PMThe only way is not correct, both nuclear and coal is possible, with some input from oil, gas and hydro. Solar and wind is never going to cut it except as (important) complements to a good base supply.
Europe imports 100% of its uranium usage and 67% of hard coal usage. Maybe we have a different understanding of energy independence?
You can get uranium from Canada. So not independent but a bit more secure than gas supplies from the Middle East. It's not like you have to worry about a hostile power blockading Canada ....
Actually, never mind, you're right after all.
Canada is the biggest source (about a third), but the rest comes from places like Russia, Kazakhstan, or Niger. Hardly preferable to fossils from authoritarian countries like Russia, USA or the gulf states.
PS: As I said before here, I feel the German nuclear phase out was a mistake. We should have ran the existing plants significantly longer and fully phased out coal before nuclear.
But pretending the German conservatives have any sensible energy policies just triggers me. They are much more ideological than even the Greens and have not had a sensible policy for decades in that area.
To be clear nuclear alone makes little sense. Nuclear is useful because it can such an effective and carbon-free complement to solar and wind.
Send Josq to the coal mines he was so bitterly deprived off? :hmm:
Quote from: Zanza on March 02, 2026, 02:33:28 PMQuote from: Threviel on March 02, 2026, 01:29:17 PMThe only way is not correct, both nuclear and coal is possible, with some input from oil, gas and hydro. Solar and wind is never going to cut it except as (important) complements to a good base supply.
Europe imports 100% of its uranium usage and 67% of hard coal usage. Maybe we have a different understanding of energy independence?
We have rich deposits of both coal and uranium. On the timescale needed to rebuild our energy infrastructure it is entirely feasible to restart coal mines and start uranium mining.
Quote from: Zanza on March 02, 2026, 02:26:40 PMThey implemented a policy that was both popular and part of their electoral promises. And they did it open-ended and more flexible than the Conservatives & Liberals (not an uneasy coalition!) in 2011. And they did kickstart the aforementioned renewables boom. Overall, a much more balanced policy in the early 2000s than the one implemented by the Conservatives in 2011. Even acknowledging Schröders role in Nordstream I.
They implemented a popular scaremongering and demagogic suicidal energy policy serving the interests of Moscow.
Those so-called left-wing parties (Hartz IV...) had to pretend to be so by clinging to a
cause célèbre and an old-fashioned demagogic view to keep some voting credibility.
As for FDP and CDU, not an uneasy coalition, in theory yes, with people such as Guido, back then.
FDP had no clear position on the issue. As far as opportunists go, they are a bit like Macron, but not as successful.
Quote:lol: Sure. Germany stopped building nuclear reactors in the 80s when Kohl ruled, notably also in conservative regions like Bavaria or Baden-Wurttemberg. In 2011, besides Merkel, leading conservatives like Söder, Röttgen etc. supported the policy and the support by the parliamentary faction was unanimous...
These days our conservatives are following fantasy concepts like e-fuels or so. Not serious.
First attempt to end nuclear was done under Herr Gasprom, as part of his political corrupt deals with the Greens and Moscow.
Later, the CDU reversed it before yielding to demagoguery and political expediency, citing earth quake and tsunami concerns in a non-sismic country. :lol:
As for the alleged examples in the '80s in Bavaria: try Franz Josef Strauss who did all he could for nuclear energy, the Greens and assorted leftists are to blame for not building more, not the CSU.
Even France did not build that many in the '80s (Superphénix being cancelled on dubious grounds by a socialist government later on), the whole process was done under Pompidou and Giscard (Helmut Schmidt times). A different SPD as well.
Röttgen as leading conservative is very kind to him. Söder had his 15 minutes of fame, being the first Lutheran Franconian taking over "real" Bavaria, and in charge of coalition negotiations with the SPD.
So a great example, of real CSU/CDU.
As far as fantasy concepts, the Green mix(er) based on coal, lignite and Russian gas, now US LNG (more expensive though), is the real contender. Thankfully, there are French nuclear power plants to fuel it (pun intended). :rolleyes:
I could have also mentioned the brilliant Green and SPD idea to link the European prices of electricity to (Russian) gas, so derogations had to be made first for Iberia (completely unreliant on Russian gas) then France which has a varied gas mix but had to suffer high electricity prices due to SPD and Green corruption by Moscow.
Vlad Wexler on the contradictory and limited communication in the wake of the attacks on Iran:
Summary: It actively undermines democracy.
So, Iran will be more democratic than the United States.
Quote from: Zanza on March 02, 2026, 02:26:40 PM:lol: Sure. Germany stopped building nuclear reactors in the 80s when Kohl ruled, notably also in conservative regions like Bavaria or Baden-Wurttemberg. In 2011, besides Merkel, leading conservatives like Söder, Röttgen etc. supported the policy and the support by the parliamentary faction was unanimous...
These days our conservatives are following fantasy concepts like e-fuels or so. Not serious.
Quote from: Threviel on March 02, 2026, 03:07:18 PMWe have rich deposits of both coal and uranium. On the timescale needed to rebuild our energy infrastructure it is entirely feasible to restart coal mines and start uranium mining.
Well, if we have time, then we should rather mine for lithium in Europe and build batteries.
Quote from: Jacob on March 02, 2026, 01:49:07 PMWhat's the response in the US? I'm less looped in to American domestic media than I used to be, but I'm still curious -
How much rallying around the flag "defending freedom" are you seeing in American media and among the public?
I mean, I assume that the core of the Trumpists are 100% on board, and committed anti-Trumpists are against. But are there cracks in Republican unity on this? Are there Democrats who are "serious foreign policy people" who are in favour? And what are the prevailing "main street" narratives right now?
QuoteCnn poll
77% of republicans support the war
32% of indies
17% of dems
Granted it is just one poll.
Quote from: Zanza on March 02, 2026, 03:57:59 PMQuote from: Threviel on March 02, 2026, 03:07:18 PMWe have rich deposits of both coal and uranium. On the timescale needed to rebuild our energy infrastructure it is entirely feasible to restart coal mines and start uranium mining.
Well, if we have time, then we should rather mine for lithium in Europe and build batteries.
Yep. Invest in batteries. That is the future. Trying to revive coal is a terrible idea.
@Duque: Alright, got your point, but disagree. I will stop here as I guess we detailed the Iran War thread enough.
It wouldn't be Languish without regularly-derailed threads. We need to figure out how to make it about the American Civil War, though. :shifty:
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on March 02, 2026, 04:15:23 PMIt wouldn't be Languish without regularly-derailed threads. We need to figure out how to make it about the American Civil War, though. :shifty:
Which one? The original or the impending one?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Kahn
You're welcome.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on March 02, 2026, 04:15:23 PMIt wouldn't be Languish without regularly-derailed threads. We need to figure out how to make it about the American Civil War, though. :shifty:
Grant is under-rated. Send him to Arabia. Whatcha mean Iran is not Arabian?
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on March 02, 2026, 04:15:23 PMIt wouldn't be Languish without regularly-derailed threads. We need to figure out how to make it about the American Civil War, though. :shifty:
Looks like it took a while, but the south is finally winning. Gotta admire the long game.
Quote from: Zanza on March 02, 2026, 04:04:14 PM@Duque: Alright, got your point, but disagree. I will stop here as I guess we detailed the Iran War thread enough.
Fine.
Interesting post about the current situation in Iran.
QuoteHere is the current situation in and around Iran.
I won't go over the scale of the strikes on Iranian infrastructure — you can read about that yourselves. I will only note that Israeli and U.S. air forces fully control Iranian airspace, and in that sense the war increasingly resembles a shooting gallery. The main objective is the complete degradation of Iran's defense capabilities.
Overnight, official IRGC channels circulated information about the cancellation of Khamenei's fatwa banning nuclear weapons. This is being interpreted as a final act of blackmail that prompted the coalition to prepare strikes on underground facilities in Fordow. These are senseless statements that once again point to further fragmentation of operational command.
The deepest conflict in the past 40 years is reportedly unfolding between the regular army (Artesh) and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Let me note right away that verification is extremely difficult. However, signals are emerging (possibly as part of disinformation), so I am sharing them with you.
Local clashes in Tehran have been verified (in the government district and near the Vali-e Asr headquarters). Artesh units reportedly refused to transfer air defense reserves to the IRGC and declined to participate in suppressing street protests.
There are reports that the Artesh high command is distancing itself from what it calls "suicidal" IRGC orders to attack tankers and U.S. bases. The army is positioning itself as an "institution of national salvation" for a post-revolutionary period. According to the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), Israeli strikes on IRGC headquarters (Thar-Allah) have significantly undermined the Guards' ability to control the capital.
Following confirmation of the Rahbar's death, protests flared up with renewed intensity in Tehran, Isfahan, and Shiraz. The slogans include direct calls for the overthrow of the Islamic Republic.
Mass transfers of political prisoners from Evin and Rajai Shahr prisons have been confirmed. They are reportedly being moved to strategic sites (Natanz and IRGC headquarters) to be used as "human shields." This has forced the coalition to adjust the schedule of strikes in the city center.
Prince Reza Pahlavi has officially called on security forces to side with the people, stating that "the regime is living its final hours."
Good news: thanks to the intervention of Mohsen Rezaei and pressure from China, the Strait of Hormuz has been reopened ahead of Monday's trading session. This has eased panic in the oil market (Brent is trading at $78–80).
The UAE and Saudi Arabia have successfully repelled massive IRGC missile attacks (True Promise IV). The position of Arab capitals is clear — full neutralization of the Iranian threat. The fact that Ukraine is being mentioned as an important element in strengthening Gulf air defense is a positive sign. Zelensky's timely statement on this works in our favor.
The United Kingdom, France, and Germany have expressed support for the Iranian people's right to a democratic transition, which amounts to a diplomatic "green light" for coalition actions.
Moscow's refusal to intervene on Tehran's side has been heard in Beijing and Pyongyang as a signal of Russia's weakness. Attempts by Moscow to contact Washington directly on this issue have reportedly failed.
Beijing is moving toward more direct management of the crisis (in the case of the Strait of Hormuz). Whether this is good or bad remains unclear, but it has calmed market turmoil.
To summarize: Tehran is experiencing a form of "dual power" between a paralyzed Transitional Council and a radical IRGC faction prepared for nuclear escalation. The next 48 hours will be decisive — either formalizing the regime's capitulation or leading to further escalation, if it still has the means to escalate.
Source: translated and adapted from Ihor Semyvolos
https://x.com/rshereme/status/2028465634925806003 (https://x.com/rshereme/status/2028465634925806003)
If true it's the Syrian civil war brewing. Die-hard regime holdovers vs. the "People" factions. :hmm:
Quote from: Legbiter on March 02, 2026, 05:41:44 PMInteresting post about the current situation in Iran.
QuoteHere is the current situation in and around Iran.
I won't go over the scale of the strikes on Iranian infrastructure — you can read about that yourselves. I will only note that Israeli and U.S. air forces fully control Iranian airspace, and in that sense the war increasingly resembles a shooting gallery. The main objective is the complete degradation of Iran's defense capabilities.
Overnight, official IRGC channels circulated information about the cancellation of Khamenei's fatwa banning nuclear weapons. This is being interpreted as a final act of blackmail that prompted the coalition to prepare strikes on underground facilities in Fordow. These are senseless statements that once again point to further fragmentation of operational command.
The deepest conflict in the past 40 years is reportedly unfolding between the regular army (Artesh) and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Let me note right away that verification is extremely difficult. However, signals are emerging (possibly as part of disinformation), so I am sharing them with you.
Local clashes in Tehran have been verified (in the government district and near the Vali-e Asr headquarters). Artesh units reportedly refused to transfer air defense reserves to the IRGC and declined to participate in suppressing street protests.
There are reports that the Artesh high command is distancing itself from what it calls "suicidal" IRGC orders to attack tankers and U.S. bases. The army is positioning itself as an "institution of national salvation" for a post-revolutionary period. According to the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), Israeli strikes on IRGC headquarters (Thar-Allah) have significantly undermined the Guards' ability to control the capital.
Following confirmation of the Rahbar's death, protests flared up with renewed intensity in Tehran, Isfahan, and Shiraz. The slogans include direct calls for the overthrow of the Islamic Republic.
Mass transfers of political prisoners from Evin and Rajai Shahr prisons have been confirmed. They are reportedly being moved to strategic sites (Natanz and IRGC headquarters) to be used as "human shields." This has forced the coalition to adjust the schedule of strikes in the city center.
Prince Reza Pahlavi has officially called on security forces to side with the people, stating that "the regime is living its final hours."
Good news: thanks to the intervention of Mohsen Rezaei and pressure from China, the Strait of Hormuz has been reopened ahead of Monday's trading session. This has eased panic in the oil market (Brent is trading at $78–80).
The UAE and Saudi Arabia have successfully repelled massive IRGC missile attacks (True Promise IV). The position of Arab capitals is clear — full neutralization of the Iranian threat. The fact that Ukraine is being mentioned as an important element in strengthening Gulf air defense is a positive sign. Zelensky's timely statement on this works in our favor.
The United Kingdom, France, and Germany have expressed support for the Iranian people's right to a democratic transition, which amounts to a diplomatic "green light" for coalition actions.
Moscow's refusal to intervene on Tehran's side has been heard in Beijing and Pyongyang as a signal of Russia's weakness. Attempts by Moscow to contact Washington directly on this issue have reportedly failed.
Beijing is moving toward more direct management of the crisis (in the case of the Strait of Hormuz). Whether this is good or bad remains unclear, but it has calmed market turmoil.
To summarize: Tehran is experiencing a form of "dual power" between a paralyzed Transitional Council and a radical IRGC faction prepared for nuclear escalation. The next 48 hours will be decisive — either formalizing the regime's capitulation or leading to further escalation, if it still has the means to escalate.
Source: translated and adapted from Ihor Semyvolos
https://x.com/rshereme/status/2028465634925806003 (https://x.com/rshereme/status/2028465634925806003)
If true it's the Syrian civil war brewing. Die-hard regime holdovers vs. the "People" factions. :hmm:
I'm not buying that, it reads too much like a wis-list of what should happen to prove the IDF/trump 'strategy' was justified.
Quote from: mongers on March 02, 2026, 06:13:09 PMI'm not buying that, it reads too much like a wis-list of what should happen to prove the IDF/trump 'strategy' was justified.
It sent a cold shiver down my spine. Libya in 2011 was a flawless masterpiece of NATObros coming together in perfect transatlantic harmony to oust a loathsome POS dictator hellbent on slaughtering his own people. Zero (0) NATO casualties, perfect execution, mission accomplished. And then the...hangover.
Trump basically is my darker 14 year old self with the world's most expensive HOI IV habit (in strict dollar terms). Putin comes in a very close second.
Quote from: HVC on March 02, 2026, 10:24:53 AMI see, thanks. I recall Canada recently started shipping LNG out of BC. Wonder why it took so long, and why we don't ship out to Europe. Probably valid reasons, but I'll bring out the classic and blame Quebec with or without reason :P . I actually worked for a company that produced portable chilling units to facilitate the trapping of gasses from oil extraction instead of burning it off.
I joke with sheilbh, but given the shit going down south of the border we (Canada) really should have invested in our export infrastructure.
It's just taken that long to get the infrastructure in place to do it. As you alluded to in your post building, the ports to facilitate the export of LNG was quite an undertaking.
This is a good example of an area where first nation governments stepped up and took the lead. But for their role, we probably wouldn't have any active ports ready yet.
A dash of wholesome to this Third Gulf War. Kuwaiti civilians approach a downed F-15 pilot.
The value of just this one clip is vastly greater than the cost of one F-15.
If the Iranian regime is brought down and the Iranian people get better more free government that would be incredible, and to Trump and his backers' credit, much as I loathe them.
Quote from: Valmy on March 01, 2026, 02:45:52 PMQuote from: viper37 on March 01, 2026, 02:43:53 PMQuote from: DGuller on March 01, 2026, 02:41:19 PMNot sure why he was still of interest,
To make sure the regime is destabilized as much as possible, no one they can easily turn to for a leadership role in the immediate aftermath of the strikes.
Was he even in the running?
He wasn't. But let's say there's a power vacuum because the top leadership dies unexpectedly. Who do you turn to, either as a leader or advisor? No matter the differences with the Ayatollahs, I assume he's still a patriot and would have worked toward stabilizing the country as much as he could.
QuoteAnyway destabilizing a place just means the most psychotic thug takes charge. I don't know why that would be better.
And that's why you're not MAGA. You think way too far ahead.
Quote from: Jacob on March 02, 2026, 07:17:52 PMIf the Iranian regime is brought down and the Iranian people get better more free government that would be incredible, and to Trump and his backers' credit, much as I loathe them.
I think it's very unlikly but I agree (although I think any sign of elite/security forces defection would be very telling because I don't think there's ever been any indication of that in Iran previously) - the internet blackout is back. Again it's pessimistic but I think it's a resilient regime.
I think a lot about the Gideon Rachman at the end of 2024 about the various possibilities of how a second Trump presidency might work out in the world and I think some sort of Iranian revolution or regime change was part of the rather grim "America First succeeds" path.
QuoteA dash of wholesome to this Third Gulf War. Kuwaiti civilians approach a downed F-15 pilot.
I'd add also an absolute repudiation of Hegseth's repeated denigration of women in the forces.
Quote from: Jacob on March 02, 2026, 07:17:52 PMIf the Iranian regime is brought down and the Iranian people get better more free government that would be incredible, and to Trump and his backers' credit, much as I loathe them.
Trump and his oligarch buddies in the Gulf just want to restore the monarchy, all for the sake of autocratic corruption.
Not sure that's in the best interests of the Iranian people considering, you know, the last fucking time.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 02, 2026, 08:16:12 PMTrump and his oligarch buddies in the Gulf just want to restore the monarchy, all for the sake of autocratic corruption.
Not sure that's in the best interests of the Iranian people considering, you know, the last fucking time.
Yeah no doubt. And like Sheilbh, I don't think it's particularly likely.
Also - good to see you :hug:
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 02, 2026, 08:04:07 PMI'd add also an absolute repudiation of Hegseth's repeated denigration of women in the forces.
DEI pilot gets shot down? He'll have her mustered out before she gets back to base.
Quote from: Jacob on March 02, 2026, 07:17:52 PMIf the Iranian regime is brought down and the Iranian people get better more free government that would be incredible, and to Trump and his backers' credit, much as I loathe them.
How can they claim credit if they didn't have that objective in the first place? It's like giving credit to Mr. Magoo or Inspector Clouseau.
Meanwhile Rubio in one of the most extraordinary statements from a US SofS, explained that imminent danger existed because the US couldn't talk the Israelis out of a strike that it believed would result in Iran retaliating against the US. So we were forced to join them.
I've spent my entire life insisting that Israel doesn't control US foreign policy only to watch as an American Secretary of State explained we had to go to war because Israel controls our foreign policy.
My concern if that focus is on winning the media space and declaring victory, which is overshadowing the fact the Iranians are still putting a lot of missiles and drones into the air.
An example they've now targeted the UAE with as many ballistic missiles and drones as one of the recent very heaviest Russian barrages against Ukraine, that implies there still a lot of remaining launch infrastructure.
So many more days of this to go, much longer than the nerve of oil traders will hold?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 02, 2026, 08:58:11 PMMeanwhile Rubio in one of the most extraordinary statements from a US SofS, explained that imminent danger existed because the US couldn't talk the Israelis out of a strike that it believed would result in Iran retaliating against the US. So we were forced to join them.
I've spent my entire life insisting that Israel doesn't control US foreign policy only to watch as an American Secretary of State explained we had to go to war because Israel controls our foreign policy.
It's regime capture, first Putin, now Nattyarwho.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 02, 2026, 08:19:37 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on March 02, 2026, 08:04:07 PMI'd add also an absolute repudiation of Hegseth's repeated denigration of women in the forces.
DEI pilot gets shot down? He'll have her mustered out before she gets back to base.
Hey CdM, good to see you and Fate back on board. :)
So, the Iranians are using political protesters as human shields? I can see why so many on the far-left like them.
Quote from: Legbiter on March 02, 2026, 03:26:57 AMSaudi Aramco refinery was just hit with shahed drones. At this point the asymmetry in cost between 70k drones and Pac-3 missiles (several million per missile) becomes obvious. You need cheap, plentiful radar-guided ack-ack like the Ukrainians employ. :hmm:
https://x.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/2028369512119046632 (https://x.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/2028369512119046632)
Ukraine should send:
5 interceptors (to be delivered in 3 months).
No operators (would cross red lines).
Best wishes.
Condemnations of Irans actions.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 02, 2026, 08:58:11 PMMeanwhile Rubio in one of the most extraordinary statements from a US SofS, explained that imminent danger existed because the US couldn't talk the Israelis out of a strike that it believed would result in Iran retaliating against the US. So we were forced to join them.
I've spent my entire life insisting that Israel doesn't control US foreign policy only to watch as an American Secretary of State explained we had to go to war because Israel controls our foreign policy.
Yeah. Same. Stunning that he thought this was a valid explanation. There is also the possibility this wasn't true, but it still felt better to him than the real reason (Trump wanting a new episode in his presidential reality TV show and nobody dearing to tell him no)
Tail wags the dog.
Quote from: Tamas on March 03, 2026, 03:38:01 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on March 02, 2026, 08:58:11 PMMeanwhile Rubio in one of the most extraordinary statements from a US SofS, explained that imminent danger existed because the US couldn't talk the Israelis out of a strike that it believed would result in Iran retaliating against the US. So we were forced to join them.
I've spent my entire life insisting that Israel doesn't control US foreign policy only to watch as an American Secretary of State explained we had to go to war because Israel controls our foreign policy.
Yeah. Same. Stunning that he thought this was a valid explanation. There is also the possibility this wasn't true, but it still felt better to him than the real reason (Trump wanting a new episode in his presidential reality TV show and nobody dearing to tell him no)
It appears to be the official line.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5764030-trump-administration-iran-strikes-israel/
QuoteLawmakers: Israeli plan to attack Iran dictated Trump's decision on strikes
Senior lawmakers in both parties said Monday that the Trump administration's decision to launch bombing and missile strikes across Iran this weekend was largely dictated by Israel's plan to attack Iran with or without U.S. support.
Senior administration officials told Republican and Democratic lawmakers at a classified briefing on Capitol Hill that the Israeli plan to strike Iran pushed the United States to take preemptive action to protect U.S. troops stationed at bases throughout the Middle East, whom the Pentagon believed would have been targeted by retaliatory strikes.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), who serves as vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee attended the briefing, said the decision to initiate a massive military assault on another country because of pressure from a U.S. ally put the nation in "uncharted" territory.
"This is still a war of choice that has been acknowledged by others that was dictated by Israel's goals and timeline," Warner told reporters at the briefing.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine provided the briefing to lawmakers Monday afternoon.
Warner said he supports Israel, but he questioned the decision to put American lives at risk when an imminent threat may be directed at an ally instead of the United States itself.
"Israel is a great ally of America. I stand firmly with Israel. But I believe at the end of the day when we are talking about putting American soldiers in harm's way and we have American casualties and expectations of more, there needs to be the proof of an imminent threat to American interests. I still don't think that standard has been met," he said.
Warner argued if the military operation against Iran "was being driven by imminent security threats from Iran against America, I think we would have had better planning."
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), speaking to reporters after the briefing, said that President Trump faced a tough call on ordering strikes against Iran when it became clear that Israel would launch military operations, even without U.S. support, which would have put U.S. troops in the region in danger.
"Israel was determined to act in their own defense here, with or without American support. Why? Because Israel faced what they deemed to be an existential threat. Iran was building missiles at a rapid clip to the point where our allies in the region could not keep up," Johnson said.
"Because Israel was determined to act with or without the U.S., our commander in chief and the administration and the officials [in the Cabinet] had a very difficult decision to make. They had to evaluate the threats to the U.S., to our troops, to our installations, to our assets in the region in beyond," Johnson said.
The Speaker said that senior Trump administration officials determined that "if Israel fired upon Iran" to destroy its weapons caches, then Iran "would have immediately retaliated against U.S. personnel and assets."
"If we had waited for all those eventualities to take place, the consequences of inaction on our part would have been devastating," Johnson argued.
"If Iran had begun to fire all of their missile arsenal, short- and mid-range missiles at our personnel and our assets and our installations, we would have suffered staggering losses," he said.
"If we had waited to respond before acting first, those losses would have been far greater than if we had done what we did," he added.
Rubio, speaking to reporters before the briefing, said the threat of Iranian retaliation against U.S. troops in response to an attack by Israel was a driving factor in the decision to launch U.S. strikes across Iran.
"The second question I've been asked is 'Why now?' Well, there are two reasons why now. The first is it was abundantly clear that if Iran came under attack by anyone, the United States or Israel or anyone, they were going to respond and respond against the United States," Rubio said.
He said that Iran's orders to retaliate against U.S. troops and installations had been delegated down to field commanders well before Israel and the United States launched the weekend's strikes.
"If we stood and waited for that attack to come first before we hit them, we would suffer much higher casualties," he said.
"So, the president made the very wise decision. We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn't preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties," he asserted.
Trumps done a number on people who look down on conspiracy theories. Rich pedophile cabal ruling the government? Check. Israel controlling the US government? Check. wonder which one is next? Revealing the moon landing was a hoax? Mole people? The possibilities are endless.
Quote from: HVC on March 03, 2026, 03:51:34 AMTrumps done a number on people who look down on conspiracy theories. Rich pedophile cabal ruling the government? Check. Israel controlling the US government? Check. wonder which one is next? Revealing the moon landing was a hoax? Mole people? The possibilities are endless.
Bernie Sanders was the second shooter in Dallas.
(https://i.ibb.co/TB208kdX/image.png)
I'm getting increasing Franz Ferdinand vibes on this whole situation, in the context of how out of control it's becoming.
The Israelis just blew up a gathering of the Assembly of Experts in Qom when they were meeting to select a new supreme leader. Acting defense minister and his deputy also deleted. The org chart is rapidly converging on the janitor. :hmm:
https://x.com/manniefabian/status/2028840316107686336 (https://x.com/manniefabian/status/2028840316107686336)
Is Israeli intelligence really that good?
You can find the location of the Assembly of Experts building on google. I'm confident even our intelligence is good enough for that.
Probably not a great sign that we keep attacking useless targets.
Quote from: PJL on March 03, 2026, 09:31:34 AMI'm getting increasing Franz Ferdinand vibes on this whole situation, in the context of how out of control it's becoming.
I don't know, despite personality clashes I thought the pulled together quite well on the last album.
From the NYTimes
QuotePresident Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine said he offered to help the United Arab Emirates to contend with Iranian strikes and "support the protection of lives." Ukraine has years of experience combatting Iranian-designed drones, launched by Russia. Zelensky said Tuesday in a social media post that he spoke with the Emirati president, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, and they "agreed that our teams will work on this."
Ukraine should ask the to lobby the US on their behalf. They hold the at large Trump family by the balls.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 03, 2026, 10:36:23 AMYou can find the location of the Assembly of Experts building on google. I'm confident even our intelligence is good enough for that.
Probably not a great sign that we keep attacking useless targets.
We keep killing their leaders... Do they not have enough brains to go some undisclosed location while the war goes on? Maybe they should find a bunker, or a Motel 6.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 02, 2026, 08:47:19 PMHow can they claim credit if they didn't have that objective in the first place? It's like giving credit to Mr. Magoo or Inspector Clouseau.
Mainly because if it turns into a complete shitshow, then they own those consequences too. So to be fair, if somehow they luck into a good set of outcomes, I'll have to give them some of the credit for that.
I tend to believe it will turn into a complete shitshow, but I want to correct a bit for my own bias when assessing the situation.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 03, 2026, 11:57:06 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on March 03, 2026, 10:36:23 AMYou can find the location of the Assembly of Experts building on google. I'm confident even our intelligence is good enough for that.
Probably not a great sign that we keep attacking useless targets.
We keep killing their leaders... Do they not have enough brains to go some undisclosed location while the war goes on? Maybe they should find a bunker, or a Motel 6.
Maybe use zoom, or an email.
Change the meeting culture!
Quote from: Razgovory on March 03, 2026, 11:57:06 AMWe keep killing their leaders... Do they not have enough brains to go some undisclosed location while the war goes on? Maybe they should find a bunker, or a Motel 6.
Hard to say given conflicting and unverified reports. Israeli media reported Arafi killed yesterday, but that still seems unconfirmed. Same with the Assembly of Experts attack. Were they in the building? I saw one report before the attack saying there were no plans to convene a meeting until hostilities were reduced. Then again, a number of top leaders including Khameinei were caught in vulnerable positions despite clear advance warning. Israeli media is reporting the Mujtahids were in the building, along with the acting Defense Minister (?) - that may reflect their access of solid intel from IDF or passing on propaganda. Fog of war.
QuoteIranian strikes test the Gulf's trillion-dollar AI dream
The region sold itself as a safe harbor for the world's data. Amazon's burning data center in the UAE has upended that pitch.
For years, Gulf leaders made a simple promise to Silicon Valley: Bring your data, your models, and your chips, and we will give you stability.
On Sunday, that promise ended in flames, after Iran's retaliatory strikes in response to U.S.-Israeli assault set an Amazon data center in the United Arab Emirates on fire.
In a statement released following the incident, Amazon said "objects" struck the building, creating sparks and flames, declining to link the incident to Iran's missile and drone attacks. Fire crews cut power to the entire site, and more than 24 hours later the facility remains offline, with the disruption spreading to other parts of Amazon's UAE operation.
Full article here: https://restofworld.org/2026/amazon-uae-data-center-fire-iran-strike/
I'll crosspost it to the AI thread too.
Quote from: Jacob on March 03, 2026, 12:21:16 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on March 02, 2026, 08:47:19 PMHow can they claim credit if they didn't have that objective in the first place? It's like giving credit to Mr. Magoo or Inspector Clouseau.
Mainly because if it turns into a complete shitshow, then they own those consequences too. So to be fair, if somehow they luck into a good set of outcomes, I'll have to give them some of the credit for that.
I tend to believe it will turn into a complete shitshow, but I want to correct a bit for my own bias when assessing the situation.
I'm conflicted, I dislike Trump and Netanyahu, I think it will probably turn into a shitshow because everything in the Middle East turns into a shitshow, but I also despise the Iranian regime. Trump's goons have killed a handful of Americans in the street in the last year or so. The Ayatollah's thugs killed 30k in a month. It boggles the mind that people defend this these regime.
I've heard that the Assembly building was empty but also that it wasn't. I've also heard reports the Ayatollah was killed during a meeting in his compound--which if true is mind-boggling opsec. The idea a figure like him would just be openly inside the building most prominently associated with his rule, an obvious target of Iran's enemies...just unthinkably dumb if accurate.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 03, 2026, 12:21:59 PMMaybe use zoom, or an email.
Change the meeting culture!
Just an astoundingly cretinous regime.
Too stupid to live.
After his ministers claimed that Israel forced their hand, Trump of course comes out to say that he did instead push Israel. :lol:
The 2003 invasion of Iraq was, in comparison and even in hindsight, a masterclass of strategic planning and focus compared to whatever the hell is happening right now. I have not a seen a semi-coherent description of the reason for the attacks and their ultimate objective. Any quasi-coherent explanation provided by a member of the government has been near-instanlty contradicted by another member of the government, or Trump himself.
It's extraordinary.
Well Israel probably has a plan. I guess we are following that.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 03, 2026, 10:39:32 AMFrom the NYTimes
QuotePresident Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine said he offered to help the United Arab Emirates to contend with Iranian strikes and "support the protection of lives." Ukraine has years of experience combatting Iranian-designed drones, launched by Russia. Zelensky said Tuesday in a social media post that he spoke with the Emirati president, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, and they "agreed that our teams will work on this."
Two thoughts.
Zelensky is very canny and I have zero doubt he will be making the link between Iran and Russia very clear in dealing with the US (and his European allies, like Merz visiting Trump today, will do the same). But also I suspect draw the link with Israel. Until the twelve day war Israel-Russian relations were pretty good. Israel was one of the only countries, with Turkiye, that had positive relations with Ukraine and Russia. Iran cashed in their chips during the twelve day war and got Russian support which has poisoned their relations with Israel. I think there's opportunity there for Ukraine in engaging with the US.
The other side is a little bit of a possible risk. It strikes me that several of the world's richest countries across the Gulf are going to be in the market for a lot of weapons and particularly anti-air systems, which are broadly very similar to ones Ukraine is also trying to source. It could be a little like when Europe started reducing its dependence on Russian gas and suddenly a very rich, big customer entered the LNG market which caused huge disruption across Asia (the traditional LNG market). So we need to make sure manufacturing capacity grows rapidly to make sure that the UAE etc aren't able to just outbid Ukraine on this.
Totally separate - but I see that Western reports are saying that Qatar has launched an attack on Iran in the last 24 hours which is extraordinary. But I think a sign of the Gulf mood which is pushing now for regime change.
Quote from: Zanza on March 03, 2026, 01:25:43 PMAfter his ministers claimed that Israel forced their hand, Trump of course comes out to say that he did instead push Israel. :lol:
Either the US has self-esteem issues relating to peer-pressure (which I doubt) or the motive is that this is just a modern punitive expedition/HOI IV addiction. :hmm: You go in, absolutely trash the place, despoil the land, etc and hopefully force the new leadership to pay tribute. Iran immediately after this war will be a wasteland, a total basketcase, unable to build nukes or fire ballistic missiles at their neighbors. :hmm:
Current US foreign policy is like, I dunno, Subutai invading Hungary.
(https://cdn.historycollection.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/22mongol-army-on-the-move.-pintrest.jpg)
Trump and his various spokespeople have not "ruled out" boots on the ground, apparently.
What do you all think the chances are of an American deployment on Iranian soil? Whether limited or substantial?
God knows at this point.
As an aside I just found out a part of the reason why Israel has these God-like intelligence powers.
QuoteIsrael will never admit it, but I am confident that so many of the successes Israel has had vs. the Iranian axis is not due to Israeli genius but due to the stupidity of the men who make up the rank-and-file and commanders of these militias & Iranian regime.
Having spent 903 days in the captivity of an Iraqi militia servicing Iran, I can tell you that I've never met more ignorant people in my life. Commanders who think tracking devices can be planted in teeth, but don't know white [non-silver] fillings exist. Commanders who think Masons rule the world. Senior commanders who are literally illiterate. An Iranian commander who thinks there is such a thing as spoken vs. written Hebrew (diglossia).
What a travesty that Iraqis, Yemenis, Gazans, Iranians and Lebanese are subject to the rule of these brutal ignoramuses.
https://x.com/LizHurra/status/1985265487849087320 (https://x.com/LizHurra/status/1985265487849087320)
The post she links to illustrates the..problem perfectly.
*edit* here it is, with commentary.
https://x.com/HadiHtt/status/1986917550845010366?t=HcHoGBny5d6pLhp7S_JcdQ&s=09
QuoteFirst, cellphones on location and inside tunnels.
Second, filming with smartphones.
Third, filming workers faces, with the identity of the contractor and the project revealed. Possible easy targets for foreign intel.
Forth and most dangerous: if this was not followed by serious investigations from the military and government, it can give us an insight on how much the last 12 days war against Iran and also what happened in Lebanon and Gaza in the last 3 years were beneficial in terms of lessons and experience for the Iranian command.
Later, if this location was striked during any upcoming agression against Iran, the Iranians and the world will be stunned by the "God like" capabilities of Israeli mossad, while in fact, it was always the lack of proper security measures from our side, in Lebanon as in Iran, that lead to all of these heavy losses in individuals and military capabilities.
Hopefuly this will be a stupid contractor mistake, not a representative sample.
A sub-85 IQ intelligence officer could find out the coordinates of this site. Imagine what a smart one could do.
Quote from: Jacob on March 03, 2026, 02:29:02 PMTrump and his various spokespeople have not "ruled out" boots on the ground, apparently.
What do you all think the chances are of an American deployment on Iranian soil? Whether limited or substantial?
I'd still say it is low...Trump not "ruling out" things is one of his few standards.
Might there be special operations guys on the ground at some point? Perhaps intermittently/specialized raids, etc. And on-the-ground personnel might be part of some kind of eventual cease-fire/peace arrangement (e.g. nuclear site inspectors/verification, etc.) at some point. But I doubt any mass deployment/ground combat operations.
Quote from: Jacob on March 03, 2026, 02:29:02 PMTrump and his various spokespeople have not "ruled out" boots on the ground, apparently.
What do you all think the chances are of an American deployment on Iranian soil? Whether limited or substantial?
You'd have to ask Bibi, only he knows for sure.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 03, 2026, 01:03:37 PMI've heard that the Assembly building was empty but also that it wasn't. I've also heard reports the Ayatollah was killed during a meeting in his compound--which if true is mind-boggling opsec. The idea a figure like him would just be openly inside the building most prominently associated with his rule, an obvious target of Iran's enemies...just unthinkably dumb if accurate.
I wonder if his cancer was back/another health issue was reaching terminal levels and he let his location leak so he could become a martyr for a failing regime rather than just an old guy who died.
Maybe but Occam Razoring an explanation of simple human stupidity rarely goes wrong,
True.
https://newrepublic.com/post/207270/military-leaders-iran-war-donald-trump-jesus-armageddon
QuoteMilitary Leaders Say Iran War Is So Trump Can Bring About "Armageddon"
Troops have logged more than 110 complaints about such comments with the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.
Without any clear message coming from the White House with regard to the purpose of the Iran war, U.S. military commanders have turned to Jesus, apparently telling American troops that the war is "biblically sanctioned."
The U.S. joined Israel in striking Iran early Saturday morning. By Monday evening, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, or MRFF, was "inundated" with complaints, receiving more than 110 grievances from U.S. military personnel stationed at dozens of sites across the Middle East, reported independent journalist Jonathan Larsen.
One such note included an anecdote from a noncommissioned officer, who reported that their commander had "urged us to tell our troops that this was 'all part of God's divine plan' and he specifically referenced numerous citations out of the Book of Revelation referring to Armageddon and the imminent return of Jesus Christ."
The NCO's complaint was lodged on behalf of 15 troops, including 11 Christians, one Muslim, and one Jew, according to Larsen. The officer stated that such remarks "destroy morale and unit cohesion and are in violation of the oaths we swore to support the [C]onstitution."
"This morning our commander opened up the combat readiness status briefing by urging us to not be 'afraid' as to what is happening with our combat operations in Iran right now," the NCO wrote.
"He said that 'President Trump has been anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth,'" the NCO continued. "He had a big grin on his face when he said all of this which made his message seem even more crazy."
It wouldn't be a stretch to blame some of the blatant constitutional violations on Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who has repeatedly evoked God and Christian nationalism in his time fronting the Pentagon.
Hegseth has parroted the views of Douglas Wilson, a conservative theologian who advocated for Christian dominance over government and society. He has followed through in practice, instating regular prayer services at America's military headquarters. He also entered office with several Christian symbols already emblazoned on his skin—a Jerusalem cross and the phrase "Deus vult"—in what Hegseth has described as emblems of the "modern-day American Christian crusade."
U.S. service members are afforded the religious liberty protections in the First Amendment. They also have a legal right to seek religious accommodations—and the MRFF told Larsen that it has been overwhelmed with complaints about commanders who are apparently tapping into the same sort of Christian nationalism espoused by the Pentagon chief.
"These calls have one damn thing in freaking common; our MRFF clients [service members who seek MRFF aid] report the unrestricted euphoria of their commanders and command chains as to how this new 'biblically-sanctioned' war is clearly the undeniable sign of the expeditious approach of the fundamentalist Christian 'End Times' as vividly described in the New Testament Book of Revelation," MRFF president and founder Mikey Weinstein, a veteran of the Air Force and the Reagan White House, told Larsen.
"Many of their commanders are especially delighted with how graphic this battle will be zeroing in on how bloody all of this must become in order to fulfill and be in 100 percent accordance with fundamentalist Christian end of the world eschatology."
Not sure how credible Jonathan Larsen or the MRFF are, so take with plenty of NaCl. :tinfoil:
Remember, Trump is the best and brightest Republican. The one they have chosen to lead them.
Quote from: The Brain on March 03, 2026, 03:21:53 PMRemember, Trump is the best and brightest Republican. The one they have chosen to lead them.
No, Trump was chosen by God - at least according to American Fundamentalists.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 03, 2026, 02:47:23 PMI'd still say it is low...Trump not "ruling out" things is one of his few standards.
Might there be special operations guys on the ground at some point? Perhaps intermittently/specialized raids, etc. And on-the-ground personnel might be part of some kind of eventual cease-fire/peace arrangement (e.g. nuclear site inspectors/verification, etc.) at some point. But I doubt any mass deployment/ground combat operations.
Yeah I agree with this.
I had coffee today with a friend whose family fled Iran shortly after the Revolution, when he was a young boy. The family left to avoid the forced conversions that were occurring (they are Zoroastrians). His view was that although he was happy an evil man was killed, he fears the country will explode into both sectarian and nationalist violence that will make the break up of Yugoslavia look like a tea party.
Yeah that seems a pretty reasonable position.
I've yet to meet a Persian in Vancouver who does not despise the Mullah-regime in Iran. Apparently there are some Iranians and I suppose Iranian-aligned Arabs in Europe who are expressing support for the Iranian government, but I haven't come across any locally.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 03, 2026, 03:43:43 PMQuote from: The Brain on March 03, 2026, 03:21:53 PMRemember, Trump is the best and brightest Republican. The one they have chosen to lead them.
No, Trump was chosen by God - at least according to American Fundamentalists.
History has definitely shown that God sucks ass at selecting leaders.
I heard the regime was spreading among the soldiers that this war would somehow help Jesus return, I don't know if that is true but...you can just read anything in Revelations can't you?
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2026, 04:22:10 PMI heard the regime was spreading among the soldiers that this war would somehow help Jesus return, I don't know if that is true but...you can just read anything in Revelations can't you?
:hmm: Sounding suspiciously like something the harlot would say <_<
I have definitely encountered a few nutty/religious folks (pretty evenly spread between enlisted, officers/commanders, and a couple chaplains...especially Army ones) in the military that have blown over the religious lines. But also the opposite...some of the most hippie, make-their-own-kombucha types you could imagine.
When I worked in the UK with mostly British colleagues...there was no such taboo, almost none at all. One dude I worked with was quite the Anglican fundamentalist, something I had thought was a contradiction in terms. :P
Edit: I should caveat though...I mostly lived in the military intel world, which felt pretty insular from most of the rest of the military, and perhaps much more sane. :sleep:
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 03, 2026, 04:28:55 PMQuote from: Valmy on March 03, 2026, 04:22:10 PMI heard the regime was spreading among the soldiers that this war would somehow help Jesus return, I don't know if that is true but...you can just read anything in Revelations can't you?
:hmm: Sounding suspiciously like something the harlot would say <_<
Trump is the whore of Babylon.
QuoteMojtaba Khamenei, the hardline 56-year-old son of Iran's late dictator and a close ally of the Revolutionary Guards, has reportedly been named Supreme Leader. He was recently injured and will likely continue to be a target of Israeli assassination attempts
https://x.com/ksadjadpour/status/2028937491151990939 (https://x.com/ksadjadpour/status/2028937491151990939)
(https://i.iranintl.com/images/rdk9umy0/production/d13577f78c5b2b7fcf05440ab6fad2a27b0fa3e7-600x800.jpg?rect=20,99,560,701&w=793&h=992&q=80&fit=max&auto=format)
Chip off the old block. Anybody want to bet how long until..? :hmm:
If that happens, the exiled Iranians wishing the monarchy to return to rule will get their way, after a fashion. It'll just be a different dynasty.
Half life of an Iranian mullah now is somewhere between a fruit fly and a Russian dissident within 10 feet of an 8th floor window.
Quote from: PJL on March 03, 2026, 05:21:58 PMIf that happens, the exiled Iranians wishing the monarchy to return to rule will get their way, after a fashion. It'll just be a different dynasty.
The diaspora will take anyone over the Mullahs.
Thanks for nothing moron*
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/ace/standard/976/cpsprodpb/7e54/live/160661d0-16fd-11f1-801d-ed3cff6bf876.png.webp)
* BSer in chief, not you guys
I miss when millenarian cults just made good furniture, drank kool-aid, or danced. :(
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 03, 2026, 05:30:36 PMQuote from: PJL on March 03, 2026, 05:21:58 PMIf that happens, the exiled Iranians wishing the monarchy to return to rule will get their way, after a fashion. It'll just be a different dynasty.
The diaspora will take anyone over the Mullahs.
What if the country collapses into Balkanized violence? Things can always get worse.
QuoteCIA Arms Iran's Kurds For Regime Change — Why Is The Opposition Against Them?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/guneyyildiz/2026/03/03/cia-arms-irans-kurds-for-regime-change---why-is-the-opposition-against-them/
QuoteThe CIA is working to arm Kurdish forces inside Iran. President Trump called Kurdish leaders personally over the weekend — and on Tuesday spoke directly with Mustafa Hijri, president of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan, whose camps the IRGC had just struck with drones. Benjamin Netanyahu arrived at the White House with Kurdish uprising numbers already mapped. Weapons have reportedly been smuggled into western Iran since last year's twelve-day war. Israeli strikes are targeting Iranian military outposts along the Iraq border to clear a path for ground operations.
Meanwhile, Iran's Ali Larijani — steering what remains of a state whose command structure has been decapitated three times in nine months — threatened "secessionist groups" with severe consequences.
And the man Washington's allies are grooming as the alternative? Exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi denounced the Kurdish coalition as separatist.
I mean, setting up and then betraying the Kurds is just about a habitual fetish for our leadership at this point, isn't it?
At this point if the Kurds trust us it's on them.
It doesn't make sense for Trump to betray the Kurds, no one would trust him again if he were to do so.
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2026, 06:57:03 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 03, 2026, 05:30:36 PMQuote from: PJL on March 03, 2026, 05:21:58 PMIf that happens, the exiled Iranians wishing the monarchy to return to rule will get their way, after a fashion. It'll just be a different dynasty.
The diaspora will take anyone over the Mullahs.
What if the country collapses into Balkanized violence? Things can always get worse.
As noted in my previous post.
Quote from: DGuller on March 03, 2026, 08:57:17 PMIt doesn't make sense for Trump to betray the Kurds, no one would trust him again if he were to do so.
Sarcasm?
Quote from: HVC on March 03, 2026, 09:47:37 PMQuote from: DGuller on March 03, 2026, 08:57:17 PMIt doesn't make sense for Trump to betray the Kurds, no one would trust him again if he were to do so.
Sarcasm?
I would never engage in sarcasm.
I think whatever the Kurdd may do or not do, they will price in the risk of American perfidy
Trump has said that the USA will escort vessels through the Straits of Hormuz and offer insurance guarantees.
Very nice of him I'm sure, more American tax dollars at work.
I'm interested in the extent to which a decapitated but furious Iran can keep the straits closed to maritime traffic. They have a lot of relatively cheap drones and missiles and decapitation has left fanatic IRGC colonels and what have you to their own devices. I have no feel for this myself, maybe a languishite with military experience (grumbler :P ) might have some idea?
Periscope footage of an Iranian frigate being torpedoed by a US sub off the coast of Sri Lanka.
https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/2029195088404893869 (https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/2029195088404893869)
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 04, 2026, 02:31:42 AMTrump has said that the USA will escort vessels through the Straits of Hormuz and offer insurance guarantees.
Very nice of him I'm sure, more American tax dollars at work.
I'm interested in the extent to which a decapitated but furious Iran can keep the straits closed to maritime traffic. They have a lot of relatively cheap drones and missiles and decapitation has left fanatic IRGC colonels and what have you to their own devices. I have no feel for this myself, maybe a languishite with military experience (grumbler :P ) might have some idea?
There are ways to defend against small numbers of cheap drones, so defending the straits would be pretty effective, but it wouldn't be foolproof and just a few hits would scare off merchant traffic, insurance guarantees be damned.
So lets assume this isn't a disaster and the Iranian people eventually benefit from a regime change, that begs the question 'Who's next' for this emboldened trump FP cult?
Which country, it's people and the leadership are next?
And the one after that?
Which could be the first Western democracy to be attacked?
He already threatened to attack Greenland and annex Canada, so those seem the most likely
But your starting scenario is improbable. Iran is not ending anytime soon and definitely not peacefully. It seems clear now that the Trumpists thought it would be a re-run of Venezuela. And they have no plan for ending what they have unleashed.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 04, 2026, 09:46:19 AMHe already threatened to attack Greenland and annex Canada, so those seem the most likely
But your starting scenario is improbable. Iran is not ending anytime soon and definitely not peacefully. It seems clear now that the Trumpists thought it would be a re-run of Venezuela. And they have no plan for ending what they have unleashed.
CC, you're probably right about the outcome not being the pretty picture painted by them, but they can still leave it in a mess, declare some form of victory and target the next country?
Quote from: mongers on March 04, 2026, 09:26:01 AMSo lets assume this isn't a disaster and the Iranian people eventually benefit from a regime change, that begs the question 'Who's next' for this emboldened trump FP cult?
Which country, it's people and the leadership are next?
And the one after that?
Which could be the first Western democracy to be attacked?
Cuba is next.
(https://i.ibb.co/WWVN9Lvx/download.webp)
QuoteA local child near an unexploded Iranian missile that landed in Rojava's (northeast Syria) Qamishli on March 4, 2026. Photo: AP
Amazing how much ballistic missiles still look like the V2
Well we are currently attacking Ecuador so...
NATO air defenses shot down a ballistic missile heading towards Turkey (Incirlik air base). NATO article five activation is not far off. :hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on March 04, 2026, 11:58:10 AMWell we are currently attacking Ecuador so...
Well, the Ecuadorian pres seems to be friendly with Trump, and it appears to be a cooperation against evil narco-terrorists?
If there are still historians in 50 or 100 years, piecing together a picture of this chaotic period will be a challenge.
From Faux News:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hegseth-says-leader-behind-effort-assassinate-trump-has-been-hunted-down-killed-iran
QuoteHegseth says the leader behind effort to assassinate Trump has been 'hunted down and killed' in Iran
'Iran tried to kill President Trump and President Trump got the last laugh,' Hegseth said
War Secretary Pete Hegseth said Wednesday that an Iranian leader behind a unit that attempted to assassinate President Trump has been killed in Iran amid Operation Epic Fury.
"The leader of the unit that attempted to assassinate Trump has been hunted down and killed," Hegseth said during a press conference Wednesday morning.
"Iran tried to kill President Trump and President Trump got the last laugh," Hegseth continued. "Now, this is not a 'mission accomplished' situation. This is simply a reality check."
In 2024, Iran-linked actors attempted to arrange an assassination plot to take out the president. Iran has previously threatened to assassinate Trump following the 2020 killing of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani.
In 2022, an Iranian video depicted an assassination attempt on Trump while he played golf.
U.S. officials confirmed earlier this week that strikes on Iran, which began Saturday, killed Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Trump reflected on Khamenei's death in a call to ABC News' Jonathan Karl earlier this week, saying: "I got him before he got me."
"They tried twice," Trump continued, referring to Iran's previous attempts on his life. "Well, I got him first."
Meanwhile, Hegseth, on Wednesday said the combination of U.S. and Israeli intelligence and combat power "will control Iran and will control it soon."
"America is winning decisively, devastatingly and without mercy," Hegseth said.
Quote from: Legbiter on March 04, 2026, 12:33:30 PMNATO air defenses shot down a ballistic missile heading towards Turkey (Incirlik air base). NATO article five activation is not far off. :hmm:
It's an interesting situation for sure.
On the face of it, I'd think a lot of NATO countries would be pretty reluctant to support Trump's Iran adventure for a wide number of reasons.
... but if Iran lashes out hard at NATO, the non-US allies may have some choices to make.
Quote from: Syt on March 04, 2026, 12:44:36 PMFrom Faux News:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hegseth-says-leader-behind-effort-assassinate-trump-has-been-hunted-down-killed-iran
Quote
"America is winning decisively, devastatingly and without mercy," Hegseth said.
Let me guess: they will get tired of winning?
Quote from: Syt on March 04, 2026, 12:44:36 PM...
Meanwhile, Hegseth, on Wednesday said the combination of U.S. and Israeli intelligence and combat power "will control Iran and will control it soon."
"America is winning decisively, devastatingly and without mercy," Hegseth said.]
I mean, so for the Trump administration has really leaned into the parts the US military is good at. Blowing things up, killing people, and dominating militarily. (and I bet it makes them feel really good too)
The challenging bits are going to come in the next however many months. What happens next in Iran? Is it any better? And what will it cost the US (and everyone else)?
Well yeah what happens if the regime just...hangs on? A zombie regime that will instantly reconstitute it's security apparatus as soon as the skies clear even if it dosen't have a functioning ballistic missile program anymore? :hmm:
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 04, 2026, 10:00:17 AMQuote from: mongers on March 04, 2026, 09:26:01 AMSo lets assume this isn't a disaster and the Iranian people eventually benefit from a regime change, that begs the question 'Who's next' for this emboldened trump FP cult?
Which country, it's people and the leadership are next?
And the one after that?
Which could be the first Western democracy to be attacked?
Cuba is next.
Yes, most likely in all probability.
But I can see trump making a mini-drama out of Diego Garcia and just announcing the US has annexed it after declaring victory in Iran, would fit with the engorged ego and be a 'fitting' riposte to NATOs standing up to him on Greenland
I'd say right now both sides are winning. Just that they're playing different games, the US/Israel a military one, and Iran an economic one.
If we define winning as slightly inconveniencing the enemy's civilian population, then sure, Iran is winning the economic war.
Iran is losing this war on every front in every way, it's just that I don't believe the US has any kind of solid plan and everything will go to hell for the Iranian people. Which, to be fair, is not the responsibility of the US. The responsibility of the Iranian people falls on the Iranian government and they brought this down on themselves these last 40 or so years.
So, I guess if the Americans and the Iranians spend all their energy and all their resources on battling each other it's a win for the western world. Two rogue states, both not our friends, tiring each other out must be seen as a win.
Something that will a warm a few of your hearts.
https://x.com/pawelwargan/status/2028222286872883330
It was never about civilians.
Even if the thought was to use the Venezuelan gambit on Iran, I think there is one big difference. While Maduro's successors appear to be content to be tithe-paying supplicants in order to maintain their domestic power base...I expect any remnants of the regime (if that is who is fated to survive) that might make a deal with Trump may pay lip service to the demands...but will be seething for revenge at the first/every opportunity.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 05, 2026, 02:22:34 AMI expect any remnants of the regime (if that is who is fated to survive) that might make a deal with Trump may pay lip service to the demands...but will be seething for revenge at the first/every opportunity.
I have no idea what to expect. But I worry the ability of us to negotiate with anybody. Not only have we broken every deal we have ever made with them, we have killed anybody with the prestige or ability to accept any terms. I don't see we have any credibility nor any identifiable and acceptable person to enforce whatever terms we want to enforce. This new Ayatollah, the former dude's son, seems like a hard liner far beyond his father. So that's bad and besides how much power does he really have?
And I worry we have created intertia and momentum towards chaos, war, destabilization, and death. That will be hard to reverse if it really sets in. And we lack the resources and the will to stick around to fix it.
Or maybe this whole thing will somehow just fade away by next week and the status quo we reassert itself. What do I know?
If the target was regime change then it makes no sense to encourage the Kurds, which will increase the chances of a long and bloody civil war. It will also annoy the Turks who may well enter Iran just as they did in Syria. The problem with the likely ensuing chaos, apart from the misery inflicted on close to 100m people, is that a long term military presence in the Gulf will be required to keep the straits open.
Since when is being merciless in war something to brag about? Jesus fucking christ.
Quote from: celedhring on March 05, 2026, 03:38:10 AMSince when is being merciless in war something to brag about? Jesus fucking christ.
We are being led by try hard edgelords.
Quote from: Jacob on March 03, 2026, 02:29:02 PMTrump and his various spokespeople have not "ruled out" boots on the ground, apparently.
What do you all think the chances are of an American deployment on Iranian soil? Whether limited or substantial?
Literally insane. The only way troops on the ground would have been plausible if they enacted the draft the moment Trump was inaugurated.
You'd need 2 million troops to occupy a country with the size, terrain and population of Iran. Unless the killbots are way more advanced than we've been led to believe, it can't work.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 03, 2026, 03:56:55 PMI had coffee today with a friend whose family fled Iran shortly after the Revolution, when he was a young boy. The family left to avoid the forced conversions that were occurring (they are Zoroastrians). His view was that although he was happy an evil man was killed, he fears the country will explode into both sectarian and nationalist violence that will make the break up of Yugoslavia look like a tea party.
Yugoslavia 1990 - Largest ethnic group, Serbs = 36%
Persia 2026 - Largest ethnic group, Persians = 61%
I think the outcome would end up quite different. Azeris are by far the largest minority though, so I guess if Azerbijian intervened they might be able to carve off some border areas?
Actually...
https://oc-media.org/azerbaijani-troops-reportedly-deployed-to-iranian-border-as-conflict-rages/
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 05, 2026, 02:22:34 AMEven if the thought was to use the Venezuelan gambit on Iran, I think there is one big difference. While Maduro's successors appear to be content to be tithe-paying supplicants in order to maintain their domestic power base...I expect any remnants of the regime (if that is who is fated to survive) that might make a deal with Trump may pay lip service to the demands...but will be seething for revenge at the first/every opportunity.
Also Venezuela was the US alone. This is with Israeli and I think there is a significantly higher risk appetite from Israel on this - and in particular on this point.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 05, 2026, 03:22:20 AMIf the target was regime change then it makes no sense to encourage the Kurds, which will increase the chances of a long and bloody civil war. It will also annoy the Turks who may well enter Iran just as they did in Syria. The problem with the likely ensuing chaos, apart from the misery inflicted on close to 100m people, is that a long term military presence in the Gulf will be required to keep the straits open.
Yes, and if the goal is regime change it's probably best not to say that Trump was chosen by a Christian god to start the war.
Today the Strait of Hormuz is de facto blockaded. Dozens of tankers are stranded, the the few that have tried to leave got hit. That means Japan, South Korea, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc who overwhelmingly get their oil from the region are effectively economically blockaded. :hmm: The IRGC can strut among the ruins of Iran just like Hamas does today in Gaza but as a geopolitical player funding numerous proxies, not so much after Iran has been bombed back to Central African Republic living standards.
I think you're overestimating the effect of the American tactical strikes.
I think it also flips the cause and effect.
It was the successful weakening of Hezbollah and Hamas, plus the collapse of Assad that I think enables the attacks on Iran. An uncomfortable truth is that the IRGC's "forward defence" (we'll spend billions fighting you there to stop you from fighting us here) was effective and correct for the regime's objectives.
And ultimately if they are able to effectively close Hormuz especially if they can also act on the Red Sea too that is very significant leverage of a type Hamas and Hezbollah or Sahel states simply do not have.
Yeah, where does the US go from here? They've carried out their attacks, and the only thing that has meaningly changed is the world's oil supplies are greatly reduced, and the region has been stabilized.
Now what?
Quote from: Legbiter on March 05, 2026, 07:15:48 AMToday the Strait of Hormuz is de facto blockaded. Dozens of tankers are stranded, the the few that have tried to leave got hit. That means Japan, South Korea, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc who overwhelmingly get their oil from the region are effectively economically blockaded. :hmm: The IRGC can strut among the ruins of Iran just like Hamas does today in Gaza but as a geopolitical player funding numerous proxies, not so much after Iran has been bombed back to Central African Republic living standards.
https://www.wionews.com/photos/strait-of-hormuz-shut-fuel-tanker-on-fire-750-ships-caught-in-backups-as-insurers-cancel-war-coverage-1772514282909/1772514282913
https://www.gasbuddy.com/charts
According to this, gas in the US has jumped from $2.94 to 3.25 in the last five days (select the one month chart)
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2026, 07:53:49 AMYeah, where does the US go from here? They've carried out their attacks, and the only thing that has meaningly changed is the world's oil supplies are greatly reduced, and the region has been stabilized.
Now what?
I think the relative lack of response to the twelve day war maybe created a false sense of Iran's capacity. Reinforced perhaps by the success in Venezuela and in the attacks on Hezbollah etc.
Sorry, typo - region destabilized
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 05, 2026, 07:55:32 AMhttps://www.gasbuddy.com/charts
According to this, gas in the US has jumped from $2.94 to 3.25 in the last five days (select the one month chart)
The gas station near my house has gone from 2.79 Sunday to 3.09 yesterday to 3.19 today. Glad I filled up on the weekend.
I read an interesting analysis that suggests Iran may have made a major strategic mistake in how it designed is ballistic missile system.
Years ago, Iran started storing a large % of their ballistic missiles in underground facilities dubbed "missile cities." Iran was very proud of these facilities and regularly would release videos from inside of them, basically showing these underground warehouses full of missiles--largely safe from any aerial bombing risk.
However, the reason this has become a problem--you can't launch missiles from an underground missile city. They have to be loaded onto a missile launcher and then moved out of the underground facility to a launch site. It appears Israel and the U.S. know where all these missile cities are. And it's also true that they are usually too deep for easy destruction via bombing.
But what is being done is they are now parking slow moving surveillance planes over the missile cities, and the second a missile launcher tries to drive out of the underground area, they notify the attack forces which immediately come in and destroy the missile launcher.
Israel and the U.S. have also been collapsing the entrances to the missile cities in some locations, effectively sealing their munitions underground.
One analysis in the WSJ suggested this was a strategic blunder by Iran--one of the big advantages of these mobile missile launchers is precisely that they are mobile. But if they have to go to well known "missile city" depots to get armed, they now have to centralize themselves instead of decentralize. Israel and the U.S. appear to have been effectively making it near impossible for Iran to make use of these missile cities, and in fact their very existence is making it much easier for the IDF and U.S. to destroy Iranian missile launchers, because the entire strategic premise of them forces the missile launchers to visit well known, centralized areas. That same analysis also said that in strategic terms--a missile launcher is much more valuable to Iran than missiles. Its production pipeline for missiles is easier to ramp up than it is for launchers, so as it is losing launchers trying to escape the missile cities it has limited means of producing more in the short term.
It isn't known exactly what % of Iran's ballistic missile stockpile are in missile cities, but it's believed to be a large chunk of the total.
My suspicion is the premise of the missile cities was an assumption of a more limited war with Israel in which Israel wouldn't have air superiority, e.g. it was insurance against a surprise attack destroying huge above ground missile stockpiles. It seems Iran didn't consider the implications if Israel attacked alongside the U.S. and established aerial supremacy, turning the missile cities into easily neutralized facilities.
Consequently this is likely the single biggest reason Iran's ballistic missiles launches have declined by 90% since war began last weekend.
For Israel in particular this is huge--Iran's ballistic missiles are the primary threat now that Iran poses to Israel (particularly since its Axis of Resistance is in tatters.)
Unfortunately for the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf Oil states, those areas are being hit primarily by Iran's cheaply made drones, the closer distances involved meaning it doesn't need to use its ballistic missiles to reliably hit targets in those locations.
I'm also not 100% sure how powerful the Strait of Hormuz leverage will affect the one key decision maker--Trump.
Trump has already shown unlike in his first term, he has a willingness to do very stupid things that risk the economy. While Trump has also shown his characteristic cowardice when confronted with tough challenges (e.g. his caving to China when they flexed their critical mineral power against him.)
But the thing is gas prices in the U.S. have been, in real terms, flat for almost 15 years. People still cry about them, but the reality is gas was sometimes in the $3 range when George W. Bush was President, which was 20 years ago when $3 was much more "real" money. The current U.S. economy can likely absorb significant increases in gas prices.
Further, he has some breathing room on gas prices--they've gone up some, but because of how the refining/distribution/futures contract market works, the worst impacts on gas prices will be a bit in the future (Trump infamously only cares about the present.) Also the underlying price of oil was so low before the war, that gives Trump a lot of breathing room--WTI Crude is still only $76/barrel today. The U.S. economy has operated normally with oil over $100/barrel before.
The other flipside--the U.S. actually benefits from high oil prices as the world's largest producer of oil. Many of the guys who funded Trump's 2024 campaign are oil industry tycoons, who have actually been getting soaked by low prices. They would absolutely love $100/barrel oil as the domestic oil industry reaps immense profits when oil gets that high in price.
Trump is also likely much less concerned than any prior President with how any of this affects regional allies, while Trump and the Middle Eastern oil sheikhs have a "bromance" going, the reality is Trump his whole life has regularly screwed over his closest allies with no concern whatsoever.
And it fucks over the eu some more, which the orange turd also hates.
I have no idea why anybody would think that Trump would be making decisions based on anything approaching a careful analysis.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 05, 2026, 08:57:19 AMI'm also not 100% sure how powerful the Strait of Hormuz leverage will affect the one key decision maker--Trump.
Trump cannot even vocalize what the fuck his goals are in this war and he might not even know himself. So I would have to agree that we cannot predict how anything and everything might or might not affect him.
One can sometimes glean what is important to Trump by seeing how Fox & Friends and Hannity report on issues, Trump is literally brain rot levels of addicted to watching conservative cable news.
At this point, I think Trump's primary motivation is ego-protection and -aggrandizement. Insofar as there's a coherent policy - and there may be a few such operating in the background - it comes down to which court ministers have access and how persuasive they are at any given moment.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 05, 2026, 07:32:44 AMIt was the successful weakening of Hezbollah and Hamas, plus the collapse of Assad that I think enables the attacks on Iran. An uncomfortable truth is that the IRGC's "forward defence" (we'll spend billions fighting you there to stop you from fighting us here) was effective and correct for the regime's objectives.
The other lesson to learn here, and one reinforced by the fate of Qaddafi, is that if you are going nuclear, don't hesitate or do deals, go full blast and test a working device ASAP. Look at how Trump treats NK vs Iran.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 05, 2026, 08:45:34 AMMy suspicion is the premise of the missile cities was an assumption of a more limited war with Israel in which Israel wouldn't have air superiority, e.g. it was insurance against a surprise attack destroying huge above ground missile stockpiles. It seems Iran didn't consider the implications if Israel attacked alongside the U.S. and established aerial supremacy, turning the missile cities into easily neutralized facilities.
The other reason to centralize is that you don't trust lower echelon command to be able to operate reliably and independently. If that's true, it may say something about Iran's ability to effectively resist going forward.
I don't think the Iranian military was centralized at all, they don't need to be and it would be very much against their interests to try to create a centralized model. They were never going to take on the US in a conventional war. They have been preparing for an asymmetrical war for more than 40 years. Equating Iranian strategy to what the US would do is not wise.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 05, 2026, 07:55:32 AMhttps://www.gasbuddy.com/charts
According to this, gas in the US has jumped from $2.94 to 3.25 in the last five days (select the one month chart)
At least until the nukes start flying I can feel smug about driving an EV
Iran has a parallel military structure with the regular military proper and the IRGC. That's never a healthy situation. The IRGC has about half the personnel of the regular army but double the budget. They control the drone program and the missile program.
I believe the IRGC is set up to operate effectively without clear central direction. However, I don't think the regular army is trusted to do anything.
The frigate that was sunk was part of the regular forces Navy. I wouldn't expect the morale of the regular forces is particularly high right now.
And again, so what? Iran was never going to fight a conventional war against the US.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 05, 2026, 01:31:47 PMIran has a parallel military structure with the regular military proper and the IRGC. That's never a healthy situation. The IRGC has about half the personnel of the regular army but double the budget. They control the drone program and the missile program.
I believe the IRGC is set up to operate effectively without clear central direction. However, I don't think the regular army is trusted to do anything.
The frigate that was sunk was part of the regular forces Navy. I wouldn't expect the morale of the regular forces is particularly high right now.
Bro this isn't World War II. Sinking that ship was bullshit anyway and probably wasn't worth the ordinance we spent to sink it. Our objectives were not total victory, so why do that?
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2026, 01:45:07 PMIran was never going to fight a conventional war against the US.
Yeah but they are in one. For all the talk of glorious martyrdom, I don't think losing Khamenei and a good chunk of the IRGC command was part of the plan.
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2026, 01:59:36 PMBro this isn't World War II. Sinking that ship was bullshit anyway and probably wasn't worth the ordinance we spent to sink it. Our objectives were not total victory, so why do that?
So our SecDef clown can say "first since WW2!"? Probably literally the reason.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 05, 2026, 02:01:23 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2026, 01:45:07 PMIran was never going to fight a conventional war against the US.
Yeah but they are in one. For all the talk of glorious martyrdom, I don't think losing Khamenei and a good chunk of the IRGC command was part of the plan.
How is this a conventional war? There is no clash of armies on the ground, there is no air war involving fights between aircraft; and there are no naval battles.
This is asymmetrical war. The Iranians are firing off relatively cheap weapons which are being intercepted (most of the time) by very expensive weapons. Are the Americans or Israelis actually going to deploy troops on the ground? If so, that would change things into something that looks more like a conventional war, but that is highly unlikely. And even then, the conventional war part would be brief, and the US would be involved in another occupation but this time against an adversary who has been preparing for this very thing for 40 years.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2026, 02:32:49 PMHow is this a conventional war?
There are conventional planes and conventional ships launching conventional munitions at mostly conventional targets. I don't know what else to call it. It's not nuclear, and it's not some special force operation. Just because it's dumb doesn't mean it isn't conventional.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 05, 2026, 02:01:23 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2026, 01:45:07 PMIran was never going to fight a conventional war against the US.
Yeah but they are in one. For all the talk of glorious martyrdom, I don't think losing Khamenei and a good chunk of the IRGC command was part of the plan.
Is it a conventional war? And the glorious martyrdom stuff is just how they talk about things it doesn't mean anything.
I don't know what Iran's plans may or may not have been. It seems like they had some sort of plan. To just sort of attack everything in the area.
https://apnews.com/live/iran-war-israel-trump-lebanon-march-05-2026#0000019c-bee6-d2b0-a39c-ffee04dc0000
QuoteTrump wants to be involved in picking the next Iranian leader
Trump in an interview with the news outlet Axios said he wants to be involved in selection of Iran's next leader and called Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's son an "unacceptable" potential pick.
"Khamenei's son is unacceptable to me," Trump said of Mojtaba Khamenei, the 56-year-old son of the supreme leader killed on the first day of the war. Trump added, "We want someone that will bring harmony and peace to Iran."
The president also derided Khamenei's son, who is believed to be under consideration to serve as the next supreme leader, as "a light weight."
"I have to be involved in the appointment, like with Delcy in Venezuela," said Trump, referring to the acting president in the South American country.
Delcy Rodriguez took power in January after Trump ordered a U.S. military operation to capture Nicolás Maduro and whisk him to the U.S. to face federal drug conspiracy charges.
Yeah I am sure the person he chooses will be a unifying and harmonous choice to Iranians.
Maybe his shriveled brain has convinced him he's in a really weird version of Apprentice.
So apparently that ship we sunk was an unarmed vessel involved in a joint exercise at the invitation of the Indian government. At least according the Indian Foreign Secretary.
What a bunch of fucking bullshit. What a disgrace to our military.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 05, 2026, 03:05:07 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2026, 02:32:49 PMHow is this a conventional war?
There are conventional planes and conventional ships launching conventional munitions at mostly conventional targets. I don't know what else to call it. It's not nuclear, and it's not some special force operation. Just because it's dumb doesn't mean it isn't conventional.
Your post entirely ignores the rest of my post, which went on to explain why it is not conventional. But your post is indicative of what seems to be the historical American view, which is time and again proven wrong, that the Americans can force the other side into a conventional war.
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2026, 03:34:41 PMSo apparently that ship we sunk was an unarmed vessel involved in a joint exercise at the invitation of the Indian government. At least according the Indian Foreign Secretary.
What a bunch of fucking bullshit. What a disgrace to our military.
But But this is a conventional war
Quote from: Syt on March 05, 2026, 03:19:34 PMMaybe his shriveled brain has convinced him he's in a really weird version of Apprentice.
More like he cannot comprehend that the Iranians didn't immediately give up.
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2026, 03:34:41 PMSo apparently that ship we sunk was an unarmed vessel
Pictures of the ship clearly show a gun on it (and it had much more armament potential than that).
I still think sinking it was likely more of a stunt...but if it were to be clearly sailing from Sri Lanka back towards Iran (I don't know this, just "if"), it would be a fair target...as I think our ships would be in the way.
Apparently Sri Lanka helped evacuate a second Iranian ship/crew out that way...haven't found info on that one yet.
I am sorry but there are American naval forces launching strikes against Iran aren't they? It would be irresponsible not to cripple the enemy's navy to the best of their abilities. It's a stupid war with a strategic disaster written all over it, but that doesn't mean they are forced to wage it in a stupid way on the tactical level.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 05, 2026, 03:49:48 PMApparently Sri Lanka helped evacuate a second Iranian ship/crew out that way...haven't found info on that one yet.
The second/evacuated ship is apparently an Iranian navy unarmed supply ship (which had been dispatched to resupply the sunken ship).
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 05, 2026, 03:49:48 PMPictures of the ship clearly show a gun on it (and it had much more armament potential than that).
There's a claim going around that one of the conditions for Exercise MILAN (which is what the Iranian ship was participating in) was that all participating ships be in "peace protocol" (whatever that means), and the Iranian ambassador to India claims that
Dena wasn't carrying live ammunition. Information is scant, though. This (https://www.thestatesman.com/india/execution-at-sea-was-iris-dena-iranian-frigate-sunk-by-us-in-the-indian-ocean-unarmed-1503566523.html) is the best I have found so far.
Quote from: Tamas on March 05, 2026, 03:52:45 PMI am sorry but there are American naval forces launching strikes against Iran aren't they? It would be irresponsible not to cripple the enemy's navy to the best of their abilities. It's a stupid war with a strategic disaster written all over it, but that doesn't mean they are forced to wage it in a stupid way on the tactical level.
The United States has not declared war on Iran. We are more in the Putinesque sphere of some sort of special presidential operation involving a lot of US military power.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2026, 05:05:58 PMQuote from: Tamas on March 05, 2026, 03:52:45 PMI am sorry but there are American naval forces launching strikes against Iran aren't they? It would be irresponsible not to cripple the enemy's navy to the best of their abilities. It's a stupid war with a strategic disaster written all over it, but that doesn't mean they are forced to wage it in a stupid way on the tactical level.
The United States has not declared war on Iran. We are more in the Putinesque sphere of some sort of special presidential operation involving a lot of US military power.
It looks like the key difference would be that president didn't seek authorisation to use force. After all, the US hasn't actually formally declared war since...WW2?
Quote from: Tamas on March 05, 2026, 03:52:45 PMI am sorry but there are American naval forces launching strikes against Iran aren't they? It would be irresponsible not to cripple the enemy's navy to the best of their abilities. It's a stupid war with a strategic disaster written all over it, but that doesn't mean they are forced to wage it in a stupid way on the tactical level.
There are bigger stakes than what second echelon mullah and their grandkids we happen to slaughter with an airstrike, or what hapless toy size frigate we send to the bottom with all its crew. "Smart" tactics that make the US look like a monstrous bully and inspire disgust and hate around the world are not a net positive for US national security and influence.
December 7 1941 was the day that lives in infamy because while negotiations were ongoing to resolve a dispute involving sanctions and concerns of aggressive acts towards third countries, Japan launched an unprovoked surprise attack with no declaration of war. Americans then and since were outraged by such perfidy to the degree that the offending nation was made the recipient of the only atomic bomb ever used in warfare. What sort of day then is February 28, 2026? Not one that makes me particularly proud of my country's conduct.
Hope DC remembers to say "thank you" at least once:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HCo-8pNWcAAxTRG?format=jpg&name=small)
Edit: Incidentally this is purely vibes based - but I am not like or remotely reassured by any of the mood music coming out of DC right now.
Quote from: Syt on March 05, 2026, 03:19:34 PMMaybe his shriveled brain has convinced him he's in a really weird version of Apprentice.
My hypothesis is that he wants vassals. MAGA-type right wing populists governments in various European and Latin American countries can be conceived as vassals because they'll glaze him, and because they'll enable his corruption networks.
In a place like Venezuela, he believes he's replaced the leader with someone more amenable on those two points - they'll cater to Trump's ego rather than be defiant, and they'll facilitate corruption one way or the other. This is the same thing with his Palestinian "board of peace", and was also the template for his "peace" in Ukraine.
The approach to Iran is the same: "we have lots of power, we're going to swing it around and break shit until you start sucking up to me by acting like a vassal - in this case let me "have a say" in picking the leader - and help me facilitate my oligarch cronies and family pocketing more wealth."
He wants to be the top mafia boss in the world, and he's happy to use the US military to that end.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 05, 2026, 05:52:42 PMIncidentally this is purely vibes based - but I am not like or remotely reassured by any of the mood music coming out of DC right now.
Care to elaborate?
Quote from: Jacob on March 05, 2026, 06:49:13 PMCare to elaborate?
Sadly, as I say, no analysis just vibes. It just feels like everything I'm seeing feels like this is going worse and turing out to be more difficult than they anticipated. I also think there seems to be a degree of surprise at the extent of Iran's response and capacity to respond (both in terms of domestic resilience and counter strikes).
As I say just on the mood music no real statements or anything I've read to get there.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 05, 2026, 05:52:42 PMEdit: Incidentally this is purely vibes based - but I am not like or remotely reassured by any of the mood music coming out of DC right now.
Can't you call if for what it is, Bullshit. ;)
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on March 05, 2026, 04:45:20 PMQuote from: Tonitrus on March 05, 2026, 03:49:48 PMPictures of the ship clearly show a gun on it (and it had much more armament potential than that).
There's a claim going around that one of the conditions for Exercise MILAN (which is what the Iranian ship was participating in) was that all participating ships be in "peace protocol" (whatever that means), and the Iranian ambassador to India claims that Dena wasn't carrying live ammunition. Information is scant, though. This (https://www.thestatesman.com/india/execution-at-sea-was-iris-dena-iranian-frigate-sunk-by-us-in-the-indian-ocean-unarmed-1503566523.html) is the best I have found so far.
If so, that is fair. And worse if we knew that (and perhaps also inexcusable if we were in a situation where we
didn't know). Though I am skeptical even the most stringent "peace protocol" meant that it had zero live ordinance...I cannot imagine us ever doing the same.
I'm no squid...but it still appeared to me as if it would have been easy to alternately signal/demand the ship surrender or intern in port, and only sink it if it insisted on sailing back home from Sri Lanka (as I presume there is quite a bit of the USN physically between those places at the moment).
Instead, it gives the appearance that we punk'd a potentially militarily impotent target for the lulz.
Quote from: mongers on March 05, 2026, 07:01:48 PMCan't you call if for what it is, Bullshit. ;)
Oh that would involve listening to what's being said :P I mean the opposite.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 05, 2026, 06:58:48 PMSadly, as I say, no analysis just vibes. It just feels like everything I'm seeing feels like this is going worse and turing out to be more difficult than they anticipated. I also think there seems to be a degree of surprise at the extent of Iran's response and capacity to respond (both in terms of domestic resilience and counter strikes).
As I say just on the mood music no real statements or anything I've read to get there.
Oh I see. Yeah.
The real question IMO is whether they find themselves a nice off ramp somewhere, whether they just kind of stop and pretend nothing ever happened, or whether they continue throwing more resources at Iran.
I'd love to see some good credible analysis of where Iran is and what it would likely take to affect regime change.
Because from where I'm sitting that's basically the victory condition Trump has defined for himself. And as of yet, they don't really seem near achieving them.
So what's next? Killing more potential leadership candidates? Boots on the ground? Blowing up so much of Iran that they can't shoot back at all?
I am starting to realize I am getting fed a lot of unconfirmed garbage by the internet with regards to this war. So I will probably just stop following it closely. Besides this is a lose-lose proposition. If the US does well, it will just encourage Trump to launch the next attack. If it goes poorly...well that's bad to.
However give me a second to rage againt my party. The goddamn Democratic Party. What a bunch of fuckers. Even in a totally symbolic vote to curb the war powers of the President, which would have been vetoed anyway, we had fuckers breaking ranks to suck Trump cock.
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2026, 05:08:42 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2026, 05:05:58 PMQuote from: Tamas on March 05, 2026, 03:52:45 PMI am sorry but there are American naval forces launching strikes against Iran aren't they? It would be irresponsible not to cripple the enemy's navy to the best of their abilities. It's a stupid war with a strategic disaster written all over it, but that doesn't mean they are forced to wage it in a stupid way on the tactical level.
The United States has not declared war on Iran. We are more in the Putinesque sphere of some sort of special presidential operation involving a lot of US military power.
It looks like the key difference would be that president didn't seek authorisation to use force. After all, the US hasn't actually formally declared war since...WW2?
.
Yes, that's more what I meant
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 05, 2026, 08:45:34 AMI read an interesting analysis that suggests Iran may have made a major strategic mistake in how it designed is ballistic missile system.
Years ago, Iran started storing a large % of their ballistic missiles in underground facilities dubbed "missile cities." Iran was very proud of these facilities and regularly would release videos from inside of them, basically showing these underground warehouses full of missiles--largely safe from any aerial bombing risk.
However, the reason this has become a problem--you can't launch missiles from an underground missile city. They have to be loaded onto a missile launcher and then moved out of the underground facility to a launch site. It appears Israel and the U.S. know where all these missile cities are. And it's also true that they are usually too deep for easy destruction via bombing.
But what is being done is they are now parking slow moving surveillance planes over the missile cities, and the second a missile launcher tries to drive out of the underground area, they notify the attack forces which immediately come in and destroy the missile launcher.
Israel and the U.S. have also been collapsing the entrances to the missile cities in some locations, effectively sealing their munitions underground.
One analysis in the WSJ suggested this was a strategic blunder by Iran--one of the big advantages of these mobile missile launchers is precisely that they are mobile. But if they have to go to well known "missile city" depots to get armed, they now have to centralize themselves instead of decentralize. Israel and the U.S. appear to have been effectively making it near impossible for Iran to make use of these missile cities, and in fact their very existence is making it much easier for the IDF and U.S. to destroy Iranian missile launchers, because the entire strategic premise of them forces the missile launchers to visit well known, centralized areas. That same analysis also said that in strategic terms--a missile launcher is much more valuable to Iran than missiles. Its production pipeline for missiles is easier to ramp up than it is for launchers, so as it is losing launchers trying to escape the missile cities it has limited means of producing more in the short term.
It isn't known exactly what % of Iran's ballistic missile stockpile are in missile cities, but it's believed to be a large chunk of the total.
My suspicion is the premise of the missile cities was an assumption of a more limited war with Israel in which Israel wouldn't have air superiority, e.g. it was insurance against a surprise attack destroying huge above ground missile stockpiles. It seems Iran didn't consider the implications if Israel attacked alongside the U.S. and established aerial supremacy, turning the missile cities into easily neutralized facilities.
Consequently this is likely the single biggest reason Iran's ballistic missiles launches have declined by 90% since war began last weekend.
For Israel in particular this is huge--Iran's ballistic missiles are the primary threat now that Iran poses to Israel (particularly since its Axis of Resistance is in tatters.)
Unfortunately for the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf Oil states, those areas are being hit primarily by Iran's cheaply made drones, the closer distances involved meaning it doesn't need to use its ballistic missiles to reliably hit targets in those locations.
Sounds plausible, but also means that just unilaterally stopping this war is not an option as Iran can then fix this strategic flaw and start moving and then using these systems. Permanent air supremacy surely is costly.
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2026, 07:34:05 PMHowever give me a second to rage againt my party. The goddamn Democratic Party. What a bunch of fuckers. Even in a totally symbolic vote to curb the war powers of the President, which would have been vetoed anyway, we had fuckers breaking ranks to suck Trump cock.
All four are large AIPAC beneficiaries. Probably a total coincidence... :rolleyes:
Yeah @Zanza and @OvB - maybe those missiles can't be brought to bear right now, but unless the regime falls or the missiles are completely destroyed, presumably they'll be properly deployed at some point in the future.
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2026, 07:34:05 PMHowever give me a second to rage againt my party. The goddamn Democratic Party. What a bunch of fuckers. Even in a totally symbolic vote to curb the war powers of the President, which would have been vetoed anyway, we had fuckers breaking ranks to suck Trump cock.
Perhaps you are seeking some sort of purity or uniformity that will never happen? I do not see how it is warranted to rage against the entire Democratic because of 4 shitty and irrelevant representatives. Huh:
Maybe he is upset Pelosi is no longer around, as she might have bitten their heads off? :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 05, 2026, 06:58:48 PMQuote from: Jacob on March 05, 2026, 06:49:13 PMCare to elaborate?
Sadly, as I say, no analysis just vibes. It just feels like everything I'm seeing feels like this is going worse and turing out to be more difficult than they anticipated. I also think there seems to be a degree of surprise at the extent of Iran's response and capacity to respond (both in terms of domestic resilience and counter strikes).
As I say just on the mood music no real statements or anything I've read to get there.
I am getting those same vibes.
I was greatly disturbed by Witkoff's ramblings about "capitulation". Both he and Trump didn't seem to understand why Iran was taking a hardline stance given the asymmetry in military power. They are both real estate moguls from New York and it would appear that they think that everybody thinks like they do; which is quite a stupid error to make when you are dealing with hardline religious fundamentalists.
I'm hoping I'm wrong and a more amenable group of people take over Iran; but, if they don't , I have a gut feel that the war will be long, tedious and expensive in both blood and money.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on March 05, 2026, 10:03:48 PMQuote from: Valmy on March 05, 2026, 07:34:05 PMHowever give me a second to rage againt my party. The goddamn Democratic Party. What a bunch of fuckers. Even in a totally symbolic vote to curb the war powers of the President, which would have been vetoed anyway, we had fuckers breaking ranks to suck Trump cock.
All four are large AIPAC beneficiaries. Probably a total coincidence... :rolleyes:
Yeah, we should have listen to the Aryan Nations about the Zionist Occupied Government. :rolleyes:
So I think Trump very likely went into this war with little thought of "what do I do if Iran doesn't just cave right away?" But Israel I feel has a more realistic outlook on the region and Iran, so I suspect Netanyahu and his regime knew the odds of Iran just falling apart from aerial bombardment had to be low.
Do we think Israel's real motive is just massively degrading Iran's capabilities for the time being? Netanyahu has always seemed like his take on Israeli strategy is basically that they're always going to have to just keep revisiting issues like this and he's good with the idea of occasional regional wars. Bibi also personally benefits from "crisis mode" in Israel. Bonus for Israel that this war does appear to be ruining Iran's attempts the last few years to normalize relations with the Gulf States.
I've said this before in other contexts (IIRC Russia-Ukraine) but IMO people tend to really underrate the degree to which wars end up with both sides losing.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2026, 08:27:40 AMYeah, we should have listen to the Aryan Nations about the Zionist Occupied Government. :rolleyes:
I am concerned about how the angry antiwar wing of MAGA is tipping into virulent antisemitism, pushed by Owens and Carlson and the like. Those ideas were already endemic in the population, but it is becoming more open and flagrant by the day.
Trump now demands Irans unconditional surrender.
Who's going to tell him how that usually works?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 06, 2026, 04:22:21 AMI was greatly disturbed by Witkoff's ramblings about "capitulation". Both he and Trump didn't seem to understand why Iran was taking a hardline stance given the asymmetry in military power. They are both real estate moguls from New York and it would appear that they think that everybody thinks like they do; which is quite a stupid error to make when you are dealing with hardline religious fundamentalists.
I'm hoping I'm wrong and a more amenable group of people take over Iran; but, if they don't , I have a gut feel that the war will be long, tedious and expensive in both blood and money.
What the sensible solution? The United States has only vague demands and has clearly shown we will not abide by any agreements. We attacked before and then rested up before attacking again. I just don't see any way out for Iran besides making this as painful as possible for the United States so we will stop attacking them. Or get a nuke.
What is this amenable group supposed to do with a state that refuses to abide by treaties and that repeatedly attacks for vague and unclear reasons, often striking surprise attacks in the middle of negotiations?
If the United States was in Iran's shoes I would have come to the logical conclusion that there is nothing to do but fight until our enemy finally agrees to back off.
Trump is writing checks with his mouth that would have to involve a ground invasion to cash. I very seriously doubt that will happen--for all of Trump's faults he fears the kind of failure I think that would represent. But he's setting himself up for obvious failure by making unrealistic maximalist demands in public.
I agree with Otto here
Quote from: garbon on March 06, 2026, 02:11:47 AMQuote from: Valmy on March 05, 2026, 07:34:05 PMHowever give me a second to rage againt my party. The goddamn Democratic Party. What a bunch of fuckers. Even in a totally symbolic vote to curb the war powers of the President, which would have been vetoed anyway, we had fuckers breaking ranks to suck Trump cock.
Perhaps you are seeking some sort of purity or uniformity that will never happen? I do not see how it is warranted to rage against the entire Democratic because of 4 shitty and irrelevant representatives. Huh:
The Purity and Uniformity of wanting the Constitution abided by? The purity and uniformity of opposing a President who insists that every Democratic victory is a hoax and a stolen election? Is that really an unreasonably pure or radical position?
Then there is the tendency of the Democrats to come right to the verge of victory and then just coincidentally a few traitors, perfectly sized and situated, arrive to successfully snatch defeat from the jaws of victory? Just wow what a coincidence. That was sure convenient if the party's goal was to just not pass anything. And this has happened over and over again for decades.
But I am sure it was just the firm personal convictions of these four guys. Who feel so strongly as to go against their own party, not even bother to explain themselves, and then leadership is weirdly ok with it.
Getting a little tired of it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 06, 2026, 09:33:34 AMQuote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2026, 08:27:40 AMYeah, we should have listen to the Aryan Nations about the Zionist Occupied Government. :rolleyes:
I am concerned about how the angry antiwar wing of MAGA is tipping into virulent antisemitism, pushed by Owens and Carlson and the like. Those ideas were already endemic in the population, but it is becoming more open and flagrant by the day.
Oh, certainly. Tucker Carlson is now arguing that Chabad is the secret mastermind behind this war. It's all a plot to destroy Al-Aqsa. But what does it tell us when antiracists and racists are on the same page? One side says "Soros", the other says "AIPAC". It's like two people agreeing in different dialects.
The Gaza protests seemed to have opened this up. Now, even leftists refuse to criticize antisemitism. They opened a door and guys like Fuentes stepped right in. And really, what else could you expect? If you stand with people who say that killing Jews is worship of Allah, can really criticize the guys who rant about the Synagogue of Satan?
He's saying unconditional surrender because he has a vague recollection of someone saying that when he watched Victory at Sea and it sounded badass. A couple of days from now he will forget it about like he forgot where his own father was born. He'll deny ever saying it. At this point, it's pointless to talk about things he says as though he is concerned about being consistent or maintaining credibility.
Quote from: Bauer on March 06, 2026, 09:54:49 AMTrump now demands Irans unconditional surrender.
Who's going to tell him how that usually works?
Not gonna get that 100% warscore just by bombing, for sure. Need to take a few fortresses at least.
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2026, 10:05:11 AMThe Purity and Uniformity of wanting the Constitution abided by? The purity and uniformity of opposing a President who insists that every Democratic victory is a hoax and a stolen election? Is that really an unreasonably pure or radical position?
Then there is the tendency of the Democrats to come right to the verge of victory and then just coincidentally a few traitors, perfectly sized and situated, arrive to successfully snatch defeat from the jaws of victory? Just wow what a coincidence. That was sure convenient if the party's goal was to just not pass anything. And this has happened over and over again for decades.
But I am sure it was just the firm personal convictions of these four guys. Who feel so strongly as to go against their own party, not even bother to explain themselves, and then leadership is weirdly ok with it.
Getting a little tired of it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98qm5m8dj6o
QuoteThe House war powers resolution - rejected in a narrow vote of 219-212 - was largely symbolic and would have been unlikely to survive an expected veto from the president.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5769994-house-war-powers-iran/
QuoteThe vote was largely symbolic, coming one day after the Senate killed a similar resolution along similar partisan lines. And some observers had questioned the Democrats' strategy of forcing the vote, since failure of the resolution is its own roundabout form of authorization for Trump to continue the strikes.
Democratic leaders dismissed those concerns, arguing for the importance of fighting to reestablish Congress's war powers as defined by the Constitution — and putting lawmakers on record for perpetuity.
"The Constitution is not ambiguous on this subject," House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) told reporters in the Capitol shortly before the vote. "There's no evidence that there was an imminent threat to the United States of America."
It didn't matter. I don't really see that there was a world in which it passed in the House and the Senate suddenly flips too.
Hakeem Jeffries is also quoted basically saying he wanted the vote for the same reasons you think so.
Looks like the US is in another forever war.
Quote from: Bauer on March 06, 2026, 09:54:49 AMTrump now demands Irans unconditional surrender.
Who's going to tell him how that usually works?
With a nuclear attack and the threat of a land invasion by an ally?
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 06, 2026, 10:44:14 AMLooks like the US is in another forever war.
It's only natural that trump should harken back to the days of his youth, when the US was trying to heavily bomb a country into submission.
And the war strategy was built on the fairy tale of a democratic country coming into existence and from which all the darker forces had suddenly disappeared; be those nationalist communism or now Shia Islam.
I suspect when the bombers have few remaining targets, he'll look on the map for a Laos or Cambodia?
Quote from: mongers on March 06, 2026, 11:23:30 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 06, 2026, 10:44:14 AMLooks like the US is in another forever war.
It's only natural that trump should harken back to the days of his youth, when the US was trying to heavily bomb a country into submission.
And the war strategy was built on the fairy tale of a democratic country coming into existence and from which all the darker forces had suddenly disappeared; be those nationalist communism or now Shia Islam.
I suspect when the bombers have few remaining targets, he'll look on the map for a Laos or Cambodia?
Yes, and I don't think that way of viewing the world is limited to just him.
Quote from: mongers on March 06, 2026, 11:23:30 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 06, 2026, 10:44:14 AMLooks like the US is in another forever war.
It's only natural that trump should harken back to the days of his youth, when the US was trying to heavily bomb a country into submission.
And the war strategy was built on the fairy tale of a democratic country coming into existence and from which all the darker forces had suddenly disappeared; be those nationalist communism or now Shia Islam.
I suspect when the bombers have few remaining targets, he'll look on the map for a Laos or Cambodia?
He wasn't even born yet when WW2 happened.
The US hasn't driven straight into another quagmire quite yet. They're still hanging out at the edge of it, revving their engines. But I expect the odds of them going in are higher than them staying out. And while nothing's guaranteed either way, I expect that any ground involvement in Iran is more likely to end as a grind rather than a quick intervention resulting in significant desired change.
Quote from: Jacob on March 06, 2026, 12:32:27 PMThe US hasn't driven straight into another quagmire quite yet. They're still hanging out at the edge of it, revving their engines. But I expect the odds of them going in are higher than them staying out. And while nothing's guaranteed wither way, I expect that any ground involvement in Iran is more likely to end as a grind rather than a quick intervention resulting in significant desired change.
they'll drive into it just as eagerly as the fools in Moscow did in theirs. And they'll be there for just as long with all the consequences that entails.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 06, 2026, 10:16:00 AMHe's saying unconditional surrender because he has a vague recollection of someone saying that when he watched Victory at Sea and it sounded badass. A couple of days from now he will forget it about like he forgot where his own father was born. He'll deny ever saying it. At this point, it's pointless to talk about things he says as though he is concerned about being consistent or maintaining credibility.
Yeah but he is the President...he is the guy who started the war...
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 06, 2026, 10:16:00 AMHe's saying unconditional surrender because he has a vague recollection of someone saying that when he watched Victory at Sea and it sounded badass. A couple of days from now he will forget it about like he forgot where his own father was born. He'll deny ever saying it. At this point, it's pointless to talk about things he says as though he is concerned about being consistent or maintaining credibility.
And the American people will lap it up an think him better than Biden.
If they are successful in bombing Iran to oblivion, then the quagmire may be outsourced to Turkey and Europe with a new destabilized country and refugee crisis.
Quote from: Bauer on March 06, 2026, 01:23:17 PMIf they are successful in bombing Iran to oblivion, then the quagmire may be outsourced to Turkey and Europe with a new destabilized country and refugee crisis.
He did make a reference to our allies and partners helping so congrats guys! We thank you for your help.
The girls' school being destroyed is an absolute tragedy: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/iran-school-bombing-investigation-9.7114994
I'm going to withhold judgement, but my expectations are that no one will be held responsible and not much will change as a result of it.
Quote from: Bauer on March 06, 2026, 01:23:17 PMIf they are successful in bombing Iran to oblivion, then the quagmire may be outsourced to Turkey and Europe with a new destabilized country and refugee crisis.
Iran has a little over 90 million people.
What does "bombing into oblivion" mean in this context?
Well, in terms of holding people responsible--the girl's school is clearly inside an area where it shares walls with an IRGC compound. The reporting I have heard is that it used to actually be part of the compound, but was turned into the school some years ago, and then a wall was added separating the school from the rest of the compound.
That means it was either struck due to bad targeting (intel failure / mistake) or bad execution. Neither of which rise to anything we'd call a "crime", in the nebulous world of war crimes and the Geneva Convention.
Such things are basically intrinsic to war, and unlike in civilian law where "negligence" can sometimes be criminal, in war crimes a targeted munition simply missing and hitting the wrong target isn't really that level of mistake. My understanding is the only scenario where an unintended civilian death is criminal in the various war crime treaties is if certain prohibited weapons are being used in an indiscriminate way--but unsurprisingly I think the U.S. and Israel never signed some of those conventions so I'm not even sure it applies to them (plus I don't think it would apply to a targeted munition either missing its target or firing based on mistaken intel.)
The fact that such things happen is why prudent leaders don't start wars without a very good reason.
Something that I think may rise to being criminal are reports that after we sunk Iran's ship that was leaving India, we made no effort to save the surviving sailors. My understanding is we are signatory to the 1949 convention that requires us to at least attempt to render aid in such circumstances (and while I think there are some exceptions, I don't believe any apply to that situation.)
It's also IMO just a disreputable action and brings shame to the U.S. Navy. While the convention in question is, I believe, from 1949, we actually usually made "reasonable efforts" to recover sailors of both German and Japanese ships during WWII--and that was a much more brutal, existential war where particularly the Japanese were regularly imposing significant losses on our Navy. I think it says a lot that even in those circumstances we generally made some effort (I'm sure not 100% of the time), to rescue Japanese sailors, and makes it seem even worse we didn't do so here--in the Indian Ocean where we knew we weren't in any danger if we stopped to try to participate in search and rescue.
Quote from: Jacob on March 06, 2026, 01:28:50 PMQuote from: Bauer on March 06, 2026, 01:23:17 PMIf they are successful in bombing Iran to oblivion, then the quagmire may be outsourced to Turkey and Europe with a new destabilized country and refugee crisis.
Iran has a little over 90 million people.
What does "bombing into oblivion" mean in this context?
Destabilizing the regime to the point it isn't a threat externally, but gets left with internal strife indefinitely.
Quote from: Jacob on March 06, 2026, 01:27:45 PMThe girls' school being destroyed is an absolute tragedy: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/iran-school-bombing-investigation-9.7114994
I'm going to withhold judgement, but my expectations are that no one will be held responsible and not much will change as a result of it.
"America is winning decisively, devastatingly and without mercy." - Pete Hegseth
Quote from: Bauer on March 06, 2026, 01:47:02 PMDestabilizing the regime to the point it isn't a threat externally, but gets left with internal strife indefinitely
I see. That's a relatively clear definition, thank you.
I don't think it's going to be easy to achieve, whether through bombing alone or through a wider military campaign.
After a week of this we'll be in a global crisis that will make the 1973 Arab oil embargo look like a picnic. :hmm:
Apart from any moral qualms there are utilitarian reasons why bombing a girls' primary school and sinking the ship may have additional bad consequences. The USA is claiming to be fighting the current Iranian regime, it is a very obnoxious regime so many are loth to criticise, but the more civilian/non-regime assets that are destroyed the more it becomes a war against Iran the country rather than the regime. Right now a large proportion of Iran's population support the attacks by the USA....but how long will that last?
Sinking the ship itself wasn't really a bad act--it was an Iranian war ship. It's more the inappropriate after behavior that appears to have happened for no reason at all other than simple malice or spite towards norms.
We knew what we were getting when the Senate confirmed Hegseth as SecDef. Someone whose entire military career was a relatively junior officer role and then entered mass media. Someone with no experience managing large organizations and no experience in a role requiring strategic planning. Somone who had very strong opinions about NOT enforcing the laws of war on US military personnel and sought to exculpate those convicted of war crimes. Somone with contempt for the laws of war and who believes that they are obnoxious and counterproductive restraints on a "warrior" ethos. Someone who believes that any negative results in America's recent conflicts could be chalked up to the failure to unleash the military from moral or prudential restraints on conduct and from pursuing political objectives beyond kinetic destruction and applied lethality.
What we are seeing in Iran is exactly what America elected when it voted Trump in 2024 and then confirmed his choice of Hegseth.
Quote from: Jacob on March 06, 2026, 01:28:50 PMQuote from: Bauer on March 06, 2026, 01:23:17 PMIf they are successful in bombing Iran to oblivion, then the quagmire may be outsourced to Turkey and Europe with a new destabilized country and refugee crisis.
Iran has a little over 90 million people.
What does "bombing into oblivion" mean in this context?
See the phrase "Bombing [insert country name] back to the Stone Age".
I believe it was once in vogue, not the magazine, but that era.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 06, 2026, 02:42:43 PMWe knew what we were getting when the Senate confirmed Hegseth as SecDef. Someone whose entire military career was a relatively junior officer role and then entered mass media. Someone with no experience managing large organizations and no experience in a role requiring strategic planning. Somone who had very strong opinions about NOT enforcing the laws of war on US military personnel and sought to exculpate those convicted of war crimes. Somone with contempt for the laws of war and who believes that they are obnoxious and counterproductive restraints on a "warrior" ethos. Someone who believes that any negative results in America's recent conflicts could be chalked up to the failure to unleash the military from moral or prudential restraints on conduct and from pursuing political objectives beyond kinetic destruction and applied lethality.
What we are seeing in Iran is exactly what America elected when it voted Trump in 2024 and then confirmed his choice of Hegseth.
It does seem like the US government is doing a speed run to unlearn the lessons from WWII and Vietnam around ethics, responsibility, and the use of force.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 06, 2026, 02:17:32 PMRight now a large proportion of Iran's population support the attacks by the USA...
Is that really so? Honest question. Obviously there are Iranians that support it, but "a large proportion"?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 06, 2026, 02:17:32 PMApart from any moral qualms there are utilitarian reasons why bombing a girls' primary school and sinking the ship may have additional bad consequences. The USA is claiming to be fighting the current Iranian regime, it is a very obnoxious regime so many are loth to criticise, but the more civilian/non-regime assets that are destroyed the more it becomes a war against Iran the country rather than the regime. Right now a large proportion of Iran's population support the attacks by the USA....but how long will that last?
I think it would have been accurate to say that a large portion of the population supported taking out the Leader on day 1. I think it is more difficult to argue that all those same people also support destroying the infrastructure a new government would need if regime change was actually going to occur. And of course, as the civilian death toll and suffering increases, the less likely anyone tied to the American attacks is to take power.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 06, 2026, 01:35:23 PMSomething that I think may rise to being criminal are reports that after we sunk Iran's ship that was leaving India, we made no effort to save the surviving sailors. My understanding is we are signatory to the 1949 convention that requires us to at least attempt to render aid in such circumstances (and while I think there are some exceptions, I don't believe any apply to that situation.)
There's an exemption for ship safety. A submarine in wartime being so vulnerable to counterattack is typically the argument used. Like when the British sank Belgrano in the Falklands.
Quote from: Zanza on March 06, 2026, 05:58:55 PMQuote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 06, 2026, 02:17:32 PMRight now a large proportion of Iran's population support the attacks by the USA...
Is that really so? Honest question. Obviously there are Iranians that support it, but "a large proportion"?
Yeah it's a good question. My reddit feed had a video of someone going around the streets of Tehran showing videos of overseas Persians celebrating the attack to "random bystanders". The responses were very negative.
Now I'm sure such a video could easily be put together whether the local sentiment was 5% in favour of the bombing or 95% (and the music indicated the desired reaction from the viewer as well). Nonetheless, for my part I am not very confident in any assessment of the mood in Iran.
Especially given how the AI boom has made any kind of video untrustworthy.
There surely are some Iranians who are happy that the strikes happened, but I wouldn't count on them being a strong political movement, anymore than the Americans who celebrated 9/11 were.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 06, 2026, 01:35:23 PMWell, in terms of holding people responsible--the girl's school is clearly inside an area where it shares walls with an IRGC compound. The reporting I have heard is that it used to actually be part of the compound, but was turned into the school some years ago, and then a wall was added separating the school from the rest of the compound.
A country that can drone strike an individual target from hundred of miles away with a Secretary of War that publicly indicated it won't be constrained by rules of engagement just bombed a school for little girls and it was simply a mistake, not a war crime.
I'll remember that the next time there's a terrorist attack striking the US.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 06, 2026, 02:22:35 PMSinking the ship itself wasn't really a bad act--it was an Iranian war ship. It's more the inappropriate after behavior that appears to have happened for no reason at all other than simple malice or spite towards norms.
What was the ship doing prior to being sunk?
Quote from: Neil on March 06, 2026, 06:27:30 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 06, 2026, 01:35:23 PMSomething that I think may rise to being criminal are reports that after we sunk Iran's ship that was leaving India, we made no effort to save the surviving sailors. My understanding is we are signatory to the 1949 convention that requires us to at least attempt to render aid in such circumstances (and while I think there are some exceptions, I don't believe any apply to that situation.)
There's an exemption for ship safety. A submarine in wartime being so vulnerable to counterattack is typically the argument used. Like when the British sank Belgrano in the Falklands.
Hi Neil, that's an interesting take, makes some sense.
who was going to counter attack the sub off the coast of Sri Lanka?
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 06, 2026, 07:23:49 PMwho was going to counter attack the sub off the coast of Sri Lanka?
It gives them enough wriggle room, 'look the Brits didn't stop to help people'.
Which I kinda misses the point about the Belgrano being with 100-150 miles of the Falklands and in a conflict zone vs this ship, which might have been what more than 1000 miles away from US navy surface ships??
Quote from: Neil on March 06, 2026, 06:27:30 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 06, 2026, 01:35:23 PMSomething that I think may rise to being criminal are reports that after we sunk Iran's ship that was leaving India, we made no effort to save the surviving sailors. My understanding is we are signatory to the 1949 convention that requires us to at least attempt to render aid in such circumstances (and while I think there are some exceptions, I don't believe any apply to that situation.)
There's an exemption for ship safety. A submarine in wartime being so vulnerable to counterattack is typically the argument used. Like when the British sank Belgrano in the Falklands.
https://www.military.com/daily-news/investigations-and-features/2026/03/05/iranian-ship-was-leaving-indian-naval-exercise-when-sunk-raising-concerns-new-delhi.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_present_at_International_Fleet_Review_2026
See USS Pinckney.
The US Navy attacked a defenseless ship. This is what Hegseth boasted about.
Quote from: viper37 on March 06, 2026, 08:18:05 PMQuote from: Neil on March 06, 2026, 06:27:30 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 06, 2026, 01:35:23 PMSomething that I think may rise to being criminal are reports that after we sunk Iran's ship that was leaving India, we made no effort to save the surviving sailors. My understanding is we are signatory to the 1949 convention that requires us to at least attempt to render aid in such circumstances (and while I think there are some exceptions, I don't believe any apply to that situation.)
There's an exemption for ship safety. A submarine in wartime being so vulnerable to counterattack is typically the argument used. Like when the British sank Belgrano in the Falklands.
https://www.military.com/daily-news/investigations-and-features/2026/03/05/iranian-ship-was-leaving-indian-naval-exercise-when-sunk-raising-concerns-new-delhi.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_present_at_International_Fleet_Review_2026
See USS Pinckney.
The US Navy attacked a defenseless ship. This is what Hegseth boasted about.
Attacking defenceless ships is what submarines are for. That's the entire point of them. It's predatory warfare.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 06, 2026, 07:23:49 PMwho was going to counter attack the sub off the coast of Sri Lanka?
Presumably any other Iranian ship or aircraft. It's pretty paper thin, but it's enough.
Quote from: Zanza on March 06, 2026, 05:58:55 PMQuote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 06, 2026, 02:17:32 PMRight now a large proportion of Iran's population support the attacks by the USA...
Is that really so? Honest question. Obviously there are Iranians that support it, but "a large proportion"?
Probably not that big a portion. It's weird juxtaposition. The urban leftists of Iran support the American regime while the urban left in America support the Iranian regime. Conservatives in both countries support their regime.
I'm seeing reports the US has used more than 800 Patriot missile interceptors in the war. Any verification on this?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 06, 2026, 10:16:36 PMI'm seeing reports the US has used more than 800 Patriot missile interceptors in the war. Any verification on this?
Read that too, but probably not the US alone as the Gulf States all have own Patriot batteries.
That's more than Ukraine used (or rather got) in four years.
Quote from: Zanza on March 06, 2026, 05:58:55 PMQuote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 06, 2026, 02:17:32 PMRight now a large proportion of Iran's population support the attacks by the USA...
Is that really so? Honest question. Obviously there are Iranians that support it, but "a large proportion"?
Yes, "large" proportion may well be an exaggeration. Such a faction does exist though, but I expect it will decrease as less sophisticated armaments are used and the inevitable "collateral damage" occurs.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 06, 2026, 10:16:00 AMHe's saying unconditional surrender because he has a vague recollection of someone saying that when he watched Victory at Sea and it sounded badass. A couple of days from now he will forget it about like he forgot where his own father was born. He'll deny ever saying it. At this point, it's pointless to talk about things he says as though he is concerned about being consistent or maintaining credibility.
He speaks for the US, so what he says is very important for anyone dealing with the US in the present or in the future. Trump may (effectively) say "j/k lol", but the US cannot.
Has JD Vance commented on the war yet? I don't seem to recall having seen anything from him, but maybe I missed it. :unsure:
Quote from: Syt on March 07, 2026, 06:34:33 AMHas JD Vance commented on the war yet? I don't seem to recall having seen anything from him, but maybe I missed it. :unsure:
I also tremble with anticipation.
War is decidedly not going well for the US. Third carrier en route, Hormuz is completely shut down for tankers, Bloomberg says at least 1, possibly 5 THAAD systems have been knocked out by Iranian medium-range missiles. The russians and the Chinese must salivating at the thought of putting the US into a sort of reverse Ukraine situation.
Trump can't declare victory and go home if the Iranians don't agree to reopen Hormuz. :hmm:
Quote from: Neil on March 06, 2026, 06:27:30 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 06, 2026, 01:35:23 PMSomething that I think may rise to being criminal are reports that after we sunk Iran's ship that was leaving India, we made no effort to save the surviving sailors. My understanding is we are signatory to the 1949 convention that requires us to at least attempt to render aid in such circumstances (and while I think there are some exceptions, I don't believe any apply to that situation.)
There's an exemption for ship safety. A submarine in wartime being so vulnerable to counterattack is typically the argument used. Like when the British sank Belgrano in the Falklands.
Belgrano was a part of a task group, there were other Argentinian ships around. Best exemplified by the fact that those Argentinian ships rescued survivors IIRC. Surfacing with a submarine next to two enemy destroyers is kind of stupid.
There were no other armed Iranian ships in the neighbourhood and that was known by the USN. Sure, it's not a war crime to not rescue survivors, there are excuses. But it is extremely disgraceful and a huge blemish on the USN. They behave like Russians.
Quote from: Legbiter on March 07, 2026, 07:05:51 AMWar is decidedly not going well for the US. Third carrier en route, Hormuz is completely shut down for tankers, Bloomberg says at least 1, possibly 5 THAAD systems have been knocked out by Iranian medium-range missiles. The russians and the Chinese must salivating at the thought of putting the US into a sort of reverse Ukraine situation.
Trump can't declare victory and go home if the Iranians don't agree to reopen Hormuz. :hmm:
I am starting to worry that electing a bunch of incompetent morons whose CVs top at being reality TV stars to lead a country is a bad idea.
Quote from: Tamas on March 07, 2026, 07:03:01 AMQuote from: Syt on March 07, 2026, 06:34:33 AMHas JD Vance commented on the war yet? I don't seem to recall having seen anything from him, but maybe I missed it. :unsure:
I also tremble with anticipation.
Maybe trying to wash himself off this nonsense in the hopes that Trump stumbles over it and he can step up?
I saw headline that Iran's president has now apologized to the gulf states
Quote from: Neil on March 06, 2026, 08:25:02 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 06, 2026, 07:23:49 PMwho was going to counter attack the sub off the coast of Sri Lanka?
Presumably any other Iranian ship or aircraft. It's pretty paper thin, but it's enough.
No, it's not enough. There were no other Iranian ships or aircraft anywhere near that area. The United States Navy knew that.
This is in no way analogies to what happened during the Falkland war.
Quote from: garbon on March 07, 2026, 08:09:45 AMI saw headline that Iran's president has now apologized to the gulf states
Basically Iran is saying we're sorry for having to attack Americans in your country. Maybe it would be a good idea to get rid of them and dismantle their military bases so we no longer have to attack you.
QuoteA commander of Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guards Corps said there was "nothing new" in the comments from President Masoud Pezeshkian that Iran would not attack neighboring countries unless an attack on Iran originated from those nations, according to the semi-official Iranian news agency Tasnim. Hamidreza Moghadamfar, the commander, added that Iran's attacks have been directed at U.S. positions and interests in the region and that the countries themselves have not been targeted.
Trump, of course has claimed that the message means that Iran has surrendered to its neighbours.
Finally, somebody explains the true objectives for the United States in this war
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DVblMNRkbs1/?igsh=MTRzdWFoN3drY3dncQ==
I regret to have clicked that link.
Quote from: Threviel on March 07, 2026, 07:13:21 AMQuote from: Neil on March 06, 2026, 06:27:30 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 06, 2026, 01:35:23 PMSomething that I think may rise to being criminal are reports that after we sunk Iran's ship that was leaving India, we made no effort to save the surviving sailors. My understanding is we are signatory to the 1949 convention that requires us to at least attempt to render aid in such circumstances (and while I think there are some exceptions, I don't believe any apply to that situation.)
There's an exemption for ship safety. A submarine in wartime being so vulnerable to counterattack is typically the argument used. Like when the British sank Belgrano in the Falklands.
Belgrano was a part of a task group, there were other Argentinian ships around. Best exemplified by the fact that those Argentinian ships rescued survivors IIRC. Surfacing with a submarine next to two enemy destroyers is kind of stupid.
There were no other armed Iranian ships in the neighbourhood and that was known by the USN. Sure, it's not a war crime to not rescue survivors, there are excuses. But it is extremely disgraceful and a huge blemish on the USN. They behave like Russians.
This is what submarine war is. People have been getting mad about it for 112 years now, but it's never going to change and this sort of behaviour is implicit in every country that operates a submarine.
Quote from: Neil on March 07, 2026, 09:49:09 AMThis is what submarine war is. People have been getting mad about it for 112 years now, but it's never going to change and this sort of behaviour is implicit in every country that operates a submarine.
I agree, in a total war situation where there are real difficulties in rescuing survivors. But the times that submarine warfare led to this kind of behaviour is after years of world war. In both world wars they tried cruiser rules and they generally tried to help survivors in the beginning.
This was just brutal and unnecessary. It would have cost the USN nothing to surface and at the very least throw out a few rubber dinghies and some water for the survivors.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2026, 08:26:00 AMQuote from: Neil on March 06, 2026, 08:25:02 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 06, 2026, 07:23:49 PMwho was going to counter attack the sub off the coast of Sri Lanka?
Presumably any other Iranian ship or aircraft. It's pretty paper thin, but it's enough.
No, it's not enough. There were no other Iranian ships or aircraft anywhere near that area. The United States Navy knew that.
This is in no way analogies to what happened during the Falkland war.
Yes, it is. The submarine commander does not have perfect knowledge of the battlespace, nor is he obligated to act as if he does. He's within theoretical range of maritime patrol aircraft. He's attacking an enemy warship. A warship is inarguably a legitimate target, not just a Hegseth 'we shoot anything that moves' target. The problem here isn't the actions of the submarine, but rather the political decision to go to war (or police action, or whatever) with Iran.
Thinking about it perhaps they looked through the periscope and noticed lots of automatic life rafts from the sinking ship and, well, then there's just not much they can do.
I think I will still choose to believe that the Maga rot has not infected the USN to the level that they ignore survivors in the water. Yet.
Quote from: Threviel on March 07, 2026, 09:55:50 AMQuote from: Neil on March 07, 2026, 09:49:09 AMThis is what submarine war is. People have been getting mad about it for 112 years now, but it's never going to change and this sort of behaviour is implicit in every country that operates a submarine.
I agree, in a total war situation where there are real difficulties in rescuing survivors. But the times that submarine warfare led to this kind of behaviour is after years of world war. In both world wars they tried cruiser rules and they generally tried to help survivors in the beginning.
This was just brutal and unnecessary. It would have cost the USN nothing to surface and at the very least throw out a few rubber dinghies and some water for the survivors.
Surfacing in theoretical range of maritime patrol aircraft just after a successful attack? That's the sort of thing that they train submarine commanders not to do.
You'll note that in every case, cruiser rules were abandoned as the submarine is virtually helpless against counterattack on the surface, and many submarines were lost. Thus, modern submarines are built in such a way as to preclude even attempting such a tactic.
You can criticize the Trump administration for launching a poorly-considered attack to try and distract from the President's policy of child molestation, but this attack on an enemy warship was pretty much Submarine 101.
Quote from: Neil on March 07, 2026, 09:58:43 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2026, 08:26:00 AMQuote from: Neil on March 06, 2026, 08:25:02 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 06, 2026, 07:23:49 PMwho was going to counter attack the sub off the coast of Sri Lanka?
Presumably any other Iranian ship or aircraft. It's pretty paper thin, but it's enough.
No, it's not enough. There were no other Iranian ships or aircraft anywhere near that area. The United States Navy knew that.
This is in no way analogies to what happened during the Falkland war.
Yes, it is. The submarine commander does not have perfect knowledge of the battlespace, nor is he obligated to act as if he does. He's within theoretical range of maritime patrol aircraft. He's attacking an enemy warship. A warship is inarguably a legitimate target, not just a Hegseth 'we shoot anything that moves' target. The problem here isn't the actions of the submarine, but rather the political decision to go to war (or police action, or whatever) with Iran.
I find it hard to believe the Americans are that uninformed
Quote from: Syt on March 07, 2026, 09:26:20 AMI regret to have clicked that link.
It's best that you understand the American fundamentalist mindset
Imagine if Trump was a wartime president in WWII.
"Tomorrow we're going to bomb a little place called BERRLIN. We're going to hit them very hard. There might not be anything left after...... under serious consideration for total destruction!!"
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2026, 10:34:45 AMQuote from: Syt on March 07, 2026, 09:26:20 AMI regret to have clicked that link.
It's best that you understand the American fundamentalist mindset
I mean, you don't.
Quote from: Bauer on March 07, 2026, 10:41:42 AMImagine if Trump was a wartime president in WWII.
"Tomorrow we're going to bomb a little place called BERRLIN. We're going to hit them very hard. There might not be anything left after...... under serious consideration for total destruction!!"
I doubt that. Trump would have joined the Nazis.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2026, 10:48:58 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2026, 10:34:45 AMQuote from: Syt on March 07, 2026, 09:26:20 AMI regret to have clicked that link.
It's best that you understand the American fundamentalist mindset
I mean, you don't.
OK, I'll play along. What don't I understand about American fundamentalists who say that Trump is anointed by God to start a war in Iran in order to bring about the end times that they hope comes?
Quote from: Zanza on March 07, 2026, 10:53:05 AMQuote from: Bauer on March 07, 2026, 10:41:42 AMImagine if Trump was a wartime president in WWII.
"Tomorrow we're going to bomb a little place called BERRLIN. We're going to hit them very hard. There might not be anything left after...... under serious consideration for total destruction!!"
I doubt that. Trump would have joined the Nazis.
exactly
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hegseth-us-iran-russia/
QuoteHegseth on reports Russia aided Iran: "Anything that shouldn't be happening" will be "confronted strongly"
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said that President Trump is "well aware of who's talking to who" amid reports that Russia is providing intelligence to Iran on U.S. movements in the region.
Hegseth told Major Garrett in an interview airing Sunday on "60 Minutes" that the U.S. is "tracking everything" and factoring it into battle plans. "The American people can rest assured their commander-in-chief is well aware of who's talking to who," he said. "And anything that shouldn't be happening, whether it's in public or back-channeled, is being confronted and confronted strongly."
Earlier Friday, multiple sources, including a senior U.S. official, told CBS News that Russia is providing intelligence to Iran regarding U.S. positions in the Middle East during the ongoing joint U.S. and Israeli military operations in Iran. It was the first known indication that Russia is aiding Iran.
Asked if the American people can expect conversations with the Russians to stop their involvement in the conflict, Hegseth said Mr. Trump "has a unique relationship with a lot of world leaders where he can get things done that other presidents, certainly Joe Biden, never could have." He added that "through direct conversations or indirect, through him one-to-one or through his Cabinet, messages definitely can be delivered."
When asked whether Russia's involvement puts U.S. personnel in danger, Hegseth said: "We're putting the other guys in danger, and that's our job. So we're not concerned about that. ... But the only ones that need to be worried right now are Iranians that think they're gonna live."
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, when asked during an appearance on Fox News about Russia providing intelligence to Iran on U.S. assets, said she could not comment on "intelligence reports that are leaked to the press." The intelligence aid from Russia was first reported by The Washington Post.
"Whether or not this happened, frankly, it doesn't really matter, because President Trump and the United States military are absolutely decimating the rogue Iranian terrorist regime," she said.
Later, Leavitt clarified to reporters that she meant Russia sharing intelligence on U.S. assets with Iran "doesn't matter" because "it clearly is not making a difference with respect to the military operations in Iran, because we are completely decimating them."
Kegsbreath ain't goin do shit.
He don't like bombing the guys who can bomb back.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2026, 11:46:25 AMQuote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2026, 10:48:58 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2026, 10:34:45 AMQuote from: Syt on March 07, 2026, 09:26:20 AMI regret to have clicked that link.
It's best that you understand the American fundamentalist mindset
I mean, you don't.
OK, I'll play along. What don't I understand about American fundamentalists who say that Trump is anointed by God to start a war in Iran in order to bring about the end times that they hope comes?
You don't even know the difference between Catholics and Evangelicals. You thought J.D. Vance was an Evangelical. But I can play the game as well. When an Arab Muslim says that killing Jews is worship of Allah, do you think that some important theological statement that applies to all Arab Muslims?
I'm still not sure what I've gotten wrong about fundamentalist cheering on the war in Iran because it's going to bring about the end times.
Maybe stop worrying about your pet issues and take a closer look at what's actually happening in your own country.
What exactly do American evangelist believe in anyways?
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2026, 04:11:45 PMI'm still not sure what I've gotten wrong about fundamentalist cheering on the war in Iran because it's going to bring about the end times.
Maybe stop worrying about your pet issues and take a closer look at what's actually happening in your own country.
You are claiming to understand the "fundamentalists" mindset, but you don't even know who the fundamentalists are. Do you even know the name of the who person made the statement about Iran and the end times? What their religion is?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2026, 04:47:37 PMDo you even know the name of the who person made the statement about Iran and the end times? What their religion is?
That would be Jeremiah (49:34-39) and Jewish, respectively.
Quote from: Bauer on March 07, 2026, 04:18:37 PMWhat exactly do American evangelist believe in anyways?
A white ethnostate with unfettered capitalism, mostly.
Raz here are some examples that have been widely reported. I chose links that are not behind paywalls for you
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/03/us-israel-iran-war-christian-rhetoric
https://jacobin.com/2026/03/evangelical-christian-zionism-end-times-iran
https://as.cornell.edu/news/end-times-rhetoric-us-military-didnt-infiltrate-was-invited
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2026, 09:40:06 PMRaz here are some examples that have been widely reported. I chose links that are not behind paywalls for you
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/03/us-israel-iran-war-christian-rhetoric
https://jacobin.com/2026/03/evangelical-christian-zionism-end-times-iran
https://as.cornell.edu/news/end-times-rhetoric-us-military-didnt-infiltrate-was-invited
I heard about the story, I was asking you what the name of the person who said it was and what their religion was. Do you know?
Quote from: Zoupa on March 07, 2026, 09:26:59 PMQuote from: Bauer on March 07, 2026, 04:18:37 PMWhat exactly do American evangelist believe in anyways?
A white ethnostate with unfettered capitalism, mostly.
You know that Martin Luther King Jr was an evangelical, right?
"Mostly".
Okay, I'll bite. What's your source that that Evangelicals want "A white ethnostate with unfettered capitalism, mostly."
Quote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2026, 09:47:02 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2026, 09:40:06 PMRaz here are some examples that have been widely reported. I chose links that are not behind paywalls for you
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/03/us-israel-iran-war-christian-rhetoric
https://jacobin.com/2026/03/evangelical-christian-zionism-end-times-iran
https://as.cornell.edu/news/end-times-rhetoric-us-military-didnt-infiltrate-was-invited
I heard about the story, I was asking you what the name of the person who said it was and what their religion was. Do you know?
It's in the articles. I'm not gonna play games with you guys.
As a matter of fact, it is not. Your attempt at deception has failed.
Another one to make CC and Zoupa hard.
(https://i.imgur.com/bxswx9z.jpeg)
Dude, what's wrong with you?
Quote from: Syt on March 08, 2026, 02:38:41 AMDude, what's wrong with you?
Social media gullibility.
I don't know how you go from "I think most evangelicals in the US are racists" to "this guy gets a hard on when Tel Aviv gets bombed".
I think an online detox would do you good, Raz. Or as the kids say these days, go touch grass.
I think we have hit a new low.
Quote from: Syt on March 08, 2026, 02:38:41 AMDude, what's wrong with you?
CC and Zoupa are antizionist. Sorry their hate makes you uncomfortable. This is just like the stuff you post in the Facebook follies site, except it's from the other side.
Quote from: Norgy on March 08, 2026, 07:54:52 AMI think we have hit a new low.
Oh no. The antizionist movement has much, much worse.
Quote from: Zoupa on March 08, 2026, 05:53:30 AMI don't know how you go from "I think most evangelicals in the US are racists" to "this guy gets a hard on when Tel Aviv gets bombed".
I think an online detox would do you good, Raz. Or as the kids say these days, go touch grass.
You don't? Think harder.
Quote from: grumbler on March 08, 2026, 03:13:34 AMQuote from: Syt on March 08, 2026, 02:38:41 AMDude, what's wrong with you?
Social media gullibility.
We are on social media. What is you think I've been fooled by?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 08, 2026, 09:31:04 AMQuote from: Syt on March 08, 2026, 02:38:41 AMDude, what's wrong with you?
CC and Zoupa are antizionist. Sorry their hate makes you uncomfortable. This is just like the stuff you post in the Facebook follies site, except it's from the other side.
It was my mistake to take you off the ignore list.
I just don't get why this barely literate person has gotten the idea that Zoupa and crazy_canuck are antizionists.
Quote from: Syt on March 08, 2026, 10:12:13 AMQuote from: Razgovory on March 08, 2026, 09:31:04 AMQuote from: Syt on March 08, 2026, 02:38:41 AMDude, what's wrong with you?
CC and Zoupa are antizionist. Sorry their hate makes you uncomfortable. This is just like the stuff you post in the Facebook follies site, except it's from the other side.
It was my mistake to take you off the ignore list.
Seriously considering an ignore myself.
Yeah.
Israeli strikes have killed 394 people in Lebanon (83 children) in the last week. Around 500 000 displaced so far. :( Underreported news I think.
Trump already saying Ayatollah v. 3 won't live long without American support.
I think it's another in a long list of Trump comments on this war that will look bad in retrospect.
They killed the Ayatollah because Israel hacked Tehran's traffic cameras and knew when he was in his leadership compound. For a guy with such a big bull's eye on him, I actually think it was very close to suicidal. My only thought other than deliberate martyrdom is prior clashes may have convinced him neither the IDF or US would actually come for him personally.
While it is possible we see his son dead tomorrow, I strongly doubt he will be doing things as obvious as visiting a compound that affords no protection from bombing and is well known—to the public at large, as his base of operations.
Iran has to have tons of bunkers our munitions are very unlikely to get to, and where his location can be kept more secret.
I guess it completes the circle for the Islamic Republic, overthrowing a monarchy in 1979 to turn into a monarchy itself. Should just put him on a Peacock Throne as well. :hmm:
Quote from: Bauer on March 07, 2026, 04:18:37 PMWhat exactly do American evangelist believe in anyways?
That Jesus of Nazereth is the Son of God, and that his atoning sacrifice on the cross brings reconciliation with the Father for those who accept it. That the forgiveness of sin is not earned or deserved, but is an unmerited gift of grace. That God is sovereign in the affairs of the world, and that his plan uses all events to tend towards good. They believe that the Bible is broadly accurate, and absolutely correct on matters of spiritual truth and relating to salvation, and that the Bible is the supreme source of information about God and his character. They believe that people are 'born again', which is to say that the conversion experience produces a real change in people's lives. That there is no intermediary priesthood between man and God, but that each individual Christian has direct access to the Father through prayer. That's pretty much boilerplate Protestant Christianity, and is held nigh-universally across American Protestants. However, when an American says 'evangelical', they're usually referring to streams of Protestantism that don't include the more liberal Lutherans or Episcopalians.
The extreme interest in end-times stuff is an artifact of the Annotated Scofield Reference Bible that was given out in the early Twentieth Century. This pushed a particular theology called 'dispensationalism', which basically amounts to the idea that God has separate plans and timelines for various groups of his people. Through an extremely literal reading of the classical apocalyptic literature of Revelation (which had generally been viewed in a far more mixed light by the previous 1,500 years worth of theologians), they created an extremely specific and unique role for Israel. The establishment of Israel after the war turbocharged support for this school of thought, and the dominance of Dallas Theological Seminary (one of whose graduates wrote 'The Late Great Planet Earth' in the Seventies, which introduced ideas like the Rapture to the broader public) produced a large number of people who accepted this theological line. This produced a large number of people who were highly attuned to finding biblical prophecy in every passage of Revelation, looking forward to the Second Coming.
Because the period where there ideas were popularized was at the height of the Cold War, there tends to be a strong vein of American exceptionalism, individualism and anticommunism in their political makeup, as a huge part of American religious thought was tied to the necessity of God and opposition to godless communism. Thus, you saw a broad opposition to the counter-culture movements.
Btw, the war is going absolutely atrociously for Israel and the US. US bases in the Gulf have been severely damaged by dirt-cheap shahed drones, forcing planes to move way back, killing sortie rate by up to half, Israel is suffering under a metronomic regularity of Iranian ballistic attacks and the Strait of Hormuz is effectively closed. This is an absolute shitshow and even if Trump declared total victory tomorrow it would be a massive strategic defeat plus I doubt the Iranians would stop. :hmm:
Quote from: Legbiter on March 08, 2026, 06:24:46 PMBtw, the war is going absolutely atrociously for Israel and the US. US bases in the Gulf have been severely damaged by dirt-cheap shahed drones, forcing planes to move way back, killing sortie rate by up to half, Israel is suffering under a metronomic regularity of Iranian ballistic attacks and the Strait of Hormuz is effectively closed. This is an absolute shitshow and even if Trump declared total victory tomorrow it would be a massive strategic defeat plus I doubt the Iranians would stop. :hmm:
What are some good sources of analysis on this war?
I'm looking more for things like strategic analysis, force assessment, logistics etc. Not the breathless 24 hour news cycle stuff, nor the "this shows how the side I don't like is EVIL" type analysis.
Anyone?
Quote from: Jacob on March 08, 2026, 06:44:59 PMQuote from: Legbiter on March 08, 2026, 06:24:46 PMBtw, the war is going absolutely atrociously for Israel and the US. US bases in the Gulf have been severely damaged by dirt-cheap shahed drones, forcing planes to move way back, killing sortie rate by up to half, Israel is suffering under a metronomic regularity of Iranian ballistic attacks and the Strait of Hormuz is effectively closed. This is an absolute shitshow and even if Trump declared total victory tomorrow it would be a massive strategic defeat plus I doubt the Iranians would stop. :hmm:
What are some good sources of analysis on this war?
I'm looking more for things like strategic analysis, force assessment, logistics etc. Not the breathless 24 hour news cycle stuff, nor the "this shows how the side I don't like is EVIL" type analysis.
Anyone?
I don't think you'll find it, after it's over, sure they'll be some sober assessments of how it went, but only 8 days into the war?
I don't think you'll get much further than looking at the forces involved found in say the IISS's 'military balance'.
War is after all, in significant part, chaos, which I believe is what's playing out now.
Quote from: Norgy on March 08, 2026, 11:29:19 AMI just don't get why this barely literate person has gotten the idea that Zoupa and crazy_canuck are antizionists.
Sorry, I didn't go to so prestigious a school as you did, though most people don't consider me "barely literate". Of course, I don't rub shoulders with elites like you on a regular basis. I got the idea that Zoupa and CCC are antizionist because of the stuff they post.
Anyway, this place has gotten very echo-chambery in the last few years. I understand that discussing about the sort of racism and bigotry that is now acceptable in left-wing circles has made quite a few of you uncomfortable, so I may just just take my bow. Maybe I'll come back sometime. Maybe I'll just read posts by Sheilbh or something.
Bye.
Sadly it is on Twitter. But Vali Nasr author of a very good book on the Shia realignment about twenty years ago who recently wrote Iran's Grand Strategy (not read it so can't comment) is good.
In terms of regular updates, Hamidreza Azizi - his latest from earlier today:
QuoteHamidreza Azizi
@HamidRezaAz
#Iran War Update No. 9 (focus on Iranian strategic narrative):
🔹Israeli strikes continued to focus heavily on Iran's missile infrastructure. The Israeli military said it targeted the headquarters of the IRGC Aerospace Force in Tehran, a key center responsible for Iran's missile and space programs.
🔹Israel also reported a major wave of attacks across Iran, claiming that more than 400 targets in western and central Iran were struck in 24 hours. According to Israeli estimates, more than 300 Iranian ballistic missile launchers have already been destroyed, leaving roughly 100 to 200 still operational.
🔹Despite these losses, Iranian missile attacks continue, although at a reduced scale. Estimates suggest that daily launches have fallen from roughly 350 missiles on the first day to around 30 to 35 per day, while Iran is claiming that more advanced missiles are now being used.
🔹As mentioned before, Iranian sources argue that this also reflects a deliberate strategy, in which earlier strikes focused on degrading regional radar systems, allowing subsequent waves of more advanced missiles to penetrate air defenses more effectively.
🔹Airstrikes across Iran continued throughout the day, particularly around Tehran. At the same time, Iranian missile attacks on Israel continued in smaller waves, with some visual evidence suggesting that several missiles have reached their targets.
🔹Iranian attacks reportedly continued against targets in Bahrain and Kuwait, which Iranian sources claim host U.S. forces. Gulf governments, however, have described some of these strikes as attacks on civilian infrastructure.
🔹The Bahraini Interior Ministry announced that a drone strike damaged desalination facilities in the country. Although Tehran has not officially confirmed responsibility, the incident came shortly after Iranian officials warned that attacks on Iran's desalination facilities could set a precedent for similar retaliation.
🔹Iran's leadership is also warning that the war could escalate further if attacks on its infrastructure continue. The Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, which is coordinating Iran's war planning, said that continued strikes on Iranian infrastructure could trigger reciprocal attacks on infrastructure elsewhere in the region.
🔹Meanwhile, Israeli and American strikes against Iranian economic targets appear to be intensifying. Iranian officials warned that targeting energy infrastructure represents a shift toward economic warfare and threatened to retaliate against oil facilities across the region.
🔹These developments are already affecting global energy markets. Oil prices reportedly rose above $104 per barrel, while Reuters and Bloomberg reported that Iraq's oil production has fallen dramatically due to disruptions linked to the situation around the Strait of Hormuz.
🔹The Strait of Hormuz itself remains a major pressure point. Restrictions on maritime traffic have sharply disrupted regional energy exports, contributing to the broader shock to global oil markets.
🔹Inside Iran, the political dimension of the war is becoming increasingly prominent. Former President Hassan Rouhani publicly urged the Assembly of Experts not to rush its decision on selecting the next Supreme Leader, warning that announcing a successor during wartime could create internal divisions.
🔹Rouhani's remarks were interpreted as an attempt to delay the expected appointment of Mostafa Khamenei – albeit to no avail.
🔹At the same time, disagreements over President Pezeshkian's earlier remarks about neighboring countries continue. Other members of the interim leadership council reiterated that any country allowing U.S. or Israeli forces to operate from its territory could face Iranian retaliation.
🔹Iranian officials are also attempting to reassure the public about domestic stability. Authorities said that fuel reserves remain sufficient despite strikes on oil storage facilities, although some rationing measures have reportedly been introduced.
🔹Beyond the battlefield, the war is increasingly intersecting with other global conflicts. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Ukrainian experts would travel to the Gulf to assist with drone defense, while also noting that Patriot interceptors used in the region far exceed the numbers available to Ukraine.
🔹Russia is signaling growing political sympathy for Tehran. In an unusual statement, the Russian ambassador to London said Moscow is "not neutral" and expressed sympathy for Iran, although he also emphasized that Iran has not formally requested Russian military support.
🔹China, meanwhile, is increasing its diplomatic engagement. Beijing has sent its Middle East envoy to Saudi Arabia and called for an immediate halt to hostilities, while warning against attempts to destabilize or change the Iranian regime.
🔹Iranian and pro-government discussions are also increasingly focused on the potential endgame. Some narratives suggest Iran could claim victory if the Strait of Hormuz remains closed for a prolonged period, if oil prices remain elevated, or if the political system emerges from the war unified under a new leadership.
🔹Other scenarios discussed include successful attacks on U.S. aircraft carriers or the emergence of regional unrest among Shia populations in countries such as Bahrain.
🔹Overall, Day 9 suggests that the conflict keeps getting entrenched and geographically diffuse. Missile exchanges continue, infrastructure attacks are expanding across the region, and diplomatic maneuvering by major powers such as China and Russia is intensifying as the war's global consequences become increasingly clear.
I'd note that Nasr had earlier said Iran's approach so far has been to allow incremental escalation - so keeping pressure up through regular but not massive missile launches using cheaper missiles to degrade/exhaust air defence systems. This would allow space for Iran to escalate to more advanced weaponry which seems to be happening. Also the tit-for-tat - an Iranian desalination plant (Iran gets about 5% of its water from desalination) was attacked, so they attacked a Bahraini desalination plan (Bahrain gets about 95% of its water from desalination). I think that water war is worth keeping an eye.
Also the US-Israeli shift to attacking infrastructure suggests to me a tacit acknowledgemet that regime change has failed. Israel has hit Iranian oil storage - I'd expect Iran to start targeting oil storage in the Gulf states.
I'd also note the PUK in Iraq noting that they're not seeing any internal revolt in Iran and have no intention of Kurds crossing the border. They added that the Iranian regime has been preparing for this for 45 years and to expect fierce resistance. They apparently said the Kurds acting as "tip of the spear" is not the way to go (and who can blame them after the previous 5-10 times they've responded to US calls only to be abandoned).
And in other news today, Grand Ayatollah Sistani (from Iraq) has issued a fatwa on the Iran war declaring a "collective religious obligation" for communal defence. The lastsuch fatwa was in response to the ISIS capture of Mosul.
And this article is fascinating:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2026/03/05/iran-war-munitions-critical-minerals/
Edit: I'd add from a purely parochial perspective it's been incredibly revealing of the lack of British naval power to meet both treaty obligations and defend our bases. The RAF have been there but we don't have any ships to deploy - they're almost all in drydock and we're hoping to get one out and on its way to Cyprus some time this week. If I were Milei I'd be putting together a special military operation about now.
Edit: One other less parochial if pessimistic thought - which is a drum I've been banging since at least covid but I think needs to be repeated because I think it's still happening. I think we are in an age of shocks: climate, geopolitical and from being in a globalised world. There's an upcoming oil and gas shock from this conflict, regional wars in Europe and the Middle East impacting both the production of fertiliser and one of the world's largest agrifood producers, we're heading into an El Nino period - that's putting to one side the possibility of future pandemics and the stresses in the private credit markets. None of these are black swans (I believe the former PM of Singapore has a fantastic phrase for them: "black elephants", the elephant in the room no-one wants to talk about and then everyone acts surprised when it happens). I do not think our states, technocrats, "world order" or post-Cold War intellectual framework or way of looking at the world (in the West) are capable of responding to these crises - I think it all requires a level of planning, state capacity and willingness to choose and accept trade-offs that we do not have.
Quote from: Jacob on March 08, 2026, 06:44:59 PMWhat are some good sources of analysis on this war?
I'm looking more for things like strategic analysis, force assessment, logistics etc. Not the breathless 24 hour news cycle stuff, nor the "this shows how the side I don't like is EVIL" type analysis.
Anyone?
There is no one twitter account that ties it all together.
Phillips P. OBrien comes closest to what you're asking.
https://x.com/PhillipsPOBrien (https://x.com/PhillipsPOBrien)
The algorithm will suggest from on there.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 08, 2026, 07:07:51 PMEdit: I'd add from a purely parochial perspective it's been incredibly revealing of the lack of British naval power to meet both treaty obligations and defend our bases. The RAF have been there but we don't have any ships to deploy - they're almost all in drydock and we're hoping to get one out and on its way to Cyprus some time this week. If I were Milei I'd be putting together a special military operation about now.
Yeah the RN with 2 aircraft carriers, only one of which has an actual airwing attached to it (had to administratively make it a part of the RAF to make the budget make sense, therefore saddling the RAF even further), no actual escorts to speak of...it's grim.
(https://www.thetimes.com/imageserver/image/%2Fmethode%2Ftimes%2Fprod%2Fweb%2Fbin%2F426c997a-ab1b-11ed-a737-a480e119ff3e.jpg?crop=3828%2C2153%2C0%2C199)
Coronation Fleet review 1953
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/ace/standard/976/cpsprodpb/7145/live/695d1270-1a27-11f1-982c-cf4b6f34f92f.jpg.webp)
:(
BBC item on protest (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1jk2dk074ko)
(https://www.vf.is/media/1/URNATO.jpg)
Icelandic version.
Photo taken in...20006...he's still at it. :D
Eh, boomers.
ISW's daily updates are good for technical detail:
https://understandingwar.org
I don't really agree with Leg's assessment. I don't see any reports that the damage inflicted on Israeli or American assets to be particularly bad.
I think the assets of the Gulf state governments have been hit much worse.
My analysis isn't very positive about the US/Israeli prospects thus far. In a simple sense they have done huge damage to a lot of things of value and importance to the Iranian regime, but none of which really brings them closer to their vaguely defined "goals" of, "force Iran to do whatever we want, and maybe regime change." Nor is there any obvious prospect this type of campaign even can achieve such goals.
That makes it seem like a pretty expensive endeavor with very little likelihood of achieving anything of long term strategic value.
Massive ongoing bombardment of Israel.
https://x.com/pati_marins64/status/2030805430360772948 (https://x.com/pati_marins64/status/2030805430360772948)
Based on the Gaza War reporting, I'd recommend not using Twitter/X to guess if Israel is getting hit with a lot of missiles.
Typically Times of Israel is your best bet for accurate reporting from Israel itself, they always accurately report strikes that hit the country.
The Israeli media is under strict wartime reporting. You can pretty much observe it in real-time on twitter so long as you have filtered out the..."Global South" accounts. :hmm:
Can't wait for the Iranians to start blowing up the Gulf and Saudi desalination plants... :glare:
Quote from: Legbiter on March 08, 2026, 08:59:05 PMThe Israeli media is under strict wartime reporting. You can pretty much observe it in real-time on twitter so long as you have filtered out the..."Global South" accounts. :hmm:
That Patricia Marins account you listed is "Global South" inc. She's a "BRICS are awesome", "yes I was part of the Valdai club but", "look at the Ukrainian recruitment methods, they should surrender", "here's why Taiwan should not resist if China invades" etc ad nauseam.
Quote from: Legbiter on March 08, 2026, 08:59:05 PMThe Israeli media is under strict wartime reporting. You can pretty much observe it in real-time on twitter so long as you have filtered out the..."Global South" accounts. :hmm:
I mean the person you're posting Tweets from is claiming tons of missile strikes in this last wave, when the real media is saying there was no intact missile impacts and one missile had a fragment break off that injured a single person. I'm not sure they're the most accurate.
Quote from: Zoupa on March 08, 2026, 09:07:01 PMThat Patricia Marins account you listed is "Global South" inc. She's a "BRICS are awesome", "yes I was part of the Valdai club but", "look at the Ukrainian recruitment methods, they should surrender", "here's why Taiwan should not resist if China invades" etc ad nauseam.
She's followed by trustworthy accounts hence she popped up. Her doomer approach is not wrong at this stage of the game.
I'd say Trump has lost this war and just about obliterated his presidency. And I don't know if he can just declare victory. Iranians will have a say in that as well.
He lost the battle but kept Epstein of the front pages for a week or so. That's the war he cares about. As for the presidency I don't think any new polls are out, but I doubt he's gone down much further then before attacking Iran.
Quote from: HVC on March 08, 2026, 09:32:10 PMHe lost the battle but kept Epstein of the front pages for a week or so. That's the war he cares about. As for the presidency I don't think any new polls are out, but I doubt he's gone down much further then before attacking Iran.
Quote from: HVC on March 08, 2026, 09:32:10 PMHe lost the battle but kept Epstein of the front pages for a week or so. That's the war he cares about. As for the presidency I don't think any new polls are out, but I doubt he's gone down much further then before attacking Iran.
I can already tell you what the polls will show: ~85% of Republicans show support, 85% of Democrats oppose, and the number for independents is in between but tilted towards opposed.
I can only guess at the success of the various operations so far but what is unquestionable is the US stumbled into a war without a clue about what it was doing, to the point it wasn't even prepared to secure nationals in the region. It has wasted extraordinary amounts of high value munitions that could be used far more productively elsewhere blasting many things of little significance to the US and shooting down a bunch of shitty low value drones. And it has zero clue how to proceed or how to terminate.
This administration makes the underpants gnomes look like master strategists;
Step 1: Start war and blow things up.
Step 2: ????????????????
Step 3: ????????????????
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 08, 2026, 10:19:18 PMI can only guess at the success of the various operations so far but what is unquestionable is the US stumbled into a war without a clue about what it was doing, to the point it wasn't even prepared to secure nationals in the region. It has wasted extraordinary amounts of high value munitions that could be used far more productively elsewhere blasting many things of little significance to the US and shooting down a bunch of shitty low value drones. And it has zero clue how to proceed or how to terminate.
This administration makes the underpants gnomes look like master strategists;
Step 1: Start war and blow things up.
Step 2: Marines landing on a beach to be greeted by media and camera crews.
Step 3: ????????????????
FYP.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 08, 2026, 10:19:18 PMI can only guess at the success of the various operations so far but what is unquestionable is the US stumbled into a war without a clue about what it was doing, to the point it wasn't even prepared to secure nationals in the region. It has wasted extraordinary amounts of high value munitions that could be used far more productively elsewhere blasting many things of little significance to the US and shooting down a bunch of shitty low value drones. And it has zero clue how to proceed or how to terminate.
This administration makes the underpants gnomes look like master strategists;
Step 1: Start war and blow things up.
Step 2: ????????????????
Step 3: ????????????????
It seems clear to me that
someone is going to have to seriously evaluate the limits of American military power.
Either the people who say "the US has the most powerful military machine the world has ever seen, we should just use it to get whatever we want" are about to learn it's not as simple as that.
Alternately, those of us think it's "not as simple as that" are going to find out that it actually is.
Right now I expect that the first scenario is much more likely than the second, but we'll see.
We have our answer on how well the US would fight to defend Taiwan. All bases in the Western Pacific would get taken out on day 1-2. Taiwan is an inseparable part of China guys. :hmm:
Quote from: Legbiter on March 08, 2026, 10:39:54 PMWe have our answer on how well the US would fight to defend Taiwan. All bases in the Western Pacific would get taken out on day 1-2. Taiwan is an inseparable part of China guys. :hmm:
What are you basing this on?
Quote from: Jacob on March 08, 2026, 10:41:50 PMWhat are you basing this on?
The current US performance.
Quote from: Legbiter on March 08, 2026, 10:46:13 PMQuote from: Jacob on March 08, 2026, 10:41:50 PMWhat are you basing this on?
The current US performance.
A bit of a general statement, but okay :lol:
Quote from: Jacob on March 08, 2026, 10:36:22 PMIt seems clear to me that someone is going to have to seriously evaluate the limits of American military power.
Either the people who say "the US has the most powerful military machine the world has ever seen, we should just use it to get whatever we want" are about to learn it's not as simple as that.
Alternately, those of us think it's "not as simple as that" are going to find out that it actually is.
Right now I expect that the first scenario is much more likely than the second, but we'll see.
I mean...just look at our entire history since the Korean War (which we didn't even win). Anytime any country actually bothers to resist us we lose.
But you claim technical victory, that's something at least :P
And you beat Granada for realsies right?
Quote from: HVC on March 08, 2026, 11:37:32 PMBut you claim technical victory, that's something at least :P
And you beat Granada for realsies right?
Again...countries that actually resisted us. I think the only real example to the contrary is the First Gulf War and we somehow still screwed up the peace.
Allies fear Iran war will leave them without US weapons they bought (https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/07/allies-fear-iran-war-will-leave-them-without-u-s-weapons-they-bought-00817204)
QuoteEuropean and Asian countries worry the Pentagon is burning through munitions so fast that it won't have enough to send the weapons they have purchased.
American allies are watching in disbelief as the Pentagon reroutes weapon shipments to aid the Iran war, angry and scared that arms the U.S. demanded they buy will never reach them.
European nations that have struggled to rebuild arsenals after sending weapons to Ukraine fear they won't be able to ward off a Russian attack. Asian allies, startled by America's rate of fire, question whether it could embolden China and North Korea. And even in the Middle East, countries aren't clear if they will get air defenses from the U.S. for future priorities.
Nearly a dozen officials in allied nations in Asia and Europe say they can't win. The Trump administration has put them under extreme political pressure to raise defense budgets and buy American weapons — from air defense interceptors to guided bombs — only to quickly burn through those munitions in a war of its own.
"It shouldn't be a secret to anyone that the munitions that have been and will be fired are the ones that everybody needs to acquire in large numbers," said one northern European official.
Weapons production is a complex process that takes years of planning and runs through a supply chain riddled with bottlenecks. Trump's reassurances that the U.S. has a "virtually unlimited supply" of munitions to fight Iran has done little to soothe allies' fears.
"It is very frustrating, the words are not matching the deeds," said an Eastern European official, who like others interviewed, was granted anonymity to speak candidly. "It is pretty clear to everyone that the U.S. will put their own, Taiwan's, Israel's, and hemisphere priorities before Europe."
The joint U.S.-Israel war, officials warn, could accelerate the distancing between America and its allies when it comes to defense. The European Union already has approved rules to favor its own arms-makers over American contractors — risking tens, if not hundreds of billions in future U.S. sales. Even major companies, such as the German drone-maker Helsing are touting "European sovereignty." Poland, a longtime American ally, has bought tanks and artillery from South Korea instead of U.S. contractors such as General Dynamics.
It's been a wake-up call for officials in Asia and Europe who once took Pentagon arms sales for granted.
"The Europeans still live in a dream world in which the U.S. is a gigantic Walmart, where you buy the stuff and you get it immediately, and that is simply not true," said Camille Grand, a former top NATO official who now heads the Brussels-based Aerospace, Security and Defence Industries Association of Europe.
Allies in the Pacific — where China has built the world's largest Navy and now has missiles that can attack American troops on Guam — are worried that the Pentagon will run out of ammunition in Iran and won't have any left to deter a war in Asia.
"It's natural that the longer the conflict, the more urgent the supply of munitions and its inevitable for the U.S. to mobilize its foreign assets to maintain the operation," said a Washington-based Asian diplomat, who warned it would affect "readiness" in the region.
The fears of depleted weapons stockpiles extend to the U.S., where some Pentagon officials are warning about the state of the military's munitions stockpiles, according to a congressional aide and two other people familiar with the dynamic.
Defense Department officials warned Congress this week that the U.S. military was expending "an enormous amount" of munitions in the conflict, according to two of the people familiar with the conversations.
Watch: The Conversation
Play Video56:23
War, Trump and Washington's Gridlock | Sen. Katie Britt
The congressional aide briefed by the Pentagon said the U.S. was using precision strike missiles and cutting-edge interceptors in "scary high" numbers despite the Iranian military's relative weakness. The weapons also include Tomahawk land-attack missiles, Patriot PAC-3 and ship-launched air defenses fired by the Navy.
"The idea of doing a larger campaign with Iran was not on anyone's mathematical bingo card as we were looking at munitions implications," said a former defense official. "I struggle to see a way that layering on the Iran element makes the math problem get any better."
The Pentagon referred questions to the White House.
Anna Kelly, a White House spokesperson, said Iran's retaliatory ballistic missile attacks had fallen by 90 percent because of U.S. strikes. "President Trump is in close contact with our partners in Europe and the Middle East, and the terrorist Iranian regime's attacks on its neighbors prove how imperative it was that President Trump eliminate this threat to our country and our allies," she said.
But some defense hawks in Congress are worried. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) warned Wednesday on the Senate floor that the military is "not prepared" to deter aggression from both Russia and China at once due to the munitions shortfall.
McConnell did not reply to a request for comment.
Trump said in a social media post that he met with defense executives on Friday, including Boeing, Northrop Grumman, RTX, and Lockheed, who agreed to quadruple their production of "Exquisite Class" weapons. He did not explain which systems that entailed or how the U.S. planned to rapidly build factories, hire workers and increase weapons production.
Most Read
Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.) enters the Capitol.
Senator mocked 'green energy crap.' His house runs on it.
Newsom calls outgoing Homeland Security secretary 'Kosplay Kristi,' demands agency release $500M in 'stalled' wildfire funding
Pam Bondi's in trouble with Republicans on Capitol Hill
Judge says Kari Lake's tenure atop US media agency was improper, voids actions as 'acting CEO'
The food industry is done taking RFK Jr.'s abuse
Some allies worried about weapons are hoping that's more than an empty promise.
"It seems that U.S. defense primes are still challenged to produce at the speed of demand," said Giedrimas Jeglinskas, a Lithuanian member of Parliament who is also a former deputy Defense minister. "We welcome any effort by the administration to incentivize defense companies to get into war mode of production."
Others cautioned that the defense industrial base can't be turned on with a switch to start mass producing the sophisticated missiles and air defenses that the U.S. and its allies desperately need.
"There's always this idea that there is a world in which we just have to go World War II," said Grand, the former NATO official. "But [in] World War II, producing Sherman tanks was pretty close to producing tractor engines. Producing a Patriot is not pretty close to producing a Tesla."
(https://preview.redd.it/ajchslidkcke1.png?width=768&auto=webp&s=475a73f33b479e23844b2c295b1a1a59a8d82a6a)
It's quite ironic if the West is running out of weaponry. I thought this was what we are good at making.
Quote from: Norgy on March 09, 2026, 03:01:17 AMIt's quite ironic if the West is running out of weaponry. I thought this was what we are good at making.
And also that the US, the home of Fordism and mass industrial might developing a slightly artisanal weapons idustry. From the FP piece I linked to:
QuoteThe purpose of this analysis is to translate the conflict's opening phase into an urgent signal of the need to ensure munitions availability—recognizing that this initial assessment cannot be immediately extrapolated for the future of this conflict. This raises a simple question that strategists and defense planners often forget: How quickly can the West refill its arsenals?
While emergency supplemental funding is required, it cannot instantly reverse decades of consolidated production lines and atrophied mineral processing capacity. It is constrained by time, chemistry, and industrial physics. The input of missiles is not just money; it's a supply chain that starts with minerals, processing, and sub-tier capacity that does not surge on command.
[...]
Every weapon fired needs replacement, and creating that replacement requires a chain running from raw material, through refining and processing, into specialized components, and finally into certified production lines. The bottlenecks are not always in the places politicians think. The narrowest points are often in obscure corners: a sub-tier supplier with a single furnace; a capacitor supply dependent on a narrow set of inputs; a rocket-motor ecosystem that cannot expand without years of plant construction.
Even supposedly simple munitions depend on complex chains. For example, modern guidance kits for munitions are dependent on high-performance components that can only be made from rare earths, a market that China dominates. The West's industrial base can surge some things such as raw material orders, contract awards, or funding authorizations quickly. It cannot conjure trained labor, qualified tooling, and certified production capacity overnight.
[...]
This is a polite way of saying the American military should be hoping the next salvo with Iran is smaller—and that China won't do the math to figure out what is left of American precision-guided munitions to defend Taiwan. This is highly problematic; a 2023 report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies determined, based on a series of war game simulations, that the U.S. military would run out of key munitions within a week of trying to defend Taiwan from a Chinese invasion.
That is why the first 36 hours of operations against Iran matter. They are a stress test of Western industrial endurance. A campaign that forces defenders to spend interceptors at a rate that outruns replenishment is not just tactically demanding; it is strategically corrosive.
[...]
Beyond the sheer volume of munitions, the loss of high-value assets introduces another layer of complexity. The destruction of two advanced U.S. radars, the AN/FPS-132 in Qatar and the AN/TPS-59 in Bahrain, highlights a problem where the total weight of the "mineral bill" is less of a concern than the extreme fragility of the supply chain and the extensive timelines for replacement.
Per our analysis, for the AN/FPS-132, it will take five to eight years for Raytheon to build a new radar at a cost of $1.1 billion. Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin will require at least 12 to 24 months and an estimated $50 million to $75 million to replace the AN/TPS-59, based on the original Bahrain Foreign Military Sales contract adjusted for inflation. The biggest issue for the defense industrial base will be sourcing the 77.3 kilograms of gallium needed for both systems, a material for which China controls 98 percent of the global supply. This is not to mention the 30,610 kilograms of copper that will also be needed, a commodity facing surging demand from the technology sector.
[...]
Individual bottlenecks slow down this replenishing. The BGM-109 Tomahawk, for example, depends on the F107 turbofan, solely produced by Williams International. Patriot PAC-3 production is split between the United States, Gulf partners, and Poland, which began producing PAC-3 MSE launch tubes at the WZL-1 facility in 2024. Some systems, such as the Popeye Turbo (also known as Crystal Maze II in its extended-range variant), are legacy assets being drawn down from a finite stock. Others are critically strained: Only around 25 GBU-57 MOPs have been produced to date, with Boeing as their sole assembler. The weapon is currently certified for delivery only by the B-2 Spirit—a fleet of just 20 airframes. The B-21 Raider will provide an additional delivery platform but will not reach operational status until 2027. The THAAD system requires a bespoke kill vehicle, which has no commercial analogue. All of these convoluted production processes are dependent on critical minerals that cannot be surged.
Edit: And I think it's most visible in weapons but also present elsewhere. Until 2022 the UK had domestic fertiliser manufacturing, that shut down due to the cost pressures of industrial energy (we're about 4 times as high as the US or China, Europe's about twice as high) - there's going to be a massive spike in fertiliser costs globally. My understanding is exctracting gallium isn't a particularly toxic process it just wasn't economic to do it in the West any more - so now 98% of the supply chain is Chinese owned. The UK has stopped all new oil and gas exploration while importing gas from the Norwegian side of the exact same wells. There's a sort of end of history decadence to it all - we don't need to worry about where things come from or are made or anything so grubby as the material world, the market will provide.
Quote from: Legbiter on March 08, 2026, 10:39:54 PMWe have our answer on how well the US would fight to defend Taiwan. All bases in the Western Pacific would get taken out on day 1-2. Taiwan is an inseparable part of China guys. :hmm:
The converse of that is that the entire Chinese invasion fleet would drown in the straits. I don't think the lesson here is that the Americans uniquely can't deal with mass missile and drone warfare, but rather than nobody is ready for it.
You guys are being too harsh on him, it's not as if Ridley Scott had to concern himself with who was supplying the pyrotechnics for his latest blockbuster epic?
A few things:
Drone Swarming - This is actually likely to not be a long-term intractable problem. It won't be solved during this war, but drones are very slow moving. This actually means systems could be developed that fire very cheap munitions (think approaching as cheap as small arms ammunition) to effectively destroy drones in flight.
Ukraine has basically cobbled together systems like this on the cheap that have about an 80% interception rate--I have little doubt a country not dealing with the pressures and constraints of Ukraine, and able to casually work on it back in R&D labs, can improve on that %.
The issue the U.S. and regional allies have is we just have no such systems. We have a bunch of systems designed to intercept very fast moving ballistic missiles. Those systems require very advanced and expensive radars, targeting systems, and munitions. Anytime they are used against a drone it's basically a "win" for Iran.
The big takeaway is the actual science and physics behind intercepting a drone are massively easier than intercepting a ballistic missile, but we've worked a ton on the latter, and haven't built much out for the former. The closest things I can immediately think of are some Navy close-in weapon systems for ship defense.
Industrial Production - So anyone paying attention has known this is a problem since the Ukraine war started. Even back when we had a President willing to meaningfully help Ukraine, we had supply chain issues.
The simple reality is the U.S. defense industrial base is working under the same lean manufacturing principles the regular U.S. industrial base uses, and we have eschewed anything like industrial policy as a "dirty word" in this country for ages. There's no easy fix here--if we even came to the political conclusion that a fix would needed, this is the kind of thing that takes a generation to fix. The fix would likely be more or less a complete rejection of lean manufacturing in the defense world and consequently "uneconomic" excess capacity. This btw, was bog standard the way defense manufacturing worked in the first half of the 20th century up through probably the 1970s. This isn't some arcane wizardry, it's just something we rejected due to a number of now-questionable opinions that were viewed as orthodox at the time.
We also should have learned from the Ukraine war we need to stand up more "dumb" manufacturing, meaning deeper manufacturing capacity of low technology defense items like artillery rounds, again, something that we did well in the past at huge scale and simply concluded "didn't matter" anymore.
Politics Trump's approval rating still sits in the 41-44% range, with disapproval in the 52-55% range. This is basically the story of Trump all the way back to his first term. He manages to be the most popular one election day--the day it matters most, both times he was able to get enough low propensity, independent and swing voters to tilt his way to win narrow but convincing victories.
Both times he immediately became much less popular with those groups mere weeks after entering office. (One should reflect the voters in this group are particularly stupid. Living out a live action version of Charlie Brown with the football.)
The reason Trump's approval rating has not, and probably will not, collapse is the people approving of him are die hard Republicans. The GOP has morphed into a party where absolute loyalty to Trump is a prerequisite to be in politics. Look at Dan Crenshaw--super orthodox conservative, voted with the GOP basically every meaningful vote in congress. But he said some unorthodox things, like he said that 2020 election denialism was something Trump knew was false and was just using to rile people up. That's all it took. He's now out of congress replaced by someone whose Trump loyalty is not conditional but absolute.
No one will rein Trump in from the GOP as long as Trump commands near absolute loyalty from a huge swathe of GOP voters. Anyone expecting some sort of Republican congressional pressure to materialize to stop the war--don't. Trump alone will be the one to stop the war and only if he can do so in an ego-sparing way.
Just a complete layman here, but I wonder if the countering the drone swarm is a matter of going back to WW2-era AA systems, with updated computers. In modern warfare AA has evolved to shoot down fast high-flying missiles, but it seems like with drones we're back to saturating by quantity strategy. I wonder if with modern technology you can even get high hit rates with non-exploding AA ammo, just by calculating where to aim.
Interestingly UK and Ukraine jointly developed a drone interceptor in part to get around wasting expensive anti-air systems on drones. From my understanding it's drone-to-drone interception which I think properly entered production the autumn. I wonder if that could get licensed as a solution too?
Although I wonder if that would even work as I think part of that system basically needs space - so Ukraine is big and can use its territory to thin out attacks which maybe works better for an interception system (could work for Saudi, say). But you need something different for dense territories like Israel or the Gulf States.
QuoteInterestingly UK and Ukraine jointly developed a drone interceptor in part to get around wasting expensive anti-air systems on drones. From my understanding it's drone-to-drone interception which I think properly entered production the autumn. I wonder if that could get licensed as a solution too?
Although I wonder if that would even work as I think part of that system basically needs space - so Ukraine is big and can use its territory to thin out attacks which maybe works better for an interception system (could work for Saudi, say). But you need something different for dense territories like Israel or the Gulf States.
It depends,but some of the gulf states have plenty of room, the UAE has plenty of desert with a handful of urban concentrations, admittedly costal megacities.
And on option would be to have adhoc shipborn AA platforms moored in the gulf to starting thinning down the drone before they hit urban landscape clutter, as you suggest.
Also what would be wrong with dedicated killzone for the drones, where advanced training jets, like the BAE Hawks et al, are armed with 30mm cannons and the less skilled pilots are given free reign to shot the drones down within those defined areas?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 09, 2026, 07:37:38 AMIndustrial Production - So anyone paying attention has known this is a problem since the Ukraine war started. Even back when we had a President willing to meaningfully help Ukraine, we had supply chain issues.
The simple reality is the U.S. defense industrial base is working under the same lean manufacturing principles the regular U.S. industrial base uses, and we have eschewed anything like industrial policy as a "dirty word" in this country for ages.
Democrats don't push it because they don't want to spend lots of money building seemingly redundant stockpiles instead of social spending. Republicans don't push it because they are always raiding the budget to cut the upper tax rate. The Pentagon doesn't push it because they want to steer the money to the newest and the shiniest toys, not build more of the same to just put in the warehouse. Trump just wants to build battleships because he thinks it's 1897 and he needs to send a Great White Fleet to impose tariffs and seize the world's vital coal supplies.
In the old days the defense industrial base was sustained by old fashioned pork barrel, back scratching politics - Congress backed it because every state and district got a piece and the Soviet bogeyman provided a handy justification. It wasn't always the most efficient, but it got the job done. Then the USSR collapsed, Gingrich took a contract out on America, chummy gold ol boyism in Congress was replaced by hyper-partisanship, states split into warring Reds and Blues a la Byzantium. No more domestic consensus. 2022 should have been the wake-up call but we all know what happened there..
My suspicion is more talk will shift to the drones (than is already there) in the coming days--ISW reports Iran has lost about 75% of its missile launchers. Most likely in the coming days Iran will be close to having none left--I imagine they will keep some hidden to avoid losing any / all launch capacity, but will probably not use them for daily launches (which exposes them obviously), but rather save them for a more strategic or performative use a little down the road.
I think the story more and more will be the drone warfare's effects on the Gulf nations, which continue to get hit.
I also wonder how long the Gulf nations can maintain their own legitimacy by refusing to fight back. It's one thing to ignore attempts on U.S. bases, but we're seeing oil production and refining assets, civilian residential assets etc being hit, I don't know that the Gulf states can just indefinitely act like this isn't their war.
I'm not sure the significance of any of them fighting back--none are as capable as the U.S. or Israel, KSA and UAE have decently sized air forces for the region though.
Also the Gulf States perhaps waiting for Trump to decide the war isn't a good idea, and take the pressure off of them--probably are misreading the level of stupidity inside Trump's mind.
Although I think it's also wider than America - or American politics is the local expression of a global phenomenon. It wasn't just government contracts but a general cultural and economic shift to "leaner" industry, combating inefficiencies (including stock, process and labour costs), increasing competitiveness in a global marketplace (and leaning on that global marketplace to deliver efficiency) etc. (And obviously in the context of the 70s with Vietnam, the oil shock, stagflation - the criticism/crises that drove that swing were real.)
Having said that I think France is an interesting counter-example on your last point because I think the very things that are now helping France were, for the last 40 years, great examples in the Anglo-media (but I also think elsewhere) of a form of soft corruption. The French state stepping in to protect uncompetitive national champions, the closeness/incestuousness of French political and business elites (also cited as an important part of France's response to covid).
This quote from the daily ISW update is interesting for a few reasons:
QuoteThe combined force is reportedly considering deploying special forces at a later time in the war to move Iran's highly enriched uranium (HEU) stockpile out of the country. Four sources with knowledge of the matter told Axios on March 8 that the US administration has discussed a potential future operation to move Iran's HEU out of Iran or dilute it in Iran.[53] The sources added that the combined force would only conduct such an operation if Iran could no longer seriously threaten US or Israeli troops.[54] US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said during a congressional briefing on March 3 that "people are going to have to go and get it" in response to a question about whether Iran's HEU would be secured.[55] Iran's HEU is buried underneath rubble at the Esfahan, Fordow, and Natanz nuclear sites, which the United States and Israel struck during the 12-day war.[56] US and Israeli officials told Axios that most of Iran's HEU stockpile is located in the underground tunnels of the nuclear facility in Esfahan, while the rest is split between Fordow and Natanz.[57] An Israeli analyst, citing March 2 satellite imagery, reported that the combined force struck Natanz and severely damaged at least three buildings.[58]
For one, my response would be: good fucking luck with that. Special forces raids in Iran? Sure, that's possible. But moving a stockpile of uranium? That would take a pretty big logistical presence.
The end of that note reveals IMO a core weakness in Trump's mindset--this is an option "he would only consider if there's no risk to U.S. troops."
Now, I'm of a mind this entire war is foolish and misguided, but the reality is whatever the wisdom of a war, one can assess if there's the right mindset to win. I can assure you Iran isn't making decisions out of fear of troop losses, the fact Trump truly believes he can impose his will on Iran without any significant risk to U.S. troops is both arrogant and also reveals Trump doesn't nearly have the will that IMO would be required for a victory of any sort in a strategic sense. (I'm not opposed to the idea Trump's current strategy could result in a "mutual loss" in which everyone loses, but that isn't the kind of thing Trump has been trying to sell people on.)
On the one hand - If Trump's people wanted to preserve the option of sending in teams to secure and transport highly enriched uranium from three different sites located in the heart of the country - maybe they shouldn't have first bombed the exterior of the sites to generate massive amounts of rubble?
On the other hand - it's a bit of a ray of light that perhaps one Trumpian act of stupidity may forestall an even bigger one. Perhaps God really does protect the terminally stupid, by having one idiotic act cancel out another? Is it too much to hope?
I guess it is not hard for a simple brain to move from "take the oil" to "take the uranium".
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 09, 2026, 06:38:45 AMThere's a sort of end of history decadence to it all - we don't need to worry about where things come from or are made or anything so grubby as the material world, the market will provide.
I don't think we (the collective West) are going to move substantially towards fixing the problem until we get our own nose/face smashed in a bit. Then we can only hope we'll have the chance to turn things around.
Quote from: DGuller on March 09, 2026, 07:56:40 AMJust a complete layman here, but I wonder if the countering the drone swarm is a matter of going back to WW2-era AA systems, with updated computers. In modern warfare AA has evolved to shoot down fast high-flying missiles, but it seems like with drones we're back to saturating by quantity strategy. I wonder if with modern technology you can even get high hit rates with non-exploding AA ammo, just by calculating where to aim.
Gun-based interception is possible and very successful when the AA operator knows that the drone is going to enter the gun's range (e.g. protecting a point target like a single building or single radar antenna). The number of gun systems needed to defend something larger, like an airfield, gets quickly out of hand, and missile-based systems become the only option.
Plus, of course, the issue of gun system saturation by large-scale drone attacks where "they can get some of us, but not all of us."
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 09, 2026, 09:18:47 AMAlso the Gulf States perhaps waiting for Trump to decide the war isn't a good idea, and take the pressure off of them--probably are misreading the level of stupidity inside Trump's mind.
Even without Trump, they know the US eventually will get bored and leave. Yet they will still have to coexist with their neighbor.
Perhaps--but when Iran is blowing up stuff like desalination facilities there's going to be some upper limit of what they can tolerate before questions get pretty loud as to why they aren't doing anything about it. Questions from their own people.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/03/iran-strategy-victory-disease/686275/?gift=otEsSHbRYKNfFYMngVFweA-lpG91FW0XPeaUsz-ryEc&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
QuoteOperational Excellence, Strategic Incompetence
The president and his advisers are in the grip of "victory disease."
By Tom Nichols
March 6, 2026
The war in Iran has reaffirmed two truths. One is that the United States is blessed with the most professional and effective military in the world. The men and women of the American armed forces can conduct missions of almost any size with formidable competence, from special operations to seize a rogue-state president to a large-scale war. The other truth is that the Trump administration, when it comes to strategy, is incompetent.
Strategy is about matching the instruments of national power—and especially military force—to the goals of national policy. The president and his team, however, have not enunciated an overarching goal for this war—or, more accurately, they have presented multiple goals and chosen among them almost randomly, depending on the day or the hour. This means that highly effective military operations are taking place in a strategic vacuum.
Worse, Donald Trump is now pointing to these missions as if the excellence with which they have been conducted somehow constitutes a strategy in itself. He appears so enthralled by the execution of these missions that he has enlarged the goals of this war to include the complete destruction of the Iranian regime, after which he will "Make Iran Great Again."
This kind of thinking is an old problem, and it has a name: "victory disease," meaning that victory in battle encourages leaders to seek out more battles, and then to believe that winning those battles means that they are winning the larger war or achieving some grand strategic aim—right up until the moment they realize that they have overreached and find themselves facing a military disaster or even total defeat. It is a condition that has afflicted many kinds of regimes over the course of history, one so common that my colleagues and I lectured military officers about it when I was a professor at the Naval War College. The issue is especially important for Americans, because when national leaders have exceptionally capable military forces at their disposal—as the United States does—they are even more likely to be seized by victory disease.
The Persian emperor Xerxes had it; that's how he found himself eventually suffering a historic defeat in Greece at the Battle of Salamis. Napoleon had it; that's how he ended up freezing in the Russian snow after years of brilliant victories over other European states. The French in 1870 had it; that's how they confidently marched to catastrophes against a superior Prussian army. The Axis had it; that's how Germany and Japan convinced themselves that their early successes meant that they could quickly defeat the Soviet Union and the United States, respectively.
The Americans caught the same bug in the Korean War, when they chased the North Koreans to the Yalu River, a drive that ended in disaster when Communist Chinese troops streamed across the border and joined the conflict. The U.S. fell prey to this syndrome again in Vietnam, when it poured men and materiel into the war for years yet remained unable to turn many battlefield triumphs into a strategic victory.
American policy in the Gulf War in 1991 is an honorable exception; George H. W. Bush avoided victory disease, calling an end to Operation Desert Storm rather than marching on Baghdad after achieving his stated aim of rescuing Kuwait. But his son, George W. Bush, chose to fight two wars at the same time. Once again, the men and women of the U.S. military managed to achieve remarkable operational successes, but it took years to stabilize Iraq, and Afghanistan today is back in the hands of the Taliban.
And now Trump seems to have contracted a whopping case of victory disease. He is clearly convinced that previous operations in Venezuela, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, and, of course, Iran are all evidence that a total victory over the regime in Tehran will be relatively quick. But he has provided no conception of what "victory" would look like. As of yesterday, his goals have expanded to include a demand for "unconditional surrender."
Admiring the performance of the U.S. military is understandable. But it is not the same thing as using that military power to achieve some national purpose. Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth so far seem to be enjoying the fireworks. But the efficient and rapid destruction of buildings and machines, and the killing of some enemy leaders, is not the same thing as a strategy.
Today, the U.S. and Israeli militaries have achieved almost full control of the skies over Iran and the waters around it. They appear able to destroy any targets they choose with near impunity. The Iranians still have the ability to strike back by launching missiles and drones at various targets, and they managed to kill six American service members with an attack against a makeshift installation in Kuwait. Nevertheless, Iran has been bested at the operational level of war, and its air and naval forces cannot offer meaningful resistance.
American operations have not been flawless. Last week, a U.S. strike on an Iranian naval base may have destroyed an Iranian school and killed dozens of children. Every major military engagement is fraught with risks of targeting errors, friendly fire, and other accidents, and preliminary evidence indicates that the school bombing was a tragic American error, one that was made more likely by the U.S. and Israeli decision to attack during the day (when children would be in the building). Even so, American military operations have for the most part been astonishingly well executed. Years of training, study, and planning, along with careful use of intelligence, have all contributed to the rapid elimination of much of Iran's capacity to project power, and almost all of its ability to resist allied attacks.
Operational competence, however, cannot answer the question of national purpose. What is the war about, and when will America know it's done? Trump, when pressed, dodges the issue of war aims by pointing to the excellence of the military. "I hope you are impressed," Trump said on Thursday to ABC's Jonathan Karl. "How do you like the performance? I mean, Venezuela is obvious. This might be even better." Trump then repeated, "How do you like the performance?" Karl noted that no one is questioning the success of military operations, and he asked the president what happens next. "Forget about 'next,'" Trump answered. "They are decimated for a 10-year period before they could build it back."
Likewise, the next day, CNN's Dana Bash asked the president how he thought the war was going. Trump rated the war, Bash said, a 12 or 15 out of 10, and then said, "We're doing very well militarily—better than anybody could have even dreamed."
Each time Trump or one of his lieutenants speaks this way, they generate more questions than answers. Yes, military operations are proceeding impressively, with very few casualties among the U.S. and Israeli operators. But what would have constituted a "10" that we can now say that America is at a "15"? Now that Trump, at least for the time being, has issued a call for "unconditional surrender," perhaps vaporizing every piece of military hardware with an Iranian flag on it is enough. Comments on Thursday by Hegseth and Admiral Brad Cooper of Central Command suggest that this seems to be the plan.
But "unconditional surrender" is unlikely to last. To effect such a total defeat, Iran would have to be occupied and administered by the victors. This kind of language is at odds with the reluctance of some in the Trump administration and other Republicans, including Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, to even call Operation Epic Fury a "war." (I will exercise my prerogative here as someone who has studied and taught national security and international relations and confirm that when you bomb a nation, kill its leaders, and call for its people to rise up, you're engaged in war, and if you call for "unconditional surrender," you are definitely at war.)
Trump will likely find himself backpedaling from the demand for unconditional surrender. He might also redefine unconditional to denote more easily achieved aims. (Indeed, hours after Trump's post, the White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt was already offering an interpretation of unconditional that was far more limited than absolute capitulation.) Soon, the Americans could find themselves retreating to the strategic incoherence that has characterized the administration's approach since the first hours of the war. Military operations and national purpose will become more and more distanced from each other, because military prowess cannot clarify America's war aims. As the old saying warns: If you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there.
My colleagues Marie-Rose Sheinerman and Isabel Ruehl have pointed out the severity of this problem by noting that Trump and his aides have offered at least 10 rationales for war over the course of only six days. Rationale No. 1 was "an imminent threat" from Iran, Rationale No. 2 was nuclear weapons, Rationale No. 5 was election interference, Rationale No. 6 was "world peace" writ large, Rationale No. 10 was that America had been dragged into the war by Israel. Some of these reasons might constitute a casus belli—others, such as Rationale No. 9 ("fulfill God's purpose"), less so—but Trump's team has thrown them all at the wall to see what sticks, perhaps in part because the war is still unpopular with the American public and Trump has so far seen no "rally 'round the flag" benefit from launching it.
But each of these rationales demands a different strategy; eliminating an imminent threat involves a different set of operations than establishing peace in the region (or the world). Instead, the Americans are choosing an "all of the above" approach, employing immense power across Iran. Entranced by the show, Trump, Hegseth, and others assume that because these operations are going well, something good will come of them. This kind of poor strategy, ironically, is an option only because of the excellence of the American and Israeli militaries: If Trump had to make decisions under greater material or military constraints, such as shortages of money, weapons, or talent, he would have to choose an actual war aim and stay with it.
If the goal is regime change and "unconditional surrender," do current U.S. operations support that goal? Again, military prowess and victory disease may be encouraging the White House to avoid thinking about some hard realities. Regimes are not changed by bombing; they are put in place by men and women wearing boots and carrying guns. (These need not be American boots, but they have to be somebody's boots.) Trump has called for the Iranians to surrender, but to whom? A U.S. occupation force? Or is an internal group of rebels assembling in Iran? In any case, a new regime will have to gain support by rebuilding infrastructure that's being destroyed. Are the target sets being adjusted accordingly over time? No one can answer these questions, because the civilian leadership of the United States does not seem to have thought them through.
Victory disease divorces military excellence from political wisdom and strategic discipline. It convinces leaders that whatever they're doing must be working and that they should keep doing it, blinding them to the possibility that military operations may have become counterproductive or detached from achievable aims. The American military is given tasks—clear the skies, suppress air defenses, sink the enemy navy—and then it breaks those instructions down into discrete and granular missions against particular targets. The pilots and planners can execute those missions with courage and professionalism, but they cannot force them to make strategic sense.
Meanwhile, despite the successes of the military overseas, Trump now admits that a regime that was supposed to be eliminated quickly could reach the United States with terrorist attacks. He told Time this week that "we expect some things. Like I said, some people will die. When you go to war, some people will die." The American people might be willing to tolerate such risks if they knew what their sons and and daughters were fighting for and how long they would be at war. Trump has retreated behind the skill of the U.S. military rather than answer such questions.
Perhaps the greatest danger of the current epidemic of victory disease is that it seems to be making Donald Trump think he's a brilliant strategist: He is already talking about overthrowing the government of Cuba, even as American forces are still fighting in the Middle East, and the threat of terror may well be growing at home now that the United States is at war. At this point, all Americans can do is admire the fortitude and excellence of the U.S. military while hoping for victory—whatever that is, and whenever it comes.
In a bit of masochism, I watched Hegseth's interview with 60 Minutes...maybe I am not good at reading people, but even though he was saying all the confident things one would expect (including the expected Trump fluffing), I thought he seemed nervous/anxious as heck.
Hegseth exhibits the "Peter Principle" to a degree the late Professor Laurence Peter would have scarce imagined possible in a position as important as SecDef.
Well--at least so soon. I believe Peter was ultimately pessimistic in his book, since he speculates if humanity collectively will eventually become so technologically advanced that civilizational survival is put at risk due to collective incompetence to handle technology too advanced for our level of biological evolution.
ETA: I just now realized this is even more apt because Hegseth himself is a Peter.
At risk of giving Russia too much credit, I think one of the smarter things they did was to replace their Minister of Defense with a technocrat/economist.
The President is the one that makes policy, and the service chiefs can handle the military crap, so the idea that putting in a "military man" is a necessary move seems silly.
My impression of the Austin was kinda meh...he had enough staff experience to be sufficiently competent. Mattis was also ok, but sort of like a Hegseth but with competence and legitimacy. I actually had the impression that Esper was a rather good fit for the role...some military experience, but then a lot of follow-on industrialist experience.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 09, 2026, 02:00:30 PMAt risk of giving Russia too much credit, I think one of the smarter things they did was to replace their Minister of Defense with a technocrat/economist.
The President is the one that makes policy, and the service chiefs can handle the military crap, so the idea that putting in a "military man" is a necessary move seems silly.
My impression of the Austin was kinda meh...he had enough staff experience to be sufficiently competent. Mattis was also ok, but sort of like a Hegseth but with competence and legitimacy. I actually had the impression that Esper was a rather good fit for the role...some military experience, but then a lot of follow-on industrialist experience.
Hegseth has made for TV star good looks and an Ivy League education - which are absolute catnip for Trump.
But I think you're right - I would consider splitting the role and I'd possibly broaden it too. I think of the way Churchill had his war cabinet where you had a Minister of Defence (him) which was a strategic war-fighting role. But separate to that there was a very powerful Minister of Supply which continued as a cabinet position until 1960 - initially Lord Beaverbrock and then a man who'd been on the board of directors of chemical and steel industries whose entire focus was supply chains for the war effort. We're not fighting a world war and while defence procurement in the UK is a particular shitshow but all government procurement has pretty horrendous record and we perhaps need to think a bit more strategically about what a secure supply chain is. From a UK perspective I think there'd be a case of a Minister of Supply covering all government procurement because I think it is an area that needs its own expertise and focus in the modern state. Effective procurement basically enables almost every operational/policy department in government - but it's rarely the focus of any senior civil servant or politician in any of those departments which I think is an issue.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 09, 2026, 12:03:17 PMI don't think we (the collective West) are going to move substantially towards fixing the problem until we get our own nose/face smashed in a bit. Then we can only hope we'll have the chance to turn things around.
I hope you're wrong - or I keep hoping covid, or Ukraine, or this will be the moment it dawns on us.
There was a really interesting NYT article on the success Japan has had in building entire supply chains for rare earths that does not touch China because they recognised the vulnerability. But it was a fifteen policy by government and industry in close cooperation. Not saying that's impossible in the rest of the West but...
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 09, 2026, 09:10:42 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 09, 2026, 07:37:38 AMIndustrial Production - So anyone paying attention has known this is a problem since the Ukraine war started. Even back when we had a President willing to meaningfully help Ukraine, we had supply chain issues.
The simple reality is the U.S. defense industrial base is working under the same lean manufacturing principles the regular U.S. industrial base uses, and we have eschewed anything like industrial policy as a "dirty word" in this country for ages.
Democrats don't push it because they don't want to spend lots of money building seemingly redundant stockpiles instead of social spending. Republicans don't push it because they are always raiding the budget to cut the upper tax rate. The Pentagon doesn't push it because they want to steer the money to the newest and the shiniest toys, not build more of the same to just put in the warehouse. Trump just wants to build battleships because he thinks it's 1897 and he needs to send a Great White Fleet to impose tariffs and seize the world's vital coal supplies.
In the old days the defense industrial base was sustained by old fashioned pork barrel, back scratching politics - Congress backed it because every state and district got a piece and the Soviet bogeyman provided a handy justification. It wasn't always the most efficient, but it got the job done. Then the USSR collapsed, Gingrich took a contract out on America, chummy gold ol boyism in Congress was replaced by hyper-partisanship, states split into warring Reds and Blues a la Byzantium. No more domestic consensus. 2022 should have been the wake-up call but we all know what happened there..
There was another justification, even during the cold war. The notion was to have enough for a reasonable defence, but not so much that an adventurous future President might be tempted to use it for purposes other than defence; or perhaps more importantly - the other side was also limited.
And I have to say, from the perspective of a country that might be invaded by an adventurous President, I am quite relieved.
Quote from: grumbler on March 09, 2026, 12:06:11 PMQuote from: DGuller on March 09, 2026, 07:56:40 AMJust a complete layman here, but I wonder if the countering the drone swarm is a matter of going back to WW2-era AA systems, with updated computers. In modern warfare AA has evolved to shoot down fast high-flying missiles, but it seems like with drones we're back to saturating by quantity strategy. I wonder if with modern technology you can even get high hit rates with non-exploding AA ammo, just by calculating where to aim.
Gun-based interception is possible and very successful when the AA operator knows that the drone is going to enter the gun's range (e.g. protecting a point target like a single building or single radar antenna). The number of gun systems needed to defend something larger, like an airfield, gets quickly out of hand, and missile-based systems become the only option.
Plus, of course, the issue of gun system saturation by large-scale drone attacks where "they can get some of us, but not all of us."
Thanks for the explanation :)
Hegseth's family tree is interesting, his last name is pure 200% Norwegian, second his immigrant ancestors spent 100 years marrying other Norwegians once in the US. He looks disturbingly similar to a close cousin of my wife. :hmm:
*edit* Minus the Rumsfeld-on-crystal-meth persona of course.
So much for america escaping from the crown to keep inbreds from ruining their country.
Quote from: HVC on March 09, 2026, 04:33:28 PMSo much for america escaping from the crown to keep inbreds from ruining their country.
:D
And WTF, this is the only thread that's been active on Languish this day (actually the last 21-22 hours) :hmm:
Quote from: mongers on March 09, 2026, 05:04:15 PM:D
And WTF, this is the only thread that's been active on Languish this day (actually the last 21-22 hours) :hmm:
Swedish-made computer game nerds/enthusiasts interested in war? How could it not? :hmm: We all would love to sink an axe into the skull of an ancestral enemy or 2 and profit while doing so.
Trump early on posted that help is on the way and Iranians should rise up. Now we see the utter devastation from the attack on that oil depot in Teheran. I guess the chances for any kind of uprising were slim before, but an attack like that will likely only solidify resistance and support for the regime.
Also they now elected a more vigorous and radical leader who - unlike supposedly his father - might not find nuclear weapons haram.
I feel Iran is more likely to accept the destruction from further attacks than to give in any time soon.
Quote from: Legbiter on March 09, 2026, 05:42:08 PMQuote from: mongers on March 09, 2026, 05:04:15 PM:D
And WTF, this is the only thread that's been active on Languish this day (actually the last 21-22 hours) :hmm:
Swedish-made computer game nerds/enthusiasts interested in war? How could it not? :hmm: We all would love to sink an axe into the skull of an ancestral enemy or 2 and profit while doing so.
Yeah, but kind of sad how it's war that sort of brings us together (not to necessarily agree, but to argue the minutia) :)
Quote from: Zanza on March 09, 2026, 05:43:26 PMTrump early on posted that help is on the way and Iranians should rise up. Now we see the utter devastation from the attack on that oil depot in Teheran. I guess the chances for any kind of uprising were slim before, but an attack like that will likely only solidify resistance and support for the regime.
Also they now elected a more vigorous and radical leader who - unlike supposedly his father - might not find nuclear weapons haram.
I feel Iran is more likely to accept the destruction from further attacks than to give in any time soon.
You've clearly not remembered your 'Pyrotechnics 101', do you not recall the importance of 'Shock and Awe 1.0'? :D
Quote from: Zanza on March 09, 2026, 05:43:26 PMTrump early on posted that help is on the way and Iranians should rise up. Now we see the utter devastation from the attack on that oil depot in Teheran. I guess the chances for any kind of uprising were slim before, but an attack like that will likely only solidify resistance and support for the regime.
Also they now elected a more vigorous and radical leader who - unlike supposedly his father - might not find nuclear weapons haram.
I feel Iran is more likely to accept the destruction from further attacks than to give in any time soon.
Two details I'd add is that there was an uprising and tens of thousands were killed. During that uprising - four or fice weeks ago - Trump said "help is on its way" while there weren't any significant US resources in the region. Which I think is immoral at least - possibly not significant in what was happening, but wrong.
Also on the new Supreme Leader I'dd add that his father was killed in these strikes. I believe his wife was too.
From the regime's perspective it is abundantly clear they need nukes as the only plausible route to security.
Any signs of panic amongst consumers in your country?
Apparently in the UK the price of domestic heating oil has more that doubled, from 66p to 133p per litre. :bleeding:
QuoteNEW—In a phone interview, President Trump told me the war could be over soon: "I think the war is very complete, pretty much. They have no navy, no communications, they've got no Air Force." He added that the U.S. is "very far" ahead of his initial 4-5 week estimated time frame.
https://x.com/weijia/status/2031086856679412042 (https://x.com/weijia/status/2031086856679412042)
TACO Tuesday is coming, after all.
Quote from: Tamas on March 09, 2026, 07:21:59 PMTACO Tuesday is coming, after all.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. :sleep:
Trump chickening out is by far the best outcome for everyone. But he's already giving conflicting statements about that too.
Yeah and I slightly worry he'll want some big dramatic footage of bigger bombs than ever before in order to declare victory.
And obviously the Iranians will still have a vote. Their goal is to make it clear that they cannot be attacked without conseqences. I'm not sure that's been achieved from their perspective yet? This wasn't just a strike against military or nuclear facilities but the killing of their head of state. (I'd add that politically the Iran-Iraq war really solidified the Islamic Revolution. This isn't the same and there is still domestic opposition but it does seem to be producing a rally round the flag effect - and I'm not sure the regime would want to stop that ASAP.
Posted him yesterday and is lengthy but I thought this was interesting from Hamidreza Azizi:
Quote🔹Despite these diplomatic moves, Iranian officials continue to signal readiness for a prolonged confrontation. Kamal Kharrazi said Iran is prepared for a long war with the United States and suggested that diplomacy will only become possible once the broader economic consequences of the conflict force international pressure on Washington and its allies.
🔹Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi similarly stated that Iran would only agree to end the war under conditions that ensure such a conflict cannot happen again, indicating that Tehran is seeking a new strategic balance rather than a temporary ceasefire.
🔹Within Iranian strategic discussions, a broader assessment is emerging that the war should not end quickly through mediation. Instead, according to this view, the conflict should continue until a new strategic equation is created that guarantees Iran's long-term security.
🔹In this framework, attacks on American bases in the region are presented as central to the strategy. Iranian analysts argue that these bases form the backbone of U.S. operational presence in the Middle East and therefore must be weakened or rendered non-operational in order to reduce American and Israeli military freedom of action.
🔹These assessments also suggest that Iran's operational approach is based on repeated waves of strikes designed to exhaust the opposing side over time rather than on a single decisive confrontation. According to this narrative, managing the timing, scale, and type of attacks allows Iran to continue imposing costs while avoiding vulnerabilities associated with large-scale offensives.
🔹Another element highlighted in Iranian analysis is the increasing focus on Israel's domestic front. Iranian sources claim that recent strikes have targeted central areas of Israel and are intended to keep the population in shelters for extended periods.
🔹Iranian officials also appear to believe that maintaining pressure on American and Israeli positions, preserving domestic cohesion, and increasing economic disruption through measures such as the closure of the Strait of Hormuz could eventually create political pressure on Trump.
Very tiny detail but on the Israel front, Meta have temporarily shut their offices in Tel Aviv and in the wider region Amazon and Microsoft are reportedly looking at temporarily suspending the region and moving that regional processing to data centres in Singapore and India.
Edit: Agree Trump chickening out would be for the best - but I think that also actually just replicates the America-centric narrative, which I think Iran has been disrupting throughout this conflict and have their own agenda. And if you're sat in Tehran I can see pretty good reasons not to let Trump chicken out - I mean they've already killed your head of state and are routinely bombarding you.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 09, 2026, 07:54:05 PMTrump chickening out is by far the best outcome for everyone. But he's already giving conflicting statements about that too.
If he doesn't, and if he doesn't win the war in the next few weeks as he suggested, it'll be interesting to see how his narcissistic weather-vane personality impacts the actual conduct of the war.
Will we see non-sensical operations in pursuit of incoherent objectives? I mean, more so than now? Will he ready massive boots on the ground or surgical strike deployments only to change his mind before giving the go-ahead? Or will he let the logic of the fighting run the war with one thing leading to the next all the while pretending to be in control and proclaiming "great achievements" every step along the way?
I'm skeptical there's a "rally around the flag" effect, that isn't consistent with most of the reporting I've seen.
The regime has a big chunk of Iranian society that has always supported it, and likely always will.
It also has a lot of people who aren't fighters, don't want to be fighters, and aren't going to do anything to piss off the only dudes in their country with weapons.
Iran has some anti-regime militant groups, but they are tiny and very inconsequential, typically sheltering in ethnic enclaves and not the basis for any sort of real uprising. Additionally, those groups recognize they are minority groups--they aren't going to rise against the Persians and lose, because then they can expect pretty severe collective punishment.
I don't know that there is a realistic way to achieve regime change without boots on the ground--but one thing you would need is to have built up some sort of proxy force that you knew you could work with in advance. That has been done in the past, but it usually takes years and it's not even certain you can achieve it.
I think people shouldn't confuse protesters for revolutionaries. They aren't the same thing. Iran has a history of tolerating some level of dissent, until it grows "too big", so it's better to understand protests in that tradition. Protesters are generally looking for reforms. They aren't looking to get AK47s and live in caves fighting the IRGC and Basij.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 09, 2026, 08:10:38 PMYeah and I slightly worry he'll want some big dramatic footage of bigger bombs than ever before in order to declare victory.
And obviously the Iranians will still have a vote. Their goal is to make it clear that they cannot be attacked without conseqences. I'm not sure that's been achieved from their perspective yet? This wasn't just a strike against military or nuclear facilities but the killing of their head of state. (I'd add that politically the Iran-Iraq war really solidified the Islamic Revolution. This isn't the same and there is still domestic opposition but it does seem to be producing a rally round the flag effect - and I'm not sure the regime would want to stop that ASAP.
Posted him yesterday and is lengthy but I thought this was interesting from Hamidreza Azizi:
Quote🔹Despite these diplomatic moves, Iranian officials continue to signal readiness for a prolonged confrontation. Kamal Kharrazi said Iran is prepared for a long war with the United States and suggested that diplomacy will only become possible once the broader economic consequences of the conflict force international pressure on Washington and its allies.
🔹Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi similarly stated that Iran would only agree to end the war under conditions that ensure such a conflict cannot happen again, indicating that Tehran is seeking a new strategic balance rather than a temporary ceasefire.
🔹Within Iranian strategic discussions, a broader assessment is emerging that the war should not end quickly through mediation. Instead, according to this view, the conflict should continue until a new strategic equation is created that guarantees Iran's long-term security.
🔹In this framework, attacks on American bases in the region are presented as central to the strategy. Iranian analysts argue that these bases form the backbone of U.S. operational presence in the Middle East and therefore must be weakened or rendered non-operational in order to reduce American and Israeli military freedom of action.
🔹These assessments also suggest that Iran's operational approach is based on repeated waves of strikes designed to exhaust the opposing side over time rather than on a single decisive confrontation. According to this narrative, managing the timing, scale, and type of attacks allows Iran to continue imposing costs while avoiding vulnerabilities associated with large-scale offensives.
🔹Another element highlighted in Iranian analysis is the increasing focus on Israel's domestic front. Iranian sources claim that recent strikes have targeted central areas of Israel and are intended to keep the population in shelters for extended periods.
🔹Iranian officials also appear to believe that maintaining pressure on American and Israeli positions, preserving domestic cohesion, and increasing economic disruption through measures such as the closure of the Strait of Hormuz could eventually create political pressure on Trump.
Very tiny detail but on the Israel front, Meta have temporarily shut their offices in Tel Aviv and in the wider region Amazon and Microsoft are reportedly looking at temporarily suspending the region and moving that regional processing to data centres in Singapore and India.
Edit: Agree Trump chickening out would be for the best - but I think that also actually just replicates the America-centric narrative, which I think Iran has been disrupting throughout this conflict and have their own agenda. And if you're sat in Tehran I can see pretty good reasons not to let Trump chicken out - I mean they've already killed your head of state and are routinely bombarding you.
Thanks for sharing, that's the kind of cogent analysis I was looking for. Too bad it appears to be on Twitter =/
The direction Azizi lays out for Iran makes reasonable sense to me.
Trump has a clear - and clearly stated - desire for a quick victory here. It makes sense for Iran to drag the conflict out and keep the US bleeding resources, treasury, prestige, and munitions as much as possible; especially if the cost to Iran is lower (i.e. the US and allies using million dollar munitions to defend against $50,000 drones). Normally Trump is pretty good about "not caring" about things when he's not winning at them, but that's going to be more of a challenge when not winning includes looking ineffective militarily (and potentially dead Americans).
Similarly, for a regime that recently killed tens of thousands of its own people a rally around the flag moment is heaven sent. Even if they don't get more Iranians to support the regime, it still makes harsh repression less of a problem. People will accept more in the name of "national defense" when under attack, including things that previously would've been controversial.
While it's an open question whether Trump has the nerve to send in the troops, the strategic calculus remains the same in both scenarios just at higher stakes for both participants. That is, can Iran hang on long enough and drive the cost up high enough for the US to prevail?
Iran's victory conditions - chastening the US and allies and reframe US presence in the local area in ways that are less detrimental to Iran seems more clearly defined and achievable than the US' victory conditions which I think are at minimum some sort of deal that channels money to Trump and related oligarchs, but which would likely require regime change in Iran, either to a civil war or a more pliable government.
Another question - what sort of consequences can the US levy against Iran if, say, Iran pulls off successful terrorist attacks in the US? And I mean attacks that aren't so massive that "nuke the shit out of them" is on the table.
Relatedly, how would such attacks play out in the US? I expect it would increase support for the war as suddenly Americans could tell themselves they're protecting their freedoms fighting against the Iranians who hate them. I expect that would be good for Trump and his coterie's attempt to undermine democracy, but it would also increase the odds of them going all in on an expensive ground war (or expensive AI drone war, potentially). Because what other options are on the table in that kind of scenario?
You can't leave Israel of the analysis, because in part they may have been shaping US military objectives and also, just because trump chickens out, doesn't mean Netty isn't going to see a lot of utility in continued attacks.
Quote from: Jacob on March 09, 2026, 08:27:43 PMWhile it's an open question whether Trump has the nerve to send in the troops, the strategic calculus remains the same in both scenarios just at higher stakes for both participants. That is, can Iran hang on long enough and drive the cost up high enough for the US to prevail?
Yeah. I wonder if in a sense it's the type of war America has struggled with in the past (as all empires have) of asymmetric resistance. But that's normally after initial overwhelming victory and (often) the collapse of state institutions. This is sort of perhaps what asymmetric war looks like at between states and with missiles not AK-47s?
Iran's only hope is to close the straights and take down the world economy, forcing the US and Israel to back down.
But fuck what a huge gift to Russia.
Fuck this neverending Trump nightmare.
Fiseal Islam has said of Monday
"It has been the most volatile day of oil trading in world history. The oil price spiralled to $115 (£86) a barrel at one point early on Monday, but word soon emerged of an emergency meeting of the G7 finance ministers."
Are his goons/ henchmen not telling him what's going on, because this latest outburst:
Quote01:05
President Trump has issued another warning to Iran about disrupting shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.
"If Iran does anything that stops the flow of Oil within the Strait of Hormuz, they will be hit by the United States of America TWENTY TIMES HARDER than they have been hit thus far," Trump says in an online statement.
About 20% of the world's oil passes through the strait and the war has severely reduced sea traffic and sent global oil prices soaring.
"Additionally, we will take out easily destroyable targets that will make it virtually impossible for Iran to ever be built back, as a Nation, again — Death, Fire, and Fury will reign upon them — But I hope, and pray, that it does not happen!" he says.
:hmm:
Oh awesome.
There are still chances that ending the Terrorist theocracy can have some good consequences.
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 09, 2026, 09:14:44 PMThere are still chances that ending the Terrorist theocracy can have some good consequences.
I like the ambiguity, can I subscribe to your newsletter.
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 09, 2026, 09:14:44 PMThere are still chances that ending the Terrorist theocracy can have some good consequences.
Well let me know when it ends.
As for terrorist regimes, we just blew up a girl's school and made it rain oil. I don't recall Iran ever doing anything like that to us.
Quote from: mongers on March 09, 2026, 09:07:16 PMAre his goons/ henchmen not telling him what's going on, because this latest outburst:
The Iranians can launch shaheds from Toyota Hilux's into oil tankers and Gulf infrastructure basically indefinitely. Whenever the Americans tire of this war they can ring up Oman and do a status quo ante bellum in about 15 minutes.
Quote from: Valmy on March 09, 2026, 09:22:14 PMQuote from: Grey Fox on March 09, 2026, 09:14:44 PMThere are still chances that ending the Terrorist theocracy can have some good consequences.
Well let me know when it ends.
As for terrorist regimes, we just blew up a girl's school and made it rain oil. I don't recall Iran ever doing anything like that to us.
Iran is responsible for the rise of Islam fundamentalism for the past 40 years. Less horrible, much more damaging for society.
Don't blame yourself for the action of Israel and the mistake of the Harbinger of the end of time.
Saw a thing where Iran allegedly promises safe transit of the Hormuz Strait for European and Middle Eastern countries if they expel their local US ambassador...
Quote from: grumbler on March 09, 2026, 12:06:11 PMPlus, of course, the issue of gun system saturation by large-scale drone attacks where "they can get some of us, but not all of us."
This is obviously a problem for missile-based defence too, when we're talking about cheap drones versus expensive interceptors.
But yeah, something big like an airbase would be a nightmare to adequately cover with guns.
Quote from: Neil on March 07, 2026, 09:58:43 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2026, 08:26:00 AMQuote from: Neil on March 06, 2026, 08:25:02 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 06, 2026, 07:23:49 PMwho was going to counter attack the sub off the coast of Sri Lanka?
Presumably any other Iranian ship or aircraft. It's pretty paper thin, but it's enough.
No, it's not enough. There were no other Iranian ships or aircraft anywhere near that area. The United States Navy knew that.
This is in no way analogies to what happened during the Falkland war.
Yes, it is. The submarine commander does not have perfect knowledge of the battlespace, nor is he obligated to act as if he does. He's within theoretical range of maritime patrol aircraft. He's attacking an enemy warship. A warship is inarguably a legitimate target, not just a Hegseth 'we shoot anything that moves' target. The problem here isn't the actions of the submarine, but rather the political decision to go to war (or police action, or whatever) with Iran.
There was a patrol craft in the area just before the attack, to spot the ship before it departed.
They knew it was alone. Besides, modern subs have sophiscated radars & comms now, unlike U-boats.
Quote from: Legbiter on March 08, 2026, 09:30:41 PMI'd say Trump has lost this war and just about obliterated his presidency. And I don't know if he can just declare victory. Iranians will have a say in that as well.
They're talking of conscription in the US. Well, Leavitt said they're not ruling out a draft.
The war will last until the election so he can have riots and send troops to Blue States.
Interesting. Apparently, the negotiations were going well. Even further than under Obama.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/full-transcript-omani-foreign-minister-badr-albusaidi/
That is probably why Israel pushed Trump into attacking
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 09, 2026, 09:14:44 PMThere are still chances that ending the Terrorist theocracy can have some good consequences.
Yes, but what about the ayatollahs?
Would be a good name for a cafe in New York's financial district......Thank God it's TACO Tuesday!
The petrol prices just jumped by 4-5 NOK here.
A small price to pay, I know. On the early morning of Sunday, the US embassy in Norway was attacked by "unknown" assailants with explosives. No arrests have been made.
Explosives? Or firecrackers?
Explosives, definitely.
Greenlanders! :o
Quote from: Norgy on March 10, 2026, 05:48:20 AMThe petrol prices just jumped by 4-5 NOK here.
A small price to pay, I know. On the early morning of Sunday, the US embassy in Norway was attacked by "unknown" assailants with explosives. No arrests have been made.
Why quotes around the word unknown?
I will say--the thinking on when to end the war should be different from the thinking on "was this war a good idea." It's obvious to all it was a bad idea, but now we--and unfortunately because of how this works, "we" is a bigger circle than just Trump personally, or even the United States, have to deal with the reality that the war was declared.
Prior to the war, Iran's regime was in terrible shape--years of brutal economic sanctions had tremendously weakened their country, with no prospects for improvement in sight. Their nuclear program had been heavily bombed, and since then they've taken no obvious efforts to repair or restart it.
That fact alone, IMO, should have given Trump pause. We don't know why the Iranians hadn't really gone back to repairing / working on their nuclear program. It could be they had simply concluded that they had weathered the bombing, and due to the damage to their air defenses, they knew they were vulnerable to more. They may have simply been waiting for a more opportune time.
However, it's also possible there were internal conflicts in the regime questioning the wisdom of continuing on that route--after all, this pursuit of nuclear weapons had brought the regime to the weakest point it had ever been since the earliest days of the revolution.
It's also possible Iran was genuinely willing to abandon the program in exchange for sanctions relief?
Do I personally believe that? I don't really know. I do know that in the 25 years now that Iran has clearly had a nuclear weapons program, it has had opportunities in which it could have been rushing that program to completion. For whatever reason, it never did. We also know that under the Obama JCPOA, Iran seemed to genuinely adhere to that deal and was limiting its program during the time that deal was in force.
Now that Trump has done this, I think it very likely that all that logic is now out the window. I would be very surprised if Iran does anything other than immediately rush to a nuclear device ASAP the moment this war is over.
So that then means we would have to respond to that--either by simply allowing it to happen and accept it as a fait accompli, or committing America to repeated incursions of this type into Iran--noting that each time we do something like this, it is very likely Iran is going to get better at planning how to impose pain in response and how to mitigate the risk to their nuclear program from aerial strike.
That means that unfortunately, simply ending the war as soon as possible may not be the best move for the U.S. now that we've had our leader make the unfortunate decision to start the war. I think some consideration has to be given to imposing enough genuine pain on Iran that we can force some sort of capitulation on the nuclear issue. It's an open question if that's even possible--but unfortunately it likely has to be a consideration.
Trump's reticence to hit Iran's oil infrastructure is likely limiting any effectiveness at cowing the regime. Reports are the limited strikes on Iran's oil infrastructure have been Israeli-led, and Trump disagrees with them. This shows a serious deficit of strategic thinking on Trump's part. He is prioritizing now the short term economics over the longer term strategy.
Now that we have shown we are a faithless negotiator and untrustworthy, something more than just blowing up a bunch of military hardware that the Iranians will just rebuild is probably required to prevent Iran from immediately pursuing a nuclear breakout.
QuoteQuoteThe petrol prices just jumped by 4-5 NOK here.
A small price to pay, I know. On the early morning of Sunday, the US embassy in Norway was attacked by "unknown" assailants with explosives. No arrests have been made.
Why quotes around the word unknown?
They were know unknowns
There is a special category for Trump and his coterie of imbeciles, "unknown knowns", there are things that just about everone else knows about but elude their comprehension.
Nothing more than that some people were caught on tape, but were masked.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 10, 2026, 08:12:25 AMThere is a special category for Trump and his coterie of imbeciles, "unknown knowns", there are things that just about everone else knows about but elude their comprehension.
:D
This little adventures used 800 patriot interceptors in the first 3 days. Ukraine has used 600 in 4 years.
I saw footage today of one of the units I support using a Swedish Bofors gun (manufactured in 1937) to shoot down 3 Shahed in a row.
Europe better pray Ukraine wins this war, because the resentment towards NATO aid is growing exponentially in the armed forces. If russia wins, they will recruit and turn the ZSU towards Europe.
It's not a matter of praying, it's the Europeans that need to get their collective heads out of their collective asses and start acting decisively.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 10, 2026, 07:47:03 AMIt's obvious to all it was a bad idea, but now we
Who is this "all" you speak of? Most Republicans still approve of the war and are willing to fight to the last Democrat to topple the Iranian regime if need be.
Quote from: Zoupa on March 10, 2026, 03:41:26 PMThis little adventures used 800 patriot interceptors in the first 3 days. Ukraine has used 600 in 4 years.
All is going well for the war.
Ukraine is coming to rescue the US.
US and Arab states turn to Ukraine for help against Iranian drone attacks (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-10/us-gulf-states-call-on-ukraine-for-iran-shahed-drone-defence/106431514)
not so long ago, answering an American youth asking if allies could send help to the US, I suggested Haiti could send humanitarian aid. I wasn't too far off.
Ah, even better:
Iran begins laying mines in Strait of Hormuz, sources say (https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/10/politics/iran-begins-laying-mines-in-strait-of-hormuz)
So much for having control of the naval area. Don't control the skies, don't control the maritime strait, can't defend against drone and missile strikes all is going well.
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 09, 2026, 09:27:08 PMIran is responsible for the rise of Islam fundamentalism for the past 40 years. Less horrible, much more damaging for society.
Saudi Arabia is much more responsible for this. We should nor underestimate the cultural and theological divide between Shia and Sunni Islam. Saudi Arabia finances a lot of radicals through its charities and school projects worldwide, plus all the mosque financing in Occidental countries. A lot of AQ financing was routed through SA in the beginning.
While Trump suggested yesterday he might want to TACO out soon, t0 does look like Iran is going for the Hotel California strategy. If we pull out while leaving Hormuz a dangerous mine-laden mess, I am sure our ME allies will be very pleased.
Trump has shown he cares little for allies. If he can get his mission accomplished photo op on a boat and some slaps on the back he'll be ecstatic. Maybe throw in a few peace prizes for bringing peace to the middle east. Then it'll all start over once epstein is in the news again. What people should worry about is who he'll attack next after Cuba to get ahead of the news cycle.
I hadn't even considered that until now. I'll be really impressed if Trump manages to turn the Arab states against the US the way he turned European allies.
Quote from: viper37 on March 10, 2026, 04:06:00 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 10, 2026, 07:47:03 AMIt's obvious to all it was a bad idea, but now we
Who is this "all" you speak of? Most Republicans still approve of the war and are willing to fight to the last Democrat to topple the Iranian regime if need be.
Oh you seem to believe if a Republican politician thinks this war was a foolish mistake that means they are willing to cross Trump over it? That isn't the way this country or that party work anymore. They know it is a mistake and they'll let Trump continue regardless of the consequences.
That being said the use of "all" was clearly hyperbolic language.
Hegseth is claiming 16 Iranian minelaying vessels destroyed before entering the Strait, no mines deployed.
Obviously anything he said is worth less than the 30 pack of Busch Light he pounded last weekend, so we'll see what some reputable sources say.
I assume there are no meaningful US naval assets in the Persian Gulf, right? Being stuck behind a minefield and all
I think most are in the Indian Ocean.
Also—ISW which has been doing high quality daily reports stated today their satellite data partner at DOD request will now delay all satellite imagery by 14 days, so ISW will no longer be able to confirm aerial strikes in its daily maps.
Quote from: HVC on March 10, 2026, 04:43:43 PMTrump has shown he cares little for allies. If he can get his mission accomplished photo op on a boat and some slaps on the back he'll be ecstatic. Maybe throw in a few peace prizes for bringing peace to the middle east. Then it'll all start over once epstein is in the news again. What people should worry about is who he'll attack next after Cuba to get ahead of the news cycle.
My meaning was not so much about the alliances themselves, but about a belligerent and dangerous Iran keeping Hormuz closed indefinitely after Trump bows out.
They will be much more incentivized and likely to threaten and blackmail the other gulf states. Probably even for reparations to rebuild destroyed oil infrastructure on the "if we can't do it, neither will you" idea.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 10, 2026, 06:00:48 PMQuote from: HVC on March 10, 2026, 04:43:43 PMTrump has shown he cares little for allies. If he can get his mission accomplished photo op on a boat and some slaps on the back he'll be ecstatic. Maybe throw in a few peace prizes for bringing peace to the middle east. Then it'll all start over once epstein is in the news again. What people should worry about is who he'll attack next after Cuba to get ahead of the news cycle.
My meaning was not so much about the alliances themselves, but about a belligerent and dangerous Iran keeping Hormuz closed indefinitely after Trump bows out.
They will be much more incentivized and likely to threaten and blackmail the other gulf states. Probably even for reparations to rebuild destroyed oil infrastructure on the "if we can't do it, neither will you" idea.
I think it would be a bit more nuanced, and frankly reasonable, to say "Hey you guys were the ones who let the US into this region, now take some responsibility for cleaning up the mess you helped create."
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 10, 2026, 06:00:48 PMQuote from: HVC on March 10, 2026, 04:43:43 PMTrump has shown he cares little for allies. If he can get his mission accomplished photo op on a boat and some slaps on the back he'll be ecstatic. Maybe throw in a few peace prizes for bringing peace to the middle east. Then it'll all start over once epstein is in the news again. What people should worry about is who he'll attack next after Cuba to get ahead of the news cycle.
My meaning was not so much about the alliances themselves, but about a belligerent and dangerous Iran keeping Hormuz closed indefinitely after Trump bows out.
They will be much more incentivized and likely to threaten and blackmail the other gulf states. Probably even for reparations to rebuild destroyed oil infrastructure on the "if we can't do it, neither will you" idea.
Well trump famously judged Zelensky of having not cards, now the Iranians had very few cards, which trump might have seen as weakness and gone along with Israel's attack, hoping to destroy the whole Iranian hand, so to speak.
But it turns out Iran has one card left, closing the straits, a trump card to trump trump if you will.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 10, 2026, 05:31:59 PMI think most are in the Indian Ocean.
Also—ISW which has been doing high quality daily reports stated today their satellite data partner at DOD request will now delay all satellite imagery by 14 days, so ISW will no longer be able to confirm aerial strikes in its daily maps.
how 'delightfully' authoritarian. Next they'll tell us Paulus is still holding out in Volgograd
This shitshow war continues. The Iranians have started mining the Hormuz Strait. This is now a covid-tier global economic shock.
And I suspect the next phase is likely to be to escalate beyond the Gulf, I still think at some point Iran will involve the Houthis trying to close the Red Sea.
Edit: And on ther other hand Iran issuing fairly threatening comments about any protesters (basically saying they'll be treated as enemies and the security forces will shoot) and reports of checkpoints in Tehran and on major roads.
QuoteNEW — Korean media published an image from today, showing the US dismantling its THAAD and Patriot systems from S-Korea, to send to the Middle East.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HDDLEgZWoAAQKvD?format=jpg&name=small)
They're trying to plug the gap in coverage since Iran took out several such systems. The US made twelve (12) THAAD interceptors last year. The russians or the Chinese will spot these immediately and given Tehran the coordinates.
The Koreans lost billions and billions in Chinese contracts when they chose to allow those systems in the country less than a decade ago. Now the US is pulling them out.
Example #65276 why trust in the US is now worthless. Generational damage being done.
As some small comfort Korea has gotten more military contracts as America becomes less of an ideal arms dealer.
https://sweepthestrait.com/
Sweeping the straits. Harder than it looks!
That's a blast from the past :lol:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 10, 2026, 05:25:01 PMQuote from: viper37 on March 10, 2026, 04:06:00 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 10, 2026, 07:47:03 AMIt's obvious to all it was a bad idea, but now we
Who is this "all" you speak of? Most Republicans still approve of the war and are willing to fight to the last Democrat to topple the Iranian regime if need be.
Oh you seem to believe if a Republican politician thinks this war was a foolish mistake that means they are willing to cross Trump over it? That isn't the way this country or that party work anymore. They know it is a mistake and they'll let Trump continue regardless of the consequences.
That being said the use of "all" was clearly hyperbolic language.
Not just politicians. All his supporters still adore him and would for him if he tried to run again, or would likely still vote Republican despite their anger toward the inflation coming. At the very least, they would never vote for a Democrat. Special elections don't mean a lot, polls still show a map solidly Republican, or very close to it:
https://www.270towin.com/2026-house-election/
Quote from: Legbiter on March 10, 2026, 07:44:57 PMThis shitshow war continues. The Iranians have started mining the Hormuz Strait. This is now a covid-tier global economic shock.
And Brian Kilmeade on Fox said tanker captains shouldn't be such pussies and just go for it. :lol: :bleeding:
The spirit may be strong but the flesh (insurance) is weak. Almost nothing you do in-day-to-day life is uninsured.
Quote from: Syt on March 11, 2026, 12:39:52 AMQuote from: Legbiter on March 10, 2026, 07:44:57 PMThis shitshow war continues. The Iranians have started mining the Hormuz Strait. This is now a covid-tier global economic shock.
And Brian Kilmeade on Fox said tanker captains shouldn't be such pussies and just go for it. :lol: :bleeding:
Yeah well easy to say when it isn't your hundreds of millions of dollars at stake.
Quote from: Syt on March 11, 2026, 12:39:52 AMQuote from: Legbiter on March 10, 2026, 07:44:57 PMThis shitshow war continues. The Iranians have started mining the Hormuz Strait. This is now a covid-tier global economic shock.
And Brian Kilmeade on Fox said tanker captains shouldn't be such pussies and just go for it. :lol: :bleeding:
Should invite him to come out and captain some tankers. :P
The actual quote:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-host-issues-bonkers-plea-to-help-trump-in-iran/
Quote[...]
"The administration announced a $20 billion maritime reinsurance plan," Kilmeade said. "So he's saying, 'Hey, guys, even though we're not, we get the oil, the market's flush, this is fear. I'm still going to ensure your ships, so go through the strait.'
"And, you know, that's just part of it," Kilmeade continued. "If you want to diminish the Iranian threat, if you want to make sure that this ends up with complete Iran capitulation, show some guts and go through that strait and do it."
[...]
"So I asked him, how do you get that, how do you get the prices down?" he said. "I know how much you care about oil and gas. And he says, 'Tell these tankers to get themselves, get to it. We've wiped out most of their launchers.'
"Here's exactly what he said. 'These ships should go through the Strait of Hormuz and show some guts. There's nothing to be afraid of. They have no Navy. We sunk all their ships.'"
Despite the assurance, he then added that Iran still has around 150 operational launchers.
"He went on to say: 'Look, yeah, there's risk in the region. The region's volatile. There are launchers. There's just about 150 left. That's just about 20 percent of totals. They can't regenerate. They can't make any more. And we are in the region. We're ready to act quickly on all these types of attacks.
"Now, I think they're gonna get some additional naval assets in there to do some escorting, but there was a tanker that came through last night... successfully. No problem. And he's saying, come on guys, get to it."
Meanwhile ...
https://apnews.com/live/iran-war-israel-trump--03-11-2026#0000019c-db74-d471-a79e-dbf6a6880000
QuoteCargo ship hit by projectile and set ablaze in the Strait of Hormuz
By JON GAMBRELL
A projectile hit a cargo ship Wednesday in the Strait of Hormuz, setting the vessel ablaze after the United States targeted Iranian minelaying vessels that could target the narrow mouth of the Persian Gulf.
The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations center, run by the British military, said the vessel had been hit just north of Oman in the strait.
It said the crew was evacuating the ship.
Iran did not immediately claim the attack though it has been targeting ships in and around the strait, disrupting a waterway that sees a fifth of all oil and natural gas traded pass through it.
The UKMTO earlier reported on another attack targeting a vessel off Ras al-Khaimah in the United Arab Emirates.
Meanwhile, pt. 2:
https://apnews.com/live/iran-war-israel-trump--03-11-2026#0000019c-db8f-dd99-abfd-fb8f842f0000
QuoteTankers believed linked to Iran getting through Strait of Hormuz
By JON GAMBRELL
Some tankers, believed linked to Iran, are continuing to get through the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow mouth of the Persian Gulf.
Some of the ships getting through are so-called "dark" transits, meaning they aren't turning on their Automatic Identification System tracks, which show where vessels are.
Vessels carrying sanctioned Iranian crude often turn off their AIS trackers.
The security firm Neptune P2P Group said Wednesday that seven ships had passed through the strait since March 8. Of those, five were linked to Iranian-associated shipping, it said.
The commodity-tracking firm Kpler said Iran has restarted crude exports through its Jask oil terminal on the Gulf of Oman.
A tanker loaded roughly 2 million barrels at Jask on March 7, it said.
This is all such an unbelievable clown show.
Why Escalation Favours Iran - article in Foreign Affairs (https://www.foreignaffairs.com/iran/why-escalation-favors-iran)
Nothing too controversial for folks here, I don't think, but a good summary of the strategic situation.
Quote from: Tamas on March 10, 2026, 05:30:19 PMI assume there are no meaningful US naval assets in the Persian Gulf, right? Being stuck behind a minefield and all
Four minesweepers were just delivered from the Gulf to Philadelphia to be scrapped.
Anyways
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/10/us/politics/how-trump-miscalculated-iran-response.html?unlocked_article_code=1.SVA.yJMv.Gwegd7GPVPBa
They really didn't think the Iranians would attack American allies that aggressively, nor that they would shut the straight. Just straight up morons.
Some insane quotes in here.
QuoteMr. Trump has displayed growing frustration over how the war is disrupting the oil supply, telling Fox News that oil tanker crews should "show some guts" and sail through the Strait of Hormuz.
Quote from: viper37 on March 10, 2026, 11:50:11 PMNot just politicians. All his supporters still adore him and would for him if he tried to run again, or would likely still vote Republican despite their anger toward the inflation coming. At the very least, they would never vote for a Democrat. Special elections don't mean a lot, polls still show a map solidly Republican, or very close to it:
https://www.270towin.com/2026-house-election/
Special elections are very indictive of midterm elections.
"Mr. Trump has displayed growing frustration over how the war is disrupting the oil supply, telling Fox News that oil tanker crews should "show some guts" and sail through the Strait of Hormuz."
I mean oil tanker crews are under orders not to pass through the straits. Trump displaying his usual awe-inspiring stupidity. He really is the Sagittarius A* of stupidity, sucking intelligence from his surroundings at phenomenal rates.
ISW showing the general decline of Iranian strikes on US/Israel and Gulf States since war began:
https://imgur.com/a/sdOYIXq
CNN Analyst talking about how even if Trump "TACOs" out, that's not any kind of guarantee of oil prices coming down anytime soon. A couple things I'd add to his analysis:
1. This assumes Iran won't just continue attacks on the Strait even if the U.S. declares the war over. The problem with blowing up all of Iran's highest value assets, is the "pain" you can inflict on the regime going forward is lower, right? Like we've already blown up their prized possessions, so just because you say you won't blow up more stuff is no guarantee they'll feel the need now to stop. In theory I guess you could start blowing up stuff beyond their military key facilities, like much more widespread strikes on their oil infrastructure (so far only a few limited Israeli strikes have hit their oil infra), but that is contrary to any attempt to lower prices--permanently destroying lots of Iranian oil infrastructure will cause long term price increases.
2. The idea that "the U.S. is developing plans" to easily secure the Strait of Hormuz is laughable. If they really thought they could do that, why not figure that out before the war? The reality is U.S. planners have worried about this issue since 1980, and to my knowledge no magic, fool proof plan has ever emerged because there isn't one because it isn't the way objective reality works.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/11/business/price-oil-trump-gas-war
QuoteTrump can't TACO out of the Iran war's oil price shock
Analysis by David Goldman
President Donald Trump has a sales pitch for Americans worried about high oil and gas prices: Rising fuel prices are a temporary but necessary sacrifice, and they will fall quickly back to earth once the war with Iran is done.
Trump on Thursday said gas prices will "drop very rapidly when this is over." US Energy Secretary Chris Wright said Friday that relief at the gas pump would come in "weeks, not months." And White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on Tuesday called the recent surge in oil and gas prices "temporary."
"Once the national security objectives of Operation Epic Fury are fully achieved, Americans will see oil and gas prices drop rapidly, potentially even lower than they were prior to the start of the operation, and we will live in a world where Iran can no longer threaten the United States or our allies with a nuclear bomb," Leavitt said.
But it won't be that easy – even if Trump is in the midst of another TACO, the Wall Street acronym for "Trump Always Chickens Out."
To get oil prices back to where they were before the war started, the US military will first need to secure the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow body of water through which 20% of the world's oil travels. Iran said it would set fire to oil tankers passing through the strait, effectively locking much of the world's oil in place during the war. And Iran has begun to lay mines in the waterway, sources told CNN's Natasha Bertrand.
Even if America's military could achieve that on Trump's timetable of one more week, oil industry analysts remain skeptical that the strait could fully reopen and production in the region come back online for at least a month, if not much longer.
That means high oil prices could be here for a while – and gas prices, which follow oil prices with a lag, could stay elevated for even longer.
Securing the strait
The US military is developing plans to eliminate Iran's ability to attack oil tankers.
"I will not broadcast what those options look like, but just know the president is not afraid to use them," Leavitt said Tuesday.
Meanwhile, the administration has said the Navy would at some point start escorting oil ships through the waterway. So far, that hasn't happened, Leavitt confirmed Tuesday. If Iran increases its mining of the strait, that could complicate matters.
The number of oil tankers traversing the strait has been in the single digits or zero each day for the past week, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence, compared to about 50 per day prior to the war.
"Words aren't going to talk oil prices back to normal; the strait are the key to the return to normalcy," said Dan Pickering, founder and chief investment officer at Pickering Energy Partners. "You can't get back to normal with 15 million barrels per day being bottlenecked and off the market."
Months, not weeks
Oil prices have tumbled on the prospect that Trump may be in the midst of another TACO. Hopeful that the prospect of rising inflation will force the president's hand, oil fell to around $90 a barrel Wednesday after surging past $100 a barrel Monday.
But oil and gas still have a long way to go before returning to normal: Oil was trading at around $60 a barrel before the war. And US gas prices, which are averaging more than $3.50 a gallon, were below $3 just before the United States and Israel attacked Iran.
"For prices to return to normal levels sustainably, this will probably require a credible neutralization of Iran's ability to disrupt maritime transit," said Luisa Palacios, the former Citgo chairwoman and current managing director of Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy.
Returning the Strait of Hormuz to typical traffic could take 1 to 3 months, according to Homayoun Falakshahi, lead crude research analyst at Kpler. Only then will oil fall to $60 a barrel again.
That's in part a function of the complexity of war. After the United States and Israel took out its supreme leader, Iran may hesitate to quickly lay down its arms. And taking out every drone and every mine that threatens ships in the strait probably isn't possible, meaning vessels may require naval escorts for a while.
Even if strait traffic reopens soon, the dangerous and complex process of protecting those tankers could maintain a bottleneck for a month or longer, noted Jay Hatfield, CEO & founder of Infrastructure Capital.
Turning production back online
Another factor: A significant portion – about 7 million barrels – of Middle Eastern oil production came offline in the past week, because there was no place to put the crude they were pumping.
Turning those spigots on isn't like flipping a switch. Saudi Aramco CEO Amin Nasser said during an earnings call this week the company could start to ramp up in a matter of days once the strait reopens. But it can take a week or two to fully restore production, according to Bob Yawger, commodity specialist at Mizuho.
And production can't fully come back online until there are tankers sailing through the strait to collect and deliver the oil. Storage space is at capacity right now.
'A little glitch'
That's why a number of oil analysts expect prices to remain high until the industry gets clarity – not just rhetoric – about when and how ships could start to navigate the strait again.
Even then, the market may continue to assign oil a "risk premium" that will keep it priced well above regular levels – at least until investors feel Iran no longer poses a threat to vessels in the region.
That could be a while: The US Energy Information Administration on Tuesday forecast that Brent crude, the international benchmark, will trade above $95 a barrel over the next two months, before falling to $80 a barrel in the summer and $70 a barrel in the fall. It said its forecast is based on assumptions about the duration of the Middle East conflict and oil production outages.
If oil stays that high, gas prices could near $4 a gallon and hover there until oil prices come down meaningfully – and stay lower. In the summer of 2022, when oil fell by $20 to below $100 in a matter of weeks, gas stayed well above $4 for several months before falling.
In other words, this could be more than Trump's "little glitch."
More evidence Iran is winning this war, they have already achieved their strategic goal while Americans think they are fighting a conventional war, and are measuring it as such.
3 ships hit today in the straights
https://splash247.com/multiple-ships-hit-on-day-12-of-iran-war/
QuoteThe most severe attack today was against the Precious Shipping-controlled, Thai-flagged Mayuree Naree, which was struck by a projectile north of Oman in the strait, resulting in a fire and crew evacuation procedures. The fire was extinguished after a number of hours.
The Japan-flagged 6,724 teu ONE Majesty also sustained damage in a separate attack with the ship's master reporting that the vessel suffered a 10 cm hole. The boxship has since made towards a safe anchorage. All crew members are safe and accounted for.
Star Bulk's Marshall Islands-flagged kamsarmax bulk carrier Star Gwyneth was also hit, northwest of Dubai, causing damage to the hull, with all crew reported safe on what is turning out to be one of the most dangerous days for commercial shipping since Tehran was attacked.
:hmm:
https://vxtwitter.com/glcarlstrom/status/2031615977310347439?s=20
QuoteDuring the "tanker war" in the 1980s, America escorted an average of one convoy through the Strait of Hormuz each week.
"At that pace it would take two and a half years to get all 320 or so vessels currently stranded in the Gulf out of there. Even resuming three-quarters of Hormuz sailings would still prevent nearly 4m b/d of oil from getting to global markets."
"Jeff Currie of Carlyle, a private-equity firm, says the cost of a single escort would exceed the value of the cargo it is meant to protect."
The thing is you can massively degrade Iran's entire country, but not meaningfully reopen the Strait. These tanker ships generally won't move without insurance, and the insurance has been pulled. Sure, the U.S. could do what Trump said and insure ships on a case by case basis--many still will decline, not wanting to actually lose their vessel and crews. Some will likely go along--like Tim posts though it will be nothing more than a trickle.
The core problem, and again--we've talked about this since literally Reagan's presidency, is it takes very little to make the Strait too dangerous for commercial shipping.
If you were half smart--and if you were you wouldn't be DJT, you'd start by not promising to address the oil prices. The cost of war with Iran is the Strait being shut down, in ages past when we had known costs of a war the move is to tell people they need to accept this as their patriotic duty etc etc, and simply deal with it. It's foolhardy to do the Trump schtick where you try to claim every problem is short term and easily solved. Trump's mind is very short term, but reality isn't.
For all we know Iran may have decided to keep the Strait closed until the U.S. makes concessions to Iran at this point--they could demand we give them money to rebuild all the damage we've caused for example.
This is a great example of the issue Tom Nichols mentioned in his excellent Atlantic article. We've done well operationally (e.g. blowing stuff up), but we lack any strategy, nor have we even identified how successful operations could execute such a strategy. Nichols points out that Trump and Hegseth really want everyone to pat them on the back over how good we've blown stuff up, but no one ever doubted we could do that. What was doubted is "what would that achieve and what would it cost?" It's very clear Kegstand Pete and Low IQ Donald never considered these questions.
All of this is well trod ground and has been discussed ad nauseum in the national security world for decades. The reason no prior President has poked the bear in Iran like this is there's no easy out. The only true way to force Iran to change its behavior is by occupying Iran. No one has ever wanted to do that because it's a Vietnam (or worse) level commitment that will drain our resources, be massively politically unpopular, cost thousands to tens of thousands of dead American soldiers, lock America's strategic interests into a Muslim shithole for decades undermining our capacities in more important areas etc. It's a loser idea.
On top of all that--the economic sanctions were basically working to undermine Iran. There was no reason, and the administration has yet to put together any strong counter argument to this--there was no reason to start this war in the first place. Iran's nuclear program was currently dormant, their government was at its weakest point in 40 years and due to their severe economic issues, we likely had a very long timeline before Iran was likely to "start trouble" again on its own initiative.
But we kicked the bee hive, so now we've started trouble.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 11, 2026, 07:09:29 AM:hmm:
https://vxtwitter.com/glcarlstrom/status/2031615977310347439?s=20
QuoteDuring the "tanker war" in the 1980s, America escorted an average of one convoy through the Strait of Hormuz each week.
"At that pace it would take two and a half years to get all 320 or so vessels currently stranded in the Gulf out of there. Even resuming three-quarters of Hormuz sailings would still prevent nearly 4m b/d of oil from getting to global markets."
"Jeff Currie of Carlyle, a private-equity firm, says the cost of a single escort would exceed the value of the cargo it is meant to protect."
What a moronic series of statements. On the convoys, the rate at which ships get out is driven by the size of the convoys. The "two and a half years" calculation assumed that the convoys are all less than three ships on average.
The cost of an escort compared to the value of the escorted cargo isn't meaningful. In WW2, convoys were routinely escorted by ships worth more than the cargo in the merchant hulls (in particular, every convoy to the USSR)
Really the trump position isn't so far fetched, it just relies on the Iranians demonstrating the same level of competency that the British showed against Scharnhorstand and Gneisenau in 1942, each and everyday henceforth.
Quote from: Jacob on March 11, 2026, 02:56:02 AMWhy Escalation Favours Iran - article in Foreign Affairs (https://www.foreignaffairs.com/iran/why-escalation-favors-iran)
Nothing too controversial for folks here, I don't think, but a good summary of the strategic situation.
Yeah as noted, if you start with killing their head of state and lots of the senior leadership it leaves very little room to escalate. Iran are going step by step.
(I also can't help but think of the way the Iranian regime personally humiliated Carter in the hostage crisis.)
Quote from: grumbler on March 11, 2026, 07:20:06 AMQuote from: jimmy olsen on March 11, 2026, 07:09:29 AM:hmm:
https://vxtwitter.com/glcarlstrom/status/2031615977310347439?s=20
QuoteDuring the "tanker war" in the 1980s, America escorted an average of one convoy through the Strait of Hormuz each week.
"At that pace it would take two and a half years to get all 320 or so vessels currently stranded in the Gulf out of there. Even resuming three-quarters of Hormuz sailings would still prevent nearly 4m b/d of oil from getting to global markets."
"Jeff Currie of Carlyle, a private-equity firm, says the cost of a single escort would exceed the value of the cargo it is meant to protect."
What a moronic series of statements. On the convoys, the rate at which ships get out is driven by the size of the convoys. The "two and a half years" calculation assumed that the convoys are all less than three ships on average.
The cost of an escort compared to the value of the escorted cargo isn't meaningful. In WW2, convoys were routinely escorted by ships worth more than the cargo in the merchant hulls (in particular, every convoy to the USSR)
The last sentence would make sense if he were talking about the expenses. If the mission to protect a tanker incurs more in expenses than the value of the tanker and the cargo, then it might be a relevant statement. If he's talking about the value of the ships, then of course it's totally irrelevant comparison, unless you assume that 50% of the time the cargo and all the escorts will get sunk.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-iran-sink-capture-ships-fun/
QuoteTrump said US military officials told him sinking Iranian ships is 'more fun' than capturing them
Claim:
President Donald Trump said U.S. military officials told him they had to sink Iranian ships rather than capture them because "it's more fun to sink them."
(https://mediaproxy.snopes.com/width/200/https://media.snopes.com/2018/03/rating-correctly-attributed.png)
Context
Trump delivered the line in a joking tone, suggesting he may not have intended it to be taken literally.
Trump made the comment in a joking tone, suggesting he may not have intended it to be taken literally.
In March 2026, a number of social media posts shared a clip of U.S. President Donald Trump speaking about military action against Iranian ships. According the posts (archived), Trump said, "I said, 'Why don't we just capture the ship? We could use it. Why did we sink them?' He said, 'It's more fun to sink them.' They like sinking them better."
The claim was shared across multiple platforms, including X (archived), Reddit (archived) and Facebook (archived).
The quote about sinking Iranian ships being more fun than capturing them was correctly attributed to Trump. He said it as part of a March 9, 2026, speech at the Republican Members Issues Conference hosted by the Congressional Institute at the Trump National Doral resort in Miami.
The White House uploaded the speech to its YouTube account and put the video on its website. At 15:15 in the YouTube video, Trump talks about sinking Iran's ships (emphasis ours):
QuoteThe Navy is gone. It's all lying at the bottom of the ocean, 46 ships. Can you believe it? In fact, I got a little upset with our people. I said, "What quality of ship?" "Excellent, sir. Top of the line." I said, "Why don't we just capture the ship? We could have used it. Why did we sink them?" They said, "It's more fun to sink them." I said [unclear]. They like sinking them better. They say it's safer to sink them. I guess it's probably true. But think of it, we knocked out 46 and actually took three and a half days.
Trump delivered the line in a joking tone, suggesting he may not have intended it to be taken literally. The anecdote drew some laughter from the Republican members of Congress in the audience.
Snopes emailed the White House for clarification on who, precisely, the "people" Trump referred to in the quote were. We will update this story if we receive an answer.
For further reading, Snopes has previously fact-checked other claims about Trump quotes and Iran
Anyone remember the Board of Peace?
Quote from: Syt on March 11, 2026, 07:36:33 AMhttps://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-iran-sink-capture-ships-fun/
The reasonable "They say it's safer to sink them. I guess it's probably true." is also in there.
Quote from: Tamas on March 11, 2026, 07:41:40 AMAnyone remember the Board of Peace?
Yes, the US friends list.
Do you mean this Board of Peace??
https://youtube.com/shorts/3rK7N_il7bo?si=PaWRGJKhv79fUVxO
So all of this, and he still has a decent chance of surviving the midterms? :wacko:
I mean the President always survives the midterms, this isn't parliament.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 11, 2026, 08:01:42 AMI mean the President always survives the midterms, this isn't parliament.
Surviving in the sense of not becoming a lame duck.
Quote from: Maladict on March 11, 2026, 08:07:15 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 11, 2026, 08:01:42 AMI mean the President always survives the midterms, this isn't parliament.
Surviving in the sense of not becoming a lame duck.
Ah, checks and balances.
Quote from: Maladict on March 11, 2026, 08:07:15 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 11, 2026, 08:01:42 AMI mean the President always survives the midterms, this isn't parliament.
Surviving in the sense of not becoming a lame duck.
2nd term Presidents always become lame ducks after the mid terms. Even if their party wins (which itself is rare). Without the power of a future election, the power of the President in Congress is always diminished, with both allies and enemies.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 11, 2026, 08:17:43 AMQuote from: Maladict on March 11, 2026, 08:07:15 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 11, 2026, 08:01:42 AMI mean the President always survives the midterms, this isn't parliament.
Surviving in the sense of not becoming a lame duck.
2nd term Presidents always become lame ducks after the mid terms. Even if their party wins (which itself is rare). Without the power of a future election, the power of the President in Congress is always diminished, with both allies and enemies.
That may be true in general, but probably only because former presidents are normally political non-entities. Trump can be the boss of bosses figure even after he leaves the presidency.
Economy's fucked!
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/shell-totalenergies-others-declare-fm-their-clients-who-take-lng-qatar-sources-2026-03-11/
It is a bit interesting—the world of national security / defense policy wonks has been somewhat undermined in the last 10 years due to the general decline in respect for expertise as a concept. But on Iran this situation is playing out pretty damn close to how the experts were saying it would play out literally 35+ years ago.
Guess their expertise meant something.
It is also notable Trump very deliberately made sure those kinds of people were nowhere near his 2nd Administration. Figures like Mattis, McMaster etc being replaced with men of inferior quality like Hegseth. We don't even have a real National Security Adviser—Mike Waltz (himself a disaster) was ousted in May and they've just had SecState Rubio add the duties of NSA to his portfolio. Note that NSA has usually been filled by someone with significant command experience in the military, significant academic defense policy experience, or significant intelligence community experience.
From 1998 - 2025 Rubio's only jobs have been as an elected official in legislative roles.
Rubio's professional training was as a lawyer.
Quote from: Tamas on March 11, 2026, 07:41:40 AMAnyone remember the Board of Peace?
Bored of Peace.
Board of Pieces
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 11, 2026, 08:17:43 AMQuote from: Maladict on March 11, 2026, 08:07:15 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 11, 2026, 08:01:42 AMI mean the President always survives the midterms, this isn't parliament.
Surviving in the sense of not becoming a lame duck.
2nd term Presidents always become lame ducks after the mid terms. Even if their party wins (which itself is rare). Without the power of a future election, the power of the President in Congress is always diminished, with both allies and enemies.
Well I certainly hope so, but I don't really see it happening if he keeps control of both houses.
However it works out, war is the kind of thing that is difficult to just bullshit your way out of and change the topic on. The exception is small distant, low-effort colonial wars maybe... but that's not what this war on Iran is.
How do you all reckon China will play this?
At the moment it seems mostly to be "keep your head down and let the US waste political and military capital" I suppose. But what makes more sense for them? Support Iran (clandestinely, of course), to increase the severity of the bleeding for the US? Or put pressure on Iran to free up oil through the Hormuz (which they need), but also thereby implicitly supporting Trump?
On a different China tack, I wonder to what degree China is taking lessons on Taiwan from this. If Russia gets and expensive and much longer than anticipated quagmire, and the US gets one as well... will China choose to avoid that risk? On the other hand if Xi does oversee a quick successful annexation of Taiwan instead of a quagmire, that'll bolster his credibility. But if it doesn't...?
So I subscribe to the South China Morning Post, it's not state media but they don't have full editorial independence, I think they're probably still some of the best English language insight into Chinese thinking (which is why I subscribe.)
They've had a bunch of articles about the war largely emphasizing the moves China is making to diversify itself away from reliance on fossil fuel bottle necks in the Middle East. Particularly, building out more of its own oil production (China actually does produce a good bit of oil, not as much as the oil majors, nor nearly enough to satisfy its own desires), but they do have some fields they can tap into more--they've noted Xinjiang as an example. They've also been emphasizing the goals of generating more non-fossil fuel energy and decarbonizing in general.
Reading between the lines it sounds like they're in a holding pattern and just saying "we're working to be less affected by such things."
Iran's export to China is continuing, apparently from another port? One outside the straits.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 11, 2026, 12:54:15 PMIran's export to China is continuing, apparently from another port? One outside the straits.
This is humiliating for the US.
I don't imagine it would be more than a trickle--Iran's export facility on Kharg Island in the far west of the Persian Gulf handles about 90% of all their crude oil exports. They wouldn't have the infrastructure to export their full load so to speak elsewhere.
It is telling Trump isn't taking any action to interdict Iranian oil vessels though, and I imagine there's a couple reasons for that. Most based on Trump being afraid of pissing off China right now.
Quote from: Jacob on March 11, 2026, 11:35:37 AMHow do you all reckon China will play this?
At the moment it seems mostly to be "keep your head down and let the US waste political and military capital" I suppose. But what makes more sense for them? Support Iran (clandestinely, of course), to increase the severity of the bleeding for the US? Or put pressure on Iran to free up oil through the Hormuz (which they need), but also thereby implicitly supporting Trump?
I suspect there are planners right now whose goal is to take Taiwan thinking it is very much not an issue for them if the US has to be deploying (and ideally redeploying) resources from the Pacific to the Middle East.
The flipside of that is, as you say, how much of a hit can China take on fuel and the Gulf matters a lot for export to Asia. I think they might be okay - they've been hugely diversifying their energy mix, plus trying to open new routes for energy. As for Europe though if there is a huge reduction in energy getting out of the Middle East then Russia becomes indispensable (and what might they want in return). So that issue may be solvable. I also think China - and other Asia-Pacific countries have quite big oil reserves - I understand that Japan for example basically has a reserve that's enough to deal with 9 months of no Middle Eastern energy exports.
This might also be part of the Houthis staying quiet because a hit on Chinese energy supply from the Middle East, plus Chinese trade with Europe might move the dial for their attitude.
QuoteOn a different China tack, I wonder to what degree China is taking lessons on Taiwan from this. If Russia gets and expensive and much longer than anticipated quagmire, and the US gets one as well... will China choose to avoid that risk? On the other hand if Xi does oversee a quick successful annexation of Taiwan instead of a quagmire, that'll bolster his credibility. But if it doesn't...?
Maybe - I think the bigger lesson from this is that if you've got big strategic aims (like regime change) you can't go halfway. I think China may still try that through a blockade of some sort but I'm not sure China will draw many negative lessons from this conflict given that there seems to be a very real resistance from the US towards ground troops - I don't think that'd be seen as relevant from a Chinese perspective.
China is likely just sitting back and watching its main rival implode. After the United States has finished its self destruction, China can assess how best to proceed. No need for them to rush into anything now.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 11, 2026, 02:51:58 PMChina is likely just sitting back and watching its main rival implode. After the United States has finished its self destruction, China can assess how best to proceed. No need for them to rush into anything now.
they may not even have to invade taiwan
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 11, 2026, 06:42:48 AMISW showing the general decline of Iranian strikes on US/Israel and Gulf States since war began:
https://imgur.com/a/sdOYIXq
Congrats then, you are winning the war and losing the peace.
https://realmwire.com/iran-threatens-to-strike-google-microsoft-nvidia-and-bank-sites/
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 11, 2026, 07:10:56 AMThe thing is you can massively degrade Iran's entire country, but not meaningfully reopen the Strait. These tanker ships generally won't move without insurance, and the insurance has been pulled. Sure, the U.S. could do what Trump said and insure ships on a case by case basis--many still will decline, not wanting to actually lose their vessel and crews. Some will likely go along--like Tim posts though it will be nothing more than a trickle.
Insurance depends on the availability of reinsurance market to back catastrophic risk, and marine reinsurance in turn depends on the ability to lay off its own risk on the capital markets, e.g. through insurance linked securities. The securitization market, however, won't permit taking on war risk. Trump could deploy the entire US fleet for escort service and it won't fix that problem.
Yes, Trump has proposed providing emergency coverage though the DFC. However, commercial entities do not operate on social media posts. Ships move based on properly negotiated executed contracts supported by verifiable financial backing, not because some addled fool in DC posts a "Truth". This is a powerful example of what happens when the Trumpian delusion that social media gyrations can create his own preferred reality smashes headlong into cold hard fact.
Several days ago, JPM oil desk published a report estimating DFC lending capacity at less than half of what would be required to insure traffic through the Gulf. Bessent clapped back but I doubt anyone serious is going to believe him over the JPM bean counters. Incredibly, the administration blundered into a war in Persian Gulf without considering the impact on traffic through the Gulf, and specifically without seeking authorization to expand the financial capacity of the agency that was supposed to provide the necessary insurance. Leaving a massive twin financial and credibility gap that no amount of raw bullshit can fill.
But hey no concern, the US still has the best WARRIORS!!!
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 11, 2026, 08:33:53 AMWe don't even have a real National Security Adviser—Mike Waltz (himself a disaster) was ousted in May and they've just had SecState Rubio add the duties of NSA to his portfolio. Note that NSA has usually been filled by someone with significant command experience in the military, significant academic defense policy experience, or significant intelligence community experience.
From 1998 - 2025 Rubio's only jobs have been as an elected official in legislative roles.
Rubio's professional training was as a lawyer.
Rubio being completely out of his depth and holding two huge jobs at once is made even worse by the fact that Trump decimated the NSC staff that could have supported him, cutting it by more than half. The Middle East specialists were cut from 10 to 5. As expected, the cuts were all for political reasons, and targeted people with expertise that Trump's people considered insufficient politically loyal. It's doubtful there is anyone with meaningful country expertise in the advisory loop. Although I suppose no great expertise is needed if your goal to get rid of Khamenei so that he can be replaced with Khamenei.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 11, 2026, 08:33:53 AMIt is a bit interesting—the world of national security / defense policy wonks has been somewhat undermined in the last 10 years due to the general decline in respect for expertise as a concept. But on Iran this situation is playing out pretty damn close to how the experts were saying it would play out literally 35+ years ago.
Guess their expertise meant something.
I agree in a way - I feel like there's a fairly deep pool of national security/defence policy wonks (able to work for both parties) over the last twenty years who've been pretty open to bombing Iran.
There have always been people on the other side pushing back for exactly the reasons we're seeing and even the occasional (God forbid) Iran expert providing commentary.
But I feel like the lack of expertise is less to do with doing it or not and more, but that the pro-bombing Iran team had more realistic assessments of what could be achieve with what means - so with the last round of bombing, it could degrade the nuclear program but not destroy it, if you want regime change that probably means ground troops.
I think what is really lacking - and can never be provided because these are character flaws in Trump - is judgement and balance.
Although having said that I do sort of wonder if (and this is not just a US thing) the rise of the general national security/defence expert with a decline in deep subject expertise (even at the risk of "going native") is a problem. Just thinking how often Western states seem to struggle to understand another perspective or escape what is "rational" to us. There's been a similar debate on defence in the UK recently around "jointness" of everything in defence and I think it applies elsewhere too - it's operationally really important but maybe hurts the decision making?
Quote from: Jacob on March 11, 2026, 11:28:11 AMHowever it works out, war is the kind of thing that is difficult to just bullshit your way out of and change the topic on. The exception is small distant, low-effort colonial wars maybe... but that's not what this war on Iran is.
I also think there's an interesting side on this in terms of economc war.
I think Nicolas Mulder who's written about sanctions as the West's go-to weapon in recent years. And I think this has come up here and in Russia in slightly different ways. But sanctions basically weaponise our economic inter-connectedness.
That means that if you're an economically relevant revisionist power you have incentives to build alternatives and if you're hit by sanctions and are able to build alternative structures then, again, it enables a sort of asymmetry (this is why I think those BRIC projects around payments etc matter). In part it's just a reflection of the relative decline of Western economic power (G7 down from two thirds to one third of the world economy between 1990 and now) but also I think it underpins the surprising resilince of Russia's economy. In this war - the one country who will not be affected by global economic turbulence from disrupting the Gulf is Iran because they're already isolated from that world system.
I think for a very long time including up to now with Iran and with Russia we've been making assumptions about the power of sanctions - seize x assets, freeze central bank assets, shut them out of payments etc. I think we probably need to refresh those assumptions based on the relative weight of the West's economy, the efforts to build alternatives and the relative damage we can do v what we can suffer.
I think that's outdated thinking too though. People, including Joe Biden, were saying the initial sanctions would collapse Russia's economy. More sober analysis would have suggested that is very unlikely. If you're imagining a Zimbabwe style economic collapse--a significant reduction in foreign trade and budget deficits just aren't enough to get there, that requires a unique set of circumstances.
There's no analysis of the Russian economy that makes it look particularly healthy, instead it looks like a war time economy in which said military spending is the only thing keeping the economy moving at all, meanwhile spending on all other sectors has decreased--including numerous sectors that are absolutely essential for Russia's long term competitiveness as a nation.
While not a traditional economic measure--it has also been terrible for Russia's population, which has declined by net 2 million since war began. Russia had even worse demographic woes than many Western societies prior to the war, and this has been exacerbated significantly by the war.
Iran's economy on the other hand was much, much worse off, and almost entirely because of sanctions. This was noted to have limited Iran's abilities in both foreign projection of power and internal stability.
By every measure the economic sanctions appeared to be working quite well. I don't really know why anyone would think an economic sanction can win a war, or collapse a regime. Has that ever happened in history? It would be foolish to imagine it would start now. Economic sanctions impose pain, they aren't going to impose death (in a regime sense).
Also I'm a little suspect of any claims a significant portion of the "defense wonk" establishment would have supported preventive strikes against Iran in the context of how Trump has done them. Particularly if you exclude the name "John Bolton" from the discussion.
Even Bolton in his various, deranged ramblings, vacillated between limited strikes and regime change in his 30 year obsession with the Ayatollah.
https://vxtwitter.com/BNODesk/status/2031851355413901598?s=20
https://vxtwitter.com/sentdefender/status/2031850300684763595?s=20
Multiple tankers burning off the coast of Basra
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 11, 2026, 07:16:58 PMhttps://vxtwitter.com/BNODesk/status/2031851355413901598?s=20
https://vxtwitter.com/sentdefender/status/2031850300684763595?s=20
Multiple tankers burning off the coast of Basra
The Iranians don't have to defeat the US to win this war. they just have to defeat the global economy.
Trump now publicly blamed Hegseth, Kushner, Witkoff and Rubio for the decision to attack. The buck does not stop here. :lol:
Hasn't turned on Vance yet?
This has been the Evangelical/Israel part of MAGA pushing for this. The Oligarch/Tech Bro part pushed for Venezuela. As such, Miller and Vance are probably safe for now.
Quote from: Zanza on March 11, 2026, 08:55:48 PMTrump now publicly blamed Hegseth, Kushner, Witkoff and Rubio for the decision to attack. The buck does not stop here. :lol:
Link please
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 11, 2026, 11:47:35 PMQuote from: Zanza on March 11, 2026, 08:55:48 PMTrump now publicly blamed Hegseth, Kushner, Witkoff and Rubio for the decision to attack. The buck does not stop here. :lol:
Link please
I'll help him out...probably something like this:
https://www.msn.com/en-xl/asia/pakistan/trump-shifts-iran-attack-blame-to-advisers/ar-AA1XXcmn?cvid=69b138d8de93435096c7f15fab5c4232&ocid=hpmsn
QuotePakistan, March 10 -- President Donald Trump said advisers pushed him toward ordering strikes on Iran, shifting responsibility to key officials. He named negotiator Steve Witkoff, adviser Jared Kushner, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. The remarks came as tensions remain high following US military action against Iran.
Speaking at a press conference in Florida, Trump said the situation with Iran had rapidly reached a "point of no return." He explained that discussions with Witkoff, Kushner, and Hegseth convinced him that Iran was preparing to attack the United States. Trump said he believed Iran would have launched an attack within a week if the United States had not acted first.
It is kind of disingenuous though to say he was pushing the blame on them...during the same press conference he pretty clearly in taking his own ownership of it (even if based on what he was being told about the negotiations, etc).
Lifting of the Russian oil sanction until mid April is now official.
This is the most farcical, incompetent war. Not just during my life time, but of the ones I can remember reading about.
What the actual fuck. You create a direct and strong financial incentive for your rival to support your enemy and keep the war going.
What. The. Fuck.
Two KC-135 refueling plane were lost over Iraq.
https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-Release-View/Article/4432850/loss-of-us-kc-135-over-iraq/
Unconfirmed but apparently, one is lost, the other landed in Western Iraq.
Looks like a refueling accident.
Quote from: viper37 on March 12, 2026, 08:17:28 PMTwo KC-135 refueling plane were lost over Iraq.
https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-Release-View/Article/4432850/loss-of-us-kc-135-over-iraq/
Unconfirmed but apparently, one is lost, the other landed in Western Iraq.
Looks like a refueling accident.
1 tanker would be refueling accident. 2...that's a shootdown.
Quote from: Legbiter on March 12, 2026, 08:42:47 PMQuote from: viper37 on March 12, 2026, 08:17:28 PMTwo KC-135 refueling plane were lost over Iraq.
https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-Release-View/Article/4432850/loss-of-us-kc-135-over-iraq/
Unconfirmed but apparently, one is lost, the other landed in Western Iraq.
Looks like a refueling accident.
1 tanker would be refueling accident. 2...that's a shootdown.
Maybe the first refueler was refueling the second one.
Quote from: Legbiter on March 12, 2026, 08:42:47 PMQuote from: viper37 on March 12, 2026, 08:17:28 PMTwo KC-135 refueling plane were lost over Iraq.
https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-Release-View/Article/4432850/loss-of-us-kc-135-over-iraq/
Unconfirmed but apparently, one is lost, the other landed in Western Iraq.
Looks like a refueling accident.
1 tanker would be refueling accident. 2...that's a shootdown.
Quote from: viper37 on March 12, 2026, 08:17:28 PMTwo KC-135 refueling plane were lost over Iraq.
https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-Release-View/Article/4432850/loss-of-us-kc-135-over-iraq/
Unconfirmed but apparently, one is lost, the other landed in Western Iraq.
Looks like a refueling accident.
You misread it....1x KC-135 lost and another unidentified aircraft involved that landed safely.
Agree that it looks like a possible refueling accident.
When you're bombing Iran and you've lost John Bolton :ph34r:
QuoteJohn Bolton
@AmbJohnBolton
I favor regime change in Iran, but I'm deeply worried that inadequate preparation will prevent that goal from being achieved. There seem to be holes in the strategy, from the lack of coordination with the opposition, to the lapse in preparing the American people ahead of the attack.
Edit: Also interesting comparison by Shashank Joshi who is Defence Correspondent for the Economist with the Chinese trade war. In that case Trump went very big - and China announced they'd retaliate through restrictions on rare earths exports where they had huge leverage causing a massive u-turn. There's a similar thing here where actual material leverage in the form of control of production or geography really, really matter. These reflect structural importance, and leverage, for these states (and I think Russia is also in this camp because of how important its fossil fuels are).
Not totally relevant here but it seems to me this is also relevant to Europe where the question we've been debating here for a while is whether Europe actually has leverage or is simply unwilling to use it.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 12, 2026, 08:57:12 PMYou misread it....1x KC-135 lost and another unidentified aircraft involved that landed safely.
Agree that it looks like a possible refueling accident.
Now seeing another report (unconfirmed) that the other aircraft was indeed possibly another '135. Which would be a bit odd, but not impossible if two were in formation/close vicinity (which would be very odd for two flying gas tankers) and bumped.
KC-135s cannot refuel in the air. I cannot think of any circumstance in which two would be flying so close together as to collide, bar maybe in the landing pattern.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 12, 2026, 09:05:36 PMWhen you're bombing Iran and you've lost John Bolton :ph34r:
QuoteJohn Bolton
@AmbJohnBolton
I favor regime change in Iran, but I'm deeply worried that inadequate preparation will prevent that goal from being achieved. There seem to be holes in the strategy, from the lack of coordination with the opposition, to the lapse in preparing the American people ahead of the attack.
Still, war is war, blood is blood. Each act of violence exalts Khorne and adds skulls to his throne. :hmm:
Quote from: grumbler on March 12, 2026, 09:12:30 PMKC-135s cannot refuel in the air. I cannot think of any circumstance in which two would be flying so close together as to collide, bar maybe in the landing pattern.
Indeed, that is why I am doubtful on the unconfirmed reports that the second is also a 135.
6 crew. And most likely a recovery operation more than a rescue one. :(
Quote from: Tamas on March 12, 2026, 07:50:17 PMLifting of the Russian oil sanction until mid April is now official.
This is the most farcical, incompetent war. Not just during my life time, but of the ones I can remember reading about.
No denying the staggering incompetence, but the Russian invasion of Ukraine is worse.
Although... :hmm:
https://bsky.app/profile/rgoodlaw.bsky.social/post/3mgvp3vqwdc2r
Quote"Top Trump officials acknowledged to lawmakers during recent classified briefings that they did not plan for the possibility of Iran closing the strait in response to strikes."
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 12, 2026, 09:28:13 PMAlthough... :hmm:
https://bsky.app/profile/rgoodlaw.bsky.social/post/3mgvp3vqwdc2r
Quote"Top Trump officials acknowledged to lawmakers during recent classified briefings that they did not plan for the possibility of Iran closing the strait in response to strikes."
Considering the Iranian government threatened to close the straits after we bombed them last year, you'd have to be a dementia-ridden moron to not expect them to close the straits the next time we bombed then.
So I guess that totally tracks with this President.
I've seen enough to know how the this war ends. The regime stays in place, Strait of Hormuz is reopened. Whether the regime survives the aftermath, I'd say 50-50. If it survives, it's a meh outcome, Iranians are still screwed, same as they were before the war. If it falls, a regular military dictatorship without the religious zeal would be an improvement compared to now. :hmm:
You place the Trump regime's survival as high as 50/50
Quote from: Legbiter on March 12, 2026, 10:24:29 PMI've seen enough to know how the this war ends. The regime stays in place, Strait of Hormuz is reopened. Whether the regime survives the aftermath, I'd say 50-50. If it survives, it's a meh outcome, Iranians are still screwed, same as they were before the war. If it falls, a regular military dictatorship without the religious zeal would be an improvement compared to now. :hmm:
I am not sure why you think the regime falling would lead to some peaceful and orderly transition to a military dictatorship.
Quote from: Legbiter on March 12, 2026, 10:24:29 PMIf it falls, a regular military dictatorship without the religious zeal would be an improvement compared to now. :hmm:
I seriously doubt the military would be able to supplant the IRGC for control. And though there could be a IRGC "military dictatorship", odds are they'd always have an ayatollah as at least a figurehead.
Iranian war propaganda. It's AI slop but done in an anime style. :hmm:
https://x.com/A_M_R_M1/status/2032167472753729570 (https://x.com/A_M_R_M1/status/2032167472753729570)
You are an Iranian in Iran, one of the few with a functioning VPN. You see this, how do you feel?
Some jihadist group claimed they shot down the refueler in Irak. Drone attack on a French military base in Iraki Kurdistan injured 6 and killed 1 French soldier.
Remember to say thank you, Trump.
Quote from: Valmy on March 12, 2026, 10:35:23 PMQuote from: Legbiter on March 12, 2026, 10:24:29 PMI've seen enough to know how the this war ends. The regime stays in place, Strait of Hormuz is reopened. Whether the regime survives the aftermath, I'd say 50-50. If it survives, it's a meh outcome, Iranians are still screwed, same as they were before the war. If it falls, a regular military dictatorship without the religious zeal would be an improvement compared to now. :hmm:
I am not sure why you think the regime falling would lead to some peaceful and orderly transition to a military dictatorship.
To be fair to Legbiter, he didn't say it would be a peaceful and orderly transition.
The thing I'm less clear on is how and when the war ends. Will Trump find a way to TACO out of this?
Quote from: Legbiter on March 12, 2026, 11:00:27 PMIranian war propaganda. It's AI slop but done in an anime style. :hmm:
https://x.com/A_M_R_M1/status/2032167472753729570 (https://x.com/A_M_R_M1/status/2032167472753729570)
You are an Iranian in Iran, one of the few with a functioning VPN. You see this, how do you feel?
It is missing American soldiers depicted as titans.
And it might be nice if they actually were launching missiles into Russia too?
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 13, 2026, 12:03:00 AMIt is missing American soldiers depicted as titans.
And it might be nice if they actually were launching missiles into Russia too?
My thought was "at least he died with his wife".
Quote from: grumbler on March 12, 2026, 09:12:30 PMKC-135s cannot refuel in the air. I cannot think of any circumstance in which two would be flying so close together as to collide, bar maybe in the landing pattern.
Looks like it may be one of the exceptions, and did involve two of them:
QuoteUPDATE: 6:15 PM EDT –
The Times of Israel has reported that the second aircraft involved was another KC-135. That outlet also says that the KC-135 in question was one that landed at Israel's Ben Gurion Airport earlier in the day after declaring an in-flight emergency. Online flight tracking data shows that tanker is a KC-135RT variant, one of a small subset of KC-135Rs that are themselves capable of being refueled in flight. This, in turn, allows them to make use of tanker support themselves to remain on station longer or to conduct longer-distance missions.
There is also an image out there supposedly of the other 135 that landed with a chunk of its vertical stabilizer missing.
Quote from: Zoupa on March 12, 2026, 11:32:36 PMSome jihadist group claimed they shot down the refueler in Irak.
Being that the claim came after the CENTCOM announcement....good odds on being bullshit.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 13, 2026, 12:16:45 AMQuote from: grumbler on March 12, 2026, 09:12:30 PMKC-135s cannot refuel in the air. I cannot think of any circumstance in which two would be flying so close together as to collide, bar maybe in the landing pattern.
Looks like it may be one of the exceptions, and did involve two of them:
QuoteUPDATE: 6:15 PM EDT –
The Times of Israel has reported that the second aircraft involved was another KC-135. That outlet also says that the KC-135 in question was one that landed at Israel's Ben Gurion Airport earlier in the day after declaring an in-flight emergency. Online flight tracking data shows that tanker is a KC-135RT variant, one of a small subset of KC-135Rs that are themselves capable of being refueled in flight. This, in turn, allows them to make use of tanker support themselves to remain on station longer or to conduct longer-distance missions.
There is also an image out there supposedly of the other 135 that landed with a chunk of its vertical stabilizer missing.
I was unaware of the development of the KC-135RT (less than ten ever made, apparently) for SecOps missions, for which they sometimes need to be refueled in-air. So I withdraw mt earlier observation about them not having that capability.
Quote from: Jacob on March 12, 2026, 11:46:30 PMQuote from: Valmy on March 12, 2026, 10:35:23 PMQuote from: Legbiter on March 12, 2026, 10:24:29 PMI've seen enough to know how the this war ends. The regime stays in place, Strait of Hormuz is reopened. Whether the regime survives the aftermath, I'd say 50-50. If it survives, it's a meh outcome, Iranians are still screwed, same as they were before the war. If it falls, a regular military dictatorship without the religious zeal would be an improvement compared to now. :hmm:
I am not sure why you think the regime falling would lead to some peaceful and orderly transition to a military dictatorship.
To be fair to Legbiter, he didn't say it would be a peaceful and orderly transition.
The thing I'm less clear on is how and when the war ends. Will Trump find a way to TACO out of this?
™ Declare Victory and leave ™ ?
Not sure you can leave if Iran continues to bomb US bases, allies and blocks 15% of the worlds oil in the Gulf.
I get the sense there's an increasing sense of domestic risk in Iran which may balance things. But also I think they sense a chance to really change their strategic position in the region which they're pushing.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 13, 2026, 09:14:58 AMNot sure you can leave if Iran continues to bomb US bases, allies and blocks 15% of the worlds oil in the Gulf.
I get the sense there's an increasing sense of domestic risk in Iran which may balance things. But also I think they sense a chance to really change their strategic position in the region which they're pushing.
Yep, if Trump declares victory and withdraws American forces the Iranians will have no reason to restrain themselves from further attacks on Israel and others.
It's basic schoolyard dynamics now.
The stupid bully has shown they are not as tough as everyone feared.
Alternately a revolutionary regime that's been preparing for a possible regime change war for decades and sits next to an important energy choke point has a lot of leverage if and when it's ready to use it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 13, 2026, 09:31:05 AMAlternately a revolutionary regime that's been preparing for a possible regime change war for decades and sits next to an important energy choke point has a lot of leverage if and when it's ready to use it.
That is not the alternative, that is the reality I have been trying to explain to our American friends in this thread. This was never going to be a conventional war. The Iranians have been preparing for a decentralized asymmetrical war for decades.
It's just that few realized just how effective the Iranians would be at this, including perhaps the Iranians.
Now that the Americans have been shown to be ineffective despite all the flashy expensive military power, the dynamics have changed permanently.
You may want to worry more about your declining country up north--no Americans in this thread have been expressing any broad ignorance of the realities of the war in Iran, with almost universal condemnation of it.
In other news, while the bar is low Pete Hegseth may have actually said the dumbest thing to this point in his career as SecDef:
QuoteAddressing the issue of the strait, Hegseth disparaged reporting that the US had not been prepared for Iran's effective closure of shipping route. "The only thing prohibiting transit in [Hormuz] right now is Iran shooting at shipping," Hegseth said. "It is open for transit should Iran not do that."
Yes Pete, you are correct. If Iran just stopped shooting at ships the strait would be open. Also if water weren't wet, it would be dry. If the sun wasn't up, it would be night.
So Trump is apparently about to make a speech where he'll say that Iran is just about to surrender?
Quote from: Jacob on March 13, 2026, 12:34:03 PMSo Trump is apparently about to make a speech where he'll say that Iran is just about to surrender?
Gotta juice the market.
Quote from: Jacob on March 13, 2026, 12:34:03 PMSo Trump is apparently about to make a speech where he'll say that Iran is just about to surrender?
Of course, the usual Friday after hours market manipulation.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 13, 2026, 12:30:57 PMYou may want to worry more about your declining country up north--no Americans in this thread have been expressing any broad ignorance of the realities of the war in Iran, with almost universal condemnation of it.
In other news, while the bar is low Pete Hegseth may have actually said the dumbest thing to this point in his career as SecDef:
QuoteAddressing the issue of the strait, Hegseth disparaged reporting that the US had not been prepared for Iran's effective closure of shipping route. "The only thing prohibiting transit in [Hormuz] right now is Iran shooting at shipping," Hegseth said. "It is open for transit should Iran not do that."
Yes Pete, you are correct. If Iran just stopped shooting at ships the strait would be open. Also if water weren't wet, it would be dry. If the sun wasn't up, it would be night.
Isn't hiring mentally deficient people a dei thing? Maybe hegseth should fire himself
It does seem like Iran hasn't gotten that memo yet: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/12/strait-of-hormuz-closure-iran-oil-prices-mojtaba-khamenei.html?__source=iosappshare%7Ccom.apple.UIKit.activity.CopyToPasteboard
QuoteStrait of Hormuz must remain closed as 'tool to pressure enemy,' Iran's new supreme leader says
- Khamenei said that the Strait of Hormuz must stay closed and that all U.S. military bases in the Middle East should shut immediately, warning of further attacks.
- It's Khamenei's first public comments since being appointed as Iran's supreme leader on March 9.
- Oil prices extended gains following the comments.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 13, 2026, 09:35:24 AMThat is not the alternative, that is the reality I have been trying to explain to our American friends in this thread. This was never going to be a conventional war. The Iranians have been preparing for a decentralized asymmetrical war for decades.
Asymmetry goes both ways. The Iranians are in a conventional war and they have taken a lot of damage. The fact that they are still able to function and inflict damage asymmetrically doesn't change that fact. This is not a war of winners and losers. This is a war between two losers struggling to try make the other side the bigger loser.
Iran has two pretty obvious competing concerns.
On the one hand, any result where the regime stays in power affords them the ability to "live again to fight another day." That concern would suggest it is logical they will accept if Trump unilaterally declares the war to be over. They can learn from many of the things that left them vulnerable to the U.S. and Israel and make themselves an even harder target in the future. There's obviously some technological limitations there--there's not a magic wand that makes your whole country immune to aerial campaigns. But Iran, for a country at the center of so much bellicosity over the years, seemed to have pretty poor contingency planning to protect its key leadership figures and some of its key facilities from pretty obvious vulnerabilities.
That is something I suspect they will get a lot better on--there's a reason for example that Saddam wasn't killed by airstrikes, he understood well from the devastation of the airstrikes during the first Gulf War and the years of the enforced "No Fly Zone" the vulnerabilities this created and he had taken specific actions to insure it would be difficult to simply drop a bomb on him to take him out.
However the other concern Iran has is basically what they have openly said--they want to impose punishment for attacking them, to dissuade a future attack. That is a strong incentive to not simply accept when Trump unilaterally declares peace, but to continue engaging in punishment--maybe even explicitly demanding Trump offer up something to them--there's been talks of "ironclad guarantees" against future attack (which I can't imagine how such a guarantee would work, such guarantees tend to be worth the paper they are written on), but they could also demand reparations or unfreezing of funds etc.
I suspect and they've explicitly said as much--the regime leans to this second option. However I suspect also they aren't totally unrealistic about the risks. The regime appears in no danger of collapsing, but the longer the war goes and--importantly, the more Trump may come to feel his ego bruised by it, the more aggressive Trump and his goblins will become, including potentially targeting core civilian infrastructure which would potentially plunge the country into chaos. The regime may of course survive such chaos since they have most of the weapons, but no regime wants to "survive" that kind of chaos, they'd prefer it to not happen in the first place.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 13, 2026, 12:59:23 PMAsymmetry goes both ways. The Iranians are in a conventional war and they taken a lot of damage. The fact that they are still able to function and inflict damage asymmetrically doesn't change that fact. This is not a war of winners and losers. This is a war between two losers struggling to try make the other side the bigger loser.
It's too early to call winners or losers yet, I think.
It also raises the question of how to determine who won or lost a war.IMO there are two main criteria:
- Achieving your war aims (whether implicit or stated explicitly)
- Being in a better position and trajectory, post-bellum
For
Iran, given they're fighting a defensive war, I think their war aims are something like:
- Regime survival
- Reconfigure the security architecture of their region and their international position to be more favourable to them
- Chastening Israel and the US sufficiently that they're unlikely to attack Iran again
For the
US I see their war aims as being:
- Regime change in Iran to someone more amenable to US influence
- Removing Iran's ability to choke the global economy at the Strait of Hormuz
- I also think that extracting economic value for Trump and his cronies is a core war aim. It's more implicit, though, so it can be abandoned to make a draw or loss seem less severe.
All of those are still in play, I think, though the US aims seem harder to achieve I think. As for being in a better or worse place, both seem likely to be worse off than if the war started but to what degree it's a bump in the road that might even lead to reinvigoration vs something that accelerates a significant decline remains to be seen.
So I wouldn't call either side losers in terms of the war yet, though in ways they obviously are.
As for
Israel, I think they're closer to achieving their war aims which I understand to be simpler:
- Use armed force to significantly degrade Iran's ability to threaten Israel in the short and medium terms
It seems to me that Israel is achieving their war aims - and are therefore winning - even if I wonder if it leads to a long term degrading of security for Israel. But that's a long term view, separate from winning or losing this current war.
My question is at this point how Iran can keep a war up, not with manpower, but with all the materiel you need. Supposedly under a sanction regime, Iran should run out of stuff to send into the air, right?
Iran is a big country man, 90 million people, lot of natural resources. Drones are very cheap and easy. I'm not going to say they can make them infinitely, but it only takes a small amount to shut down the Strait.
The ISW report is showing Iran is launching on average around 30 drones a day in the region, and that just isn't very much.
But it's more than enough to scare shippers and insurers from using the waterway.
They also have stuff even simpler than drones like mines--they appear to have avoided using mines much because mines are less intelligent--if they mine lay enough they won't be able to get their own oil to market either. The tight confines of the waterway also mean very simple, like literally shoulder fired munitions, could threaten ships at key choke points. I don't know if that's happened or is even something Iran plans, but the geography of the Strait heavily favors a weaker power that controls the land trying to shut it down.
I would also add that Western nations are terrified of military casualties. We would like wars to be about precision munitions hitting the opponent where it hurts then opponent gives in. That doesn't work too well in a real country (eg Iran or Vietnam) which has a strong ideology and therefore doesn't cave in. We end with an expensive stalemate.
I am Norwegian, I know how a small confine of a waterway works. :hug:
So, it basically boils down to economic chicken, then. Who will provide the Iranians with chips and stuff they need for drones? A memory stick is like gold these days.
Short of moving tectonic plates around, I don't see how one permanently ends Iran's ability to disrupt the strait.
And with Rubio and Co. mulling over a fanciful anabasis to secure and remove massive amounts of nuclear material from multiple sites in the interior of the country, I think we can count out the elimination of the Iran nuclear program as a viable war objective.
If genuine regime change were a US aim - and I doubt it is or ever was - the US has not pursued the means to achieve that and seem very unlikely to do so.
The facts are as they appear - the US is spending billions of dollars and squandering valuable munitions so that the SecDef can self-climax over watching his cool toys hit their targets and so that the WH media team can impress late maturing 12 year olds with their super-cool memes.
Quote from: Norgy on March 13, 2026, 02:06:30 PMI am Norwegian, I know how a small confine of a waterway works. :hug:
So, it basically boils down to economic chicken, then. Who will provide the Iranians with chips and stuff they need for drones? A memory stick is like gold these days.
Russia will just import the drones. Else China will provide them with the materials needed
Quote from: Norgy on March 13, 2026, 01:39:08 PMMy question is at this point how Iran can keep a war up, not with manpower, but with all the materiel you need. Supposedly under a sanction regime, Iran should run out of stuff to send into the air, right?
China and Russia will keep them going.
This war is a godsend to Russia. If I was Putin I would want it to last as long as possible.
Yeah, can't they just play call of duty like the other kids?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 13, 2026, 02:17:29 PMShort of moving tectonic plates around, I don't see how one permanently ends Iran's ability to disrupt the strait.
And with Rubio and Co. mulling over a fanciful anabasis to secure and remove massive amounts of nuclear material from multiple sites in the interior of the country, I think we can count out the elimination of the Iran nuclear program as a viable war objective.
If genuine regime change were a US aim - and I doubt it is or ever was - the US has not pursued the means to achieve that and seem very unlikely to do so.
The facts are as they appear - the US is spending billions of dollars and squandering valuable munitions so that the SecDef can self-climax over watching his cool toys hit their targets and so that the WH media team can impress late maturing 12 year olds with their super-cool memes.
I'm not in the regime change business, but if I were--I would have started with a long process of funneling arms and trainers to the region to actually stand up
some form of armed Iranian resistance. There are Iranian resistance groups and always have been. They are mostly near-disarmed and small. Some of them we have actually added to our own terror list because well, those groups also tend to be pretty unsavory. Unlike in the movies the resistance usually aren't plucky freedom fighters but are typically batshit crazy fucks themselves.
Not that there's really a smart / good path to regime change, but any real path would have at least involved some level of arming internal resistance groups and building out networks to facilitate that. But that also would take more than a few weeks after Trump stroked off and felt like he needed to do this.
Something I never hear seriously considered is just encasing Iran in a giant geodesic dome made of vibranium so it can't send anything out.
Actually Hegseth just said this no longer is a concern:
QuoteDuring his Pentagon press conference on Friday, Pete Hegseth downplayed disruption to the strait of Hormuz, which Iran has closed off. "We have been dealing with it, and don't need to worry about it," the defense secretary said without offering much detail.
Quote from: Jacob on March 13, 2026, 12:34:03 PMSo Trump is apparently about to make a speech where he'll say that Iran is just about to surrender?
2200 Marines are being deployed to Iran, they're on ships sailing to Iran right now. Maybe this is related?
https://www.iranintl.com/en/202603131206
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 13, 2026, 12:30:57 PMYou may want to worry more about your declining country up north
There is no mass migration movement from North to South. There is however a massive interest in Americans gaining another citizenship. Go figure which country is in decline. :hmm:
Quote from: viper37 on March 13, 2026, 04:24:21 PMQuote from: Jacob on March 13, 2026, 12:34:03 PMSo Trump is apparently about to make a speech where he'll say that Iran is just about to surrender?
2200 Marines are being deployed to Iran, they're on ships sailing to Iran right now. Maybe this is related?
https://www.iranintl.com/en/202603131206
Sicilian Expedition levels of hubris.
Quote from: viper37 on March 13, 2026, 04:28:14 PMThere is no mass migration movement from North to South. There is however a massive interest in Americans gaining another citizenship. Go figure which country is in decline. :hmm:
Speaking of: Any Canadians want to adopt me? :lol: :goodboy:
Quote from: Legbiter on March 13, 2026, 05:35:05 PMSicilian Expedition levels of hubris.
Depends on what they're going to do, I suppose.
Beef up security on US bases in the region? Seems reasonable.
Some sort of landing in Iran to achieve a crucial objective before withdrawing? Potentially audacious, and potentially not crazy.
Taking and holding the Iranian coast to prevent attacks on Hormuz shipping? They might need a little more than 2 200 marines to pull that off for any length of time.
Thin point of the wedge for taking and holding the Iranian coast to prevent attacks on Hormuz shipping? I guess we should look out for more substantial assets being put into position.
Interesting to see suggestions that as well as permitting some Chinese vessels through that Iran is considering allowing tankers through if the sale is denominated in RMB. Presumably trying to destabilise the petrodollar?
Edit: US has reportedly bombed Kharg island. I'd expect Iran to escalate in turn - possibly attacking energy infrastructure in Gulf states? Or maybe the Houthis entering the fray?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 13, 2026, 02:17:29 PMShort of moving tectonic plates around, I don't see how one permanently ends Iran's ability to disrupt the strait.
And with Rubio and Co. mulling over a fanciful anabasis to secure and remove massive amounts of nuclear material from multiple sites in the interior of the country, I think we can count out the elimination of the Iran nuclear program as a viable war objective.
If genuine regime change were a US aim - and I doubt it is or ever was - the US has not pursued the means to achieve that and seem very unlikely to do so.
Those to me are the reasonable sounding war aims - whether stated explicitly or implicitly. Occasionally Trump seems to state some of them as being the goal, but it never quite sticks. I think you're right, it doesn't seem like the US has a viable path to achieving those goals.
QuoteThe facts are as they appear - the US is spending billions of dollars and squandering valuable munitions so that the SecDef can self-climax over watching his cool toys hit their targets and so that the WH media team can impress late maturing 12 year olds with their super-cool memes.
If those are the goals, then I suppose the US really is winning - or Trump and his backers are.
I suppose that if the goal of the war is more of an Orwellian
1984 war that's not made for traditional forms of winning, but which is important for propaganda purposes it's also worth understanding what the winning and losing definitions look like through that lens.
Winning for Trump - I think - means expending a reasonable amount of US lives and treasure without losing face; it means opportunities for personal and clique profit; it means opportunities for other leaders to treat him like a "big powerful man"; it means Iranian and domestic responses that play into any anti-democratic or post-presidential designs he may have to retain power; and all of that without enough loss in domestic support to threaten his position (both in terms of appropriately distributed voters, and in terms of special interest groups that help him maintain influence888888).
Losing for Trump means enough set-backs that make him look like "a loser" in his own eyes and in the eyes of those whose respect he craves, especially if forced to a settlement of some sort that he dislikes. It also means enough of a drop in domestic support, both in terms of voters, but especially among the groupings that he would be relying on to maintain power whether via anti-democratic shenanigans, or as a "grand old man" of the GOP post-presidency.
If those are Trump's war aims, he may well be able to bring home a victory. It'll look as a loss for the US though, because those aren't really national war aims but personal war aims. Then again, that's very on brand for Trump - winning by making the US lose.
Quote from: Jacob on March 13, 2026, 07:00:05 PMSome sort of landing in Iran to achieve a crucial objective before withdrawing? Potentially audacious, and potentially not crazy.
Taking and holding the Iranian coast to prevent attacks on Hormuz shipping? They might need a little more than 2 200 marines to pull that off for any length of time.
Thin point of the wedge for taking and holding the Iranian coast to prevent attacks on Hormuz shipping? I guess we should look out for more substantial assets being put into position.
There are lots of islands in SoH that they could take...but I am not sure what value that would really have, unless some of them are bases for various denial ops in the straight.
Landing/taking Kharg island might be a symbolic move...but that means boats of Marines moving through the straight...they will be target #1 for the Iranians.
I think landing/taking anything on the mainland coast would be a giant gift to the IRGC...any landing zone there would be a giant magnet for Iran's ground forces...or child soldier human waves.
Quote from: Jacob on March 13, 2026, 07:00:05 PMDepends on what they're going to do, I suppose.
Beef up security on US bases in the region? Seems reasonable.
Extra meat for Iranian drones to hit, the US staff on every base in the Gulf has dispersed into hotels by this point.
Quote from: Jacob on March 13, 2026, 07:00:05 PMSome sort of landing in Iran to achieve a crucial objective before withdrawing? Potentially audacious, and potentially not crazy.
Seizing Kharg island means they will be under constant drone and artillery attack. You'd have Iranian special forces posting FPV drone footage of American marines getting killed.
Quote from: Jacob on March 13, 2026, 07:00:05 PMTaking and holding the Iranian coast to prevent attacks on Hormuz shipping? They might need a little more than 2 200 marines to pull that off for any length of time.
Same problem as Kharg island, you seize some coastal real estate, the Iranians pound you with drones and artillery from a little inland, up in the mountains.
The point is the Iranians have cruise missiles costing about the same as a used car.
Quote from: Jacob on March 13, 2026, 07:00:05 PMQuote from: Legbiter on March 13, 2026, 05:35:05 PMSicilian Expedition levels of hubris.
Depends on what they're going to do, I suppose.
Beef up security on US bases in the region? Seems reasonable.
Some sort of landing in Iran to achieve a crucial objective before withdrawing? Potentially audacious, and potentially not crazy.
Taking and holding the Iranian coast to prevent attacks on Hormuz shipping? They might need a little more than 2 200 marines to pull that off for any length of time.
Thin point of the wedge for taking and holding the Iranian coast to prevent attacks on Hormuz shipping? I guess we should look out for more substantial assets being put into position.
I have to assume they're going to try and capture Kharg island, which would be quite risky, but not as patently insane as trying to seize a port on the mainland.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on March 13, 2026, 05:42:32 PMQuote from: viper37 on March 13, 2026, 04:28:14 PMThere is no mass migration movement from North to South. There is however a massive interest in Americans gaining another citizenship. Go figure which country is in decline. :hmm:
Speaking of: Any Canadians want to adopt me? :lol: :goodboy:
lol :P
You need Canadian ancestor these days to expedite the process :P
Israel is about to launch a massive "temporary" conquest of Lebanon.
Israel planning massive ground invasion of Lebanon, officials say (https://www.axios.com/2026/03/14/israel-lebanon-ground-invasion-hezbollah)
Non paywall link (https://archive.is/iC8FQ)
QuoteIsrael (https://archive.is/o/iC8FQ/https://www.axios.com/world/israel) is planning to significantly expand its ground operation in Lebanon (https://archive.is/o/iC8FQ/https://www.axios.com/2026/03/06/lebanon-israel-iran-irgc-hezbollah), aiming to seize the entire area south of the Litani River and dismantle Hezbollah's military infrastructure, Israeli and U.S. officials say.
Why it matters: This could be the largest Israeli ground invasion of its northern neighbor since 2006, dragging Lebanon to the epicenter of the escalating war with Iran (https://archive.is/o/iC8FQ/https://www.axios.com/2026/03/13/trump-iran-surrender-hormuz-oil).
- "We are going to do what we did in Gaza," a senior Israeli official said, referring to the flattening of buildings Israel says Hezbollah uses to store weapons and launch attacks.
The big picture: An operation of this size and scale could lead to a prolonged Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon.
- Lebanon's government is deeply alarmed that the renewed war — triggered by Hezbollah's decision to launch rockets at Israel (https://archive.is/o/iC8FQ/https://www.axios.com/2026/03/02/iran-war-israel-hezbollah-lebanon) — will devastate the country.
- The Trump administration backs a major Israeli operation to disarm Hezbollah, but is also pressing to limit the damage to the Lebanese state and pushing for direct Israel-Lebanon talks (https://archive.is/o/iC8FQ/https://www.axios.com/2026/03/09/lebanon-israel-hezbollah-peace-talks) on a postwar agreement.
Driving the news: Until days ago, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government (https://archive.is/o/iC8FQ/https://www.axios.com/2026/03/03/trump-netanyahu-call-iran-war-israel-coordination) was still trying to contain the Lebanon escalation in order to stay focused on Iran, according to Israeli officials.
- That calculus changed Wednesday when Hezbollah launched more than 200 missiles in a massive coordinated attack with Iran, which fired dozens of its own.
- "Before this attack we were ready for a ceasefire in Lebanon, but after it there is no way back from a massive operation," a senior Israeli official said.
State of play: The IDF has had three armored and infantry divisions on the Lebanese border since the start of the Iran war, with some ground forces conducting limited incursions over the past two weeks.
- On Friday, the IDF announced it's sending reinforcements to the border and mobilizing additional reserves ahead of the expanded ground operation.
- "The goal is to take over territory, push Hezbollah's forces north and away from the border, and dismantle its military positions and weapons depots in the villages," the official said.
The other side: Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem said Friday that the Lebanese government's diplomatic track had failed to achieve sovereignty or protect Lebanese civilians — and therefore "there is no solution except resistance."
- "When the enemy threatens a ground invasion, we tell him: this is not a threat, but one of the traps you will fall into," Qassem said.
- "Because every advance of a ground invasion allows the resistance fighters to achieve gains and results through close confrontation with the enemy."
Zoom in: The IDF has issued evacuation orders across southern Lebanon and — for the first time — to villages and towns north of the Litani River, as well as to Hezbollah's stronghold in Beirut's southern suburbs.
- Around 800,000 Lebanese civilians have been displaced since the start of the conflict. At least 773 people have been killed, many of them civilians.
Behind the scenes: The Trump administration asked Israel not to bomb Beirut's international airport or other Lebanese state infrastructure during the operation, U.S. and Israeli officials say.
- U.S. officials said Israel agreed to spare the airport — but stopped short of committing to protect other state infrastructure. On Friday, the IDF bombed a bridge in southern Lebanon it claimed Hezbollah was using to move forces and weapons.
- An Israeli official said they will consult with Washington on a case-by-case basis: "We feel we have full U.S. backing for this operation," the official told Axios.
- "The Israelis have to do what they have to do to stop the Hezbollah shelling," a U.S. official said.
The intrigue: Netanyahu has tasked former minister Ron Dermer with managing the Lebanese file during the war, according to U.S. and Israeli officials.
- Dermer will handle contacts with the Trump administration and lead any negotiations with the Lebanese government if direct talks begin in the coming weeks, the officials said.
- On the American side, the file is being managed by Trump adviser Massad Boulos, who is also the U.S. envoy for Africa.
- Boulos, who is Tiffany Trump's father-in-law, has been in contact with Israeli, Lebanese and Arab officials in recent days to facilitate direct talks between Israel and Lebanon.
What to watch: The Lebanese government has indicated in recent days it is ready to hold direct talks on the terms of a ceasefire with Israel, immediately and without preconditions.
- Sources say the Trump administration wants to use those negotiations to lay the groundwork for a broader deal that would formally end the state of war between Israel and Lebanon — ongoing since 1948.
Yeah good luck with that.
Actually, mulling it over, capturing Kharg could end up worse than failing to do so.
It would give Trump a success to crow over, but when the Iranians decide to level the island, ships need to stay in the strait to protect the marines there and they won't have room to maneuver. Could definitely end up losing more men and material trying to hold on the island than straight up failing to capture it.
I don't know if Trump's ego could handle it. Could see him busting out the nukes after that.
Quote from: Legbiter on March 13, 2026, 05:35:05 PMQuote from: viper37 on March 13, 2026, 04:24:21 PMQuote from: Jacob on March 13, 2026, 12:34:03 PMSo Trump is apparently about to make a speech where he'll say that Iran is just about to surrender?
2200 Marines are being deployed to Iran, they're on ships sailing to Iran right now. Maybe this is related?
https://www.iranintl.com/en/202603131206
Sicilian Expedition levels of hubris.
Apparently, it's more like 5000 now, and a few more ships are sailing toward Iran. Feels like Vietnam in slow motion.
Concept of a plan.
Wonder what they'll resort to if there's no foliage to defoliate?
It is hard for me to vocalize how crushingly depressing this war is.
Fukuyama came out with this. Interesting he correctly predicted the Kharg Island attack a day before it occured.
Quote from: Valmy on March 14, 2026, 12:21:01 PMIt is hard for me to vocalize how crushingly depressing this war is.
It's not too late, you still have a place amongst us.
I'm not super familiar with the Hormuz landscape. What's the deal with Kharg Island?
Is it where Iran export their oil from? And it's also a strategically commanding place to project power from, but conversely also somewhat vulnerable as a target?
Quote from: Valmy on March 14, 2026, 12:21:01 PMIt is hard for me to vocalize how crushingly depressing this war is.
The President has declared the war over. Iran has been crushed.
So he has asked other countries to send warships to reopen the straight... sorry, to keep it open...
US president urges nations to deploy vessels to keep key oil shipping route open amid conflict with Iran (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/mar/14/trump-warships-strait-of-hormuz-iran-oil-shipping)
QuoteDonald Trump has said the UK should send warships to help keep the strait of Hormuz open.
In a post on his Truth Social platform, the US president urged the UK and other countries to deploy vessels to the strait amid the conflict with Iran.
The strait is a key trading artery between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, through which a fifth of the world's oil passes. Last year, about 20m barrels of oil passed through the strait each day.
Since the US and Israel first launched strikes on Iran a fortnight ago, numerous ships travelling through the strait have been attacked. It is now effectively closed, driving up oil prices and putting intense pressure on the global economy.
Trump wrote on Saturday: "Many Countries, especially those who are affected by Iran's attempted closure of the Hormuz Strait, will be sending War Ships, in conjunction with the United States of America, to keep the Strait open and safe.
"We have already destroyed 100% of Iran's Military capability, but it's easy for them to send a drone or two, drop a mine, or deliver a close range missile somewhere along, or in, this Waterway, no matter how badly defeated they are.
"Hopefully China, France, Japan, South Korea, the UK, and others, that are affected by this artificial constraint, will send Ships to the area so that the Hormuz Strait will no longer be a threat by a Nation that has been totally decapitated.
"In the meantime, the United States will be bombing the hell out of the shoreline, and continually shooting Iranian Boats and Ships out of the water. One way or the other, we will soon get the Hormuz Strait OPEN, SAFE, and FREE!"
Sadly, the Royal Navy is a bit short on ships right now. :bowler: Maybe the Royale can escort the Royal Navy though.
Not to mention Truth Social is hardly the preferred diplomatic platform. :P
Quote from: Jacob on March 14, 2026, 03:26:55 PMI'm not super familiar with the Hormuz landscape. What's the deal with Kharg Island?
Is it where Iran export their oil from? And it's also a strategically commanding place to project power from, but conversely also somewhat vulnerable as a target?
I doubt much oil is being exported from it while fighting is ongoing.
Kharg island is also all the way up the gulf...the ships carrying those Marines will be a Iran's target #1 all the way up through the SoH and several hundred miles along Iranian coastline.
And then what do we have after we take it? A big, stationary, nearby, target full of Marines for Iran to shoot at.
I think any power projection value is minimal to nonexistant...we have the legs to do it much that much more safely from several other places (that are also already being shot at).
So taking Kharg Island is basically a straight up "we're taking your oil" move?
There's no oil production on Kharg. There's some storage, barely enough for a week of national production. Taking Kharg doesn't take any oil, it just blocks the Iranian from effectively exporting it by sea.
Ah I see. Thanks.
Drones attack one of the world's largest oil terminals in the UAE – video (https://news.liga.net/en/politics/news/drones-attack-one-of-the-worlds-largest-oil-terminals-in-the-uae-video)
QuoteSeveral Iranian drones attacked oil storage facilities in the port of Fujairah in the United Arab Emirates on March 14. A fire broke out at the site, according to CNN (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pueioJq839k#:~:text=A%20drone%20attack%20has%20targeted,authorities%20are%20assessing%20the%20damage.) and Turkiye today (https://www.turkiyetoday.com/region/iranian-drones-strike-uaes-fujairah-oil-terminal-fire-breaks-out-3216210).
Emergency services arrived at the scene to extinguish the fire, and authorities are assessing the damage. The port is reportedly one of the world's largest oil storage and bunkering centers after Singapore.
The port of Fujairah is located outside the Strait of Hormuz in the Gulf of Oman, making it a strategically important energy center that allows oil to be exported bypassing the Strait.
Pros data (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-03-14/some-fujairah-oil-operations-suspended-after-drone-attack-fire) according to Bloomberg's sources, some oil loading operations at the port of Fujairah were suspended after a drone attack and fire.
The day before, on March 13, the United States destroyed military targets on Iran's main oil hub, Kharg Island. This was announced by US President Donald Trump (https://file.liga.net/ua/persons/tramp-donald) and threatened to strike at Iran's oil infrastructure if Tehran continues its attacks, which have paralyzed much of the shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, transmits (https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/both-sides-dig-iran-war-approaches-two-week-mark-2026-03-13/) Reuters.
LIGA.net (https://www.liga.net/ua) analyzed how the escalation in the Middle East may be affected by (https://finance.liga.net/en/ekonomika/article/escalation-in-the-middle-east-what-will-happen-to-the-dollar-gold-and-crypto) on the dollar, cryptocurrency, and gold. The experts also explained, whether fuel prices will rise (https://biz.liga.net/en/all/tek/article/gas-prices-have-jumped-due-to-the-war-with-iran-will-it-become-more-expensive-for-the-population-and-businesses) for households and businesses, as gas prices have already skyrocketed due to the war with Iran.
According to the FT, France and Italy want to to agree privately (https://biz.liga.net/ua/all/tek/novosti/ft-frantsiia-ta-italiia-nepublichno-khochut-domovytysia-z-iranom-pro-bezpeku-suden-v-ormuzkiy-prototsi) with Iran on the safety of ships in the Strait of Hormuz. And Turkey said that Iran had allowed its ship through (https://biz.liga.net/ua/all/tek/novosti/turechchyna-zaiavyla-shcho-iran-dozvolyv-ii-sudnu-proyty-ormuzkoiu-protokoiu) The Strait of Hormuz.
This terminal was a way to avoid the strait of Hormuz.
Remember that Iran has been destroyed.
Exclusive / Israel is running critically low on interceptors, US officials say (https://www.semafor.com/article/03/14/2026/israel-is-running-critically-low-on-interceptors-us-officials-say)
QuoteIsrael informed the US this week that it is running critically low on ballistic missile interceptors as the conflict with Iran rages on, US officials told Semafor.
Israel had reportedly entered the current war already low on interceptors that were fired during last summer's conflict with Iran. Israel's long-range defense system has strained under Iran's attacks; CNN reported (https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/12/middleeast/iran-cluster-munition-israel-defenses-intl-cmd) that Iran was adding cluster munitions to its missiles, which may exacerbate the depletion of the stock.
The US has been aware of Israel's low capacity for months, one US official said: "It's something we expected and anticipated."
This official emphasized to Semafor that the US is not running similarly low on interceptors of its own. That comment comes amid broader concerns (https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2026/03/06/race-of-attrition-us-militarys-finite-interceptor-stockpile-is-being-tested/#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20likely%20used%20between%20100%20and,Twelve-Day%20War%20with%20Iran%20and%20an%20unknown) about interceptor depletion from a longer military engagement in Iran leaving the US in a poor position.
It's also unclear whether the US might seek to sell or share any of its own interceptors with Israel, which would pose its own strain on domestic supplies. The US has included missile defense assets in past provisions (https://www.cfr.org/articles/us-aid-israel-four-charts) of military aid to Israel.
"We have all that we need to protect our bases and our personnel in the region and our interests," the US official said, adding that Israel is "coming up with solutions to address" their shortage.
Israel has other ways to defend against Iranian missiles during the war, including via fighter jets, but the interceptors are among the most effective defensive weapons against long-range fire. Its Iron Dome missile defense system is designed to repel more short-range fire.
President Donald Trump said earlier this month that the US has a "virtually unlimited" munitions stockpile, although analysts have long said (https://www.ft.com/content/14713f6f-a1a6-4477-bd10-d3780fbc8ab5) US stockpiles are lower (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/27/world/middleeast/israel-stockpile-missile-interceptors.html) than the military would like.
Last June, the US fired over 150 THAAD interceptors during the 12-day war with Iran, the Center for Strategic and International Studies found (https://www.csis.org/analysis/depleting-missile-defense-interceptor-inventory) — believed to be around a quarter (https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/28/middleeast/us-thaad-missile-interceptor-shortage-intl-invs) of US inventory at the time. The US is also believed to have used around $2.4 billion worth of Patriot interceptors in the first five days of this war, according (https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/us-patriot-interceptors-five-days-iran) to some reports.
In January, the Pentagon made moves to begin substantially increasing (https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/2026/Lockheed-Martin-and-the-U-S-Department-of-War-Expand-THAAD-Interceptor-Production.html) its production of the THAAD missile defense system. The US official said that the administration has plenty of THAADs and fighter jets, as well as mid-level interceptors.
Chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell told Semafor in a statement that the department "has everything it needs to execute any mission at the time and place of" Trump's choosing.
The White House and the Israel Defense Forces did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Semafor.
(https://static.semafor.com/_app/renderer/1773435784/knowmore.BsomRPwt.svg)
Know More
The State Department last week announced a sale of 12,000 "BLU-110A/B general purpose, 1,000-pound bomb bodies" to Israel. Congressional approval for the sale will not be required; the Trump administration bypassed it by citing the "emergency" that currently exists (https://www.state.gov/israel-munitions-and-munitions-support/) as the US and Israel fight Iran.
Trump has said that the war could end "soon" and has recently taken to describing it as a "short-term excursion." But Trump, Israel, and Iran are also all signaling that they're willing to fight for as long as it takes.
"It'll be as long as it's necessary," Trump said on Friday evening when asked about how long the conflict may continue on. "They've been decimated. The country's in bad shape. The whole thing is collapsing."
The Iranian regime's foreign policy adviser told CNN this week that the country sees no option for diplomacy right now and maintained (https://x.com/fpleitgencnn/status/2031042128776671373?s=46&t=a3ohj6oncFjZ8uOAQMEdJg) that it is ready for a long fight. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told reporters (https://x.com/jenniferjjacobs/status/2032428934357287421?s=46&t=a3ohj6oncFjZ8uOAQMEdJg) on Friday that Iran's "entire ballistic missile production capacity" has been "functionally defeated."
More winning.
So, what happens when Israel runs out of interceptor? They nuke Iran only or everyone around to go in a blaze of glory?
Never in the field of human conflict have so many been fucked by so few to this extent.
Its what happens when two world leaders are desperately trying to stay out of jail and their electorates are fine with it.
QuoteWe don't need people that join Wars after we've already won!"
http://(https://i.imgflip.com/amnqgm.jpg)[/img]
Quote from: viper37 on March 14, 2026, 03:39:30 PM"Hopefully China, France, Japan, South Korea, the UK, and others, that are affected by this artificial constraint, will send Ships to the area so that the Hormuz Strait will no longer be a threat by a Nation that has been totally decapitated.
So... one day we'll hopefully have Pete Hague-seth, right? :glare:
"We will keep pressing. We will keep pushing, keep advancing, no quarter, no mercy for our enemies," he said at a Pentagon news briefing.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/hegseth-no-quarter-war-crime_n_69b44e2fe4b0676e64bf4b04?origin=home-latest-news-unit
Feels like they should declare war
Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut.
https://x.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/2032803960239595562
QuoteIt's crystal clear now that Trump has lost control of this war. He badly misjudged Iran's ability to retaliate. The region is on fire.1/ I'm going to explain to you in this🧵what I've learned - in part from closed door briefings - about the four biggest current crises.
2/ CRISIS ONE: Trump believed Iran would not close the Strait of Hormuz. He was wrong. And now oil prices are spiking. If the Strait stays closed, a global recession will result. It actually may already be too late. Gas prices are the first to spike, but food prices are next.
3/ Right now, Trump has no plan to reopen the Strait. And a plan may not exist. The assets Iran uses to harass and attack tankers - thousands of small drones, speed boats and mines - cannot be eliminated. They are too numerous, too spread out and hidden.
4/ What about naval escorts for tankers? This is a possibility, but it's harder than you think. First, it would require our entire navy. 100 tankers need escorting each day. Second, if we can't destroy the mines and drones, our ships are at risk too.
5/ CRISIS TWO: We can destroy Iran's missiles but not all their drones, and war today is drone war. Iran can hit oil sites in the region indefinitely because they posses so many cheap, weaponized drones. And they are. They blew up a critical Oman oil depot two days ago.
6/ If Trump paid any attention to the Ukraine War he would have noticed how warfare has changed. But he didn't. And he blundered. Worse, the Gulf states are running out of interceptors to stop Iranian missiles and drones - meaning that soon more oil sites will be vulnerable.
7/ CRISIS THREE: A broader, regional war is breaking out as Iranian proxies in Lebanon hit Israel and those in Iraq target the U.S.. Israel is now threatening a massive ground invasion of Lebanon, which could become its own new crisis.
8/ Other potential flash points lurk. So far, the Houthis in Yemen have been relatively quiet. Probably not for long. They can project power into the Red Sea. For Syria, this is the worst time for Trump to strike Iran. Syria could explode again.
9/ CRISIS FOUR: Trump has no endgame. Iran and its proxies can create chaos indefinitely. So what's next? A ground invasion? This would be Armageddon. Thousands of dead Americans. Declare false victory? Then the new Iranian hardliners in charge just rebuild what we destroyed.
10/ All of this was totally foreseeable. Frankly, it's why previous presidents weren't so stupid to start a war like this. Trump has lost control of the war. His best course now is to cut his losses and end it. That's the only way to prevent an even bigger disaster.
What do you guys think, is this hubris?
I am very concerned about the abundance of consequences coming from this. The world barely has recovered a bit from covid, although supply chains are still reeling.
It's just a matter of time before Trump sends ground troops in.
Quote from: Tamas on March 15, 2026, 02:29:06 AMIt's just a matter of time before Trump sends ground troops in.
I think so too. Trump and Hegseth will escalate before they admit strategic failure.
Quote from: Norgy on March 15, 2026, 01:36:35 AMWhat do you guys think, is this hubris?
I am very concerned about the abundance of consequences coming from this. The world barely has recovered a bit from covid, although supply chains are still reeling.
Trump has never recieved real consequences for his actions in his entire life. He doesn't know how to deal with it, so he's going to double down.
https://www.euronews.com/2026/03/15/russia-is-supplying-iran-with-shahed-drones-for-strikes-against-us-and-israel-zelenskyy-sa
Just like with the report on intelligence, I am sure Trump would just say that we supplied arms to Ukraine, so it doesn't matter.
Hasn't Trump already said that the war will only end by unconditional surrender? Will Congress go along with such a surrender without a full occupation of at least the continental US by Iran?
Quote from: The Brain on March 15, 2026, 03:08:04 AMHasn't Trump already said that the war will only end by unconditional surrender? Will Congress go along with such a surrender without a full occupation of at least the continental US by Iran?
On Fox he said he'd "feel it in his bones" if the war is done.
In his bone spurs, now that is great news.
(https://i.ibb.co/RGz0YcHt/image.png)
:hmm:
"The natives are fierce and intractable; when fired upon they replied"
I do wonder if this whole mess will accelerate the move towards renewables.
We are accelerating toward global conflict.
Quote from: Norgy on March 15, 2026, 01:36:35 AMWhat do you guys think, is this hubris?
No.
It is sheer fucking hubris.
Combined with absolute idiocy.
Quote from: Syt on March 15, 2026, 03:56:04 AMI do wonder if this whole mess will accelerate the move towards renewables.
It probably will. Nuclear too.
The oil crises of the 70s did lead to tech that was more efficient.
That said: trees are renewable too and we might end up there as well
Trump has asked for allied help to keep Hormuz open. I fully expect him to declare victory, pack up his forces and go home once an international force js there, leaving them to sort his mess out
So is it worth reading the news today or just leave it at me having seen this thread?
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 15, 2026, 06:09:04 AMQuote from: Syt on March 15, 2026, 03:56:04 AMI do wonder if this whole mess will accelerate the move towards renewables.
It probably will. Nuclear too.
The oil crises of the 70s did lead to tech that was more efficient.
That said: trees are renewable too and we might end up there as well
Yes and no. If you mean fuels made from trees, they are renewable but have very little to recommend them when it comes to clean air and water. It's basically BBQ coal.
I remember some big name conference I attended where some young, healthy leader of an organisation called ZERO back when the two degree target seemed something to strive for. "We can make anything from our forests that we make from oil". Turns out, the costs of refining pulp are a bit higher than refining oil. Norway has tried the path of renewables with huge outlays for biodiesel that would work on cars. That fuel never became competitive. A country of 7 percent arable land should not spend it on rapeseed.
Would I like some traction on a more renewable world and more energy? Yes.
I do think I have said this before, but even in a country as windy as Norway, wind power seems out in the cold. Not because the state does not want it, but because people in the localities where it might be built say no and not in very courteous terms.
Norway has a lot of hydro energy. The technology is aging poorly, but what is really needed are more power lines and more transistor stations. That is not going to happen any time soon.
Strangely enough, considering our natural gas deposits, Norway has not gone for natural gas as a load bearer for energy.
Quote from: mongers on March 15, 2026, 07:57:10 AMSo is it worth reading the news today or just leave it at me having seen this thread?
Seems Iran wants to talk.
And what if they want to continue fighting after you decide you're through?
https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/iran-war-us-israel-trump-03-15-26?post-id=cmmrp9h4t000n3b6uar9gk79z
Quote27 min ago
Israel to continue Iran campaign for at least three more weeks, spokesperson tells CNN
Tal Shalev
Oren Liebermann
By Tal Shalev and Oren Liebermann
The Israeli military is planning at least three more weeks of its campaign against Iran with "thousands of targets" remaining, Israel Defense Forces (IDF) military spokesperson told CNN today.
"We have thousand of targets ahead," IDF spokesperson Brig. Gen. Effie Defrin said. "We are ready, in coordination with our US allies, with plans through at least the Jewish holiday of Passover, about three weeks from now. And we have deeper plans for even three weeks beyond that."
According to the IDF, since the start of the Iran campaign on February 28, the Israeli Air Force has carried out roughly 400 waves of strikes in western and central Iran, focusing on dismantling infrastructure and targeting operatives of the fire, defense, and production units.
Israeli officials say the US and Israel have already struck thousands of targets since the war began.
Defrin told CNN that the IDF is "not working according to a stopwatch, or a timetable, but rather to achieve our goals" which are to "weaken the Iranian regime severely."
He said that the massive US-Israeli offensive against Iran pushed Hezbollah in Lebanon to join the conflict, unlike their decision to stay out during the 12-day war last summer.
"In June, they understood that it's a limited campaign in Iran, so they didn't attack. Now that it's all out, they join in," Defrin said.
Israel's military operations in Lebanon could continue beyond an end to the war in Iran, according to Israeli officials. The IDF is sending more troops to its northern border in an attempt to seize territory and push Hezbollah back.
This post has been updated with additional information.
QuoteQuoteSo is it worth reading the news today or just leave it at me having seen this thread?
Seems Iran wants to talk.
Thanks I'll leave it at that then, off to some gardening instead.
With the trees i actually ment that if the shit hits and then swamps the fan that'll be the tech level we'll end up at. Fire made of twigs and logs. <_<
Don't diss it before you try. A sausage roasted in the woods over a wooden fire is very good. Well. We might have run out of sausages. Pine cone, anyone?
Quote from: Norgy on March 15, 2026, 08:24:18 AMDon't diss it before you try. A sausage roasted in the woods over a wooden fire is very good. Well. We might have run out of sausages. Pine cone, anyone?
In the US and Canada, wild pigs are a plague in some parts. We also have wild turkeys. Some are coming here, but they are in abundance in more Sounthernly parts, around Montreal. A city mayor launched a hunt with baseball bats. :shutup:
If we run out of sausage in one area, we can still grilled turkey ham & bacon in another ;) (something I discovered in Tunisia, never thought it was possible!)
Quote from: viper37 on March 15, 2026, 11:04:15 AMA city mayor launched a hunt with baseball bats. :shutup:
Oh wacking day oh wacking day
(https://simoncolumb.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/1c187-simpson1.jpg)
Quote from: Valmy on March 15, 2026, 12:16:56 PMQuote from: viper37 on March 15, 2026, 11:04:15 AMA city mayor launched a hunt with baseball bats. :shutup:
Oh wacking day oh wacking day
(https://simoncolumb.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/1c187-simpson1.jpg)
Close enough! :lol:
Here's the dude:
https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/2204214/yvon-deshaies-maire-louiseville-election
(https://images.radio-canada.ca/q_auto,w_1200/v1/ici-info/16x9/yvon-deshaies-maire-louiseville-cafe-97330.jpg)
Quote from: mongers on March 15, 2026, 08:19:38 AMQuoteQuoteSo is it worth reading the news today or just leave it at me having seen this thread?
Seems Iran wants to talk.
Thanks I'll leave it at that then, off to some gardening instead.
That was all in Trump's head. Iran has indicated they are unwilling to speak further as the two last time they attempted that, they were attacked by the US.
Quote from: viper37 on March 15, 2026, 11:04:15 AMIn the US and Canada, wild pigs are a plague in some parts.
Battues aux sangliers ? Viande de choix. :mmm:
Quote from: viper37 on March 15, 2026, 11:04:15 AMIn the US and Canada, wild pigs are a plague in some parts.
From news stories I see about this - no man who was massively dunked on by the internet has been so consistently vindicated as the "30-50 feral hogs" guy.
Quote from: Norgy on March 15, 2026, 08:14:54 AMQuote from: mongers on March 15, 2026, 07:57:10 AMSo is it worth reading the news today or just leave it at me having seen this thread?
Seems Iran wants to talk.
The only impetus for talks would come from them not wanting to lose a second round of the leadership. :hmm: They seem to have somehow stopped the Israeli infiltration (probably shot everyone in the same tier on the org chart who kept being slightly late for meetings that got blown up). Otherwise the logic is they keep trashing the American Raj in the Gulf and only nations who cut direct deals with the leadership get to transit Hormuz. The regime seems to oscillate between conciliatory language and full jihad the next, which is smart.
The Americans seem to be begging the Europeans (who have quite a lot of minesweepers as a legacy of the old NATO defense configuration) to come into the war and be stuck in an Iranian shooting gallery in the Persian Gulf. :shutup:
A plausible scenario is the Iranians just continue indefinitely, month after month, what they are doing today and the price of them stopping is at minimum, complete lifting of sanctions and no nuclear restrictions. Individual nations in SEA will cut separate deals to allow their shipping through which suits the regime perfectly.
Congratulations burgers, you are stuck in a reverse Ukraine. :huh:
Right on cue.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HDfUjAxaUAAxuNo?format=jpg&name=small)
Fuck the burgers. This is Iraq vs. Iran. I hope they both lose.
Maybe the Russian asset wants to use NATO countries not joining this folly as his narrative to leave NATO. But that would suggest some kind of plan.
More likely that a dementia addled septuagenarian doesn't know how NATO works.
Yeah we aren't seeing hubris here. Hubris is a tragic flaw. This is a fantastic ignoramus taking the Dunning-Kruger effect to its most extreme point. It is black comedy not tragedy. Iannucci at his most biting couldn't dream up this crap.
Let's get some enjoyment out of this tragedy.
My score 14 nukes, 21k casulties.
https://nuke-canal.vercel.app/
Quote"Iran blocked the Strait. Very bad, very unfair. Gas is nine dollars. I called MBS - he's not picking up. I called Modi - "please hold." Nobody helps us. So I said to my generals, I said, 'what if we just nuked a canal through the UAE? Boom, boom, boom - new waterway.' They said 'sir, that's insane.' I said 'you're fired.' The new guy loves it. It's gonna be beautiful. Biggest canal ever built. We're gonna do it in an afternoon." - Presidential address ot the nation, 3 hours ago.
Objective: Carve a navigable waterway from the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman. Choose your ordnance wisely.
SecWar Memo: "For the love of God, try to avoid Dubai. And the airports. You know what, just try not to kill too many people."
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2026, 12:21:05 AMYeah we aren't seeing hubris here. Hubris is a tragic flaw. This is a fantastic ignoramus taking the Dunning-Kruger effect to its most extreme point. It is black comedy not tragedy. Iannucci at his most biting couldn't dream up this crap.
Heard a comment the other day that Trump being ignorant is not a bug, it's a feature. He thinks it's beneath him to pay attention to or learn about anything or anyone. He expects people (and countries) to adapt to him.
If only his bonespurs had not prevented this uber-patriot from participation in the Vietnam war :lol:
He might have learned how a weaker power can still win a war.
It'll be interesting how this NATO thing plays out.
Personally I don't have much appetite for supporting the US here, and I don't think the national moods of most NATO countries would reward politicians sending troops to fight Iran.
I'd expect mostly polite "sorry we'd love to, but it's just not possible" for the sake of diplomacy.
It's hard not seeing this being another giant step down the road to the dissolution of NATO, however. Trump was never going to support a NATO country being attacked anyhow, but if no one helps him with this idiotic war then it'll likely become explicit even sooner.
Is this moving some of the "we're not THAT motivated to build a strong European defense people a countries" a bit, I wonder?
It is unclear why the mighty US, who has destroyed Iran and wages war mercilessly, would need any help. Those sculpted abs glisten with sweat after a hard shift firing off US ordnance inventory on low-value targets. The US is fine.
Let the don clean up his own mess.
UK is considering sending mine-sweeping drones, I daresay Starmer also said a few soothing words in his recent phonecall with the orange baboon.
That is probably what NATO amounts to these days; I really hope European leaders are busy working out how to achieve strategic autonomy, we are very vulnerable at the moment.
Not sure how accurate this piece is https://news.sky.com/story/the-drones-the-uk-is-considering-deploying-to-the-middle-east-13519993#:~:text=The%20UK%20could%20deploy%20autonomous,earlier%20this%20week%3A%20%22Now%20I've but it does appear to be the case that the UK has worthwhile anti-mine systems. The RN might even be keen to try them out in a real life conflict.
NATO countries should decline due to the ongoing threat to Greenland from a foreign power.
Quote from: frunk on March 16, 2026, 06:03:11 AMNATO countries should decline due to the ongoing threat to Greenland from a foreign power.
Indeed
Not looking good guys
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/15/us/politics/trump-stark-choices-iran-war.html
(https://i.ibb.co/20dRTwt6/image.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/DPzNXG2V/image.png)
And just as a callback, this was THREE MONTHS AGO:
https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/americas/artc-i-brought-peace-to-the-middle-east-trump-boasts-achievements-in-white-house-address
Quote"I brought peace to the Middle East," Trump boasts achievements in White House address
"We are on the brink of an economic prosperity the world has never seen."
U.S. President Donald Trump delivered an address of approximately twenty minutes to the nation on Thursday evening, reviewing what he described as the key achievements of his administration as the first anniversary of his election approaches.
Speaking primarily to an American audience, Trump outlined upcoming policy measures and announced that he would soon appoint a new Federal Reserve chair who supports lowering interest rates.
The president addressed the war in Gaza in notably blunt terms, declaring: "I have ended eight wars in ten months, eliminated the Iranian nuclear threat, ended the war in Gaza, and, for the first time in 3,000 years, brought peace to the Middle East."
Trump went on to highlight what he portrayed as major domestic successes, saying: "Tonight, after eleven months, our border is secure, inflation has been stopped, wages have gone up, prices have gone down, our nation is strong, America is respected, and our country is back. We are on the brink of an economic prosperity the world has never seen."
He also sharply criticized previous administrations, stating: "For too long, the vast majority of good and honest Americans have been forced to watch corrupt politicians loot government institutions, exploit taxpayers, and dismantle the systems that make a civilized society possible. That era is over. We are putting America first."
What does NATO have to do with the Straits?
Well, Trump is in Dire Straits, so he's calling on his Brothers in Arms.
Quote from: The Brain on March 16, 2026, 08:00:13 AMWhat does NATO have to do with the Straits?
"Any alliance whose purpose is not the intention to wage war is senseless and useless."
I think the Dorito in Chief has adopted that as one of his maxims in international relations.
Never expected a rerun of the delic-attic league unraveling in my lifetime
Quote from: The Brain on March 16, 2026, 08:00:13 AMWhat does NATO have to do with the Straits?
If you squint or know nothing about geography, the straits are right in the north Atlantic.
Quote from: frunk on March 16, 2026, 06:03:11 AMNATO countries should decline due to the ongoing threat to Greenland from a foreign power.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 16, 2026, 06:11:12 AMQuote from: frunk on March 16, 2026, 06:03:11 AMNATO countries should decline due to the ongoing threat to Greenland from a foreign power.
Indeed
Yep, not sure why NATO should help a belligerent nation who has threatened to attack a NATO nation and annex another.
Quote from: Syt on March 16, 2026, 07:47:04 AM(https://i.ibb.co/20dRTwt6/image.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/DPzNXG2V/image.png)
And just as a callback, this was THREE MONTHS AGO:
https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/americas/artc-i-brought-peace-to-the-middle-east-trump-boasts-achievements-in-white-house-address
Quote"I brought peace to the Middle East," Trump boasts achievements in White House address
"We are on the brink of an economic prosperity the world has never seen."
U.S. President Donald Trump delivered an address of approximately twenty minutes to the nation on Thursday evening, reviewing what he described as the key achievements of his administration as the first anniversary of his election approaches.
Speaking primarily to an American audience, Trump outlined upcoming policy measures and announced that he would soon appoint a new Federal Reserve chair who supports lowering interest rates.
The president addressed the war in Gaza in notably blunt terms, declaring: "I have ended eight wars in ten months, eliminated the Iranian nuclear threat, ended the war in Gaza, and, for the first time in 3,000 years, brought peace to the Middle East."
Trump went on to highlight what he portrayed as major domestic successes, saying: "Tonight, after eleven months, our border is secure, inflation has been stopped, wages have gone up, prices have gone down, our nation is strong, America is respected, and our country is back. We are on the brink of an economic prosperity the world has never seen."
He also sharply criticized previous administrations, stating: "For too long, the vast majority of good and honest Americans have been forced to watch corrupt politicians loot government institutions, exploit taxpayers, and dismantle the systems that make a civilized society possible. That era is over. We are putting America first."
The King gaveth, the King taketh.
The king, occasionally, loseth his head. Though in this case the king might become smarter if that were to happen
Quote from: Syt on March 16, 2026, 08:34:58 AMWell, Trump is in Dire Straits, so he's calling on his Brothers in Arms.
:D
Quote from: Syt on March 16, 2026, 08:34:58 AMWell, Trump is in Dire Straits, so he's calling on his Brothers in Arms.
POTM :hug:
Next time, add a pun too.
The NYT article Jimmy linked does suggest a US objective that has a logic to it - namely controlling Iran's oil as a means to put pressure on China. The article makes the point that if the US control both Iranian and Venezuelan oil exports, they have access to a lever to choke the Chinese economy.
I could see that being one of the arguments made by the paint-the-map contingent inside Trump's orbit.
With a Chinese lens this could be a real problem, which implies to me that China has a strong interest in supporting Iran for at least two reasons:
1) To avoid the US having that leverage over the Chinese economy via controlling the sources of their oil imports, and
2) To bleed the US as much on possible, much like Russia is bleeding in Ukraine
From a Russian perspective, increasing the value of their oil and gas exports is obviously pretty good, though the weakening of an ally is less good.
I'm also very interested in understanding the impact in Europe - both in the short (or however long) term of the fighting, but also in the event of Trump's cronies gaining control of Iranian oil production.
I also wonder - if Trump's playbook is "grab control of the oil", are there any fairly obvious "next plays" after Iran (whether it succeeds or fails}?
One thing seems pretty clear, though - the American oil capitalists who bankrolled Trump is getting a pretty good return on investment.
There are always more plays for a real estate magnate wanting more to sell.
Norway, for instance. Azerbaijan. Kuwait. But most importantly Brazil. His old friend Bolsonaro is suffering during house arrest. Get Brazil, and you have a jackpot. Country divided between Bolsonaristas and the ones who supported Lula. The highest rate of conversions to Evangelical faiths in the world. Also: Hot chicks, but yucky brown colour.
Old US ally? No matter. Who cares anymore.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on March 15, 2026, 02:57:34 PMQuote from: viper37 on March 15, 2026, 11:04:15 AMIn the US and Canada, wild pigs are a plague in some parts.
Battues aux sangliers ? Viande de choix. :mmm:
Nos ancêtres les Gaulois sont bien vivants ;)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 16, 2026, 12:33:44 AMLet's get some enjoyment out of this tragedy.
My score 14 nukes, 21k casulties.
https://nuke-canal.vercel.app/
Quote"Iran blocked the Strait. Very bad, very unfair. Gas is nine dollars. I called MBS - he's not picking up. I called Modi - "please hold." Nobody helps us. So I said to my generals, I said, 'what if we just nuked a canal through the UAE? Boom, boom, boom - new waterway.' They said 'sir, that's insane.' I said 'you're fired.' The new guy loves it. It's gonna be beautiful. Biggest canal ever built. We're gonna do it in an afternoon." - Presidential address ot the nation, 3 hours ago.
Objective: Carve a navigable waterway from the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman. Choose your ordnance wisely.
SecWar Memo: "For the love of God, try to avoid Dubai. And the airports. You know what, just try not to kill too many people."
You laugh, but Newt Gingrich very seriously suggested this on Twitter.
Quote from: Jacob on March 16, 2026, 02:23:57 AMIt'll be interesting how this NATO thing plays out.
Personally I don't have much appetite for supporting the US here, and I don't think the national moods of most NATO countries would reward politicians sending troops to fight Iran.
I'd expect mostly polite "sorry we'd love to, but it's just not possible" for the sake of diplomacy.
It's hard not seeing this being another giant step down the road to the dissolution of NATO, however. Trump was never going to support a NATO country being attacked anyhow, but if no one helps him with this idiotic war then it'll likely become explicit even sooner.
Is this moving some of the "we're not THAT motivated to build a strong European defense people a countries" a bit, I wonder?
Well, if Iran attacks the US now, NATO is not obliged to answer article 5 a as the US is the aggressor and is engaged in a conflict.
What is stressful is that Iran is launching ballistic missiles toward Turkish territory that have been, so far, intercepted.
If one of them lands and Turkey activates Articles 5, we'll all likely responds against Iran. Russia and China are both openly and actively supporting Iran. I doubt they'll stop.
Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand = Assassination of Ali Khamenei?
Quote from: frunk on March 16, 2026, 11:48:18 AMAssassination of Archduke Ferdinand = Assassination of Ali Khamenei?
You're late to the party, I already made that analogy about 2 weeks ago - see post 249 in this thread.
China will stop. China's policy is China Only. And they never want to do anything that will in any way diminished their capabilities in making Taiwan part of the PRC.
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 16, 2026, 12:00:22 PMChina will stop. China's policy is China Only. And they never want to do anything that will in any way diminished their capabilities in making Taiwan part of the PRC.
China will stop what?
Quote from: Jacob on March 16, 2026, 11:04:21 AMThe NYT article Jimmy linked does suggest a US objective that has a logic to it - namely controlling Iran's oil as a means to put pressure on China. The article makes the point that if the US control both Iranian and Venezuelan oil exports, they have access to a lever to choke the Chinese economy.
There is no logic there at all; although I agree that either Trump or someone around him may be thinking something this, it only demonstrates how clueless they are.
Oil is produced globally in many different places and consumed globally in many different places. It is effectively fungible, especially for a country like China which has ample refinery capacity and can pretty easily retool to accommodate different flavors.
China imports about 11.5 million bpd. Officially, none of the imports as of 2025 were from Iran or Venezuela. Unofficially, China was receiving dark market imports of as much as 2 million bpd from those countries or about 20% of needs. This was opportunistic; China's supply is extremely diversified across many national suppliers. 2 million bpd is not completely insignificant, but it can be replaced either by getting more from elsewhere, from increasing supply of other energy sources, or both.
If the US seizes control of all Venezuelan and Iranian oil, then what? The US produces domestically more than it needs. So where does that oil go? India perhaps, Japan, Korea, Europe are all candidates (assuming they can or want to process the heavy Venezuelan grades). OK - but then those countries will then import less from other suppliers (eg. Saudis, Gulf, Nigeria etc) and those countries then have excess capacity to send to China. You've achieved nothing.
If Trump still had adult advisors that could talk to him as an adult - like Rex Tillerson, his first SecState and an experienced oil man - they could have explained this too him.
:lol:
Fair enough.
The idiot is still treating a large-scale military confrontation with a nation of 100 million halfway across the world that he knows nothing about, like one of his petty real estate squabbles with Leona Hemsley over control of an apartment building. He is flailing about looking for "leverage" and "cards". Infuriating and frustrating to watch. It's like watching a monkey trying to operate a nuclear reactor by flinging shit at it.
Quote from: PJL on March 16, 2026, 11:58:32 AMQuote from: frunk on March 16, 2026, 11:48:18 AMAssassination of Archduke Ferdinand = Assassination of Ali Khamenei?
You're late to the party, I already made that analogy about 2 weeks ago - see post 249 in this thread.
If this is leading up to WWIII I think the "starting point" will be seen differently depending on how the participants line up, and on where you're from (much like WWII).
Candidates for "what kicked off the world war" include:
- The Russian invasion of Ukraine
- The Oct 7 attack on Israel and the Israeli attack on Gaza
- Trump's and Nethanyahu's attack on Iran
... but yeah, it does seem like we're headed for a conflagration rather than a deescalation.
At least we didn't start it this time.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2026, 01:40:23 PMQuote from: Jacob on March 16, 2026, 11:04:21 AMThe NYT article Jimmy linked does suggest a US objective that has a logic to it - namely controlling Iran's oil as a means to put pressure on China. The article makes the point that if the US control both Iranian and Venezuelan oil exports, they have access to a lever to choke the Chinese economy.
There is no logic there at all; although I agree that either Trump or someone around him may be thinking something this, it only demonstrates how clueless they are.
Oil is produced globally in many different places and consumed globally in many different places. It is effectively fungible, especially for a country like China which has ample refinery capacity and can pretty easily retool to accommodate different flavors.
China imports about 11.5 million bpd. Officially, none of the imports as of 2025 were from Iran or Venezuela. Unofficially, China was receiving dark market imports of as much as 2 million bpd from those countries or about 20% of needs. This was opportunistic; China's supply is extremely diversified across many national suppliers. 2 million bpd is not completely insignificant, but it can be replaced either by getting more from elsewhere, from increasing supply of other energy sources, or both.
If the US seizes control of all Venezuelan and Iranian oil, then what? The US produces domestically more than it needs. So where does that oil go? India perhaps, Japan, Korea, Europe are all candidates (assuming they can or want to process the heavy Venezuelan grades). OK - but then those countries will then import less from other suppliers (eg. Saudis, Gulf, Nigeria etc) and those countries then have excess capacity to send to China. You've achieved nothing.
If Trump still had adult advisors that could talk to him as an adult - like Rex Tillerson, his first SecState and an experienced oil man - they could have explained this too him.
It's a pity this has to be repeated, but yes there is no logic to it, it's just random BS from a ultra-narcissist that fools elected to access so much power.
I think it's us Languishites tending to want to analyse everything, looking for complex reasoning when there is none; sometimes monkeys just sling shit around their enclosure.
I don't disagree that Trump's decision-making is purely driven by whatever momentarily soothes his malevolent ego and id. However, I'm pretty confident that the coterie around him has a variety of agendas and plans which they attempt to pursue by manipulating Trump's psychology.
I'm thinking of people like Stephen Miller, Bessent, Rubio, and the like.
So yeah, I contend there's an underlying logic to the Trump administration's actions, even if the logic is perfidious or based on ignorance in many cases. Or perhaps more accurately, there are multiple competing logics depending on which way the Trump-vane blows that day.
Quote from: Zanza on March 16, 2026, 02:19:05 PMAt least we didn't start it this time.
It's not really a world war until the UK, France, and Germany join, though.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on March 16, 2026, 02:39:03 PMQuote from: Zanza on March 16, 2026, 02:19:05 PMAt least we didn't start it this time.
It's not really a world war until the UK, France, and Germany join, though.
It's quite possible we're through the "things leading to" phase and well into the "by then events were escalating beyond control" phase.
We haven't entered the "then major hostilities commenced" phase yet, though.
German minister of defense:
Quote"This is not our war; we did not start it," Boris Pistorius, the German defense minister, said at a news conference in Berlin on Monday. "We want diplomatic solutions and a swift end to the conflict, but sending more warships to the region will likely not help achieve that," he said.
"What does Donald Trump expect from, say, a handful or two of European frigates in the Strait of Hormuz?" he added. "He needs them to achieve what the mighty US Navy cannot manage on its own there, is that it? That's the question I'm asking myself."
This is from NYT, but beyond a paywall so no link.
Since Republicans are some of the dumbest mfs on the planet, they can't really articulate their ideology. But from their actions we can determine some of the things that are very important in Republicanism:
- greatly reduced US prestige and influence in the world
- Russia's interests
- women and non-whites and liberals and gays and lesbians and transpersons and vegetarians and educated folks reduced to serf status or worse
- greatly reduced ability of US institutions to function
- damage to US economy
- end of democracy and freedom in the US
- end of democracy and freedom outside the US
- utter self-humiliation by the US and by Republicans as individuals
Gift link (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/16/world/europe/europe-iran-war-trump-hormuz-warships.html?unlocked_article_code=1.TlA.jsQm.u8rs1jhb15dV&smid=url-share) to not-exactly-the-same article, but covering the subject more broadly.
Quote from: Jacob on March 16, 2026, 02:41:48 PMIt's quite possible we're through the "things leading to" phase and well into the "by then events were escalating beyond control" phase.
Yes, I agree we have created a major entanglement we will not be able to resolve quickly, and on balance have severely destabilized the region. I do think there's still a modicum of control, but I don't think this administration will come anywhere near exercising it, so I guess it effectively is beyond control at this point.
The most likely way to make this worse would be for the regime to lash out at "disloyal" NATO members who refuse to be drawn into this shitshow. I'm not sure how that would manifest, since Trump only seems to know "bombs" and "tariffs". I still can't fathom the possibility of the former against NATO nations, and the latter is played-out at this point. I really hope the first part isn't wishful thinking by me, though, since that's a quick way to end up in the "then major hostilities commenced" phase.
Quote from: Norgy on March 16, 2026, 11:27:12 AMThere are always more plays for a real estate magnate wanting more to sell.
Norway, for instance. Azerbaijan. Kuwait. But most importantly Brazil. His old friend Bolsonaro is suffering during house arrest. Get Brazil, and you have a jackpot. Country divided between Bolsonaristas and the ones who supported Lula. The highest rate of conversions to Evangelical faiths in the world. Also: Hot chicks, but yucky brown colour.
Old US ally? No matter. Who cares anymore.
Both Bolsonaro and Lula don't object much (ahem), if at all, to Putin's war on Ukraine so Putin could lose another ally? :hmm: Well, happened to Venezuela, but Venezuela was in a much rougher state than Brazil.
Nah, Cuba and Nicaragua first.
Quote from: Zanza on March 16, 2026, 02:19:05 PMAt least we didn't start it this time.
Maybe this time you'll get to end it.
Complete that redemption arc.
One million internal refugees in Lebanon. Because, yes, that country really deserved a good battering.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on March 16, 2026, 03:34:19 PMQuote from: Norgy on March 16, 2026, 11:27:12 AMThere are always more plays for a real estate magnate wanting more to sell.
Norway, for instance. Azerbaijan. Kuwait. But most importantly Brazil. His old friend Bolsonaro is suffering during house arrest. Get Brazil, and you have a jackpot. Country divided between Bolsonaristas and the ones who supported Lula. The highest rate of conversions to Evangelical faiths in the world. Also: Hot chicks, but yucky brown colour.
Old US ally? No matter. Who cares anymore.
Both Bolsonaro and Lula don't object much (ahem), if at all, to Putin's war on Ukraine so Putin could lose another ally? :hmm: Well, happened to Venezuela, but Venezuela was in a much rougher state than Brazil.
Nah, Cuba and Nicaragua first.
Pretty sure Putin won't mind that much if at the same time he gets to add the scalp of NATO to his belt (after getting the US)
That's a much better Yalta deal than Stalin got, for him indeed.
Still, too soon with the current Gulf War.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on March 16, 2026, 03:34:19 PMQuote from: Norgy on March 16, 2026, 11:27:12 AMThere are always more plays for a real estate magnate wanting more to sell.
Norway, for instance. Azerbaijan. Kuwait. But most importantly Brazil. His old friend Bolsonaro is suffering during house arrest. Get Brazil, and you have a jackpot. Country divided between Bolsonaristas and the ones who supported Lula. The highest rate of conversions to Evangelical faiths in the world. Also: Hot chicks, but yucky brown colour.
Old US ally? No matter. Who cares anymore.
Both Bolsonaro and Lula don't object much (ahem), if at all, to Putin's war on Ukraine so Putin could lose another ally? :hmm: Well, happened to Venezuela, but Venezuela was in a much rougher state than Brazil.
Bolsonaro mostly complains about Chinese windmills causing global warming, while Lula is an old man who likes football and socialism. I know which one has been better for Brazil. The latter. Neither cares much about a war in Europe unless there is money to be made. If Europe expects Brazil to come out and fight... then we have to wait.
Quote from: Norgy on March 16, 2026, 03:52:43 PMQuote from: Duque de Bragança on March 16, 2026, 03:34:19 PMQuote from: Norgy on March 16, 2026, 11:27:12 AMThere are always more plays for a real estate magnate wanting more to sell.
Norway, for instance. Azerbaijan. Kuwait. But most importantly Brazil. His old friend Bolsonaro is suffering during house arrest. Get Brazil, and you have a jackpot. Country divided between Bolsonaristas and the ones who supported Lula. The highest rate of conversions to Evangelical faiths in the world. Also: Hot chicks, but yucky brown colour.
Old US ally? No matter. Who cares anymore.
Both Bolsonaro and Lula don't object much (ahem), if at all, to Putin's war on Ukraine so Putin could lose another ally? :hmm: Well, happened to Venezuela, but Venezuela was in a much rougher state than Brazil.
Bolsonaro mostly complains about Chinese windmills causing global warming, while Lula is an old man who likes football and socialism. I know which one has been better for Brazil. The latter. Neither cares much about a war in Europe unless there is money to be made. If Europe expects Brazil to come out and fight... then we have to wait.
Maybe if we tell them fascists are overruning the continent, they might come and help, like last time.
Few are more fascist than Bolsonaro, though.
Quote from: PJL on March 16, 2026, 04:00:34 PMMaybe if we tell them fascists are overruning the continent, they might come and help, like last time.
They didn't do that until the fascists touched their boats, though.
Quote from: Jacob on March 16, 2026, 02:36:04 PMI don't disagree that Trump's decision-making is purely driven by whatever momentarily soothes his malevolent ego and id. However, I'm pretty confident that the coterie around him has a variety of agendas and plans which they attempt to pursue by manipulating Trump's psychology.
I'm thinking of people like Stephen Miller, Bessent, Rubio, and the like.
So yeah, I contend there's an underlying logic to the Trump administration's actions, even if the logic is perfidious or based on ignorance in many cases. Or perhaps more accurately, there are multiple competing logics depending on which way the Trump-vane blows that day.
OK sure. The grifters around Trump are always looking for how to play to their advantage, whether money or power. But there is no grand plan there.
By logic I mean more than just improvisational grabbing for personal advantage. Any random band of mammalian creatures can pull that off.
What we are seeing and will see is a process whereby Trump and his people try out various post hoc justifications for their actions, or trial various rationalizations, or suggest some sort of secret plan or future intentions. And we've already seen that even the "quality" news organizations fall for the trap of reporting these random brain farts seriously, perhaps out of force of habit from the days of reporting normal presidents or out of sheer desperate hope that somewhere in the deep in this sewer of an administration, someone knows something about what they are doing.
But they don't. We have more than enough evidence to know many times over that no one there has a clue what they are doing.
The "plan" at this point is reactively try a bunch of random crap and hope something works, like a contestant spinning the Wheel of Fortune and hoping. But even if these guys luck out and land on the vacation to Acapulco, they'd still find a way to screw it up, buying every vowel till there's none left, and still failing to solve the puzzle even with every letter filled in because the fool in charge can't read.
I read they all got new shoes. That's a fairly low payoff for selling your soul.
Quote from: Norgy on March 16, 2026, 04:21:29 PMI read they all got new shoes. That's a fairly low payoff for selling your soul.
badly fitting at that. but then their souls didn't fit either
Quote from: Norgy on March 16, 2026, 03:52:43 PMQuote from: Duque de Bragança on March 16, 2026, 03:34:19 PMQuote from: Norgy on March 16, 2026, 11:27:12 AMThere are always more plays for a real estate magnate wanting more to sell.
Norway, for instance. Azerbaijan. Kuwait. But most importantly Brazil. His old friend Bolsonaro is suffering during house arrest. Get Brazil, and you have a jackpot. Country divided between Bolsonaristas and the ones who supported Lula. The highest rate of conversions to Evangelical faiths in the world. Also: Hot chicks, but yucky brown colour.
Old US ally? No matter. Who cares anymore.
Both Bolsonaro and Lula don't object much (ahem), if at all, to Putin's war on Ukraine so Putin could lose another ally? :hmm: Well, happened to Venezuela, but Venezuela was in a much rougher state than Brazil.
Bolsonaro mostly complains about Chinese windmills causing global warming, while Lula is an old man who likes football and socialism. I know which one has been better for Brazil. The latter. Neither cares much about a war in Europe unless there is money to be made. If Europe expects Brazil to come out and fight... then we have to wait.
Nobody expected them to fight, just not siding with the Kremlin while losing money in the process, cf. ammo that Germany was about to pay to gift to Ukraine.
Also, Lula's socialism is of the extremely corrupt variety, since his second term, so it's not doing a lot of good to Brazil.
Less crazy than Mijairzinho though, give or take an export embargo on musical instruments precious wood.
Both are dependent on Russian fertilisers, anyways. Their respective political clientèles with peasants and magnates, as a matter of fact.
Stop sanewahsing Trump, guys.
Also, lol, Trump WAS going to bail on the allies once they took over policing the strait:
QuoteThey should come and they should help us protect it. You could make the case that maybe we shouldn't even be there at all, because we don't need it. We have a lot of oil. We're the number one producer anywhere in the world times two."
Lula is on his first new term, actually. :hug:
Quote from: Norgy on March 16, 2026, 05:12:39 PMLula is on his first new term, actually. :hug:
Third, including those of 2003-2011, but you understood perfectly what I said. ;)
Enjoy your Global South Lava-Jato (Car wash) corrupt pro-Putin selective anti-imperialist while you can, he is paving the way for more Bolsonaro and the like.
P-S: added a translation.
Something to consider: If NATO doesn't back Trump, then that gives him justification for taking Greenland and ending the freeloading organization once and for all. Sane? Absolutely not. Reasonable? Nope. Trumpian? 100%
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on March 16, 2026, 06:58:18 PMSomething to consider: If NATO doesn't back Trump, then that gives him justification for taking Greenland and ending the freeloading organization once and for all. Sane? Absolutely not. Reasonable? Nope. Trumpian? 100%
I don't think "don't upset our NATO friends because they won't support us in the future" was why he backed down on Greenland.
And NATO is dying already, it's just a matter of when it actually passes now.
It looks like the Iran war is going to significantly impact South Koreas semi-conductor industry.
QuoteThe Iran War Is Also Now a Semiconductor Problem
The conflict is exposing the deep energy vulnerabilities of Korea's chip industry.
The Iran conflict has triggered dramatic economic effects across the globe, but despite its location far away from the warzone, South Korea has felt outsized shocks. The country's stock market plunged 18 percent in just four trading days—the worst drop since the 2008 financial crisis—and wiped out more than $500 billion in market value as the energy security disruption has cascaded through Korea's semiconductor-heavy stock market.
But the market panic was only the surface symptom, exposing a deeper structural weakness in Korea's economy. South Korea suffers from a persistent energy vulnerability, and geopolitical shocks can quickly translate into acute economic pain. When these shocks threaten the conditions that allow major industries—particularly Korea's booming semiconductor trade—to operate smoothly, the entire economy feels it immediately.
In other words, the Iran war and closure of Hormuz did not create this problem. Instead, it revealed how a decades‑old dependence has become far more dangerous for an energy-poor economy.
Full article here: https://carnegieendowment.org/emissary/2026/03/iran-korea-semiconductor-chips-energy-oil-hormuz
https://apnews.com/article/trump-iran-war-former-president-confession-37d8ffa692903d41c47a85245244d971
QuoteTrump says a former president had an Iran confession. Aides to his predecessors deny recent contact
WASHINGTON (AP) — Twice on Monday, President Donald Trump said he'd wrangled a confession of sorts from an Oval Office predecessor who he said had expressed regret in a private conversation about not attacking Iran the way Trump has been doing for more than two weeks.
But there's just a little problem: Representatives for the four living former presidents — three Democrats and one Republican — said none have been in touch with Trump recently.
Trump declined to name the former president when reporters asked who it was, saying he didn't want to "embarrass him."
The Republican president first told the story during extended remarks about the Iran war as he opened a meeting of the board of trustees of the Kennedy Center. Trump is chairman of the board and held the meeting at the White House.
He repeated that Iran had been a threat to the United States for decades but said he is the only president who had the courage to do something about it.
"Look, for 47 years, no president was willing to do what I'm doing, and they should have done it a long time ago," he said. "It would have been a lot easier. There's no president that wanted to do it.
"And yet every president knew. I've spoken to a certain president, who I like, actually, a past president, a former president. He said, 'I wish I did it, I wish I did,' but they didn't do it. I'm doing it," Trump continued.
Asked which former president he'd spoken to, Trump said: "I can't tell you that. I don't want to embarrass him. It would be very bad for his career, even though he's got no career."
Representatives for each of former Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Joe Biden said they had not spoken with Trump recently. The individuals spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the former presidents' private conversations.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment after being informed that none of the former presidents said he had spoken with Trump recently.
Trump and all four past presidents were last together in the same space for his inauguration on Jan. 20, 2025 — well before the war.
He has been extremely critical of Biden and Obama, often saying Biden is the "worst president in the history of our country" and accusing Obama of negotiating a "horrible deal" with Iran over its nuclear weapons. Trump withdrew the U.S. from that agreement the first time he was president.
But the Republican recently offered sympathetic comments about Clinton, saying it "bothers" him that the former president had been called to give a deposition to Congress about his friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
"I liked Bill Clinton. I still like Bill Clinton," Trump said in a Feb. 4 interview with NBC News. "I liked his behavior toward me. I thought he got me, he understood me."
Trump repeated his story about discussing Iran with a former president later Monday in the Oval Office, where he announced that Vice President JD Vance will lead a task force that was created to eliminate fraud in federal benefit programs.
"Was it George W. Bush?" a reporter asked.
"No," Trump said.
"Was it Bill Clinton?" the reporter asked.
Trump said: "I don't want to say. I don't want to say," then added that "it's somebody that happens to like me. And I like that person, who's a smart person. But that person said, 'I wish I did it,' OK, but I don't want to get into who, OK. I don't want to get them into trouble."
Must've been Carter, then. Uhm. No. He was an actual president of peace.
I could imagine Cheney possibly regretting this. But even that's a stretch
Nah, it was the 45th President.
Quote from: Solmyr on March 17, 2026, 04:38:45 AMNah, it was the 45th President.
:lmfao: yeah, can only be that one
He was a great guy, the second best president :lol:
Got to hand it to the Trumpists. It was nearly impossible to make the Mullahs the good guys, but somehow they pulled it off
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DV1f1SPDMsF/?igsh=cGozd3Z4dW1ib3Vv
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg4g66r3z40o
QuoteTop US counterterrorism official resigns over Iran war, urging Trump to 'reverse course'
The Trump administration's top official on counterterrorism has resigned from his position, citing opposition to the war in Iran, and urged the president to "reverse course".
In a letter posted on Tuesday to his X account, National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent said that Iran posed "no imminent threat" to the US and claimed that the Trump administration "started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby".
Kent, 45, is a US special forces and CIA veteran whose wife, navy cryptologic technician Shannon Kent, was killed in a suicide bombing in Syria in 2019.
The BBC has contacted the White House for comment on Kent's resignation.
With his departure, Kent becomes the most high-profile figure from within the Trump administration to publicly criticise the US-Israeli operation in Iran.
In the letter, Kent said that had previously supported Trump's foreign policy platform and until last year believed that he had "had understood that the wars in the Middle East that robbed America of the precious lives of our patriots and depleted the wealth and prosperity of our nation."
Additionally, Kent alleged that "high-ranking Israeli officials" and influential US journalists had sowed "misinformation" that caused Trump to undermine his "America First" platform.
"This echo chamber was used to deceive you into believing that Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States," the letter continued. "This was a lie."
Kent, a long-time supporter of Trump's who unsuccessfully ran for Congress twice, was nominated by the president early in his administration and narrowly confirmed to his post in, with many Democrats criticising his links to extremist groups including members of the Proud Boys.
In the confirmation hearing, Kent also refused to back away from claims that federal agents had fomented the January 6 riots at the US Capitol or that Trump had won the 2020 election.
At the National Counterterrorism Center, he reported to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and oversaw the analysis and detection of potential terrorist threats from around the globe.
Previously, Kent had deployed 11 times overseas with the US military, including with the US Army's special forces in Iraq.
He later became a paramilitary officer at the CIA, before leaving government service after his wife's death.
Kent cited his military service and her death in his letter, saying that he "cannot support sending the next generation off to fight and die in a war that serves no benefit to the American people nor justifies the cost of American lives."
There have been a number of resignations among senior officials in the Trump administration, including Security and Exchange Commission enforcement director Margaret Ryan and Kennedy Center President Ric Grenell.
The president's second term, however, has seen far less turnover than his previous tenure at the White House between 2017 and 2021.
(https://i.ibb.co/d3KrQd6/image.png)
I am not so sure that a known conspiracy theorist is a reliable source for an explanation of why the US started this war.
Especially when the explanation does not include the words "Epstein Files".
Trump no longer needs NATO support, or so he says:
QuoteTrump says Nato allies making 'foolish mistake'
published at 17:07
17:07
US President Donald Trump speaks during his meeting with Taoiseach of Ireland Micheal Martin in the Oval Office
IMAGE SOURCE, EPA/SHUTTERSTOCK
Trump responds to a question about getting America's allies to help with escorting oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz.
"Well we don't need any help," Trump begins, saying Nato allies had been in favour of what the US did - saying it was very important that they take out the nuclear threat from Iran.
The US has done that "very strongly", he says, adding that they have wiped out Iran's military, navy and air force.
On Nato - Trump says they are making "a foolish mistake".
"We don't need them but they should've been there."
Asked a follow up question on Macron's comments that France won't join a taskforce in Hormuz until the hostilities finish, Trump says he will be out of office soon.
Foolish mistake? Takes one to know, I guess.
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cx2lr40g17kt (https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cx2lr40g17kt)
Technically true about Macron if soon = medium term as in next year, but siding with Trump vs Iran is political suicide, across all the French political spectrum.
https://apnews.com/live/iran-war-israel-trump-03-17-2026#0000019c-fc83-de2d-addd-ffb3525d0000
QuoteIn a lengthy statement on X, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Kent's letter contained "many false claims" and aggressively disputed his argument that Iran did not pose an imminent threat.
"As President Trump has clearly and explicitly stated, he had strong and compelling evidence that Iran was going to attack the United States first," Leavitt said. "This evidence was compiled from many sources and factors. President Trump would never make the decision to deploy military assets against a foreign adversary in a vacuum."
Leavitt also said the allegation that Trump acted against Iran under the influence from Israel is "both insulting and laughable."
Days after launching the war, Trump administration officials told congressional staff in private briefings that U.S. intelligence did not suggest Iran was preparing to launch a preemptive strike against the U.S.
:unsure:
This administration makes Veep look like West Wing.
Also, Trump in 1980, saying he would have gone in with troops to free the hostages in Iran:
https://youtu.be/YKV0-EmtZG8?t=2276
As Trump threatened invasions of two NATO members recently, I guess this rejection will not make a difference. He seemed fixated on ending NATO even before.
Quote from: Zanza on March 17, 2026, 01:20:53 PMAs Trump threatened invasions of two NATO members recently, I guess this rejection will not make a difference. He seemed fixated on ending NATO even before.
indeed.
I think he's mainly upset that our NATO allies are not US vassals the way the tankie army keeps claiming they are.
I thought NATO was a purely defensive alliance anyways. Which always made Putins hysterics about it irreverent.
Buddy told me about a twitter post he saw (rephrasing from memory):
"There'll be no World War III. The numbered release model isn't working for us, we've transitioned to a Seasonal DLC release model."
Quote from: Bauer on March 17, 2026, 02:56:18 PMI thought NATO was a purely defensive alliance anyways. Which always made Putins hysterics about it irreverent.
Purely defensive alliances can still be very aggressive, if they keep you from regaining the territory that you consider yours.
Quote from: Syt on March 17, 2026, 10:32:36 AMhttps://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg4g66r3z40o
QuoteTop US counterterrorism official resigns over Iran war, urging Trump to 'reverse course'
His act of political seppuku is actually a boon for everyone all around.
I tried to find a non shitty source, but it was this or the Dailybeast.
(//http:///url)
QuoteA French general has said joining President Donald Trump's war is like buying a discounted ticket for the Titanic after it had already hit the iceberg.
"You can't have an American operation where they're bombing whatever they can, and then below that, the Europeans doing something else," Yakovleff said. "No, no, no, it has to be one sole operation, under a NATO flag. I don't think he's understood that."
He then went further, rejecting the idea that European ships would enforce his blockade while U.S. forces nearby waged a broader war all around them. Instead, he said the U.S. needed to make it crystal clear what it wanted from the conflict.
"The Americans have to put this in writing. Not tweets, not things that change every two minutes," he said.
Yakovleff then claimed that sending ships to help Trump went beyond simply putting those vessels at risk. Instead, he said it opened the door to becoming involved in the conflict's politics.
"It's not a question of military means, the Strait of Hormuz," he said. "It's that he wants to share the political risk... not the military risk."
His words echoed those of German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius, who said, "What does Trump expect from a handful of European frigates that the powerful U.S. Navy cannot do?" the BBC reports. "This is not our war. We have not started it."
He would let us down whenever it suited him," he continued on LCI, before stating, "On the Titanic, it appears the captain wanted to sell tickets off cheaply for the dinner-dance after hitting the iceberg. It's not the moment to be buying a cut-price ticket for the Titanic."
"And the last argument is American: you don't reinforce failure. I learnt that at the U.S. Army War College. You don't reinforce failure, you move on, you find something else."
[...]
That was brutal. :lol:
I've seen a few quotes from Yakovleff over the years, most of which I've liked.
Is he still active service or retired?
Quote from: Jacob on March 17, 2026, 08:41:33 PMI've seen a few quotes from Yakovleff over the years, most of which I've liked.
Is he still active service or retired?
In the French system he's in a kind of semi-retired state. No job, still paid but always available.
Sounds like a great job if you can get it :lol:
Zero hour jobs in France? All the Gitanes you can smoke and Boccuse d'Or dishes? Where do I sign up? :lol:
Quote from: Norgy on March 17, 2026, 09:22:07 PMZero hour jobs in France? All the Gitanes you can smoke and Boccuse d'Or dishes? Where do I sign up? :lol:
That's called Reserve ;)
You still have to maintain your shape, have some military exercises to maintain your level, be ready for possible deployment if the shit hits the fan.
(https://i.imgur.com/Wbk7pLm.jpeg)
Long live the Eternal President (s) ?
Donald believes in some form of reincarnation? Obama and Biden were always alive and always President for 47 years, they always reincarnated into new bodies?
I wonder, in the future*, if conservatives will admit what a shit show of a president Trump was. Delusion is strong, so who knows.
* if we survive long enough.
I don't think that's a real post. But it sure could have been.
Yeah, it's fake, but telling that it's hard to tell.
https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.A3MX8KF
It is not like Trump's answers to the press make much more sense.
Being both John Lennon and saying war is over and that victory is imminent but not yet must be Orwellian talk at a very high level. This is not a case of the press asking the wrong questions.
I always knew Obama was impressive, but starting a major international war at age 17 has got to make him the GOAT.
George Washington didn't manage to pull that off until he was 22.
Israel bombed the biggest Iranian gas field today. Iran threatened retaliation. <_<
I read an estimate today that the global economic damage from closing the Straits is 14 billion USD per day. :wacko:
Seems like regime change is off the table.
Quote from: Zanza on March 18, 2026, 12:17:34 PMIsrael bombed the biggest Iranian gas field today. Iran threatened retaliation. <_<
Looks like a complete dismantling of the Iranian state. They'll retaliate against Gulf energy infrastructure.
Quote from: Syt on March 18, 2026, 02:59:59 AMYeah, it's fake, but telling that it's hard to tell.
https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.A3MX8KF
Ah fuck. I've been had again. I should better check my sources with these fake news stuff. It looked so real.
Seems the US is running out of time too.
Trump ally warns US economy not strong enough to cope with Iran war (https://archive.is/rygdQ)
One-time pick to lead key statistics body EJ Antoni says inflation was 'worse than we thought' even before conflict QuoteDonald Trump's one-time pick to lead the Bureau of Labor Statistics has said the US economy is too weak to handle oil at $100 per barrel as he warned of rising consumer prices triggered by the war in Iran.
"I don't think this is an economy that is going to be able to handle $100 a barrel for oil, it's just not," EJ Antoni told the FT.
"The economy is weaker than we thought it was, and inflation is worse than we thought it was," he added in a call on Wednesday, shortly before the Federal Reserve's March rate (https://archive.is/o/rygdQ/https://www.ft.com/us-interest-rates)-setting meeting.
"The lower energy prices that we saw in 2025 helped put downward pressure on prices throughout the economy. Now . . . we're going to see higher energy prices have exactly the opposite effect and put upward pressure on prices throughout the economy."
Trump picked Antoni, the conservative Heritage Foundation's chief economist, to lead the US labour statistics agency in August, shortly after firing the former commissioner for a gloomy jobs report the president claimed was "rigged".
He abruptly withdrew Antoni's nomination a month later and ultimately settled on government economist Brett Matsumoto, whose confirmation is subject to Senate approval.
Antoni's remarks on the health of the world's largest economy come a day after the director of the US National Counterterrorism Center resigned (https://archive.is/o/rygdQ/https://www.ft.com/content/f3dad979-875e-4ee7-836c-264890d5df6b) in protest at the Iran war, marking the first significant defection from the Trump administration since the conflict began.
Republicans are meanwhile growing increasingly worried that high oil (https://archive.is/o/rygdQ/https://www.ft.com/oil) prices — Brent crude jumped 5 per cent to almost $110 a barrel on Wednesday — will dent their chances in the midterm elections. Petrol prices at the pump have surged to $3.84 a gallon from $2.92 a month ago, while diesel has exceeded $5 — exerting a heavy toll on US consumers and businesses.
Economic data collected before the US and Israel launched their attack on Iran has done little to ease those concerns.
US GDP in the fourth quarter of 2025 was last week revised to 0.7 per cent from an initial estimate of 1.4 per cent, while data released on Wednesday showed US wholesale prices rose at a faster clip than expected in February, even before the war began. The US economy (https://archive.is/o/rygdQ/https://www.ft.com/us-economy) last month shed 92,000 jobs, in a sharp slide that eroded most of January's gains.
Antoni highlighted "a lack of job growth" in the US, some of which he attributed to last year's cuts to the federal workforce, and renewed his attacks on the BLS, which he likened to "a random number generator" in a post on X last May.
"You need a complete and total top-down review of everything from the data collection to the data processing and even the data dissemination, because there have been a few issues with leaks," he said. In January, Trump posted some of December's US jobs figures hours before their official release.
Antoni refused to be drawn on how Trump told him he was no longer his pick to lead the BLS, saying he would "rather keep those conversations confidential".
Edit: fixed the font size
Strikes a "extensive damage" reported at Qatar's natural gas facility.
Guess I should refill my gas tank on the way home.
Who would have thought that a man who's so bad with money that he bankrupted casinos would bankrupt America.
Quote from: HVC on March 18, 2026, 02:38:32 PMWho would have thought that a man who's so bad with money that he bankrupted casinos would bankrupt America.
Most people? This is self-inflicted injury. Sadly, that happens a lot.
Quote from: Norgy on March 18, 2026, 02:55:17 PMQuote from: HVC on March 18, 2026, 02:38:32 PMWho would have thought that a man who's so bad with money that he bankrupted casinos would bankrupt America.
Most people? This is self-inflicted injury. Sadly, that happens a lot.
Well 50%* of the voting Americans didn't... twice :P
*and probably a good chunk of those that didnt vote since they would have voted against him otherwise.
Quote from: Zanza on March 18, 2026, 12:17:34 PMIsrael bombed the biggest Iranian gas field today. Iran threatened retaliation. <_<
This is part of the differing risk calculation. I think Israel is willing to have semi-constant "mowing the grass" strikes against Iran, to have Iran as a failed state, to have Iran Balkanise - or, optimistically, regime change.
And Israel (under Bibi) is basically willing to bear whatever the costs of that are. Such as global economic crisis or effectively the Gulf states (and wider regional instability).
I don't think Trump or anyone else in the US is really in the same place. (Even the bomb Iran types like Bolton at least implied a belief in responsibility and reconstruction.
Edit: And the point on this is even if they want to, who can de-escalate? As Javier Blas pointed out, either Israel did this with US support which is not great or they did it despite US opposition which is very, very bad.
QuoteI read an estimate today that the global economic damage from closing the Straits is 14 billion USD per day. :wacko:
Although at this point it's not fully closed. Chinese shipping is getting through. Turkiye and India have negotiated passage for their vessels too. I can't help but wonder if this is sort of the beginning of the end of the free maritime passage under American protection - particularly if the Houthis also get involved - and various chokepoints effectively become tolled where you negotiate passage with the powers that can shut them down.
(And basically they're the chokepoints the British empire was obsessed with, particularly after moving to an oil based navy: Suez, Aden/Yemen, the Gulf and Persia, Singapore.)
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on March 18, 2026, 02:25:45 PMStrikes a "extensive damage" reported at Qatar's natural gas facility.
Yeah - if Israel's struck major gas fields there is going to be escalation by Iran.
I think there is a challenge for Europe here as the world's largest importer of LNG. It is massively increasing our dependence on the US if Qatari and Russian gas are off our list of options:
(https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/meips/ADKq_NbH2EqPuXXjXRK753dLRRQ0qRaUdAgnCowhY0PcITCQe_MCeZPBD85n1HanIebr1RYYJgwM4TEYMIFk79-XxZh2aa6LqiwA4KbduFfSoWCOnlhV8xgwKdEMNFBnqMMX1tJYtLZ8wkTXBD0mJn8R06OB32r6Fj7fgX3ynHCEXj1FGpIw9hvuNj0sF1Ez_cGd54y3kHENu3RHw-6YU-JLeLuXYvsioJh3CoJgU-ezKz1bqt3gEK5pbklUSyvSLDIxkK_4v3Z9OdI6-_DiLceWf8csn0sgNpRtlh1jsp6lQhuGjy-qraNK3TliYsRkWPzP27ZvxVk=s0-d-e1-ft#https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!AQwT!,w_1100,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F71d12855-27d6-4f36-8bb7-7cb06b49e849_1530x852.png)
Build nukes -_-
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 18, 2026, 03:52:44 PMQuote from: Zanza on March 18, 2026, 12:17:34 PMIsrael bombed the biggest Iranian gas field today. Iran threatened retaliation. <_<
This is part of the differing risk calculation. I think Israel is willing to have semi-constant "mowing the grass" strikes against Iran, to have Iran as a failed state, to have Iran Balkanise - or, optimistically, regime change.
And Israel (under Bibi) is basically willing to bear whatever the costs of that are. Such as global economic crisis or effectively the Gulf states (and wider regional instability).
Well, yeah there's no Strait of Hormuz problem at all, if all the energy infrastructure in the Gulf and Iran is toast. :contract:
Based on snippets I have read since the war started my half-educated guess is that Iran was willing to partially bend the knee to Trump in the negotiations, so Bibi convinced him to awe the world with a Venezuela-stlye decapitation instead, since it didn't serve his interest to give Iran or indeed Israel, breathing room.
Quote from: Tamas on March 18, 2026, 04:12:39 PMBased on snippets I have read since the war started my half-educated guess is that Iran was willing to partially bend the knee to Trump in the negotiations, so Bibi convinced him to awe the world with a Venezuela-stlye decapitation instead, since it didn't serve his interest to give Iran or indeed Israel, breathing room.
That's more or less my take, too.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 18, 2026, 03:52:44 PMAlthough at this point it's not fully closed. Chinese shipping is getting through. Turkiye and India have negotiated passage for their vessels too. I can't help but wonder if this is sort of the beginning of the end of the free maritime passage under American protection - particularly if the Houthis also get involved - and various chokepoints effectively become tolled where you negotiate passage with the powers that can shut them down.
(And basically they're the chokepoints the British empire was obsessed with, particularly after moving to an oil based navy: Suez, Aden/Yemen, the Gulf and Persia, Singapore.)
I've seen some talk in Denmark about closing the Sound and Belts to the Russian shadow tanker fleet.
Quote from: Tamas on March 18, 2026, 04:12:39 PMBased on snippets I have read since the war started my half-educated guess is that Iran was willing to partially bend the knee to Trump in the negotiations, so Bibi convinced him to awe the world with a Venezuela-stlye decapitation instead, since it didn't serve his interest to give Iran or indeed Israel, breathing room.
That was definitely a mistake by Iran; they should have continued to play hardball. OTOH, they're in a much better position now than they were before the war, as long as they don't keep losing key figures in the administration and military.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 18, 2026, 03:52:44 PMThis is part of the differing risk calculation. I think Israel is willing to have semi-constant "mowing the grass" strikes against Iran, to have Iran as a failed state, to have Iran Balkanise - or, optimistically, regime change.
That's really nuts if true. Iran is not Lebanon. Israel does not have the capacity to maintain such a tempo long term. And while it may be possible to create "failed state" conditions, the last time that happened in the region we got ISIS.
QuoteAnd Israel (under Bibi) is basically willing to bear whatever the costs of that are.
No he is willing to have the United States bear whatever the cost. Also not sustainable.
Dumb geopolitical question, can the suez be made deeper to allow tankers through? Even if possible does the traffic make it impractical?
*edit* new pipes would be required too I suppose
*edit 2 * although if you're building new pipelines through Saudi I guess you can just go through the gulf of Aden.
Quote from: HVC on March 18, 2026, 05:00:58 PMDumb geopolitical question, can the suez be made deeper to allow tankers through? Even if possible does the traffic make it impractical?
*edit* new pipes would be required too I suppose
Tankers regularly go through Suez already. The problem is the gas fields and infrastructure are in the Gulf (and Iran has already attacked the pipelines that could help bypass the Gulf - they launched that attack after the US bombed Kharg).
If the Houthis get involved the major impact is that a lot of Europe-Asia trade goes through Suez and the Red Sea. So you'd have a major chunk of the worlds fosssil fuels blocked on one side and basically all Europe-Asia trade having to go round the Cape of Good Hope on the other.
Quote from: HVC on March 18, 2026, 03:03:55 PMWell 50%* of the voting Americans didn't... twice :P
*and probably a good chunk of those that didnt vote since they would have voted against him otherwise.
Once. :sleep:
But of course, the Electoral college worked out differently the first time.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 18, 2026, 05:06:30 PMQuote from: HVC on March 18, 2026, 05:00:58 PMDumb geopolitical question, can the suez be made deeper to allow tankers through? Even if possible does the traffic make it impractical?
*edit* new pipes would be required too I suppose
Tankers regularly go through Suez already. The problem is the gas fields and infrastructure are in the Gulf (and Iran has already attacked the pipelines that could help bypass the Gulf - they launched that attack after the US bombed Kharg).
If the Houthis get involved the major impact is that a lot of Europe-Asia trade goes through Suez and the Red Sea. So you'd have a major chunk of the worlds fosssil fuels blocked on one side and basically all Europe-Asia trade having to go round the Cape of Good Hope on the other.
The two major pipelines that allow KSA and UAE to bypass the Strait with a portion of their production are both fully operational BTW. The issue is neither is capable of carrying the entirety of either country's production (the KSA pipeline is far more significant), and of course they offer no transit for the other gulf states.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 18, 2026, 05:21:57 PMQuote from: HVC on March 18, 2026, 03:03:55 PMWell 50%* of the voting Americans didn't... twice :P
*and probably a good chunk of those that didnt vote since they would have voted against him otherwise.
Once. :sleep:
But of course, the Electoral college worked out differently the first time.
In 2024 Trump got 49.8% of the vote. He got 46.7% in 2020 and 46.1% in 2016.
Yes...somehow despite constantly lying and failing and doing insane idiotic things his percentage of the vote has gone up each time. Hence why I have lost faith in my country and it's people.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 18, 2026, 05:29:43 PMThe two major pipelines that allow KSA and UAE to bypass the Strait with a portion of their production are both fully operational BTW. The issue is neither is capable of carrying the entirety of either country's production (the KSA pipeline is far more significant), and of course they offer no transit for the other gulf states.
I thought the Iranians had hit Fujairah?
And as well as no transit for the rest I think all that infrastructure is for oil not gas?
Quote from: viper37 on March 18, 2026, 01:30:08 PMSeems the US is running out of time too.
Trump ally warns US economy not strong enough to cope with Iran war (https://archive.is/rygdQ)
It's interesting because factually speaking, the U.S. can easily bear the increase cost in oil. In fact right now oil isn't that expensive. It's $98 a barrel for WTI, the most relevant measure for U.S. purposes. It has been higher than this before--and it's been over $100 a barrel for extended periods without causing anything like an economic collapse.
I think it's more correct to say the U.S.
public has close to zero tolerance for what, in historical terms, would be categorized as relatively mild economic pain. It is a huge weakness of the U.S., and it's probably worth at some point discerning how things got to be this way.
What's interesting about energy prices and their intersection with politics--America is almost "psychotically" obsessed with the price per gallon of gasoline. To a level that I think many would find unreasonable elsewhere.
If you check out the EIA, there was an 18 month period from 2007 to 2008 where gasoline was over $3/gallon for 15 of those months (including a couple of months where it was over $4/gallon.) These aren't inflation-adjusted, this was almost 20 years ago and gasoline was roughly in the same ballpark price as it is today. In a country where
virtually everything else is more expensive now than it was in 2007-08. For most commodities, if you were able to say "this is the same price it was in 2007", that would be considered pretty good news.
The average U.S. household uses about 56 gallons of gasoline per month. If gas was at $2 that's $112/month on gasoline. At $4 it's $224 a month.
The simple fact is it is very difficult to understand a "rational" reason people get so upset about a nominal price increase in that range--versus, as a quick example, in the months of December, January and February my electric bill was around $500/mo, versus around $300/mo over that same span last year (we heat with electric heat pump and the location our home is in does not have any alternative fuel sources unless we want to get buried propane or fuel oil, both of which are prone to wild price spikes.)
My home cable / internet bill has been over $200/mo for years and years.
I'm not necessarily trying to say the increase in the cost of oil has no "real" impact on the U.S. economy, but I am saying compared to what I consider "real" economic costs, like "war of survival" level economic costs the U.S. bore many times in the past, it doesn't amount to anything that real. It's nowhere near the economic cost Iran has born for a decade or more from sanctions, or anything approaching the costs Iran or Israel is bearing from the war right now.
And yet--I fully agree with the assessment, the U.S. can't bear it because it has virtually no public political will to bear any costs at all. Interesting scenario for America to find itself in. We are not the same country that did rationing to beat Hitler and the Japanese.
Yes nearly everyone BUT Bibi's Israel is bearing the cost of this war; he's happy for it to be a forever war, keeps him in power and out of jail.
Israel is certainly bearing the cost of the war in economic terms as can be easily discerned from looking at numerous economic reports on the ongoing cost of Israel's wars dating back to October 7th are well known.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 18, 2026, 05:34:40 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 18, 2026, 05:29:43 PMThe two major pipelines that allow KSA and UAE to bypass the Strait with a portion of their production are both fully operational BTW. The issue is neither is capable of carrying the entirety of either country's production (the KSA pipeline is far more significant), and of course they offer no transit for the other gulf states.
I thought the Iranians had hit Fujairah?
And as well as no transit for the rest I think all that infrastructure is for oil not gas?
So there's a few separate things at play:
1. Fujairah Port on the Gulf of Oman is a major oil export terminal for UAE, it is on the other side of the Strait of Hormuz. The UAE's pipeline system allows oil to go from the UAE's oil fields to Fujairah, bypassing the need to go through the Strait. However, even at full capacity of both the pipeline and Fujairah, this isn't enough to get UAE's full production to market. Some is simply stymied by the closure of the Strait.
Two days ago the port facilities in Fujairah were hit, resulting in a partial shut down. The pipeline as far as I know was not damaged.
2. The KSA East/West pipeline actually goes all the way to the Red Sea, not just bypassing the Strait of Hormuz but bypassing the entire eastern coastline of the Arabian peninsula. This pipeline carries 7m bpd, and as far as I know has not been interrupted at present.
The KSA pipeline has two main pipes, one of which sometimes is configured to carry natural gas instead of liquid petroleum, but due to the greater profitability and importance to KSA's economy of exporting crude oil vs natural gas, both pipes are currently moving crude oil.
3. The UAE's Shah gas field was directly struck, the full scope of the damage and impact on production is, AFAIK, not known at this time.
Thanks - that's very interesting.
Hamidreza Azizi's latest update - I don't think I've posted a full one before. But three things seem particularly interesting to me: the domestic crackdown in Iran, what's happening in Iraq (and between Iraq and Syria) and the Houthis waiting for their moment (when the US commits to trying to re-open Hormuz? When tankers are diverted into the Red Sea?):
QuoteHamidreza Azizi
@HamidRezaAz
#Iran War Update No. 18 (focus on Iranian strategic narrative):
🔹The maritime dimension of the war is moving toward a more dangerous phase. Reports suggest Israel may join the U.S. in expanding operations around the Strait of Hormuz, while Iranian discussions increasingly point to a possible shift from selective disruption to full closure, including the use of naval mines if pressure intensifies.
🔹At the same time, U.S. strikes are becoming more focused on degrading Iran's maritime disruption capabilities. CENTCOM confirmed the use of heavy bunker-busting munitions against Iranian anti-ship missile sites near the Strait of Hormuz, underscoring efforts to reopen the waterway by force if necessary.
🔹Iran continues signaling that escalation could extend to additional chokepoints. The Houthis remain a ready secondary front, with the potential to target shipping in the Bab el-Mandeb if pressure on Hormuz increases, forcing the U.S. to operate across multiple maritime theaters.
🔹Attacks on Gulf states continued, with the UAE facing one of the heaviest waves so far. Emirati officials report thousands of drone and missile strikes since the start of the war, raising the likelihood that Abu Dhabi may move toward a more active role in supporting the U.S. operation against Iran.
🔹This raises the risk of a sharper Iran-UAE confrontation. Iranian concerns about the UAE's role in the war and its potential ambitions regarding disputed islands in the Persian Gulf are resurfacing, suggesting that this front could escalate further.
🔹Iran has also expanded its warnings to additional regional actors. Statements directed at Jordan and Azerbaijan claimed that any country facilitating U.S. or Israeli operations could be treated as a legitimate target.
🔹Inside Iran, Israeli operations appear increasingly focused on internal security structures. Strikes on Basij forces and police units across Tehran suggest an effort to weaken the regime's domestic control apparatus rather than only its conventional military capabilities.
🔹This has heightened fears in Tehran of internal destabilization. Authorities are intensifying crackdowns, including arrests, asset seizures, and restrictions on communications such as Starlink, while also encouraging public mobilization – of their own support base – to deter unrest.
🔹The internal security dimension is becoming more acute following reports of targeted killings of senior figures, including Ali Larijani and Basij commander Gholamreza Soleimani.
🔹Meanwhile, tensions in Iraq continue to rise. Attacks on U.S. diplomatic and military sites are increasing, while U.S. strikes on Iran-aligned armed groups are fueling a cycle of escalation that is pulling Iraq deeper into the conflict.
🔹The Iraq-Syria nexus is becoming more volatile. A Reuters report about potential Syrian involvement against Hezbollah surfaced alongside intensified U.S. strikes on PMF positions in Anbar province, following earlier attacks near the al-Qaim border crossing, raising concerns about a broader effort to weaken Iran-aligned forces along this corridor.
🔹Nuclear risks are also entering the picture. A reported strike near the Bushehr nuclear facility has raised concerns about the potential consequences of any direct hit on nuclear infrastructure, including the risk of regional contamination.
🔹Iran continues to leverage the Strait of Hormuz selectively. While most shipping remains disrupted, Iranian oil exports – primarily to China – continue, with estimates suggesting around $140 million per day in revenue and sustained flows, highlighting a strategy of controlled economic pressure rather than total shutdown of the strait.
🔹At the same time, Tehran is increasingly explicit about its conditions for ending the war. Iranian officials state that reopening the strait would require not only a ceasefire, but also compensation, sanctions relief, and an end to operations against its regional allies, including Hezbollah.
🔹This approach is reinforced by emerging patterns of bilateral arrangements. Countries such as India and Turkey are reportedly negotiating access to the strait directly with Iran, suggesting the early contours of a more fragmented and transactional maritime order.
🔹Iranian media is also framing developments in U.S. domestic politics as part of the battlefield. Reports of internal disagreements in Washington and political pressure on Donald Trump are interpreted as signs that Iran's cost-imposition strategy is having an effect.
🔹Overall, Iran appears to be using control over the Strait of Hormuz as leverage, while signs are growing that the United States and Israel are preparing to challenge that strategy more directly. As Tehran continues disruption without fully shutting the strait, recent strikes on coastal missile sites and discussions about expanded operations suggest that Washington and its allies may be moving toward a more forceful effort to reopen maritime routes.
Edit: Also Qatar Energy confirming "extensive damage" to Ras Laffan Industrial City which is in Ed Conway's brilliant book Material World. It's not just really important for gas but also responsible for about a third of the world's helium production - helium is really important in loads of supply chains for medical equipment, semiconductors etc. Lots of other products too so a very signficant site and with "extensive damage" likely to be a big hit to supply chains even if Hormuz is re-opened.
Quote from: Zanza on March 18, 2026, 12:17:34 PMIsrael bombed the biggest Iranian gas field today. Iran threatened retaliation. <_<
I read an estimate today that the global economic damage from closing the Straits is 14 billion USD per day. :wacko:
It's bad
https://fxtwitter.com/NewsWire_US/status/2034337086220681578?s=20
QuoteMajor Fire Breaks Out at Qatar's Ras Laffan LNG Complex After Iranian Attack — World's Largest Facility Affected
https://fxtwitter.com/MenchOsint/status/2034348372346245584?s=20
QuoteAnother angle showing a second Iranian Ballistic Missile direct hit on Riyadh's energy facilities.
https://x.com/i/status/2034386357527752798
QuoteUPDATE: Iran warns will destroy Gulf energy sector if its own attacked again
The Escalation train has no brakes
https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/iran-war-us-israel-trump-03-18-26?post-id=cmmwv6eop00003b6sslrnbn5n
QuotePresident Donald Trump tonight threatened to "massively blow up" Iran's largest gas field, South Pars, if the nation continues attacks on Qatar in retaliation for an Israeli strike on the gas field.
"Israel, out of anger for what has taken place in the Middle East, has violently lashed out at a major facility known as South Pars Gas Field in Iran," Trump posted on Truth Social.
"The United States knew nothing about this particular attack," he said, adding that Qatar was similarly unaware. "Unfortunately, Iran did not know this, or any of the pertinent facts pertaining to the South Pars attack, and unjustifiably and unfairly attacked a portion of Qatar's LNG Gas facility."
Trump said Israel would not attack the gas field again unless Iran strikes an innocent party, "in which instance," he said, "the United States of America, with or without the help or consent of Israel, will massively blow up the entirety of the South Pars Gas Field at an amount of strength and power that Iran has never seen or witnessed before."
On the one hand a petulant fool with an IQ of 70 (I'm being kind), on the other a bunch of ghastly religious fanatics.....it is hard to see how the escalation will not continue.
Quote from: PJL on March 18, 2026, 04:50:31 PMQuote from: Tamas on March 18, 2026, 04:12:39 PMBased on snippets I have read since the war started my half-educated guess is that Iran was willing to partially bend the knee to Trump in the negotiations, so Bibi convinced him to awe the world with a Venezuela-stlye decapitation instead, since it didn't serve his interest to give Iran or indeed Israel, breathing room.
That was definitely a mistake by Iran; they should have continued to play hardball. OTOH, they're in a much better position now than they were before the war, as long as they don't keep losing key figures in the administration and military.
It isn't clear to me that they are now economically better off, which was a big issue facing Iran, right?
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 18, 2026, 05:34:40 PMI thought the Iranians had hit Fujairah?
Blown up yesterday yes in direct retaliation. :hmm: Also the Saudi alternate pipeline infrastructure is apparently just as vulnerable as what is around the Gulf.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 19, 2026, 05:55:05 AMOn the one hand a petulant fool with an IQ of 70 (I'm being kind), on the other a bunch of ghastly religious fanatics.....it is hard to see how the escalation will not continue.
And the Iranians are also matching each attack
Here's Lloyds with this tidbit.
QuoteIran has created a de facto 'safe' shipping corridor through its territorial waters in the Strait of Hormuz, offering vetted vessels passage in exchange for approval — and in at least one case, a reported $2m payment
https://x.com/LloydsList/status/2034317028991869190 (https://x.com/LloydsList/status/2034317028991869190)
Quote-Several governments — including India, Pakistan, Iraq, Malaysia and China — are in direct talks with Tehran, coordinating vessel transits via an emerging IRGC-run registration and vetting system
-At least nine ships have already used the corridor, routed close to Iran's Larak Island for visual checks by IRGC Navy and port authorities
-A more formalised approval process is expected soon, requiring extensive disclosure of vessel ownership and cargo destination, often via Iran-linked intermediaries abroad
-Security experts warn Iranian approval does not guarantee safety, noting IRGC factions could still delay or seize vessels despite clearance
https://www.lloydslist.com/LL1156656/Iran-establishes-safe-shipping-corridor-for-approved-and-paid-for-transits (https://www.lloydslist.com/LL1156656/Iran-establishes-safe-shipping-corridor-for-approved-and-paid-for-transits)
I think "escalation" slightly depends on your perspective. From a global and, particularly a Western, one then this is escalating as it attacks infrastructure, energy and the global economy.
From an Iranian - and I do keep going back to this - the day one attack by Israel and the US was to militarily assassinate their head of state. To an extent that may just be the American way of war - shock and awe, massive overwhelming use of power (because that is always America's advantage) - but I think it means that for Iran this kind of started at 100.
Their goal following that, I think fairly understandably, seems to be to try to get into a position where that cannot happen again. They know the US and Israel are well defended so they can't do the very big attack - they need to ramp it up to wear down defences, exhaust opponents etc. And the one thing they can more easily escalate is the global economy (they can also try to increase the pain on US allies in the region). They're escalating up and down within that - but I do think that first strike is the context for that.
Quote from: Legbiter on March 19, 2026, 06:53:30 AMHere's Lloyds with this tidbit.
QuoteIran has created a de facto 'safe' shipping corridor through its territorial waters in the Strait of Hormuz, offering vetted vessels passage in exchange for approval — and in at least one case, a reported $2m payment
Don't give trump any ideas.
I will say--fully understanding it is negative for the broader global economy, I feel little but schadenfreude at seeing the likes of KSA, UAE, and Qatar suffer economic impacts. All three of these countries are terrible, with toxic rulers and horrifically shitty societies. All three have actively worked to export misery, terrorism, and Islamic extremism abroad. While the wicked autocratic monarchs who rule these countries are probably the "best we're likely to get" in terms of who would govern such fundamentally Islamist regions, that doesn't equate to me actually thinking they're good countries. I think the UAE and Dubai in specific is given far too much cultural acceptance and prominence relative to how terrible the UAE is. I'm not losing any sleep over these guys getting less oil money for a while.
Quote from: HVC on March 19, 2026, 06:55:16 AMQuote from: Legbiter on March 19, 2026, 06:53:30 AMHere's Lloyds with this tidbit.
QuoteIran has created a de facto 'safe' shipping corridor through its territorial waters in the Strait of Hormuz, offering vetted vessels passage in exchange for approval — and in at least one case, a reported $2m payment
Don't give trump any ideas.
He would love this part too.
"Security experts warn Iranian approval does not guarantee safety, noting IRGC factions could still delay or seize vessels despite clearance"
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 19, 2026, 06:54:58 AMI think "escalation" slightly depends on your perspective. From a global and, particularly a Western, one then this is escalating as it attacks infrastructure, energy and the global economy.
From an Iranian - and I do keep going back to this - the day one attack by Israel and the US was to militarily assassinate their head of state. To an extent that may just be the American way of war - shock and awe, massive overwhelming use of power (because that is always America's advantage) - but I think it means that for Iran this kind of started at 100.
Their goal following that, I think fairly understandably, seems to be to try to get into a position where that cannot happen again. They know the US and Israel are well defended so they can't do the very big attack - they need to ramp it up to wear down defences, exhaust opponents etc. And the one thing they can more easily escalate is the global economy (they can also try to increase the pain on US allies in the region). They're escalating up and down within that - but I do think that first strike is the context for that.
Yeah, some might even say this is an asymmetrical war
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 19, 2026, 06:58:31 AMI will say--fully understanding it is negative for the broader global economy, I feel little but schadenfreude at seeing the likes of KSA, UAE, and Qatar suffer economic impacts. All three of these countries are terrible, with toxic rulers and horrifically shitty societies. All three have actively worked to export misery, terrorism, and Islamic extremism abroad. While the wicked autocratic monarchs who rule these countries are probably the "best we're likely to get" in terms of who would govern such fundamentally Islamist regions, that doesn't equate to me actually thinking they're good countries. I think the UAE and Dubai in specific is given far too much cultural acceptance and prominence relative to how terrible the UAE is. I'm not losing any sleep over these guys getting less oil money for a while.
Yeah I'm kind of in the same place.
They are important for the world economy and the British economy. They're allies and I know that Saudi, in particular, is especially I think in the last 10-15 years is really important at intel sharing to prevent terrorism (terrorism often inspired by Saudi funded policies from the 10-15 years before that).
But I think they are awful regimes - possibly from a slightly different perspective. I loathe the UAE model of indentured and borderline enslaved labour from the Indian subcontinent and South-East Asia supporting their post-oil economy of gross consumption, tax exile influencers and even more amoral than normal lawyers from the West enjoying the type of lifestyle that you can only get through massive exploitation of workers (including trafficked sex workers - though I'm always dubious of that phrase when it is coercive/trafficking).
Important, friendly states but they make me go very Savonarola. (I have also enjoyed both the British and French internet having exactly the same memes about HMRC and le fisc waiting at airports for our compatriots being rescued from the zero-tax warzone they moved to.)
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 19, 2026, 07:08:10 AMYeah, some might even say this is an asymmetrical war
Yeah - but also I think from an Iranian perspective it's really difficult for the US and Israel to escalate. They've already killed their head of state.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 19, 2026, 07:21:00 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 19, 2026, 07:08:10 AMYeah, some might even say this is an asymmetrical war
Yeah - but also I think from an Iranian perspective it's really difficult for the US and Israel to escalate. They've already killed their head of state.
I disagree. The US could target Iranian oil facilities. That would be the equivalent of the nuclear option in this region.
Also, I think you give too much importance to the assassination of one person for the Iranians. As already stated many times in this thread, they have been preparing for this eventuality for 40 years. And they've been living with the threat of the Israeli's assassinating their leaders for just as long.
If Ali Khamenei dying was such a big deal then Iran had big problems ahead regardless--dude was 86, well past his sell by date.
Iran did not have a huge problem transitioning from one Ayatollah to the other in 1989, I'm skeptical that in and of itself is a huge governance factor.
The main impact of Ali Khamenei dying whilst not clearly establishing a successor just means the IRGC ended up with even more power, but it was Ali who specifically chose to so dramatically empower the IRGC. Ruhollah Khomeini actually intentionally struck a balance more between IRGC and other power bases in Iran. Without knowing his motivations I assume he was enough of a student of history to recognize a force like the IRGC could quickly become the sort of undesirable Roman "Praetorian Guard" that is the real power behind the throne. Khomeini was a true believer in clerical rule, and I think you don't have true clerical rule if the clerics are poorly theologically formed puppets of powerful IRGC commanders.
Khamenei, while my understanding is he had not independently reached the Shiite clerical honor of "Ayatollah" prior to his being selected, was a trained cleric in Tehran's most prestigious school in the 1960s and a long time student of Khomeini, so his clerical bonafides were legitimate.
Mojtaba appears to be much more of a pure IRGC puppet, his clerical formation is supposedly quite weak (and to be clear, I don't fully understand Shia Islam clericalism enough to speak intelligently on this, I'm repeating what more learned people have written), and there's also claims Mojtaba the individual is not a strong personality nor a man of any notable talents. His father was the President of Iran for years prior to the first Ayatollah dying, and had been an accomplished political operator.
But the Iran that Khamanei built is one largely built on the IRGC, so it isn't a huge disruption for the IRGC to just prop up a puppet.
The death of Larijani may be a bigger deal because his death wasn't so imminent otherwise, and he appears to have been the biggest individual power inside the IRGC faction.
Oh sure I don't think it matters much at all (if anything allowing the regime to get some fresh blood and maybe hardlining) at a practical or operational level.
But I think at the level of symbol and meaning - especially for a Shia theocracy given how central martyrdom and resistance are to Shia Islam - I think it's difficult to overstate.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 19, 2026, 08:14:00 AMOh sure I don't think it matters much at all (if anything allowing the regime to get some fresh blood and maybe hardlining) at a practical or operational level.
But I think at the level of symbol and meaning - especially for a Shia theocracy given how central martyrdom and resistance are to Shia Islam - I think it's difficult to overstate.
No, you are definitely overstating it. You are again basing your conclusions in a stereotype that doesn't actually exist.
Quote from: garbon on March 19, 2026, 06:06:47 AMQuote from: PJL on March 18, 2026, 04:50:31 PMQuote from: Tamas on March 18, 2026, 04:12:39 PMBased on snippets I have read since the war started my half-educated guess is that Iran was willing to partially bend the knee to Trump in the negotiations, so Bibi convinced him to awe the world with a Venezuela-stlye decapitation instead, since it didn't serve his interest to give Iran or indeed Israel, breathing room.
That was definitely a mistake by Iran; they should have continued to play hardball. OTOH, they're in a much better position now than they were before the war, as long as they don't keep losing key figures in the administration and military.
It isn't clear to me that they are now economically better off, which was a big issue facing Iran, right?
In absolute terms, probably not. In relative terms, by making the global economy more unstable, they are making it more fair for them by leveling down the playing field.
Quote from: PJL on March 19, 2026, 09:20:50 AMQuote from: garbon on March 19, 2026, 06:06:47 AMQuote from: PJL on March 18, 2026, 04:50:31 PMQuote from: Tamas on March 18, 2026, 04:12:39 PMBased on snippets I have read since the war started my half-educated guess is that Iran was willing to partially bend the knee to Trump in the negotiations, so Bibi convinced him to awe the world with a Venezuela-stlye decapitation instead, since it didn't serve his interest to give Iran or indeed Israel, breathing room.
That was definitely a mistake by Iran; they should have continued to play hardball. OTOH, they're in a much better position now than they were before the war, as long as they don't keep losing key figures in the administration and military.
It isn't clear to me that they are now economically better off, which was a big issue facing Iran, right?
In absolute terms, probably not. In relative terms, by making the global economy more unstable, they are making it more fair for them by leveling down the playing field.
And in the long term it is likely all to the Iranian's advantage to destroy the infrastructure of their surrounding competitors. The Chinese will come in and help rebuild the Iranian infrastructure to get access to their oil, and supply their military.
Hegeseth just gave a speech saying all Americans should go down on bended knee at work, in schools, and at home to pray to Jesus Christ for American troops.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 19, 2026, 09:34:30 AMHegeseth just gave a speech saying all Americans should go down on bended knee at work, in schools, and at home to pray to Jesus Christ for American troops.
Just theologically I don't make those kinds of prayers. I would appreciate if the government would respect my freedom of religion and not tell me what I should be doing or believing.
Quote from: Valmy on March 19, 2026, 09:47:21 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 19, 2026, 09:34:30 AMHegeseth just gave a speech saying all Americans should go down on bended knee at work, in schools, and at home to pray to Jesus Christ for American troops.
Just theologically I don't make those kinds of prayers. I would appreciate if the government would respect my freedom of religion and not tell me what I should be doing or believing.
Well you're just bad American then.
:P
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 19, 2026, 09:34:30 AMHegeseth just gave a speech saying all Americans should go down on bended knee at work, in schools, and at home to pray to Jesus Christ for American troops.
Though it seems to be par for the course for him.
https://www.aljazeera.com/video/newsfeed/2026/3/10/us-defence-chief-ends-iran-war-briefing-with-prayer-for-troops
QuoteUS defence chief ends Iran war briefing with prayer for troops
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth recited a prayer for US troops attacking Iran, asking for strength and protection, during a Pentagon briefing. American and Israeli officials have been criticised for pushing rhetoric suggesting that the campaign against Iran is a religious war.
(Video at link)
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 19, 2026, 09:19:19 AMNo, you are definitely overstating it. You are again basing your conclusions in a stereotype that doesn't actually exist.
What stereotype that doesn't exist?
Hasn't this been theme off and on in America since the 40s? Good save america and all that. Also, I vaguely recall FDR doing a whole pray for the troops thing.
Not saying hegseths not a douche.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 19, 2026, 09:57:31 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 19, 2026, 09:19:19 AMNo, you are definitely overstating it. You are again basing your conclusions in a stereotype that doesn't actually exist.
What stereotype that doesn't exist?
The one you stated in your post responded to.
Put in another way, would you say that all Americans are religious fanatics because their secretary of war gave the speech he did this morning?
No, you wouldn't think twice about doing that and yet you don't hesitate to make the same blanket statements about all Iranians.
Quote from: HVC on March 19, 2026, 10:00:19 AMHasn't this been theme off and on in America since the 40s? Good save america and all that. Also, I vaguely recall FDR doing a whole pray for the troops thing.
Not saying hegseths not a douche.
I don't recall FDR requiring all Americans to pray to a Christian God.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 19, 2026, 10:02:19 AMQuote from: HVC on March 19, 2026, 10:00:19 AMHasn't this been theme off and on in America since the 40s? Good save america and all that. Also, I vaguely recall FDR doing a whole pray for the troops thing.
Not saying hegseths not a douche.
I don't recall FDR requiring all Americans to pray to a Christian God.
Well...he prayed all the time. Like he did a prayer over the radio during D-Day. But there is a difference. Also things have changed in 80 years.
FDRs radio broadcast
QuotePrayer on D-Day
June 06, 1944
My fellow Americans: Last night, when I spoke with you about the fall of Rome, I knew at that moment that troops of the United States and our allies were crossing the Channel in another and greater operation. It has come to pass with success thus far.
And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer:
Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our Nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.
Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.
They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.
They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest-until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men's souls will be shaken with the violences of war.
For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and good will among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home.
Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.
And for us at home - fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas - whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them - help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice.
Many people have urged that I call the Nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts.
Give us strength, too - strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our armed forces.
And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be.
And, O Lord, give us Faith. Give us Faith in Thee; Faith in our sons; Faith in each other; Faith in our united crusade. Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.
With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogancies. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister Nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.
Thy will be done, Almighty God.
Amen.
I guess thr quibble is between saying you should and requesting you do it. I don't see it as a huge distinction.
Again hegseth sucks. But america has been weird with religion forever. It ebbs and flows.
Heh. HVC and I thought of the exact same message.
And he did that from time to time during his fireside chats as well.
Quote from: HVC on March 19, 2026, 10:07:00 AMI guess thr quibble is between saying you should and requesting you do it. I don't see it as a huge distinction.
Again hegseth sucks. But america has been weird with religion forever. It ebbs and flows.
Did no British, Australian, or Canadian politician pray like that during WWI or WWII?
Quote from: Valmy on March 19, 2026, 10:10:13 AMQuote from: HVC on March 19, 2026, 10:07:00 AMI guess thr quibble is between saying you should and requesting you do it. I don't see it as a huge distinction.
Again hegseth sucks. But america has been weird with religion forever. It ebbs and flows.
Did no British, Australian, or Canadian politician pray like that during WWI or WWII?
Truthfully I don't know. I would hazard a guess that the king did, but he gets a pass as the head of the church :P
But the trend continued in America long after the war. Adding god to your money (which seems really sacrilegious :lol:) in the 50s in religious anti commie zeal. Religion just (seems) to play a much bigger role in your politics. Only seems to pop up in other western countries when it's anti religion stuff. Banning hijabs and the like.
Quote from: HVC on March 19, 2026, 10:14:56 AMQuote from: Valmy on March 19, 2026, 10:10:13 AMQuote from: HVC on March 19, 2026, 10:07:00 AMI guess thr quibble is between saying you should and requesting you do it. I don't see it as a huge distinction.
Again hegseth sucks. But america has been weird with religion forever. It ebbs and flows.
Did no British, Australian, or Canadian politician pray like that during WWI or WWII?
Truthfully I don't know. I would hazard a guess that the king did, but he gets a pass as the head of the church :P
But the trend continued in America long after the war. Adding god to your money (which seems really sacrilegious :lol:) in the 50s in religious anti commie zeal. Religion just (seems) to play a much bigger role in your politics. Only seems to pop up in other western countries when it's anti religion stuff. Banning hijabs and the like.
I cannot really recall any President since WWII actually leading us in prayer like that. Not even Dubya did that.
Both Hegseth and FDR are/were schismatic heretics.
Quote from: Valmy on March 19, 2026, 10:04:16 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 19, 2026, 10:02:19 AMQuote from: HVC on March 19, 2026, 10:00:19 AMHasn't this been theme off and on in America since the 40s? Good save america and all that. Also, I vaguely recall FDR doing a whole pray for the troops thing.
Not saying hegseths not a douche.
I don't recall FDR requiring all Americans to pray to a Christian God.
Well...he prayed all the time. Like he did a prayer over the radio during D-Day. But there is a difference. Also things have changed in 80 years.
And how's that responsive to my post? Did he say all Americans, all Americans of the Jewish faith, all Americans of the Hindu faith, all Americans of the Muslim faith, all Americans who are Buddhists, etc., etc. Should go on bended knee with him and pray to his God?
No, I don't remember that ever happening
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 19, 2026, 08:14:00 AMOh sure I don't think it matters much at all (if anything allowing the regime to get some fresh blood and maybe hardlining) at a practical or operational level.
But I think at the level of symbol and meaning - especially for a Shia theocracy given how central martyrdom and resistance are to Shia Islam - I think it's difficult to overstate.
I agree with you but also think it's being overcomplicated a bit. If Iran managed to kill senior leaders of the current Israeli or US governments it would be seen as an escalation. Even more so if they got Nethanyahu or Trump.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 19, 2026, 10:21:30 AMBoth Hegseth and FDR are/were schismatic heretics.
:lol:
Exactly. We are way too religiously diverse now. Back during FDR's day over 70% of the population was mainline Protestant. Now it is like 33%.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 19, 2026, 10:23:17 AMQuote from: Valmy on March 19, 2026, 10:04:16 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 19, 2026, 10:02:19 AMQuote from: HVC on March 19, 2026, 10:00:19 AMHasn't this been theme off and on in America since the 40s? Good save america and all that. Also, I vaguely recall FDR doing a whole pray for the troops thing.
Not saying hegseths not a douche.
I don't recall FDR requiring all Americans to pray to a Christian God.
Well...he prayed all the time. Like he did a prayer over the radio during D-Day. But there is a difference. Also things have changed in 80 years.
And how's that responsive to my post? Did he say all Americans, all Americans of the Jewish faith, all Americans of the Hindu faith, all Americans of the Muslim faith, all Americans who are Buddhists, etc., etc. Should go on bended knee with him and pray to his God?
No, I don't remember that ever happening
Just providing context.
Quote from: Valmy on March 19, 2026, 10:24:26 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 19, 2026, 10:21:30 AMBoth Hegseth and FDR are/were schismatic heretics.
:lol:
Exactly. We are way too religiously diverse now. Back during FDR's day over 70% of the population was mainline Protestant. Now it is like 33%.
Yeah, the country really was dominated by mainline Prots back then, I believe FDR and the Roosevelt clan in general were all Dutch Reformed (a denomination that barely exists now.) Catholics existed in decent number back then, but mostly kept their religiosity within their ethnic enclaves due to general hostility, a lot of people link greater prominence of Catholicism in public life to figures like Fulton Sheen and ofc the Kennedy clan.
The fire breathing evangelicals were seen as fringe weirdoes in FDR's day (something we should return to on that front.)
The UK, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Japan have apparently made a declaration that they're willing to contribute to ensuring free passage in the Hormuz.
My impression is that this is not a "so we're sending military reinforcements to the region" and more of a "we're willing to contribute to reinforcing some sort of agreement if it can be reached."
Do any of our posters from those countries have more context on the declaration from their national perspectives?
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 19, 2026, 10:01:08 AMThe one you stated in your post responded to.
Put in another way, would you say that all Americans are religious fanatics because their secretary of war gave the speech he did this morning?
No, you wouldn't think twice about doing that and yet you don't hesitate to make the same blanket statements about all Iranians.
I think this is more about your reading than what I said. Although I maybe could have been clearer.
I didn't say all Iranians, or indeed any - or even that they're religious fanatics. I think you're bringing a set of assumptions (that seem a little uncharitable after literal decades chatting :lol:) about what might be said.
But to clarify when I'm saying Iran I mean the state, the country (same with US or Israel or UK or France) and not sweeping statements about their people. I think the Iranian state is religious and revolutionary. I think both of those are profoundly important for its worldview and the ideological/moral/intellectual resources it can pull open. It's nothing about fanaticism but trying to take that state at their own word and take that alternative worldview seriously. So the contours of Shia Islam - and the revolution matter (and mutually reinforce with the key importance of mourning periods in the revolution).
On a purely individual level I also think the fact that day one killed the new leaders father, wife, son matters.
Quote from: Jacob on March 19, 2026, 10:56:54 AMThe UK, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Japan have apparently made a declaration that they're willing to contribute to ensuring free passage in the Hormuz.
My impression is that this is not a "so we're sending military reinforcements to the region" and more of a "we're willing to contribute to reinforcing some sort of agreement if it can be reached."
Do any of our posters from those countries have more context on the declaration from their national perspectives?
It feels like a 'we'll be sending umbrellas out once it stops raining' kind of message to me.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 19, 2026, 11:09:43 AMOn a purely individual level I also think the fact that day one killed the new leaders father, wife, son matters.
Yeah, it's weird how little that figures into the analysis we're seeing.
The only discussion on that point I've seen comes across as "the US killed a bunch of bad guys in the hope that their organization would crumble. That didn't work out, it seems they have an endless supply of bad guys."
The media is full of revenge stories where "the good guy" is motivated and incredibly tenacious because "the bad guys" killed (or simply threatened) the "good guy's" family. It seems pretty likely to me that having his family killed (including apparently his 14-month old niece) would impact Mojtaba Khamenei's approach to the current conflict.
Quote from: Jacob on March 19, 2026, 10:56:54 AMThe UK, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Japan have apparently made a declaration that they're willing to contribute to ensuring free passage in the Hormuz.
My impression is that this is not a "so we're sending military reinforcements to the region" and more of a "we're willing to contribute to reinforcing some sort of agreement if it can be reached."
Do any of our posters from those countries have more context on the declaration from their national perspectives?
Macron said this a fortnight ago, after the fighting has settled. I think the UK has talked about sending minesweeper drone and Japan is world leader in minesweeping (and both buy a lot of LNG).
Quote from: Jacob on March 19, 2026, 10:24:02 AMQuote from: Sheilbh on March 19, 2026, 08:14:00 AMOh sure I don't think it matters much at all (if anything allowing the regime to get some fresh blood and maybe hardlining) at a practical or operational level.
But I think at the level of symbol and meaning - especially for a Shia theocracy given how central martyrdom and resistance are to Shia Islam - I think it's difficult to overstate.
I agree with you but also think it's being overcomplicated a bit. If Iran managed to kill senior leaders of the current Israeli or US governments it would be seen as an escalation. Even more so if they got Nethanyahu or Trump.
Totally agree.
Quote from: Jacob on March 19, 2026, 10:56:54 AMThe UK, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Japan have apparently made a declaration that they're willing to contribute to ensuring free passage in the Hormuz.
My impression is that this is not a "so we're sending military reinforcements to the region" and more of a "we're willing to contribute to reinforcing some sort of agreement if it can be reached."
Do any of our posters from those countries have more context on the declaration from their national perspectives?
Your impression is shared by most of the press over here. This is line with previous statements.
There is also a mention about calling for a moratorium or truce on attacks against energy facilities.
Qatar reported that about a fifth of its LNG capacity has been destroyed and it takes three to five years to repair. The customers are in Belgium, Italy, Korea and China. They will declare force majeure. Costs them 20 billion USD per year.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 19, 2026, 11:09:43 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 19, 2026, 10:01:08 AMThe one you stated in your post responded to.
Put in another way, would you say that all Americans are religious fanatics because their secretary of war gave the speech he did this morning?
No, you wouldn't think twice about doing that and yet you don't hesitate to make the same blanket statements about all Iranians.
I think this is more about your reading than what I said. Although I maybe could have been clearer.
I didn't say all Iranians, or indeed any - or even that they're religious fanatics. I think you're bringing a set of assumptions (that seem a little uncharitable after literal decades chatting :lol:) about what might be said.
This is what you said "But I think at the level of symbol and meaning - especially for a Shia theocracy given how central martyrdom and resistance are to Shia Islam - I think it's difficult to overstate."
If you think an argument that "the level of symbol and meaning" based on an assertion that there a "central martyrdom and resistance" in Shia Islam, is not based on a stereotype of those who are Shia, then you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree.
It would be like saying that all Christians have a central theme of loving their neighbours. Its a ridiculous statement, but you can get away with it here because few people have any experience with Shia religionists, and so are likely to take that kind of statement at face value.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 18, 2026, 05:42:37 PMIf you check out the EIA, there was an 18 month period from 2007 to 2008 where gasoline was over $3/gallon for 15 of those months (including a couple of months where it was over $4/gallon.) These aren't inflation-adjusted, this was almost 20 years ago and gasoline was roughly in the same ballpark price as it is today. In a country where virtually everything else is more expensive now than it was in 2007-08. For most commodities, if you were able to say "this is the same price it was in 2007", that would be considered pretty good news.
Correlate this data with median salary, median house/lodging prices, median grocery prices of today.
And lastly, add median fuel economy (MPG) of most vehicles sold today (I don't think we could get an estimate for the vehicles owned). And that's why people are freaking.
Their disposable income after lodging is lower than ever, grocery prices are increasing, even in a country where cost of fuel is very low. Then they need a car for nearly everything because public transit are abysmal. And it hurts them even more because the cars they can get are also abysmal when it comes to fuel economy.
Quote from: Zanza on March 19, 2026, 12:15:49 PMQatar reported that about a fifth of its LNG capacity has been destroyed and it takes three to five years to repair. The customers are in Belgium, Italy, Korea and China. They will declare force majeure. Costs them 20 billion USD per year.
Begun, the LNG wars have.
Quote from: viper37 on March 19, 2026, 01:07:29 PMQuote from: Zanza on March 19, 2026, 12:15:49 PMQatar reported that about a fifth of its LNG capacity has been destroyed and it takes three to five years to repair. The customers are in Belgium, Italy, Korea and China. They will declare force majeure. Costs them 20 billion USD per year.
Begun, the LNG wars have.
It already started in 2022 with the Russo-Ukrainian War
The Companies who delayed or cancelled their LNG production plans for BC are probably wondering what they were thinking, while the ones who proceeded are likely patting themselves on the back for their foresight.
Quote from: viper37 on March 19, 2026, 01:06:50 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 18, 2026, 05:42:37 PMIf you check out the EIA, there was an 18 month period from 2007 to 2008 where gasoline was over $3/gallon for 15 of those months (including a couple of months where it was over $4/gallon.) These aren't inflation-adjusted, this was almost 20 years ago and gasoline was roughly in the same ballpark price as it is today. In a country where virtually everything else is more expensive now than it was in 2007-08. For most commodities, if you were able to say "this is the same price it was in 2007", that would be considered pretty good news.
Correlate this data with median salary, median house/lodging prices, median grocery prices of today.
And lastly, add median fuel economy (MPG) of most vehicles sold today (I don't think we could get an estimate for the vehicles owned). And that's why people are freaking.
Their disposable income after lodging is lower than ever, grocery prices are increasing, even in a country where cost of fuel is very low. Then they need a car for nearly everything because public transit are abysmal. And it hurts them even more because the cars they can get are also abysmal when it comes to fuel economy.
Car MPG is a good bit higher in 2026 than it was in 2007, and plug-in hybrids are and EVs are also a thing as well. I don't disagree a lot of other stuff is expensive--but in 2007 when oil price surged it (predictably) also made other things expensive.
I'm just saying I live in America, I see household spending, we aren't a country in struggle. That's largely a fake news narrative people ran for 4 years under Biden. I think America is mostly indolent and intolerant of even a little bit of adversity.
Everything gets more expensive when oil and gas prices go up.
Americans are doing alright but we are all struggling...or thriving...with large amounts of debt. Any adversity causes everybody to panic.
Quote from: Valmy on March 19, 2026, 02:05:09 PMEverything gets more expensive when oil and gas prices go up.
Americans are doing alright but we are all struggling...or thriving...with large amounts of debt. Any adversity causes everybody to panic.
OVB's response makes me think the US is getting close to its "let them eat cake" moment.
Isn't that what the whole "K-shaped recovery" conversation is about? People who are on the right side of the asset divide are doing good if not great. People who are not, are having a much harder time.
It's probably true that the people on the downward slide of the K are still better off than poor people in the 1930s or whenever, but if they're experiencing a decline over the last 10 years or so, especially if the story's been "a rising tide lifts all boats" then it's still going to sting.
Quote from: Jacob on March 19, 2026, 02:48:37 PMIsn't that what the whole "K-shaped recovery" conversation is about? People who are on the right side of the asset divide are doing good if not great. People who are not, are having a much harder time.
It's probably true that the people on the downward slide of the K are still better off than poor people in the 1930s or whenever, but if they're experiencing a decline over the last 10 years or so, especially if the story's been "a rising tide lifts all boats" then it's still going to sting.
The difference is that people in the 1930s weren't heavily leveraged in basically every aspect of their lives. Granted few of them even had access to credit.
Quote from: Jacob on March 19, 2026, 02:48:37 PMIsn't that what the whole "K-shaped recovery" conversation is about? People who are on the right side of the asset divide are doing good if not great. People who are not, are having a much harder time.
It's probably true that the people on the downward slide of the K are still better off than poor people in the 1930s or whenever, but if they're experiencing a decline over the last 10 years or so, especially if the story's been "a rising tide lifts all boats" then it's still going to sting.
What Valmy said, and in addition to that, I think those on the bottom of the upward trajectory of the K are also not only feeling but are actually less well off. People with what would have been very good jobs and decent savings are having trouble making ends meet. The cost of living was already too high in relation to income, and it's about to get much worse.
Oh JFC. You can't invent this. The Onion is gonna go bankrupt if they're getting ripped off like that. :P
Trump administration may unsanction some Iranian oil as energy prices spike, Bessent says (https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/19/iranian-oil-sanctions-middle-east-war-00835804)
QuoteThe Treasury secretary said the Trump administration has several "levers" to pull as war in the Middle East roils oil markets.
The Trump administration may suspend sanctions on Iranian oil already at sea in a bid to clamp down on energy prices that have shot up amid the war in the Middle East, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Thursday.
It's the latest play weighed by the administration to stabilize the oil market against price shocks since the U.S. and Israel launched their joint operation in February. The maneuver could free up 140 million barrels of Iranian oil for global use, Bessent said.
"In essence, we will be using the Iranian barrels against the Iranians to keep the price down for the next 10 or 14 days, as we continue this campaign," he said on Fox Business.
[Note: LOL! Genius move right there!]
It's one of several "levers" Bessent said the administration has at its disposal, as Iranian attacks cripple the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway that carries roughly 20 percent of the world's oil supply. The administration could also make more oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve available, Bessent added. The administration already started making 172 million barrels from the SPR available.
"So we have lots of levers, we've got plenty more that we can do," Bessent said. "Some countries are going to do more, the U.S. could unilaterally do another SPR release to keep the price down."
The White House has discussed adding up to 100 million more barrels to the administration's pledge last week, said a person familiar with the plan who was granted anonymity to discuss conversations within the administration.
"Some military advisers are concerned [about] draining so much, and are pushing for more like 50 million barrels on the concern that further destruction of oil and gas infrastructure in the [Middle East] region could leave the country vulnerable from a reserve standpoint," this person said.
A spokesperson for the Department of Energy — which controls the SPR — said in a statement following Bessent's interview there were currently no plans for another release.
"The United States has taken several actions thus far to mitigate disruptions to energy markets," DOE spokesperson Ben Dietderich said. "While the U.S. continues to consider all options to keep markets supplied, there are currently no plans for an additional SPR release."
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Oil and product flows through the strait have plummeted from roughly 20 million barrels a day to just "a trickle," the International Energy Agency reported last week (https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/12/iran-war-oil-market-disruption-00824791), marking the largest supply disruption in history. U.S. gas prices are up by more than 85 cents per gallon (https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/18/vance-wright-to-address-oil-execs-amid-iran-tensions-00833940) from the start of the war.
Bessent called the blockade a "temporary chokepoint" and implored American allies to help secure the strait.
"They're the ones who need this oil," he said. "The U.S., we're an oil exporter."
Trump, in the meantime, has skewered American allies (https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/17/trump-iran-nato-allies-assistance-00831355), oscillating between calling for their assistance to insisting on Truth Social that "WE DO NOT NEED THE HELP OF ANYONE."
"We are intervening in markets by creating this excess supply with oil that's on the water," Bessent said Thursday.
Add to this the 200$ billion that Hegseth is demanding for his war that is already won. Things are going so well for the US right now.
What's the $200 billion Hegseth is demanding? Is this additional budget for Pentagon? Or is this money they're demanding from Iran?
Quote from: Jacob on March 19, 2026, 05:56:34 PMWhat's the $200 billion Hegseth is demanding? Is this additional budget for Pentagon? Or is this money they're demanding from Iran?
No. From the Feds. Heat up the money printers.
Quote from: Jacob on March 19, 2026, 05:56:34 PMWhat's the $200 billion Hegseth is demanding? Is this additional budget for Pentagon? Or is this money they're demanding from Iran?
As Valmy said, money from the US Federal govt to conduct the war that is supposedly won and which they had already anticipated all eventuality as of last week.
You know, when he lambasted fake news from fake medias for reporting the Administration had not anticipated Iran closing the strait or Hormuz in retaliation for the attack?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRG7HesT9Wc
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 19, 2026, 08:14:00 AMOh sure I don't think it matters much at all (if anything allowing the regime to get some fresh blood and maybe hardlining) at a practical or operational level.
But I think at the level of symbol and meaning - especially for a Shia theocracy given how central martyrdom and resistance are to Shia Islam - I think it's difficult to overstate.
A key psychological factor that a lot of analysts miss.
Quote from: viper37 on March 19, 2026, 04:22:32 PMOh JFC. You can't invent this. The Onion is gonna go bankrupt if they're getting ripped off like that. :P
Trump administration may unsanction some Iranian oil as energy prices spike, Bessent says (https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/19/iranian-oil-sanctions-middle-east-war-00835804)
QuoteThe Treasury secretary said the Trump administration has several "levers" to pull as war in the Middle East roils oil markets.
The Trump administration may suspend sanctions on Iranian oil already at sea in a bid to clamp down on energy prices that have shot up amid the war in the Middle East, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Thursday.
It's the latest play weighed by the administration to stabilize the oil market against price shocks since the U.S. and Israel launched their joint operation in February. The maneuver could free up 140 million barrels of Iranian oil for global use, Bessent said.
"In essence, we will be using the Iranian barrels against the Iranians to keep the price down for the next 10 or 14 days, as we continue this campaign," he said on Fox Business.
[Note: LOL! Genius move right there!]
It's one of several "levers" Bessent said the administration has at its disposal, as Iranian attacks cripple the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway that carries roughly 20 percent of the world's oil supply. The administration could also make more oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve available, Bessent added. The administration already started making 172 million barrels from the SPR available.
"So we have lots of levers, we've got plenty more that we can do," Bessent said. "Some countries are going to do more, the U.S. could unilaterally do another SPR release to keep the price down."
The White House has discussed adding up to 100 million more barrels to the administration's pledge last week, said a person familiar with the plan who was granted anonymity to discuss conversations within the administration.
"Some military advisers are concerned [about] draining so much, and are pushing for more like 50 million barrels on the concern that further destruction of oil and gas infrastructure in the [Middle East] region could leave the country vulnerable from a reserve standpoint," this person said.
A spokesperson for the Department of Energy — which controls the SPR — said in a statement following Bessent's interview there were currently no plans for another release.
"The United States has taken several actions thus far to mitigate disruptions to energy markets," DOE spokesperson Ben Dietderich said. "While the U.S. continues to consider all options to keep markets supplied, there are currently no plans for an additional SPR release."
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Oil and product flows through the strait have plummeted from roughly 20 million barrels a day to just "a trickle," the International Energy Agency reported last week (https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/12/iran-war-oil-market-disruption-00824791), marking the largest supply disruption in history. U.S. gas prices are up by more than 85 cents per gallon (https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/18/vance-wright-to-address-oil-execs-amid-iran-tensions-00833940) from the start of the war.
Bessent called the blockade a "temporary chokepoint" and implored American allies to help secure the strait.
"They're the ones who need this oil," he said. "The U.S., we're an oil exporter."
Trump, in the meantime, has skewered American allies (https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/17/trump-iran-nato-allies-assistance-00831355), oscillating between calling for their assistance to insisting on Truth Social that "WE DO NOT NEED THE HELP OF ANYONE."
"We are intervening in markets by creating this excess supply with oil that's on the water," Bessent said Thursday.
Add to this the 200$ billion that Hegseth is demanding for his war that is already won. Things are going so well for the US right now.
Maybe we could sell arms to Iran for that $200 billion. :)
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 19, 2026, 12:25:18 PMThis is what you said "But I think at the level of symbol and meaning - especially for a Shia theocracy given how central martyrdom and resistance are to Shia Islam - I think it's difficult to overstate."
If you think an argument that "the level of symbol and meaning" based on an assertion that there a "central martyrdom and resistance" in Shia Islam, is not based on a stereotype of those who are Shia, then you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree.
It would be like saying that all Christians have a central theme of loving their neighbours. Its a ridiculous statement, but you can get away with it here because few people have any experience with Shia religionists, and so are likely to take that kind of statement at face value.
Again you are gliding from a statement about a faith to meaning "all Shia" which is obviously mad and not what I said. I'm literally not saying anything about Shia Muslims. I think you're also assuming a pejorative in there which I'm certainly not intending.
I think the crucifixion and resurrection are central to Christianity and, in a Christian theocracy, would be very important at the level of the symbolic or for meaning. It would be a resource of belief and ideological power (and interpretive frame) that type of regime could draw on with deep roots because it is a core part of the faith. In the same way as national myths have profound ideological power (and can also involve narratives of martyrdom and resistance and resurrection). I think there's definitely secular and non-nationalist versions of this too.
Again you can see this in the Islamic Revolution where Ashura is a focus for protests but so too is the cycle of mourning those killed by the Shah. The religious significance (or echoes) for a religious, revolutionary movement was hugely important in making meaning which helped maintain and drive the momentum of the revolution and harden the vanguard element - I think further sustained beyond the initial revolutionary moment by the Iran-Iraq war and, I suspect, quite possibly being renewed as we speak. It's not about "all" of anyone - but I think as people who truly believe in the system of the Islamic Republic and in the revolution, these are resources that the leaders will be using in their own framing or understanding but also at a regime level. (Honestly it's not a religious comparison and many huge differences but I keep thinking of the USSR moving from the revolutionary generation and symbolism to the Great Patriotic War).
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on March 19, 2026, 07:03:03 PMMaybe we could sell arms to Iran for that $200 billion. :)
Shht.
Do not give them ideas. :ph34r:
Quote from: viper37 on March 19, 2026, 10:20:12 PMQuote from: HisMajestyBOB on March 19, 2026, 07:03:03 PMMaybe we could sell arms to Iran for that $200 billion. :)
Shht.
Do not give them ideas. :ph34r:
Of course, Iran probably can't afford that. So Russia can loan Iran the money after we lift sanctions on Russia.
Quote from: viper37 on March 19, 2026, 10:20:12 PMQuote from: HisMajestyBOB on March 19, 2026, 07:03:03 PMMaybe we could sell arms to Iran for that $200 billion. :)
Shht.
Do not give them ideas. :ph34r:
I heard they're really desperate for nukes, I'm sure they'll pay pretty penny for a couple of warheads.
Quote from: viper37 on March 19, 2026, 04:22:32 PMQuoteBessent called the blockade a "temporary chokepoint" and implored American allies to help secure the strait.
"They're the ones who need this oil," he said. "The U.S., we're an oil exporter."
"Oh, your supply got cut because of our actions? Watcha gonna do about it?"
Quote from: Syt on March 19, 2026, 11:40:58 PMQuote from: viper37 on March 19, 2026, 04:22:32 PMQuoteBessent called the blockade a "temporary chokepoint" and implored American allies to help secure the strait.
"They're the ones who need this oil," he said. "The U.S., we're an oil exporter."
"Oh, your supply got cut because of our actions? Watcha gonna do about it?"
The US as a country and the 1% that actually own the oil companies will profit. American car owners will share the pain of the rest of the world. Bessent knows that of course. Driving up gas prices in the US is probably one of the most potent weapons against the Trump regime.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 19, 2026, 01:47:46 PMI'm just saying I live in America, I see household spending, we aren't a country in struggle. That's largely a fake news narrative people ran for 4 years under Biden. I think America is mostly indolent and intolerant of even a little bit of adversity.
Out of curiosity, do you think your view of the way things are now in America versus 2007 might be tied to being a much better financial situation yourself and interacting with folks who are also in a much better situation? As someone who was broke and working borderline jobs in 2007 and in 2026 and interacts with a lot of folks in said positions, including a lot of younger folks, I don't agree with your assessment of the health of America's economy and population's lack of adversity.
Quote from: grumbler on March 19, 2026, 06:51:09 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on March 19, 2026, 08:14:00 AMOh sure I don't think it matters much at all (if anything allowing the regime to get some fresh blood and maybe hardlining) at a practical or operational level.
But I think at the level of symbol and meaning - especially for a Shia theocracy given how central martyrdom and resistance are to Shia Islam - I think it's difficult to overstate.
A key psychological factor that a lot of analysts miss.
I think most who remember the Iraqi invasion of Iran do think about this. The Iranis sent children out to walk over minefields. Even children need a special motivation to do that.
I suppose the information bombardment we get every day makes us forgetful and that we overlook simple things. Like "Don't fuck with Iran".
Quote from: Zanza on March 20, 2026, 12:06:34 AMQuote from: Syt on March 19, 2026, 11:40:58 PMQuote from: viper37 on March 19, 2026, 04:22:32 PMQuoteBessent called the blockade a "temporary chokepoint" and implored American allies to help secure the strait.
"They're the ones who need this oil," he said. "The U.S., we're an oil exporter."
"Oh, your supply got cut because of our actions? Watcha gonna do about it?"
The US as a country and the 1% that actually own the oil companies will profit. American car owners will share the pain of the rest of the world. Bessent knows that of course. Driving up gas prices in the US is probably one of the most potent weapons against the Trump regime.
If you read OVB's post dismissing the problem and calling American's who complain about the increasing cost of living, you will have seen what the Trumpists think about the economic pain being inflicted on Americans.
The USS Tripoli cross the Strait of Malacca 2 days ago. Expect the invasion on Tuesday night EDT.
I guess it's inevitable.
:wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
https://archive.ph/Us4Kv
QuoteTrump mulls risky Kharg Island takeover to force Iran to open strait
The Trump administration is considering plans to occupy or blockade Iran's Kharg Island to pressure Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, four sources with knowledge of the issue tell Axios.
Why it matters: President Trump can't end the war, at least on his terms, until he breaks Iran's chokehold on shipping through the strait. In the meantime, global energy prices are surging.
But an operation to take over Kharg Island, which sits 15 miles offshore and processes 90% of Iran's crude oil exports, could put U.S. troops more directly in the line of fire.
Thus, such an operation would only be launched after the U.S. military further degrades Iran's military capacity around the Strait of Hormuz. "We need about a month to weaken the Iranians more with strikes, take the island and then get them by the balls and use it for negotiations," a source with knowledge of the White House thinking said.
Such an operation, if approved, would also require more troops. Three different Marine units are on their way to the region. The White House and the Pentagon are considering sending even more troops soon, a U.S. official said.
What they're saying: "He wants Hormuz open. If he has to take Kharg Island to make it happen, that's going to happen. If he decides to have a coastal invasion, that's going to happen. But that decision hasn't been made," a senior administration official told Axios.
"We've always had boots on the ground in conflicts under every president, including Trump. I know this is a fixation in the media, and I get the politics, but the president is going to do what's right," a second senior official said, adding no decision had been made.
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Trump had been "prudent" not to rule out a ground invasion, though he wouldn't say whether he was in favor.
Cotton contended that closing the strait was an act of desperation by Iran, but said Trump had "mountains of plans" for that contingency.
The flip side: While Kharg Island is critical to Iran's oil industry, there's no guarantee that taking it would convince Tehran to make peace on Trump's terms.
Rear Admiral (Ret.) Mark Montgomery told Axios such a mission could expose U.S. troops to an unnecessary degree of risk given the uncertain upside.
"If we seize Kharg Island, they're going to turn off the spigot on the other end. It's not like we control their oil production," he said.
Montgomery said it was more likely that after around two more weeks of attacks to degrade Iran's capabilities, the U.S. would send destroyers and aircraft into the strait to escort tankers, eliminating the need for an invasion.
Flashback: Trump originally wanted to end the war before his planned trip to China at the end of March.
The crisis in the strait has compelled him to postpone that trip and continue the war longer than he'd planned, two sources with knowledge said.
Last Friday, the U.S. military conducted massive airstrikes on dozens of military targets on Kharg Island.
The strike was a "shot across the bow" to convince the Iranians to reopen the strait, U.S. officials said. But it was also a preparatory step to degrade Iran's military capabilities on the island and lay the groundwork for a potential ground operation.
"We can take out the island anytime we want. I call it the little island that sits there so totally unprotected. We've taken out everything but the pipes. We left the pipes because to rebuild the pipes would take years for them," Trump said on Thursday.
Trump also told reporters on Thursday that he was "not putting troops anywhere," though he added: "If I were, I certainly wouldn't tell you."
Behind the scenes: Three sources said an occupation of the island by ground troops is under serious consideration.
Another option is to impose a naval blockade and prevent tankers from reaching the island.
One source said Pentagon lawyers had even been consulted to provide opinions on the legality of such potential moves.
What's next: In addition to the 2,500-strong Marine expeditionary force that will arrive within days, two more similarly sized units are also heading to the region.
The White House and Pentagon are discussing further reinforcements beyond that, but no decision has been made. Newsmax and Reuters first reported on the reinforcement plans.
One source cautioned that there are many potential operations for the Marines beyond Kharg Island, such as evacuating staff from embassies in the region if necessary.
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.
This would be the real life equivalent of the HOI AI making a single-division amphibious assault and watching it get wiped out.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 20, 2026, 08:30:29 AM:wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
https://archive.ph/Us4Kv
Burgers will reopen the Strait of Hormuz the exact day the last intact oil installation in the Gulf gets blown up by drones.
Quote from: PJL on March 20, 2026, 08:37:51 AMSomething 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.
I have little doubt we could take Kharg but I also don't see an immediate reason Iran wouldn't rain down nonstop drones and missiles on our ground forces there--being able to claim U.S. Marine deaths will be something Iran would be licking their chops over.
I don't know the geography of that island very well, the only question I'd have is maybe Iran would be hesitant to bomb the island for fear of destroying energy infrastructure critical to their economy.
Israeli strike against journalist covering the Israeli attacks in Lebanon destroying the bridges to the South.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DWE4seNl8TF/?igsh=aDNxa2wyenk3bGIz
Quote"We've always had boots on the ground in conflicts under every president..."
Well then, that shows that it's a good idea to do it now I suppose.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HD288tLbcAAggrZ?format=png&name=small)
I don't understand because they've already won the war? :hmm:
So easy to do that the most powerful military in the world can't seem to pull it off. Sad.
NATO is not supposed to be a tiger. It is supposed to be a defensive alliance, not an alliance to launch imperialist wars in Iran.
I don't think Trump gets enough credit for the educational value he provides in perfectly illustrating common logical fallacies.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 20, 2026, 08:30:29 AMQuoteTrump 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.
He probably thinks that possession of Kharg island is a "good card" to have when he tries to make a deal with Iran. As usual mistaking a radical bunch of religious nutters with the sort of real estate people he dealt with in New York.
I've seen some social media on Vance gloating about how the closure of the Strait of Hormuz hurts Europe (and Japan?) more than it hurts the US.
An odious framing, obviously, and IMO indicative of the US administrations view on Europe (destroy the EU and undermine European political cohesion, turn individual states into pliable clients).
But I'm interested in the underlying analysis of the situation. How fucked is Europe if this continues, and what options does it have?
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.
Another option is to turn back to Russia for oil and gas, leading to more pressure on Ukraine and Eastern Europe.
Is there some sort of path that avoids those two scenarios, and what does it look like?
I think in all cases, economic stagnation and political instability is likely - but to what degree?
If we completely fuck over Europe they will be better and more pliable friends of ours! THIS STRATEGY CANNOT FAIL.
Quote from: Jacob on March 20, 2026, 12:38:12 PMOne 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.
Vance and his ilk seem to believe that hard-core nationalist parties in Europe will have a desire to be anyone's vassal.
That's not how nationalism works.
Especially not if the sovereign will not take up its obligations as sovereign (i.e. defending the vassals).
But what else to expect from that clownshow.
Quote from: Valmy on March 20, 2026, 12:40:29 PMQuote from: Jacob on March 20, 2026, 12:38:12 PMOne 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
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 20, 2026, 12:55:13 PMVance and his ilk seem to believe that hard-core nationalist parties in Europe will have a desire to be anyone's vassal.
That's not how nationalism works.
Especially not if the sovereign will not take up its obligations as sovereign (i.e. defending the vassals).
But what else to expect from that clownshow.
I think their play is to use nationalism as a way for their political clients to gain control of various European nations and then serve their own goals in collusion with American oligarch interests.
Like how Orban positions himself as a nationalist, but really his goal is to serve himself and his clique and he'll happily suborn the interest of the nation to Putin to do so. Or like how Farages loves to use the rhetoric of nationalism but is keen to submit to Trump and American interests unless there's real blow-back. Brexit, IMO, was justified on the grounds of nationalism, but in practice was about capital.
I completely agree with your assessment about European nationalists not wanting to be vassals to anyone, including the US. But a splintered nationalist Europe may find itself with few choices, especially if individual nationalist leaders are seduced by American (or Russian or Chinese) capital (not that that is exclusive to nationalist leaders, of course).
Quote from: Valmy on March 20, 2026, 12:39:26 PMIf we completely fuck over Europe they will be better and more pliable friends of ours! THIS STRATEGY CANNOT FAIL.
(https://i.redd.it/btv4vl84p5qg1.png)
If the enemy strikes by the air, attack their girl's schools.
If the enemy strikes by sea, the wise commander shall employ the stratagem of Truth Social.
There are five essentials for victory: (1) He will win who strikes the enemy without knowing why. (2) He will win who knows not to burden his mind with plans or contingencies. (3) The lesser intelligence shall always prevail over the greater. (4) He will win who, unprepared himself, thoughtlessly improvises. (5) He will win who has greater social media shitposting capacity and is not interfered with by sense.
Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics, but both are woke losers.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 20, 2026, 01:02:20 PMQuote from: Valmy on March 20, 2026, 12:40:29 PMQuote from: Jacob on March 20, 2026, 12:38:12 PMOne 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.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on March 20, 2026, 02:12:31 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 20, 2026, 01:02:20 PMQuote from: Valmy on March 20, 2026, 12:40:29 PMQuote from: Jacob on March 20, 2026, 12:38:12 PMOne 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
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 20, 2026, 02:23:45 PMQuote from: Duque de Bragança on March 20, 2026, 02:12:31 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 20, 2026, 01:02:20 PMQuote from: Valmy on March 20, 2026, 12:40:29 PMQuote from: Jacob on March 20, 2026, 12:38:12 PMOne 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.
I want off this train.
Quote from: NY TimesHegseth Invokes Divine Purpose to Justify Military Might (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/20/us/politics/hegseth-christianity-military.html?unlocked_article_code=1.UlA.HyEd.-bCvLhaDoB4E&smid=url-share)
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."
Quote from: Valmy on March 20, 2026, 11:49:42 AMQuote from: jimmy olsen on March 20, 2026, 08:30:29 AMQuoteTrump 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.
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.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on March 20, 2026, 03:18:44 PMI want off this train.
Quote from: NY TimesIn 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.
Quote from: Valmy on March 20, 2026, 03:39:52 PMKind 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.
Quote from: mongers on March 20, 2026, 08:48:37 AMQuote from: PJL on March 20, 2026, 08:37:51 AMSomething 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.
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.
Quote from: Valmy on March 20, 2026, 03:39:52 PMMaybe 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.
Quote from: Jacob on March 20, 2026, 05:51:36 PMOn 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:
QuoteThe 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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Islands), Micronesia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federated_States_of_Micronesia), Palau (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palau) and Solomon Islands (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Islands), did not have standing armies. However, through the Compact of Free Association (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guam), Hawaiian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii) and Samoan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Samoa) 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] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing_(Iraq_War)#cite_note-4) According to a 2010 study, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau (and Tonga (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing_(Iraq_War)#cite_note-5)
In December 2008, University of Illinois (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Illinois) Professor Scott Althaus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Althaus) reported that he had learned that the White House (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House) was editing and back-dating revisions to the list of countries in the coalition.[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing_(Iraq_War)#cite_note-DailyIllini-6)[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing_(Iraq_War)#cite_note-TheRawStory-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] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing_(Iraq_War)#cite_note-ahas-2)
By August 2009, all non-U.S./UK coalition members had withdrawn from Iraq.[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing_(Iraq_War)#cite_note-8) As a result, the Multinational Force – Iraq (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq) was renamed and reorganized to United States Forces – Iraq (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Forces_%E2%80%93_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
Here's a map of the location of Kharg island.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HD4J_CTXcAE6HbO?format=jpg&name=small)
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. :hmm:
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.
Quote from: Legbiter on March 20, 2026, 06:47:30 PMHere'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.
Quote from: Legbiter on March 20, 2026, 06:47:30 PMNo 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. :hmm:
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.
(https://scontent.fyhu2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/654219476_1535320247960648_4393741339490715191_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=7b2446&_nc_ohc=ygYeX4Gqo28Q7kNvwEjxgA7&_nc_oc=Adq4XejkAmwQ25wOSCuL4ip69fEEm2MXzCxDH8w4dqtLh3QqYVI-gBlFnS6Mud0Y03s&_nc_zt=23&_nc_ht=scontent.fyhu2-1.fna&_nc_gid=f-xByPBIB7bl8VfXml-4BA&_nc_ss=7a30f&oh=00_AfwaglhcNifOP4di8iDkpGNI-ODtIFfuJU6nqQoxNBbEYw&oe=69C3A88B)
So, these states, they wanted some kind of war against Iran, right?
They certainly didn't want an all powerful Iran with nukes. Saudi Arabia has an ideologicial conflict with Iran, and both them and UAE are giving weapons to Sudan's civil war and also to their Yemeni faction while Iran is financing the other Yemeni faction.
But what is it exactly they were expecting would happen? The US and Israel would have a well crafted plan to strike at Iran's military capabilities, wipe these out in a quick strike and get back to the US?
I don't think they expected Iran to strike back at their own facilities with such impunity. I don't believe the UAE thought it was in their best interests that wealthy foreigners in Dubai began fleeing for another sunset destination after some missile rain? They may find them degenerates, but not their money.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 20, 2026, 06:53:53 PMAs 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.
Oh God yes, exactly. This is nu-Gallipoli it seems like. :pinch: :hmm:
More secret stuff for the Chinese and Russian spies. Man, where are all those leaks coming from? ;)
QuoteUS to deploy thousands of additional troops to the Middle East, officials say (https://wkzo.com/2026/03/20/us-to-deploy-thousands-of-additional-troops-to-the-middle-east-officials-say/)
The United States military is deploying thousands of additional Marines and sailors to the Middle East, three U.S. officials told Reuters on Friday, as the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran reached the three-week mark.
No decision had been made to send troops into Iran itself, two of the officials told Reuters, but they will build up the capacity for potential future operations in the region
[...]
Trump told reporters on Thursday that he was not putting troops "anywhere," but that if he were to do so, he would not tell journalists.
[...]
The additional deployments will add to the 50,000 U.S. troops already in the Middle East and would bring two Marine Expeditionary Units to the region. The first MEU, which was dispatched from the Indo-Pacific, is expected to arrive in the Middle East next week.
Quote from: Jacob on March 20, 2026, 12:38:12 PMI've seen some social media on Vance gloating about how the closure of the Strait of Hormuz hurts Europe (and Japan?) more than it hurts the US.
I'll keep banging the drum on this. Oil and gas are fungible commodities traded worldwide. A major supply shortage, no matter what its origin, will raise prices everywhere. It does not matter that the US is theoretically "self-sufficient" because it will still be impacted by the price increases - indeed that impact has already been felt. The only way to stop that would be to impose price and export controls. It's kind of incredible to think Vance once wanted to set himself up as a hedge fund manager: there's a career that demonstrates malign influence of DEI if one wanted to make that case.
Vance's open hatred for free states in Europe is another manifestation of his odiousness. What need has Russia for spies when Americans freely puts such contemptible persons into power?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 20, 2026, 03:20:39 PMThere 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.
You've put your finger on this issue; Iran's reliance on Kharg is a serious vulnerability, but trying to exploit to it is like trying to disarm your opponent by grabbing the business end of their knife in your bare hands.
My suspicion is Kharg Island was never a serious plan. It's been talked about since the days of Reagan, and it's been broadcast too much in too many public ways. If there was a serious desire to seize the island I suspect they wouldn't be talking about it at all and would even express either disinterest in the idea or openly reject it if it were brought up.
It's a fun little wargame, but nothing about the discussion leads me to believe it's being seriously contemplated.
People forget that during Gulf War I we had a MEU floating around off the coast of Kuwait for a couple days purely to make the Iraqis think we were going to use it to land, we actually never did.
Quote from: Legbiter on March 20, 2026, 06:47:30 PMHere's a map of the location of Kharg island.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HD4J_CTXcAE6HbO?format=jpg&name=small)
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. :hmm:
Why wouldn't you send in troops by ospery/helicopter from Kuwait?
Any ways, good article
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/03/trump-iran-war-allies/686423/?gift=hVZeG3M9DnxL4CekrWGK31dWsRj9tVhI4YolO-4zzIE
If anyone is interested, this is an interesting historical article about 13th MEU and its operations during the first Gulf War:
Shattered Amphibious Dreams The Decision Not to Make an Amphibious Landing During Operation Desert Storm (https://www.usmcu.edu/Outreach/Marine-Corps-University-Press/MCH/Marine-Corps-History-Winter-2017-v3n2/Shattered-Amphibious-Dreams/)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 20, 2026, 08:30:53 PMWhy wouldn't you send in troops by ospery/helicopter from Kuwait?
Also very risky for no gain. Hostomel airport risky. Force buildup could also be spotted by russian/Chinese satellites and the airbase itself could be absolutely hammered like the Kuwaiti FOB was on the first day.
Again what is the strategic value? You seize it, the Iranians don't flinch but US forces are conveniently stuck on a flat exposed island now within range of a lot of Iranian weapon systems. The world gets to see American marines get droned to the sound of Yakety Sax on social media while the IRGC gloats? :hmm:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 20, 2026, 08:27:21 PMIf there was a serious desire to seize the island I suspect they wouldn't be talking about it at all and would even express either disinterest in the idea or openly reject it if it were brought up.
Now, you're talking as if there were rational people in the White House.
You're talking about the people who anticipated the closing of the strait.
Who anticipated all eventualities but are asking for 200billion$ more in financing and have a... destroyer? ship? troop transport? rushing to the Persian Gulf at near flanking speed.
I don't know. I'm not an expert in military matters here. Especially not naval warfare. I'll defer to Grumbler and Oexmelin for this, even if his knowledge is a bit... dated? :P
But, whenever I play a strategy game and I hit the "rush" button somewhere, or if there's a "flanking" speed option to rush units to the front, it's because there's an emergency going on and something I did not not anticipate is happening.
If everything is going to plan, my enemy is cornered, I'm surrounding his planets/base/camps he has nothing nowhere near me and I'm pounding his building his troops with my own.
I don't need to suddenly find extra money, rush another ship to the front to plan an invasion that I already had anticipated BECAUSE EVERYTHING I NEED IS ALREADY THERE ON THE FRONT LINES.
That's why it's called planning. Then comes organizing, direction and control.
I'm a control freak.
So I'm not going back to the planning phase to ask again for 200 BILLION $ and 50 000 troops new troops in an emergency.
Fuck, the British had more troops than that to try and subdue some rebels on the other side of the pound and it didn't work so well 250 years ago. Who wants to do what with a trickle of troops?
What kind of diversion is this? Everything is on Truth Social, FFS.
The United States has temporarily lifted sanctions on selling oil from ... Iran. :lol:
Quote from: Zanza on March 21, 2026, 01:58:39 AMThe United States has temporarily lifted sanctions on selling oil from ... Iran. :lol:
All that 3D chess Must give one a headache.
US winning is making ME tired. I can only imagine how Americans must feel.
I suppose Hegseth and company never read much about the Iran-Iraq war?
Iraq had a decent enough superiority, at least in key areas such as air (despite them using MiGs) and had a plan for a short war, a blitzkrieg. The regime was unstable, the Iraqis thought. The victorious offensive got bogged down quite quickly.
And Iran sent children to clear minefields and those children were human wave frontline troops. They had little white bits of cloth tied to them so that they would be recognised in paradise.
Does Iran have less people now? No.
Iran is a country of national pride, unless you happen to be a Kurd. Didn't anyone watch Iran's football team? These people do not give in or give up. The war dragged on for eight fucking years.
Does the US really want to occupy another country and get bogged down? It worked so well in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I mean, 200 billion dollars could buy some extra glitz to that ballroom.
You ask the wrong question. What does Israel want the US to do?
Israel, for good reasons, wants Iran gone. What will it make the US do to achieve that goal?
Quote from: Zanza on March 21, 2026, 01:58:39 AMThe United States has temporarily lifted sanctions on selling oil from ... Iran. :lol:
Never fear, according to the Trumpists it is all part of God's plan and we are told that God moves in mysterious ways.
Quote from: Zanza on March 21, 2026, 01:58:39 AMThe United States has temporarily lifted sanctions on selling oil from ... Iran. :lol:
As absurd as it is, it signals that Trump is finally beginning to comprehend that market pricing can't be directed by tweet. The only way to get pricing down short term is increase short term supplies to the world, whatever the source.
At least until his next nap
Canada, UK, France, Germany are willing to participate in reopening the Strait of Hormuz and if NATO is asked to help with the defense of Gulf States, it will listen.
Quote from: viper37 on March 21, 2026, 02:06:01 PMCanada, UK, France, Germany are willing to participate in reopening the Strait of Hormuz and if NATO is asked to help with the defense of Gulf States, it will listen.
Oh what a bunch of obedient little vassal states.
Bend over morons, you guys are about to get fucked.
I can see Iran attempting to launching missiles at RAF Fairford within the next few days.
The statement is a masterpiece of careful legalistic hedging:
QuoteWe express our readiness to contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the Strait. We welcome the commitment of nations who are engaging in preparatory planning.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 21, 2026, 02:24:46 PMThe statement is a masterpiece of careful legalistic hedging:
QuoteWe express our readiness to contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the Strait. We welcome the commitment of nations who are engaging in preparatory planning.
So more like a response in a dispute about gardening boundaries involving Lylandii trees?
Quote from: Valmy on March 21, 2026, 02:12:02 PMQuote from: viper37 on March 21, 2026, 02:06:01 PMCanada, UK, France, Germany are willing to participate in reopening the Strait of Hormuz and if NATO is asked to help with the defense of Gulf States, it will listen.
Oh what a bunch of obedient little vassal states.
Bend over morons, you guys are about to get fucked.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/canada-joint-statement-strait-hormuz-9.7135150
Got the link for you.
Doesn't say how, more diplomacy than warships.
But yeah, we're about to get fucked if we step in this.
Could we really stay out of this with oil, gaz, fertilizer, helium out of commission for years and the US unable to do jack shit while Russia and China are having a field day though?
Even Ukraine is feeling oblidged to help.
FFS. What a shit show this is.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 21, 2026, 02:24:46 PMThe statement is a masterpiece of careful legalistic hedging:
QuoteWe express our readiness to contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the Strait. We welcome the commitment of nations who are engaging in preparatory planning.
:showoff: Lawyers of the world, UNITE!
Quote from: Valmy on March 21, 2026, 02:12:02 PMQuote from: viper37 on March 21, 2026, 02:06:01 PMCanada, UK, France, Germany are willing to participate in reopening the Strait of Hormuz and if NATO is asked to help with the defense of Gulf States, it will listen.
Oh what a bunch of obedient little vassal states.
Bend over morons, you guys are about to get fucked.
And the logic of that position is the rest of the world should hope trump/America gets bogged down in a war in the gulf for a long time, so that an emboldened trump can't go on to eventually attack some of the US's allies?
Quote from: mongers on March 21, 2026, 03:04:17 PMQuote from: Valmy on March 21, 2026, 02:12:02 PMQuote from: viper37 on March 21, 2026, 02:06:01 PMCanada, UK, France, Germany are willing to participate in reopening the Strait of Hormuz and if NATO is asked to help with the defense of Gulf States, it will listen.
Oh what a bunch of obedient little vassal states.
Bend over morons, you guys are about to get fucked.
And the logic of that position is the rest of the world should hope trump/America gets bogged down in a war in the gulf for a long time, so that an emboldened trump can't go on to eventually attack some of the US's allies?
The logic is that assisting Trump will get you fucked. He betrays everybody, especially his friends. Once he finally takes his toys and goes home, then you can solve the problem.
So long as he has his hands on it, there is nothing anybody can do really. Except just ally with the Chinese I guess.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HD-RBBnWEAAZFau?format=jpg&name=small)
And then Iran retaliates by torching the Gulf oil industry.
Quote from: PJL on March 20, 2026, 08:37:51 AMSomething 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.
I don't understand why you think "the West" should care about this exactly.
Why would Italians protest or care about Iran-US conflict?
Quote from: Zoupa on March 21, 2026, 07:57:04 PMQuote from: PJL on March 20, 2026, 08:37:51 AMSomething 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.
I don't understand why you think "the West" should care about this exactly.
Why would Italians protest or care about Iran-US conflict?
There were lots protests about the Iraq war and rising gas prices will hurt the Italian economy
On Kharg Island: forget artillery range, it's within FPV drone range from the mainland. Unless Marines start digging immediately on arrival and never venture out of their bunkers, the "occupation" of the island would be over in a few weeks.
There were protests before because Western Governments were asked to sign on to the conflict. Trump just does whatever and does not even bother to ask Congress or the American people. So what exactly are they protesting about? The Italian government already is not involved.
Quote from: Legbiter on March 21, 2026, 07:16:34 PM(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HD-RBBnWEAAZFau?format=jpg&name=small)
And then Iran retaliates by torching the Gulf oil industry.
It's amazing a man can command the most powerful military machine the world has ever seen and still somehow come across as an ineffectually flailing wimp.
Quote from: Valmy on March 21, 2026, 02:12:02 PMQuote from: viper37 on March 21, 2026, 02:06:01 PMCanada, UK, France, Germany are willing to participate in reopening the Strait of Hormuz and if NATO is asked to help with the defense of Gulf States, it will listen.
Oh what a bunch of obedient little vassal states.
Bend over morons, you guys are about to get fucked.
I dunno, talking and listening about potential action? Engaging in dialogue? Establishing a process to begin building a framework for form a committee that will identify stakeholders for working out a timetable for European action? Sounds like Europe might be playing to their strengths.
Quote from: Jacob on March 21, 2026, 08:50:57 PMIt's amazing a man can command the most powerful military machine the world has ever seen and still somehow come across as an ineffectually flailing wimp.
That's a big worry yes. That Tehran sees this as a mark of desperation.
This is what despair looks like. A totally defeated Iran, unable to launch any attacks, on the verge of surrender.
Quote from: Jacob on March 21, 2026, 08:50:57 PMIt's amazing a man can command the most powerful military machine the world has ever seen and still somehow come across as an ineffectually flailing wimp.
I can wave a stick in front of the Vienna Philharmonic, but that doesn't make me a conductor.
Quote from: Syt on March 21, 2026, 11:27:48 PMQuote from: Jacob on March 21, 2026, 08:50:57 PMIt's amazing a man can command the most powerful military machine the world has ever seen and still somehow come across as an ineffectually flailing wimp.
I can wave a stick in front of the Vienna Philharmonic, but that doesn't make me a conductor.
That's the greatest analogy I've read so far.
That conflict reminds me of this scene:
Quote from: Legbiter on March 21, 2026, 09:49:47 PMQuote from: Jacob on March 21, 2026, 08:50:57 PMIt's amazing a man can command the most powerful military machine the world has ever seen and still somehow come across as an ineffectually flailing wimp.
That's a big worry yes. That Tehran sees this as a mark of desperation.
Well they are very smart because it absolutely is a mark of desperation.
So the US say they will destroy Bushehr NPP. This may slow new nuclear in the West. Thanks America!
Thank God for TACO.
A lot depends on what the markets think of this. The primary reason Trump wants the Straits of Hormuz open is to lower oil/gas prices. If the markets think attacking Iranian power plants will lead to more escalation, then prices will rise even further, defeating Trumps original reason. So I suspect there'll be a TACO on this.
Quote"Following previous warnings, if Iran's fuel and energy infrastructure is attacked by the enemy, all energy, information technology, and desalination infrastructure belonging to the United States and the regime in the region will be targeted."
https://x.com/DropSiteNews/status/2035537977653244285 (https://x.com/DropSiteNews/status/2035537977653244285)
Not surprising. The Iranians are betting they can outsuffer everyone else.
Quote from: Zoupa on March 21, 2026, 08:06:00 PMit's within FPV drone range
No understand your fancy big words. You need to speak American. We crush Iran. We have big boats and big bombs. We have WARRIORS! America win!
With Trump there's always a battle between his innate cowardice (TACO) and his innate belligerent stupidity.
Probably worse for the world that it looks like the latter is winning out in this conflict. The threat to strike Iran's power plants (essentially openly forecasting Russian like behavior to cause huge humanitarian harm), is the sort of "ego risking" situation that has often only led to Trump doubling down. Trump is willing to destroy much to protect his own ego, so the risk is his normal cowardly ways won't give us an off ramp.
If he goes through with it my assumption is Iran's response will all but guarantee a ground war in Iran, basically taking us down the worst possible path in terms of immense waste of national resources, global economic harm and mass destabilization of the entire Middle East.
Guess we are left hoping his TACO side saves us.
Yeah the ground war is coming, I have no doubt.
The thing I'd wonder about were I American is whether the initial phase is going to be some sort of massive shock and awe type action, or whether it'll be a step by step escalation with one thing leading to another. I think those two scenarios will have different likely costs in terms of money and American lives.
My understanding is - and please correct me if I'm wrong - that the US has not positioned massive amounts of troops for a potential ground invasion yet, right? We're looking at a few MEU and such so far, right? How long would it take to position Gulf War I or II amounts of troops?
The other thing I'm curious about is how the likely ground invasion is going to affect US domestic politics and the upcoming midterms.
I think if it happens it will be like Vietnam. It won't be an initial, shock and awe. It will be some pretextual, limited-scope ground incursion. Which will then result in more troops being needed and then more and then more etc. The obvious reason Vietnam happened that way is the more we got into it, the more of a quagmire it became, and that will be paralleled if we go into Iran.
Once ground troops are involved it will also be harder and harder for Congress to resist huge appropriations bills--no one likes to be on the other side of the vote when the President can say you're abandoning our soldiers on the ground.
So evidently Tehran says that if the US targets its power plants:
QuoteThe Strait of Hormuz will be completely closed and not reopened until Iranian damaged power plants are rebuilt."
All power plants, energy infrastructure, and information-technology infrastructure in Israel will be widely targeted.
All similar companies in the region that has American shareholders will be completely destroyed.
Power plants in regional countries hosting US bases will be considered legitimate targets.
Yeah I mean a lot of that is obviously far beyond Iranian capacities. Particularly the idea of being able to at will effect the complete destruction of their adversaries' military infrastructure. That's akin to the kind of unrealistic rhetoric Trump himself uses.
We should avoid treating Iran's effective leverage of its limited capabilities as evidence of greater Iranian military strength than actually exists. Iran has a very diminished missile arsenal, of somewhat unreliable missiles, which both the US and IDF defeat at very high rates. Due to their slow speed and long travel times, the drones they are mostly using to terrorize the Strait and Gulf Coast aren't very effective at striking Israel.
Military assets are also generally more hardened, more mobile, and more redundant than the oil and gas infrastructure of the gulf states.
The threat to keep the Strait closed is however worth taking seriously.
Quote from: Jacob on March 22, 2026, 01:24:57 PMThe other thing I'm curious about is how the likely ground invasion is going to affect US domestic politics and the upcoming midterms.
If I were the Iranians thinking strategically...I'd probably be looking at causing as much pain as possible to the US/world in order to try and swing the midterms against Trump as much as possible.
They are likely thinking that they can suffer any kind of pain short of a massive ground invasion, and assuming that the chances of that are about nil. And that they can suffer/survive limited ground operations, and that making such limited operations painful to the US only helps the aforementioned strategy.
If Trump TACOs, even better...continue to extort the other Gulf states and the world over oil prices holding the SoH hostage in support of the same strategy.
Other than the "close the Strait of Hormuz" bit, I think the threats are a bit aspirational - but even the declaration of intent means that defensive assets have to be spread more widely, I'd think.
Quote from: Jacob on March 22, 2026, 03:05:29 PMOther than the "close the Strait of Hormuz" bit, I think the threats are a bit aspirational - but even the declaration of intent means that defensive assets have to be spread more widely, I'd think.
will depend on how the graph for drone useage goes. last week or so it was already on a steady rise. If that continues then aspirations might become realities sooner rather than later
If this keep going, then at some point I see China and Russia making Iran our Ukraine. A nation of 90 million defending their homeland with economic resources and technology of our enemies will make for a very painful war for the US.
I don't think it'll ever get to that point. Unlike Ukraine and Russia they don't border you. At some point the public will start turning, Trump will panic and pull the troops will declaring victory and Fox will echo the storyline eagerly. Then he'll pick on Cuba for an easier victory and get another FIFA peace prize.
Why is a ground war likely?
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 22, 2026, 08:02:09 PMWhy is a ground war likely?
Because escalation seems the only way forward that does not result in an immediate loss of face for Trump.
Unless, of course, the Iranian regime collapses. It doesn't seem to me like it's about to, but I'm no expert.
What do you think is the most likely scenario(s) for the war?
Quote from: Jacob on March 22, 2026, 08:31:39 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 22, 2026, 08:02:09 PMWhy is a ground war likely?
Because escalation seems the only way forward that does not result in an immediate loss of face for Trump.
Unless, of course, the Iranian regime collapses. It doesn't seem to me like it's about to, but I'm no expert.
What do you think is the most likely scenario(s) for the war?
I think it is more likely that Trump will declare victory and leave the area
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 22, 2026, 09:22:20 PMI think it is more likely that Trump will declare victory and leave the area
It's definitely a possibility. The question for me is: how is he going to do that without having his face rubbed in his own failure, something which he dislikes intensely?
I don't know how amenable Iran is to going back to the status quo ante if the US withdraws unilaterally in a way that will make "declare victory and leave" seem convincing. Then again, Trump is very good at believing his own declared reality even if it's at odds with observable facts.
But we'll see.
Why are we assuming that that it's all down to Trump as to how the war with Iran will end? Iran found some balls to squeeze, they may not relax the grip as soon as Trump decides he doesn't want to keep pummeling Iran.
Quote from: DGuller on March 22, 2026, 10:05:43 PMWhy are we assuming that that it's all down to Trump as to how the war with Iran will end? Iran found some balls to squeeze, they may not relax the grip as soon as Trump decides he doesn't want to keep pummeling Iran.
Exactly.
Trump may declare victory and go home.
What if Iran declares you need to pay $X to transit Hormuz safely, to recoup the costs from US and Israeli attacks? Is the US going to go right back in, or eat the humiliation?
... or maybe Iran will say they're keeping the Straits closed until they get reparations directly from the US.
... or something else.
But just because the US goes home and stops attacking Iran doesn't mean Iran will do the convenient thing.
Which, IMO, makes it less likely that Trump will declare victory and go home.
Israel invading Lebanon complicates things. Iran probably won't stop while that is happening.
Quote from: DGuller on March 22, 2026, 10:05:43 PMWhy are we assuming that that it's all down to Trump as to how the war with Iran will end? Iran found some balls to squeeze, they may not relax the grip as soon as Trump decides he doesn't want to keep pummeling Iran.
Besides, Israel seems far from being done, regardless of what the US does.
Quote from: DGuller on March 22, 2026, 10:05:43 PMWhy are we assuming that that it's all down to Trump as to how the war with Iran will end? Iran found some balls to squeeze, they may not relax the grip as soon as Trump decides he doesn't want to keep pummeling Iran.
Indeed...one of the demands one could easily predict Iran will make is that they won't allow any Gulf state hosting US forces to transit their resources/ships via the SoH until they evict the US. Then those states will face the choice to either agree to those demands, or we go back to getting involved.
He could just pull out anyway and say that the US produces their own oil and doesn't need the Middle East, not understanding commodity pricing, couldn't he?
Quote from: HVC on March 23, 2026, 12:45:27 AMHe could just pull out anyway and say that the US produces their own oil and doesn't need the Middle East, not understanding commodity pricing, couldn't he?
Trump is a businessman, he'll hire people who understand.
Trump on truth social :
"I AM PLEASE TO REPORT THAT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND THE COUNTRY OF IRAN, HAVE HAD, OVER THE LAST TWO DAYS, VERY GOOD AND PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS REGARDING A COMPLETE AND TOTAL RESOLUTION OF OUR HOSTILITIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST. BASED ON THE TENOR AND TONE OF THESE IN DEPTH, DETAILED, AND CONSTRUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS, WITCH WILL CONTINUE THROUGHOUT THE WEEK, I HAVE INSTRUCTED THE DEPARTMENT OF WAR TO POSTPONE ANY AND ALL MILITARY STRIKES AGAINST IRANIAN POWER PLANTS AND ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR A FIVE DAY PERIOD, SUBJECT TO THE SUCCESS OF THE ONGOING MEETINGS AND DISCUSSIONS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP"
Was alerted by my shares portfolio suddenly spiking upwards.
I think this is a particularly ill-thought out war and unlikely to lead to any positive outcomes; so hopefully something comes of this.
But ... they had VERY GOOD AND PRODUCTIVE talks before the bombing started, too. :huh:
Yeah, infamous behaviour by the USA there :hmm:
I suspect Trump has accepted an Iranian offer to open the Hormuz Strait for all ships for a fee. Maybe even a split of the proceeds.
TACO may have come through for us again, but yeah Trump also said they were having "productive talks" days before starting a very disruptive war that three weeks in he has yet to actually explain or justify to the American people.
I did read an interesting anecdote--apparently some oil industry executives told Trump that his rhetoric on the war was preventing them from committing to any appreciable increase in drilling operations. Now, obviously they'll pump already drilled wells to take advantage of the >$100 oil, but Trump had also wanted them to surge up new production to alleviate the price increases and they basically said "we aren't going to commit to tons of new production when you're saying every 48 hours the war is about to be over."
Also, on Friday Trump covered pretty much every position.
https://bsky.app/profile/warrenjwells.bsky.social/post/3mhocpr3jwk22
Quote from: Jacob on March 22, 2026, 10:32:50 PMQuote from: DGuller on March 22, 2026, 10:05:43 PMWhy are we assuming that that it's all down to Trump as to how the war with Iran will end? Iran found some balls to squeeze, they may not relax the grip as soon as Trump decides he doesn't want to keep pummeling Iran.
Exactly.
Trump may declare victory and go home.
What if Iran declares you need to pay $X to transit Hormuz safely, to recoup the costs from US and Israeli attacks? Is the US going to go right back in, or eat the humiliation?
... or maybe Iran will say they're keeping the Straits closed until they get reparations directly from the US.
... or something else.
But just because the US goes home and stops attacking Iran doesn't mean Iran will do the convenient thing.
Which, IMO, makes it less likely that Trump will declare victory and go home.
Because, unlike the US, Iran is not stupid?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 23, 2026, 06:17:06 AMTrump on truth social :
"I AM PLEASE TO REPORT THAT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND THE COUNTRY OF IRAN, HAVE HAD, OVER THE LAST TWO DAYS, VERY GOOD AND PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS REGARDING A COMPLETE AND TOTAL RESOLUTION OF OUR HOSTILITIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST. BASED ON THE TENOR AND TONE OF THESE IN DEPTH, DETAILED, AND CONSTRUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS, WITCH WILL CONTINUE THROUGHOUT THE WEEK, I HAVE INSTRUCTED THE DEPARTMENT OF WAR TO POSTPONE ANY AND ALL MILITARY STRIKES AGAINST IRANIAN POWER PLANTS AND ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR A FIVE DAY PERIOD, SUBJECT TO THE SUCCESS OF THE ONGOING MEETINGS AND DISCUSSIONS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP"
Was alerted by my shares portfolio suddenly spiking upwards.
Called it
Iran, at least Ali Khamenei, was pretty fucking stupid. Being less stupid than Trump is a very low bar but clearing it isn't in itself a big accomplishment.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 23, 2026, 07:24:04 AMIran, at least Ali Khamenei, was pretty fucking stupid. Being less stupid than Trump is a very low bar but clearing it isn't in itself a big accomplishment.
And yet they have survived for decades.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 23, 2026, 07:23:28 AMQuote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 23, 2026, 06:17:06 AMTrump on truth social :
"I AM PLEASE TO REPORT THAT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND THE COUNTRY OF IRAN, HAVE HAD, OVER THE LAST TWO DAYS, VERY GOOD AND PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS REGARDING A COMPLETE AND TOTAL RESOLUTION OF OUR HOSTILITIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST. BASED ON THE TENOR AND TONE OF THESE IN DEPTH, DETAILED, AND CONSTRUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS, WITCH WILL CONTINUE THROUGHOUT THE WEEK, I HAVE INSTRUCTED THE DEPARTMENT OF WAR TO POSTPONE ANY AND ALL MILITARY STRIKES AGAINST IRANIAN POWER PLANTS AND ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR A FIVE DAY PERIOD, SUBJECT TO THE SUCCESS OF THE ONGOING MEETINGS AND DISCUSSIONS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP"
Was alerted by my shares portfolio suddenly spiking upwards.
Called it
Still too soon to say that IMO. It's only a postponement not a cancellation. Until that happens all bets are still valid.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 23, 2026, 07:26:56 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 23, 2026, 07:24:04 AMIran, at least Ali Khamenei, was pretty fucking stupid. Being less stupid than Trump is a very low bar but clearing it isn't in itself a big accomplishment.
And yet they have survived for decades.
There's ~200 countries, almost all of which have survived for decades, I'm not on board with ascribing a default, presumed outcome (a country not magically ceasing to exist) with any sort of shrewdness.
The reason Iran is quite stupid, is they chose a maximally bad path for their nuclear program.
Let's review the actions of other powers that either weren't signatory to the NPT or who broke the NPT who decided to obtain nuclear weapons:
1. India / Pakistan - Open defiance of the NPTThese countries both developed nuclear weapons essentially in the open, in intentional and deliberate defiance of the NPT. Both are among a list of 5 countries that never signed the treaty to begin with. Both also are large countries then and now, both in terms of population and in terms of the size of their economy.
Both have made a bit of a strategy out of playing the West and the Anti-West at different times, maintaining a sort of tactical and shifting neutrality. This all basically meant that the international reaction to both countries going nuclear was "muted", while they both paid some diplomatic costs for the development of nuclear weapons, they were mild and receded over time.
2. North Korea - Covert defiance of the NPT and then open declaration of a weaponNorth Korea was a signatory of the NPT, and had a deal with the United States in which they received aid in exchange for curtailing their nuclear weapons program. North Korea basically adhered to this deal enough to stay off America's radar, while quietly doing as much as they could get away with to maintain their program. When George W. Bush made his Axis of Evil speech and started two major middle eastern wars, the North Koreans covertly rushed their program to a working device. Once achieved, they detonated it openly and left little doubt they were now a nuclear power. They refused all attempts to negotiate on their status as a nuclear country, and have basically permanently committed to a national autarkic principle to avoid any outside pressure. They have survived through intermittently having good enough relations with China and Russia, and by having a regime with such an iron fist control over its population they can actually survive their form of autarky.
The big thing North Korea did, that Iran never did--was they rushed their program to the finish line completely in secret, while the U.S. was busy with other things. Once achieved, North Korea was an "unassailable" nuclear power.
3. Israel - Secret Nuclear program, ambiguous but known status Israel went the pathway of never once acknowledging it has a nuclear weapons program, let alone a nuclear weapon. Publicly they simply have "nuclear research facilities." But this is a "diplomatic fiction", Israel has made sure that their true status as a nuclear power is generally well known. By never openly acknowledging it, this allows their Western allies to not have to address the fact Israel is violating the principles of the NPT (note, Israel is not a signatory to the NPT, but broadly speaking the U.S. has taken a stance that no "new" countries should develop weapons, regardless of whether they signed the NPT or not.) Israel's path is shrewd but also facilitated by allies like the United States and France, and the fact that they enjoy much better relations with the West, in general, than revolutionary Iran does.
4. Iran - Secret Nuclear program, intentionally maintained at threshold levelsThis option ends up being a "bad middle path." Iran has essentially never acknowledged a nuclear weapons program, but they have publicly boasted about their enrichment capabilities--clearly sending the signal they
could develop a weapon. This has resulted in crushing economic sanctions that has caused nearly 20 years of economic devastation to the country, retarding its economic development and leading to the functional collapse of its currency.
Iran has always announced new milestones in amount of centrifuges, % enrichment etc--essentially doing the opposite of North Korea which kept its progress as secret as possible.
Iran's position has put itself in a place where it suffers sanctions as bad as North Korea, but without the trade off of achieving a nuclear shield like North Korea has. By using communication on the status of its program as attempted leverage against the sanctions, it just created a big target for Israel and America saying "Iran is gradually getting nukes, you could blow a lot of their shit up to prevent this for the time being."
North Korea never did this--largely because it is actually stupid. One advantage North Korea had is they would have been very hard to attack even had we known what they were doing--while Iran's "missile shield" is an irritant, North Korea's long-maintained artillery shield against Seoul is much worse. Artillery doesn't get intercepted and is cheap to make in massive amounts. North Korea has had immense artillery batteries, many buried under bunkers and mountains, in range of South Korea's capital for decades. America knew that any strike against North Korea could result in mass casualties in Seoul (estimates have been as high as 100,000 dead in the first day if the North started firing its guns.)
Iran's plan has left it economically weak, even worse off than North Korea, and militarily weak. It has cost its leader his life (admittedly he didn't have many years left), but it also cost the lives of several of his family members and many of Iran's top military and intelligence leaders.
FWIW I expect Iran knows this too, and will pursue the North Korean option of simply rushing to a bomb as covertly as possible, no longer forecasting anything publicly until they have a working device.
Whether they succeed at that like NK did is hard to say--they have some disadvantages, probably most significantly is they have much worse penetration by HUMINT than North Korea ever has. We (either us or Israel) appears to have always had unusually good intelligence from inside Iran, so it will be harder for Iran to rush to completion covertly--harder, but not impossible.
If they're like North Korea they may wait for a time when they perceive America won't be able to react.
Quote from: PJL on March 23, 2026, 07:27:53 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 23, 2026, 07:23:28 AMQuote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 23, 2026, 06:17:06 AMTrump on truth social :
"I AM PLEASE TO REPORT THAT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND THE COUNTRY OF IRAN, HAVE HAD, OVER THE LAST TWO DAYS, VERY GOOD AND PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS REGARDING A COMPLETE AND TOTAL RESOLUTION OF OUR HOSTILITIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST. BASED ON THE TENOR AND TONE OF THESE IN DEPTH, DETAILED, AND CONSTRUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS, WITCH WILL CONTINUE THROUGHOUT THE WEEK, I HAVE INSTRUCTED THE DEPARTMENT OF WAR TO POSTPONE ANY AND ALL MILITARY STRIKES AGAINST IRANIAN POWER PLANTS AND ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR A FIVE DAY PERIOD, SUBJECT TO THE SUCCESS OF THE ONGOING MEETINGS AND DISCUSSIONS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP"
Was alerted by my shares portfolio suddenly spiking upwards.
Called it
Still too soon to say that IMO. It's only a postponement not a cancellation. Until that happens all bets are still valid.
Iran called the Bluff of the greatest military power of the world has ever known. And that military power backed off.
The Iranians have already won the war. There's not much left, but for Trump to declare victory on Fox News and walk away.
And here is a further prediction based on how the Americans conduct themselves in this new age. There will be a declaration in a few days that Trump made the best deal ever and that oil will flow like never before. People won't believe how wonderful the deal is. People have never seen such a great deal. There will be no deal, but it won't matter to the Americans. All that will matter is that Fox News will continuously tell them how wonderful their president is and what a great deal he made.
FWIW Iran state TV has already denied they have had any diplomatic discussions with the Trump administration at all. They have portrayed his statement as a ploy.
I think Trump may find if he does try to TACO out, Iran may not actually let him.
If you are Iran you actually have an incentive to not stop attacking vessels in the Strait until America actually gives you something--reparations perhaps, they have no huge incentive to stop.
Trump has shown he is unlikely to bomb any of Iran's "red line" energy infrastructure facilities. Its valuable military / nuclear facilities have already been destroyed, so they aren't going to capitulate in fear of those being bombed since that's a fait accompli.
Iran has an even greater incentive to demonstrate to their population, and to the surrounding Sunni nations that the United States tried and failed.
The Iranians are a little more long-term thinkers than the Americans who are very transactional and are thinking just about the deal that they can make in the short term.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 23, 2026, 08:05:33 AMIran has an even greater incentive to demonstrate to their population, and to the surrounding Sunni nations that the United States tried and failed.
The Iranians are a little more long-term thinkers than the Americans who are very transactional and are thinking just about the deal that they can make in the short term.
The counter-argument, and the one very likely to be held by the IRGC hardliners, is America and Israel have suffered very little harm from this war, and have been able to bomb 8,000 sites inside Iran. If Iran agrees to a cessation it is setting a precedent that you can blow up a huge % of their military infrastructure anytime you feel like and the most they'll do about it is annoy a bunch of petrostates in the Gulf that Israel and America have shown aren't chief in their concerns anyway.
There is a reason Iranian hardliners have publicly said they intend to impose costs until their adversaries basically learn that they can't attack Iran with impunity. Letting Trump off the second he gets cold feet doesn't accomplish that.
And they have already demonstrated that the United States cannot attack with impunity. What else is there to demonstrate?
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 23, 2026, 07:45:32 AMIran called the Bluff of the greatest military power of the world has ever known.
Greatest military power the world has ever known? Please. We give the term paper tiger a bad name.
I think the Israeli nuclear programme is rather well-proven. Norway supplied the heavy water as some gesture of national guilt and since the Norwegian parliament shut down our own nuclear programme.
And maybe I am being difficult, but why would Sunni countries like to see Iran "win"? There are enough Wahabis around the Persian Gulf to fill some tankers of oil.
Much of Shia identity is built on being the party of Ali.
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2026, 09:17:00 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 23, 2026, 07:45:32 AMIran called the Bluff of the greatest military power of the world has ever known.
Greatest military power the world has ever known? Please. We give the term paper tiger a bad name.
As I was typing those words I wondered what Sargon would have to say about that :D
Quote from: Norgy on March 23, 2026, 09:22:16 AMI think the Israeli nuclear programme is rather well-proven. Norway supplied the heavy water as some gesture of national guilt and since the Norwegian parliament shut down our own nuclear programme.
And maybe I am being difficult, but why would Sunni countries like to see Iran "win"? There are enough Wahabis around the Persian Gulf to fill some tankers of oil.
Much of Shia identity is built on being the party of Ali.
For the same reason they didn't want the US to attack in the first place, thy are in a sweet spot right now, and don't want the Americans, or Israelis, screwing things up for them.
Quote from: Norgy on March 23, 2026, 09:22:16 AMI think the Israeli nuclear programme is rather well-proven. Norway supplied the heavy water as some gesture of national guilt and since the Norwegian parliament shut down our own nuclear programme.
And maybe I am being difficult, but why would Sunni countries like to see Iran "win"? There are enough Wahabis around the Persian Gulf to fill some tankers of oil.
Much of Shia identity is built on being the party of Ali.
They don't, it's been well reported that while the Gulf states were very against the war, they are actually advocating that now that the war has started, it not be concluded without defanging Iran as a threat to their countries. It doesn't appear the U.S. / Israel are meaningfully taking into consideration the views of the Gulf states in any respect, though.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 23, 2026, 09:04:55 AMAnd they have already demonstrated that the United States cannot attack with impunity. What else is there to demonstrate?
I'm relaying what Iranian leaders have publicly said--you'd have to ask them if you want a definitive answer. But like I said--very little has happened to the U.S. or Israel.
I think Israel has had a couple of deaths, America has had a couple of deaths. Minimal damage to the infrastructure of either country. America's gasoline went up a little bit in price.
Where is the cost imposed? You may be surprised to find out America doesn't actually care that Qatar had a natural gas facility struck that will take them years to fix, and that's the biggest damage to the Gulf's infrastructure. The U.S. is a natural gas titan and major exporter, if anything U.S. gas companies probably aren't unhappy that facility is now offline.
Trump very likely
wants Iran to agree the war is over--so that should make you question if Iran has really achieved anything lasting. Trump is pretty sure, due to being proven right on this time and time again, if he gets out of the war now he has 7 months before the mid terms to tell his base it was the best, strongest war ever--and they'll largely agree. (It probably won't be enough to save GOP control of the House.) But Iran is 100% letting Trump off the hook easily if they agree to let bygones be bygones and reopen the strait simply because Trump decided he's dropped enough bombs.
Now, in my self-interest as an American I want the war to be over since it's a waste of resources--a rare circumstance where something Trump wants also correlates to something that is to America's benefit. But I don't presume it's going to happen simply because Trump has a weak spine, Trump is very unpredictable and Iran has already called out that there's been no diplomatic talks at all.
Here's a sampling of the "substance" of what Trump is claiming:
QuoteUS President Donald Trump claims the US has been having "productive" conversations with Iran that led to "major points of agreement" on "almost all points."
Asked by reporters before boarding Air Force One to respond to the Iranian foreign ministry's denial of his description of the talks, Trump claims that there's a communication breakdown in Tehran and that those involved in the talks aren't necessarily able to contact other people in the regime.
"If it goes well, we're going to end up settling this. Otherwise, we just keep bombing our little hearts out," Trump says.
Asked who the US is speaking to if, as Trump claims, Iran's first and second tier leaders have been knocked out, the president says, "We're dealing with the man who I believe is the most respected and the leader... We have people who are very representative of the country."
He declines to identify this leader but says it is not Mojtaba Khamenei, who is believed to have been injured in the war's opening strike that killed his father and was subsequently selected to replace him. "We have not heard from the son... . We don't know if he's living."
"We want to see no nuclear bomb, no nuclear weapon, no nuclear missiles, we want to see peace in the Middle East, we want the nuclear dust," he says, referring to Iran's stockpiles of already highly-enriched uranium. He then claims Iran has agreed to hand that over as well.
Asked again about the uranium stockpiles, Trump says that if there is an agreement, "We're going down and we'll take it ourselves."
Asked if his administration is still going to request $200 billion from Congress for the war, Trump responds, "It's always nice to have."
Oh, he probably had a call with Pahlavi.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on March 23, 2026, 09:46:37 AMOh, he probably had a call with Pahlavi.
Just as likely that Trump was having a tantrum and his handlers sent in the janitor dressed in a suit to talk to him and told Trump he was an Iranian diplomat.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 23, 2026, 09:36:34 AMWhere is the cost imposed? You may be surprised to find out America doesn't actually care that Qatar had a natural gas facility struck that will take them years to fix, and that's the biggest damage to the Gulf's infrastructure. The U.S. is a natural gas titan and major exporter, if anything U.S. gas companies probably aren't unhappy that facility is now offline.
American gas companies and America are not the same thing.
Americans should care about that facility because if offline for years that will impact prices worldwide.
Americans should also care because: (1) key fertilizer production facilities have also been hit, with likely negative consequences for global food production and prices; (2) helium facilities were also hit, which will likely have a prince impact on semiconductor productions and systems costs, already spiraling upwards.
Should and do are two different things. Fox News will tell Americans what to feel and half of them will agree to feel that way. Come elections Fox will tell them it's the lefts fault and they'll believe it.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 23, 2026, 09:40:51 AMHere's a sampling of the "substance" of what Trump is claiming:
He had a tantrum and made threats on truth social he couldn't back up, because it would further escalate a situation that is already out of control and possibly because some of the competent generals left would resign rather than carry out war crimes just to satisfy the mental toddler in the White House.
He could either pull an Obama (syria) and just act like he never said anything or pull a Trump and completely make up a ludicrous bullshit story about diplomatic talks to save face. So he stayed on his brand. It's pointless trying to analyze the substance behind it; there isn't any. You are more likely to find Bigfoot then Trump's made up Iranian interlocutor.
By the way if there was a functioning SEC and CFTC I'd be looking carefully at the overnight futures trades being made in the hour before the "Truth" dropped . . .
The Trump administration may be a huge let down to working people but it is truly a golden age for securities fraud.
It must be pump monday. Oh, it is.
(https://i.imgur.com/YYp0iA9.png)
Witkoff and Kushner are talking to Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the speaker of the Iranian parliament. I somehow doubt that he has control over the Republican Guard. We will see.
Why do people think it suddenly matters that Trump is just making shit up. Like the embrace of AI, making shit up doesn't matter.
Quote from: Zanza on March 23, 2026, 10:44:05 AMWitkoff and Kushner are talking to Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the speaker of the Iranian parliament. I somehow doubt that he has control over the Republican Guard. We will see.
An unnamed Israeli source said that, and Ghalibaf immediately denied it.
One needs to keep an ample supply of salt grains on hand for this war.
Yeah it is like both sides have the Iraqi Information guy now.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 23, 2026, 06:17:06 AMTrump on truth social :
"I AM PLEASE TO REPORT THAT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND THE COUNTRY OF IRAN, HAVE HAD, OVER THE LAST TWO DAYS, VERY GOOD AND PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS REGARDING A COMPLETE AND TOTAL RESOLUTION OF OUR HOSTILITIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST. BASED ON THE TENOR AND TONE OF THESE IN DEPTH, DETAILED, AND CONSTRUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS, WITCH WILL CONTINUE THROUGHOUT THE WEEK, I HAVE INSTRUCTED THE DEPARTMENT OF WAR TO POSTPONE ANY AND ALL MILITARY STRIKES AGAINST IRANIAN POWER PLANTS AND ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR A FIVE DAY PERIOD, SUBJECT TO THE SUCCESS OF THE ONGOING MEETINGS AND DISCUSSIONS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP"
Was alerted by my shares portfolio suddenly spiking upwards.
Translation: I badly want to end the war in 5 days or sooner, pls respond.
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2026, 11:58:20 AMYeah it is like both sides have the Iraqi Information guy now.
From Iran today...
Quote from: Zanza on March 23, 2026, 10:44:05 AMWitkoff and Kushner are talking to Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the speaker of the Iranian parliament. I somehow doubt that he has control over the Republican Guard. We will see.
The smartest thing to do would be to demand sanction relief but offer to put Jared Kushner or someone Trump trusted onto the board of the new Hormuz toll booth (you get 10%). ^_^
The problem with negotiating with a pliable insider in such a large country and given the Shia underpinnings of the state is he would face an immediate Brutus problem. As in liable to get killed by outraged members of the regime (no nuclear or ballistic program, no pet militias in the ME, etc).
I find it kind of crazy that our country has degenerated to the point that Israel can ethnically cleanse hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians from their property and the most the United States government will do is meekly suggest they not be too evil to the Christians.
Human rights? Property rights? Not real things, just privileges this evil empire I live in will give you if it likes you.
One of the largest ethnic cleansing campaigns in history. "Shrug" goes the USA.
Israel is off the chain, the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. For the moment at least.
Quote from: Legbiter on March 23, 2026, 07:12:42 PMQuote from: Zanza on March 23, 2026, 10:44:05 AMWitkoff and Kushner are talking to Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the speaker of the Iranian parliament. I somehow doubt that he has control over the Republican Guard. We will see.
The smartest thing to do would be to demand sanction relief but offer to put Jared Kushner or someone Trump trusted onto the board of the new Hormuz toll booth (you get 10%). ^_^
The problem with negotiating with a pliable insider in such a large country and given the Shia underpinnings of the state is he would face an immediate Brutus problem. As in liable to get killed by outraged members of the regime (no nuclear or ballistic program, no pet militias in the ME, etc).
Guys you have to stop taking the Trump Reality Show plots seriously.
In terms of substantive reality, these negotiations are somewhere between the 2020 DNC-Chavez Stolen Election Plot and Trump's claims to have prevented wars in fictitious countries.
Once the 11th and 31st MEU arrive in theatre, what sort of forces does the US have for a boots on the ground scenario? My preliminary search indicates it's about 50 000 troops, but I'm unclear on what kind of roles they're suited for and what kind of hardware they have.
I'm no expert, but that number seems insufficient for anything other than planting your boots firmly in the quagmire. IIRC Gulf War I saw about 500 000 American troops deployed at first.
Which leads me to my second question - how long would it take for the US to marshal that sort of forces? And what sort of signs should we look for that would indicate that the US is committing to an actual invasion? I'd expect we'd see stop-loss orders being issued, but anything else? I'd imagine we'd see significant force repositioning, for example? Though I'd expect they'd have to be marshaled outside the GCC bases as those are withing range of Iranian attacks.
(as an aside, I was just once more reminded how asinine AI is. I was googling the MEU a few times, and got "they're expected to arrive in late May" as well as "they'll arrive within the week")
Planning isn't a thing in the US, so who the fuck knows?
It really feels like the meme.
1. Bomb Iran.
2. ???
3. Profit!
Quote from: Jacob on March 23, 2026, 11:06:04 PMOnce the 11th and 31st MEU arrive in theatre, what sort of forces does the US have for a boots on the ground scenario? My preliminary search indicates it's about 50 000 troops, but I'm unclear on what kind of roles they're suited for and what kind of hardware they have.
I'm no expert, but that number seems insufficient for anything other than planting your boots firmly in the quagmire. IIRC Gulf War I saw about 500 000 American troops deployed at first.
Which leads me to my second question - how long would it take for the US to marshal that sort of forces? And what sort of signs should we look for that would indicate that the US is committing to an actual invasion? I'd expect we'd see stop-loss orders being issued, but anything else? I'd imagine we'd see significant force repositioning, for example? Though I'd expect they'd have to be marshaled outside the GCC bases as those are withing range of Iranian attacks.
(as an aside, I was just once more reminded how asinine AI is. I was googling the MEU a few times, and got "they're expected to arrive in late May" as well as "they'll arrive within the week")
You'd be looking at 8 months to a year to move enough forces to the area. I'm not sure how you would even get them in country. It would have to be the biggest amphibious operation since D-Day.
I don't think it's a real possibility. The costs would be astronomical.
Quote from: Jacob on March 23, 2026, 11:06:04 PMOnce the 11th and 31st MEU arrive in theatre, what sort of forces does the US have for a boots on the ground scenario? My preliminary search indicates it's about 50 000 troops, but I'm unclear on what kind of roles they're suited for and what kind of hardware they have.
I'm no expert, but that number seems insufficient for anything other than planting your boots firmly in the quagmire. IIRC Gulf War I saw about 500 000 American troops deployed at first.
Which leads me to my second question - how long would it take for the US to marshal that sort of forces? And what sort of signs should we look for that would indicate that the US is committing to an actual invasion? I'd expect we'd see stop-loss orders being issued, but anything else? I'd imagine we'd see significant force repositioning, for example? Though I'd expect they'd have to be marshaled outside the GCC bases as those are withing range of Iranian attacks.
(as an aside, I was just once more reminded how asinine AI is. I was googling the MEU a few times, and got "they're expected to arrive in late May" as well as "they'll arrive within the week")
A MEU is a reinforced battalion, about 2200 men. The 50,000 man figure you may have seen is the total number of Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines in region. Ground troops would be a small fraction of that.
The US could not generate Gulf War levels of forces in less than years. The US Army has about 150,000 combat troops (infantry, artillery, armor, SpecOps), the National Guard about an equal number. And all of those would not be available for deployment.
To add to the point that the US is nowhere near ready to deploy the necessary number of ground troops, the NYTimes reported the US was just starting to consider whether airborne units could be used to take Karghal island, and up to 5000 troops were being considered.
The US thought this would be a quick air war. These are not serious people. Jacob, my advice is to stop assuming the Trumpists have strategic thinking that does not involve grift.
I had sort of mentioned this months ago before Trump attacked Iran--if you go back to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the U.S. had moved around 150,000 troops to the theater (largely using Kuwait as a staging ground) for the invasion. This took months and if you recall, this goes back to September 2002.
Congress passed the AUMF in October of 2002, and Bush spent the intervening months between then and the March 2003 invasion both staging troops and engaging in a campaign to a) get allies on board (this worked somewhat, while some big allies explicitly rejected it, our most significant military ally under Tony Blair joined the invasion), b) get the U.S. public on board--people like to try to pretend otherwise, but this worked exceptionally well. Something like 75% of Americans polled favored the war in the immediate run up to it, the people who were against it "all along" forming a relatively small minority.
I've found people often try to retcon the idea the war was unpopular right away, it wasn't--it only truly became unpopular after Tet-style moments like the insurgent battle of Fallujah, which killed dozens of Marines and showed that the situation was quickly going sideways.
I had noted--there was no similar military build up around Iran, which is why I was initially very skeptical ground troops were even being considered.
However, I underestimated the degree to which Trump would be stupid--something I usually don't underestimate, but sometimes even he can surprise me by showing previous low bars were not, in fact, the floor.
My new suspicion is we could see a small scale ground incursion, likely staged as a tactical maneuver with limited goals. I then think what will happen is that ground incursion could cause further bad events--a mass casualty event for U.S. troops for example, which will then create political support sufficient to fund a bigger war, and you'll see a steady increase of ground troops to the conflict. This somewhat has parallels in how we got in to Vietnam--it started as advisors, then was a limited scope deployment of a small number of forces, then the President needed more boots on the ground...then more...and then more etc, suddenly it's a major war with hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops in Southeast Asia.
In terms of actually invading Iran--I don't think it would be done amphibiously, I think if there's a large scale invasion it would likely go through Iraq. (I have no idea if Iraq would "allow it", but I don't think they would be able to physically stop it nor would they seriously try.)
Something I did say back before Trump attacked though--a true invasion cannot be done on the Pentagon's existing budget, the money isn't there. So for one to happen, Trump will need supplemental funding from Congress. That's something that can't happen covertly, so you'll know that's happening when and if it does occur.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 24, 2026, 07:25:05 AMHowever, I underestimated the degree to which Trump would be stupid--something I usually don't underestimate, but sometimes even he can surprise me by showing previous low bars were not, in fact, the floor.
Don't count yourself short.
This thread if filled with comments by you underestimating Trump's stupidity. His whole admin is you underestimating his and his Congress followers stupidity.
If the USS Tripoli group didn't slow down the past week, they are arriving today.
Quote from: viper37 on March 24, 2026, 07:58:45 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 24, 2026, 07:25:05 AMHowever, I underestimated the degree to which Trump would be stupid--something I usually don't underestimate, but sometimes even he can surprise me by showing previous low bars were not, in fact, the floor.
Don't count yourself short.
This thread if filled with comments by you underestimating Trump's stupidity. His whole admin is you underestimating his and his Congress followers stupidity.
You should always assume the best of people in life.
WTF
https://x.com/elaifresh/status/2036217479295541392?s=20
Quoteholy moly Trump has been a Kharg Island Crank for FORTY YEARS
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HEIY6s4aIAAno_0?format=png&name=900x900)
Trump is so brave when it comes to putting other people's lives at risk. He would "go in", yeah right :lol:
Yeah--Trump even back in the 1980s didn't understand the concept of a fungible commodity like oil and the global market affecting the price for Americans. A lot of his thinking has always been influenced very clearly by what he is watching on TV or etc, my guess is he either saw something on TV in the 1980s or heard from a friend etc the idea about Kharg Island.
Iran is saying now the war will not end until they have been given reparations for the damage they've suffered and given ironclad guarantees of their future safety.
Like I said earlier--people thinking Trump can just end this himself with TACO-ing out are probably being overly optimistic.
The US can declare victory and go home. Straits closed, US "friends" fucked. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
Trump can always be counted on to be mesmerized by the prospect of more beachfront property, even in the unlikeliest of places - from Wonsan, NK to Gaza to Nuuk to Kharg Island.
There's nothing on Kharg other than some likely mostly empty storage tanks, port facilities and some blown up barracks. It's a great place if you want to tape a "kick me here" sign on the posteriors of a few thousand marines. Not so useful otherwise. It will hamper Iran's own ability to send their oil out but there's nothing constructive for the US there.
Considering we can already hamper Iran's ability to ship oil from the air, occupying Kharg is pointless symbolism that will likely backfire badly.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 24, 2026, 08:04:24 AMYou should always assume the best of people in life.
I did, long ago. I defended the US intentions of going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Both times we have been betrayed. By Republicans incompetence.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 24, 2026, 08:04:24 AMQuote from: viper37 on March 24, 2026, 07:58:45 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 24, 2026, 07:25:05 AMHowever, I underestimated the degree to which Trump would be stupid--something I usually don't underestimate, but sometimes even he can surprise me by showing previous low bars were not, in fact, the floor.
Don't count yourself short.
This thread if filled with comments by you underestimating Trump's stupidity. His whole admin is you underestimating his and his Congress followers stupidity.
You should always assume the best of people in life.
I agree entirely. But there is a second sentence that is required. Until they prove otherwise.
BREAKING: Trump accused of demanding trillions from Gulf allies to continue or end Iran war, BBC Arabic reports (https://wtfdetective.blog/trump-accused-of-demanding-trillions-from-gulf-allies/)
QuoteThe administration of President Donald Trump is facing explosive allegations that it is pressuring Gulf allies for trillions of dollars in exchange for either continuing or ending the ongoing war with Iran — a claim that, if true, would mark one of the most controversial chapters of his presidency.
The accusations surfaced after Omani journalist and international affairs analyst Salem al-Juhouri stated during a BBC Arabic broadcast that "leaks" suggest the U.S. is demanding massive financial contributions from Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) nations. According to his remarks, the figures being discussed are staggering: approximately $5 trillion if Gulf states want the war to continue, and $2.5 trillion if they want it to stop.
While no official confirmation has been issued by Washington or Gulf governments, the claims have intensified scrutiny over Trump's handling of the conflict and his broader foreign policy approach.
The allegations come as the region faces rapid escalation following a joint U.S.–Israel offensive launched earlier this year. The conflict has already resulted in significant casualties and widespread instability, with Iran retaliating through drone and missile strikes targeting not only Israel but also neighboring countries hosting U.S. military assets.
These strikes have reportedly hit oil and gas infrastructure across the Gulf, forcing production cuts and triggering economic losses throughout the region. Global markets have felt the shock, with energy prices rising and key shipping routes — including the Strait of Hormuz — facing disruption.
At the same time, Gulf nations have publicly maintained that they oppose the war and deny providing operational support. However, reports of U.S. military activity originating from Gulf territory have raised questions about the extent of their involvement.
According to Juhouri's statements, the U.S. is not only seeking military alignment but also applying financial pressure on Gulf states to support the war effort. He described the alleged demands as part of a broader strategy to secure both economic and strategic backing during the conflict.
Critics argue that such a move — tying war outcomes to financial contributions — would represent a dramatic shift from traditional diplomacy into what they describe as transactional coercion.
The scale of the reported figures has also raised alarm. Trillions of dollars in potential payments would far exceed typical defense or aid agreements, fueling concerns that economic leverage is being used in unprecedented ways.
The controversy is unfolding alongside growing economic tensions between the United States and Gulf nations. Reports indicate that Gulf states are reassessing major investment commitments, including hundreds of billions — and potentially over a trillion dollars — previously pledged to the U.S. economy.
Analysts suggest this shift may be driven by both economic self-preservation and political signaling, as regional governments attempt to shield their economies from further instability while responding to U.S. pressure.
The broader impact has extended beyond the Gulf. Rising energy prices, disrupted supply chains, and market volatility have begun affecting economies worldwide, adding to domestic pressure within the United States.
The allegations — even without official confirmation — are already shaping the narrative around Trump's second term. Critics say the situation reinforces a pattern in which foreign policy is conducted through financial leverage and high-stakes bargaining rather than traditional alliances and diplomacy. Supporters, however, argue that Trump's approach reflects a hard-nosed strategy aimed at ensuring allies share the burden of regional conflicts.
What remains clear is that the stakes are escalating rapidly. With military tensions rising, economic fallout spreading, and trust between allies under strain, the war with Iran is no longer just a regional conflict — it is becoming a global flashpoint.
And now, with claims of trillion-dollar demands entering the conversation, the question facing Washington is no longer just how the war will end — but what it is ultimately costing, and who is being asked to pay.
There are obviously ideological differences with Iran. To put it midly.
But at this point, what's to stop these countries from turning to China to mediate the conflict with Iran? Stop selling oil and gaz to American and Israeli companies, turn to Asian market?
Might explain why Europe and Canada was shifty and dancing with the prospect of helping end the conflict over there, NATO answering the call of allies.
Quote from: viper37 on March 24, 2026, 09:32:19 AMI did, long ago. I defended the US intentions of going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Both times we have been betrayed. By Republicans incompetence.
That was one of my main take aways from both of those wars. We made the US skeptical countries look like geniuses and made our friends look like idiotic suckers. Poland? Humiliated. France? Vindicated.
And the political fallout from that in the US was exactly zero. Nobody gave a shit we did such serious damage to our willing allies. In fact it increased anti-foreign contempt even more.
Foreigners can move here, be worked like a slave in unregulated industries with no worker protections, pay a shit ton of taxes, get zero in return and be hated by everyone and be locked in a cage and deported to a concentration camp. Foreigners can die in some pointless war fought entirely on our behalf and be despised as a freeloader who takes advantage of us. We are an incredibly ungracious and xenophobic country.
Quote from: viper37 on March 24, 2026, 09:37:15 AMBREAKING: Trump accused of demanding trillions from Gulf allies to continue or end Iran war, BBC Arabic reports (https://wtfdetective.blog/trump-accused-of-demanding-trillions-from-gulf-allies/)
QuoteThe administration of President Donald Trump is facing explosive allegations that it is pressuring Gulf allies for trillions of dollars in exchange for either continuing or ending the ongoing war with Iran — a claim that, if true, would mark one of the most controversial chapters of his presidency.
The accusations surfaced after Omani journalist and international affairs analyst Salem al-Juhouri stated during a BBC Arabic broadcast that "leaks" suggest the U.S. is demanding massive financial contributions from Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) nations. According to his remarks, the figures being discussed are staggering: approximately $5 trillion if Gulf states want the war to continue, and $2.5 trillion if they want it to stop.
While no official confirmation has been issued by Washington or Gulf governments, the claims have intensified scrutiny over Trump's handling of the conflict and his broader foreign policy approach.
The allegations come as the region faces rapid escalation following a joint U.S.–Israel offensive launched earlier this year. The conflict has already resulted in significant casualties and widespread instability, with Iran retaliating through drone and missile strikes targeting not only Israel but also neighboring countries hosting U.S. military assets.
These strikes have reportedly hit oil and gas infrastructure across the Gulf, forcing production cuts and triggering economic losses throughout the region. Global markets have felt the shock, with energy prices rising and key shipping routes — including the Strait of Hormuz — facing disruption.
At the same time, Gulf nations have publicly maintained that they oppose the war and deny providing operational support. However, reports of U.S. military activity originating from Gulf territory have raised questions about the extent of their involvement.
According to Juhouri's statements, the U.S. is not only seeking military alignment but also applying financial pressure on Gulf states to support the war effort. He described the alleged demands as part of a broader strategy to secure both economic and strategic backing during the conflict.
Critics argue that such a move — tying war outcomes to financial contributions — would represent a dramatic shift from traditional diplomacy into what they describe as transactional coercion.
The scale of the reported figures has also raised alarm. Trillions of dollars in potential payments would far exceed typical defense or aid agreements, fueling concerns that economic leverage is being used in unprecedented ways.
The controversy is unfolding alongside growing economic tensions between the United States and Gulf nations. Reports indicate that Gulf states are reassessing major investment commitments, including hundreds of billions — and potentially over a trillion dollars — previously pledged to the U.S. economy.
Analysts suggest this shift may be driven by both economic self-preservation and political signaling, as regional governments attempt to shield their economies from further instability while responding to U.S. pressure.
The broader impact has extended beyond the Gulf. Rising energy prices, disrupted supply chains, and market volatility have begun affecting economies worldwide, adding to domestic pressure within the United States.
The allegations — even without official confirmation — are already shaping the narrative around Trump's second term. Critics say the situation reinforces a pattern in which foreign policy is conducted through financial leverage and high-stakes bargaining rather than traditional alliances and diplomacy. Supporters, however, argue that Trump's approach reflects a hard-nosed strategy aimed at ensuring allies share the burden of regional conflicts.
What remains clear is that the stakes are escalating rapidly. With military tensions rising, economic fallout spreading, and trust between allies under strain, the war with Iran is no longer just a regional conflict — it is becoming a global flashpoint.
And now, with claims of trillion-dollar demands entering the conversation, the question facing Washington is no longer just how the war will end — but what it is ultimately costing, and who is being asked to pay.
There are obviously ideological differences with Iran. To put it midly.
But at this point, what's to stop these countries from turning to China to mediate the conflict with Iran? Stop selling oil and gaz to American and Israeli companies, turn to Asian market?
Might explain why Europe and Canada was shifty and dancing with the prospect of helping end the conflict over there, NATO answering the call of allies.
Why do you think those countries won't bribe Trump? They and everyone else seem allto ready to roll over for him no matter how absurd his demands.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on March 24, 2026, 09:49:46 AMQuote from: viper37 on March 24, 2026, 09:37:15 AMBREAKING: Trump accused of demanding trillions from Gulf allies to continue or end Iran war, BBC Arabic reports (https://wtfdetective.blog/trump-accused-of-demanding-trillions-from-gulf-allies/)
QuoteThe administration of President Donald Trump is facing explosive allegations that it is pressuring Gulf allies for trillions of dollars in exchange for either continuing or ending the ongoing war with Iran — a claim that, if true, would mark one of the most controversial chapters of his presidency.
The accusations surfaced after Omani journalist and international affairs analyst Salem al-Juhouri stated during a BBC Arabic broadcast that "leaks" suggest the U.S. is demanding massive financial contributions from Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) nations. According to his remarks, the figures being discussed are staggering: approximately $5 trillion if Gulf states want the war to continue, and $2.5 trillion if they want it to stop.
While no official confirmation has been issued by Washington or Gulf governments, the claims have intensified scrutiny over Trump's handling of the conflict and his broader foreign policy approach.
The allegations come as the region faces rapid escalation following a joint U.S.–Israel offensive launched earlier this year. The conflict has already resulted in significant casualties and widespread instability, with Iran retaliating through drone and missile strikes targeting not only Israel but also neighboring countries hosting U.S. military assets.
These strikes have reportedly hit oil and gas infrastructure across the Gulf, forcing production cuts and triggering economic losses throughout the region. Global markets have felt the shock, with energy prices rising and key shipping routes — including the Strait of Hormuz — facing disruption.
At the same time, Gulf nations have publicly maintained that they oppose the war and deny providing operational support. However, reports of U.S. military activity originating from Gulf territory have raised questions about the extent of their involvement.
According to Juhouri's statements, the U.S. is not only seeking military alignment but also applying financial pressure on Gulf states to support the war effort. He described the alleged demands as part of a broader strategy to secure both economic and strategic backing during the conflict.
Critics argue that such a move — tying war outcomes to financial contributions — would represent a dramatic shift from traditional diplomacy into what they describe as transactional coercion.
The scale of the reported figures has also raised alarm. Trillions of dollars in potential payments would far exceed typical defense or aid agreements, fueling concerns that economic leverage is being used in unprecedented ways.
The controversy is unfolding alongside growing economic tensions between the United States and Gulf nations. Reports indicate that Gulf states are reassessing major investment commitments, including hundreds of billions — and potentially over a trillion dollars — previously pledged to the U.S. economy.
Analysts suggest this shift may be driven by both economic self-preservation and political signaling, as regional governments attempt to shield their economies from further instability while responding to U.S. pressure.
The broader impact has extended beyond the Gulf. Rising energy prices, disrupted supply chains, and market volatility have begun affecting economies worldwide, adding to domestic pressure within the United States.
The allegations — even without official confirmation — are already shaping the narrative around Trump's second term. Critics say the situation reinforces a pattern in which foreign policy is conducted through financial leverage and high-stakes bargaining rather than traditional alliances and diplomacy. Supporters, however, argue that Trump's approach reflects a hard-nosed strategy aimed at ensuring allies share the burden of regional conflicts.
What remains clear is that the stakes are escalating rapidly. With military tensions rising, economic fallout spreading, and trust between allies under strain, the war with Iran is no longer just a regional conflict — it is becoming a global flashpoint.
And now, with claims of trillion-dollar demands entering the conversation, the question facing Washington is no longer just how the war will end — but what it is ultimately costing, and who is being asked to pay.
There are obviously ideological differences with Iran. To put it midly.
But at this point, what's to stop these countries from turning to China to mediate the conflict with Iran? Stop selling oil and gaz to American and Israeli companies, turn to Asian market?
Might explain why Europe and Canada was shifty and dancing with the prospect of helping end the conflict over there, NATO answering the call of allies.
Why do you think those countries won't bribe Trump? They and everyone else seem allto ready to roll over for him no matter how absurd his demands.
Trump: that's a nice shipping channel you've got there. Shame if something happened to it.
Some signal is filtering through the press reports to help cut through the layers of Trumpian bullshittery.
It is clear that Trump & Co are flailing about desperately looking for an off ramp, without a clear sense of how to get there.
It's also true that Iran has very good reasons to end the very substantial pain to them, but at the same time they probably assess they have the relative upper hand and see an opportunity to exploit it for long term benefit.
It appears there have been some discussions between the American Wonderless Twins (Witless and the Second Worst Jared) and Araghchi, the Iranian foreign minister. Araghchi is reported to have said he has authority to get a deal done if Iran's conditions are met. It is not known what those conditions are or what the US position is, other than that those two things are still far apart. One could make some guesses, though. The US probably wants some definitive termination of the Iranian nuclear program so that Trump can claim a "win" as against the JCPOA terms he ditched in 2018. The Iranians are probably willing to agree to JCPOA restrictions again, but only if the US definitively scraps sanctions. This ought to be bridgeable in theory but not in practice because for both sides loss of face is unacceptable even if the deal would be objectively rational.
The other piece that seems clear is that Israel is cut out of the Araghchi discussions. That explains why the Israeli press released the likely bogus Ghalibaf story - as a way of throwing some pebbles into the Araghchi dialogue and angling to get Israel back in the picture somehow. It's very believable that Ghalibaf would be identified to Trump as a prospect. That he is a notorious hardliner is not an issue for Trump, who respects vicious and brutal leaders regardless of ideology. More enticing is Ghalibaf's reputation for corruption and his involvement in real estate deals, inside and outside of Iran. That would seem to make him Trump's kind of guy. I think that is a misreading: Ghalibaf may like earning lots of side money but that doesn't mean the ideology isn't real. I doubt he personally has interest in being the interlocutor "face" with the Americans and I doubt he needs or wants Trump's "help" positioning himself in the Iranian power hierarchy.
In any event, Trump's public statements on this matter will continue to be a useful guide in confirming what is not going on, and thus assisting somewhat in inferring what is going on.
The problem with Iran getting an off ramp is that they assume that without winning the war and forcing concessions, we will just reload and attack them again.
Well that and what is happening in Lebanon is probably hard for them to just accept.
But I don't have a firm grasp on what they are suffering inside the country right now and how long they can keep going like this.
I agree w/Valmy that they aren't likely to want to stop anything as long as Israel is in Lebanon, that would be seen as a capitulation of sorts.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 24, 2026, 11:52:56 AMI agree w/Valmy that they aren't likely to want to stop anything as long as Israel is in Lebanon, that would be seen as a capitulation of sorts.
Agreed but I don't think that is a problematic deal point. If the US gets what it wants, it can tell the Israelis to get out. If Lebanon ends up holding up the deal, it would confirm that Israel really does have Trump by the balls somehow.
I would not be surprised if the deal ended up being something like Iran provides $50 billion to Trump's bribe fund Board of Peace and pinky promises to never build a nuclear bomb, while in exchange the US recognizes Iran's right to toll the straits (with some proceeds going to the Board of Peace, of course) and US taxpayers pay billions to help Iran rebuild their oil and gas infrastructure.
Apparently Iran is saying Kushner and Witkoff are persona non grata for future negotiations, they view them both as simply perpetuating bad faith negotiations in the past to prepare for the inevitable U.S. attacks. They now say any negotiations must involve J.D. Vance, since he has historically been skeptical of involvement in Middle Eastern wars.
Who is going to be the bad boyar whose bad advice mislead the Czar to this defeat? Hegseth should prepare for claiming political asylum in Norway. :hmm:
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on March 24, 2026, 12:03:58 PMI would not be surprised if the deal ended up being something like Iran provides $50 billion to Trump's bribe fund Board of Peace and pinky promises to never build a nuclear bomb, while in exchange the US recognizes Iran's right to toll the straits (with some proceeds going to the Board of Peace, of course) and US taxpayers pay billions to help Iran rebuild their oil and gas infrastructure.
Iran will not agree to pay any money.
They may agree to vague terms where Trump will claim Iran will invest or pay US reparations, but nothing firm.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 24, 2026, 04:16:22 PMApparently Iran is saying Kushner and Witkoff are persona non grata for future negotiations, they view them both as simply perpetuating bad faith negotiations in the past to prepare for the inevitable U.S. attacks. They now say any negotiations must involve J.D. Vance, since he has historically been skeptical of involvement in Middle Eastern wars.
Smart.
Witkoff is just another idiot RE guy. Gullible fool completely out of his depth and in Putin's pocket.
Kushner is a nepo baby puppet for the Saudis and the Gulf Arabs that bought him.
Vance is going to be wary about getting involved though, out of feat of being shivved in the back by other Trumpies and because he wants his fingerprints as far away from this shitshow as possible.
Quote from: Legbiter on March 24, 2026, 04:37:50 PMWho is going to be the bad boyar whose bad advice mislead the Czar to this defeat? Hegseth should prepare for claiming political asylum in Norway. :hmm:
He's a real keeper. Leading candidate for the 2027 FIFA Peace Prize Award
According to Reuters these are the terms the US is offering. Reads to me like a minor Iranian victory because no Iranian concession there - except for the nuclear weapons one is something the US would restart the war over if Iran just ignored their own commitments:
QuoteIran dismantling its nuclear capabilities;
Iran committing to not pursuing further nuclear weapons;
Iran not enriching any more nuclear material;
All enriched material will be delivered to Saba on a schedule to be determined by the US, Israel and Iran;
The Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow nuclear facilities will be decommissioned;
The Atomic Energy Agency will get access to all nuclear information with regard to Iran's programme;
Iran will abandon its proxy model;
Iran will stop its actual funding and arming of proxies in the region;
The strait of Hormuz will remain open, as a free maritime zone and unblocked in the future;
Iran will limit the number and range of its missiles;
Any further use of its missiles will be for Iranian self-defence only;
All sanctions on Iran will be lifted;
Iran will be assisted in developing a civil nuclear project in Bushehr;
The snapback threat against Iran will be removed,
The US and Israel will assist Iran in promoting and developing a civil nuclear project in Bushehr (electricity generation).
Losing the proxies is a giant concession especially towards their Russian ally.
Seems fair-ish.
Were I Khamenei I'd add that Iran would get to pick an equivalent number Trump family members to blow up to make up for the family members he lost, and then call it a deal.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 24, 2026, 06:11:13 PMHe's a real keeper. Leading candidate for the 2027 FIFA Peace Prize Award
This whole war has really brought down my opinion of the Fifa Peace Prize. :console:
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 24, 2026, 06:33:47 PMLosing the proxies is a giant concession especially towards their Russian ally.
My point is, if they agree to this and then later break it, would Trump, let alone any other president, restart this nightmare just because they arm militias in the region? Of course not.
Quote from: Legbiter on March 24, 2026, 07:33:39 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on March 24, 2026, 06:11:13 PMHe's a real keeper. Leading candidate for the 2027 FIFA Peace Prize Award
This whole war has really brought down my opinion of the Fifa Peace Prize. :console:
:lmfao:
So it's being widely reported that the 82nd airborne is being deployed to theatre. I've seen numbers of 1000, 2000, and 3000 mentioned.
Between that and the MEU, it does seem like the US is positioning itself to grab something - presumably coastal.
We've discussed Kharg Island as a potential target. The theory here, I think, is that it would be an economic blow impacting Iran's ability to export oil. We've also discussed how it could expose American troops to significant bombardment and potentially result in significant casualties.
Are there any other reasonable targets for the on the ground capabilities the US is positioning? And I mean from the point of view of presumably competent US operational planners, not Hegseth and Trump.
Of course, the MEU and airborne being repositioned doesn't mean they'll actually be used to attack - but if the US does attempt to take and hold Iranian land, it will do so with the assets it has locally available.
Quote from: Jacob on March 24, 2026, 10:06:03 PMSo it's being widely reported that the 82nd airborne is being deployed to theatre. I've seen numbers of 1000, 2000, and 3000 mentioned.
Between that and the MEU, it does seem like the US is positioning itself to grab something - presumably coastal.
We've discussed Kharg Island as a potential target. The theory here, I think, is that it would be an economic blow impacting Iran's ability to export oil. We've also discussed how it could expose American troops to significant bombardment and potentially result in significant casualties.
Are there any other reasonable targets for the on the ground capabilities the US is positioning? And I mean from the point of view of presumably competent US operational planners, not Hegseth and Trump.
Of course, the MEU and airborne being repositioned doesn't mean they'll actually be used to attack - but if the US does attempt to take and hold Iranian land, it will do so with the assets it has locally available.
I'm not sure what your source is and I really wish you would link it because it's completely inconsistent with what the New York Times was reporting just two days ago which you will see if you read my post from this morning.
Does widely reported to mean that you saw some post on social media saying it was being widely reported?
And realistically what are a mere 5000
Troops going to do, stage a landing and hold until relieved?
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 25, 2026, 12:27:39 AMI'm not sure what your source is and I really wish you would link it because it's completely inconsistent with what the New York Times was reporting just two days ago which you will see if you read my post from this morning.
Does widely reported to mean that you saw some post on social media saying it was being widely reported?
And realistically what are a mere 5000
Troops going to do, stage a landing and hold until relieved?
https://apnews.com/article/us-military-iran-war-82nd-airborne-4b4c30ebc807b323fbf35c4435a739f1
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on March 25, 2026, 12:37:34 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 25, 2026, 12:27:39 AMI'm not sure what your source is and I really wish you would link it because it's completely inconsistent with what the New York Times was reporting just two days ago which you will see if you read my post from this morning.
Does widely reported to mean that you saw some post on social media saying it was being widely reported?
And realistically what are a mere 5000
Troops going to do, stage a landing and hold until relieved?
https://apnews.com/article/us-military-iran-war-82nd-airborne-4b4c30ebc807b323fbf35c4435a739f1
Three points, that article says 1000. Jacob says he saw as much as 3000- really, where.
That article is relying on an earlier NYTimes article which is claimed to have said airborne troops would be sent. The NYTIMES article did not say that. It said that pentagon sources told the NYTIMES that they were beginning to consider deploying airborne troops but no orders to deploy had been issued.
Sloppy reporting combined with people not reading the newspapers, add a bit of social media with a dash of lazy AI writing and misinformation and we arrive at a conclusion that a confirmed reporting of a couple of thousands airborne soldiers will definitely be deployed, complete with speculation about what their target might be.
WTF
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 25, 2026, 12:53:48 AMThree points, that article says 1000. Jacob says he saw as much as 3000- really, where.
That article is relying on an earlier NYTimes article which is claimed to have said airborne troops would be sent. The NYTIMES article did not say that. It said that pentagon sources told the NYTIMES that they were beginning to consider deploying airborne troops but no orders to deploy had been issued.
Sloppy reporting combined with people not reading the newspapers, add a bit of social media with a dash of lazy AI writing and misinformation and we arrive at a conclusion that a confirmed reporting of a couple of thousands airborne soldiers will definitely be deployed, complete with speculation about what their target might be.
WTF
Oh come off it.
I said I'd seen it reported at varying numbers, because that's what I'd seen.
New York Times reports 2000: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/24/us/politics/82nd-airborne-division-iran-troops.html
Wall Street Journal reports 3000: https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/iran-war-us-israel-news-updates-2026/card/pentagon-to-order-3-000-82nd-airborne-soldiers-to-middle-east-3H7VxKvxkaorsOLcRt5g
... and Sophie shared a link to AP reporting 1000.
If you have information that the New York Times, Associated Press, and Wall Street Journal are wrong by all means lay out your better information here.
For my part, I'm much more interested in discussion, analysis, and scenarios based on troop movements than on the latest social media bleatings of Trump and his coterie.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 25, 2026, 12:27:39 AMAnd realistically what are a mere 5000
Troops going to do, stage a landing and hold until relieved?
Yeah that's exactly my question.
What good is that force? What could it possibly achieve?
I can speculate, but there are people here who have more experience and understanding of US military operations who might be able to give a better answer than my speculation.
Hence my question.
I suppose they could take Kharg Island....but it would not surprise me if the Iranians have booby-trapped that island and would blow the whole place up to strike a blow against the US. I've said it before, Trump is incapable of analysing how other people think, which places him at a big disadvantage when fighting religious fanatics with a martyrdom complex.
I'm deeply concerned that such a blow would turn a war against the Islamic Republic into a war against all Iranians; the ensuing death and destruction would be horrendous.
Another possible target is Qeshm island, largest in the gulf and right at the mouth of the strait. I still don't think it's likely.
https://apnews.com/article/iran-us-israel-trump-lebanon-march-25-2026-be07c54139bcc70672bb33f0773ede6a
QuoteUS offers plan for a ceasefire but Iran's military says Washington is in no position to negotiate
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — The United States sent a 15-point plan to Iran for a possible ceasefire, an official said, even as it began to move paratroopers to the Mideast to back up a contingent of Marines heading there on Wednesday. Iran's military scoffed at the diplomatic effort and launched more attacks on Israel and the Persian Gulf region, including an assault that sparked a fire at Kuwait International Airport.
With growing pressure on the U.S. to end the war as it nears the end of its first month, Washington submitted the plan to Iran through intermediaries from Pakistan who have offered to host renewed negotiations, according to a person briefed on the contours of the proposal who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.
Iran's attacks on regional energy infrastructure and its chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway through which a fifth of the world's oil is shipped, has sent oil prices skyrocketing and rocked world markets over fears of a global energy crisis.
More US troops on the way even as diplomacy continues
At least 1,000 troops from the 82nd Airborne Division will be sent top the Mideast in the coming days, three people with knowledge of the plans told The Associated Press.
The Pentagon is also in the process of deploying two Marine units that will add about 5,000 Marines and thousands of sailors to the region. The moves are being framed as U.S. President Donald Trump maneuvering to give himself "max flexibility" on what he will do next, the person added.
Trump has said that American officials are in negotiations with Iran, though he hasn't said who they are in contact with. Iran's Khatam Al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, which commands both the regular military and the paramilitary Revolutionary Guard, suggested there are no talks.
"Have your internal conflicts reached the point where you are negotiating with yourselves?" said Lt. Col. Ebrahim Zolfaghari, a spokesman for the headquarters.
"Our first and last word has been the same from day one, and it will stay that way: Someone like us will never come to terms with someone like you," Zolfaghari said in the video statement aired on state television. "Not now, not ever."
Israeli officials, who have been advocating for Trump to continue the war against Iran, were surprised by the submission of a ceasefire plan, the official said.
The White House did not respond to requests for comment.
Israel launches new wide-scale strikes on Iran
The Israeli military announced it had begun new wide-scale attacks early Wednesday on Iran targeting government infrastructure, and witnesses reported airstrikes in the northwestern city of Qazvin.
Missile alert sirens began early in the morning in Israel as Iran launched its own attacks, which have been a daily occurrence since Israel and the U.S. attacked Iran on Feb. 28 to start the war.
Iran also kept up the pressure on its Gulf Arab neighbors, with Saudi Arabia's Defense Ministry saying it had destroyed at least eight drones in the kingdom's oil-rich Eastern Province, and missile alert sirens sounding in Bahrain.
Kuwait said it shot down multiple drones but one hit a fuel tank at Kuwait International Airport, sparking a fire, the General Civil Aviation Authority said. Firefighters were working to contain the blaze.
Iran has allowed a small number of ships through the Strait of Hormuz, which leads from the Persian Gulf to the open ocean, but none from the U.S., Israel or countries seen as linked with them.
Asked in an interview with India Today on Tuesday whether Iran was charging ships for passage, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei said "absolutely," but did not elaborate.
Brent crude oil, the international standard, has neared US$120 a barrel during the conflict but was trading at around $100 in morning trading as talks of a possible ceasefire helped calm prices. That's still up nearly 40% from the start of the war.
Diplomatic efforts calm energy prices but face huge hurdles
Any talks between the U.S. and Iran would face monumental challenges. Many of Washington's shifting objectives, particularly over Iran's ballistic missile and nuclear programs, remain difficult to achieve.
It's not clear who in Iran's government has the authority to negotiate — or would be willing to, as Israel has vowed to continue killing the country's leaders.
Iran remains highly suspicious of the United States, which twice under the Trump administration has attacked during high-level diplomatic talks, including with the strikes that started the current war.
"We have a very catastrophic experience with U.S. diplomacy," Baghaei told India Today, adding that Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi had been in contact with Pakistani and other regional diplomats but that "there are no talks or negotiations between Iran and the United States."
Zolfaghari said that the U.S. was in no position to negotiate.
"The strategic power you used to talk about has turned into a strategic failure," he said. "The one claiming to be a global superpower would have already gotten out of this mess if it could."
Speaking Tuesday at the White House, Trump said the U.S. is "in negotiations right now" and that the participants included special envoy Steve Witkoff, his son-in-law Jared Kushner, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance.
"We have a number of people doing it," Trump said. "And the other side, I can tell you, they'd like to make a deal."
In an overnight call, Saudi Arabia's powerful crown prince spoke to Pakistan's prime minister about Islamabad's efforts at supporting ceasefire talks.
The state-run Saudi Press Agency said Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the day-to-day ruler of the kingdom, discussed the "the repercussions of the ongoing military escalation on the security and stability of the region and the world" with Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif.
When Trump was previously asked about reports that Saudi Arabia had been pushing him to continue the fight, the U.S. president called Prince Mohammed "a warrior."
"He's fighting with us, by the way," Trump said, without elaborating. "Saudi Arabia has been excellent and UAE -- excellent. And I will tell you, Qatar, incredible."
Authorities say Israeli strikes have killed more than 1,000 people in Lebanon and displaced more than 1 million.
Iran's death toll has surpassed 1,500, its Health Ministry has said. In Israel, 16 people have been killed. At least 13 U.S. military members have been killed, along with more than a dozen civilians in the occupied West Bank and Gulf Arab states.
Despite the destruction of the girls school (which I do hope hegseth gets tried for at some future point) Iranian casualties seem remarkably low to me (1500). Meanwhile Israel has already killed 1000 in its invasion of Lebanon and 500 in Gaza since the ceasefire. A useful comparator for people wondering precisely how much trouble Israel takes to avoid civilians getting killed.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 25, 2026, 02:50:58 AMDespite the destruction of the girls school (which I do hope hegseth gets tried for at some future point) Iranian casualties seem remarkably low to me (1500). Meanwhile Israel has already killed 1000 in its invasion of Lebanon and 500 in Gaza since the ceasefire. A useful comparator for people wondering precisely how much trouble Israel takes to avoid civilians getting killed.
We know from Gaza and Lebanon that the Israeli military and cabinet don't care about civilian casualties, plus in Iran they have so much more space, installations will often just be further away from town and cities.
One big difference is Iran is a "real country", real countries usually don't have a lot of need to put their most important military facilities intermingled in with civilian facilities. In fact, there's opsec reasons you have them a bit separated. Iran didn't build out its military-industrial complex for the purposes of making it hard to bomb without killing Iranian civilians.
Gaza isn't a country and Hamas isn't a real government. Hamas actively desires that anytime their fighters or facilities are struck, as many Palestinians as possible die. That way they can use their deaths, amplified by "useful idiots" in the global left like mongers here, in their antisemitic crusade against Israel.
Trump just declared "we win the war" and that " you wouldn't believe how badly they want to make a deal".
So predictable
Quote from: Zoupa on March 25, 2026, 02:26:11 AMAnother possible target is Qeshm island, largest in the gulf and right at the mouth of the strait. I still don't think it's likely.
Or maybe, just maybe, you guys are falling for a whole bunch of sabre rattling that is aimed at keeping Trump space happy.
Quote from: Jacob on March 25, 2026, 01:25:59 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 25, 2026, 12:53:48 AMThree points, that article says 1000. Jacob says he saw as much as 3000- really, where.
That article is relying on an earlier NYTimes article which is claimed to have said airborne troops would be sent. The NYTIMES article did not say that. It said that pentagon sources told the NYTIMES that they were beginning to consider deploying airborne troops but no orders to deploy had been issued.
Sloppy reporting combined with people not reading the newspapers, add a bit of social media with a dash of lazy AI writing and misinformation and we arrive at a conclusion that a confirmed reporting of a couple of thousands airborne soldiers will definitely be deployed, complete with speculation about what their target might be.
WTF
Oh come off it.
I said I'd seen it reported at varying numbers, because that's what I'd seen.
New York Times reports 2000: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/24/us/politics/82nd-airborne-division-iran-troops.html
Wall Street Journal reports 3000: https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/iran-war-us-israel-news-updates-2026/card/pentagon-to-order-3-000-82nd-airborne-soldiers-to-middle-east-3H7VxKvxkaorsOLcRt5g
... and Sophie shared a link to AP reporting 1000.
If you have information that the New York Times, Associated Press, and Wall Street Journal are wrong by all means lay out your better information here.
For my part, I'm much more interested in discussion, analysis, and scenarios based on troop movements than on the latest social media bleatings of Trump and his coterie.
Critical thinking. Please exercise it.
What do you think 1000 troops are actually going to do? And why do you think somebody at the Pentagon has leaked that they are sending troops in that smaller number?
And remember that the New York Times reported just a couple of days ago that the US had not even started planning sending troops.
What do you think is actually happening?
Quote from: viper37 on March 24, 2026, 09:37:15 AMBREAKING: Trump accused of demanding trillions from Gulf allies to continue or end Iran war, BBC Arabic reports (https://wtfdetective.blog/trump-accused-of-demanding-trillions-from-gulf-allies/)
QuoteThe administration of President Donald Trump is facing explosive allegations that it is pressuring Gulf allies for trillions of dollars in exchange for either continuing or ending the ongoing war with Iran — a claim that, if true, would mark one of the most controversial chapters of his presidency.
The accusations surfaced after Omani journalist and international affairs analyst Salem al-Juhouri stated during a BBC Arabic broadcast that "leaks" suggest the U.S. is demanding massive financial contributions from Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) nations. According to his remarks, the figures being discussed are staggering: approximately $5 trillion if Gulf states want the war to continue, and $2.5 trillion if they want it to stop.
While no official confirmation has been issued by Washington or Gulf governments, the claims have intensified scrutiny over Trump's handling of the conflict and his broader foreign policy approach.
The allegations come as the region faces rapid escalation following a joint U.S.–Israel offensive launched earlier this year. The conflict has already resulted in significant casualties and widespread instability, with Iran retaliating through drone and missile strikes targeting not only Israel but also neighboring countries hosting U.S. military assets.
These strikes have reportedly hit oil and gas infrastructure across the Gulf, forcing production cuts and triggering economic losses throughout the region. Global markets have felt the shock, with energy prices rising and key shipping routes — including the Strait of Hormuz — facing disruption.
At the same time, Gulf nations have publicly maintained that they oppose the war and deny providing operational support. However, reports of U.S. military activity originating from Gulf territory have raised questions about the extent of their involvement.
According to Juhouri's statements, the U.S. is not only seeking military alignment but also applying financial pressure on Gulf states to support the war effort. He described the alleged demands as part of a broader strategy to secure both economic and strategic backing during the conflict.
Critics argue that such a move — tying war outcomes to financial contributions — would represent a dramatic shift from traditional diplomacy into what they describe as transactional coercion.
The scale of the reported figures has also raised alarm. Trillions of dollars in potential payments would far exceed typical defense or aid agreements, fueling concerns that economic leverage is being used in unprecedented ways.
The controversy is unfolding alongside growing economic tensions between the United States and Gulf nations. Reports indicate that Gulf states are reassessing major investment commitments, including hundreds of billions — and potentially over a trillion dollars — previously pledged to the U.S. economy.
Analysts suggest this shift may be driven by both economic self-preservation and political signaling, as regional governments attempt to shield their economies from further instability while responding to U.S. pressure.
The broader impact has extended beyond the Gulf. Rising energy prices, disrupted supply chains, and market volatility have begun affecting economies worldwide, adding to domestic pressure within the United States.
The allegations — even without official confirmation — are already shaping the narrative around Trump's second term. Critics say the situation reinforces a pattern in which foreign policy is conducted through financial leverage and high-stakes bargaining rather than traditional alliances and diplomacy. Supporters, however, argue that Trump's approach reflects a hard-nosed strategy aimed at ensuring allies share the burden of regional conflicts.
What remains clear is that the stakes are escalating rapidly. With military tensions rising, economic fallout spreading, and trust between allies under strain, the war with Iran is no longer just a regional conflict — it is becoming a global flashpoint.
And now, with claims of trillion-dollar demands entering the conversation, the question facing Washington is no longer just how the war will end — but what it is ultimately costing, and who is being asked to pay.
There are obviously ideological differences with Iran. To put it midly.
But at this point, what's to stop these countries from turning to China to mediate the conflict with Iran? Stop selling oil and gaz to American and Israeli companies, turn to Asian market?
Might explain why Europe and Canada was shifty and dancing with the prospect of helping end the conflict over there, NATO answering the call of allies.
Uh... got a source that is most relaible sounding than
wtfdetective.blog ?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 25, 2026, 07:35:22 AMUh... got a source that is most relaible sounding than
wtfdetective.blog ?
Good catch.
Quote from: Zoupa on March 25, 2026, 02:26:11 AMAnother possible target is Qeshm island, largest in the gulf and right at the mouth of the strait. I still don't think it's likely.
Yeah the US will go for some military spectacular that looks good on tiktok. Can happen any day now, they have enough assets in place. Meanwhile the global economy is circling the drain. Countries in SEA will start running out of fuel in the next 2 weeks.
Quote from: grumbler on March 25, 2026, 07:50:04 AMQuote from: jimmy olsen on March 25, 2026, 07:35:22 AMUh... got a source that is most relaible sounding than
wtfdetective.blog ?
Good catch.
It is mentioned in Seoul Economic Daily
https://en.sedaily.com/international/2026/03/24/oman-expert-sparks-row-over-trumps-25-trillion-war-end-bill
But even they note that the source isn't that credible.
Quote"Iran's state-run Press TV reported an interview that Salem al-Zahouri, an Omani journalist and international political analyst, gave to BBC Arabic. "
Where is the Board of Peace in all this?
I was watching Al Jazeera last night, their coverage tends to be less parochial than the BBC's, and there was no mention of any such demand by Trump.
There were interesting pieces on how badly the Philippines and Thailand have already been affected by the war; they seem to be at the back of the queue when supply from the Gulf contracts.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 25, 2026, 08:32:15 AMWhere is the Board of Peace in all this?
Under Trump's desk, polishing his orbs to a shine
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 25, 2026, 08:40:55 AMThere were interesting pieces on how badly the Philippines and Thailand have already been affected by the war; they seem to be at the back of the queue when supply from the Gulf contracts.
The weird hatred Trump's regime has for Thailand has always puzzled me. I guess he is finally taking them down this time.
The NYTimes has a good graphic of where the oil that normally gets shipped through the straight goes, most is sent to China and Southeast Asia
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 25, 2026, 12:27:39 AMAnd realistically what are a mere 5000
Troops going to do, stage a landing and hold until relieved?
The fact that something is pointless and illogical is hardly a convincing argument at this point against the likelihood of the US doing it.
The Big Beautiful Peace Plan has been rejected by Iran:
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cn8dldl0jx9t?page=5
Doesn't matter Trump said the Iranians just gave him a gift worth a lot of money. None of this is true, but we are well past that mattering.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 25, 2026, 10:59:55 AMDoesn't matter Trump said the Iranians just gave him a gift worth a lot of money. None of this is true, but we are well past that mattering.
That's pretty much all Trump needs to declare a win in his mind. The US can now fully withdraw from the Middle East.
Iran War - the Movie
The casting for Starmer is great
Apparently, the paratroopers are being deployed.
I hate to see American soldiers die pointlessly for Trump.
I got that feeling:
US army raises upper age for recruits to 42 and scraps marijuana restrictions (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/25/army-max-enlistment-marijuana-restrictions)
US army currently only 100k from from peak Vietnam number (according to lazy google search) so extended agr draft for a Mideast boondoggle seems unnecessary.
This is the recruitment age, not the draft age. The draft age still tops out at 25. The move has nothing to do with the current situation; the Army has been struggling to hit recruitment numbers for a while now.
Gotcha. Thanks.
Al-Jazeera have footage of an airstrike on an Iraqi military base in Anbar province which killed 15 soldiers.
The report doesn't identify it, but to me it looks and sounds like a US A10 using it's 30mm cannon on the base? :hmm:
Can't directly link to video, but the 9th/10th item down at 22:50GMT on this page:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2026/3/25/iran-war-live-trump-again-says-talks-underway-12-killed-in-south-tehran (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2026/3/25/iran-war-live-trump-again-says-talks-underway-12-killed-in-south-tehran)
Wait, the US is attacking Iraq as well?
Has there been a statement from the US on this?
Quote from: Jacob on March 25, 2026, 07:07:23 PMWait, the US is attacking Iraq as well?
Has there been a statement from the US on this?
There's been several attacks, supposedly targeting Popular Mobilisation forces, but since these militias are notionally part of the Iraq defence forces then it's likely to get 'sloppy'.
Quote from: Jacob on March 25, 2026, 07:07:23 PMWait, the US is attacking Iraq as well?
Has there been a statement from the US on this?
Yep. Bombed a military clinic and killed seven Iraqi servicemen. In Anbar Province. It is like it is 20 years ago.
Quote from: Jacob on March 25, 2026, 07:07:23 PMWait, the US is attacking Iraq as well?
Has there been a statement from the US on this?
Iran/Iraq, only one letter difference. Grok makes mistakes like that often, and when one bottle of whiskey is down, it's also called human error.
Quote from: Jacob on March 25, 2026, 07:07:23 PMWait, the US is attacking Iraq as well?
Has there been a statement from the US on this?
Trump says Iran did it.
I presume.
News not looking good.
https://vxtwitter.com/AaronBastani/status/2036940132666802435?s=20
QuoteAaron Bastani (@AaronBastani)
"Many of the 13 military bases in the region used by American troops are all but uninhabitable..."
A pretty extraordinary admission in the NYT. You know it's bad when they're being that candid.
A ground invasion certainly makes a lot more sense after reading that.
The internal combustion enginge vehicle is dead.
https://www.france24.com/en/france-confirms-oil-crisis-says-30-40-gulf-energy-infrastructure-destroyed
QuoteFrance's Finance Minister Roland Lescure revealed on Wednesday that between 30 and 40 per cent of Gulf refining capacity has been damaged or destroyed by Iran's retaliatory strikes, leaving a shortage of 11 million barrels a day on global oil markets. Lescure warned it could take up to three years to restore damaged facilities, and several months to restart those that were urgently shut down.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2026/03/25/south-korea-iran-oil-shock-middle-east-conflict.html
QuoteSouth Korean Prime Minister Kim Min-seok warned the government must prepare for "worst-case scenarios" stemming from the Middle East conflict.
https://x.com/SkyNewsAust/status/2036644477486649680?s=20
QuoteSky News Australia (@SkyNewsAust)
More than 500 service stations across Australia's two largest states have run out of petrol or diesel as the nation's fuel crisis worsens.
If this war means that the world switches to renewable energy and electrification of economy and transport that would be great.
Iran has outlined their conditions for peace:
- Complete stop of attacks and assassinations.
- Establishing concrete mechanisms ensuring the war against Iran is not restarted in the future
- Guaranteed and clearly defined war damages paid as well as reparations
- An end to war against all resistance groups across the whole region
- International recognition and guarantees for Iran's sovereign rights to control the Hormuz Strait.
Link (in Danish, but not AI nor social media) https://www.dr.dk/tjenester/kimaira/article-by-path/nyheder/udland/live-israel-og-usa-er-gaaet-i-krig-med-iran?focusId=11408372
According to the link it's also reported by the BBC and Al Jazeera
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 25, 2026, 11:31:32 PMhttps://x.com/SkyNewsAust/status/2036644477486649680?s=20
QuoteSky News Australia (@SkyNewsAust)
More than 500 service stations across Australia's two largest states have run out of petrol or diesel as the nation's fuel crisis worsens.
'I remember a time of chaos... ruined dreams... this wasted land. But most of all, I remember The Road Warrior. The man we called "Max." To understand who he was,
you have to go back to another time... when the world was powered by the black fuel... and the desert sprouted great cities of pipe and steel. Gone now... swept away. For reasons long forgotten, two mighty warrior tribes went to war, and touched off a blaze which engulfed them all. Without fuel they were nothing. They'd built a house of straw. The thundering machines sputtered and stopped. Their leaders talked and talked and talked. But nothing could stem the avalanche. Their world crumbled. The cities exploded. A whirlwind of looting, a firestorm of fear. Men began to feed on men. On the roads it was a white line nightmare. Only those mobile enough to scavenge, brutal enough to pillage would survive. The gangs took over the highways, ready to wage war for a tank of juice. And in this maelstrom of decay, ordinary men were battered and smashed... men like Max... the warrior Max. In the roar of an engine, he lost everything... and became a shell of a man... a burnt-out, desolate man, a man haunted by the demons of his past, a man who wandered out into the wasteland. And it was here, in this blighted place, that he learned to live again.'
:P
Quote from: Zanza on March 25, 2026, 11:43:45 PMIf this war means that the world switches to renewable energy and electrification of economy and transport that would be great.
I recall that 10+ years ago, the US military was very much investigating alternative fuel sources because they considered relying on petroleum a strategic liability.
https://apnews.com/article/pete-hegseth-pentagon-christian-worship-service-30db48b6ceb8af5e6172fb3ba2eafaa0
QuoteWASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, hosting his first monthly Christian worship service at the Pentagon since the Iran war began, prayed Wednesday to have "every round find its mark."
"Every month it is fitting to be right here," he told the gathered civilian employees and uniformed military personnel. "All the more fitting this month, at this moment, given what tens of thousands of Americans are doing right now."
He read a prayer he said was first given by a military chaplain to the troops who captured then-President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela.
"Let every round find its mark against the enemies of righteousness and our great nation," Hegseth prayed during the livestreamed service. "Give them wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy."
Hegseth frequently invokes his evangelical faith as head of the armed forces, depicting a Christian nation trying to vanquish its foes with military might.
"I pursued my enemies and overtook them, and did not turn back till they were consumed," he read from the Psalms on Wednesday.
[...]
The Phillipines, given the circumstances, want to make friends with China https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cre0vl84qy9t
"The war in Iran is reshaping politics within Asia. Even with its long-running dispute with China over the South China Sea, Manila is hinting it might be ready to get closer to Beijing.
Asia - and the Philippines in particular - is highly exposed to any disruption in global oil supplies, especially through the Strait of Hormuz, because the country depends so much on imported fuel.
President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has said he's open to restarting talks with China on joint oil and gas exploration in contested waters, calling the current crisis a possible "impetus" for cooperation.
For China, it's a chance to show it can be a reliable energy partner in Southeast Asia. Both sides have clear reasons to engage: the Philippines needs more energy sources, and China wants to strengthen its influence in the region."
Interesting article on Iran's supply lines with China and Russia: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/dispatches/from-drones-to-rocket-fuel-china-and-russia-are-helping-iran-through-supply-chains/
Quote from: Jacob on March 26, 2026, 01:51:42 AMInteresting article on Iran's supply lines with China and Russia: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/dispatches/from-drones-to-rocket-fuel-china-and-russia-are-helping-iran-through-supply-chains/
But that's okay, Putin is Trump's 'friend'.
Quote"NATO NATIONS HAVE DONE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO HELP WITH THE LUNATIC NATION, NOW MILITARILY DECIMATED, OF IRAN. THE U.S.A. NEEDS NOTHING FROM NATO, BUT 'NEVER FORGET' THIS VERY IMPORTANT POINT IN TIME!"
I guess they don't need their bases in NATO countries anymore?
I doubt he knows they're even there.
Quote from: Zanza on March 25, 2026, 11:43:45 PMIf this war means that the world switches to renewable energy and electrification of economy and transport that would be great.
I wonder what the sales of EVs look like this month
Thinking back to the first oil shock in the 70s, that's when Toyota was able to break into the North American market.
Quote from: Syt on March 26, 2026, 12:04:14 AMhttps://apnews.com/article/pete-hegseth-pentagon-christian-worship-service-30db48b6ceb8af5e6172fb3ba2eafaa0
QuoteWASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, hosting his first monthly Christian worship service at the Pentagon since the Iran war began, prayed Wednesday to have "every round find its mark."
Hmm something wrong with my Bible, that line seems to have been omitted from the Sermon on the Mount.
QuoteMiddle East crisis live: Trump says Iran 'begging to make a deal, not me'
Weird, I don't see Iran putting out statements 40+ times a day about how the war is about to be over.
I'm having trouble separating his lies from his delusions.
I saw an article in Haaretz yesterday that Israel is stepping up its operational tempo - intensifying operations as it were - I preparation for the possibility that the US withdraws from the war early.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 26, 2026, 09:04:29 AMQuote from: Syt on March 26, 2026, 12:04:14 AMhttps://apnews.com/article/pete-hegseth-pentagon-christian-worship-service-30db48b6ceb8af5e6172fb3ba2eafaa0
QuoteWASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, hosting his first monthly Christian worship service at the Pentagon since the Iran war began, prayed Wednesday to have "every round find its mark."
Hmm something wrong with my Bible, that line seems to have been omitted from the Sermon on the Mount.
That was the sermon on the mount of skulls. Apocryphal
Does anyone else have a feeling that Hegseth may have misunderstood the gist of Jesus' teachings?
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on March 26, 2026, 10:43:10 AMI'm having trouble separating his lies from his delusions.
I suspect he is as well.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 26, 2026, 11:03:42 AMDoes anyone else have a feeling that Hegseth may have misunderstood the gist of Jesus' teachings?
Of course, he's Evangelical, it's Christianity tailor made for the ignorant and stupid. There's virtually no serious theology in evangelicalism. It is all centered around charismatic imbeciles usually manipulating congregations for money.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 26, 2026, 11:01:38 AMThat was the sermon on the mount of skulls. Apocryphal
Blood and Oil for the Blood God!
Quote from: Syt on March 26, 2026, 12:04:14 AMQuoteoverwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy."
That is the perfect theological statement of faith for MAGA Christianity right there.
Here's what I think the high level objectives of the participants in the current war are:
Israel - weaken Iran as much as possible, regime change is desirable but a stretch goal; dismantle Hezbollah and similar Iranian clients; expand Israeli lebensraum in Lebanon; keep Nethanyahu in charge and out of prison.
US - assuage Trump's ego; enable grifting opportunities for the Trump family and select clients; wider American (and Trump) control of the global petro-economy.
GCC States - reopen the Strait of Hormuz; rebuild their infrastructure; ensure this doesn't happen again one way or the other.
Iran - I think their goals have been clearly stated in the five points they released yesterday.
Here's what I see as the main direction of some of the major non-participants:
China - keep Iran in the fight to quagmire the US as much as possible; use the instability to gain influence.
Russia - keep Iran in the fight to quagmire the US as much as possible; hope war materiel for Ukraine is redirected to the Middle East; benefit from increases in oil prices; enjoy the increased strain on NATO.
The EU - stay out of the fighting; be ready to "guarantee stability" when the fighting (hopefully) settles down.
Beyond that, Pakistan seems to be trying to position themselves as mediators, while India and East Asia is mostly about trying to weather the storm. I don't really know what's going on in Central and South America or Africa or how the repercussions are playing out there.
Any thoughts or additional insight from anyone? How's the world dealing with this?
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on March 26, 2026, 10:43:10 AMI'm having trouble separating his lies from his delusions.
I am not sure there is a distinction
Yeah, I think Trump's in a place where he can't really distinguish. I think it's only natural, given his whole way of being is about repeating a lie with enough force behind it to make everyone treat it as if it's true.
It's just that it's less effective when it comes to a war and negotiating with people outside of his normal spheres.
(as an aside, I saw a headline today I found funny: "Is Trump Negotiating With Iran or With Himself?")
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 26, 2026, 11:06:25 AMQuote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 26, 2026, 11:03:42 AMDoes anyone else have a feeling that Hegseth may have misunderstood the gist of Jesus' teachings?
Of course, he's Evangelical, it's Christianity tailor made for the ignorant and stupid. There's virtually no serious theology in evangelicalism. It is all centered around charismatic imbeciles usually manipulating congregations for money.
I get now why many of that crowd lean Israel and sometimes Judeophile. They are really wannabe Israelites in Christian costumes. They seem to beeline right to the most genocidy passages in the OT. They may talk game about WWJD, but what they REALLY want to do is play Ephraimites slaughtering Amalekites.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 26, 2026, 11:03:42 AMDoes anyone else have a feeling that Hegseth may have misunderstood the gist of Jesus' teachings?
I mean, here is something his favorite conman said recently about the Democrat Senate candidate in Texas:
QuoteHaymes went on to say: "I pray that God kills him ... Ultimately, that means killing his heart and raising him up to new life in Christ."
In response, Potteiger agreed, saying: "Right, right ... We want him crucified with Christ."
Sounds more like something the Romans would say. :hmm:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 26, 2026, 12:00:45 PMI get now why many of that crowd lean Israel and sometimes Judeophile. They are really wannabe Israelites in Christian costumes. They seem to beeline right to the most genocidy passages in the OT. They may talk game about WWJD, but what they REALLY want to do is play Ephraimites slaughtering Amalekites.
It is kind of weird how often Amalek gets mentioned.
Quote from: Jacob on March 26, 2026, 11:56:50 AMYeah, I think Trump's in a place where he can't really distinguish. I think it's only natural, given his whole way of being is about repeating a lie with enough force behind it to make everyone treat it as if it's true.
It's just that it's less effective when it comes to a war and negotiating with people outside of his normal spheres.
(as an aside, I saw a headline today I found funny: "Is Trump Negotiating With Iran or With Himself?")
On the headline, I believe that is something Iran as said/questioned.
Quote from: garbon on March 26, 2026, 12:21:16 PMOn the headline, I believe that is something Iran as said/questioned.
Ah, right.
Yeah, I've seen a bit of Iranian social media talking trash about Trump. They're not doing a bad job, to be honest.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 26, 2026, 12:00:45 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 26, 2026, 11:06:25 AMQuote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 26, 2026, 11:03:42 AMDoes anyone else have a feeling that Hegseth may have misunderstood the gist of Jesus' teachings?
Of course, he's Evangelical, it's Christianity tailor made for the ignorant and stupid. There's virtually no serious theology in evangelicalism. It is all centered around charismatic imbeciles usually manipulating congregations for money.
I get now why many of that crowd lean Israel and sometimes Judeophile. They are really wannabe Israelites in Christian costumes. They seem to beeline right to the most genocidy passages in the OT. They may talk game about WWJD, but what they REALLY want to do is play Ephraimites slaughtering Amalekites.
While I can see why you would make that conclusion, that is not it. The reason that crowd leans toward supporting the state of Israel is because they believe that for the end times to occur the Temple needs to be rebuilt, and for that to happen Israel needs to exist.
That's dramatically overstated FWIW, and I'm very bigoted against Protestant evangelicals, so I am not defending them in general. The belief in dispensationalism / rapture, is not universal even among evangelicals--and it has actually declined significantly since the year 2000. (It was basically invented by a random idiot in the 1800s, like most fake evangelical beliefs.)
Further, even among dispensationalists, the belief in the whole "Israel must exist to trigger end times" is itself a view only held by some dispensationalists--so you're talking a subgroup of a subgroup.
A lot of the Christian nationalist / Hegsethian evangelical types are just generally warmongering and hateful as a guiding principle that they equate to their faith. I don't know if Hegseth's brand of stupidity is dispensationalist or not, but there's tons of non-dispensationalist warmongering evangelicals who espouse a "rejection of pacifism", a rejection of Christ's veneration of the meek, and a general hateful attitude to non-Christians.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/03/26/us-iran-war-ukraine-missile-defense/
Quote"According to a notice that the Pentagon sent to Congress, reviewed by The Post, the Defense Department has used some of the European PURL money for other capabilities lawmakers that intended to be paid for by American funding through USAI.
It remained unclear, the U.S. official said, whether the Pentagon was using the PURL funding in addition to, or instead of, the money Congress had already passed to deliver such weaponry.
Separately, the Pentagon notified Congress on Monday that it intended to divert about $750 million in funding provided by NATO countries through the PURL program to restock the U.S. military's own inventories, rather than to send additional assistance to Ukraine, according to two U.S. officials.
The first official said it was unclear whether European countries providing their funds for the initiative to bolster Ukraine understood how the money was being spent."
Wait what? Are we just stealing 750 million dollars of the Euro's money that was intended to aid Ukraine?
And it's not getting diverted into Trump's bank account? I'm as shocked as you are.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 26, 2026, 01:30:22 PMThat's dramatically overstated FWIW, and I'm very bigoted against Protestant evangelicals, so I am not defending them in general. The belief in dispensationalism / rapture, is not universal even among evangelicals--and it has actually declined significantly since the year 2000. (It was basically invented by a random idiot in the 1800s, like most fake evangelical beliefs.)
Further, even among dispensationalists, the belief in the whole "Israel must exist to trigger end times" is itself a view only held by some dispensationalists--so you're talking a subgroup of a subgroup.
A lot of the Christian nationalist / Hegsethian evangelical types are just generally warmongering and hateful as a guiding principle that they equate to their faith. I don't know if Hegseth's brand of stupidity is dispensationalist or not, but there's tons of non-dispensationalist warmongering evangelicals who espouse a "rejection of pacifism", a rejection of Christ's veneration of the meek, and a general hateful attitude to non-Christians.
As already discussed in this thread, there have been numerous complaints by US military personnel that they have been told by commanding officers that the war against Iran is intended to "cause Armageddon." and cause the return of Jesus.
Hegseth's has not said it publicly, but his rhetoric is consistent with the view.
That's a different question as to whether evangelicals support war mongering because they think it will bring about the rapture.
I actually bothered to look--Hegseth is part of a conservative Reformed Denomination, they aren't dispensationalist. Dispensationalism is most strongly affiliated with Baptist (often independent Baptist) and Pentecostal denominations in American Protestantism.
If there is a God then Flood 2: Cruise Control seems more likely.
I think God would assume the flood technique was not quite as effective as earlier methods. My money is on going to back to the true and tried Giant Meteor as used on the dinos.
TACO alert! Retaliation for Hormuz delayed for another 10 days.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 26, 2026, 02:41:07 PMThat's a different question as to whether evangelicals support war mongering because they think it will bring about the rapture.
I don't understand, if evangelicals are telling their troops that the reason they are fighting this war is to bring the world closer to Armageddon, what is the distinction you are drawing? Seems pretty clear the US has religious fanatics in positions of power who want the world to end.
Quote from: Tamas on March 26, 2026, 04:10:52 PMTACO alert! Retaliation for Hormuz delayed for another 10 days.
And anyone who is surprised by this development - well I am not sure how that could be.
And after US financial markets closed, too. More opportunities for insider trading!
Quote from: PJL on March 26, 2026, 04:16:10 PMAnd after US financial markets closed, too. More opportunities for insider trading!
Missed opportunity - it's much more effective to do one's insider trading during trading hours. This way everyone knows the same thing when the market reopens. Trump must be very upset about that.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2026, 04:18:02 PMQuote from: PJL on March 26, 2026, 04:16:10 PMAnd after US financial markets closed, too. More opportunities for insider trading!
Missed opportunity - it's much more effective to do one's insider trading during trading hours. This way everyone knows the same thing when the market reopens. Trump must be very upset about that.
The futures markets are open 24 hours Mon-Fri. That's how they do the trades
Quote from: PJL on March 26, 2026, 04:19:35 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2026, 04:18:02 PMQuote from: PJL on March 26, 2026, 04:16:10 PMAnd after US financial markets closed, too. More opportunities for insider trading!
Missed opportunity - it's much more effective to do one's insider trading during trading hours. This way everyone knows the same thing when the market reopens. Trump must be very upset about that.
The futures markets are open 24 hours Mon-Fri. That's how they do the trades
Wouldn't that only work if someone had advance knowledge of the announcement though?
I imagine they use options
Quote from: Tamas on March 26, 2026, 04:59:26 PMI imagine they use options
Maybe, but so does everyone else.
The whole market is a futures market. I don't understand the relevance of the timing of the trading markets being closed as being all that relevant to how the grifters are going to grift. We might see that there was a spike in trading just before the markets closed in NA. Just like there was a spike in trading 15 minutes before the first Trumpian declaration.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2026, 04:18:02 PMMissed opportunity - it's much more effective to do one's insider trading during trading hours. This way everyone knows the same thing when the market reopens. Trump must be very upset about that.
After-market trading is still going on, and the filthy pleb retail traders don't have access to that.
Good analysis
https://acoup.blog/2026/03/25/miscellanea-the-war-in-iran/
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on March 26, 2026, 05:36:56 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2026, 04:18:02 PMMissed opportunity - it's much more effective to do one's insider trading during trading hours. This way everyone knows the same thing when the market reopens. Trump must be very upset about that.
After-market trading is still going on, and the filthy pleb retail traders don't have access to that.
Isn't it the plebs who get fleeced? And now even the plebs know.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2026, 07:03:51 PMQuote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on March 26, 2026, 05:36:56 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2026, 04:18:02 PMMissed opportunity - it's much more effective to do one's insider trading during trading hours. This way everyone knows the same thing when the market reopens. Trump must be very upset about that.
After-market trading is still going on, and the filthy pleb retail traders don't have access to that.
Isn't it the plebs who get fleeced? And now even the plebs know.
You get in early.
1.market closes,i imagine by that time the insiders have built a healthy oil short position at the top.
2. Trump sends the taco message.
3.those with premarket access sell/short their oil-related stuff but even the algorithms are a step behind the insider. The move of course increases the insider's profit. People with only regular hours acesss can watch the lucrative period of the trade play out. Those with oil longs are sweating.
4.market opens, those with longs give up and sell, hopeful people yolo into the short side. The insider closes their short into this dump before reality reaaserts itself and the price goes back up again.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 26, 2026, 06:52:17 PMGood analysis
https://acoup.blog/2026/03/25/miscellanea-the-war-in-iran/
Agreed. It pretty much matches what I think, so I find it pretty sound.
Quote from: Tamas on March 26, 2026, 07:21:59 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2026, 07:03:51 PMQuote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on March 26, 2026, 05:36:56 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2026, 04:18:02 PMMissed opportunity - it's much more effective to do one's insider trading during trading hours. This way everyone knows the same thing when the market reopens. Trump must be very upset about that.
After-market trading is still going on, and the filthy pleb retail traders don't have access to that.
Isn't it the plebs who get fleeced? And now even the plebs know.
You get in early.
1.market closes,i imagine by that time the insiders have built a healthy oil short position at the top.
2. Trump sends the taco message.
3.those with premarket access sell/short their oil-related stuff but even the algorithms are a step behind the insider. The move of course increases the insider's profit. People with only regular hours acesss can watch the lucrative period of the trade play out. Those with oil longs are sweating.
4.market opens, those with longs give up and sell, hopeful people yolo into the short side. The insider closes their short into this dump before reality reaaserts itself and the price goes back up again.
Thanks.
WSJ headline indicates that the Pentagon is considering sending another 10 000 ground troops to the Middle East (https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/iran-war-us-israel-news-updates/card/trump-weighs-sending-another-10-000-ground-troops-to-the-middle-east-v1OhoXwv55BiCg7MAmim?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqez0YSGivNP0j8O65jfLemy88pt8ZWEKB8QZq8MOG9_TNIqCcD5Iqa53HgzK5w%3D&gaa_ts=69c5dc92&gaa_sig=mbPdrzzq0fYm49TZP9yfrlGWc0u_SqEfpdyRPliFK1muvnwFvQgGEqApw7VsQysaoC0BvaRej-Aj7dYnxrM5jg%3D%3D), to provide "more military options" for President Trump.
I still haven't come across any scenario of what could usefully be accomplished by that amount of troops as a military option, and remain deeply interested in such scenarios.
For now the most likely mission seems to me to be deployed to grab some semi-significant piece of land and then be sitting ducks for relentless Iranian attacks. Like I said, I'm very keen to learn if there are more effective options for their use.
Yeah, it's all just haphazard bullshit.
I really feel sorry for the families of the US military, knowing that their loved ones are being put in harms way so recklessly.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2026, 09:18:50 PMYeah, it's all just haphazard bullshit.
I really feel sorry for the families of the US military, knowing that their loved ones are being put in harms way so recklessly.
Maybe for the 10% who aren't rabid MAGA.
Quote from: Valmy on March 26, 2026, 09:23:24 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2026, 09:18:50 PMYeah, it's all just haphazard bullshit.
I really feel sorry for the families of the US military, knowing that their loved ones are being put in harms way so recklessly.
Maybe for the 10% who aren't rabid MAGA.
What's the source of your number?
Edited the thread title from "Iran War?" to "Iran War"
Market stuff . . .
Options are only traded when markets are open. Futures can trade aftermarket. The aftermarket is obviously less liquid but for really big contracts like S&P there is always some depth. But doing a trade like this in the aftermarket makes it really stand out. Whoever did this believed that they could act with total impunity and didn't feel the need to make an effort to hide it.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 26, 2026, 06:52:17 PMGood analysis
https://acoup.blog/2026/03/25/miscellanea-the-war-in-iran/
QuoteAnd the answer is simple: it is not possible for two sides to both win a war. But it is absolutely possible for both sides to lose; mutual ruin is an option.
Preach it.
Quote from: Jacob on March 26, 2026, 09:05:20 PMWSJ headline indicates that the Pentagon is considering sending another 10 000 ground troops to the Middle East (https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/iran-war-us-israel-news-updates/card/trump-weighs-sending-another-10-000-ground-troops-to-the-middle-east-v1OhoXwv55BiCg7MAmim?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqez0YSGivNP0j8O65jfLemy88pt8ZWEKB8QZq8MOG9_TNIqCcD5Iqa53HgzK5w%3D&gaa_ts=69c5dc92&gaa_sig=mbPdrzzq0fYm49TZP9yfrlGWc0u_SqEfpdyRPliFK1muvnwFvQgGEqApw7VsQysaoC0BvaRej-Aj7dYnxrM5jg%3D%3D), to provide "more military options" for President Trump.
I still haven't come across any scenario of what could usefully be accomplished by that amount of troops as a military option, and remain deeply interested in such scenarios.
For now the most likely mission seems to me to be deployed to grab some semi-significant piece of land and then be sitting ducks for relentless Iranian attacks. Like I said, I'm very keen to learn if there are more effective options for their use.
Invading Iran needs something the scale of Operation Overlord. Another ten thousand troops won't make a difference to the situation. With a few thousand troops, you can do a Gallipoli.
But gods on americas side :contract: :bleeding:
Looks like Iran is moving forward with the plan to collect passage fees for the Strait of Hormuz. (https://apnews.com/article/iran-hormuz-shipping-tolls-china-de5159966cde7de7b964b3c2c67eec07)
It also looks like the fees are payable in Chinese yuan.
Quote from: Jacob on March 26, 2026, 09:33:18 PMQuote from: Valmy on March 26, 2026, 09:23:24 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2026, 09:18:50 PMYeah, it's all just haphazard bullshit.
I really feel sorry for the families of the US military, knowing that their loved ones are being put in harms way so recklessly.
Maybe for the 10% who aren't rabid MAGA.
What's the source of your number?
Just my bitterness that right wing nuts fill the military. Which is why I found it absurd they would ever "refuse illegal orders". Look I am sure some principled moral people are in the armed forces but...they don't seem the majority.
https://mma.prnewswire.com/media/2448117/PR___GOVX_Presidential_Pulse_Check.pdf
It isn't unanimous or anything. But clearly the overwhelming majority of the military wants this. It is better that it is the people who vote for this and support it who have to do it.
Yeah I did a search and found the same thing, which seems to indicate 70% support, which is slightly less bad than the 90% you initially said.
Still not great though.
With the MAGA percentages in law enforcement, corrections, and the military, we are well and truly screwed if we ever have to rely on those types of folks.
You guys are well and truly screwed if you have to rely on the average American...
We are well and truly screwed no matter who or what we want to rely on.
Yeah, I think you are. :(
Once the markets close today the Americans will maybe begin some amphibious operations. :hmm:
Quote from: Legbiter on March 27, 2026, 01:35:39 PMOnce the markets close today the Americans will maybe begin some amphibious operations. :hmm:
:yes:
Gonna be interesting to see how Trump attempts to TACO before the market reopens on Monday.
Quote from: Legbiter on March 27, 2026, 01:35:39 PMOnce the markets close today the Americans will maybe begin some amphibious operations. :hmm:
Source?
Quote from: Jacob on March 27, 2026, 01:42:40 PMSource?
Just a hunch. Trump likes his military spectaculars done on the weekends.
Oh I see. Yeah, we'll see what happens over the weekend.
Quote from: Legbiter on March 27, 2026, 01:35:39 PMOnce the markets close today the Americans will maybe begin some amphibious operations. :hmm:
Nothing's close enough to go this weekend. USS
Tripoli was in Diego Garcia this past Monday, and it would take her task force until the middle of next week to get into position even if she had left that same day.
Houthis have decided to join the war, they're starting to launch ballistic missiles into Israel.
QuoteMultiple American service members were wounded and some aircraft were damaged in a March 27 Iranian attack on Prince Sultan Air Base, Saudi Arabia, people familiar with the matter told Air & Space Forces Magazine.
Around 10 service members were wounded, two seriously, according to initial reports.
An Iranian missile struck the base, injuring the service members. Multiple drones were also used in the attack.
A spokesperson for U.S. Central Command declined to comment.
Multiple refueling aircraft and an E-3 Sentry AWACS command and control plane are among the aircraft damaged, according to preliminary information. A photo showed significant damage to an E-3, but the image could not be independently confirmed.
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/us-forces-saudi-arabia-iran-attack/ (https://www.airandspaceforces.com/us-forces-saudi-arabia-iran-attack/)
Is that the same missile-to-target value ratio as the US strikes?
Always unfortunate with casualties, but all American equipment destroyed increases our security.
QuoteAccording to this satellite image taken by Landsat 8/9, it appears that, in addition to the KC-135R Stratotankers of the U.S. Air Force, at least one or two E-3G Sentry AWACS has also been destroyed in the ballistic missile strike carried out by the IRGC Aerospace Force at Prince Sultan Air Base, Saudi Arabia, on March 27, 2026.
In fact, it appears that, the primary target of the IRGCASF was the E-3Gs of the USAF parked there, not the KC-135Rs. However, they also managed to destroy several KC-135Rs.
https://x.com/BabakTaghvaee1/status/2037766590343631338 (https://x.com/BabakTaghvaee1/status/2037766590343631338)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HEeZil0WMAAopQr?format=jpg&name=small)
Losing a couple of AWACS is going to fuck up the sortie rate. The russians and Chinese probably helped with satellite data. So basically they can only use Israeli and Jordanian airfields semi-safely for their fighters. :hmm: Every other Gulf airbase and radar installation has been knocked out.
Trump is okay with that, and so are his cronies, because putin is an upstanding guy
QuoteFrance's Finance Minister Roland Lescure revealed on Wednesday that between 30 and 40 per cent of Gulf refining capacity has been damaged or destroyed by Iran's retaliatory strikes, leaving a shortage of 11 million barrels a day on global oil markets. Lescure warned it could take up to three years to restore damaged facilities, and several months to restart those that were urgently shut down
https://www.france24.com/en/france-confirms-oil-crisis-says-30-40-gulf-energy-infrastructure-destroyed (https://www.france24.com/en/france-confirms-oil-crisis-says-30-40-gulf-energy-infrastructure-destroyed)
I don't think there will be many airlines around next July. :hmm:
Quote from: Legbiter on March 27, 2026, 01:46:03 PMQuote from: Jacob on March 27, 2026, 01:42:40 PMSource?
Just a hunch. Trump likes his military spectaculars done on the weekends.
Well, that would have to be an invasion that occurs only in the imaginations of Trump or others because as already noted just yesterday, the amphibious Marines are still about two or three weeks away from arriving.
Pentagon prepares for weeks of ground operations in Iran (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/03/28/trump-iran-ground-troops-marines/)
Non Paywall link:
https://archive.is/i2YHq
That doesn't necessarily mean anything. The Pentagon is supposed to be preparing for all sorts of things. Or at least it used to before we made Mr. Not-Committing-Warcrimes-Is-Woke Secretary of Def..er...War.
But the options are either just surrender to Iranian demands or send in the troops. The troops will be sent in.
Quote from: Valmy on March 28, 2026, 09:02:37 PMThat doesn't necessarily mean anything. The Pentagon is supposed to be preparing for all sorts of things. Or at least it used to before we made Mr. Not-Committing-Warcrimes-Is-Woke Secretary of Def..er...War.
But the options are either just surrender to Iranian demands or send in the troops. The troops will be sent in.
Well, the good news is, Iran is totally defeated.
(https://i.imgur.com/tDCu15h.jpeg)
It shouldn't be funny, but everytime, he reminds me of this exchange:
Centurion Faipalgugus : Qui êtes-vous ? Blocus : Claudius Blocus, envoyé spécial de Jules César. Voilà qui je suis. Centurion, tu avais envoyé un message à Rome pour dire que toute la Gaule était occupée. Toute ? Toute ! Centurion Faipalgugus : Le messager ! Je l'avais oublié celui-là ! Blocus : Eh bien, Jules César m'a demandé de vérifier tes dires ; de voir si tu avais vraiment vaincu ces Gaulois dissidents... Par Jupiter ! Qu'est-ce qu'ils nous ont mis, tes vaincus !
So unconditional surrender was just BS, now it's about making a deal? The US seems to struggle with keeping its lies straight.
Quote from: The Brain on March 29, 2026, 02:17:22 AMThe US seems to struggle with keeping its lies straight.
We don't really struggle at all since we don't really bother.
Quote from: viper37 on March 28, 2026, 08:45:30 PMPentagon prepares for weeks of ground operations in Iran (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/03/28/trump-iran-ground-troops-marines/)
Non Paywall link:
https://archive.is/i2YHq
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HEjGNrbbYAEL94X?format=jpg&name=small)
Gonna be awfully hard to accomplish any objectives when the troops are landed every Friday and withdrawn every Monday.
I mean the whole "cavalcade of contradictory bullshit" is core to the Trump method.
If he ends up reaching some sort of negotiated settlement, the whole "getting ready to attack" thing will be recontextualized as positioning to improve his bargaining position.
Conversely, if the US ends up attacking all the negotiating thing will be recontextualized as "we were keeping them off balance and using up their leadership cycles to distract them from the attack we always were going to made."
It was the same with Greenland and with basically every single thing he's ever done.
I do think it's less effective when it comes to war because the actual options are limited by what materiel you have positioned where and that doesn't change overnight. And conversely, changing your force posture carries an actual cost as well.
It's all part of Trump's brilliant negotiation strategy of always keeping his adversaries "off balance"
If this strategy also appears to be indistinguishable from that of an incompetent ignoramus and pathological liar suffering early onset dementia, I assure you the similarities are entirely coincidental.
Is it still considered early onset dementia if the sufferer is 79? Or just regular dementia?
Quote from: HVC on March 29, 2026, 02:06:24 PMIs it still considered early onset dementia if the sufferer is 79? Or just regular dementia?
Alternatively, perhaps the US as 'concept' is going through early onset dementia?
The US as a political entity is ill, how else do we explain it being armed to the teeth, it's people being the most 'armed' in history and yet accepting matter of fact, the weekly school shootings and gun massacres?
Quote from: HVC on March 29, 2026, 02:06:24 PMIs it still considered early onset dementia if the sufferer is 79? Or just regular dementia?
:D
Early stage
That was my own early onset in action.
Quote from: HVC on March 29, 2026, 02:06:24 PMIs it still considered early onset dementia if the sufferer is 79? Or just regular dementia?
maybe it's just in a class of its own, with dementia trying to get a foothold but being repulsed by the vileness of the orange man?
Quote from: mongers on March 29, 2026, 02:41:23 PMQuote from: HVC on March 29, 2026, 02:06:24 PMIs it still considered early onset dementia if the sufferer is 79? Or just regular dementia?
Alternatively, perhaps the US as 'concept' is going through early onset dementia?
The US as a political entity is ill, how else do we explain it being armed to the teeth, it's people being the most 'armed' in history and yet accepting matter of fact, the weekly school shootings and gun massacres?
One obvious explanation is that it represents the tradeoff between rights and risks that the US population on the whole is willing to tolerate. It may be one you personally don't agree with, but that's hardly a mental illness of the political entity.
A tradeoff implies an understanding of what's being traded. I don't think the half of Americans suckling at the teat of fox and by extension trump knows what's going on.
Quote from: HVC on March 29, 2026, 05:16:29 PMA tradeoff implies an understanding of what's being traded. I don't think the half of Americans suckling at the teat of fox and by extension trump knows what's going on.
indeed. Trading away what was probably the most beneficial and effective empire in history for... nothing.
Unless you're an oligarch of course.
But I guess nothing lasts forever
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 29, 2026, 05:24:08 PMQuote from: HVC on March 29, 2026, 05:16:29 PMA tradeoff implies an understanding of what's being traded. I don't think the half of Americans suckling at the teat of fox and by extension trump knows what's going on.
indeed. Trading away what was probably the most beneficial and effective empire in history for... nothing.
Unless you're an oligarch of course.
But I guess nothing lasts forever
Perfect understanding isn't even required, and often isn't possible, but the basic lack of understanding is sad. It's been what, a year, and people still don't understand how tariffs work for example.
That's not to say the lefts voters are perfect, far from it. I've gone on the record with my feelings about the general voting public, but one party is trying to tear the world down and that's what should be the focus.
Quote from: DGuller on March 29, 2026, 05:10:14 PMOne obvious explanation is that it represents the tradeoff between rights and risks that the US population on the whole is willing to tolerate. It may be one you personally don't agree with, but that's hardly a mental illness of the political entity.
I am very cynical about it since it seems like it is driven because an industry benefits from this right. I don't see the US population fighting hard for the OTHER amendments. Without a powerful industry to benefit, they just don't get mobilized.
It seems weird to me that the US population really just organically believes that only this one amendment matters and all the others can be compromised into meaninglessness. I don't really think they believe that the Fourth Amendment doesn't matter because you can just gun down cops if they abuse it, so therefore only the second amendment matters. But you would be forgiven for thinking so considering how this one amendment seems to be held up as the only right worth having.
I know its cliche to bring it up, but I'll do it anyway, but people always forget the well regulated militia part of the amendment. Its almost like the defense of the amendemnt is more because they like their shiny bang bang stick more so then for the love of the constitution. Which is a piece of paper that can be wrong anyway, hence the amendments :P
If there is a ground invasion of Iran, the well-regulated militia might be needed soon.
Trump consulted the oracle at Delphi and was told that if he attacked Iran there would be regime change in a great empire.
Actually, the oracle told him that it would be bad for his reign, but he called it fake news, crossed out "your presidency" with sharpie and wrote "Iran's government" over it, claiming that this was what the Oracle had actually said while Larry Ellison smiles in the background.
Quote from: HVC on March 29, 2026, 08:06:42 PMI know its cliche to bring it up, but I'll do it anyway, but people always forget the well regulated militia part of the amendment. Its almost like the defense of the amendemnt is more because they like their shiny bang bang stick more so then for the love of the constitution. Which is a piece of paper that can be wrong anyway, hence the amendments :P
Unfortunately, until the US re-establishes a Supreme Court (if it ever does) the current misinterpretation of the second amendment has to be treated as law.
One of the many liberal Democratic institutions that would need to be reinstated in the United States.
Quote from: HVC on March 29, 2026, 08:06:42 PMI know its cliche to bring it up, but I'll do it anyway, but people always forget the well regulated militia part of the amendment. Its almost like the defense of the amendemnt is more because they like their shiny bang bang stick more so then for the love of the constitution. Which is a piece of paper that can be wrong anyway, hence the amendments :P
The well regulated part is by the people of the people for the people.
Looks like Trump has drifted back into threatening to blow up all of Iran's infrastructure intermixed with boasts about how he is going to take Iran's oil.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on March 30, 2026, 07:55:45 AMQuote from: HVC on March 29, 2026, 08:06:42 PMI know its cliche to bring it up, but I'll do it anyway, but people always forget the well regulated militia part of the amendment. Its almost like the defense of the amendemnt is more because they like their shiny bang bang stick more so then for the love of the constitution. Which is a piece of paper that can be wrong anyway, hence the amendments :P
The well regulated part is by the people of the people for the people.
The well-regulated militia part is described by Hamilton in Federalist 26, and it's the National Guard.
Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2026, 08:29:18 AMQuote from: Darth Wagtaros on March 30, 2026, 07:55:45 AMQuote from: HVC on March 29, 2026, 08:06:42 PMI know its cliche to bring it up, but I'll do it anyway, but people always forget the well regulated militia part of the amendment. Its almost like the defense of the amendemnt is more because they like their shiny bang bang stick more so then for the love of the constitution. Which is a piece of paper that can be wrong anyway, hence the amendments :P
The well regulated part is by the people of the people for the people.
The well-regulated militia part is described by Hamilton in Federalist 26, and it's the National Guard.
I know. The usual answer to that is some verbal vomit about your informal neighborhood watch being well regulated and therefore constituting an answer to the constitution.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 30, 2026, 07:58:59 AMLooks like Trump has drifted back into threatening to blow up all of Iran's infrastructure intermixed with boasts about how he is going to take Iran's oil.
Yeah, he's gone back to thinking this will be an easy war to win. It's like you forgot about the last month.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 30, 2026, 08:51:17 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 30, 2026, 07:58:59 AMLooks like Trump has drifted back into threatening to blow up all of Iran's infrastructure intermixed with boasts about how he is going to take Iran's oil.
Yeah, he's gone back to thinking this will be an easy war to win. It's like you forgot about the last month.
He's bored and wants to move on to Cuba or Greenland. Or fixing the midterms.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 30, 2026, 08:51:17 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 30, 2026, 07:58:59 AMLooks like Trump has drifted back into threatening to blow up all of Iran's infrastructure intermixed with boasts about how he is going to take Iran's oil.
Yeah, he's gone back to thinking this will be an easy war to win. It's like you forgot about the last month.
He ran out of tokens and cleared his context.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 30, 2026, 07:58:59 AMLooks like Trump has drifted back into threatening to blow up all of Iran's infrastructure intermixed with boasts about how he is going to take Iran's oil.
Until he sundowns later today and starts babbling inanely about the White House stationery and the gold-colored bath towels. And then watches the Levin show and then starts issuing orders again.
Three more years to go . . .
At least Biden's handlers and his family had the decency and good sense to limit his public statements and keep him on script.
"Finnegan's Wake" makes more sense than most Trump talks, it seems.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 30, 2026, 09:40:08 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 30, 2026, 08:51:17 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 30, 2026, 07:58:59 AMLooks like Trump has drifted back into threatening to blow up all of Iran's infrastructure intermixed with boasts about how he is going to take Iran's oil.
Yeah, he's gone back to thinking this will be an easy war to win. It's like you forgot about the last month.
He ran out of tokens and cleared his context.
:lol: Feels a bit like it.
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/31/pete-hegseth-defence-investments-iran-war-pentagon.html
QuotePete Hegseth's broker attempted to make defense investments before Iran war: Financial Times
A broker for U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sought to make a large investment in major defense companies in the lead up to the Iran war, according to the Financial Times. The Pentagon has dismissed the report.
The Financial Times reported Tuesday that Hegseth's broker at banking giant Morgan Stanley contacted BlackRock in February about making a multimillion-dollar investment in its iShares Defense Industrials Active ETF.
The ETF, which has about $3.1 billion in assets, counts companies such as RTX Corp, — formerly known as Raytheon — Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman among its largest holdings, Blackrock data showed.
The Defense Industrials Active ETF has lost 12.4% in the past one month, about the time when the Iran war started, according to LSEG data.
The FT also said that the investment discussed by Hegseth's broker did not ultimately go ahead as the fund was not yet available for Morgan Stanley clients to buy at the time. It was also not known if the broker had found another defense-related investment.
Pentagon chief spokesperson Sean Parnell dismissed the FT report in a post on X, calling it "entirely false and fabricated," and demanding the FT retract the article.
Parnell said that neither Hegseth nor any of his representatives approached BlackRock about any such investment. "This is yet another baseless, dishonest smear designed to mislead the public," he added.
The U.S. war against Iran has stretched into its fifth week, and the conflict does not seem to show any sign of abating.
U.S. Marines have arrived in the region, with the Washington Post reporting that the Pentagon was "preparing for weeks of ground operations in Iran."
Trump on Monday had also said that the U.S. will "completely" obliterate Iran's electric generating plants, oil wells and Kharg Island if the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz is not "immediately" reopened and a peace deal is not reached "shortly."
:hmm:
Its good that he did that. Real good. It shows shrewdness and Godliness.
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116323481956698353
QuoteDonald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
All of those countries that can't get jet fuel because of the Strait of Hormuz, like the United Kingdom, which refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran, I have a suggestion for you: Number 1, buy from the U.S., we have plenty, and Number 2, build up some delayed courage, go to the Strait, and just TAKE IT. You'll have to start learning how to fight for yourself, the U.S.A. won't be there to help you anymore, just like you weren't there for us. Iran has been, essentially, decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil! President DJT
2.24k ReTruths
8.15k Likes
Mar 31, 2026, 1:11 PM
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116323516183718262
QuoteDonald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
The Country of France wouldn't let planes headed to Israel, loaded up with military supplies, fly over French territory. France has been VERY UNHELPFUL with respect to the "Butcher of Iran," who has been successfully eliminated! The U.S.A. will REMEMBER!!! President DJT
1.92k ReTruths
7.1k Likes
Mar 31, 2026, 1:19 PM
(https://media.tenor.com/uOH_Gtm8hOoAAAAM/crying-baby.gif)
Oh weh weh, bébé! C'est dur dur d'être un bébé...
Jordy's 38 nowadays. He grew, Trump didn't.
QuoteAll of those countries that can't get jet fuel because of the Strait of Hormuz, like the United Kingdom, which refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran, I have a suggestion for you: Number 1, buy from the U.S., we have plenty, and Number 2, build up some delayed courage, go to the Strait, and just TAKE IT. You'll have to start learning how to fight for yourself, the U.S.A. won't be there to help you anymore, just like you weren't there for us. Iran has been, essentially, decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil! President DJT
It's "fuck you I'm out. Clean up my mess and NATO is over". Well, the only mess to clean up is negotiating with Iran what the toll will be for crossing Hormuz. After the US leaves Iran will be confused for 2 weeks, then charge everyone a small fee which will be gladly paid. If they get attacked again they will just re-close the Strait. :hmm:
It's just tech bro ideology on the world stage. Move quickly and break things. Damn the consequences.
(https://cdn.jenkemmag.com/mediaAssetsMaster/2017/11/Team_America.gif)
Quote from: Legbiter on March 31, 2026, 10:13:02 AMIt's "fuck you I'm out. Clean up my mess and NATO is over". Well, the only mess to clean up is negotiating with Iran what the toll will be for crossing Hormuz. After the US leaves Iran will be confused for 2 weeks, then charge everyone a small fee which will be gladly paid. If they get attacked again the will just re-close the Strait. :hmm:
The fee will of course be in Renminbi. Trump is working towards ending the petrodollar. In his worldview a weak dollar is an advantage somehow.
(https://i.ibb.co/p6PB9T9C/image.png)
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Syt on March 31, 2026, 11:06:50 AM(https://i.ibb.co/p6PB9T9C/image.png)
:rolleyes:
Might be a good exercise to forbid the US from using European infrastructure, nato infrastructure, for their smo.
To make the point that there is a lot of things the US takes for granted
Quote from: Zanza on March 31, 2026, 10:37:29 AMIn his worldview a weak dollar is an advantage somehow.
A weak dollar makes US exports less expensive and imports more expensive. Which is a good thing because
Americans will get less for what they send overseas and pay more for everything else. I mean
because a weaker dollar will prompt the Fed to raise rates and get those pesky house prices down I mean because weakening the dollar internationally will
stop the imperialist Yankee pigdogs from bullying other nations.I mean um . . . look at these nice curtains. And how about this cool pen here. Hey do you want to hear a completely made up story about this pen? And also - look here are some really cute pictures of my grandkids, sorry I mean my ballroom.
Quote from: Syt on March 31, 2026, 11:06:50 AM(https://i.ibb.co/p6PB9T9C/image.png)
:rolleyes:
It is a defensive alliance not a collection of battle thralls.
I'm shocked that SecWar is a clueless moran.
Quote from: Syt on March 31, 2026, 07:20:01 AMhttps://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116323481956698353
QuoteDonald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
All of those countries that can't get jet fuel because of the Strait of Hormuz, like the United Kingdom, which refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran, I have a suggestion for you: Number 1, buy from the U.S., we have plenty, and Number 2, build up some delayed courage, go to the Strait, and just TAKE IT. You'll have to start learning how to fight for yourself, the U.S.A. won't be there to help you anymore, just like you weren't there for us. Iran has been, essentially, decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil! President DJT
2.24k ReTruths
8.15k Likes
Mar 31, 2026, 1:11 PM
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116323516183718262
QuoteDonald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
The Country of France wouldn't let planes headed to Israel, loaded up with military supplies, fly over French territory. France has been VERY UNHELPFUL with respect to the "Butcher of Iran," who has been successfully eliminated! The U.S.A. will REMEMBER!!! President DJT
1.92k ReTruths
7.1k Likes
Mar 31, 2026, 1:19 PM
(https://media.tenor.com/uOH_Gtm8hOoAAAAM/crying-baby.gif)
He probably mixed France up with Spain. :P
So now Trump is a Habsburg?
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 31, 2026, 02:55:22 PMSo now Trump is a Habsburg?
I don't know...Emperor Ferdinand was more mentally capable.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on March 31, 2026, 02:01:19 PMHe probably mixed France up with Spain. :P
nah, apparently France has prevented a number of overflights recently
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 31, 2026, 04:01:54 PMQuote from: Duque de Bragança on March 31, 2026, 02:01:19 PMHe probably mixed France up with Spain. :P
nah, apparently France has prevented a number of overflights recently
Good for them.
France, Italy and Spain at least, have been firm in not letting the US use their territory to attack Iran or help Israel attack Iran.
The UK has let the US use their bases though.
I believe some countries are willing to cut a deal with Iran as soon as the US is pulling out of the area and I'm convinced there are backchannel negotiations going on already about future safe passage.
Quote from: viper37 on March 31, 2026, 04:43:35 PMFrance, Italy and Spain at least, have been firm in not letting the US use their territory to attack Iran or help Israel attack Iran.
The UK has let the US use their bases though.
Germany too - Merz has changed but was vocally supportive at the start of this.
The UK position is tortuous, absurd and probably, in practical terms, nonsense. UK bases weren't allowed to be used in the initial attack (this is partly why Trump keeps going off about Starmer) because that would be in breach of international law.
Once Iran retaliated, including hitting UK allies such as the UAE, Qatar, Oman etc. The government allowed the US to use UK bases to launch "defensive" strikes as that's permitted under international law (defence of allies). I'm not really sure the degree to which "defensive" and "offensive" can be clearly delineated in this type of conflict. I also think it is, fundamentally, a political question calling for political judgement. But this is another example of Starmer outsourcing his judgement as if it's an international law exam question. (As it happens I think probably the right policy, for all the wrong reasons) :bleeding:
QuoteI believe some countries are willing to cut a deal with Iran as soon as the US is pulling out of the area and I'm convinced there are backchannel negotiations going on already about future safe passage.
Thailand, India, several Greek flagged tankers have gone through now. The going rate is apparently $2 million for passage through the Straits.
This is arguably a challenge for Europe in the post-war as I'd argue a Middle East with a powerful, ascendant Iran with a new income stream is not great for Europe - it's why Turkiye matters even if you find Erdogan distasteful.
What does the treaty of alliance between the UK and the gulf states say?
Quote from: The Brain on April 01, 2026, 01:12:51 AMWhat does the treaty of alliance between the UK and the gulf states say?
"We'll stash our money at your football clubs, you keep quiet about 'human rights'", I'd wager.
Quote from: Norgy on April 01, 2026, 03:07:50 AMQuote from: The Brain on April 01, 2026, 01:12:51 AMWhat does the treaty of alliance between the UK and the gulf states say?
"We'll stash our money at your football clubs, you keep quiet about 'human rights'", I'd wager.
Plus oil and gas.
As is typical, I think Trump misunderstands a lot when he says he will just leave it to the countries who "depend on" the Strait to reopen it. Let's look at some of the deficits in that logic:
1. As we've said numerous times in this thread, oil is a fungible commodity. If the Strait is closed or near-closed, this causes global economic impacts. The fact that the U.S. does not directly import significant amounts of oil through the Strait, or use the Strait to get its own oil to market does not alter this reality. If markets detect finality in a Trumpian claim to simply leave the Strait closed, those gas prices that are likely terrifying him right now will not go down--and will likely go up significantly and (in a political timeline) permanently.
2. The reality though, is more likely the Strait would not remain closed. There's many reasons to doubt that it would. One is that China doesn't benefit from the Strait being closed, even though it has a side deal with Iran (China is not paying the so called toll, its ships are just exempted from attack entirely.) China actually buys more oil from Iraq than Iran, and several other Gulf States remain more important to China than Iran does. China is unlikely to sit out permanently on a policy that is going to hurt its gulf partners. And China would still prefer, as an oil importer in general, to not see the global prices sit at 150/barrel even if it may have special deals to buy from some countries (Iran / Russia) at a lower price. China is still impacted by the higher general price (the same way the U.S. is.)
3. Presuming the above scenario of Iran basically agreeing to reopen the Strait to avoid isolating itself from its last remaining allies, this immediately undermines permanently American influence in the Gulf. China will be seen as a broker of stability and America will be viewed as an unreliable chaos agent. I don't see any scenario where any Trumpist can paint this as a "win."
I think he's looking to set up scapegoats if the oil price stays up. "We go our job done, but the lazy Euros refuse to open the trade, because they want to hurt America!"
The US is an unreliable chaos agent. That fact was established before this war even started.
Do US oil bros think high oil price is good or bad?
I suspect for China, oil isn't actually the biggest concern re the closing of the Hormuz Strait. Looking at the price of urea (fertilizer) and sulphur right now, which are comparable to 2022 or, for the latter, even worse, I would imagine these are the primary incentives for them to help negotiate a deal on reopening the straits.
Quote from: Syt on April 01, 2026, 07:54:43 AMI think he's looking to set up scapegoats if the oil price stays up. "We go our job done, but the lazy Euros refuse to open the trade, because they want to hurt America!"
One thing is there's been infrastructural damage to the Gulf, and the shipping lanes are mega backed up. Even if Trump could stop the war today and Iran agreed to stop attacking shipping today, there's going to be months and months before things are back to normal. As that reality settles in the wild swings in the price of oil likely settle down, but drift to being locked in at > 100 probably for months until finally starting to go back down.
Gasoline prices always lag oil prices by sometimes a month or more, so the political impacts Trump is worried about are more akin to a train moving at high speed, he can hit the brakes, but it ain't stopping on a dime, that train is going to keep going for a while and there's nothing Trump can do about it now.
He'll come up with some bullshit excuse and at least 30% of voting Americans will believe him. It's the dems fault for selling American oil to the damn Ukrainians.
I'm thinking now that a ground troops scenario is off, and his announcement will be a convoluted, grand TACO. Plus NATO pullout (which will face a messy legal/political fight).
In distant Norway, the cabinet had to eat crow and remove all tax on diesel and gasoline. The companies selling it replied with a new increase in prices.
It is good to know at least some people are earning.
Trump didn't say anything new that he hadn't rambled on about already in the last couple days. So far, solidifies my hunch that a ground op is off the table and he's going to drop it/TACO inside a couple weeks.
Sleepy Don also sounded tired and weak...Iran will be happy.
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 01, 2026, 08:23:34 PMTrump didn't say anything new that he hadn't rambled on about already in the last couple days. So far, solidifies my hunch that a ground op is off the table and he's going to drop it/TACO inside a couple weeks.
Sleepy Don also sounded tired and weak...Iran will be happy.
I will take the other side. He can't just leave Israel alone and the strait in Iranian hands. He doesn't want to but is being forced into it which is why he keeps saying weird contradictory nonsense.
But we'll see. Both options will be disastrous. But maybe you are correct.
All analysis changes if and when epstein is back on the front page.
Quote from: Valmy on April 01, 2026, 08:27:10 PMI will take the other side. He can't just leave Israel alone and the strait in Iranian hands. He doesn't want to but is being forced into it which is why he keeps saying weird contradictory nonsense.
But we'll see. Both options will be disastrous. But maybe you are correct.
I think he can do those things.
I mean, he's setting it up..."we've changed the regime three times...they're more reasonable now" plus the "if you (Euros) want the oil, go and get it"...with a little bit of "we have your nuclear dust under surveillance...if you make a move..."...all signs he is going to pull the plug and declare it a "win".
But I don't know why he bothered with this address...nothing new said, looks like a weak old man to Iran...nothing gained at all.
The US will leave the area. China will then convince Iran to open the straights and help Iran rebuild from the damage the Americans and Israelis inflicted.
The US will become increasingly irrelevant to the world.
China probably doesn't have to invade Taiwan. In a couple of years, Taiwan will seek entry to China.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 31, 2026, 12:05:34 PMQuote from: Zanza on March 31, 2026, 10:37:29 AMIn his worldview a weak dollar is an advantage somehow.
A weak dollar makes US exports less expensive and imports more expensive. Which is a good thing because Americans will get less for what they send overseas and pay more for everything else. I mean because a weaker dollar will prompt the Fed to raise rates and get those pesky house prices down I mean because weakening the dollar internationally will stop the imperialist Yankee pigdogs from bullying other nations.
https://www.ft.com/content/1c4189e9-36af-4779-b862-d868cf2aff76?syn-25a6b1a6=1&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
QuoteForeign central banks have slashed their holdings of Treasuries at the New York Federal Reserve to the lowest level since 2012, as countries sell the US government bonds to prop up their economies and currencies in the wake of the Iran war.
The forces that result in the dollar's international reserve role are very powerful and not that easy to dislodge. But they aren't permanent - just ask Britain and the pound sterling. Three more years can do a lot of damage.
Quote from: The Brain on April 01, 2026, 07:57:49 AMDo US oil bros think high oil price is good or bad?
Not an absolute.
A little higher than they were before, good as long as there is low tariffs.
Too high, and it promotes fuel economy and green energy, so not good.
That's basically how all the big oil producers think--including the petrostates like KSA, they've openly said their goal for oil prices is to not let them get so high that it drives rapid market shifts to alternatives. Which is basically common sense in any case that people will follow a profit maximizing strategy.
So Trump is now boasting about destroying civilian infrastructure, e.g. the largest bridge in Iran. Not even pretending this to be about military targets anymore.
Quote from: Zanza on April 03, 2026, 02:39:41 AMSo Trump is now boasting about destroying civilian infrastructure, e.g. the largest bridge in Iran. Not even pretending this to be about military targets anymore.
Yeah lots of flailing-about energy. Terror bombing ain't far away now
Quote from: Tamas on April 03, 2026, 07:16:56 AMYeah lots of flailing-about energy. Terror bombing ain't far away now
Something, something, Iran did it first.
Some light purging of generals overnight by the burgers. :hmm:
Sounds like the reason for the firings is that those generals were not racist, sexist pieces of shit, which runs counter to Trump administration policy.
They probably had serious misgivings about the upcoming ground operations including something about airdropping forces in to dig up the buried uranium stockpile in the middle of Iran. :hmm:
Maybe one of them accidentally glanced at Dien Bien Phu wikipedia article.
I have not seen any sources on that, but it wouldn't surprise me if daring to question Der Fuehrer's strategic genius was a contributing reason.
So that's how he prepares for his statements :lol:
Apparantly the French got a ship out of the Persian Gulf. Through the tollbooth of course.
Iran is the master of the tolling trolling.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on April 03, 2026, 01:39:41 PMApparantly the French got a ship out of the Persian Gulf. Through the tollbooth of course.
QuoteThe Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) are allegedly seeking to charge tolls starting at $1 per barrel and considering payment settlements in either Chinese yuan or stablecoins.
There are purportedly discussions about requiring ships to submit detailed data to IRGC-linked intermediaries for approval, with access determined by a country ranking system.
https://www.euronews.com/business/2026/04/03/french-ship-crosses-strait-of-hormuz-in-first-western-european-transit-during-iran-war (https://www.euronews.com/business/2026/04/03/french-ship-crosses-strait-of-hormuz-in-first-western-european-transit-during-iran-war)
Belongs to a company owned by a Franco-Lebanese family, with Syrian origins, so I guess Near and Middle East connections facilitated the likely deal.
QuoteCMA CGM, majority-owned by the Saadé family
aha, that might indeed explain.
that said: I can't see the Iranians maintaining uncontested control over the straight forever. After all, the other side can equally close it using drones at any time. And national pride - sectarian strife- will eventually demand some form of retaliation.
None of this, however, changes the reality that the orange blob and his clique fucked up
Maybe - I think in the long-run they've done this and other states will look at how to work around this chokepoint. I'd expect more pipelines and attempts to build out the infrastructure of other routes.
But I think the German Defence Minister's point a while ago is still true - if the US Navy is not able to re-open the strait I'm not really sure that anyone else would be able to.
Having said that I think you're right on drones etc - but I'd possibly flip it the other way. The global trade system, global trade in general is based on free passage guaranteed above all by the US Navy but other big traditional navies too - basically pre-drone navies/militaries. I think this situation is clarifying because I'm not sure that necessarily holds and there may be a while to discover how to combat it. But it seems increasingly plausible to me that small states, non-states, states without major navies or air forces will increasingly cheaply and effectively be able to disrupt globalised trade and impose costs. That will have an impact economically but also in terms of military mobility - I think it's easy to see how it applies over sea-lanes but I'm not entirely sure you couldn't apply the same over land or air? I'm sure very clever people in the Defence Ministries of the world are thinking about this but it feels like a significant shift from the 20th century (and earlier) model that will require adaptation.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on April 03, 2026, 01:39:41 PMApparantly the French got a ship out of the Persian Gulf. Through the tollbooth of course.
Art of the Deal (in yuan probably). See, Euros can open the Strait. ^_^
I don't know that it's ever been that feasible for a purely naval force to defeat this kind of naval choke point that is leveraging ground assets. As we all know from EU4 and general history, the Øresundstolden were a thing and the only times they really got suspended is when some power (namely Sweden) whipped Denmark's ass bad enough in a war that Denmark a) lost control of its provinces in southern Sweden and b) had to agree via treaty to not attempt to levy the dues on Swedish vessels. And of course that war involved a Swedish army marching into Copenhagen--something that often will bring a country to terms.
Even when a hostile power is using traditional naval assets to do things like harass shipping with piracy, it is rare that a purely naval campaign attains a lasting victory--most of the great pirate states of history were only suppressed when the land from which they operated was conquered and subjugated.
I don't really know that any of this is particularly deep cut knowledge, in fact I strongly suspect a High Schooler of decent historical knowledge would have known Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz during any war. Not least of all because it has been such a well known thing it has been repeatedly stated for 40 years anytime the topic has come up.
What is tremendously stupid is that Trump clearly gave zero consideration to it--one has to wonder if he wasn't told of the possibility or if he was told and dismissed it. Either way it's a huge failure of Trump's leadership. If he wasn't told, it means he has so insulated himself with worshipful sycophants that none of them dared to bring up something that would be "bad vibes" for Donnie's First War. If he was told, it just means the dude is dumb as fuck, but that's also kind of well known. I suspect if he was told, he wasn't argued with over it--whoever telling him perhaps mentioning it in passing and, when noticing it didn't titillate Donnie it was a topic best left unexplored.
I do think the Middle East oil powers no matter what happens to end the war, have to consider long term permanent alternatives to the Strait. While the U.S. is the chaos agent right now, Iran is no choir boy and this exposes fully how vulnerable these petrostates are to the Strait being closed.
When the Middle East was in a period of greater calm there was a vast oil pipeline that ran from the southeast of the Arabian peninsula northwest through KSA along its northern border with Iraq, Syria and Lebanon all the way to the Mediterranean Sea. While the relationship between Iran and its Arab neighbors is at an all time low, the various Arab states are on the best terms they've been on in decades--Iraq not openly hostile to the Gulf States, a leadership in Syria that is broadly accepted by the Gulf powers, Qatar and the other Gulf States putting their enmity aside as of late etc.
There's actually still pipelines covering some of the same routes (partially), as well as a pipeline between Kirkuk in Iraq through Turkey to the Mediterranean, these pipelines have a capacity far too limited to be a serious player in the current situation, but there's not a practical reason much of the Gulf oil production couldn't be piped across Iraq, and there's far less of a political reason that it couldn't now than in the more recent past.
Most of the oil goes to Southeast Asia though, which is not practical in the Mediterranean. Also all the other products they make like LNG, helium, fertilizer etc. would need additional pipelines and for LNG huge plants at the point of shipping. Dubai is a big container port too.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 03, 2026, 08:27:49 PMThere's actually still pipelines covering some of the same routes (partially), as well as a pipeline between Kirkuk in Iraq through Turkey to the Mediterranean, these pipelines have a capacity far too limited to be a serious player in the current situation, but there's not a practical reason much of the Gulf oil production couldn't be piped across Iraq, and there's far less of a political reason that it couldn't now than in the more recent past.
I mean, I'd probably explore it if I was in a leadership position in any of those countries... but it's not like it's guaranteed that just because Iraq and Syria are amenable to the GCC countries right now, they'll continue to be so.
Thinking on it, I'd also suspect that that kind of pipeline would increase conflict in Iraq. I expect Iran would want to go as hard as they could on proxies if it meant controlling the pipeline, and think other players - like Israel and Turkey - would want to exert influence.
There might be some complexities there.
Pipelines are also chokepoints and the infrastructure is vulnerable to attack; maybe the Arab states could build these pipelines and, 20 years later, a new war will have broken out and we (or our replacements) will be discussing whether the Straits of Hormuz are a viable alternative export route.
OVB is just wrong when he says there is no practical reason why pipelines can't be built across Iraq to the Mediterranean.
The customers for that oil are on the other side of the world.
Why would anybody build a pipeline that is not practical simply to avoid the sheer stupidity of the United States, blinding into another idiotic war?
Maybe the world should spend his resources time and energy mitigating against the stupidity of the United States in more productive ways.
There is already such a pipeline going from Kirku, Iraq to Ceyhan, Turkey, bypassing Syria.
The one from Iraq to Syria could be reactivated, as well.
Iraq has been pretty heavily destabilised by this conflict - US bases under attack, French troops had to be withdrawn.
Iran has wider regional interests and strategy so any pipelines would need to be built with that in mind (i.e. probably not through Iraq). Also they're not going to want to lightly surrender their deterrence power from control of the Strait by just casually allowing loads of alternative routes. That is just how energy works to a point - the 70s oil shock led to North Sea exploitation, oil sands, other exploitation in North America, the 2000s led to the (American) shale revolution.
I was thinking more either to Oman or the Red Sea - but as Zanza points out this works for oil. It might be do-able pretty quickly for LNG in terms of building terminals. It's a lot more difficult for the industrial/chemicals infrastructure in Gulf States. And RH is absolutely right, they are just new chokepoints.
The actual people who run the oil industries in these countries have openly discussed a new trans-arabian pipeline. It isn't speculative. At the end of the day, getting your oil to market is always better than not. Alberta would likely prefer to just pipe much of its oil production to the Pacific through BC, but for political reasons that hasn't been possible. They will certainly take the option to pipe through the US when that is the option they have.
Saudi Arabia's pipeline that transits to the Red Sea is also capable of 7m bpd, these pipelines can be significant.
And while pipelines can be blown up, that is harder than closing the Strait. Additionally a single segment of pipeline is not actually that expensive and replacing them isn't that complicated—pipeline explosion ruptures from accidents are regularly fixed within days.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 04, 2026, 07:21:16 AMIraq has been pretty heavily destabilised by this conflict - US bases under attack, French troops had to be withdrawn.
Iran has wider regional interests and strategy so any pipelines would need to be built with that in mind (i.e. probably not through Iraq). Also they're not going to want to lightly surrender their deterrence power from control of the Strait by just casually allowing loads of alternative routes. That is just how energy works to a point - the 70s oil shock led to North Sea exploitation, oil sands, other exploitation in North America, the 2000s led to the (American) shale revolution.
I was thinking more either to Oman or the Red Sea - but as Zanza points out this works for oil. It might be do-able pretty quickly for LNG in terms of building terminals. It's a lot more difficult for the industrial/chemicals infrastructure in Gulf States. And RH is absolutely right, they are just new chokepoints.
Actually, Zanza's point was it doesn't work for a while either because the customers for the oil are on the other side of the fucking planet.
And you guys are the smart ones. No wonder mega is able to persuade so many Americans to vote for them.
We don't really care about natural gas, the way its distribution works our domestic supply (which is more than we could ever use), isn't interconnected with the global market the same way crude oil is. While Trump is wrong that the shut down of the Strait oil trade doesn't impact us because "we don't use it", that idea is more or less correct when it comes to natural gas. Natural gas due to the nature of how it gets distributed and the way that distribution works in the domestic market, it isn't really interconnected in the same way as crude oil.
If anything as an exporter of LNG competing exporters being shut down is to our benefit.
Upcoming 'Weekend Spectacular' today or next weekend to wrestle back 'the narrative'* and up the ratings? :unsure:
* stream of bullshit.
Any large-scale oil and gas pipeline infrastructure project is at risk of stranded costs. China is pushing very hard on electrification and renewables, they don't want oil and gas dependence. ASEAN has been a key driver of imports through the Gulf but they may rethink their energy mix going forward. Pipelines can evade maritime choke points but they are also fixed and vulnerable on land; they are hardly immune to fallout from war and civil conflict.
The EU is also facing choices going forward of to what degree they want to rely on US LNG exports and to what degree substitute with Chinese solar and battery tech.
QuoteTuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin' Strait, you crazy bastards, or you'll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP
Excellent!
Smithers! Move the Doomsday clock another 5 seconds forwards!
What a pathetic jackass.
"Praise be to Allah!" sayeth Donald Trump on Easter Day. It really is astounding.
QuoteDonald Trump said "I don't want to talk about that" when asked about targeting civilian infrastructure in Iran, and threatened that the "whole country" would be "gone" if it doesn't accept a deal.
In an interview with ABC's Rachel Scott:, reportedly Trump said: "Well, I don't want to talk about that. But the civilians want me to do it. Okay, the civilians, you know, when they're most unhappy, when they don't hear bombs going off because they're living in hell."
When asked if he would move back his deadline for Iran, he said "I don't want to talk about it, they have plenty of time to make a deal. If they don't want to make a deal — their whole country is gone," he said.
There's things the burgers can do extremely well. One of them is saving their own downed airmen in the middle of Iran.:ccr Imagine being a russian aviator "wait, you guys get rescued".
QuoteMar 3: "We won the war."
Mar 7: "We defeated Iran."
Mar 9: "We must attack Iran."
Mar 9: "The war is ending almost completely, and very beautifully."
Mar 11: "We must attack Iran."
Mar 12: "We did win, but we haven't won completely yet."
Mar 13: "We won the war."
Mar 14: "Please help us."
Mar 15: "If you don't help us, I will certainly remember it."
Mar 16: "Actually, we don't need any help at all."
Mar 16: "I was just testing to see who's listening to me."
Mar 16: "If NATO doesn't help, they will suffer something very bad."
Mar 17: "We neither need nor want NATO's help."
Mar 17: "I don't need Congressional approval to withdraw from NATO."
Mar 18: "Our allies must cooperate in reopening the Strait of Hormuz."
Mar 19: "US allies need to get a grip - step up and help open the Strait of Hormuz."
Mar 20: "NATO are cowards."
Mar 21: "The Strait of Hormuz must be protected by the countries that use it. We don't use it, we don't need to open it."
Mar 22: "This is the last time. I will give Iran 48 hours. Open the strait"
Mar 22: "Iran is Dead"
Mar 23: "We had very good and productive talks with Iran."
Mar 24: "They gave us a present, and the present arrived today, and it was a very big present worth a tremendous amount of money."
Mar 25: No major quote
Mar 26: "Make a deal, or we'll just keep blowing them away."
Mar 27: "We don't have to be there for NATO."
Mar 28: No major quote
Mar 29: Claimed talks were progressing
Mar 30: "Open the Strait of Hormuz immediately, or face devastating consequences."
Mar 31: Claimed a deal was "very close" and that Iran would "do the right thing"
Apr 1: "We'll see what happens very soon."
Apr 2: Repeated that a deal was likely, while warning of continued strikes if not
Apr 3: "Something big is going to happen."
Apr 4: Said Iran must comply "immediately" or face further consequences
Apr 5: "Open the fuckin' Strait, you crazy bastards, or you'll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah."
burgers voted for this. :showoff:
I'm so sick of burgers appointing the dregs.
They should and must be ruled by cosmopolitan men who speak 4 languages, inherited wealth and are much smarter than me.
(https://pi.tedcdn.com/r/pe.tedcdn.com/images/ted/ef23e1cd05c6f4ef092f54dd6867083054f4116f_254x191.jpg?w=255)
Rested, ready, tanned.
If it wasn't a brutal terror regime, I'd kinda like them just for the stuff they post online.
Likely the reason OpenAI is pulling the plug on Sora.
Seen on the internet re: the war in Iran: "the first five years of a three day special military operation are always the hardest."
Saw an Iranian propaganda video from TikTok. Rap, overlaid on Lego style animation, mocking Trump. It was really well done.
When asked if destroying civilian infrastructure is a war crime, Trump dehumanised Iranians and called them animals. Another step in his fascism speedrun.
"You have been ordered to fire on civilian targets. Is this what you signed up for?"
Captain Sheridan 2261
When I watched Babylon 5 when it first aired, I thought the depiction of the Earth dictatorship was cartoonishly simplistic. But it turns out it was bang on.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 06, 2026, 01:32:14 PM"You have been ordered to fire on civilian targets. Is this what you signed up for?"
Captain Sheridan 2261
When I watched Babylon 5 when it first aired, I thought the depiction of the Earth dictatorship was cartoonishly simplistic. But it turns out it was bang on.
:yes:
I always felt that the use of obviously Nazi-coded (or outright actual Nazis) as villains was too ham fisted and more subtle bad guys would be better. But no, apparently we didn't hammer "Nazis are the bad guys" enough.
Quote from: Zanza on April 06, 2026, 01:17:58 PMWhen asked if destroying civilian infrastructure is a war crime, Trump dehumanised Iranians and called them animals. Another step in his fascism speedrun.
That's not new. Trump has been calling foreigners subhuman for decades, it was a big part of all of his Presidential campaigns.
This is what the AfD wants for Germany.
The American President is dropping F bombs and praising Allah on Easter Sunday, while the Islamic Republic of Iran is responding with Lego-themed hip hop diss track videos.
Whatever is running the simulation we are all in is trolling us hard.
So has the zone been flooded with so much illegal shit at this point that we don't care about civilian infrastructure being targeted with no apparent military reason?
Quote from: Bauer on April 06, 2026, 11:38:28 PMSo has the zone been flooded with so much illegal shit at this point that we don't care about civilian infrastructure being targeted with no apparent military reason?
Yeah no one has posted about it. So odd.
:mellow:
Nobody except Tamas, Zanza, me, Bob and that is just a few of the posts.
Quote from: Valmy on April 06, 2026, 05:39:13 PMThis is what the AfD wants for Germany.
Sure, but they are more into camps and deportations like ICE, not terror bombing in far away countries.
It's the first time I see a head of state proudly announcing he's about to commit war crimes. I don't think even Putin does that.
Why would he care? He won't face any repercussions. His constituents won't be bothered and it's not like america will face sanctions. Putin has to pretend to care because Russia can still feel consequences, however minor.
We live in bizarre times.
(https://i.ibb.co/zW4stw4X/image.png)
Melania and the Easter bunny have the same confused look on their faces.
The Iranians responded to Trump's infrastructure plan by blowing up the Sabic petrochemical plant in Saudi. No biggie, just 10% of the world's oil output going offline. :hmm:
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 07, 2026, 03:58:22 AMNobody except Tamas, Zanza, me, Bob and that is just a few of the posts.
It's hard to keep up with the volume and diversity(!) of proposed and actual war crimes at this point coming out of our government.
Quote from: HVC on April 07, 2026, 06:01:17 AMWhy would he care? He won't face any repercussions. His constituents won't be bothered and it's not like america will face sanctions. Putin has to pretend to care because Russia can still feel consequences, however minor.
Who could have possibly imagined that if the Supreme Court gave the President absolute criminal immunity for all criminal acts that it might embolden Trump to break the law? If that prospect was beyond the imaginations of the vast intellects on the Supreme Court, it is far beyond the ken of us pathetic mortal minds.
(https://i.ibb.co/pjKhnSFT/image.png)
Does he have enough willing sycophants to push the big red button if he tells them to?
I used to think that US voters didn't want to nuke their own country, but now who the fuck knows?
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 07, 2026, 03:58:22 AMNobody except Tamas, Zanza, me, Bob and that is just a few of the posts.
Yes, I was being facetious.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/iea-chief-current-oil-gas-crisis-worse-than-1973-1979-2002-together-2026-04-07/
QuoteIEA chief: current oil and gas crisis worse than 1973, 1979, 2022 together
PARIS, April 7 (Reuters) - The current oil and gas crisis triggered by the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is "more serious than the ones in 1973, 1979 and 2022 together", Fatih Birol, the head of the International Energy Agency (IEA), told Le Figaro newspaper.
"The world has never experienced a disruption to energy supply of such magnitude," he said in an interview with the French newspaper released in its Tuesday edition.
He said the European countries, as well Japan, Australia and others will suffer, but the countries most at risk were developing nations which will suffer from higher oil and gas prices, higher food prices and a general acceleration of inflation.
The IEA member countries agreed last month to release part of their strategic reserves. Some of this had already been released and the process continues, said Birol.
In reaction to the strikes by Israel and the U.S., Iran has almost entirely blocked the traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20% of world oil and gas regularly flows, creating a surge in energy prices.
More words of wisdom from Trump ""You know what's a war crime? Having a nuclear weapon," he said."
Of the three obnoxious regimes involved in this tussle only Iran does not have a nuclear weapon :hmm:
I pity future historians who need to study this crap.
Quote from: Syt on April 07, 2026, 06:30:40 AMWe live in bizarre times.
(https://i.ibb.co/zW4stw4X/image.png)
I feel like this also happened in his first term (obviously in a less serious context).
As a total aside, I did enjoy this unnecessarily dramatic the White House photographer shot of the Easter Bunny:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HFMFbD_bQAA3iP9?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Admittedly it was probably a bit of a dark night of the soul for Marco Rubio facing the latest humiliation.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 04, 2026, 09:26:45 AMActually, Zanza's point was it doesn't work for a while either because the customers for the oil are on the other side of the fucking planet.
Right which is why, as I say, when I mentioned pipelines I'd assume through Oman or Saudi. Zanza did go to mention the other industrial aspects of oil and gas and in the Gulf.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 07, 2026, 07:26:57 AMIt's hard to keep up with the volume and diversity(!) of proposed and actual war crimes at this point coming out of our government.
I genuinely wonder about the possibility of him launching a nuke.
Quote from: Legbiter on April 07, 2026, 07:02:40 AMThe Iranians responded to Trump's infrastructure plan by blowing up the Sabic petrochemical plant in Saudi. No biggie, just 10% of the world's oil output going offline. :hmm:
Yeah I think there's a genuine challenge for Iran on this. The US and Israel (and a lot of these are Israeli strikes, such as against Sharif University) are clearly targeting widespread infrastructure that makes Iran a regional power and that they have built to establish that power as a highly sanctioned country. Bridges, refineries, universities, steel mills (for example, Mobarakeh Steel Company produces more steel than the entire UK or Thyssen Krupp).
Iran has a really powerful tool in controlling the Strait to restore deterrence but the longer this goes on the more there will be strikes (across the country - even the East is now getting hit pretty regularly) that are destroying its base. Even if there's a post-war scenario where Iran is far more able to sell its own fossil fuels and able to extract a toll from the Strait that would still be a devastated country (especially for the regime moving from a rally round the flag period where they're defying foreign assault).
So far Iran has escalated on a step-by-step basis - a desalination plant was hit, they attacked one in Bahrain; energy infrastructure was hit, they punched back in the Gulf. Given the direction of travel of American rhetoric and strikes by the US and Israel - I think there's probably an argument for Iran to escalate pretty significantly now, in advance of those threats. It feels like there could be an opportunity for Iran to escalate more strongly now by attacking, say, energy infrastructure across the region in advance in the hope of changing the pattern now which is rope-a-dope with the significant longer term deterrent of the Strait.
Quote from: garbon on April 07, 2026, 07:41:37 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on April 07, 2026, 03:58:22 AMNobody except Tamas, Zanza, me, Bob and that is just a few of the posts.
Yes, I was being facetious.
I took that as being directed at Bauer, but playing off you.
Quote from: The Brain on April 07, 2026, 07:57:05 AMI pity future historians who need to study this crap.
They seem cool with studying Caligula. With time the pain and stupidity involved isn't as sharp.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 06, 2026, 07:16:39 PMThe American President is dropping F bombs and praising Allah on Easter Sunday, while the Islamic Republic of Iran is responding with Lego-themed hip hop diss track videos.
Whatever is running the simulation we are all in is trolling us hard.
It's going to be embarrassing to die in a global thermonuclear war started this way.
Quote from: The Brain on April 07, 2026, 07:57:05 AMI pity future historians who need to study this crap.
Nah, historians always love a crazy king.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 07, 2026, 07:26:57 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on April 07, 2026, 03:58:22 AMNobody except Tamas, Zanza, me, Bob and that is just a few of the posts.
It's hard to keep up with the volume and diversity(!) of proposed and actual war crimes at this point coming out of our government.
Very true
Quote from: HVC on April 07, 2026, 06:44:34 AMMelania and the Easter bunny have the same confused look on their faces.
They probably have the same plastic surgeon
Quote from: Jacob on April 07, 2026, 09:13:16 AMQuote from: HVC on April 07, 2026, 06:44:34 AMMelania and the Easter bunny have the same confused look on their faces.
They probably have the same plastic surgeon
Or they went to the same island
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 07, 2026, 08:31:35 AMQuote from: garbon on April 07, 2026, 07:41:37 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on April 07, 2026, 03:58:22 AMNobody except Tamas, Zanza, me, Bob and that is just a few of the posts.
Yes, I was being facetious.
I took that as being directed at Bauer, but playing off you.
Should have clarified I was referring to a low response from media/people in general. It seems like a much bigger deal to me to have a president openly talking about and threatening to bomb civilian targets.
But that just seems to be where we are now, exhausted and not sure how to deal with this guy.
The lawmakers and the party leaderships know how to deal with him. They lack the will to do so.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 07, 2026, 08:25:45 AMI genuinely wonder about the possibility of him launching a nuke.
Yes, I too have been thinking that isn't an impossibility now.
And who in the WH would stop him?
Maybe a fair few generals/admirals resign rather than do it, but he'll soon find a willing 'warrior'.
If he doesn't TACO out and actually has a real plan (big IFs), Iran is getting nuked tonight.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on April 07, 2026, 09:51:20 AMThe lawmakers and the party leaderships know how to deal with him. They lack the will to do so.
They are complicit.
Quote from: Bauer on April 07, 2026, 09:46:47 AMShould have clarified I was referring to a low response from media/people in general. It seems like a much bigger deal to me to have a president openly talking about and threatening to bomb civilian targets.
But that just seems to be where we are now, exhausted and not sure how to deal with this guy.
I very much agree with you there. If W or Obama said even a quarter of what Lord TACO of Orange has said huge numbers of people would be screaming bloody murder. I think he has, unfortunately and terrifyingly, shifted the Overton window. It's really disappointing, even disturbing, that even large, respected news outlets like the New York Times have just sorta gone along with it.
I really hope I'm being irrational, but I think there's a non-zero chance a B61-11 gets dropped on Isfahan tonight.
Oh god, I hope you are wrong
Quote from: Bauer on April 07, 2026, 09:46:47 AMShould have clarified I was referring to a low response from media/people in general. It seems like a much bigger deal to me to have a president openly talking about and threatening to bomb civilian targets.
But that just seems to be where we are now, exhausted and not sure how to deal with this guy.
There's flooding the zone, yes, but I suspect that the hollowing out of the 4th estate and the ownership of media and social companies by Trump aligned oligarchs and/ or by financial managers who are purely managing ROI in their diversified portfolios plays a significant role.
Imagine the media noise and general outrage if a Democratic president did even 1% of the bullshit Trump did. If Biden pulled the same level of insanity Trump is, the media response would be outright apocalyptic.
The Israeli actions in Gaza did a lot to desensitize the world to a nation carrying out war crimes against civilian populations.
And now we have the president of the United States, calling for the eradication of a civilization. We now have a president of the United States openly calling for genocide.
And for sure, there are going to be people out there like Raz who will push back on the use of that word because of their defence of the Israeli actions in Gaza. Not to mention the actions of Israel in southern Lebanon.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 07, 2026, 11:30:29 AMQuote from: Bauer on April 07, 2026, 09:46:47 AMShould have clarified I was referring to a low response from media/people in general. It seems like a much bigger deal to me to have a president openly talking about and threatening to bomb civilian targets.
But that just seems to be where we are now, exhausted and not sure how to deal with this guy.
I very much agree with you there. If W or Obama said even a quarter of what Lord TACO of Orange has said huge numbers of people would be screaming bloody murder. I think he has, unfortunately and terrifyingly, shifted the Overton window. It's really disappointing, even disturbing, that even large, respected news outlets like the New York Times have just sorta gone along with it.
This morning the New York Times has simply reported the fact that Trump has said that a civilization will be "wiped out". There was no analysis of what that means and there was no comment of the fact that this is a war crime.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 07, 2026, 11:34:08 AMI really hope I'm being irrational, but I think there's a non-zero chance a B61-11 gets dropped on Isfahan tonight.
If the US nukes an Iranian population centre over Trump's war of choice, because Iran is refusing to let shipping through the Hormuz, that will put Trump's US as a nation into the same category as Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia.
There may some nuance differences in the ranking, but it'll be the same category.
Imbecilic leftists causing, by any standards, a low civilian casualty war in Gaza a "war crime" every day did indeed do a lot to make the word war crime meaningless. The concept of a war crime was never to make war illegal, it was to make specific bad acts illegal. The use of the concept by the internationalist left to try to criminalize all wars just leads to the entire concept being viewed as bunk.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 07, 2026, 11:46:50 AMImbecilic leftists causing, by any standards, a low civilian casualty war in Gaza a "war crime" every day did indeed do a lot to make the word war crime meaningless. The concept of a war crime was never to make war illegal, it was to make specific bad acts illegal. The use of the concept by the internationalist left to try to criminalize all wars just leads to the entire concept being viewed as bunk.
The authoritarian right likes to blame the left for the crimes committed by the authoritarian right. It's always been thus. It does not change the responsibility for the crimes.
If you beat your wife because "she made me do it", you're still a wife beater. If you murder someone from a different ethnicity because they "stole your job" or "they got uppity", you're still a racist murderer. And if you commit war crimes, you're still a war criminal even if you think someone applied the term "war crime" imprecisely in that past.
According to the American right simply owning a nuke is a war crime. Not even killing anyone.
Quote from: The Brain on April 07, 2026, 11:54:18 AMAccording to the American right simply owning a nuke is a war crime. Not even killing anyone.
Except in America, because of the 2nd amendment.
Quote from: Zanza on April 07, 2026, 10:31:35 AMQuote from: Darth Wagtaros on April 07, 2026, 09:51:20 AMThe lawmakers and the party leaderships know how to deal with him. They lack the will to do so.
They are complicit.
It is profitable. Very profitable. A political ecosystem that has evolved to total war does not need to do anything useful or even reasonably competent.
Quote from: Jacob on April 07, 2026, 11:46:42 AMIf the US nukes an Iranian population centre over Trump's war of choice, because Iran is refusing to let shipping through the Hormuz, that will put Trump's US as a nation into the same category as Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia.
There may some nuance differences in the ranking, but it'll be the same category.
The B61 is reportedly a dial-a-yield weapon, and the nuclear facility is far enough outside the city of Isfahan that a 10kt ground burst (https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=10&lat=32.5804675&lng=51.8279928&hob_psi=5&hob_ft=2207&crater=1&ff=50&rem=100,500&therm=_1st-50,_3rd-100&zm=12) (reportedly the lowest setting on the weapon) would keep the direct effects well away from the city, and only really hit a few of the villages near the facility. The Mod 11 is the ground penetrator, which Nukemap can't model, so the direct effects may be more limited even at a higher yield setting. I'm worried that this will be used to justify employing the Mod 11 against the underground facility, and that the collateral damage will be considered acceptable by the regime.
Quote from: celedhring on April 07, 2026, 05:04:37 AMIt's the first time I see a head of state proudly announcing he's about to commit war crimes. I don't think even Putin does that.
He knows what Americans want to hear. Russians might be less evil and bloodthirsty.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 07, 2026, 11:30:29 AMI very much agree with you there. If W or Obama said even a quarter of what Lord TACO of Orange has said huge numbers of people would be screaming bloody murder. I think he has, unfortunately and terrifyingly, shifted the Overton window. It's really disappointing, even disturbing, that even large, respected news outlets like the New York Times have just sorta gone along with it.
They did this during the first term as well. Trump would say something completely insane and horrifying and the media would rush to explain how it is great actually. At the time it was weird and frustrating. Now you just have to accept that if you dare suggest that maybe we should have universal health care you will be denounced as an unrealistic dangerous freak, but if you want concentration camps and mass murder the media will nod sagely and agree.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 07, 2026, 11:46:50 AMImbecilic leftists causing, by any standards, a low civilian casualty war in Gaza a "war crime" every day did indeed do a lot to make the word war crime meaningless. The concept of a war crime was never to make war illegal, it was to make specific bad acts illegal. The use of the concept by the internationalist left to try to criminalize all wars just leads to the entire concept being viewed as bunk.
As I said, people like Raz
I think the chance of Trump ordering the use of a nuclear weapon is extremely small...he historically has a strong psychological barrier/fear against it.
Given his over-the-top/deranged/unhinged rhetoric so far...if he wanted to use one, why should we not expect he would threaten exactly that?
Also, and possibly an argument against myself, it plays right into the IRGC's hands...I think they would love nothing more than for us to use a nuclear weapon, even a very limited one.
The US is threatening not just using a nuke, but nuclear annihilation of an entire civilization. There is no other credible US weapon system that can accomplish that in one evening.
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 07, 2026, 01:22:50 PMI think the chance of Trump ordering the use of a nuclear weapon is extremely small...he historically has a strong psychological barrier/fear against it.
He has a fear of confronting other nuclear powers.
But in his first term, he was widely reported as questioning the generals why the US never used its nuclear arsenal. I don't think he has compunction against using it against a weaker power that can't hit back, except to the degree the generals or other advisors tell him that it risks third party escalation. And I'm not confident there are enough of those calming voices left.
I don't think Trump would actually use nukes, but then again I don't think it's a zero chance either which is scary enough.
If he did use them though, what would stop Putin from dropping the on Ukraine right after?
Quote from: Bauer on April 07, 2026, 02:14:01 PMI don't think Trump would actually use nukes, but then again I don't think it's a zero chance either which is scary enough.
If he did use them though, what would stop Putin from dropping the on Ukraine right after?
exactly.
Didn't Trump want to nuke a hurricane in his first term?
Trump is just talking out of his ass again. He loves the attention. He won't be nuking anyone. Not today. He will continue doing what the Israelis have been doing all day, massive bombing of infrastructure. Then maybe after a day or two say Iran is finished and take the three points.
I find it ironic that Israel blew up a synagogue by the way
Quote from: The Brain on April 07, 2026, 01:50:59 PMThe US is threatening not just using a nuke, but nuclear annihilation of an entire civilization. There is no other credible US weapon system that can accomplish that in one evening.
That is about equally as good an argument for saying that the threat itself is not credible.
But I presume that is what we're hoping for...we'll see.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 07, 2026, 02:05:13 PMHe has a fear of confronting other nuclear powers.
But in his first term, he was widely reported as questioning the generals why the US never used its nuclear arsenal. I don't think he has compunction against using it against a weaker power that can't hit back, except to the degree the generals or other advisors tell him that it risks third party escalation. And I'm not confident there are enough of those calming voices left.
Yeah. I also just worry it might be the way he gets to TACO which I think otherwise still seems difficult to me.
He's caught between his public big strong man persona, his interest in TACOing, the ROTW yelling at him to get something done and his innate cowardice. I have no idea what he'll do.
Quote from: frunk on April 07, 2026, 04:15:19 PMHe's caught between his public big strong man persona, his interest in TACOing, the ROTW yelling at him to get something done and his innate cowardice. I have no idea what he'll do.
ideally get a heart attack or brain aneurysm that takes him out
Quote from: frunk on April 07, 2026, 04:15:19 PMHe's caught between his public big strong man persona, his interest in TACOing, the ROTW yelling at him to get something done and his innate cowardice. I have no idea what he'll do.
Yep. If he could TACO he would have already.
Though Pakistan might be tossing him a lifeline. At for awhile.
He has TACOed.
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 07, 2026, 05:49:44 PMHe has TACOed.
Sort of. It is contingent on Iran opening the straits for two weeks which I think they already said they wouldn't do.
So I don't really know.
The statement from the Iranian government is nearly as unhinged as a trump missive:
QuoteStatement on two-week ceasefire from Iran's Supreme National Security Council
The following is a statement by the Supreme National Security Council of Iran on the two-week ceasefire and the conditions for negotiations:
These negotiations will begin in Islamabad with complete distrust of the American side, and Iran will allocate two weeks for these negotiations. This time can be extended by agreement of the parties.
It is necessary to maintain complete national unity during this period and to continue the celebrations of victory with strength.
The current negotiations are national negotiations and a continuation of the field, and it is necessary for all people, elites, and political groups to trust and support this process, which is under the supervision of the revolutionary leaders and the highest levels of the system, and to strictly avoid any divisive statements.
If the surrender of the enemy in the field becomes a decisive political achievement in the negotiations, we will celebrate this great historical victory together, otherwise we will fight side by side in the field until all the demands of the Iranian nation are achieved.
Our hands are on the trigger, and as soon as the slightest mistake by the enemy is made, it will be responded to with full force.
Supreme National Security Council
Yeah, both governments are incapable of acting in good faith, so wondering what the point of negotiations are.
See how this plays out. But reporting that US is starting to talk on previously rejected Iranian points (and Trump's statement indicates they're working off Iranian proposals: "We received a 10 point proposal from Iran, and believe it is a workable basis on which to negotiate.")
From Hamidreza on commentary in Iran:
QuoteHamidreza Azizi
@HamidRezaAz
UPDATE:
📡Iran's first official announcement of a ceasefire
A statement by Iran's Supreme National Security Council claims that "Iran has achieved a great victory and forced the criminal United States to accept its 10-point plan."
According to the statement, this includes a principled U.S. commitment to non-aggression, the continuation of Iran's control over the Strait of Hormuz, acceptance of uranium enrichment, the lifting of all primary and secondary sanctions, the termination of all UN Security Council and Board of Governors resolutions, compensation to Iran, the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from the region, and the cessation of war across all fronts, including against the "heroic Islamic resistance" in Lebanon.
The statement "congratulates the Iranian people on this victory" and emphasizes that, "until the details are finalized, continued resilience, prudent management by officials, and the preservation of national unity and cohesion remain necessary."
NOTE: In the meantime, some hardline commentators are accusing the government of "treason".
Iran's Supreme National Security Council also emphasizes that "this does not mean the end of the war," adding that "negotiations will begin on Friday 10 April in Islamabad, to be conducted with complete distrust toward the American side."
I mean obviously a lot of spin in this. But at this stage tough to see this as anything but a very bad decision by Israel (and I think the anti-semitism on the right in the US may well become more salient and alarming).
Edit: What the Iranians are reporting as their ten points:
QuoteThe Ten Points in the Proposed Iranian Plan According to the Statement of the Iranian Supreme National Security Council:
1. Organizing traffic through the Strait of Hormuz in coordination with the Iranian Armed Forces, thereby granting Iran a decisive economic and geopolitical role in the Strait.
2. Ending the war against all components of the "Axis of Resistance," which Iran presents as an acknowledgment of the failure of Israeli military operations.
3. Withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from all bases and military deployment points in the region.
4. Establishing an official security protocol for navigation in the Strait of Hormuz that ensures Iran an oversight role in accordance with an agreed-upon mechanism.
5. Payment of full compensation to Iran for war damages based on a comprehensive assessment of the losses incurred by it.
6. Complete lifting of all primary and secondary sanctions imposed on Iran.
7. Cancellation of decisions issued against Iran by the IAEA Board of Governors as well as by the United Nations Security Council.
8. Release of all frozen Iranian assets and funds abroad.
9. Endorsement of these arrangements in a binding resolution issued by the International Security Council.
10. Transforming the agreement into a binding international law that ensures its implementation and enshrines Iran's security and political gains.
Incidentally some speculation that agreeing to a ceasefire with an open strait may have been a quid pro quo with China vetoing the Hormuz resolution in the Security Council.
trump and his 2 weeks lol. He's been using that for decades. It's a Roy Cohn thing.
Seems like an overall win for Iran?
So he couldn't just TACO on the infrastructure bombing thing again, so instead he is TACOing on the whole war, accepting a ceasefire and using Iran's proposal as a negotiation basis.
Pathetic.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on April 07, 2026, 07:12:13 PMSeems like an overall win for Iran?
If they get to keep enriching Uranium then yes they will have won the war.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on April 07, 2026, 07:12:13 PMSeems like an overall win for Iran?
If those are the bases for negotiation then it feels that way. Obviously who knows what happens next.
Although interestingly, maybe (definitely) not in this way, but Larry Fink had raised the possibility of one outcome being Iranian fossil fuels ending up in the market and significantly lower prices globally.
I read Iran gets a nice 2 million per vessel that goes through the Strait. They split it with Oman. I can't see this as anything but a near complete win for Iran with a slight victory for Israel. A complete disaster for the US, though. Wow. Just... incredibly embarrassing and damaging.
Quote from: Tamas on April 07, 2026, 07:15:11 PMQuote from: Darth Wagtaros on April 07, 2026, 07:12:13 PMSeems like an overall win for Iran?
If they get to keep enriching Uranium then yes they will have won the war.
You all forget, it's now a totally new and reasonable regime. :P
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on April 07, 2026, 07:22:08 PMI read Iran gets a nice 2 million per vessel that goes through the Strait. They split it with Oman. I can't see this as anything but a near complete win for Iran with a slight victory for Israel. A complete disaster for the US, though. Wow. Just... incredibly embarrassing and damaging.
I think possibly worse for Israel - ultimately America's a distant imperial power. The Israelis live there.
See how it turns out but if Iran have stuck to their demand that any ceasefire also covers Lebanon, plus a new revenue stream (assuming sanctions won't be lifted) and a nuclear program that hasn't been destroyed (assuming we don't believe Trump's claims from eight months ago...), plus effective deterrence and - I suspect - a lot of American allies mid-rapprochement with Israel looking at the region again. I think that's pretty much worst case scenario for Israel.
That's what happens when one is an aggressor.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 07, 2026, 07:19:40 PMQuote from: Darth Wagtaros on April 07, 2026, 07:12:13 PMSeems like an overall win for Iran?
If those are the bases for negotiation then it feels that way. Obviously who knows what happens next.
Although interestingly, maybe (definitely) not in this way, but Larry Fink had raised the possibility of one outcome being Iranian fossil fuels ending up in the market and significantly lower prices globally.
Yeah if Iranian oil enters the market and lowers prices, I think Trump may be able to spin it as a win to his true believers (and if he can get some grift on the side somewhere he'll probably be able to satisfy his ego also).
It might leave Israel and the GCC countries under a bus, but I don't think that matters much to Trump.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 07, 2026, 07:27:43 PMI think possibly worse for Israel - ultimately America's a distant imperial power. The Israelis live there.
See how it turns out but if Iran have stuck to their demand that any ceasefire also covers Lebanon, plus a new revenue stream (assuming sanctions won't be lifted) and a nuclear program that hasn't been destroyed (assuming we don't believe Trump's claims from eight months ago...), plus effective deterrence and - I suspect - a lot of American allies mid-rapprochement with Israel looking at the region again. I think that's pretty much worst case scenario for Israel.
We'll see on how things shake out with Lebanon. At the moment, Israel was able to invade Lebanon and demand the evacuation of the population in the areas they control, do some damage to Iran on both a logistical and hierarchy level, and still have their dupe the US willing to follow their lead. Longer term? Yeah. It will probably bear some pretty terrible fruit for Israel, but at the moment, they look like they came out a heck of a lot better than the US.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on April 07, 2026, 08:32:17 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on April 07, 2026, 07:27:43 PMI think possibly worse for Israel - ultimately America's a distant imperial power. The Israelis live there.
See how it turns out but if Iran have stuck to their demand that any ceasefire also covers Lebanon, plus a new revenue stream (assuming sanctions won't be lifted) and a nuclear program that hasn't been destroyed (assuming we don't believe Trump's claims from eight months ago...), plus effective deterrence and - I suspect - a lot of American allies mid-rapprochement with Israel looking at the region again. I think that's pretty much worst case scenario for Israel.
We'll see on how things shake out with Lebanon. At the moment, Israel was able to invade Lebanon and demand the evacuation of the population in the areas they control, do some damage to Iran on both a logistical and hierarchy level, and still have their dupe the US willing to follow their lead. Longer term? Yeah. It will probably bear some pretty terrible fruit for Israel, but at the moment, they look like they came out a heck of a lot better than the US.
Israel is kind of like the kid who was a bully because his big brother was at the school and everybody feared his big brother. But when the big brother left the school, the bully figured out it probably would've been better not to be a bully.
...and Israel is still fighting Iran. Awesome. :glare:
Quote from: Tamas on April 07, 2026, 07:15:11 PMQuote from: Darth Wagtaros on April 07, 2026, 07:12:13 PMSeems like an overall win for Iran?
If they get to keep enriching Uranium then yes they will have won the war.
If they get those ten points then yes. They won. Rather decisively.
But this is all bullshit. I have no idea what is going on in reality.
The Israeli strategy for many years has been to get short term security in exchange for long term instability. It works at the local level, mostly, but if you try to scale it up like they are doing now it will only reduce the security window and increase the instability to unpredictably chaotic degrees.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on April 07, 2026, 08:57:48 PM...and Israel is still fighting Iran. Awesome. :glare:
The Israelis need the cease-fire to fail and for the United States to come back into this war.
Trump declaring victory and trying to leave is as predictable as Israel doing everything it can to stop that from happening.
QuoteA big day for World Peace! Iran wants it to happen, they've had enough! Likewise, so has everyone else! The United States of America will be helping with the traffic buildup in the Strait of Hormuz. There will be lots of positive action! Big money will be made. Iran can start the reconstruction process. We'll be loading up with supplies of all kinds, and just "hangin' around" in order to make sure that everything goes well. I feel confident that it will. Just like we are experiencing in the U.S., this could be the Golden Age of the Middle East!!! President DONALD J. TRUMP
More threats. :(
Ok, so last time there were negotiations, Iran was about to make big concessions and then bombing starts.
Now Iran comes back with a maximalist 10 points (surprised dissolution of Israel isn't on there) and it's a good basis for discussion?
Meanwhile, I assume Bibi is already looking for ways out of the ceasefire. Not to mention that it seems having dicussions with the US is not worth anything because they keep reneging and changing their minds (see above).
I have jusy realised that Trump is going to start bombing Cuba in the next two weeks so that he won't have to restart bombing Iran after the ceasefire.
Quote from: Syt on April 08, 2026, 01:10:12 AMOk, so last time there were negotiations, Iran was about to make big concessions and then bombing starts.
Now Iran comes back with a maximalist 10 points (surprised dissolution of Israel isn't on there) and it's a good basis for discussion?
I feel like we may be overreading into what 'good basis for discussion' means. I don't think that means that Iran will necessarily get most of what is on its list.
BBC also had this analysis:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c5yw4g3z7qgt?post=asset%3A25a64be9-e86b-4846-8052-e5e49ae736df#post
QuoteNegotiations are going to be very difficult
There's a deficit of trust between the US and Iran with another round of talks set to begin.
Iran and the US have negotiated twice in the past year. Both times in the middle of negotiations a war has started.
No matter how victorious Iran portrays themselves in state media, it is in a very weak position.
Its army has been heavily battered, its economy is in shambles, and the regime has unfinished business with the opposition and the people.
In the past few days, the government has started executing some of those people who were arrested during the protests in January
The regime has to harden its grip on power inside the country. It's in a bad situation, but at the same time its demands are difficult for the Americans to address.
The US says it has accepted the ceasefire under the condition that there will be free flow of traffic in the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran is mentioning that it wants to have control over maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz because of its geographic location - that's its number one priority.
There is going to be difficult negotiations over Iran's nuclear programme.
Iranian state media are saying that the US has agreed to uranium enrichment in Iran.
The US has said it wants no enrichment being done in Iran.
It's going to be a very hard two weeks.
Yeah except I am pretty sure Trump has no desire to resume hostilities.
:wacko: :wacko: :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
Quote from: Bret DevereauxPardon my language, but...no fucking way, right?
(https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:j2kmiyhld5btzozgzwy3lc2m/bafkreicp3v7fz7hfz4hj7ymsaakep2g6i43jzkc4jr2uyw7otzuwa2ckla)
Trump will spin this as a win of course.
Now he needs a nice place to vacation, and Havana is calling.
QuoteTrump will spin this as a win of course.
Now he needs a nice place to vacation, and Havana is calling.
Yes, unfortunately.
Seems like we're still not getting clear details on what agreement governs the ceasefire--with the unreliable parties, meaning Iran and Trump, both saying pretty conflicting things. I suspect we'll find out more definitively in the next few days.
One thing that seems certain because it has been publicly stated by the Israeli government--Lebanon doesn't appear to be covered by the ceasefire at all.
Quote from: Josephus on April 08, 2026, 05:59:52 AMTrump will spin this as a win of course.
Now he needs a nice place to vacation, and Havana is calling.
Cubas in a for a rough time, but I don't think for a bit. Whether it goes bad or good Iran will take up news space for a while, and that's what Trump wants.
Ceasefire already breaking down?
https://x.com/clashreport/status/2041826268392374459?s=20
Strikes hit an Iranian oil refinery on Lavan Island today\.
Iran is now retaliating with strikes on targets in Kuwait, Bahrain, and the UAE\.
Looks like Israel just conducted its largest strikes of the war in Lebanon, I suspect they plan to use the ceasefire period to push all their attention into Hezbollah.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 08, 2026, 08:43:38 AMLooks like Israel just conducted its largest strikes of the war in Lebanon, I suspect they plan to use the ceasefire period to push all their attention into Hezbollah.
And it looks like UAE continuing to launch strikes against Iran - so also exposing a GCC Saudi-Emirati rift. The Emiratis are targeting oil and petrochemical plants on the Gulf.
FWIW I find them very unsympathetic countries but the GCC are in a very tough spot. There are ideological and structural reasons they're on the opposite side of Iran. But in that context there's an increasingly unreliable and costly security guarantor in the US or going it alone but facing an Iran that's pretty strongly backed by China and Russia in pushing the US out. And China having compelled Iran to accept some form of ceasefire, interesting to see what next as Israel continues its assault and the Emiratis theirs.
The Pakistani PM has, incidentally, backed the Iranian position that the ceasefire agreed by Iran and the US includes Lebanon ("along with their allies"), so interesting to see how that plays out with both Israel and the UAE.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 08, 2026, 07:14:29 AMSeems like we're still not getting clear details on what agreement governs the ceasefire--with the unreliable parties, meaning Iran and Trump, both saying pretty conflicting things. I suspect we'll find out more definitively in the next few days.
Yeah - although the one point of overlap is that they are negotiating off Iranian, not American proposals.
Quote from: frunk on April 07, 2026, 09:17:57 PMThe Israeli strategy for many years has been to get short term security in exchange for long term instability. It works at the local level, mostly, but if you try to scale it up like they are doing now it will only reduce the security window and increase the instability to unpredictably chaotic degrees.
That's my fear on the ratcheting rhetoric against Turkiye from friendly think tanks and the Israeli right. We need to be really clear (from a Euro-perspective) that Ankara is a key partner in our defence (even more important now - closer ties with Ukraine and very important in that conflict, ties to Syrian regime Europe is building relations with and important in relation to Iran too) and a NATO member to block that direction of travel now.
Relatedly I see Yair Lapid calling the ceasefire the greatest "political disaster in all of our history" noting Israel wasn't even at the table and that Netanyahu's policy "failed politically, failed strategically, and didn't meet a single one of the goals that he himself set." Which seems unarguably true.
I'd add on the politics I think this Netanyahu government has done really profound damage with the pro-Israel constituencies within American politics - I think a lot of Democrats etc who are historically very close to Israel are pretty angry. I also think that if the myth on the right becomes that MAGA/Trump was destroyed by a war Netanyahu convinced Trump to join that will spin a chunk of the right off into very dark territory - we already see it with Tucker Carlson. I suspect there probably needs to be a piece of work rebuilding ties and rapport and I'm not sure Netanyahu is capable of doing that.
Once again, you are overthinking this. Trump needed a fast exit from his outrageous threat. The result is a cease-fire with uncertain terms that nobody actually formally agreed to.
Trump just pulled the escape parachute out of his ass and jump, jumped out of the plane.
Please don't over analyze this, as if it was a considered agreement.
Am I correct in assuming that the cease fire agreement and every damned agreement is being made by that scumbag Jared Kushner?
I appreciate the analysis.
I agree that any analysis needs to account for Trump's unclear goals and idiotic nature, but there are other actors in the equation and the logic of international relations remains even if some of the parties are erratic.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2026, 09:36:49 AMOnce again, you are overthinking this. Trump needed a fast exit from his outrageous threat. The result is a cease-fire with uncertain terms that nobody actually formally agreed to.
Trump just pulled the escape parachute out of his ass and jump, jumped out of the plane.
Please don't over analyze this, as if it was a considered agreement.
Looks more like he jumped out of airplane, while shouting "throw me the parachute" on his way down . . .
Quote from: Jacob on April 08, 2026, 09:57:40 AMI appreciate the analysis.
I agree that any analysis needs to account for Trump's unclear goals and idiotic nature, but there are other actors in the equation and the logic of international relations remains even if some of the parties are erratic.
In truth, it's the most rational decision Trump made since the war began. It's humiliating to the United States, but if it holds, it makes the best of an untenable situation and cuts further losses on both sides. Giving some kind of official recognition to Iranian domination of the Straits is embarrassing, but it is only a paper recognition of an already existing reality.
It's a little surprising to see Trump openly stating that the Iran 10 point proposal "is a workable basis on which to negotiate" because to anyone that can read, even a much watered-down version of that proposal would represent capitulation by the US. But Trump only cares what his domestic base thinks, and he knows most of them don't and won't read, and that will leave him and his Secretary of War Crimes the leeway to portray it as Iran caving in after his thunderous threats of mayhem. On the substance, I think if Tehran is willing to make the right noises -- knowing that DJT can often be bought of diplomatically by completely bogus pledges that look impressive on paper -- DJT would have no real problem recognizing Iranian "supervision" of the Straits, as long as the spice flows . . .
Also agree 100% with shielbh re Isreal and the domestic impact in the US re Israel. Among other things, this has been an utter disaster for American Jewry, and a completely predictable disaster. And it says a lot about the completely fucked up headspace of a subset of American Jews now that they cheerleaded this fiasco.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 08, 2026, 07:48:42 AMCeasefire already breaking down?
https://x.com/clashreport/status/2041826268392374459?s=20
Strikes hit an Iranian oil refinery on Lavan Island today\.
Iran is now retaliating with strikes on targets in Kuwait, Bahrain, and the UAE\.
One of the reasons 2 weeks is needed is because the new-ish Iranian leadership has to reassert control over the autonomous regional Guard formations. It wouldn't be surprising to see a few episodic breaches in the first couple days.
As expected Trump administration is calling this a win.
This could also be a stalling tactic, allowing the US to ship more munitions and Patriots into the region.
I guess we will see
Trump has now said in a public statement that Lebanon is not included in the ceasefire.
Iran has now said the Israeli strikes in Lebanon violate the ceasefire.
Note that while Trump claims the Iranian 10 points are a "basis for negotiation", he is also still saying Iran will "fully give up" all uranium enrichment--a maximalist claim they have never previously agreed to, and that directly contradicts Iran's 10 point proposal.
I know Trump loves to do what JR said and literally get some "public" diplomatic agreement that ends up not actually meaning anything, or sometimes even meaning the opposite of what Trump says. But the issue here is the missiles may not actually stop flying, which will make it harder than in other situations for Trump to follow this PR strategy.
Iran has now said the Strait's traffic is again closed, due to Israel attacking Lebanon.
Iran has also continued to conduct significant strikes against Gulf countries--notably Kuwait, which suffered damage to both oil infrastructure and desalination facilities today.
I'm pretty sure Bibi is going to do whatever he can to sabotage the ceasefire with Iran.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 08, 2026, 10:40:32 AMTrump has now said in a public statement that Lebanon is not included in the ceasefire.
:lol: This is a ceasefire but we will continue to attack you in one area...if you don't mind.
Pretty sure that is not how ceasefires work.
Quote from: Josephus on April 08, 2026, 11:17:01 AMI'm pretty sure Bibi is going to do whatever he can to sabotage the ceasefire with Iran.
And so is everyone else apparently.
Apparently Trump is saying the Iranian document being circulated is "not the agreement" they made, and it also appears the Farsi-only version contains a clause that the U.S. must accept Iranian uranium enrichment.
(https://i.redd.it/pzlfgub1kztg1.jpg)
Operation Eternal Darkness?
(https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/v2/D5612AQEJ020CIprAUg/article-cover_image-shrink_720_1280/article-cover_image-shrink_720_1280/0/1730161966590?e=2147483647&v=beta&t=uWmYkwtTMn6m75u-4DX-Fm3-_OfrLwK4-7qJb2QJXX4)
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 08, 2026, 11:56:04 AMApparently Trump is saying the Iranian document being circulated is "not the agreement" they made, and it also appears the Farsi-only version contains a clause that the U.S. must accept Iranian uranium enrichment.
If ever there were two parties that deserved the other, it's Trump and these Iranians. The mullahs may play at being austere guardians of Islam, but you could plug the lot of them into cutthroat New York commercial real estate and they'd fit right in.
Reports of explosions in Iranian cities of Isfahan and Kerman.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 08, 2026, 10:40:32 AMTrump has now said in a public statement that Lebanon is not included in the ceasefire.
Iran has now said the Israeli strikes in Lebanon violate the ceasefire.
Yeah - as I say the Pakistanis who negotiated the ceasefire have said it covered Iran and the US plus their allies (so Hezbollah, Israel and the UAE) and Lebanon. And to Lapid's point Israel weren't in the room because Trump wants gas prices lowered.
Again interesting analysis from Hamidreza Azizi on the Iranian read. I think the fundamental point here is that the Iranians saw even agreeing to a ceasefire as a concession (under Chinese pressure), the US is not capable of forcing Hormuz open (or regime change or any of the other goals, American or Israeli) without signficantly more force being applied and Iran's goals are pretty maximalist given the leverage they have and are capable/willing to apply (including the hits they're willing to take):
QuoteHamidreza Azizi
@HamidRezaAz
Will the ceasefire hold?
🔹Iranian state media and government-affiliated institutions continue to frame the ceasefire as a victory, arguing that the United States has effectively accepted Iran's terms. But developments since this morning have begun to challenge both the ceasefire and the broader narrative of success promoted by Tehran.
🔹Reactions inside Iran have not been uniform. A segment of pro-government experts – many aligned with the regime's core constituency – have expressed skepticism about whether the ceasefire actually serves Iran's interests.
🔹Their central concern is trust. These voices argue that the United States has demonstrated it is not a reliable interlocutor, and that the ceasefire may simply give Washington and Israel time to regroup before resuming military operations under more favorable conditions.
🔹This skepticism is reinforced by what they see as inconsistency in official messaging. Iranian leaders had repeatedly emphasized that there would be no ceasefire, only a decisive end to the war.
🔹The acceptance of a temporary ceasefire, without clarity on whether it leads to a definitive resolution, is therefore viewed as a reversal that raises questions about strategic coherence.
🔹Recent comments by Donald Trump have added to these concerns. His shift from referencing Iran's proposed 10-point plan to promoting a U.S. 15-point framework is interpreted as a sign that Washington may already be reconsidering its position.
🔹Particular attention has focused on the substance of these proposals. The emphasis on removing Iran's nuclear material in exchange for sanctions "relief" – rather than full "removal" – is seen as evidence that the U.S. is hardening, not softening, its stance.
🔹Beyond elite debates, some commentators warn of domestic repercussions. Public support during the war, they say, was sustained in part by trust in leadership decision-making.
🔹If that trust is perceived to have been undermined, especially through a ceasefire that appears uncertain or disadvantageous, future public mobilization may become more difficult.
🔹At the regional level, developments in Lebanon are placing additional pressure on the ceasefire. Israel's intensified air campaign there directly challenges Iran's insistence that any ceasefire must be region-wide.
🔹This creates pressure on Tehran to respond. From the outset, Iran's position was that the war could not be compartmentalized, and more recently, officials explicitly stated that Lebanon must be included in any ceasefire arrangement.
🔹As a result, pro-government analysts increasingly frame the situation as a strategic challenge: either Iran responds decisively to restore deterrence, or Israel succeeds in imposing a new regional equation.
🔹In that scenario, the so-called "resistance front" would become fragmented, with its different components effectively separated and weakened.
🔹This has direct implications for Iran's position in Lebanon, they say. Hezbollah entered the war in support of Iran and now expects reciprocal backing. If Hezbollah perceives abandonment, some analysts warn that Iran may struggle to rebuild its influence among Lebanon's Shiite community.
🔹More broadly, such an outcome would damage Iran's regional standing. It would reinforce a perception Tehran ultimately prioritizes its own interests over those of its allies.
🔹These concerns are also tied to Iran's national security calculus. Some analysts argue that Israel accepted the ceasefire with Iran primarily to neutralize the northern front. From this perspective, degrading Hezbollah's capabilities would remove a key pressure point, allowing Israel to refocus on Iran itself at a later stage.
🔹This leads to a more long-term concern: sequencing. If Iran does not act now to support Hezbollah, it may face a future confrontation with Israel without the same level of regional backing.
🔹In that sense, the ceasefire is not seen as an endpoint but as a transitional phase that could reshape the strategic environment in ways that are ultimately unfavorable to Iran.
FWIW - horrible and dangers regime etc etc - I'm really not sure they're misreading Trump (or Netanyahu) here.
Netanyahu just got done giving a press briefing--he confirms Hezbollah is not part of the ceasefire and Israel will not cease its war on Hezbollah.
Unless some moves are made quickly I don't really see the ceasefire holding, there's too little of the "cease" and too much of the "fire."
In terms of Trump's strategy versus Iran--his biggest single weakness specific to Iran (ignoring his general weaknesses like low intelligence, poor emotional regulation etc), is his obsession and fear of gasoline prices.
You can go to war with Iran.
You cannot go to war with Iran, and not raise gas prices.
Given that reality, it is virtually impossible to wage a successful war against Iran if you have close to no tolerance for increased gas prices. In the past, when American Presidents have felt the need to wage wars that they knew would create unpopular domestic consequences, they made appeals to the American public, they built a case for the war, they convinced people this war justified some sacrifice.
Trump started the war in secret with little advance notice, certainly no public political debate. He has never meaningfully justified it to America, and he has certainly never tried to appeal to Americans patriotism to get them to tolerate self sacrifice. Instead he has consistently said the war would be over "very soon" and tried to create narrative that the war would solely be fun and winning, no pain at all.
Now, I'm not sure necessarily if Trump could ever achieve significant wins in Iran without ground troops. But I do know some figures like former Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery, have openly said it is more or less "insane" that Trump hasn't shut down Iran's oil trade. That's out of line with basic military strategy for about as long a we've had navies--the idea that you let your enemy shut down trade vital to your country but take no effort to blockade its own trade is...weird. And it only makes sense because Trump feared even more gas price increases.
Montgomery (who was made infamous for his involvement in the "Fat Leonard" scandal, but let's assume he at least does know naval strategy better than Trump), noted that things like seizing Kharg Island are also unnecessary. Montgomery's opinion is if the Navy simply put out a warning that any oil tankers attempting to depart the region with Iranian oil would be subject to interdiction would likely shut down significantly the trade--with many unlikely to risk challenging the proclamation.
Anyway--I don't know that shutting down Iran's oil revenue gets you to a win, the reality is Iran is still a big country with a lot of people and IMO just won't be defeated by anything short of a ground invasion. But I do agree with the logic that it makes little sense to have allowed Iran to conduct a one sided blockade--it only makes sense in the context of a President unwilling to "pay the cost" of the war he started.
Al Jazeera is reporting the GCC countries may be looking for a "different security partnership" than the U.S., as they feel deeply screwed by the ceasefire (which hasn't apparently even stopped attacks on their infrastructure), and they also oppose any attempts to toll the Strait of Hormuz.
It actually isn't impossible the Gulf countries continue the war over this--from their perspective the time to hammer Iran is now, when it is at its military weakest, not months from now after it has rebuilt and can more strongly wage war to enforce its toll scheme. The GCC countries could also conceivably use some of their own leverage--for example doing their own embargo on oil exports which would put countries like China in a position of possibly needing to try to get Iran to drop its attempts at establishing a Strait toll.
Hard to say how it works out but just sounds like a further progression of the general clusterfuck that has been this whole situation.
The headlines from AP at the moment:
Quote4 min ago
White House defends Trump's language threatening 'a whole civilization'
5 min ago
White House shrugs off NATO's pledge to ensure freedom of navigation through a reopened Strait of Hormuz
6 min ago
Israel's airport restarts full operations
7 min ago
JUST IN: White House says Trump is opposed to tolls for ship passage through the Strait of Hormuz
8 min ago
The White House defends Trump's threat that 'a whole civilization will die tonight
10 min ago
Vance will lead US delegation to Islamabad for talks with Iran
12 min ago
Flights gradually resume in Bahrain
13 min ago
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu strikes victorious tone, praises Israel's resilience even as country remains hobbled from war
16 min ago
JUST IN: White House says VP JD Vance will lead US negotiating team in Islamabad talks aimed at finding permanent end to war
17 min ago
JUST IN: White House demands Iran reopen Strait of Hormuz immediately after Iran says it closed waterway
17 min ago
The White House says Iran presented a 'new, modified peace plan that it is able to 'align with our own, 15-point proposal
19 min ago
Iran closes Strait of Hormuz again in response to Israeli attacks in Lebanon, threatening ceasefire
Also (not sure how trustworthy Lebanese sources are?):
QuoteAt least 112 killed in Israeli strikes over Lebanon, says health ministry
By KAREEM CHEHAYEB
The latest count for Wednesday includes widespread strikes across central Beirut that came without warning, also wounding at least 837, one of the deadliest days in this latest war between Israel and the Hezbollah militant group. It is not the final count.
More than 1,500 people have been killed in Lebanon during the past month, and over 1 million others have been displaced.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 08, 2026, 12:44:16 PMAnyway--I don't know that shutting down Iran's oil revenue gets you to a win, the reality is Iran is still a big country with a lot of people and IMO just won't be defeated by anything short of a ground invasion. But I do agree with the logic that it makes little sense to have allowed Iran to conduct a one sided blockade--it only makes sense in the context of a President unwilling to "pay the cost" of the war he started.
Agree with the rest of your post - but I'd add there's also the cost Iran is willing to pay.
I think with Trump personally I can't help but think the relative lack of response to assassinating Soleimani and the twelve day war is that Iran's a bit of a paper tiger. I also think more broadly that (as in the NYT today) Netanyahu seems to have very much oversold this. Additionally - I've mentioned it before but killing the leadership of a country in your opening strike really doesn't leave much space for escalation.
I'd add that I don't think bombing Iran would necessarily have helped but I think one of the most morally disgraceful things Trump's done was telling protestors in Iran that "help is on its way" and then did nothing, wile tens of thousands of protestors were gunned down.
On the GCC I think it seems like there's a divide - or basically the UAE are far, far more hawkish than everyone else. I mentioned before but I think they're in a very tough position - I'm not sure there's a solution.
Quote from: Syt on April 08, 2026, 01:04:48 PMThe headlines from AP at the moment:
Quote4 min ago
White House defends Trump's language threatening 'a whole civilization'
5 min ago
White House shrugs off NATO's pledge to ensure freedom of navigation through a reopened Strait of Hormuz
6 min ago
Israel's airport restarts full operations
7 min ago
JUST IN: White House says Trump is opposed to tolls for ship passage through the Strait of Hormuz
8 min ago
The White House defends Trump's threat that 'a whole civilization will die tonight
10 min ago
Vance will lead US delegation to Islamabad for talks with Iran
12 min ago
Flights gradually resume in Bahrain
13 min ago
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu strikes victorious tone, praises Israel's resilience even as country remains hobbled from war
16 min ago
JUST IN: White House says VP JD Vance will lead US negotiating team in Islamabad talks aimed at finding permanent end to war
17 min ago
JUST IN: White House demands Iran reopen Strait of Hormuz immediately after Iran says it closed waterway
17 min ago
The White House says Iran presented a 'new, modified peace plan that it is able to 'align with our own, 15-point proposal
19 min ago
Iran closes Strait of Hormuz again in response to Israeli attacks in Lebanon, threatening ceasefire
(https://media.tenor.com/qzJKTSVUZLQAAAAM/read.gif)
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 08, 2026, 01:07:47 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 08, 2026, 12:44:16 PMAnyway--I don't know that shutting down Iran's oil revenue gets you to a win, the reality is Iran is still a big country with a lot of people and IMO just won't be defeated by anything short of a ground invasion. But I do agree with the logic that it makes little sense to have allowed Iran to conduct a one sided blockade--it only makes sense in the context of a President unwilling to "pay the cost" of the war he started.
Agree with the rest of your post - but I'd add there's also the cost Iran is willing to pay.
I think with Trump personally I can't help but think the relative lack of response to assassinating Soleimani and the twelve day war is that Iran's a bit of a paper tiger. I also think more broadly that (as in the NYT today) Netanyahu seems to have very much oversold this. Additionally - I've mentioned it before but killing the leadership of a country in your opening strike really doesn't leave much space for escalation.
I'd add that I don't think bombing Iran would necessarily have helped but I think one of the most morally disgraceful things Trump's done was telling protestors in Iran that "help is on its way" and then did nothing, wile tens of thousands of protestors were gunned down.
On the GCC I think it seems like there's a divide - or basically the UAE are far, far more hawkish than everyone else. I mentioned before but I think they're in a very tough position - I'm not sure there's a solution.
Which I think Trump, again--if he didn't have the many defects that make him Trump, may have realized there's a grave difference between "bloodying Iran's nose", which is what the 12 day war was, and attempting to kill Iran. And the IRGC/Clerical regime almost certainly equate their removal from power as synonymous with "death" of themselves and their country.
A person who agrees to not fight after receiving a bloody nose, out of fear of a worse beating is very different than a man fearful for his death who has been backed into a corner. The latter has only one viable option--to fight.
White House / Kommissar Leavitt:
QuoteShe says Iran's 10-point plan was "fundamentally unserious", claiming that the country "put forward a more reasonable" plan that Washington deemed could be "a workable basis" for talks.
The Trump administration will engage in negotiations over the next two weeks "so long as the Strait of Hormuz remains open, with no limitations or delays".
Trump "was made aware" of reports in Iranian media about the Strait of Hormuz being closed amid Israel's attacks on Lebanon, but Leavitt says the US president expects the strait to be reopened "immediately, quickly and safely".
"Lebanon is not part of the ceasefire. That has been relayed to all parties involved in the ceasefire."
She claims Iran has indicated that it would turn over its enriched uranium, without providing further details.
"That is a red line that the president is not going to back away from and he's committed to ensuring that takes place. We hope it will be through diplomacy."
So we have here a very unambiguous set of claims, almost totally inconsistent with what the Iranians have said they agreed to for the ceasefire. In this situation I can only guess who is lying--and it may be both of them are lying, to each other and to the public in their respective countries.
The fact they are reiterating Lebanon is not involved, and Netanyahu just gave a press conference where he made the same statement, makes me suspect Trump probably tried to get Bibi to agree to ceasefire in Lebanon and was rebuffed / couldn't be strong armed into it.
Sign of were we are but in terms of who do I think is more accurately describing the course of events and what was discussed and agreed as a matter of fact...I am inclined to think the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Ayatollah are closer to the truth than the White House.
Again, all of this is familiar from the commercial real estate world. Undertakings are made over the phone, term sheets are sent around with variations, the parties disagree over which term sheets are operative and what deal points are decided, both sides posture and toss around threats, draft legal complaints are aired, injunctive suits are filed and withdrawn, followed by more oral discussions with disputed contents and more exchanges of competing "memorialization" of disputed term sheet deal points. The Iranians seem to be getting the hang of this procedure. Only problem is that while this way of doing things "works" in its very particular context, it is a nonsensical way to conduct public diplomacy.
The current US govt is a rogue state. Not my words, but the words of a Republican who worked in George W Bush's administration. That's how far we have come. At this point, Donald Trump is about as believable as Kim Jong Un.
If Trump keeps up his current direction and bails on NATO, the UN, and abandons the Gulf States, I wonder if China sees an opportunity to pivot away from Russia or of pressuring them into peace in Ukraine and filling that void. Especially if they're able to make this ceasefire they seemed to have pushed for turn into a peace deal. Keep Iran in their orbit, bring in the EU, Gulf States fed up with the US, and continue their funding and support in South America and Africa? That power vacuum would be filled while the US and Israel would be pretty much fully isolated. :hmm:
SCMP reported just this week that in response to reports Iran would like China to be a peace guarantor in the region, that the institutional response in the CCP is basically "not so fast." Unlike the Trumpian US, China is less likely to bull into something casually, and they well understand being a "guarantor of peace" in a region as volatile as the Middle East may very well not be worth the resource cost of being that guarantor, regardless of any benefits accrued.
It slightly depends what we mean. I think the US and China are the only global powers capable of "making" an order or, possibly, of imposing order on a region - and the long history of the US in the Middle East after the European empires withdraw in its own way shows the limits of imposing order from the outside.
My own read is that China does not really have any aspirations (or see any need) to create a "world order" or, broadly, to try and impose order on any specific regions. I think they are able to acieve most of their goals without doing that (and incurring those costs), within the existing world as maintained by the US. I don't think China intends to create beach-heads of allies - as the US has in Europe or Asia for example - based on any form of reciprocity. I think the current position of China in Latin America or Europe for example kind of suits China in a way that closer engagement and possible commitments might not. I don't think China wants to build an order in the Middle East and I don't necessarily think it needs to in order to meet its own goals (which includes rapidly moving away from energy dependencies on the Middle East and chokepoints like Hormuz). I think Africa's a slightly different case, in my view because Africa was comparatively always least fully integrated into the American world order - so there's actually a job to do in order to penetrate and build the markets there which China is doing.
Having said all that I think the suggestion of Iran withdrawing from the NPT and moving to a proliferation monitoring regime through the SCO and BRICS institutions is very, very interesting if China's open to it. And China's recent pressure on Iran to agree to a ceasefire is similarly a shift - so I could very well be absolutely wrong. Often the case :lol:
To be slightly more cynical I'm not fully sure what China would get from pivoting to the EU that it doesn't already get or can't get from backing Russia - but Russia also has fossil fuels and has built some new pipelines.
And I think as long as America has a thirty trillion plus dollar economy, an innovative tech sector, significant financial institutions, raw materials, continental scope it will only be as isolated as it wants to be - even if it's ability to world build diminishes. There won't be punishment and norms won't suddenly enforce themselves. States, companies, individuals will react to the more capricious, unstable (however you want to frame it) political possibilities - and the underlying economic and material realities, power and opportunities (honestly not a million miles from how Western capitalist companies perhaps didn't spread Western "values" in China - why would you with a market that big?). Incidentally I know lots of people talk about "neo-feudalism" and "technofeudalism" with the US - I can't help but think of Britain in the 18th century more in a commercial society, with oligarchic politics comfortable with using their very lethal, very technologically advanced military power even if not necessarily great for the actual occupants of the country. For example there just felt like something very contemporary in the astonishing stat in Rana Dasgupta's fantastic After Nations about the British state impressing 250,000 people, generally domestically, into the navy when that navy was in part being used to advance the interests of the slave trading Royal African Company which had 200 shareholders.
So nobody knows what the fuck is going on. Nobody knows what the victory conditions are. Nobody knows what the other side is doing.
Yeah I sure the fuck don't.
This is the most opaque war I remember the US being involved in.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 08, 2026, 10:01:02 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2026, 09:36:49 AMOnce again, you are overthinking this. Trump needed a fast exit from his outrageous threat. The result is a cease-fire with uncertain terms that nobody actually formally agreed to.
Trump just pulled the escape parachute out of his ass and jump, jumped out of the plane.
Please don't over analyze this, as if it was a considered agreement.
Looks more like he jumped out of airplane, while shouting "throw me the parachute" on his way down . . .
Yes, I stand corrected.
The United States secretary of war has just said that the cease-fire is due to God's glory and that all of the bombing took place under God's providence.
Remind me again, who are the religious fanatics in this war?
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2026, 02:39:41 PMThe United States secretary of war has just said that the cease-fire is due to God's glory and that all of the bombing took place under God's providence.
Remind me again, who are the religious fanatics in this war?
(https://preview.redd.it/i-restored-in-hd-4k-the-original-spider-man-pointing-at-v0-0n27oer0i0lg1.png?width=7201&format=png&auto=webp&s=7ff703a86d102ec09859f477ca282a2ae7e24a65)
Iran's President says halt to fighting was a "key part" of their agreement for the ceasefire. J.D. Vance says "Iran would be stupid to break the ceasefire over Lebanon."
This is the administration's "most serious" negotiator on Iran fwiw.
Quote from: Syt on April 08, 2026, 01:06:01 PMAlso (not sure how trustworthy Lebanese sources are?):
QuoteAt least 112 killed in Israeli strikes over Lebanon, says health ministry
By KAREEM CHEHAYEB
The latest count for Wednesday includes widespread strikes across central Beirut that came without warning, also wounding at least 837, one of the deadliest days in this latest war between Israel and the Hezbollah militant group. It is not the final count.
More than 1,500 people have been killed in Lebanon during the past month, and over 1 million others have been displaced.
Yes, I too am sceptical of that figure, seems too low for the murderous all out assault:
QuoteIsraeli attack on Lebanon today 'nothing short of horrific': UN rights chief
The scale of the killing and destruction in Lebanon today, where at least 254 people have been killed by Israeli attacks, is "nothing short of horrific", according to UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk.
"Such carnage, within hours of agreeing to a ceasefire with Iran, defies belief. It places enormous pressure on a fragile peace, which is so desperately needed by civilians," Turk said. "International humanitarian law spells out clearly that civilians and civilian infrastructure must be protected.
QuoteWhat a Beirut resident saw when Israel hit her neighbours' building
Fatima, a witness to one of the strikes, has described the devastating scenes after an attack struck the building across the road from her house in Salim Salam, Beirut.
"It was apocalyptic, bodies on the ground, blood everywhere," she told Amnesty International. "I saw countless wounded adults and children. I walked further, but it was the same scene in the other neighbourhoods too. I did not know where to go.
"I just walked aimlessly, trying to get as far as possible. It was a nightmare."
Let's not quote pro-Islamic terror organizations like the UN when we're talking about Israeli conflicts.
Hezbollah has long controlled one of the districts of Beirut, Hezbollah is making war and that means Israel gets to make war back onto it. End of story.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 08, 2026, 03:14:03 PMIran's President says halt to fighting was a "key part" of their agreement for the ceasefire. J.D. Vance says "Iran would be stupid to break the ceasefire over Lebanon."
This is the administration's "most serious" negotiator on Iran fwiw.
Ah the old "Don't be stupid" gambit
Not the finest hour for the reputation of the Yale Law School Negotiation Clinic. No wonder USNWR dinged them below Stanford.
It is the Iranians who are being stupid?
That is a very interesting take on the situation.
Italian reporter picked this up and I've no idea what the Free Press is so haven't read the full article. However we've reached the stage of a demarche referencing the Avignon Papacy by Elbridge Colby, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, to the Papal Nuncio:
QuoteMattia Ferraresi
@mattiaferraresi
The Trump administration summoned a Vatican diplomat to the Pentagon, and during the tense meeting a U.S. official invoked the Avignon Papacy. On July 4, the American pope will be in Lampedusa -- he didn't pick that date by accident. @TheFP
I'd note that Colby was, pre-administration, a vocal "realist" calling for the US to basically pull out of Europe and the Middl East in order to focus entirely on China - so a man of great weight and principle.
I've mentioned some of the weirder strands of American MAGA Catholicism under Francis (especially around the wildly conspiratorial former Nuncio, Archbishop Vigano) and honestly a Trumpian Antipope feels plausible and perhaps appropriate (a phenomenally corrupt and corrupting captivity primarily expressed through gaudy real estate projects).
Edit: The immediate context, by-the-by, is the American Pope statements over Holy Week including condemnation of "the imperialist occupation of the world" and that God rejects the prayers "of those who wage war". An American Pope, formed in Latin America after all.
Non Latino American Catholics are basically Protestant anyway. Even the "Italian" ones are as catholic as they are Italian after a generation or two :P
I wonder how many US Catholics would join the American schismatics vs stay loyal to Rome?
Corruption? In this government? :o
https://apnews.com/article/polymarket-iran-trump-ceasefire-prediction-markets-350d9fe5ffefa74080ff5dd973aef48b
QuoteNewly created Polymarket accounts bet big on US-Iran ceasefire in hours before Trump's announcement
NEW YORK (AP) — A group of new accounts on the prediction market Polymarket made highly specific, well-timed bets on whether the U.S. and Iran would reach a ceasefire on April 7, resulting in hundreds of thousands of dollars in profits for these new customers.
These bets were made even though, in the hours before a two-week ceasefire was announced on Tuesday, President Donald Trump's rhetoric had escalated sharply and there were few signals that a ceasefire deal was imminent. Early in the day Trump had issued a warning on social media that "a whole civilization will die tonight" if Iran did not meet his demand to open the Strait of Hormuz by his 8 p.m. ET deadline.
An analysis of publicly available blockchain data from Polymarket, using the crypto analytics platform Dune, shows that at least 50 accounts, or wallets, placed substantial "Yes" bets Tuesday before Trump announced the ceasefire in a Truth Social post at around 6:30 pm ET. These were the first bets made by these particular wallets.
One of these wallets, created Tuesday around 10 am ET, placed roughly $72,000 in bets at an average price of 8.8 cents. The buy-in for each betting event ranges from $0 to $1 each, reflecting a 0% to 100% chance of what users think could happen. This Polymarket user then cashed out for a profit of $200,000.
Another, which joined the platform on April 6 and traded on this exact event, shows a win of $125,500.
Another wallet, created 12 minutes before Trump's post, made $31,908 of "Yes" bets at 33.7 cents, and is estimated to have earned a profit of $48,500. The higher price for "Yes" at that time may have reflected the efforts late Tuesday by the government of Pakistan to get Trump to extend his deadline by two weeks.
There is also the possibility that these individual Polymarket users placed their bets expecting Trump to back down, given his habit during his second term to make bold threats only to retreat — a phenomenon his critics have derided as "Trump Always Chickens Out," or TACO.
While some users took handsome profits, others must wait for payouts because Polymarket has labeled the April 7 Iran-U.S. ceasefire contract as "disputed," given that Iran was still placing restrictions on ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz and missile attacks in the region continued. That dispute could take 48 hours to resolve.
Public blockchain data cannot identify who controls the new wallets. Polymarket uses proxy smart contract wallets, meaning a single user can create multiple accounts. Only Polymarket has the internal data needed to determine whether these were new users or existing users opening additional accounts.
Polymarket did not respond to a request for comment.
Rep. Blake Moore, R-Utah, who has introduced legislation to regulate prediction markets, released a statement Wednesday saying: "It's highly unlikely that these are good-faith trades; it's much more likely that these are insiders with access to information ahead of the public. Without some kind of restrictions, there is nothing stopping government or military officials from profiting from their positions."
The trading pattern of newly created Polymarket accounts placing strategic, well-timed bets mirrors earlier episodes on the platform. Newly created accounts placed large wagers hours before the January capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, and made hundreds of thousands of dollars in profit. Similar clusters of accounts have also repeatedly profited from well-timed bets on military actions involving Iran.
Such bets have repeatedly raised questions from the public as well as members of Congress about whether some traders are using inside information to profit in these prediction markets. Bipartisan groups of senators as well as representatives have introduced legislation that would broaden the definition of insider trading to include prediction markets.
Even the two biggest platforms in the industry, Kalshi and Polymarket, have said they see a need to broaden the definition of insider trading on their platforms.
"This is why these markets need regulation," said Todd Philips, a professor at Georgia State University who has written on prediction markets and the industry's regulations. "We can't have people trading with inside information and expect other traders are going to be OK being in these markets."
Christ, this is depressing.
Makes me long for the heady days of Dubya.
Quote from: Norgy on April 09, 2026, 12:33:55 AMChrist, this is depressing.
Makes me long for the heady days of Dubya.
He was an honest, smart and balanced president by comparison. Waste of hitler-comparisons
The Romans: managed decline over a 1000 years.
The Americans: decline over a 1000 days
If the USA is tracking Roman history then we can expect improvements in about 50 years under the Antonine presidents :SPQR :MAGA
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/traders-place-large-950-million-bet-oil-price-falling-hours-ahead-ceasefire-2026-04-08/
QuoteTraders place large $950 million bet on oil price falling hours ahead of ceasefire
LONDON, April 8 (Reuters) - Investors placed an approximately $950 million bet on oil prices falling just hours before the U.S. and Iran announced a ceasefire, the latest large wager on the direction of the world's most traded commodity ahead of a major policy announcement by President Donald Trump.
On Tuesday, investors sold a combined 8,600 lots of Brent and U.S. crude futures at 1945 GMT, according to LSEG data.
At around 2230 GMT on Tuesday, Trump stepped back from threatening the destruction of "a whole civilization" and announced a two-week ceasefire with Iran, knocking crude futures , down by some 15% to below $100 a barrel at the start of Wednesday's official trading session.
Taking large positions on oil prices rising or falling is not unusual as traders use them to hedge large volumes of physical oil trade.
But such deals are very rarely done in big lots, as traders prefer to use sweeping orders across many exchanges and ask brokers to use algorithmic trading over many hours to execute the order to avoid impacting prices with their bets. Large orders also are seldom executed after settlement, which happens Monday to Friday at 1830 GMT.
The bet follows similar moves on March 23, when investors sold $500 million in oil futures just 15 minutes before an announcement by Trump that he would delay attacks on Iran's energy infrastructure, which stunned markets and then triggered a 15% drop in the crude price.
In Tuesday's trading, some 6,200 lots of Brent futures changed hands at 1945 GMT, roughly 1% of the total volume traded in the day's regular session, while some 2,400 lots of WTI futures traded at this time, also equal to around 1% of that day's regular volume.
Exchange operator CME Group declined to comment. ICE and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which oversees U.S. commodity derivatives markets, did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.
Trading volumes and volatility have exploded since the start of the war. On average, in the three years leading up to the war, some 300,000 lots of Brent crude futures would change hands on a daily basis.
That amount has doubled in the last four weeks as daily volumes have hit record highs above 1 million lots, equal to a billion barrels of oil.
:hmm:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 08, 2026, 12:47:01 PMTrump started the war in secret with little advance notice, certainly no public political debate. He has never meaningfully justified it to America, and he has certainly never tried to appeal to Americans patriotism to get them to tolerate self sacrifice.
It's obvious why, for all that his catch phrase has been "Make America Great Again" he understands neither patriotism, nor sacrifice. They are alien ideologies to him, so much so that he doesn't even bother to pretend to understand them.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 08, 2026, 07:06:26 PMItalian reporter picked this up and I've no idea what the Free Press is so haven't read the full article. However we've reached the stage of a demarche referencing the Avignon Papacy by Elbridge Colby, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, to the Papal Nuncio:
QuoteMattia Ferraresi
@mattiaferraresi
The Trump administration summoned a Vatican diplomat to the Pentagon, and during the tense meeting a U.S. official invoked the Avignon Papacy. On July 4, the American pope will be in Lampedusa -- he didn't pick that date by accident. @TheFP
https://newrepublic.com/post/208820/pentagon-threatened-pope-criticized-donald-trump
QuoteThe White House has dismissed the entire account, writing in a statement to reporter Barbara Starr that "the Free Press's characterization of the meeting is highly exaggerated and distorted."
"The meeting between Pentagon and Vatican officials was a respectful and reasonable discussion," the Defense Department official continued. "We have nothing but the highest regard and welcome continued dialogue with the Holy See."
So, definitely true.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 09, 2026, 01:02:38 AMIf the USA is tracking Roman history then we can expect improvements in about 50 years under the Antonine presidents :SPQR :MAGA
That's assuming you're at the end of the Flavian line. If you're at the end of the Severan line you're in for a rough ride. And if the US survives the 3rd century they'll end up with increasingly autocratic/military rule and a new state religion.
QuoteTraders place large $950 million bet on oil price falling hours ahead of ceasefire
Oh for fuck's sake. Would you mind hiding your corruption at least a litte?
Quote from: Norgy on April 09, 2026, 03:23:39 AMQuoteTraders place large $950 million bet on oil price falling hours ahead of ceasefire
Oh for fuck's sake. Would you mind hiding your corruption at least a litte?
No, they want the public to know and understand who's the master and who's the worthless peasants.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 08, 2026, 07:06:26 PMI've mentioned some of the weirder strands of American MAGA Catholicism under Francis (especially around the wildly conspiratorial former Nuncio, Archbishop Vigano) and honestly a Trumpian Antipope feels plausible and perhaps appropriate (a phenomenally corrupt and corrupting captivity primarily expressed through gaudy real estate projects).
So I know what you are talking about vis-a-vis American Catholics--but as a point of clarity Archbishop Vigano was not an American bishop. He was born in Italy and lived most of his life there, he was mostly part of the Vatican's diplomatic corps. Priests who primarily work in administrative roles in the Holy See, when they eventually reach a position where tradition demands they be a Bishop or even Cardinal, they will typically be consecrated as the Bishop of what is called a "titular diocese." A titular diocese is basically a "defunct" diocese, canonically it still exists, but for various reasons is not active and usually has not been for centuries. The main source of such dioceses is a) diocesan mergers in areas where Catholic population declines and they combined multiple dioceses into one and b) areas that used to be Christian and basically stopped being Christian often centuries ago. Many titular dioceses are in areas that are ancient--often areas that went with the East in the East-West Schism or that were turned Muslim in the various Muslim conquests.
So anyway, Vigano eventually gets promoted to Bishop of a titular diocese (his was a defunct diocese in Kosovo) and appointed as Papal Nuncio to the United States, this was under Benedict. The Papal Nuncio is conceptually like the Vatican's Ambassador to that country, both in a secular diplomatic sense (e.g. in terms of interacting with that country's government), but also in an ecclesial sense, usually being involved in meetings with the conference of bishops in that country and often serving as papal representative in such affairs.
Also Vigano was extremely traditionalist / conservative. He did fine under Pope Benedict, although in truth Vigano was so reactionary and conservative he likely disagreed with even Pope Benedict on some matters--but as Benedict was the most theologically conservative Pope in the last 50 years Vigano wasn't likely to make trouble with him, also Benedict is the one who raised him to higher offices within the Vatican so there would have been personal loyalty.
When Francis became Pope it instantly became a problem, Vigano immediately began believing in wild conspiracy theories and started suggesting openly that Francis wasn't really the Pope and other various things. This actually culminated in Vigano being stripped of all his clerical offices and ordered to repent a bunch of schismatic and heretical claims he had made, he refused, so was (and remains) excommunicated.
While Vigano
was popular with a certain breed of overly political American conservative Catholics, he wasn't part of the clerical community in the United States in the way that other more influential conservative Catholic bishops are--the real influential conservatives are figures like Cardinal Timothy Dolan (NYC), Bishop Robert Barron (Minnesota), Archbishop Alexander Sample (Portland), Bishop Joseph Strickland (Texas). Of that list--only Strickland has gotten to the point of trouble, he was not excommunicated, but he actually was involved with Vigano in surreptitiously claiming Francis wasn't the Pope. After some back and forth with the Holy See they ended up firing him from his "job", but didn't excommunicate him, so he remains a Bishop in good standing but has no assignment, so he essentially was forced into retired status. He still appears at things like the meetings of the USCCB to cause various ruckuses.
The other guys I listed are all fairly conservative, fairly involved in Republican politics: Barron is on Trump's religious liberty commission and has his own online ministry that is itself a major conservative force in the podcast / youtube world with millions of viewers/listeners. Cardinal Dolan has long been openly hostile to Democrats and has made a lot of partisan anti-Democrat statements. These guys unlike Vigano and Strickland, are usually careful to not do anything that puts them in unambiguous conflict with the Catholic hierarchy.
All of them basically are also representative of conservatism in the modern Catholic Church in general. There's a strain of white / Anglo conservatism in American Catholicism that was born out of opposition to the theological liberalism of the 1960s and 1970s. Many white Priests ordained in those decades went on to become very liberal, and when they became Bishops that liberalism became powerful in the American Church. However another wave of Priests basically emerged in opposition within the white Catholic community. Demographics ultimately meant these white reactionary Priests came to far outnumber the liberal ones, as you really only saw a huge tilt towards liberalism in ordinations in a ~15 year span during the 60s and 70s, and then it shifted much more in the other direction for the decades after. Most of the seriously liberal American Catholic bishops and priests are elderly and retired, and have minimal influence in the Church.
(Note, for the purposes of this discussion Robert Prevost / Pope Leo is not even really an American Catholic, while he is from here, spent many years of his life here, much of his formation was in Latin America which makes him very different from the other white Anglo Bishops I mentioned because they are all thoroughly Americans and creatures of American culture and politics.)
In terms of loyalty to the Vatican--I will say this. The schismatic types are not as strong as they seem. The "Rad Trads", who are predominantly white guys, mostly in America, although a big portion of "rad trads" are also French and German (the latter is ironic--German speaking Catholics are among the most liberal, but some very reactionary "rad trads" are from Switzerland / Austria / Southern Germany), are all borderline schismatic and have extreme theological and political conservatism.
But their influence is somewhat illusory because they mostly exist in what I call "influencer space" and not "in the pews."
The reality in the pews in the church here is actually that the American Catholic Church is the most racially diverse Church in America. My local parish is maybe 30% white, 50% Hispanic, with the rest being other races.
A good representation of what Catholicism is like in America today would be our Parochial Vicar. He is in his early 40s and is from Uganda. He is
extremely theologically conservative, socially conservative, and politically conservative. However he is also nothing like the "rad trads." He is ultra-orthodox and ultra-loyal to the Church hierarchy. He would quite literally probably walk into a fire before he would engage in schism against the Church. He also is only political if you are Facebook friends with him or talk to him privately outside of Church. He has no room for or interest in discussing politics in his pastoral role.
Due to the crisis in America with far too few men getting ordained, it's also typical that we have to "import" a priest from a developing world country like we did him--African countries and Latin/South American countries being a common source of priests now, also the Philippines.
The Priests coming from these countries tend to be theologically very orthodox, and conservative, they have conservative social values. But they also tend to not have what I'd call the "American" streak in them. Guys like Doland, Barron, Strickland, a big reason they can often seem in conflict with the Holy See is because they are white American boomers who have that stereotypical American obsession with personal independence and dislike of hierarchy and authority (humorous in a Catholic priest.) These conservative developing world priests, they have
none of that, these guys are insanely loyal to the Church hierarchy and have a fanatical loyalty and love of whoever is the current Pope. I think a lot of the conservative Anglo American Bishops in some corners of their mind just see the Pope as "a guy who got elected", and they'll begrudgingly respect him but that's about it. The developing world guys, are much more true believers that the divine was active in the selection of the Pope, to them any sort of anti-Papal schismatic thought is akin to disobeying God directly.
It's worth always remembering--the Anglo Catholics are overrepresented in American public life / politics, but are not nearly as represented in the pews. As an Anglo Catholic myself most of my adult life I've been at
best 50% of whatever parish I attend. The Church here is just very racially diverse and in most regions is very dominated by first and second generation immigrant families. These people often have weaker English skills so they aren't part of the "influencer" space in the English speaking world, but frankly based on demographics--they are the future of the Church in American, not white guys like me. (FWIW this is also why a number of Catholic Bishops have been so critical of Trump's ICE shenanigans, something like 90% of people caught up in these deportation waves have been Catholic.)
Quote from: HVC on April 08, 2026, 07:26:23 PMNon Latino American Catholics are basically Protestant anyway. Even the "Italian" ones are as catholic as they are Italian after a generation or two :P
The Irish will appreciate that, not to mention the "real" Hispanics (Iberians) and/or Latins, Italians (from Latium?) at the very least, not fake hyphenated ones. :P
Yeah, HVC should probably avoid going to a pub in Ireland.
I think y'all are mis-parsing HVC's statement. He's talking about American Catholics who are not Latino, not Catholics who are not Latino-American. I still don't think he's right, though, and there would be a lot of Irish-, Italian-, Polish-, and Filipino-American people who would be rather upset at that notion. :P
Thanks for the insight, OvB.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 09, 2026, 09:20:37 AMI think y'all are mis-parsing HVC's statement. He's talking about American Catholics who are not Latino, not Catholics who are not Latino-American. I still don't think he's right, though, and there would be a lot of Irish-, Italian-, Polish-, and Filipino-American people who would be rather upset at that notion. :P
I hazard a guess that if HVC were to walk into a pub in Ireland and say those words, he would have a hard time making it out.
It's not just the first second or third generation Americans from Ireland, who would be upset about it.
Why would Irish people care about what HVC has to say about American Catholics?
I wasn't talking about anyone outside of America, why would the Irish care? Although I admit I forgot about Filipino-Americans :(
That being said I don't know how catechismicly correct (is that a term :P ) multi generational Irish-American Catholics are. I may have erroneously lumped them in with the other white American Catholics. Which, admittedly, might be a biased view because I only see the crazies.
Is the non hyphen confusing you two? I didn't say Latino-American Catholics, I said Latino American Catholics. Ie, Americans who are catholic and Latino.
Quote from: Valmy on April 09, 2026, 11:05:19 AMWhy would Irish people care about what HVC has to say about American Catholics?
You might have missed the last several hundred years of Irish history. How wonderfully American centric of you.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2026, 11:18:19 AMQuote from: Valmy on April 09, 2026, 11:05:19 AMWhy would Irish people care about what HVC has to say about American Catholics?
You might have missed the last several hundred years of Irish history. How wonderfully American centric of you.
Now you're just trying not to understand :lol:
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2026, 11:18:19 AMQuote from: Valmy on April 09, 2026, 11:05:19 AMWhy would Irish people care about what HVC has to say about American Catholics?
You might have missed the last several hundred years of Irish history. How wonderfully American centric of you.
I know enough to know Catholocism isn't doing great in Ireland right now. So I don't know how much they would be willing to get into a brawl over a bunch of Catholic Americans being basically MAGA protestants.
Yeah, I guess you guys are right. Why would people in Ireland possibly be upset that someone in Canada makes a claim that Catholics are the same as Protestants in American unless they are Latin American, and then an American jumps in to defend it based on an a view that Catholics in Ireland are not doing great. I cannot see any possibility that would cause any upset in a country where that religious division has been significant for centuries. Yep, nothing to see here.
I suppose it's possible, at a long stretch, although I hazard the guess they'd be more insulted that you think all Irish are hooligans willing to start a bar brawl at the drop of a hat :lol:
Quote from: HVC on April 09, 2026, 12:12:59 PMI suppose it's possible, at a long stretch, although I hazard the guess they'd be more insulted that you think all Irish are hooligans willing to start a bar brawl at the drop of a hat :lol:
Some guy walking into a pub saying Catholics are the same as Protestants in America, unless they are Latin American, isn't exactly a drop of that hat now is it.
Now now, don't deflect. You should probably take the time to self refect and consider why you hold these views about the Irish. Bigotry is a pernicious thing.
And we have not mentioned yet the case of Catholic non-Hispanic Latin Americans. :P
Quote from: HVC on April 09, 2026, 12:38:41 PMNow now, don't deflect. You should probably take the time to self refect and consider why you hold these views about the Irish. Bigotry is a pernicious thing.
Having spent some time in Ireland, I can tell you that their history is something that is quite important to them. Somebody that shows vast ignorance of that history will likely receive an unwelcome experience.
No one gives a fuck about the fucking Irish. Bunch of potato eating micks.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2026, 02:25:08 PMQuote from: HVC on April 09, 2026, 12:38:41 PMNow now, don't deflect. You should probably take the time to self refect and consider why you hold these views about the Irish. Bigotry is a pernicious thing.
Having spent some time in Ireland, I can tell you that their history is something that is quite important to them. Somebody that shows vast ignorance of that history will likely receive an unwelcome experience.
It seems the same in many countries.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 09, 2026, 07:55:50 AMSo I know what you are talking about vis-a-vis American Catholics--but as a point of clarity Archbishop Vigano was not an American bishop. [snip]
That's a fair point and totally agree with your post. Vigano came to mind as one of the two Catholic clerics to address the rally on January 6 - I think the other was Bishop Strickland. And I should caveat that what I'm saying is, in my view, in no way representative of American Catholicism in general - but I think there is a strand of MAGA Catholicism which is distinct.
The only point I'd possibly add to your post is that I think there is a political angle to this which I think is the role of, for want of a better phrase, George Weigel Catholicism. I think in the US there was a political (and also deeply felt religious) project of merging strands of American conservatism with Catholicism (or bringing them into dialogue) which I think Weigel represents because I think it's high point was the pontificate of John Paul II. There's lots of stuff that JPII said about capitalism or the environment which might have been uncomfortable for American conervatives, but fundamentally they knew and he knew that they weren't his priority. The priority was fighting communism in Europe and Latin America and, afterwards, a focus on certain social issues and the "family". I think that started to become more complicated but fundamentally held under Benedict. And I think it is a hugely important part of how a shared political project effectively allows for a religious fusionism on the right with evangelicals - ending in a majority Republican-appointed, majority Catholic Supreme Court etc.
It's a little unfair to put all of that on George Weigel but I think he is actually important and stands in for work that was done in effect making Catholicism comprehensible for the American right and the American right comprehensible for the Catholic Church (not for nothing that it also overlaps with Reagan). But I think it is dialogic - the influence is going both ways (especially as the Vatican increasingly relied on money raised by American Catholics).
I'd add that the sort of time-bomb underneath that arrangement, which is relevant given Vigano and other journeys into conspiracy, is that precisely that point of maximum moral clarity/force from the Vatican and alignment between the Vatican and a strand of American politics, was also the point of profound moral corruption. I don't know how much to place on JPII (and I think Benedict tried to fix things once he became fully aware of the depth of the crisis and was overwhelmed in every sense), but there were institutional cover-ups of child sexual abuse and other forms of corruption. There was financial corruption, in part helping fund the fight against communism, there was Marciel Maciel and the Legion of Christ, other senior figures close to the very top of JPII's Vatican with serious allegations about them, other very JPII figures like Bernard Law and Roger Mahony and I think in the long decline of JPII a huge amount of internal backbiting, low level corruption and cover-up and factional in-fighting (which I think Benedict sort of referenced in his abdication).
All of that is specifically relevant for Vigano given where he ends up - and that he was also a whistleblower in the Vatileaks scandal. Before he turns on Francis, he is the nuncio who helps orchestrate a visit by Francis to the US. Francis addresses Congress and, I think in a sign of the deep involvement of parts of the Catholic Church with certain strands of American politics, Vigano (allegedly) arranges the meeting between Pope Francis and Kim Davis. By all accounts this caused a lot of frustration to the Vatican as overshadowing the rest of the trip, and is also unlikely to be the sort of gesture Francis would want to make make (the only personal audience he had on that trip was with a gay former sutdent of his and his partner). JPII and Benedict might have been comfortable wading into a political controversy/culture war flashpoint like that - it was not Francis' style. What I think is telling in that side of Vigano is the way it's American culture war issues and heroines staring back into the world of the Vatican. Vigano ultimately ends up deeply frustrated with Francis (and schismatic in my view), but his diagnosis in the famous letter to Francis around the corruption of the Vatican and the American Catholic Church (particularly Cardinal McCarrick) was that it was a "gay mafia" promoting and protecting each other.
The reason, I think, that that context of 20-30 years matters is that I think it shapes what's happening now. I think there were certain American Catholics for whom while I have no doubt they had deep faith, part of the attraction of the faith was its political purpose - the First Things, JPII line that was clarifying. At the same time there were figures in the Church who, applying that same mindset, found their political purpose and meaning in aspects of the American right (particularly the culture war, Kim Davis stuff).
I think in that context you've then had the American right has got crazier and more unhinged and simultaneously the Vatican has moved to a more "Global South" perspective perhaps (or more bluntly a religious view that does not consider the moral significance of a county clerk refusing to issue gay marriage license as remotely close to war, environmental degradation and economic exploitation). I think those two processes have accelerated simultaneously producing this particularly weird strand of MAGA Catholicism within the church in the US - and I think I would position the key figures in that as Vigano and Strickland. I don't like Dolan or Barron but I think they have hewed far closer and more comfortably to the institutional church. I am reminded of a similar but reversed process around French society, the Church and Lefebvre because I suspect if there's any place likely to produce a new SSPX it's the US. Or to put it another way their political and religious beliefs (and certainties) were integrated and are now fractured.
The other thing I would add is that I think it aligns now with the rad trads and traditionalist Catholic aesthetics online. I think that is new-ish and I'm not sure it'll last - or I'm not sure the extent to which it isn't primarily an online trend.
Again I totally agree on the diversity and mainstream-ness of most Catholics in the US. But I think there is also a distinctive sect, as there was in France before and then after Lefebvre, within American Catholicism - and it matters for the rest of the world because American Catholics have lots of money, huge amounts of influence within the wider church and dominate, as you frame, it the influencer space. I totally recognise the description of priests from Africa (here, especially Nigeria) and the Philippines (less so Latin America here) who don't have that "American" streak - they're not actually that saturated in American politics and the American culture wars. In general, I think they're often, conservative, not all that traditional liturgical and ultra-montane - which is a world away from the positioning and aesthetics of that MAGA Catholicism.
And FWIW I think this stuff seems separate but I think it matters. I think both because I think that bridge from Catholic thinking to the American right is hugely important (particularly intellectually) in the 80s and 90s, as is the JPII-Reagan alliance. But now when you have many Catholic figures in public life on the right and two Catholic bishops in purple at the Stop the Steal rally (Vigano remotely) on January 6, it's important still. To your wider point it is absolutely key to tease out the strands of the vast mainstream of American Catholicism with all its traditions and diversity, but also, I think, a radicalising, distinctive and prominent influencer space of MAGA Catholics - and the forces driving and reinforcing that process.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2026, 12:36:09 PMQuote from: HVC on April 09, 2026, 12:12:59 PMI suppose it's possible, at a long stretch, although I hazard the guess they'd be more insulted that you think all Irish are hooligans willing to start a bar brawl at the drop of a hat :lol:
Some guy walking into a pub saying Catholics are the same as Protestants in America, unless they are Latin American, isn't exactly a drop of that hat now is it.
He is saying a lot of Catholics have been brainwashed by the evangelical Republican propaganda machine. So I think Irish would understand an overwhelmingly powerful and evil protestant machine ruining their faith and brainwashing them -_-
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 09, 2026, 03:00:30 PMNo one gives a fuck about the fucking Irish. Bunch of potato eating micks.
Tell us what you really feel, Otto! :lol:
I think all are underestimating the power of Opus Dei's twisted Catholic teachings. That organisation is just sinister.
Some might wonder why I am so opposed to the Partido Popular in Spain and the Portuguese and Italian right, and it all has to do with Opus Dei.
It has harnessed quite a bit of power in the United States as well, and that simply scares the shit out of me.
John Paul II was a cunt.
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 09, 2026, 01:44:20 AMSo, definitely true.
Yeah. Else why would the Pentagon summon a Vatican diplomat for a meeting? Foreign policy is conducted by the State department, not DoD.
You're forgetting the possibility that they requested the pope call a crusade :P
Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2026, 07:47:19 AMQuote from: Tonitrus on April 09, 2026, 01:44:20 AMSo, definitely true.
Foreign policy is used to be conducted by the State department, not DoD.
Fixed that for you.
Quote from: Norgy on April 10, 2026, 03:55:38 AMI think all are underestimating the power of Opus Dei's twisted Catholic teachings. That organisation is just sinister.
Some might wonder why I am so opposed to the Partido Popular in Spain and the Portuguese and Italian right, and it all has to do with Opus Dei.
It has harnessed quite a bit of power in the United States as well, and that simply scares the shit out of me.
John Paul II was a cunt.
CDS-PP is almost dead, holding only in alliance with the centre-right PSD, so don't worry too much about the Portuguese right or conservatives.
Quote from: Norgy on April 10, 2026, 03:55:38 AMI think all are underestimating the power of Opus Dei's twisted Catholic teachings. That organisation is just sinister.
Some might wonder why I am so opposed to the Partido Popular in Spain and the Portuguese and Italian right, and it all has to do with Opus Dei.
It has harnessed quite a bit of power in the United States as well, and that simply scares the shit out of me.
John Paul II was a cunt.
I'm really hoping that Leo undoes the Canonization of Josemaría Escrivá. Fuck that guy and the organization he founded. <_<
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on April 10, 2026, 03:35:41 PMQuote from: Norgy on April 10, 2026, 03:55:38 AMI think all are underestimating the power of Opus Dei's twisted Catholic teachings. That organisation is just sinister.
Some might wonder why I am so opposed to the Partido Popular in Spain and the Portuguese and Italian right, and it all has to do with Opus Dei.
It has harnessed quite a bit of power in the United States as well, and that simply scares the shit out of me.
John Paul II was a cunt.
I'm really hoping that Leo undoes the Canonization of Josemaría Escrivá. Fuck that guy and the organization he founded. <_<
I believe this applies, no?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility
https://www.catholic.com/qa/are-canonizations-infallible
Pope John Paul II canonized the Opus Dei founder, to undo this would mean that a previous pope
failed in his divine duty, was misinformed or otherwise misled, something that can not happen when you represent God on Earth.
It's akin to admitting the divine Augustus made a mistake in not writing a proper constitution with codified rules of succession for his empire. (because, well, I had to think of Rome, you know...)
Quote from: viper37 on April 10, 2026, 06:42:01 PMI believe this applies, no?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility
https://www.catholic.com/qa/are-canonizations-infallible
Pope John Paul II canonized the Opus Dei founder, to undo this would mean that a previous pope failed in his divine duty, was misinformed or otherwise misled, something that can not happen when you represent God on Earth.
It's akin to admitting the divine Augustus made a mistake in not writing a proper constitution with codified rules of succession for his empire. (because, well, I had to think of Rome, you know...)
Not really anything to do with papal infallibility - canonisation is a decision of the church/magisterium (with a lot of process), not a personal decision of a Pope. I don't think there's anyway to formally revoke canonisation.
I would add of course the wider issue with a critical perspective of JPII is that he is now Saint John Paul II the Great.
Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2026, 07:47:19 AMYeah. Else why would the Pentagon summon a Vatican diplomat for a meeting? Foreign policy is conducted by the State department, not DoD.
Normatively yes, but in the Trump admin, anything goes. No one is really conducting anything, and to the extent something resembling policy exists, it can be driven by anyone that has Trump's ear and attention in the moment, or at least his acquiescence. Thus, such things like an "advisor" with no official position of any kind acting like a super Prime Minister and destroying entire departments and agencies; the vast expansion of ICE over areas far outside its authority, competence, or jurisdiction; the combination of graft and pseudo-diplomacy carried out by the unaccredited negotiation team of Kushner+Witkoff; the takeover of the US justice system by Trump's criminal defense lawyer; many other examples. In that context, a takeover of Vatican diplomacy by DoD is no great innovation.
During the first Trump presidency, there were reports of the US state department being very understaffed. I suppose this trend has continued?
Quote from: Norgy on April 11, 2026, 02:29:00 AMDuring the first Trump presidency, there were reports of the US state department being very understaffed. I suppose this trend has continued?
This time around everything is understaffed or unstaffed, except ICE which is staffed in the worst way.
Quote from: Norgy on April 11, 2026, 02:29:00 AMDuring the first Trump presidency, there were reports of the US state department being very understaffed. I suppose this trend has continued?
The State Department is too woke.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 10, 2026, 09:50:13 PMQuote from: grumbler on April 10, 2026, 07:47:19 AMYeah. Else why would the Pentagon summon a Vatican diplomat for a meeting? Foreign policy is conducted by the State department, not DoD.
Normatively yes, but in the Trump admin, anything goes. No one is really conducting anything, and to the extent something resembling policy exists, it can be driven by anyone that has Trump's ear and attention in the moment, or at least his acquiescence. Thus, such things like an "advisor" with no official position of any kind acting like a super Prime Minister and destroying entire departments and agencies; the vast expansion of ICE over areas far outside its authority, competence, or jurisdiction; the combination of graft and pseudo-diplomacy carried out by the unaccredited negotiation team of Kushner+Witkoff; the takeover of the US justice system by Trump's criminal defense lawyer; many other examples. In that context, a takeover of Vatican diplomacy by DoD is no great innovation.
My point was that the fact that the envoy was summoned to the Pentagon is evidence that the story of him being hectored and threatened is true. There would be no obvious other purpose to summon him to the Pentagon except to do exactly that.
Quote from: Norgy on April 11, 2026, 02:29:00 AMDuring the first Trump presidency, there were reports of the US state department being very understaffed. I suppose this trend has continued?
There were several articles on the topic when Iran started, like this one:
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2026-03-19/state-department-cut-jobs-with-deep-expertise-in-middle-east-as-iran-crisis-escalates
Quote[...]
- State Department has cut more than 80 staffers in Near Eastern Affairs and eliminated a dedicated Iran office as the region faces escalating conflict with Tehran.
- Over 3,800 department employees departed since President Trump took office, including veteran diplomats and speakers of critical languages like Arabic and Farsi.
- Evacuation messaging to Americans in the region came late and initially confused, with some embassies unprepared for the crisis.
[...]
Not seen any furthe reporting on this in the West - but Iranian reports that DC is allowing the release of $6 billion of frozen Iranian funds (via Qatari and South Korean intermediaries).
The Iranian delegation also playing a few games around messaging to emphasise that they're not rushing to or desperate for negotiations. I'd add that if the assets story is true, plus Lebanon and the US asking Israel to pause fighting then it's not just theatre from the Iranian delegation.
If the Iranians play it smart they'll get an unconditional surrender from Trump
(https://media.surlyhorns.com/monthly_2026_04/image.jpeg.28eecc780643ca080c6b110664adbfef.jpeg)
Yep. Swaggering breathtaking arrogance combined with breathtaking ignorance. The American way.
QuoteThe US president, Donald Trump, said the US Navy would immediately start blockading the strait of Hormuz and would also interdict every vessel in international waters that had paid a toll to Iran.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 12, 2026, 08:37:04 AMQuoteThe US president, Donald Trump, said the US Navy would immediately start blockading the strait of Hormuz and would also interdict every vessel in international waters that had not paid a toll to Iran Trump Inc.
FYP for greater accuracy.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 08, 2026, 12:44:16 PMUnless some moves are made quickly I don't really see the ceasefire holding, there's too little of the "cease" and too much of the "fire."
In terms of Trump's strategy versus Iran--his biggest single weakness specific to Iran (ignoring his general weaknesses like low intelligence, poor emotional regulation etc), is his obsession and fear of gasoline prices.
You can go to war with Iran.
You cannot go to war with Iran, and not raise gas prices.
Given that reality, it is virtually impossible to wage a successful war against Iran if you have close to no tolerance for increased gas prices. In the past, when American Presidents have felt the need to wage wars that they knew would create unpopular domestic consequences, they made appeals to the American public, they built a case for the war, they convinced people this war justified some sacrifice.
Trump started the war in secret with little advance notice, certainly no public political debate. He has never meaningfully justified it to America, and he has certainly never tried to appeal to Americans patriotism to get them to tolerate self sacrifice. Instead he has consistently said the war would be over "very soon" and tried to create narrative that the war would solely be fun and winning, no pain at all.
Now, I'm not sure necessarily if Trump could ever achieve significant wins in Iran without ground troops. But I do know some figures like former Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery, have openly said it is more or less "insane" that Trump hasn't shut down Iran's oil trade. That's out of line with basic military strategy for about as long a we've had navies--the idea that you let your enemy shut down trade vital to your country but take no effort to blockade its own trade is...weird. And it only makes sense because Trump feared even more gas price increases.
Montgomery (who was made infamous for his involvement in the "Fat Leonard" scandal, but let's assume he at least does know naval strategy better than Trump), noted that things like seizing Kharg Island are also unnecessary. Montgomery's opinion is if the Navy simply put out a warning that any oil tankers attempting to depart the region with Iranian oil would be subject to interdiction would likely shut down significantly the trade--with many unlikely to risk challenging the proclamation.
Anyway--I don't know that shutting down Iran's oil revenue gets you to a win, the reality is Iran is still a big country with a lot of people and IMO just won't be defeated by anything short of a ground invasion. But I do agree with the logic that it makes little sense to have allowed Iran to conduct a one sided blockade--it only makes sense in the context of a President unwilling to "pay the cost" of the war he started.
Trump's taken your advice! Proud of your influnece.👏 ;)
More likely if figures like Mark Montgomery—who was in with Trump in his first term were saying it publicly he has probably heard it privately.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 12, 2026, 08:37:04 AMQuoteThe US president, Donald Trump, said the US Navy would immediately start blockading the strait of Hormuz and would also interdict every vessel in international waters that had paid a toll to Iran.
:lol: :bleeding:
"You can't block the straight! We will block the straight much more!"
(https://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/top_men_indiana_jones.gif)
The Top Men:
(https://i.ibb.co/3mC1bHMn/image.png)
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116391830634836370
QuoteIran promised to open the Strait of Hormuz, and they knowingly failed to do so. This caused anxiety, dislocation, and pain to many people and Countries throughout the World. They say they put mines in the water, even though all of their Navy, and most of their "mine droppers," have been completely blown up. They may have done so, but what ship owner would want to take the chance? There is great dishonor and permanent harm to the reputation of Iran, and what's left of their "Leaders," but we are beyond all of that. As they promised, they better begin the process of getting this INTERNATIONAL WATERWAY OPEN AND FAST! Every Law in the book is being violated by them. I have been fully debriefed by Vice President JD Vance, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, and Jared Kushner, on the meeting that took place in Islamabad through the kind and very competent leadership of Field Marshal Asim Munir, and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, of Pakistan. They are very extraordinary men, and continuously thank me for saving 30 to 50 million lives in what would have been a horrendous War with India. I always appreciate hearing that — The amount of Humanity spoken of is incomprehensible.
The meeting with Iran began early in the morning, and lasted throughout the night — Close to 20 hours. I could go into great detail, and talk about much that has been gotten but, there is only one thing that matters — IRAN IS UNWILLING TO GIVE UP ITS NUCLEAR AMBITIONS! In many ways, the points that were agreed to are better than us continuing our Military Operations to conclusion, but all of those points don't matter compared to allowing Nuclear Power to be in the hands of such volatile, difficult, unpredictable people. My three Representatives, as all of this time went by, became, not surprisingly, very friendly and respectful of Iran's Representatives, Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, Abbas Araghchi, and Ali Bagheri, but that doesn't matter because they were very unyielding as to the single most important issue and, as I have always said, right from the beginning, and many years ago, IRAN WILL NEVER HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON!
So, there you have it, the meeting went well, most points were agreed to, but the only point that really mattered, NUCLEAR, was not. Effective immediately, the United States Navy, the Finest in the World, will begin the process of BLOCKADING any and all Ships trying to enter, or leave, the Strait of Hormuz. At some point, we will reach an "ALL BEING ALLOWED TO GO IN, ALL BEING ALLOWED TO GO OUT" basis, but Iran has not allowed that to happen by merely saying, "There may be a mine out there somewhere," that nobody knows about but them. THIS IS WORLD EXTORTION, and Leaders of Countries, especially the United States of America, will never be extorted. I have also instructed our Navy to seek and interdict every vessel in International Waters that has paid a toll to Iran. No one who pays an illegal toll will have safe passage on the high seas. We will also begin destroying the mines the Iranians laid in the Straits. Any Iranian who fires at us, or at peaceful vessels, will be BLOWN TO HELL! Iran knows, better than anyone, how to END this situation which has already devastated their Country. Their Navy is gone, their Air Force is gone, their Anti Aircraft and Radar are useless, Khomeini, and most of their "Leaders," are dead, all because of their Nuclear ambition. The Blockade will begin shortly. Other Countries will be involved with this Blockade. Iran will not be allowed to profit off this Illegal Act of EXTORTION. They want money and, more importantly, they want Nuclear. Additionally and, at an appropriate moment, we are fully "LOCKED AND LOADED," and our Military will finish up the little that is left of Iran! President DONALD J. TRUMP
"They are very extraordinary men, and continuously thank me for saving 30 to 50 million lives in what would have been a horrendous War with India." :lol: Sure, buddy.
Also, which other nations will "will be involved" in this blockade?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 12, 2026, 08:37:04 AMQuoteThe US president, Donald Trump, said the US Navy would immediately start blockading the strait of Hormuz and would also interdict every vessel in international waters that had paid a toll to Iran.
We'll see if it lasts past Tuesday.
I wonder what the Americans would give now for the agreement Obama made that Trump ripped up
Umm so Trump finally realized Iran can do real global economic damage by blockading the straight, and that there's not much the US can do about it...after being told all this to begin with.
Now he's deciding the blockade it too :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:
My impression is that the Iranian regime can sustain a blocked Strait of Hormuz longer than the American regime. Let's see.
The argument that Montgomery and others who were advocates of blockading made is the damage to "Iran" and damage to the "IRGC Regime" are not synonymous. While there has been genuine physical damage to the IRGC, the IRGC is structured like a "state within a state", particularly as Khamenei significantly increased their internal powers over the course of his decades in power. (The prior Ayatollah had always kept the IRGC on a short leash, both recognizing their value but also likely fearing they could become a sort of Praetorian Guard and undermine his own authority--which was somewhat happening in the last few years, and certainly now the IRGC holds all political power with the new Ayatollah being a figurehead.)
Anyway, under the current Iranian oil export regime, the money basically goes directly to IRGC coffers, not to the Iranian government's general budget. This means that while much of Iran's economy is very bad, the ability to continue selling oil, even at a reduced amount, is more than enough to keep the IRGC going. Now, on a long enough timeline a country does need more than just a military junta funded to operate, but we've seen in other situations that "long enough timeline" can be many years before the problem comes home to roost.
Note too--Montgomery, despite being "Trump friendly", actually was careful to note he wasn't in favor of this war "in general", but was speaking in the context of "now that the war is a factual reality, here is what is likely the best way forward." His argument was you need to stop Iranian oil to cut off the IRGC's main funding, because they are significantly insulated from lots of negative consequences until that happens.
Like just about everyone who has any professional defense knowledge, Montgomery is also skeptical U.S. goals can be achieved solely through naval and air warfare, but he also is highly skeptical of invading Iran. I think this goes back to most guys, whether they are left or right, who have policy knowledge in this space just think this war is horribly ill thought out and almost set up to fail right from the get go.
Quote from: Zanza on April 12, 2026, 11:22:06 AMMy impression is that the Iranian regime can sustain a blocked Strait of Hormuz longer than the American regime. Let's see.
Our regime will chicken out the second the markets react.
Of course the markets are insane and detached from reality so who knows what will happen.
Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2026, 12:43:43 PMQuote from: Zanza on April 12, 2026, 11:22:06 AMMy impression is that the Iranian regime can sustain a blocked Strait of Hormuz longer than the American regime. Let's see.
Our regime will chicken out the second the markets react.
Of course the markets are insane and detached from reality so who knows what will happen.
They tough it out just long enough for the inside traders to make a few quick bucks.
Here's a funny blurb from NBC News:
QuoteDetails and takeaways on Vance-led negotiations in Islamabad
Henry J. Gomez and Garrett Haake
U.S. negotiators expected the talks with Iran yesterday to be a brief table-setting meeting to tee up future talks. Instead, it turned into continuous negotiations over 21 hours, according to a source familiar with the talks.
Vance went into these negotiations recognizing that the U.S. and Iran have interacted little over the last 50 years — a dynamic that could foster mistrust and misperceptions, a U.S. official familiar with the talks told NBC News. One of his primary goals was to reach mutual understanding of respective objectives and negotiating space.
This official characterized the talks as tough but said that by the end there was a friendly and productive exchange of proposals.
It was clear to Vance and the U.S. delegation, the official added, that Iranians did not understand the core U.S. objective: that any deal be anchored by an agreement that Iran never obtain a nuclear weapon.
Throughout the talks, Vance attempted to correct this misunderstanding and left Islamabad after delivering a best and final offer to Iran that he believed should be fair and acceptable to all parties.
Vance, the official added, also used the talks to probe the counterparties' own assessment of their position and came away with the conclusion that they had misperceived their negotiating strength — that the Iranians believe they have leverage that the U.S. believes they lack.
This is why, the official said, Vance left Islamabad after delivering the final offer. The Iranians need to recognize that the realities on the ground do not reflect the assumptions they held when they arrived at the negotiations before they will be ready to entertain a serious offer, this person added.
Vance has said that a deal remains on the table and that it's up to Iran to accept.
Meanwhile, the official said the national security team in consultation with Trump has devised a plan to break the Iranians' closure on the Straits of Hormuz. They also aim to counter the notion that the straits can deflect from the core U.S. issue, which is the Iranian nuclear program.
According to the official, Vance is pragmatic, but not naive. He was hopeful of making a deal, but over the 21 hours of negotiation, Vance also probed Iran's vulnerabilities, and now Trump will test them. It's on Iran, the official said, to recognize the reality of the U.S. position.
The U.S. and Iran did not reach agreement on the following points:
- For Iran to end all uranium enrichment
- To dismantle all major nuclear enrichment facilities in Iran
- To retrieve highly enriched uranium from Iran
- To accept a broader peace, security and de-escalation framework that includes regional allies
- For Iran to end funding for its proxies Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis
- For Iran to fully open the Strait of Hormuz, charging no tolls for passage
The President very much wants this conflict to be over and behind him, but he's demonstrated a willingness to restart it if necessary, according to a source close to the White House.
The source said their expectations on tomorrow's negotiations leading to a permanent deal are low.
"I think it's obvious that the President wants peace and wants out of this conflict, and so maybe he's given JD some latitude here," the source said.
Vance understands he is there as the President's deputy, and the idea that he will bring his own agenda is over-spun, according to the source, who added that Vance is a utility player.
"His inclusion shows our seriousness," the source said. "Its elevated, if our second most powerful official is there. Jared and Witkoff are powerful people, but they're not constitutional officers elected by the nation. I think it shows how importantly we're taking these talks."
When asked if there are any concerns about Vance's lack of experience in this kind of arena, the source said: "experience in foreign policy is certainly not indicative of either success or smart ideas."
"I don't know if a lifetime of attending Council on Foreign Relations luncheons suggests someone's ability to do a good job," the source said.
Bolding mine--that bolded segment really reveals the deep antipathy to expertise at the very core of Trump's inner circle. These guys truly believe a bunch of people who have never ran anything in the public sector, with minimal credentials in terms of defense, diplomacy, foreign policy etc, are just as knowledgeable as experts who have dedicated their whole lives to it. And in this second Trump administration they've worked hard to shut out any experts that may have been around in the first administration.
It's interesting they have so little introspection they don't perceive the very reason they are in this shit show is because they blindly trusted un-expert views on this topic.
In 1980, while the revolution in Iran was still consolidating, Iraq launched a surprise attack on Iran, occupied a swath of border territory, captured Khorramshahr, and laid siege to Abadan.
At that point, Saddam proposed opening negotiations, making some fairly light territorial demands. His plan had been to shock the new regime which was still facing civil unrest, to fight a quick war and settle for what he really wanted, which was sole Iraqi sovereignty over the Shatt al-Arab waterway on the pre-war border.
The Iranians replied by demanding that Iraq turn over Basra and much of southern Iraq, detach Iraqi Kurdistan etc. They basically flipped the bird. They weren't shocked and awed. And Saddam got stuck in a brutal eight-year quagmire.
It's safe to say no one making decisions in 2026 USA knows this history because it might have made them pause before pursuing their underpants gnome strategy of bombing their way to whatever constantly shifting objective is on the menu.
A full blockade will cause headaches for the IRGC and Iran generally, but it will also cause oil prices to rise and create friction between the US and other neutral nations. The IRGC will likely calculate that they can bear the pain longer than Trump's will + attention span to last. It is hard for me to imagine that calculation is wrong.
Yeah I agree with your conclusion OvB.
I also find the whole "the Iranians believe they have leverage the US doesn't think they have" thing interesting. That probably needs to be resolved before things can settle.
Another interesting thing is that Vance's "fair offer" seems basically to be an Iranian surrender, no?
It's basically "give us everything we want except regime change and we will stop bombing you," it seems. I wouldn't find that persuasive, were I in Iran's position.
Quote from: Jacob on April 12, 2026, 04:38:51 PMYeah I agree with your conclusion OvB.
I also find the whole "the Iranians believe they have leverage the US doesn't think they have" thing interesting. That probably needs to be resolved before things can settle.
Another interesting thing is that Vance's "fair offer" seems basically to be an Iranian surrender, no?
It's basically "give us everything we want except regime change and we will stop bombing you," it seems. I wouldn't find that persuasive, were I in Iran's position.
Yes - and I think in part there is just a fundamental mismatch in perspectives here.
Iran's positioning has been that there is no return to the status quo on Hormuz. They've already rejected joint control and are framing it as an issue of sovereign power - it is (in their positioning) non-negotiable. The other major point for Iran is that any deal is regional - that means it needs to include Lebanon. I don't think from an Iranian perspective this is at all about nuclear - it might have been before the strikes but the war has changed that for them
Especially as I think that's tied to Iranian perceptions of Israel's role in this which includes continued strikes in Lebanon, repeated strikes that have killed people who (according to the media) were seeking negotiations on behalf of the regime and Netanyahu's statements that there may be future action against Iran's nuclear program. And I think that side of things makes it challenging to imagine any proposal by the US finding much credibility in Iran while Israel can (and under Netanyahu) will act as a spoiler.
It is right to focus on Trump and this is Trump's decision. But I think Netanyahu is a really important part of this and under-discussed. This is the culmination, or fulfilment of policies he has been pushing for 30 years including in the US. I don't know on the perception in Israel and whether what the government's goals are and if they think they're attainable - my only assumption is that they did think there'd be a far weaker and less resilient Iranian state.
Quote from: Jacob on April 12, 2026, 04:38:51 PMAnother interesting thing is that Vance's "fair offer" seems basically to be an Iranian surrender, no?
sounds a bit like the fair offer the Russians gave Ukraine in 2022.
Yeah, I saw one claim that Netanyahu has finally "made his fatal mistake" by getting into a war he can't extricate himself from.
I think that fundamentally misunderstands both Netanyahu and the Israeli far right. In Netanyahu's world, Israel has always been at war. Lulls in the war aren't peace, simply the in between times for the next battle. Netanyahu's end state isn't a peaceful Middle East, I suspect he doesn't believe in such a thing, at least not one that is on terms friendly to the Jewish state.
Bibi is fine with endless conflict because again, his perception likely is that was already the status quo for Israel, the fact he has managed to embroil Israel's superpower ally, which had long as a matter of foreign policy received wisdom, avoided being drawn directly into a war fighting side by side with Israel. This may be in a factual sense bad for Israel, but it isn't bad for Israel as Netanyahu understands it, and that's who is making those decisions.
From Israel's perspective--they have had to deal with Iran's proxies for years, but now Iran itself is getting bombed. That isn't something Bibi likely sees as a loss, because he was already having to deal with those proxies, but now he basically has carte blanche to regularly bomb the source of those proxies. He didn't have that previously.
It also shows Trump fundamentally misunderstands the Israeli far right, has massively over prioritized his personal friendship with Bibi (who has gone as far as to interfere in American domestic politics on behalf of Republicans), Trump's desire for quick flashy wars he can claim victory in fly head first into the reality of the sort of conflicts Netanyahu envisions.
Trump knows how to do one thing. Threaten people until they give him what he wants.
Now Trump is threatening everyone in the world with unsustainably high gas prices.
How will the world now react to this American threat? That is the interesting question of our time.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 12, 2026, 05:51:52 PMYeah, I saw one claim that Netanyahu has finally "made his fatal mistake" by getting into a war he can't extricate himself from.
Right, he doesn't want to extricate himself from anything. He wants Israel to be so tied up in conflict the electorate is scared out of changing jockeys mid-race.
The fatal mistake is that the latest Israeli polls indicate the voters are not that impressed by the latest gambit; his coalition is now projected at 51 seats to the opposition 59.
Yeah. I forget who it was who shared the substack post from Hussein Aboubakr Mansour a while back, but in his analysis Israel's interest re: Iran is to keep it as chaotic and unstable as possible to degrade its ability to strike at Israel (through decapitating command networks, destroy logistics corridods, eliminate senior leadership, and forcing the dispersal or demobilization of key proxy formations).
Having the US participate in this does not seem like a loss.
Where it may turn into a loss or "key mistake" if this US participation is short-lived and results in a political change in which the US abandons Israel as an ally.
I don't know if Trump is going to abandon Israel, even if he does have form for betraying allies.
But will post-Trump MAGA - assuming MAGA maintains power - be as committed? Or if MAGA fails to hold on to power, will the Democrats be as inclined to support Israel? What is the US getting out of supporting Israel at this point?
For the first time ever ever, the majority of Americans are now more sympathetic to the Palestinians Israelis.
I think that's a pretty big loss for Israel.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 12, 2026, 06:56:36 PMTrump knows how to do one thing. Threaten people until they give him what he wants.
Now Trump is threatening everyone in the world with unsustainably high gas prices.
How will the world now react to this American threat? That is the interesting question of our time.
It's bizarre that someone who considers everything transactional somehow can't offer something to partners or adversaries.
Quote from: Zanza on April 12, 2026, 11:35:02 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on April 12, 2026, 06:56:36 PMTrump knows how to do one thing. Threaten people until they give him what he wants.
Now Trump is threatening everyone in the world with unsustainably high gas prices.
How will the world now react to this American threat? That is the interesting question of our time.
It's bizarre that someone who considers everything transactional somehow can't offer something to partners or adversaries.
It's why he's always been a terrible buisnessman. He's never been able to concieve of a deal where both sides benifit.
What will last longer, the American blockade or a head of lettuce?
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 13, 2026, 08:13:20 AMWhat will last longer, the American blockade or a head of lettuce?
Depends. If the lettuce has also been PM of Britain then it won't last as long due to the stress of being an important politician.
Have we received confirmation the blockade is even real?
I just heard a news report on the CBC that the US aircraft carrier in the region just put out an announcement to commercial shipping that the entire coastline is under blockade and an interception by the United States Navy
The Americans are becoming pirates
Edit, here is a more detailed report from the Globe
U.S. Central Command announced that from 10 a.m. EDT, or 6:30 p.m. in Iran, the blockade would be enforced "against vessels of all nations entering or departing Iranian ports and coastal areas." It said that would include all of Iran's ports on the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman. CENTCOM said it would still allow ships travelling between non-Iranian ports to transit the Strait of Hormuz, a step down from Trump's earlier threat to blockade the vital waterway, where 20 per cent of global oil transited before fighting began.
Slight aside but interesting example of what the end of American regional hegemony/a multi-polar world actually means.
There's been a huge amount of UAE sponsored bots attacking Pakistan. This is largely because Pakistan didn't invite the Emiratis to the Islamabad talks while the Saudis and Egyptians were invited to send observers. But also in part because Pakistan has sent a huge deployment of more than 10,000 troops and 15 planes to Saudi as part of the Saudi-Pakistan mutual defence agreement.
In addition to the sponsored social media attacks, reports now coming out of the Gulf that UAE is on the cusp of signing a mutual defence agreement with India.
One side is just the centrifugal effect without US hegemony imposing a structure or logic on their dependent allies - which I suspect we'll see more of (and is also a risk in Europe). I think we're likely to see more of this "minilateralism" of smaller groups or bilateral defence arrangements and I think there's a positive case for them, particularly in Europe. But this something that feels quite 1890s/1900s. You can easily see how these pacts start to overlap and the structure of these relationship means something in the Gulf escalates in Kashmir or vice-versa.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 13, 2026, 10:06:58 AMI just heard a news report on the CBC that the US aircraft carrier in the region just put out an announcement to commercial shipping that the entire coastline is under blockade and an interception by the United States Navy
The Americans are becoming pirates
Edit, here is a more detailed report from the Globe
U.S. Central Command announced that from 10 a.m. EDT, or 6:30 p.m. in Iran, the blockade would be enforced "against vessels of all nations entering or departing Iranian ports and coastal areas." It said that would include all of Iran's ports on the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman. CENTCOM said it would still allow ships travelling between non-Iranian ports to transit the Strait of Hormuz, a step down from Trump's earlier threat to blockade the vital waterway, where 20 per cent of global oil transited before fighting began.
(https://i.ibb.co/HpFkjpm6/image.png)
We should send some Jedi to negotiate. :)
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 13, 2026, 10:23:22 AMSlight aside but interesting example of what the end of American regional hegemony/a multi-polar world actually means.
There's been a huge amount of UAE sponsored bots attacking Pakistan. . .
The collapse of the Shi'a crescent reoriented Saudi policy away from a pro-Israel tilt and towards a less confrontational approach to Iran. MbS' policy both domestic and foreign has also put him in increasing tension with the UAE and the two sides have backed opposing factions in regional conflicts. The UAE spat with Pakistan is another manifestation of the Saudi rivalry, with Pakistan and Turkey aligning with the Saudis and with Egypt perhaps tilting that way as well.
All this has nothing directly to do with the US, but the US has managed these kinds of tensions before (Korea and Japan in Pacific, Greece and Turkey in NATO . . .). For all Trump's faults, this was one area where administration policy had done a decent job of papering over the massive cracks in Gulf unity, because the Trump family's deep involvement in regional graft kept them on the inside of both camps. But the Iran war has exposed the destabilizing aspect of Trump's erratic confusion, his inability to hold up the US end of the security bargain, and his penchant for using crises of his own creation to extort additional rents.
So a Chinese ship goes through the Straits...are we really going to capture or sink it?
Have we thought this through?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 13, 2026, 10:53:06 AMThe collapse of the Shi'a crescent reoriented Saudi policy away from a pro-Israel tilt and towards a less confrontational approach to Iran. MbS' policy both domestic and foreign has also put him in increasing tension with the UAE and the two sides have backed opposing factions in regional conflicts. The UAE spat with Pakistan is another manifestation of the Saudi rivalry, with Pakistan and Turkey aligning with the Saudis and with Egypt perhaps tilting that way as well.
All this has nothing directly to do with the US, but the US has managed these kinds of tensions before (Korea and Japan in Pacific, Greece and Turkey in NATO . . .). For all Trump's faults, this was one area where administration policy had done a decent job of papering over the massive cracks in Gulf unity, because the Trump family's deep involvement in regional graft kept them on the inside of both camps. But the Iran war has exposed the destabilizing aspect of Trump's erratic confusion, his inability to hold up the US end of the security bargain, and his penchant for using crises of his own creation to extort additional rents.
And also I think those two paragraphs are linked in a really radically different risk tolerance between the UAE and the rest of the Gulf. I mentioned but I think I saw that after the US announced a ceasefire there were Israeli and Emirati strikes on Iran. By all accounts the Emiratis are really all in, while the rest of the Gulf seems more willing to settle. Part of this is reflected in the Arab flame wars on social media right now with the UAE internet accusing Saudis of basically being a Pakistani puppet and the Saudis saying the UAE is a puppet of "the Zionist entity". As you say this is tied to the collapsing of the "axis of resistance" because that would have been unimaginable pre-October 7 when it looked like Saudi-Israeli normalisation was just a matter of time.
I think the comparison of Korea and Japan in managing tensions is one of the valuable things a hegemon can do. I think another side of it - which is perhaps more relevant in Europe than the Gulf or East Asia - is that I think it can allow you to stop thinking strategically. As I say I think that's the case in a lot of Europe where European strategy has basically been "we're in NATO" - there is no need to go beyond that because NATO fixes your immediate risks and you just orient in one way or another around the US on other things. I think it's part of the challenge in Europe is the rapid need to learn again how to think strategically and get out of that learned helplessness - but also to try and manage it without different perspectives actually becoming an even bigger weakness.
But the other bit is that if the US is really simply that if the security guarantor of the Gulf is the US then, as you say, tensions within the GCC can be managed without anyone needing to look for other external security partners with their own risks. It's one of the upsides of a hegemon for the rest of the world is it contains flashpoints. To take it a bit further you can easily see overlapping security relationships creating a lot of global risk particularly with India and Pakistan. These relationships in the Gulf, India's with Japan (and maybe Australia) through the Quad plus deepening defence relations with Korea, Pakistan leaning more on China. It's nowhere near Guns of August but you can start to see how states rationally and for very sensible reasons create security structures and relationships that in turn generate the potential for a spark in, say, the Gulf to escalate elsewhere very quickly.
Quote from: Valmy on April 13, 2026, 01:38:36 PMHave we thought this through?
As always the answer is no.
So apparently the US has turned back a Chinese vessel and China has said "don't! We will continue to operate in the Strait of Hormuz and the Arabian Gulf and expect other countries to not interfere in our affairs."
My expectation is that Trump will not back down without some sort of concession from China (though I wouldn't be totally surprised if they did).
How will China respond if their shipping is blockaded on a continuing basis?
Ok so we are going to fuck with Chinese ships. And China seems surprised and upset by this.
Brilliant.
This was impossible to foresee.
It's like Iran closing the strait. How could one predict that? You'd have to know what Iran did in the past to guess that and no one can predict the past.
In order to foresee problems with China, you have to be some incredible genius that knows fiendishly complicated things. Like that China exists and it may have some interest in shipping.
I'm looking forward to all of our electronics suddenly bluescreening out mysteriously, if Trump doesn't let the Chinese vessels pass.
If Trump doesn't back down, China likely imposes another ban on rare earth exports to the United States, amongst other actions.
Yeah, China will likely do exactly that. My suspicion is they will show restraint but do some sort of trade restriction that shows they are serious, and if that doesn't work, impose more restrictions etc.
How about they start with all Trump related brands that are being manufactured in China?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 13, 2026, 03:33:50 PMYeah, China will likely do exactly that. My suspicion is they will show restraint but do some sort of trade restriction that shows they are serious, and if that doesn't work, impose more restrictions etc.
Yeah I agree this makes sense.
Relatedly on this in the context of blockades I thought this interview with Nicholas Mulder (author of The Economic Weapon: The Rise of Sanctions as a Tool of Modern War) was interesting:
https://heatmap.news/energy/iran-blockade
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 13, 2026, 10:23:22 AMSlight aside but interesting example of what the end of American regional hegemony/a multi-polar world actually means.
There's been a huge amount of UAE sponsored bots attacking Pakistan. This is largely because Pakistan didn't invite the Emiratis to the Islamabad talks while the Saudis and Egyptians were invited to send observers. But also in part because Pakistan has sent a huge deployment of more than 10,000 troops and 15 planes to Saudi as part of the Saudi-Pakistan mutual defence agreement.
In addition to the sponsored social media attacks, reports now coming out of the Gulf that UAE is on the cusp of signing a mutual defence agreement with India.
One side is just the centrifugal effect without US hegemony imposing a structure or logic on their dependent allies - which I suspect we'll see more of (and is also a risk in Europe). I think we're likely to see more of this "minilateralism" of smaller groups or bilateral defence arrangements and I think there's a positive case for them, particularly in Europe. But this something that feels quite 1890s/1900s. You can easily see how these pacts start to overlap and the structure of these relationship means something in the Gulf escalates in Kashmir or vice-versa.
the people yearning for multipolarism are usually the same people that forgot how multipolarism in Europe led to alliance structures that made WW1 into the Great War it was.
I don't think it is that people are earning for a multipolar world as much as it is the United States voluntarily abandoning the advantageous position it had internationally, and now everyone else is doing their best to adapt to the new reality.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 13, 2026, 05:45:19 PMI don't think it is that people are earning for a multipolar world as much as it is the United States voluntarily abandoning the advantageous position it had internationally, and now everyone else is doing their best to adapt to the new reality.
over the years I've heard lots of people pining for multipolarity tbh. They couldn't wait for US hegemony to be over. Well, here it is and it'll be a wild ride
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on April 13, 2026, 05:47:32 PMover the years I've heard lots of people pining for multipolarity tbh. They couldn't wait for US hegemony to be over. Well, here it is and it'll be a wild ride
Hasn't that been the purview of Russia, China, and their fellow travellers?
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on April 13, 2026, 05:47:32 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on April 13, 2026, 05:45:19 PMI don't think it is that people are earning for a multipolar world as much as it is the United States voluntarily abandoning the advantageous position it had internationally, and now everyone else is doing their best to adapt to the new reality.
over the years I've heard lots of people pining for multipolarity tbh. They couldn't wait for US hegemony to be over. Well, here it is and it'll be a wild ride
Well if they are Euros, I just want to point out they have structured themselves as something similar to the Holy Roman Empire or Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and we have seen how those stood up to a cutthroat world of ruthless power politics in the past.
Quote from: Jacob on April 13, 2026, 06:51:03 PMHasn't that been the purview of Russia, China, and their fellow travellers?
Yeah - also Latin American and Asian thinkers and politicians. A fair few Europeans (especially French) too. I have a bit of an old school third worldist view - I even specifically went to Bandung to visit the conference museum when I was on holiday in Indonesia (because I'm a nerd :ph34r:) - so I'm not unsympathetic to a multipolar world.
But I also think what you think about it kind of doesn't matter - it is just reality. The single biggest fact driving this, and I think the central fact in our world is China. The "West" represented two thirds of global GDP in 1990, it's now about or just under a third - it's not our world anymore, which I think is a cause of a lot of our morbid symptoms. But I don't for one second mourn the demise of the 1990s, I think it was, to nick a bit of Auden, a low, dishonest decade.
Whether we are, as a world, capable of building something new and more enduring - and a more just, democratic distribution of global power - is uncertain but we're going to have to try because that's the world that's coming. I think that is the challenge and I think Western countries need to be in a position to advance their own interests but also engage with the rest of the world as equals, who also have their own interests which we need to take account of and work with as equals.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 13, 2026, 03:19:28 PMThis was impossible to foresee.
It's like Iran closing the strait. How could one predict that? You'd have to know what Iran did in the past to guess that and no one can predict the past.
In order to foresee problems with China, you have to be some incredible genius that knows fiendishly complicated things. Like that China exists and it may have some interest in shipping.
To be fair, fighting the last war is a very common mistake in war planning. For all his faults, Trump didn't overlearn from the past wars.
Quote from: Jacob on April 13, 2026, 06:51:03 PMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on April 13, 2026, 05:47:32 PMover the years I've heard lots of people pining for multipolarity tbh. They couldn't wait for US hegemony to be over. Well, here it is and it'll be a wild ride
Hasn't that been the purview of Russia, China, and their fellow travellers?
It were usually lefties. Far lefties, but those are indeed fellow travellers of the Russians, Chinese, north Koreans or islamists. Sometimes all of them at once.
As for the usual suspects on the right: was less of thing until orban and then putins Ukrainian holiday.
Now it's all over the place
Quote from: Valmy on April 13, 2026, 07:20:07 PMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on April 13, 2026, 05:47:32 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on April 13, 2026, 05:45:19 PMI don't think it is that people are earning for a multipolar world as much as it is the United States voluntarily abandoning the advantageous position it had internationally, and now everyone else is doing their best to adapt to the new reality.
over the years I've heard lots of people pining for multipolarity tbh. They couldn't wait for US hegemony to be over. Well, here it is and it'll be a wild ride
Well if they are Euros, I just want to point out they have structured themselves as something similar to the Holy Roman Empire or Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and we have seen how those stood up to a cutthroat world of ruthless power politics in the past.
Yes, but you really need to be aware of why that setup is as it is. The small countries would never had stood for a system in which they can be always overruled by the big 3 (now 5). This is Europe, where nations are old and have grievances. As opposed to the US where nations didn't exist, states were young and you had a clear slate. And even there it wasn't easy.
But yes, in current circumstances the setup is problematic
Quote from: Jacob on April 13, 2026, 02:47:54 PMHow will China respond if their shipping is blockaded on a continuing basis?
They arrange for all inbound merchant traffic to be China-flagged and dare the burgers to start a war with them? :hmm:
Quote from: Legbiter on April 14, 2026, 03:22:09 AMThey arrange for all inbound merchant traffic to be China-flagged and dare the burgers to start a war with them? :hmm:
Kuwaiti Tanker Reflagging 2: Sichuan Style
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQm2u2Q7NsoG6FKbxX75BdqKtxdFMZdNi9Z9g&s)
Nothing gives me quite as much schadenfreude than seeing the delusional idiots who think Trump can be their friend having to eat shit.
:hmm:
https://x.com/spectatorindex/status/2044556311581606025?s=46&t=BHs6Pl38GJXGN2Y4xeriNA
Quote from: The Spectator Index (@spectatorindex)The Pentagon has approached automakers General Motors and Ford about shifting some capacity to 'make arms and military supplies', according to Wall Street Journal.
GMC trucks and Fords with "The Protocols of The Elders of Zion" as a complimentary gift?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 16, 2026, 04:08:32 AM:hmm:
https://x.com/spectatorindex/status/2044556311581606025?s=46&t=BHs6Pl38GJXGN2Y4xeriNA
Quote from: The Spectator Index (@spectatorindex)The Pentagon has approached automakers General Motors and Ford about shifting some capacity to 'make arms and military supplies', according to Wall Street Journal.
I don't mind a little more competition in this space. Having this industry be cartels, or even monopolies, is a problem.
Interesting from Hamidreza Azizi that Russia's Security Council has issued a statement saying "the United States and Israel can use the peace talks to prepare for a ground operation against Iran, as the Pentagon continues to increase US troop numbers in the region." It's a general statement but apparently being interpreted in Tehran as a public heads-up to the regime by Moscow.
I assume part of the purpose in making it public so the US and Israel know Iran knows if that makes sense (not for the first time I'm slightly reminded of Ukraine echoes).
Also via him I thought this Bloomberg summary was interesting:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HGBRvIgW0AAb35Q?format=png&name=900x900)
And Reuters reporting analysts think Iran can take two months of a complete halt of oil exports before they'd need to cut production.
Edit: Again if the US is willing to move on those points and reach some compromise with Iran - that's a catastrophically bad result for Israel. The Iranian regime survives (arguably revivified and with a new generation at the top), unsanctioned and with new income streams. Whether it's re-building the axis of resistance or eventual enrichment Iran would be in a far stronger position.
I am so happy to hear that a language poster is now transmitting Russian propaganda.
Aviation fuel is running short. Airline cancellations are going to increase, and especially flights to and from Europe.
RIP World Cup?
I'd be very interested in an overview of American troop accumulation and movement in the region.
Last time it was a topic, some airborne were being repositioned into theatre and some MEF troops were en route. Presumably they're in place now.
Based on what we know, has the possible scale of potential American or Israeli ground operations changed?
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 16, 2026, 10:20:31 AMAviation fuel is running short. Airline cancellations are going to increase, and especially flights to and from Europe.
RIP World Cup?
Fucking great. I have a family vacation planned mid-May.
Quote from: Jacob on April 16, 2026, 10:24:11 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on April 16, 2026, 10:20:31 AMAviation fuel is running short. Airline cancellations are going to increase, and especially flights to and from Europe.
RIP World Cup?
Fucking great. I have a family vacation planned mid-May.
Yep, our trip in June is also looking less likely.
Apparently, the refinery in Qatar is the source of much of Europe's aviation fuel, and that refinery was damaged so even if tanker traffic in the straight returns to normal tomorrow, that still isn't going to solve the aviation fuel shortage.
Quote from: Jacob on April 16, 2026, 10:23:41 AMI'd be very interested in an overview of American troop accumulation and movement in the region.
Last time it was a topic, some airborne were being repositioned into theatre and some MEF troops were en route. Presumably they're in place now.
Based on what we know, has the possible scale of potential American or Israeli ground operations changed?
Tripoli and her amphibious group are operating in the Arabian Sea now. That group's forces wouldn't even be enough to secure a beachhead in mainland Iran, though. I suspect it's there mainly to support the blockade. Otherwise, I haven't read anything about any sort of significant ground forces being in place. Attacking anything on the ground that isn't an isolated island or a SpecOps raid would be suicidal with the troop numbers in-theater.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 16, 2026, 10:40:41 AMQuote from: Jacob on April 16, 2026, 10:23:41 AMI'd be very interested in an overview of American troop accumulation and movement in the region.
Last time it was a topic, some airborne were being repositioned into theatre and some MEF troops were en route. Presumably they're in place now.
Based on what we know, has the possible scale of potential American or Israeli ground operations changed?
Tripoli and her amphibious group are operating in the Arabian Sea now. That group's forces wouldn't even be enough to secure a beachhead in mainland Iran, though. I suspect it's there mainly to support the blockade. Otherwise, I haven't read anything about any sort of significant ground forces being in place. Attacking anything on the ground that isn't an isolated island or a SpecOps raid would be suicidal with the troop numbers in-theater.
Yeah, there haven't been any new deployment and the troops that were deployed are token at best. I really wish Sheilbh hadn't posted Russian suggest suggesting that there was a buildup of troops
When are people going to learn that Russia and the Trumpists are acting in coordination. Just fucking ridiculous to see otherwise intelligent people falling into this cesspool of misinformation.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 16, 2026, 10:20:31 AMAviation fuel is running short. Airline cancellations are going to increase, and especially flights to and from Europe.
RIP World Cup?
Europe supposedly has six weeks if jet fuel left. Other world regions less. That will be painful soon.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 16, 2026, 10:42:32 AMYeah, there haven't been any new deployment and the troops that were deployed are token at best. I really wish Sheilbh hadn't posted Russian suggest suggesting that there was a buildup of troops
When are people going to learn that Russia and the Trumpists are acting in coordination. Just fucking ridiculous to see otherwise intelligent people falling into this cesspool of misinformation.
I completely fail to understand your point. Sheilbh posted about a sourced fact and a third-party's interpretation of that fact. He didn't argue that they were true. Even if you don't like the fact or the interpretation, they exist and it's foolish to pretend that they don't.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 16, 2026, 10:40:41 AMTripoli and her amphibious group are operating in the Arabian Sea now. That group's forces wouldn't even be enough to secure a beachhead in mainland Iran, though. I suspect it's there mainly to support the blockade. Otherwise, I haven't read anything about any sort of significant ground forces being in place. Attacking anything on the ground that isn't an isolated island or a SpecOps raid would be suicidal with the troop numbers in-theater.
Agree with all of this. I think 2,500 arrived a couple of weeks ago and the Washington Post was reporting an extra 10,000 to be deployed by the end of the month. Equipment continues to be deployed to the region (though also necessary for a blockade or any attempt to break the Iranian blockade) - I think the Atlantic Council have a running tracker on weapons systems etc being moved into the region. It has continued to increase during the.
The other part of course could just be regional reassurance forces for the American allies hosting the bases in the Gulf - of course, as Russia is very well aware regional reassurace can pivot to other operations.
QuoteYeah, there haven't been any new deployment and the troops that were deployed are token at best. I really wish Sheilbh hadn't posted Russian suggest suggesting that there was a buildup of troops
When are people going to learn that Russia and the Trumpists are acting in coordination. Just fucking ridiculous to see otherwise intelligent people falling into this cesspool of misinformation.
I don't quite get the issue?
The Russians have said it and I've posted what an Iranian expert says is the way Tehran is interpreting it - obviously I think you'd be very justified in doubting what Russia's Security Council says or that the interpretation in Tehran is complete (he'll have sources, be reading news and they'll each have their own starting points). And you're fully entitled to doubt Azizi as well - though I've no reason to think what he's saying is not true (from his position).
And with that information obviously there are other interpretations possible. It seems to me that one of the Iranian concerns in even considering ceasefire negotiations was that it would just be used by the US to bring more weapons into the region and hit harder (having previously been bombed by Trump twice during negotiations). I'm not sure that's wrong, but their interpretation may just reflect that existing fear - alternately it could be Russia trying to bolster that faction within Iran. As I say, many other possibilities too. Not sure how that's a cesspool of misinformation.
But out of interest what's the coordination between the US and Russia on Iran? What's their plan?
Quote from: grumbler on April 16, 2026, 11:37:19 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on April 16, 2026, 10:42:32 AMYeah, there haven't been any new deployment and the troops that were deployed are token at best. I really wish Sheilbh hadn't posted Russian suggest suggesting that there was a buildup of troops
When are people going to learn that Russia and the Trumpists are acting in coordination. Just fucking ridiculous to see otherwise intelligent people falling into this cesspool of misinformation.
I completely fail to understand your point. Sheilbh posted about a sourced fact and a third-party's interpretation of that fact. He didn't argue that they were true. Even if you don't like the fact or the interpretation, they exist and it's foolish to pretend that they don't.
It's foolish to pretend that anything coming from the Russians should be taken at face value by third parties or anyone else. This is not the first time Sheilbh has taken misinformation and treated analyzed it as if it were more valid than it is. It is foolish not to call these things out when them happen.
Quote from: Jacob on April 16, 2026, 10:24:11 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on April 16, 2026, 10:20:31 AMAviation fuel is running short. Airline cancellations are going to increase, and especially flights to and from Europe.
RIP World Cup?
Fucking great. I have a family vacation planned mid-May.
Great indeed, I have a family trip to Portugal in the last third of May.
As for the World Cup, poetic justice?
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 16, 2026, 11:55:46 AMI think the Atlantic Council have a running tracker on weapons systems etc being moved into the region.
Thanks!
They do, though they don't seem to track infantry deployed. Here it is: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/commentary/trackers-and-data-visualizations/tracking-us-military-assets-in-the-iran-war/
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 16, 2026, 10:42:32 AMWhen are people going to learn that Russia and the Trumpists are acting in coordination.
Trump can't even act in coordination with himself.
They just parrot RT propaganda either because they are being paid off (Witless and the Trump Org) or because they are too dumb to know better (Gabbard etc)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 16, 2026, 05:25:28 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on April 16, 2026, 10:42:32 AMWhen are people going to learn that Russia and the Trumpists are acting in coordination.
Trump can't even act in coordination with himself.
They just parrot RT propaganda either because they are being paid off (Witless and the Trump Org) or because they are too dumb to know better (Gabbard etc)
Yes, that is the coordination I was referring to. It does not imply that the Trumpists are doing the coordinating.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 16, 2026, 12:26:08 PMIt's foolish to pretend that anything coming from the Russians should be taken at face value by third parties or anyone else. This is not the first time Sheilbh has taken misinformation and treated analyzed it as if it were more valid than it is. It is foolish not to call these things out when them happen.
It is foolish to refuse to look at information because you don't like what it says. No one is taking it at face value, but that doesn't mean that it has zero value. Virtue signalling is always a bad look.
Quote from: grumbler on April 16, 2026, 10:10:55 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on April 16, 2026, 12:26:08 PMIt's foolish to pretend that anything coming from the Russians should be taken at face value by third parties or anyone else. This is not the first time Sheilbh has taken misinformation and treated analyzed it as if it were more valid than it is. It is foolish not to call these things out when them happen.
It is foolish to refuse to look at information because you don't like what it says. No one is taking it at face value, but that doesn't mean that it has zero value. Virtue signalling is always a bad look.
You're right. Baron please open the gates to all the Russian troll bots some can become more enlightened
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 16, 2026, 11:18:04 PMQuote from: grumbler on April 16, 2026, 10:10:55 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on April 16, 2026, 12:26:08 PMIt's foolish to pretend that anything coming from the Russians should be taken at face value by third parties or anyone else. This is not the first time Sheilbh has taken misinformation and treated analyzed it as if it were more valid than it is. It is foolish not to call these things out when them happen.
It is foolish to refuse to look at information because you don't like what it says. No one is taking it at face value, but that doesn't mean that it has zero value. Virtue signalling is always a bad look.
You're right. Baron please open the gates to all the Russian troll bots some can become more enlightened
Sure. Because that's the only alternative to self-censorship. :rolleyes:
Quote from: grumbler on April 17, 2026, 04:25:55 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on April 16, 2026, 11:18:04 PMQuote from: grumbler on April 16, 2026, 10:10:55 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on April 16, 2026, 12:26:08 PMIt's foolish to pretend that anything coming from the Russians should be taken at face value by third parties or anyone else. This is not the first time Sheilbh has taken misinformation and treated analyzed it as if it were more valid than it is. It is foolish not to call these things out when them happen.
It is foolish to refuse to look at information because you don't like what it says. No one is taking it at face value, but that doesn't mean that it has zero value. Virtue signalling is always a bad look.
You're right. Baron please open the gates to all the Russian troll bots some can become more enlightened
Sure. Because that's the only alternative to self-censorship. :rolleyes:
No, but it is the absurd result of your position
The US Secretary of war threatens to commit war crimes - again.
"Our forces are maximally postured to restart combat operations should this new Iranian regime choose poorly and not agree to a deal," Mr. Hegseth said during a briefing to reporters at the Pentagon. "We are locked and loaded on your critical dual-use infrastructure, on your remaining power generation and on your energy industry."
Even if one accepts the his reference to dual use targets is legitimate, he has also clearly specified non dual use infrastructure as being targets.
Forget it CC, it's the US.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 17, 2026, 09:33:58 AMThe US Secretary of war threatens to commit war crimes - again.
"Our forces are maximally postured to restart combat operations should this new Iranian regime choose poorly and not agree to a deal," Mr. Hegseth said during a briefing to reporters at the Pentagon. "We are locked and loaded on your critical dual-use infrastructure, on your remaining power generation and on your energy industry."
Even if one accepts the his reference to dual use targets is legitimate, he has also clearly specified non dual use infrastructure as being targets.
This regime considers bloodthirsty criminal activity to be manly and strong. You are supposed to be in awe of their alpha manly manness right now and feel ashamed at being a beta girlie at your lack of guts to murder millions.
Can we use « fascist » now?
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 17, 2026, 10:58:59 AMCan we use « fascist » now?
Depends on context and objective, I think. Because while we probably could, I'm uncertain whether it will be clarion call to action or just result in strengthening the "well I guess fascism unfairly got a bad rep, then" position.
Future scholars, sufficiently removed, will have a good time comparing what the US is going through now with the earlier historical fascism movements - how is it similar and what exceptional to the American case.
Yeah I agree with all of that. Also I'm not sure the fascism debate - but on the other hand I'm also not really sure the distraction of some of our pointiest heads onto a historical question is massively hurting the cause.
According to CNN a peace deal is "in the home stretch":
QuoteThe Trump administration is considering unfreezing $20 billion in Iranian assets as part of ongoing negotiations with Tehran, according to two sources familiar with the discussions.
Officials are hoping that a broader deal to end the war could be finalized as early as this weekend, though some areas of disagreement remain, sources familiar with the discussions told CNN.
Full article here: https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/17/politics/iran-trump-money-uranium-deal
After all this misery and bullshit I think we're just going to end up with a slightly worse version of the JCPOA he tore up eight years ago.
This truly glorious American victory shall be engraved on the Trump Arch. Even Titus and Domitian would feel bigly envious of such a victory.
It will be covered in all the awesome "deals" Our Benevolent Father of Business has negotiated on worse terms than we had before them!
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 17, 2026, 01:47:58 PMAfter all this misery and bullshit I think we're just going to end up with a slightly worse version of the JCPOA he tore up eight years ago.
Yep
edit: but the important thing is it will be his deal, and not Obama's deal. So all the death and misery will be worth it for his greater glory.
I will state what I have said earlier, as it is a subject have I studied quite intensively.
Fascism is what Mussolini wanted it to be. Its traits are recognisable by uniforms, calls to patriotism, the "othering" of opponents, a theatre of the people where the supreme leader speaks and inspires. And violence. At first, before grabbing power, it is beating up opponents, shivving them and sometimes killing them. Fascism didn't really have the anti-semitic part. It is anti-parliamentary and anti-democratic. In its Italian, Spanish and to some degree Portuguese form, it called for "national rejuvenation". Which meant sacrifice and brotherhood, like the arditi at the front in the Great War.
The worship of the leader is of course important. And the country. Its people. Those who are not communists or socialists.
Mussolini could easily work with some of the rump parliament from democratic parties, except the socialists. Franco shot all the socialists he could find. Around 150.000.
Fascism is about big words, promises and a spectacle. And two enemies. One within. And all those from without. War is part of the make-up of sacrifice. "Don't you feel shame not putting your life on the line like so many did in the Great War?".
I can off the top of my head only think of one fascist who was reasonably successful. That was Getulio Vargas in Brazil. Granted, he was ousted.
If the Versailles treaty had just let Orlando keep some gains on the coast of Croatia and Dalmatia, it might have been a different history. But no, it had to be Fiume.
Franco's Spain was mostly clerical authoritarianism. He took a bloody revenge after the civil war. Some historians say he was a clever diplomat to keep Spain out of World War II, but his demands for food and equipment made the Germans think it was a bad idea to have this guy on our side when people are almost starving at home. He did send his Moroccan troops and some volunteers in Division Azul, though. Franco, unlike Mussolini was a devoted to the idea of a holy country, and that made him more a tool for the church, which had been losing some traction everywhere with social upheavals.
Mussolini monuments still scatter Rome here and there. Franco's Valley of the dead is still there.
I would say fascism is a catch-all term these days for authoritarians. And they do go by the same playbook. However, Trump's ideas of beautifying Washington, his cronies' constant rebuttals to a free press, and him caring so much about how he is treated reminds me more of a certain Austrian who became chancellor of Germany. He also has his stormtroopers.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 17, 2026, 01:47:58 PMAfter all this misery and bullshit I think we're just going to end up with a slightly worse version of the JCPOA he tore up eight years ago.
From what I've read on enrichment what was being discussed was a pause on enrichment. The US pushed for 20 years, Iran wanted 5 - I suspect we'll end up with 10, say.
Again I think Netanyahu's role is striking. 14 years after this and his huge meddling in American politics, actively taking sides (from what I understand one of his big selling points as a leader is the perception that he "gets" American politics and is able to play it):
(https://images.csmonitor.com/csm/2012/09/0928-Israel-Netanyahu-simple-bomb-graphic.jpg?alias=standard_1200x800)
Then from a very strong position with a friendly president striking nuclear facilities and IRGC leaders, to Israel's own destruction of much of the axis of resistance. To the same deal but worse than he was campaigning against then and in Congress, billion of dollars returned to Iran, a younger, more resilient and (reportedly) more risk-tolerant regime than before and the President tweeting that he "PROHIBITS" attacks on Lebanon (though it's totally not because of talks with Iran which are separate).
Plus politically as I say I think this could be very bad for Israel. I can fully see Trump scapegoating Netanyahu and there's danerous anti-semitic trends on the MAGA right which I think will be strengthened if this is perceived as a or "the" failure of their project.
Obviously it's Britain looking at a moment of imperial over-extension and power-checking over straits in the Middle East so we've had a lot of Suez comparisons. And there are some overlaps for the US. But I can't help but feel it might, more accurately, be Israel's and require a re-calibration of what's attainable, the relationship with the US (which I think is damaged with Democrats already - see Bibi's politicking) and how it can handle threats. Obviously still big differences too.
I have noticed Tucker Carlson going more and more "anti-zionist". I think certain elements of MAGA now see Israel as more of a liability in their America First worldview.
While I do not know the United States well, I would think it is a dangerous path to thread, not primarily for electoral purposes, but for the Jewish minority that are Americans.
I thought, as a pre-teen, the 1980s were scary. The threat of nuclear war seemed so imminent. When the wall fell in Berlin, it was just days after my 16th birthday, and it felt that we were on a good path, all of us. I am still, to some extent, that youth with hope in his heart. But it is getting rather hard to find much hope these days.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 17, 2026, 07:35:42 AMQuote from: grumbler on April 17, 2026, 04:25:55 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on April 16, 2026, 11:18:04 PMYou're right. Baron please open the gates to all the Russian troll bots some can become more enlightened
Sure. Because that's the only alternative to self-censorship. :rolleyes:
No, but it is the absurd result of your position
I'd be fascinated to discover what your imagination has created as my "position." Your statement does not at all follow from what I have said.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 17, 2026, 01:57:39 PMIt will be covered in all the awesome "deals" Our Benevolent Father of Business has negotiated on worse terms than we had before them!
Glorious American Victory postponed, Hormuz blocked again.
Quote from: Norgy on April 18, 2026, 01:23:13 AMWhile I do not know the United States well, I would think it is a dangerous path to thread, not primarily for electoral purposes, but for the Jewish minority that are Americans.
There is a weird and dysfunctional combination of arrogance, hysteria and intolerance among ultra-Zionist American Jews. The arrogance comes from decades of illusory confidence from evangelical support for Israel which is more shallow and less stable than they imagine. The hysteria manifests as seeing anti-Semitic cabals anytime anyone anywhere has anything critical to say about Israel, which over the long-term only confirms the prejudice that Israeli national politics and Judaism are the same thing. It doesn't help that Jewish institutions like some synagogues get heavily involved in things like promoting settlement development in the WB, which then prompts protests, and then in turn reinforces the sense of siege. That then fuels intolerance, manifested as attacks on vulnerable minorities, which is an incredibly foolish strategy for another vulnerable minority to take.
The ultras push strongly to mobilize Jewish influence and yes Jewish money to bend national politics in an extreme pro Israel direction, oblivious to what fallout may occur if that policy goes poorly for the US or if Israeli leaders take advantage of it at American expense. They rally to MAGA and Trump based on pro Israel rhetoric and policy, heedless of how sustainable it can be to pursue Israel first policies in a movement whose core tenet is America first
It's frustrating to witness because it's like so many have forgotten what it means to be a diaspora Jew. They talk about the Holocaust and "never again" but without seeming to think about what conditions could bring such a thing about. A Jewish national homeland is no security against disaster - how could anyone familiar with the Biblical writings reach that conclusion?? They talk about anti-semitism — which in America most commonly manifests as a stereotype of clannish Jews manipulating politics and finance to pursue Jewish goals at the expense of American interest - and then proceed to do seemingly everything they can to reinforce those stereotypes.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 16, 2026, 12:26:08 PMIt's foolish to pretend that anything coming from the Russians should be taken at face value by third parties or anyone else. This is not the first time Sheilbh has taken misinformation and treated analyzed it as if it were more valid than it is. It is foolish not to call these things out when them happen.
Sorry I slightly missed the point on me doing that but sure, if that's how view it - and I'll do it again because I think that point is relevant to the world we live in and to our analysis of trying to make sense of it.
But I'm not sure what it is you're calling out. An expert on Iran described it because it is being interpreted by the regime in Iran in a certain way - which I think is interesting because my view is the way the Iranian regime is viewinng things is probably going to shape their behaviour, may point to how this new leadership class is shaking out etc. Whether Iran as a third party should be trusting what the Russian Securty Council or whether they're showing bad information hygiene seems to me entirely beside the point. According to the expert on Iran they are - so that is reality and relevant to what is happening there.
But also I fundamentally think the whole focus on misinformation and disinformation and the industries around it are at best a massive red herring. I think politically the idea that there's an epistemological solution to our problems is nonsense - I do not think we can fact check our way to better politics (or a politics that we on Languish would sympathise with more) and I think that focus is actually largely counter-productive. Structurally it relies on the very platforms generating the problem further increasing their power which, again, I think is counter-productive. Politically I think it fails because telling people their just wrong and idiots for buying a lie tends not to be a winning message. But also at a discourse level I think it just generates legitimate charges of hypocrisy because there is always spin and propaganda and biases and imperfect information - the better way than pretending we live in a pure world ourselves is, I think, how you analyse it.
And in my view whether it's true or not, it is relevant for thsoe reasons but also it is discoure and communication. We have entire disciplines that are very used to looking at communications of varying degrees of trustworthiness to analyse what was going, the mental universes of people involved and how they interact. This is literally the basis of all journalism hearing different pieces of information from different sources with different interests in talking to journalists, or the entire study of history. In many respects the vast majority of recorded information in all of human history is misinformation or disinformation - it has also been really important in shaping events and then the current and subsequent understandings of events. We should treat the world as it is now in exactly the same way. I'd go further and say that very often if you're not looking at discourse (including the misinformation and disinformation) then analysis is impossible. You're just listing a series of events.
I'd add that I also think a large part of this is just a product of underlying technological and material shifts. I think the mid-twentieth century world of "information" reflected limitations of broadcast and print technologies which produced relatively concentrated markets - the cost of entry was very high - therefore there was a limited range of information sources (and still mis and disinformation within that - and counter to it). I think historically since the print revolution (but also in counter to more oral traditions) it is a period with an unusually concentrated information space. The digitisation of print, then satellite and then the internet radically lowered the cost of entry and massively expanded the range of sources of information. We will not re-create the conditions of that information/discourse era (though new similar ones may emerge. It strikes me that a shift from search engines and a plural internet to generative search and AI interfaces may produce that because that is restoring a very high cost of entry - which (as is often the case) is double edged at best. On a what is to be done level - I'm not sure but I don't think it's trying to re-create models when the conditions that created them no longer exist.
Quote from: HVC on April 18, 2026, 12:35:41 PMQuote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 17, 2026, 01:57:39 PMIt will be covered in all the awesome "deals" Our Benevolent Father of Business has negotiated on worse terms than we had before them!
Glorious American Victory postponed, Hormuz blocked again.
Make Ormuz Blocked Again! MOBA
Does not that sound that great, I will grant you that. :hmm:
Interesting thread on reddit where mariners are discussing Hormuz, including apparently some that are there right now or are drawing conclusions based on which ships pass through.
Obviously it's social media, so take it with whatever helping of salt you think is appropriate (or ignore it altogether), but I thought there are some interesting perspectives there:
https://www.reddit.com/r/maritime/comments/1sov57g/french_giants_bid_adieu_to_the_%C3%B3rmuz/
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 18, 2026, 12:43:33 PMQuote from: Norgy on April 18, 2026, 01:23:13 AMWhile I do not know the United States well, I would think it is a dangerous path to thread, not primarily for electoral purposes, but for the Jewish minority that are Americans.
There is a weird and dysfunctional combination of arrogance, hysteria and intolerance among ultra-Zionist American Jews. The arrogance comes from decades of illusory confidence from evangelical support for Israel which is more shallow and less stable than they imagine. The hysteria manifests as seeing anti-Semitic cabals anytime anyone anywhere has anything critical to say about Israel, which over the long-term only confirms the prejudice that Israeli national politics and Judaism are the same thing. It doesn't help that Jewish institutions like some synagogues get heavily involved in things like promoting settlement development in the WB, which then prompts protests, and then in turn reinforces the sense of siege. That then fuels intolerance, manifested as attacks on vulnerable minorities, which is an incredibly foolish strategy for another vulnerable minority to take.
The ultras push strongly to mobilize Jewish influence and yes Jewish money to bend national politics in an extreme pro Israel direction, oblivious to what fallout may occur if that policy goes poorly for the US or if Israeli leaders take advantage of it at American expense. They rally to MAGA and Trump based on pro Israel rhetoric and policy, heedless of how sustainable it can be to pursue Israel first policies in a movement whose core tenet is America first
It's frustrating to witness because it's like so many have forgotten what it means to be a diaspora Jew. They talk about the Holocaust and "never again" but without seeming to think about what conditions could bring such a thing about. A Jewish national homeland is no security against disaster - how could anyone familiar with the Biblical writings reach that conclusion?? They talk about anti-semitism — which in America most commonly manifests as a stereotype of clannish Jews manipulating politics and finance to pursue Jewish goals at the expense of American interest - and then proceed to do seemingly everything they can to reinforce those stereotypes.
Thanks for an informed answer.
The conflict that stems from the lack of a two-state solution poisons so many a political discourse. I am sure that there are both Arabs and Jews with lots of cash to splash into "public opinion".
Israel has called Norway an anti-semitic state. That sort of washes out who gave them the nuclear option. Yeah, it was Norway. The Labour Party loved Israel and bore the guilt of the nation for all the Jews that went on trains and ships "to the East". Norway did find diplomacy with Israel easier before Likud's rise. Meir and Dayan were "people we can talk to". Begin not so much.
The cabals these days are not Jewish, but mostly rather white "protestants" looking to enrich themselves, it seems.
And, I do not imply that there ever was a Jewish cabal.
Quote from: Jacob on April 18, 2026, 02:16:24 PMInteresting thread on reddit where mariners are discussing Hormuz, including apparently some that are there right now or are drawing conclusions based on which ships pass through.
Obviously it's social media, so take it with whatever helping of salt you think is appropriate (or ignore it altogether), but I thought there are some interesting perspectives there:
https://www.reddit.com/r/maritime/comments/1sov57g/french_giants_bid_adieu_to_the_%C3%B3rmuz/
Interesting - I find the Hormuz tracking weirdly compelling. Wish my dad was around as an ex-merchant navy captain just to get him to explain Hormuz to me :lol:
I've not seen much about them but really feel for the merchant marine crews on all of these ships. I think overwhelmingly now Bangladeshi and Filipino sailors and I suspect there's issues with supplies and just staying sitting for so long.
During the Iraq-Iran war, the straits and the island of Kharg were rather dangerous.
Those that dared, like John Fredriksen of Norway, got well minted. He had a small tanker fleet, and just risked a lot on getting through. I think the Norwegian fleet mostly had gone over to being registered in Panama those days, however, some sailors were still Norwegian, like the bosun and the captain. They certainly did not like the risks.
I think Fredriksen's companies are valued at millions of dollars and pounds.
Fortune, sometimes, favours the brave. Only, his only personal risk was a loss of a ship. As far as I know, they went without any kind of insurance. Except for obligatory ones for the ship itself.
Quote from: HVC on April 18, 2026, 12:35:41 PMQuote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 17, 2026, 01:57:39 PMIt will be covered in all the awesome "deals" Our Benevolent Father of Business has negotiated on worse terms than we had before them!
Glorious American Victory postponed, Hormuz blocked again.
Not postponed. Each block/unblock is another win and another point toward the Nobel Peace Prize for Trump!
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on April 19, 2026, 11:32:24 AMQuote from: HVC on April 18, 2026, 12:35:41 PMQuote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 17, 2026, 01:57:39 PMIt will be covered in all the awesome "deals" Our Benevolent Father of Business has negotiated on worse terms than we had before them!
Glorious American Victory postponed, Hormuz blocked again.
Not postponed. Each block/unblock is another win and another point toward the Nobel Peace Prize for Trump!
And if not that, a win for his bankaccount
Quote from: HVC on April 18, 2026, 12:35:41 PMQuote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 17, 2026, 01:57:39 PMIt will be covered in all the awesome "deals" Our Benevolent Father of Business has negotiated on worse terms than we had before them!
Glorious American Victory postponed, Hormuz blocked again.
Shroedinger's strait?
Original link (paywall) (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-04-19/uae-in-talks-with-us-for-possible-financial-lifeline-wsj-says)
QuoteUAE Central Bank Governor Khaled Mohamed Balama raised the idea of a currency swap line with Federal Reserve and US Treasury officials, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, during meetings in Washington last week, according to the report.
The Emirati leaders said they have avoided the worst economic effects of the conflict but might still need a financial lifeline, the officials told the Journal.
The discussions underscore UAE's growing anxiety that the war could harm its economy and position as an international financial center, draining foreign currency reserves and triggering capital flight, according to the WSJ. Emirati officials haven't formally requested a swap line, the Journal said.
The war has inflicted damage on the UAE's energy infrastructure and blocked oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, cutting off a critical stream of dollar income.
In an interview Sunday on ABC's This Week, Reem Al Hashimy, the UAE's minister of state for international cooperation, said the sheikhdom has been hit with more than 2,800 missiles and drones since the US-Israeli war with Iran began on Feb. 28.
So much winning for the US. If Valmy was already tired, I can't imagine how he feels with each day passing.
Interesting, but unsurprising. Trump was kept out of the crisis room during the aviator rescue for fear he would screw up the operation.
White House Leak Reveals Trump Booted From Briefing After Hours-Long Freakout (https://www.thedailybeast.com/white-house-leak-reveals-trump-booted-from-briefing-after-hours-long-freakout/)
Originally from the WSJ, link from the Dailybeast.
Quote from: viper37 on April 19, 2026, 08:00:56 PMInteresting, but unsurprising. Trump was kept out of the crisis room during the aviator rescue for fear he would screw up the operation.
White House Leak Reveals Trump Booted From Briefing After Hours-Long Freakout (https://www.thedailybeast.com/white-house-leak-reveals-trump-booted-from-briefing-after-hours-long-freakout/)
Originally from the WSJ, link from the Dailybeast.
Hours long tirade over a military failure... I remember somebody else did a lot of that in his final days... :ph34r:
RDT_20260420_0819057637471811443458922.jpg
Quote from: Bauer on April 19, 2026, 09:07:44 PMHours long tirade over a military failure... I remember somebody else did a lot of that in his final days... :ph34r:
:yes:
DAS WAR EIN BEFEHL!!!!!1111
I don't like repeating myself, but Trump does seem a bit lost like Der Führer. Experience from years of good governance show you need something else than just yes-men. Support, sure. Loyalty, yes, to the extent where people's consciousness is not tested too much. But leaders need someone to deliver the bad news and explain them. I don't think Trump really takes any of that in. He is becoming more and more of a parody of an authoritarian. Well done on the media getting some info out from the female dr. Goebbels handling press briefings.
I admit, I did not really buy into "We live in a post-truth world", because we have never had more tools to go through information available. But I suppose we are at that point. It saddens me, it really breaks my worldview and my faith in humanity.
(https://i.ibb.co/DPw4P4YM/image.png)
:lmfao:
It is what MAGA voted for; I'm sure they will all be delighted to help a rich muslim country financially :cool:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 20, 2026, 11:31:48 AMIt is what MAGA voted for; I'm sure they will all be delighted to help a rich muslim country financially :cool:
Well they're fine screwing over their own country for American billionaires, why not throw a few Arab billionaires into the mix.
Not going to lie hearing about the need for swap lines has me reaching for books on the financial crisis and some of the writing about covid :ph34r:
The really interesting angle on this is respected, prominent UAE commentators have been questioning the worth of having US bases. Saying they've not actually added much security, but not ditching the US relationship at all - still buying their weapons from the US but using their own troops (or, in the case of the UAE, mercenaries). This despite UAE being by some distance the most hawkish and US (and Israel) aligned Gulf State in this war.
At the same time there's reports of Saudi getting rid of US bases as they think they could replace them with the Pakistani military (recently deployed to Saudi as part of their mutual defence pact).
It feels like the Middle East is maybe speed running what other bits of the world will go through of a US that is not willing to play the role of a security hegemon, providing security common goods like free transit or increasingly unwilling to provide security guarantees, while still being a financial hegemon and your central banks, companies, financial systems still needing access to dollars.
Pakistan with a massive influx of Gulf money will make the Pakistan/India situation flare up dramatically, too, presumably. ...which might spark a renewal of the China/India tensions.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on April 20, 2026, 06:49:22 PMPakistan with a massive influx of Gulf money will make the Pakistan/India situation flare up dramatically, too, presumably. ...which might spark a renewal of the China/India tensions.
Yep - and as I say Saudi-Pakistan mutual defence pact plus reports of India and UAE developing a defence agreement.
Although other interesting angle is Turkey, Egypt, Saudi and Pakistan working on negotiations and by all accounts Pakistan has been able to work very well with the Iranians and the US (not easy at any time). I feel like that could be the start of a post-America pole/axis in the Middle East - and probably one that was not on the cards until October 7 when Saudi, Israel and UAE were moving into alignment.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 20, 2026, 06:56:04 PMQuote from: Sophie Scholl on April 20, 2026, 06:49:22 PMPakistan with a massive influx of Gulf money will make the Pakistan/India situation flare up dramatically, too, presumably. ...which might spark a renewal of the China/India tensions.
Yep - and as I say Saudi-Pakistan mutual defence pact plus reports of India and UAE developing a defence agreement.
Although other interesting angle is Turkey, Egypt, Saudi and Pakistan working on negotiations and by all accounts Pakistan has been able to work very well with the Iranians and the US (not easy at any time). I feel like that could be the start of a post-America pole/axis in the Middle East - and probably one that was not on the cards until October 7 when Saudi, Israel and UAE were moving into alignment.
Yeah, and I would go further, not just that it was not in the cards, but the US had an opportunity to create the circumstances for peaceful co-existence in the region (or at least as peaceful as could be hoped). Now the world will have to deal with a tinder box for a couple of generations.
Another TACO Tuesday: ceasefire extended indefinitely
Quote from: Tamas on April 21, 2026, 04:26:14 PMAnother TACO Tuesday: ceasefire extended indefinitely
I read a good analysis of the differences in bargaining approaches (I think in the NYTimes over the weekend). Trump is used to employing pressure tactics to get a quick deal done. The Iranians are immune to pressure tactics and view them as a sign of weakness. It took a very long time for the US to negotiate the first deal that was made by Obama. It was detailed, nuanced and complex. All the things Trump and his administration lack to capacity to understand, or achieve.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 21, 2026, 03:57:53 PMYeah, and I would go further, not just that it was not in the cards, but the US had an opportunity to create the circumstances for peaceful co-existence in the region (or at least as peaceful as could be hoped). Now the world will have to deal with a tinder box for a couple of generations.
Born too late to deploy to the Sandbox.
Born too early to deploy to the Sandbox.
Born just in time to deploy to the Sandbox.
Yep
QuoteUS missile stockpiles seriously depleted due to Iran war
The Washington DC-based The Hill news platform reports that the US military has exhausted nearly half of its Patriot air defence interceptor stockpile and heavily expended six other key missile categories during its war on Iran.
According to a new analysis from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the scale of "Operation Epic Fury" air and missile campaign has created significant gaps in American munitions reserves, The Hill report said.
The CSIS report, released on Tuesday, details the following depletion levels:
Patriot Missiles: Almost 50 percent of the total stockpile depleted.
THAAD Interceptors: More than half of the inventory expended.
Precision Strike Missiles (PrSMs): Over 45 percent of the stockpile used.
QuoteA UK intelligence assessment report, seen by the Mirror, summarises the remaining Iran threat by writing:
"US intelligence assessments have suggested that Iran likely still has access to around 70 percent of its pre-conflict ballistic missile stockpiles, and around 60 percent of its missile launchers.
"It also still retains around 40% of its drone arsenal.
:hmm:
Lufthansa has cancelled 20,000 flights up to May to conserve it's fuel.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 21, 2026, 04:31:25 PMQuote from: Tamas on April 21, 2026, 04:26:14 PMAnother TACO Tuesday: ceasefire extended indefinitely
I read a good analysis of the differences in bargaining approaches (I think in the NYTimes over the weekend). Trump is used to employing pressure tactics to get a quick deal done. The Iranians are immune to pressure tactics and view them as a sign of weakness. It took a very long time for the US to negotiate the first deal that was made by Obama. It was detailed, nuanced and complex. All the things Trump and his administration lack to capacity to understand, or achieve.
It's not just that they lack the capacity to understand and achieve those things, they actively view naunce and complexity with suspicion. They are against those things on any issue.
Whoever taught Trump to play cards has a lot to answer for.
Roy Cohn and New York real estate.
Quote"The Iranians are clearly stronger than expected and the Americans clearly have no truly convincing strategy in the negotiations either," Merz said during a school visit in Marsberg, a town in his home region of Sauerland.
"The problem with conflicts like this is always: you don't just have to get in, you have to get out again. We saw that very painfully in Afghanistan, for 20 years. We saw it in Iraq."
The US "quite obviously went into this war without any strategy," Merz said, making it all the harder to bring the conflict to an end.
"Especially since the Iranians are obviously negotiating very skilfully — or simply very skilfully not negotiating," he added. "A whole nation is being humiliated by the Iranian leadership."
"It is at the moment a pretty tangled situation," the chancellor said. "And it is costing us a great deal of money. This conflict, this war against Iran, has a direct impact on our economic output."
An unusually blunt statement by Friedrich Merz.
They don't hand out the FIFA peace prize to just anyone. I have faith in the Trumpen Fuhrer
and trump better not whine too much about it since the US seems to be heavily using german airspace right now...
Fortunately for our leadership, most Americans are too insulated to even know we are being humiliated.
I would say we are sorry for ruining millions of peoples lives around the globe with our war but I am pretty sure barely any of us are even aware we did that, nor would care if they did.
It kind of says it all that despite serious hurt going on in the world economy and very real economic damage that is occuring our big economic leaders and investors in the markets seem more concerned with the President's social media posts than any actual economic news. So much for the myth these capitalists rigorously research their investments. They just sit on social media all day in a fantasy world.
Quote from: Valmy on April 27, 2026, 01:02:18 PMFortunately for our leadership, most Americans are too insulated to even know we are being humiliated.
I would say we are sorry for ruining millions of peoples lives around the globe with our war but I am pretty sure barely any of us are even aware we did that, nor would care if they did.
It kind of says it all that despite serious hurt going on in the world economy and very real economic damage that is occuring our big economic leaders and investors in the markets seem more concerned with the President's social media posts than any actual economic news. So much for the myth these capitalists rigorously research their investments. They just sit on social media all day in a fantasy world.
Does large scale trading even rely on people anymore? I thought it's all algorithms and shit now?
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on April 27, 2026, 01:00:27 PMand trump better not whine too much about it since the US seems to be heavily using german airspace right now...
Also interesting because I think at the start of this Merz was by some distance the most "pro-war" European leader. His statements were very supportive initially.
Iran is already old news in the American press...we've moved on to the non sequitur that a ballroom is vital to national security.
So Trump would've run from the Hilton to his ballroom bunker?
I mean, seriously, don't let this man have a bunker. :ph34r:
I mean, he can have a bunker if he promises to do what the other bunker guy did.
Quote from: Solmyr on April 28, 2026, 02:39:30 AMI mean, he can have a bunker if he promises to do what the other bunker guy did.
Bro ain't giving up well-done steaks.
Quote from: Norgy on April 28, 2026, 01:35:20 AMI mean, seriously, don't let this man have a bunker. :ph34r:
Need less Archie, more Edith.
And Meathead. :(
Quote from: Solmyr on April 28, 2026, 02:39:30 AMI mean, he can have a bunker if he promises to do what the other bunker guy did.
Let the Russians destroy Berlin? He's already well on his way.
I think almost certainly at least partially related to the war but not solely (there's been disputes brewing) but UAE leaving OPEC. I think they're one of the largest producers (though Saudi still massively ahead of everyone else) so quite interesting.
An Israel/US attack on Iran creating a Saudi/Pakistan bloc vs a UAE/India bloc is beyond my understanding of geopolitics.
Quote from: Zanza on April 28, 2026, 04:34:23 PMAn Israel/US attack on Iran creating a Saudi/Pakistan bloc vs a UAE/India bloc is beyond my understanding of geopolitics.
For peace of mind, just blame the CIA. :ph34r:
Quote from: Zanza on April 28, 2026, 04:34:23 PMAn Israel/US attack on Iran creating a Saudi/Pakistan bloc vs a UAE/India bloc is beyond my understanding of geopolitics.
You've played far too many Paradox games to make such a statement. :)
Fear of the
Achaemenids Parthians Safavids Pahlavis Islamic Republic kept the otherwise squabbly Gulf region princes and potentates together. Weaken the Persian Death Star enough, and back to squabbling they go.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 28, 2026, 05:33:11 PMYou've played far too many Paradox games to make such a statement. :)
Fear of the Achaemenids Parthians Safavids Pahlavis Islamic Republic kept the otherwise squabbly Gulf region princes and potentates together. Weaken the Persian Death Star enough, and back to squabbling they go.
I think October 7 is key. Israel and the wider Arab world could reach normalisation against Iran and the Axis of Resistance as long as Palestine is capable of being ignored and that fictional world where Palestine was "contained" as an issue and secure ended.
I think the role of Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi and Turkiye working together to try and negotiate a deal over this is really interesting and striking (and possibly positive) new attempt at creating a regional order.
And I think related to that there is a Suez crisis element of the limits of US power being revealed (very different from Suez in many ways). If US security guarantees are not reliable or effective or able to deliver common goods like free transit - then it makes sense to look for alternatives.
Quote from: Zanza on April 28, 2026, 04:34:23 PMAn Israel/US attack on Iran creating a Saudi/Pakistan bloc vs a UAE/India bloc is beyond my understanding of geopolitics.
The Saudi-Pakistani link has been there for some time. Pakistan welcomed the Wahabi, uhm, envoys during the war in Afghanistan, and Taliban is kind of their creation, albeit with local conditions primed for radicalism.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 28, 2026, 07:19:55 PMI think October 7 is key. Israel and the wider Arab world could reach normalisation against Iran and the Axis of Resistance as long as Palestine is capable of being ignored and that fictional world where Palestine was "contained" as an issue and secure ended.
Oct 7 mattered because it increased pressure from the "street". But I don't think the implications were massive - it shifted the diplomatic stance to Israel from rapprochement to cool neutrality.
From the Gulf POV the collapse of Assad and his replacement by a friendly Sunni Islamist regime was more significant, shattering the pivot point of the Shi'a crescent.
Agreed, and now throw American incompetence into the mix and whatever consensus was developing has been destroyed.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on Today at 09:18:28 AMOct 7 mattered because it increased pressure from the "street". But I don't think the implications were massive - it shifted the diplomatic stance to Israel from rapprochement to cool neutrality.
From the Gulf POV the collapse of Assad and his replacement by a friendly Sunni Islamist regime was more significant, shattering the pivot point of the Shi'a crescent.
I agree on Assad which is unrelated. But I also think October 7 is how you end up with Israel's astonishingly successful attack on Hezbollah which is also a key part of the axis of resistance - which I think is, like the collapse of Assad, significant for the Gulf and Turkiye.
You might be right on the diplomatic stance point - but I am struck at how much Saudi-linked discourse targets the UAE as basically being in the pocket of Tel Aviv. That might just be rhetoric on top of those existing tensions. I think it has set a ceiling to relations with Israel and possibly removed a floor (especially because Iran is not likely to be the power able to take advantage of Israeli difficulties any more).