Iran War?

[crazy canuck]

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? 

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

[Jacob]

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

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.

[Jacob]

And 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.

[Richard Hakluyt]

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.

[Zoupa]

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.

[Syt]

https://apnews.com/article/iran-us-israel-trump-lebanon-march-25-2026-be07c54139bcc70672bb33f0773ede6a

US 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.

[Richard Hakluyt]

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.

[mongers]

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.

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.

[OttoVonBismarck]

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.

[crazy canuck]

Trump just declared "we win the war" and that " you wouldn't believe how badly they want to make a deal".


So predictable

[crazy canuck]

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.

Or maybe, just maybe, you guys are falling for a whole bunch of sabre rattling that is aimed at keeping Trump space happy.

[crazy canuck]

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

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?

[jimmy olsen]

BREAKING: Trump accused of demanding trillions from Gulf allies to continue or end Iran war, BBC Arabic reports

The 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 ?

[grumbler]

Uh...  got a source that is most relaible sounding than
wtfdetective.blog ?

Good catch.

[Legbiter]

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.

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.