Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
And 55% of Americans if not more are too dumb to understand that, and will remain too dumb even as it's happening. Foreigner wants your cookie, and all that.

I wager that more than 55% would not be able to tell you that Israel targeted Iran with missile strikes last night
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
1 minute ago, twosheds said:


I wager that more than 55% would not be able to tell you that Israel targeted Iran with missile strikes last night

75% can name all the Real Housewives.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

Your boy shouldn't have torn up the nuclear deal that Iran was abiding by then.

 

You believe that?

 

cd683e78e53f1459e56163d9069d2d2b6de7620f

 

 

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

That's unlikely. Israel used a large number of 4th generation aircraft loaded out with close range strike weapons. If anything got shot down, it is significantly more likely to be one of those. 

 

Don't take this from him

Edited by MagicSoccerSpray
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)

Iran is a big ass country, plenty of square miles to hide things. The Israeli attack was brilliant, but they didn’t hit everything. As we’ve seen with the Houthis , bombing the shit of them is great, but as long as they have Tacomas they can move missiles around. They can’t move uranium enrichment facilities. I hope they hit them all. 
 

Israel is going to take some hits. Iranian drones have been effective against modern Western surface to air systems in Ukraine. 

Edited by billfromlaketravis
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

 

Israel is going to take some hits. Iranian drones have been effective against modern Western surface to air systems in Ukraine

And its really going well for Russia. 

Posted
24 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Iran is a big ass country, plenty of square miles to hide things. The Israeli attack was brilliant, but they didn’t hit everything. As we’ve seen with the Houthis , bombing the shit of them is great, but as long as they have Tacomas they can move missiles around. They can’t move uranium enrichment facilities. I hope they hit them all. 
 

Israel is going to take some hits. Iranian drones have been effective against modern Western surface to air systems in Ukraine. 

Sir, these are terrorizers we’re talking about. They drive Hilux not some bum ass Taco

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
  • Drool 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted (edited)

I worry Iran is hiding something in their many mountains that the Israelis can’t get to. The F-15 is an amazing aircraft. Probably the greatest fighter/bomber of all time, but they need a strategic bomber to carry something heavy enough to bust a mountain. 
 

That’s where the US comes in. I hope we stay out of this. 

Edited by billfromlaketravis
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

That's unlikely. Israel used a large number of 4th generation aircraft loaded out with close range strike weapons. If anything got shot down, it is significantly more likely to be one of those. 

The version I saw had the pilot also a woman. Such obvious blockhead bait being repeated by the person constantly complaining about social media rotting brains. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
1 hour ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Iran is a big ass country, plenty of square miles to hide things. The Israeli attack was brilliant, but they didn’t hit everything. As we’ve seen with the Houthis , bombing the shit of them is great, but as long as they have Tacomas they can move missiles around. They can’t move uranium enrichment facilities. I hope they hit them all. 
 

Israel is going to take some hits. Iranian drones have been effective against modern Western surface to air systems in Ukraine. 

They’ll run out of launchers before they run out of missles.   With air superiority, this is a conflict of attributes, and Iran has to get their ordinance loaded and coordinated.  Not so easy with conventional warheads and a constant concern of IDF air assets in close proximity 

Posted
4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

In terms of this conflict, he is correct. You need a semi neutral party. That isn't us. 

Disagree on that. Politics aside, which is very difficult to do, you need a strong party to face Iran.

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Disagree on that. Politics aside, which is very difficult to do, you need a strong party to face Iran.

China is both a strong party and semi neutral. Iran isn't going to listen to us. 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

China is both a strong party and semi neutral. Iran isn't going to listen to us. 

Iran won’t listen to anyone. I’d rather us be involved behind the scenes than them have a nuke, and I think that goes for most admins, R or D. 

Posted
Just now, Rex Kramer said:

Iran won’t listen to anyone. I’d rather us be involved behind the scenes than them have a nuke, and I think that goes for most admins, R or D. 

I really don't know what point you're making. What we want is irrelevant. The question was what party is in position to mediate an end to this. It isn't us. That's a fact. China is a decent option. I'm not sure what the other one is. Nd

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I really don't know what point you're making. What we want is irrelevant. The question was what party is in position to mediate an end to this. It isn't us. That's a fact. China is a decent option. I'm not sure what the other one is. Nd

You’d be a terrible geopolitic. You’ve gotta stay involved particularly with the money and emotional interest invested in Israel. China is a laughable option. 

Edit: China is probably the worst option I can think of. 

Edited by Rex Kramer
Posted
3 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

You’d be a terrible geopolitic. You’ve gotta stay involved particularly with the money and emotional interest invested in Israel. China is a laughable option. 

Edit: China is probably the worst option I can think of. 

Involved is one thing.  The principal peace negotiator is another.  The money and emotional interest is why we're not credible to Iran.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 minute ago, Rex Kramer said:

You’d be a terrible geopolitic. You’ve gotta stay involved particularly with the money and emotional interest invested in Israel. China is a laughable option. 

Edit: China is probably the worst option I can think of. 

Again, what are you arguing? I know a thing or two about mediation. A heavily biased party is never going to be a good mediator. It just isn't how it works. The US can certainly exert pressure on Iran (and Israel). But the Iranians are never going to see it as anything but an Israeli proxi. That's just the reality. I don't know why you think China is a bad option. It hasn't staked any particularly strong position with regard to Israel that I'm aware of. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Involved is one thing.  The principal peace negotiator is another.  The money and emotional interest is why we're not credible to Iran.

 

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Again, what are you arguing? I know a thing or two about mediation. A heavily biased party is never going to be a good mediator. It just isn't how it works. The US can certainly exert pressure on Iran (and Israel). But the Iranians are never going to see it as anything but an Israeli proxi. That's just the reality. I don't know why you think China is a bad option. It hasn't staked any particularly strong position with regard to Israel that I'm aware of. 

Both fair posts. Until we get to China. You’ve got ME and Russian noise - and it’s noise contained in the region - and you’ve got China. China would seek to fuck us over in any dealing with Iran.  It’d literally be the worst option to negotiate some sort of peace. And Israel would see it that way too, as would Iran. It’d be a worse option than what is transpiring before our eyes.  Ultimately for all parties. Terrible idea. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
48 minutes ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

 

Good Lord Waltz-Harris was a terrible ticket. How did our political establishment, and our choices, get this bad?

That’s so weird that the guy that has visited China 30 times would favor them, despite not being rich. 🧐 
 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

 

Both fair posts. Until we get to China. You’ve got ME and Russian noise - and it’s noise contained in the region - and you’ve got China. China would seek to fuck us over in any dealing with Iran.  It’d literally be the worst option to negotiate some sort of peace. And Israel would see it that way too, as would Iran. It’d be a worse option than what is transpiring before our eyes.  Ultimately for all parties. Terrible idea. 

We aren't a party. I don't know that either Iran or Israel have particularly strong feelings on China. You keep saying it is terrible idea. But 1) you haven't actually said why and 2) it isnt like I'm saying I want it, it just is reality. There aren't really any other strong players that haven't already staked a position here. 

4 minutes ago, burnt beanz said:

That’s so weird that the guy that has visited China 30 times would favor them, despite not being rich. 🧐 
 

Y'all be dense. For real. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

I'm having difficulty thinking of a non-aligned player with the clout that could pull off some negotiation between Israel and Iran.

Options:

  • CHINA: I'm not aware of any beefs they have with Israel, per se, other than the Israelis are generally aligned with the West, who are all their biggest customers. They likely don't want to lose business with us. At the same time, there's the whole currently backing Russia thing (long-term backstabbing possible), who's in conflict with Western-backed Ukraine. At the same time, I *think* Iran is one of China's biggest oil suppliers and is likely also wrapped up in the belt-and-road shit. Not ideal.
  • INDIA: I think they're generally seen as being strongly on the side of Israel, because of their own dealings with Muslims, though Sunni ones and not Shiites. I have no idea if the secular beef between those two Muslim groups has any bearing on India's potential antipathy toward Iran. I also have no idea if India and Iran have good, bad, or neutral relations.
  • EU: I honestly think they'd do their best to mediate some fair agreement, but I don't think the EU really operates like that in foreign affairs. Maybe a group of their members could pull off some kind of neutrality stance, at least to the satisfaction of the Israelis, but no idea how Iran would react to them.
  • TURKEY: Traditionally, they've been pretty friendly to Israel, but I'm guessing most goodwill between them is gone at this point. I also believe they're geopolitical rivals with Iran within the region (I don't know if their dislike of Iran equals their dislike of Israel nowadays though). They might do.
  • Who else is out there? BRAZIL, maybe? It'd be a biiig step up on the international stage for them. No idea of their capacity or appetite.

Anyone else?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
23 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

We aren't a party. I don't know that either Iran or Israel have particularly strong feelings on China. You keep saying it is terrible idea. But 1) you haven't actually said why and 2) it isnt like I'm saying I want it, it just is reality. There aren't really any other strong players that haven't already staked a position here. 

Y'all be dense. For real. 

I stated exactly why it’s a terrible idea. You’re not taking the time to read my words. Goodnight. 

Posted
12 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

I stated exactly why it’s a terrible idea. You’re not taking the time to read my words. Goodnight. 

I think you've misunderstood the question. Your point appears to be that it would be bad FOR US. That may be true. But that isn't what I was analyzing. The question was who was in a position to negotiate a peace successfully, not what is the ideal outcome for the US.  I don't disagree that China negotiating a peace isn't an ideal outcome for the US. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

One thing that does go in China's favor (if the Israelis could trust them) is that their business entanglements with Iran could certainly be effective. That said, I'd rather not give them such an international diplomacy coup, so to speak, if they happened to be successful.

All that said, I don't know if either Iran or Israel would even want to come to the negotiation table right now. Iran would see it as overwhelmingly embarrassing, as it'd be seen as an immediate concession of defeat. That seems domestically dangerous for a Regime that's not popular with the urban half of the country that wants to liberalize/westernize and suddenly WEAK by their own version of our evangelical rubes, rednecks, and aggy.

For Israel's part, what would be the impetus for them to come to the table now while they're kicking ass? Moreover, what's their endgame in this?

Is it getting rid of Iran's nuclear capabilities? They don't have the bigass bunker-busing bombs (or bombers) to pull that off without our direct involvement. Are we sure we want to get in on this action, another fucking war in the Middle East?

Or, is the endgame for the Israelis regime change? Are they just going to continue to bomb shit until the Mullahs submit or domestic pressure takes them out? Good luck with that, considering Hamas has held out for so long in a minuscule strip of land that's smaller than Austin's city limits.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

 

Good Lord Waltz-Harris was a terrible ticket. How did our political establishment, and our choices, get this bad?

Why don’t you post this stupid shit on the CR?

Edited by BrickHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
27 minutes ago, Hank_Hill said:

No, they don’t. It was a dumb question that Walz gave a reasonable answer to.

I was speaking more to Bolverk as I didn't watch the "Walz" video.

Posted

Searching for an intermediary is a total rabbit hole. And holy fuck is the answer ends up being China. 

 

What is easy and clear is just turning off the spigot of endless arms and military funding to the region. Just stop dumping endless US taxpayer dollars and military equipment into the region. Israel first and foremost and right after them SA. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Hate said:

I was speaking more to Bolverk as I didn't watch the "Walz" video.

Sorry about that. I didn't realize you were responding to me. Plus, I've been a little high tomight.

Yeah, I'm asking that same question. What does Israel get out of coming to the negotiating table? Nothing immediate, so far as I can tell.

Longer term? That country is fast losing any support around the world, and it's neighbors with whom it's been friendly-ish could quickly see their own domestic threats to internal order if the "Arab Street" loses its collective mind. I honestly don't know how far deep that Shiite/Sunni split goes, but it's certainly not in Iran's general favor, so that benefits Israel.

I do hope someday shit cools off over there for Israel's sake and all the rest of the folks over there (Sunni, Shiite, Kurd, Palestinian, Persian, etc.) but have strong doubts it'll happen in my lifetime.

Also, like you, I didn't bother to watch the Walz video, primarily because I suspect the Wineguy dude is the same as that Hefeweizen guy feom a few months back who claimed to be a German-born, American-educated dude that shouted a lot of shit about Western Christendom ready to fall any day now at the hand of Moooooslems (I think he's pro-Russia/anti-Ukraine, too, but might be misremembering).

Fuck that guy and his bigoted boooooshit.

Edited by bolverk
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

Both fair posts. Until we get to China. You’ve got ME and Russian noise - and it’s noise contained in the region - and you’ve got China. China would seek to fuck us over in any dealing with Iran.  It’d literally be the worst option to negotiate some sort of peace. 

And we would seek to fuck over Iran for so many reasons (financial, cultural, historical, political, and the list goes on), and Iran knows this, not to mention we've been allied with the Sunnis/Saudis who are at war with Iran's proxies in Yemen, and that whole thing about supporting Israel ride-or-die, so we would in fact be the worst option.

I don't like the idea for reasons that @bolverk mentioned (China would be seeking something that benefits them trade-wise as well as gaining geopolitical clout), but regardless, we are definitely not the party to negotiate anything with Iran, so it'd have to be somebody else.

Ironically, Russia probably has the most to lose if this continues, and they need this shit over with now. The longer this goes, the likelihood increases that Israel will cripple Iran's capacity to supply Russia with munitions of various types. In fact, they may have already crippled at least some of Iran's infrastructure that supplies Russia.  The Russians are probably screaming at the Iranians to end this now.

 

Edited by atomheartbevo
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, B00M said:

Perfection is impossibly expensive, even over a relatively tiny country like Israel. But I’m sure our Golden Showers Dome will be worth the cost. 

Until somebody parks half-a-dozen cargo ships up and down the East, West, and Gulf Coasts, and a few containers open up and out fly a shitload of drones.

None of Tom Clancy's ghost writers better steal that plot (but they will).

Edited by atomheartbevo
  • Haha 4
Posted
10 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

I worry Iran is hiding something in their many mountains that the Israelis can’t get to. The F-15 is an amazing aircraft. Probably the greatest fighter/bomber of all time, but they need a strategic bomber to carry something heavy enough to bust a mountain. 
 

That’s where the US comes in. I hope we stay out of this. 

Dumb question amnesty:  What about a conveyor belt of bombs an F15 can carry?  As stated above, the “Top Gun” aproach.

Posted
7 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

I think you've misunderstood the question. Your point appears to be that it would be bad FOR US. That may be true. But that isn't what I was analyzing. The question was who was in a position to negotiate a peace successfully, not what is the ideal outcome for the US.  I don't disagree that China negotiating a peace isn't an ideal outcome for the US. 

Why would a US politician want something that is very, very bad for us and western europe? 

 

In 2021, China and Iran signed a $400 billion, 25-year strategic cooperation agreement. This deal included significant Chinese investments in the Iranian economy in exchange for a steady supply of discounted Iranian oil. The agreement also encompassed increased military cooperation, including joint training exercises, research and development, and intelligence sharing.

Posted
Just now, Bevo said:

Why would a US politician want something that is very, very bad for us and western europe? 

 

In 2021, China and Iran signed a $400 billion, 25-year strategic cooperation agreement. This deal included significant Chinese investments in the Iranian economy in exchange for a steady supply of discounted Iranian oil. The agreement also encompassed increased military cooperation, including joint training exercises, research and development, and intelligence sharing.

You're making the same mistake. The question wasn't about what he wanted. It was about which entity was in a position to do it. The answer demonstrates the difficulty of the situation from our perspective. 

At any rate, I didn't intend this to be a huge derail, so let's drop it and get back to updates on events. Iran has updated the number of scientists killed to 9. 

There is also this:

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/14/world/israel-iran-news/db1009e6-b251-5d94-bdab-cb4e25bd1276?smid=url-share

Quote

The semiofficial Mehr news agency in Iran reports that Iran has notified the U.S., Britain and France that any country that participates in repelling Iranian attacks on Israel will be targeted, including ships and naval vessels in Persian Gulf and Red Sea.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
14 minutes ago, hornbri said:

China is not a neutral party, that is about a stupid as saying the US is neutral in this conflict. 

Liechtenstein, Luxembourg or Andorra might be better options to consider as neutral parties.

Posted
Liechtenstein, Luxembourg or Andorra might be better options to consider as neutral parties.

My son and some buddies took a weekend trip to Luxembourg. Holy shit, the wealth. He ended up partying with the heir to the Fage yogurt bidness. He has an invitation to hang with him in his suite at the US Open next year. I told him that rich friends are good to have.

Oh, and Walz’s spitballing wasn’t wrong. China might be a viable option there. Not a great one from the US perspective, and certainty not the only one. But you need an entity with some power that isn’t an active player in the current fighting. Not an easy answer.
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
  • Drool 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...