Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Just now, chainsaw said:

They should be focused on defense, without escalation, and take the next chance to resume the peace talks that Bibi's illegal attack derailed.

Pretty sure that's off the table.  The head of the most powerful country in the world just told you we're already in the fight, and he demanded your "UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER."  There is no middle path available.  And shit, even if there was, Bibi is all-in all on his own.

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted
Just now, Brisketexan said:

Pretty sure that's off the table.  The head of the most powerful country in the world just told you we're already in the fight, and he demanded your "UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER."  There is no middle path available.  And shit, even if there was, Bibi is all-in all on his own.

Yes but he says a lot of stupid shit that he doesn't necessarily follow through on. While I have no respect for anyone in his inner circle or in his cabinet, not all of them are war hawks and I think they're working overtime to convince him not to drag the Americans into another forever war.

Posted (edited)

It's laughable, at this point, that anyone thinks negotiations are even a remote possibility.

I suspect big action is over by Friday, maybe before.

Edited by BurntEyes
Posted
33 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I suspect that it wouldn't be difficult at all.  And when you back someone into a corner with no escape, you push them hard towards taking an action just like that.

It's just shit strategy, but why would we expect anything else here?

I am missing the theory of victory here, either from Israel or us.  Wreck shit, mullahs run away, ???, profit? 
 

I don’t mind seeing enrichment plants and ballistic missiles get vaporized at all but beyond that it’s hard to see the goal here and so I question any U.S. involvement. Letting Israel bomb till they agreed to talk de-nuclearization is at least something. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
8 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

There isn’t a theory of victory. Bibi started this to distract from bad domestic news and he just hoped we’d join in once it started so he could keep it going indefinitely. Neither Bibi nor Trump are capable of considering tomorrow.

Your position is illogical.  Bibi clearly thinks about tomorrow if this is his plotting.  It can't be both.

  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Wally Fairway said:

The only thing off is anyone who thinks the US has any input into the asskicking that Bibi is dishing  out, though I suspect he under estimated the retaliation impact on Israel.

Israeli expectations were 800-4000 dead Israelis.  They are very pleased to have been wrong...so far.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

I've also never shoved a glass rod into my own penis and then shattered it; I presume the experiences are similar.

Sure Jan GIF

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 4
Posted
59 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

I think they still are waiting to see whether saner heads will prevail, so I don't think they want to do anything that drastic yet.

They should be focused on defense, without escalation, and take the next chance to resume the peace talks that Bibi's illegal attack derailed.

 

59 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I suspect that it wouldn't be difficult at all.  And when you back someone into a corner with no escape, you push them hard towards taking an action just like that.

It's just shit strategy, but why would we expect anything else here?

 

Most people fear their own death, the death of their loved ones, and/or the death of their people. A dirty bomb ensures that their life is forfeited and the lives of their loved ones and their country may end as well.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

I think Trump is demented enough to send in US troops and involve US bombers, to show his base that he is very powerful. And who knows, maybe start WWIII, when China seized the opportunity to advance on Taiwan.

Posted
6 hours ago, InkaUtexas said:

Yes and no. It is where Saudi's have had some big issues, and why they hate Iran even more. I don't see them rising up for their Shia brothers and risk getting carpet stomped, which the Saudi's would do. 

Also there was a little dust up in Mecca in 1979 that gets overlooked by the West. (Shitty video, not any good ones out there I have found, but you get the point.) 

 

Thanks for the YouTube link. I was only 8 when that happened and had forgotten all about it, but it brought back some really vague memories, as my dad religiously watched the news at dinnertime. What I had no idea about was how it altered Saudi domestic affairs and empowered the Wahabbi clerics, which in turn, no doubt, radicalized a bunch of Muslims and possibly contributed to a lot of shit the world has been experiencing since then.

It’s remarkable how a single incident like that could have the power to alter the course of world events in unforeseeable ways.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
46 minutes ago, caliHORNia said:

Your position is illogical.  Bibi clearly thinks about tomorrow if this is his plotting.  It can't be both.

Bibi’s shit got hacked and was about to become a big story so he pushed the bomb Iran button they’ve always got nearby. That’s not “plotting.”

Posted
21 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

I think Trump is demented enough to send in US troops and involve US bombers, to show his base that he is very powerful. And who knows, maybe start WWIII, when China seized the opportunity to advance on Taiwan.

China must be licking their chops and probably kicking themselves for not getting their invasion preparations completed quicker.  

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

There isn’t a theory of victory. Bibi started this to distract from bad domestic news and he just hoped we’d join in once it started so he could keep it going indestarted so he could keep it going indefinitely. Neither Bibi nor Trump are capable of considering tomorrow.

I won't speak to your other points as there is certainly potential validity.

I am purely addressing the underlined, specifically the bold.

Forgoing the why, Bibi's plan relative to Iran has been clearly short term from the start. 2 weeks. 

Bibi is well aware that the war with Iran is destabilizing for the region and in particular the OG markets. While the rest of the OG and ME are willing to step back, it won't be for long and Bibi knows it. 

Strike while the iron is hot. There is clear reasoning why, from onset, Bibi has set the time line for this event. He knows OG money isn't letting this go on long.

Whatever happens will happen quickly. Primarily because of OG money/influence but also because the US leadership isn't known to be long term planners either. On top of of all that, the longer the play the more likely dirty nukes, outside extremist and broadly speaking threats to western countries increase. 

You said it in your last sentence, neither are capable of thinking about tomorrow. OG is... they want it done quick, Bibi has said 2 weeks, Trump will, like he does everything, move quickly because he has the attention span of gnat, and we are having a different discussion next week. 

Edited by BurntEyes
Posted
33 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

I think Trump is demented enough to send in US troops and involve US bombers, to show his base that he is very powerful. And who knows, maybe start WWIII, when China seized the opportunity to advance on Taiwan.

I just don't think ground troops are going in, but again that might just be me wish casting. 

I'm damn near certain bombers and long range missiles will be in play.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

I've also never shoved a glass rod into my own penis and then shattered it; I presume the experiences are similar.

You’d learn a valuable lesson from the latter, not so much from the former. 

Posted
44 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

I think Trump is demented enough to send in US troops and involve US bombers, to show his base that he is very powerful. And who knows, maybe start WWIII, when China seized the opportunity to advance on Taiwan.

 

 Indulging your thought  process, China would be starting WWIII. 

 

And if Russia decided to use the cover of us preventing Iran from getting nuclear fissile material to nuke Ukraine, Russia would be starting WWIII. 
 

 

Posted
7 minutes ago, Bevo said:

 

 Indulging your thought  process, China would be starting WWIII. 

 

And if Russia decided to use the cover of us preventing Iran from getting nuclear fissile material to nuke Ukraine, Russia would be starting WWIII. 
 

 

confused jim carey GIF

  • Haha 1
Posted

Thought experiment:
Let's game this out from the perspective of the ayatolla and the mullahs, assuming they want to A) continue living and B) stay in power. What should they do?

I mean, they don't have a lot of friends that could do shit to help at the moment (SYRIA - gone as an ally; HEZBOLLAH - neutered; HAMAS/RUSSIA - kinda tied up for the moment; HOUTHIS - no real "reach") and even fewer military options (fight to the last man or last ballistic, I guessin the hope of drawing Israel/the US into costly on-the-ground fighting but this would inevitably lead to losing power, which kinda goes against assumption B from above).

Almost every imaginable outcome from continuing to fight is terrible for them.

If I were them, I think I'd go ahead and renounce any domestic uranium enrichment program tout de suite as a first gambit in hopes of immediately stopping the bombs and eliminating the initial justification for the war and, therefore, increasing international pressure on the Netanyahu and Trump regimes to announce a ceasefire.

Would that be enough?

I guess it might be enough to get Trump to simmer down for a short bit and give isolationist Republicans and Democratic doves enough time to pass a resolution requiring congressional approval for US strikes with WMDs off the table. It's a long shot for a couple of CR reasons, but at this point, I can't think of any other "play" for them that meets the two requirements: staying alive and in power.

NOTE: I'm not addressing the long-term implications of this, only the short-term avoidance of more bombs and regime change, which I assume is what a smart, rational actor would want (Yeah, yeah, I know, "But Bolverk, they're not rational!" Come on, man, it's just a thought experiment that might help the Surly hivemind think shit through without us all hating each other more than we already do).

Anyone else got other takes on what they might do or flaws in the above?

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Pretty sure that's off the table.  The head of the most powerful country in the world just told you we're already in the fight, and he demanded your "UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER."  There is no middle path available.  And shit, even if there was, Bibi is all-in all on his own.

Well they all know by now that dotard is worthless and that nothing he says has any real meaning so I don’t think that part really matters. What Iran should be doing is kissing the rest of the G7’s asses right now to get a reasonable deal in place regardless of if the US agrees, most of them have been more willing to at least criticize Israel’s actions anyway. Trump will rage tweet, call it a horrible deal, demand that we withdraw from nato, blah blah blah same ol shit. Then we’ll get distracted by more ICE raids, protests, and fascist actions at home.  The mid east tiff will be off the front page. Oh and did you see that a trans girl won another swimming medal, omg!!!

Edited by 'stache
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

@bolverk

Trump isn't going to give it that much time by design, and frankly the blow back from Iran, down the road, isn't something Israel will risk either. I don't think Bibi can nor does he want to, and I know Trump would proceed out of spite of anything the G7 produced if it did happen in time, which it won't, imo. 

 

Edited by BurntEyes
Posted
1 minute ago, BurntEyes said:

@bolverk

Trump isn't going to give it that much time by design, and frankly the blow back from Iran, down the road, isn't something Israel will risk either. I don't think Bibi can, and I know Trump would proceed out of spite of anything the G7 produced if it did happen in time, which it won't, imo. 

 

That all may well be true, but I'm trying to figure out or predict something unexpected that Iran might do next. If they're content to just draw it out, and lose, then that's a separate discussion, involving lots and lots of death and destruction. I just felt like there'd been enough talk about Bibi and DonDon for the moment, but I'm not going to force the topic if no one wants to try to envision other possible scenarios.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, bolverk said:

Thanks for the YouTube link. I was only 8 when that happened and had forgotten all about it, but it brought back some really vague memories, as my dad religiously watched the news at dinnertime. What I had no idea about was how it altered Saudi domestic affairs and empowered the Wahabbi clerics, which in turn, no doubt, radicalized a bunch of Muslims and possibly contributed to a lot of shit the world has been experiencing since then.

It’s remarkable how a single incident like that could have the power to alter the course of world events in unforeseeable ways.

Some other things happened in 1979. 

Posted
1 minute ago, InkaUtexas said:

Some other things happened in 1979. 

Well, yeah, I'm definitely old enough to remember that. It was the Sunni radicalization or conservative crackdown in Saudi part that I didn't have context for. I didn't realize that Saudi Arabia had ever been anything other than how we've known it.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, bolverk said:

That all may well be true, but I'm trying to figure out or predict something unexpected that Iran might do next. If they're content to just draw it out, and lose, then that's a separate discussion, involving lots and lots of death and destruction. I just felt like there'd been enough talk about Bibi and DonDon for the moment, but I'm not going to force the topic if no one wants to try to envision other possible scenarios.

I think the current Iranian regime was already on a bit shaky ground prior to Israeli attacks. With who has been killed in thr regime and their general inability to respond it makes them look even weaker. It's not just Israel that wants them out. Given all that, absolute surrender of their big stick would further that perception by everyone, including internal Iranian interests. That's all to say, I dont think Iranian leadership CAN offer up something that will appease US leadership to any degree. Maybe something for the rest of G7.. but.. Further, I don't think they would even if things weren't so bleak. There also isnt enough time even of they could. Finally, I don't think it would stop US leadership if they could and did. 

As far as hating one another here, I try my very best to keep it to discussion without diving into the typical rhetoric of US political bullshit. I don't engage in shit talking. It's not productive and diminishes the quality of this thread. 

I think there is some really good conversation going on, and I'm mostly ignoring the rest. 

I also admit outside the news I post, my takes are guesses and opinions and back my reasoning. However, and importantly, I also own my reasoning might be incorrect and my knowledge isn't complete. Finally, that I'm always open to discussion, with logic and data, not political shit flinging, about why my takes might be or are incorrect.

Edited by BurntEyes
  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

I think the current Iranian regime was already on a bit shaky ground prior to Israeli attacks. With who has been killed in thr regime and their general inability to respond it makes them look even weaker. It's not just Israel that wants them out. Given all that absolute surrender of their big stick furthers that perspective by everyone. That's all to say, I dont think Iranian leadership CAN offer up something that will appease US leadership to any degree. Maybe the rest of G7.. but.. Further, I don't think they would even if things weren't so bleak. There also isnt enough time even of they could. Finally, I don't think it would stop US leadership if they could and did. 

As far as hating one another here, I try my very best to keep it to discussion without diving into the typical rhetoric of US political bullshit. I don't engage in shit talking. It's not productive and diminishes the quality of this thread. 

I think there is some really good conversation going on, and I'm mostly ignoring the rest. 

I also admit outside the news I post, my takes are guesses and opinions and back my reasoning. However, and importantly, I also own my reasoning might be incorrect and my knowledge isn't complete. Finally, that I'm always open to discussion, with logic and data, not political shit flinging, about why my takes might be or are incorrect.

I pretty much agree with all that -- it's likely too late for any other scenario other than the course we're currently on unless, for whatever reason, Trump surprises us all and decides to not go through with it.

If that's indeed the case, then we can just start discussing the duration of the war and degree of suffering this will cause over the short- and long-term, including the severity of blowback and bloody consequences.

Edited by bolverk
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Rex Kramer said:

It’s possible not to bitch about Trump in this thread. You just have to exhibit a modicum of self control. 

It’s possible, but it’s not gonna happen 

  • Haha 4
  • Drool 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Wally Fairway said:

I think Trump is demented enough to send in US troops and involve US bombers, to show his base that he is very powerful. And who knows, maybe start WWIII, when China seized the opportunity to advance on Taiwan.

Dude, then we have them surrounded and our bombers just go home that way. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
46 minutes ago, troph said:

This is true in theory but telling an establish leader to unconditionally surrender is kind of a stupid fucking thing to say when all anyone really wants - debate the method but the desire is clear - is to see Iran (remain) denuclearized. I don’t give a fuck if it’s Biden, Obama or my mother saying it, it’s really fucking stupid. 

This assumes everyone wants the Iranian regime to stay in power. 

They don't.

And Trumps comment was well covered. Nobody rational disagreed.

It doesn't have to be rehashed multiple times on every page of the thread.

Posted
2 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

This assumes everyone wants the Iranian regime to stay in power. 

They don't.

And Trumps comment was well covered. Nobody rational disagreed.

It doesn't have to be rehashed multiple times on every page of the thread.

Most of the west would prefer a regime change if it was guaranteed to work. 

I get it but he’s a central figure here and he’s making news. Where the line is crossed isn’t in talking about what he says, it’s in blind assumption he’s always wrong and in name calling. I do neither outside the cloak room. And truly, I’m not necessarily opposed to what’s going on with Israel bombing Iran, and I’m not sure I agree it means every country is going to look for nukes. Even those that want them it’s still pretty fucking hard to get. So I’m not here to say he’s a POS because he’s DJT or that everything he does is bullshit. but he’s not off limits when he makes news and boy can that man make some fucking news, Jesus. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
4 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

This assumes everyone wants the Iranian regime to stay in power. 

They don't.

And Trumps comment was well covered. Nobody rational disagreed.

It doesn't have to be rehashed multiple times on every page of the thread.

 

Right, so let's be very clear and not pretend this is a necessary or defensive war. It's very much a preemptive war of choice in which Israel (and the US, if we join in) are absolutely the aggressors, determining for the Iranian people that their government (no matter how shitty it might be) is no longer fit to rule there and acknowledging that the Iranian people will just have to pay the price...along with all the other foreseeable, and unpredictable, consequences (i.e., regional instability and whatever that might do to Middle Eastern countires, the price of oil and whatever that might do to the global economy, terrorism, international relations, and all the rest).

Let's be clear-eyed about this. There will be a price to pay. If it's worth it, then fine. But no one here or in leadership should come back in a few months or years and say, "Damn, I didn't expect it to cause X, Y, and Z," and then try to place the blame on someone else when they can't put out the fire fast or thorough enough.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
Posted
7 hours ago, Bevo said:

Most people fear their own death, the death of their loved ones, and/or the death of their people. A dirty bomb ensures that their life is forfeited and the lives of their loved ones and their country may end as well.

The Iranian leadership gives no shits about their people, otherwise they wouldn't have morality police beating the hell out of women (and/or killing them) for not dressing modestly enough. They can get their families to Moscow (and rumors are some have done that, although I have my doubts).

So that leaves the lives of the actual leadership. 

Not every dictatorship ends with a quick flight to Moscow like it did with Syria. If Trump actually keeps up with the "unconditional surrender" angle, the Iranian leadership all saw what happened to Gaddafi and Hussein when they were driven out of power by Western military might, and if it's not outright capture by citizens and the shoving up the ass of red hot pokers like Gaddafi, it'll be turned over to the civilian population like Hussain. Some of them are nuts enough to decide they are going to take down a lot of innocent people on their way out, and they have a shit-ton of missiles and at least some nuclear material.  I wouldn't put it past them if things go down that road.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
12 hours ago, Duane Moore said:

The value of preventing them from going nuclear means we don’t have to pay attention to them any longer and can focus limited military assets in the Indo-Pacific countering China. 

 

It also mostly clears the way in the Middle East. Iraq stabilizes further, Shia/Muslim international terrorism and extremism takes a big hit, the Abraham accords continue and accelerate, Syria and Lebanon continue to stabilize and turn towards the West, Hezbollah/Houthis/Hamas are largely neutered, and a friendlier Iran turns on the taps for Europe to continue diversifying away from Russian crude. The only downside is Turkey has a much free-er hand in the region and will work to further align Libya, Syria, Lebanon, and Sunni extremism towards their worldview.

If the Mullahs actually fall, it will be awesome. A western friendly Iran will help western goals worldwide, including the Pacific. Fingers crossed

 

12 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

The shah's reign was many things but stable is certainly not one of them.

 

Relative to the neighborhood, the Shas's reign was peaceful and stable.

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted

The geopolitics guys I've listened to, Ian Bremmer and Peter Zeihan, both think regime change will be very tough to accomplish because the IRGC effectively run the country. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

The geopolitics guys I've listened to, Ian Bremmer and Peter Zeihan, both think regime change will be very tough to accomplish because the IRGC effectively run the country. 

It’s not happening unless the west / US hasn’t leaned from its mistakes and tries it again. 

Edited by troph
Posted
3 hours ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

 

Relative to the neighborhood, the Shas's reign was peaceful and stable.

 

 

I’m sure the Persian people loved SAVAK.  The Shah was just another brutal dictator propped up by the US

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
11 minutes ago, dieucla98 said:

You cannot talk about a conflict involving Israel, Iran, and the US and not talk about the leaders of each. That means opinions too. If you want just facts, I don't think that exists anymore, certainly not on a damn message board. 

This. Especially when the facts are malleable. There’s not even agreement within the regime on the facts. The DNI and POTUS have contradicted each other in public within the last week.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 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...