Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
7 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

There’s no national appetite for a ground war. I doubt there’s one in the WH either. 

I don’t know if the Iranians were truly getting close or not. 

I suspect the ease with which the Israelis destroyed Iran’s air defenses a few months ago led to people in power dreaming big dreams. Namely a denuclearized and defanged Iran. Maybe even regime change. 

10/7 is then used as casus belli.

It will be evident based on activity after the strike as to whether it was effective or not. Time will tell. The question is how Iran responds. I’m sure they will attempt military strikes. I hope they do not choose terror. History says why not both?

I am concerned as well that the ease with which the Israelis did their thing is leading people to dream big, up to and including regime change.

I don’t know how old you are, I’m assuming you’re in your 40s or 50s like most of Surly, but I also remember them fucking with oil shipments in the Persian Gulf in the 80s and the West having to escort oil tankers.  

Now they have drones that are extremely efficient and effective and could fuck with shipping like nobody’s business. They can make this painful for us, and they can force us to use US Navy ships to protect oil shipped from Arab countries, and those Navy ships would be operating in a small area, escorting slow ships.  And if they try and shut down the Strait, we have to get involved.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted

This will only end with a regime change. Which will not be possible without arming some of the populous, and convincing most of the IRGC to join in. I'm not sure the IRGC would do it without some serious concessions from the populous, that basically leaves them in power.

CHIEF

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

It would be amazing if the regime would stand down, I just don't see it happening. I also don't see us allowing them to elect new leaders, but I guess we'll see.

If the regime is toppled, I bet there will be an Iranian "Audie Murphy". A war hero with more western values, and the backbone it will take to be the Prime Minister of a democratic Iran. Let's just hope he doesn't get power hungry.

CHIEF

Posted
1 hour ago, Captainant said:

This is a situation created by trump in the first place when he tore up the previous Iran nuclear deal for no reason besides Obama negotiated it. Spiking the football over your own manufactured crisis is not a "feather in the cap"

If the Iranian nuclear program ends up crippled that is absolutely a significant mark on his legacy. It would potentially allow a landmark shift in focus of our foreign policy. Denying that is dumb. 
 

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Here's the thing, though. As alluded to above, the average American will never know whether the Iranian nuclear program was actually damaged or destroyed.

Hell, even the directors of the CIA and DIA will never know for sure.

Nonsense. The entire world, outside of Russia and China, basically supported this. They will all be following up to see if the goals were achieved. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck You 14
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I am concerned as well that the ease with which the Israelis did their thing is leading people to dream big, up to and including regime change.

I don’t know how old you are, I’m assuming you’re in your 40s or 50s like most of Surly, but I also remember them fucking with oil shipments in the Persian Gulf in the 80s and the West having to escort oil tankers.  

Now they have drones that are extremely efficient and effective and could fuck with shipping like nobody’s business. They can make this painful for us, and they can force us to use US Navy ships to protect oil shipped from Arab countries, and those Navy ships would be operating in a small area, escorting slow ships.  And if they try and shut down the Strait, we have to get involved.

I was very concerned about them shutting down the Strait when this kicked off in earnest. I think that the fact that their regional neighbors gave tacit approval to outright support, and that their global allies could barely muster a strongly worded letter caught them by surprise. 
 

They’re alone in this and risk the ire of not just the west, but China and parts of the world dependent on that oil supply. It is easy to play religious fanatic when no one is lazing your house for a bomb strike. Less so when you can hear clicking of the control fins each night. 

I hope they settle for limited, face saving retaliation and then come back to the table with whoever will talk with them. To do otherwise invites total destruction. 
 

I was also thinking about their countless drones and small boats if they were to attempt to block the Strait. Allegedly, Israel effectively hacked and co-opted much of their air defense network in addition to the traditional SAM suppression and avoidance methods. I wonder if their localized drone control could be similarly defeated. I know that flying drones too close to US Navy ships often results in the loss of control there. 
 

That still leaves water born meat bombs. I dunno. We’re gonna find out sooner than later. 

Edited by Bobby_Batronic
Posted
Just now, Bobby_Batronic said:

I think that the fact that their regional neighbors gave tacit approval to outright support

You just know the Saudis are cheering this on, I can guarantee they made the case for it.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
13 minutes ago, Keyah said:

If the Iranian nuclear program ends up crippled that is absolutely a significant mark on his legacy. It would potentially allow a landmark shift in focus of our foreign policy. Denying that is dumb. 

This attack completely topples nuclear nonproliferation. It communicates loud and clear that if you don't have nukes, you're gonna be at the mercy of nuclear states. That's definitely a landmark shift in foreign policy, but I cannot agree that is a net positive thing for people who don't want nuclear war.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, CHIEF said:

This will only end with a regime change. Which will not be possible without arming some of the populous, and convincing most of the IRGC to join in. I'm not sure the IRGC would do it without some serious concessions from the populous, that basically leaves them in power.

CHIEF

All other items aside including what various governments are saying, I see no way this ends without regime change. What that will look like or how it will happen is open for debate, but I don't see any other end being possible. For better and worse, hate it or love it, this ancient boiling pot stew had been toppled and we are not getting it back in. I'm open to hearing any sound logic that sees another way forward.

Edited by BurntEyes
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
19 minutes ago, CHIEF said:

If the regime is toppled, I bet there will be an Iranian "Audie Murphy". A war hero with more western values, and the backbone it will take to be the Prime Minister of a democratic Iran. Let's just hope he doesn't get power hungry.

CHIEF

I'm tired and dealing with some other stuff.

My brain read "Charlie Murphy" and fuck yo nukes Ali went off in my mind.

  • Haha 1
Posted
20 minutes ago, Keyah said:

If the Iranian nuclear program ends up crippled that is absolutely a significant mark on his legacy. It would potentially allow a landmark shift in focus of our foreign policy. Denying that is dumb. 

Our foreign policy is not focused on what Iran can or can't do, it's focused on one thing

Hustling Dave Chappelle GIF

And no, I don't know why Dave Chappelle is the focus of our foreign policy, but whatever.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Our foreign policy is not focused on what Iran can or can't do, it's focused on one thing

Hustling Dave Chappelle GIF

And no, I don't know why Dave Chappelle is the focus of our foreign policy, but whatever.

Daakness ladies and gentlemen.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
Just now, BurntEyes said:

Can you guarantee me Ana de Armas and a villa in Tuscany if I join? Cause I'm nothing if not open minded.

yes. just sign here. Surly lawyers will send you confirmation. 

  • Haha 2
Posted
39 minutes ago, Captainant said:

This attack completely topples nuclear nonproliferation. It communicates loud and clear that if you don't have nukes, you're gonna be at the mercy of nuclear states. That's definitely a landmark shift in foreign policy, but I cannot agree that is a net positive thing for people who don't want nuclear war.

Gaddafi walked down his nuclear program over 20 years ago. You see how that turned out. Like this is all something new to you?

Posted
40 minutes ago, Captainant said:

This attack completely topples nuclear nonproliferation. It communicates loud and clear that if you don't have nukes, you're gonna be at the mercy of nuclear states. That's definitely a landmark shift in foreign policy, but I cannot agree that is a net positive thing for people who don't want nuclear war.

It's been understood for a long time that nukes are the ultimate deterrent.  One could argue that this strike shows trying to get there will not be tolerated.  But it's a losing battle.  States like Iran will continue to use nuke states like Russia to buy their beer.

Posted

RTX (Tomahawks) NG (B2), Boeing (GBU-57) plus 200 other suppliers all stand to benefit, as does TX OG. Some of you might have noticed Midland’s own ASTS stock price doubled since Musk pissed off Trump, reducing the likelihood that Starlink gets to fire up their direct to cellular 5g Sat service which would incidentally cause mass interferance on Verizon, AT&T, and Vodaphone’s terrestrial cell service.

I was at SOF week in Tampa a few weeks back and I’m sure the drone war folks are just chomping at the bit to see what Iran does with the Strait so they can field test their systems.

IMO this was 100% a demo of what we could do to an uppity non-christian, theocracy who probably didn't actually have the bomb.

And it gives the cyberwarfighters some needed exercise.

I'm headed do DC for meetings tomorrow and this post is a bit of a thought exercise for client discussion.

In church this morning, during a sermon on Matthew 5:13-16 I tuned out and prayed for the Iranian people.

Politicians and dictators need enemies and it’s Iran’s turn in the barrel.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Keyah said:


 


If Iran is a “hot air balloon” I would think Israeli intelligence would have known that, and therefore there would be no need for the US and Israel to go to war with Iran.

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Captainant said:

This attack completely topples nuclear nonproliferation. It communicates loud and clear that if you don't have nukes, you're gonna be at the mercy of nuclear states. That's definitely a landmark shift in foreign policy, but I cannot agree that is a net positive thing for people who don't want nuclear war.

I’m not sure and leaning to disagree on this.  I can for sure make a more compelling case that an Iranian nuke is more damaging to non-proliferation than preventing an Iranian nuke via kinetic means is. This MAY hurt non-proliferation but an Iranian bomb means a certain Saudi bomb almost immediately. 

There are many countries in the world for whom building a nuclear weapon would be significantly easier than it ever was for Iran and none of them seem to be racing to build them. They’ve all been able to cover their bases against regime change via a combo of alliances, conventional security, and most relevantly, responsible behavior. 
 

Nuclear blackmail and brinksmanship of the type Iran engage(d) in is useful to a certain type of regime: an aggressively revisionist, destabilizing, aspiring regional power with the conventional balance of power against it. And not many of those exist. Iran, North Korea are kind of it.  Japan is not watching this and starting its program although it would be a trivial problem for them. 

U.S. signaling here is also important. Limited strikes and a request for direct negotiations with the Ayatollah is a clear sign of the intent of the action and a de facto recognition of the regime’s legitimacy.

The far more damaging case for proliferation is Ukraine, where a nuclear power aggressively attacked a small neighbor with the explicit goal of territory and regime change, while using nuclear blackmail to fend off the world. That’s the situation that will make Tokyo, Seoul, or Riyadh begin to reassess if the U.S. guarantee becomes threadbare.   Not the example of Iran. You know, the nuclear-power war of aggression that  Anastasis really supports. 

Edited by 956 Worldwide
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted

Reich:

Spoiler

Friends,

The United States is now at war with Iran.

A single person — Donald J. Trump — has released the dogs of war on one of the most dangerous countries in the world, and done it without the consent of Congress, our allies, or even a clear explanation to the American people.

Anyone who has doubted Trump’s intention to replace American democracy with a dictatorship should now be fully disabused.

I share your despair, sadness, and fear. Even if our president was a wise a judicious man, surrounded by thoughtful advisors with impeccable integrity and wisdom, this would be a highly dangerous move.

Last night I spoke with a number of people experienced and knowledgable about American foreign policy and politics. Here, in brief, is what I asked and what I learned.

1. Why is Trump taking us into war with Iran?

It’s possible that he believes the attacks give him more bargaining leverage with Iran. But a more likely explanation is that the attacks fit perfectly with Trump’s desire to divert attention from his multiple failures at home: The on-again-off-again tariffs that have spooked financial markets while eliciting no meaningful concessions from other nations (especially China). An immigration crackdown that’s been stymied by federal judges. The so-called “big beautiful bill” that’s in deep trouble in the Senate. Trump’s embarrassing tiff with Musk. His failures to achieve peace in either Ukraine or Gaza. And last weekend’s record-breaking “No Kings” demonstrations as compared to his scrawny military parade.

Besides, there’s nothing like a war to help a wannabe dictator like Trump justify more “emergency” powers.

2. Is (or was) Iran building a nuclear weapon?

No one knows for sure. In March, Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence, testified before Congress that the intelligence community [IC] “continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader [Ali] Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.”

Iran’s growing stockpile of enriched uranium could allow it to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon. Experts differ in how long Iran would need to make a usable nuclear weapon out of the fissile material.

In the face of such uncertainty, it’s useful to recall George W. Bush’s claims of Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction” that proved bogus — at a cost of 4,431 American lives, 31,994 Americans wounded in action, and an estimated 295,000 Iraqi lives.

3. Is Trump getting good information and advice?

Unlikely. He told reporters on Friday that Gabbard was "wrong" to say that Iran is not currently building a nuclear weapon but he didn’t say where he was getting his intelligence from. In May, Trump fired his national security adviser, Mike Waltz, and dismissed half the professionals at the National Security Council (the Middle East section went from 10 staffers to five).

Trump is being advised on Iran by a close-knit group of political advisers and ideologues, none of whom has deep knowledge of Iran or the Middle East. All are totally loyal to Trump. (They include JD Vance; Secretary of State Marco Rubio; Chief of Staff Susie Wiles; Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller; Steve Witkoff, Trump’s envoy to the Middle East who was formerly a luxury real estate developer; lieutenant general Dan (Razin’) Caine, now serving as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs; Erik (“The Gorilla”) Kurilla, the head of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM); John Ratcliffe, CIA director who served in the first Trump administration and was previously a Texas congressman and a mayor of a small town; and Steve Bannon.)

As a result, he’s probably getting decent advice about what’s good for Trump but not about what’s good for America or the world. It’s an inevitable consequence of purging from the government anyone more loyal to the United States than to him. Besides, Trump only listens to information he wants to hear.

4. Will Iran now cave and agree to destroy its remaining stockpile of enriched uranium and allow inspectors to confirm that the stockpile is gone?

No. Not one of the experts I spoke to thought this likely. Iran doesn’t trust the United States or Israel, and it doesn’t want to give up its potential nuclear capacities.

5. Have the bombings wiped out Iran’s capacity to enrich uranium to produce fissile material for nuclear weapons?

Unlikely. Trump claims that the facilities were “completely and totally obliterated,” but who trusts Trump to tell the truth, or to be told the truth?

Iran has buried its uranium-enrichment facilities deep underground and distributed them to many locations. Iranian officials acknowledge that three sites were attacked but did not describe the extent of damage.

In any event, America does not have good intelligence about how long it will take Iran to get the three targeted sites back to running order.

6. What’s the worst Iran can now do to the United States in retaliation?

It could wholly or partially close the straights of Hormuz, a vital waterway through which about a fifth of global oil must pass. While not completely closed during past conflicts, Iran possesses the capabilities to significantly disrupt or halt traffic with mines, anti-ship missiles, and air defense systems. This would cause oil prices to soar in the United States and Europe (helping Big Oil but not American consumers).

Iran could also engage in a range of terrorist actions directed toward the United States. No one knows the extent of any “sleeper cells” in the U.S. or in Europe. The mere possibility could give Trump more license to restrict civil liberties.

7. Will the American public “rally ‘round the flag” and support Trump in this war?

Some Americans clearly will. But a drawn-out war in Iran will be deeply unpopular. A recent YouGov poll found that only 16 percent of Americans thought the U.S. military should get involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran; 60 percent said it should not.

Trump promised no foreign entanglements and lower consumer prices. But this war could prove to be the largest foreign entanglement in years, and the attacks will almost certainly raise oil and gas prices.

8. Will he send in American ground troops?

On balance, the experts I consulted with thought Trump eventually would send in troops if Iran retaliated and the conflict escalated. Last night he explicitly threatened more action against Iran if it did not return to diplomatic efforts: “If they do not [make peace], future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.”

More than anything else, Trump has an abiding need to save face, he hates to lose, and he likes nothing more than conflict. He was willing to send the active military into California to stop trumped-up protests. He’ll likely be willing to send them into Iran.

The war will not be over quickly. Iran and its extensive networks in the Middle East could keep hostilities going for months or years, at a substantial cost of human life.

9. What’s Congress likely to do now?

I hope Democrats will use the War Powers Act to force a vote on the war, putting Republican lawmakers in the awkward position of voting for a war that’s immensely unpopular and can easily go very badly.

10. Bonus question: Where does the phrase “dogs of war” come from?

Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, in which Mark Antony (in Act 3, Scene 1) says: "Cry 'Havoc!', and let slip the dogs of war” — signifying that war unleashes chaos and violence.

Now that the bombing has begun, there’s no telling where this will end.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

I hope they settle for limited, face saving retaliation and then come back to the table with whoever will talk with them. To do otherwise invites total destruction. 

Based on the pieces left on the chess board, yes, that would be the smartest play.  BUT...

1 hour ago, BurntEyes said:

All other items aside including what various governments are saying, I see no way this ends without regime change. What that will look like or how it will happen is open for debate, but I don't see any other end being possible. For better and worse, hate it or love it, this ancient boiling pot stew had been toppled and we are not getting it back in. I'm open to hearing any sound logic that sees another way forward.

Based on the situation as it stands, and as we should expect from Israel and its lap dog (the United States), I don't think they'll be satisfied with anything LESS than regime change.  Which means that the Iranian regime is backed into a corner, and Bobby's option listed above (the most rational one) is off the table.  

The Iranian regime faces an existential challenge, period. A cornered dog will bite.  Really, it's the only option the dog has.  That's why a SMART play is to always leave your opponent a way out.  We (Israel and it's 100% controlled proxy) have no intention of doing that.

I'm not saying it's a WINNING play for the Iranian regime.  I'm saying it's likely their ONLY play, based on my admittedly non-expert view of the dynamic.  Other expert-types share that view, though (see the piece in Foreign Affairs).

17 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

20250622_150109.thumb.jpg.4c790a08505d4b0c29842ab332e35b32.jpg

This is an insane escalation of language. 

Yes, it is, but, to temper that a bit....it's also textbook Medvedev.  He is the world's designated nuclear saber-rattler.  Seriously, he's mentioned using nukes five thousand eleventy times re the Ukraine war, for example.  No, I don't think that any country is ready to "directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads," because doing so means taking full ownership of how Iran eventually uses that warhead.  A nuke that says "made in Pakistan" goes off in Tel Aviv, Israel 100% launches a reprisal strike against 1) Iran and 2) Pakistan.  

Pakistan knows that, and isn't going to stick its neck out on this.

Russia knows that, and while it might otherwise stick out its neck, it has bigger problems right now.

China isn't going to allow itself to get roped into Iran's dumbfuckery.

Neither is North Korea, for all of L'il Kim's idiocy, turning over his fate to the whim of mullahs isn't something he'll do.

And, we're pretty much out of any reasonably likely suppliers.  So, this is just Dimitri being Dimitri, and mostly, him giving Tucker Carlson talking points directly from their mutual boss.

14 minutes ago, BearSchlong said:

In church this morning, during a sermon on Matthew 5:13-16 I tuned out and prayed for the Iranian people.

You and I attend the same denomination.  The people of Iran, along with the people of Israel, Gaza, Ukraine, and Russia all got specific prayer mentions this morning.  Because, you know....human beings, children of God, all that Jesus-y stuff.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
  • Drool 1
Posted
Quote

The far more damaging case for proliferation is Ukraine, where a nuclear power aggressively attacked a small neighbor with the explicit goal of territory and regime change, while using nuclear blackmail to fend off the world. That’s the situation that will make Tokyo, Seoul, or Riyadh begin to reassess if the U.S. guarantee becomes threadbare.   Not the example of Iran. You know, the nuclear-power war of aggression that  Anastasis really supports. 

Also a bingo (not to diminish the risk created by the COMPLETE lesson being offered by adding Iran to the mix).

The US becoming an unreliable (and even hostile) "ally" is the much greater risk point.  The most effective strategy to limit nuclear proliferation was an approach of "you don't need a nuke; we'll protect you under the umbrella of OUR [America's] nuclear deterrent."  Now that has gone in the shitter - our guarantee isn't worth a tinker's dam.  So, you can't trust the US to protect you, and if you are on the verge of getting a nuke, the US is actually a great threat to attack you.  

Sounds to me like you oughta get a nuke quickly, and then reveal you have nukes before anyone can do anything about it.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Rip76 said:

I haven’t heard, but any word on casualties from the strikes?

Do they matter?  They're just ragheads!  I'd fly 1,000 miles to smoke a camel!  Rah rah jingoism!

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
33 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

He and Israel (“damaged not destroyed”) are messing with Trump, who will take the bait.

Well, I'd argue Israel is not messing with Trump, rather supporting a narrative that for various reasons he can't/won't put forward.

And its not truly bait if it was part of the plan from the start to be "baited", except for people that chose to believe his intentions to negotiate with Iran were in earnest. Which.. I didn't.

Posted

Trump does what AIPAC tells him to do just like every politician except Thomas Massie. It's out in the open now so we don't have to speculate why our foreign policy is what it is. Because AIPAC wanted it. End of explanation.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
40 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yes, it is, but, to temper that a bit....it's also textbook Medvedev.  He is the world's designated nuclear saber-rattler. 

Yes this is true, he's the hype girl. I'm more interested in whatever their official statements are.

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...