Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

To me, now that you've started the war, you have to ensure that Iran's nuclear program is set back at least a decade, if not more. Which means at some point or another, Fedrow has to be destroyed. Or the Iranian's have to come back to the negotiating table and agree to give up their weapons grade material and ability to enrich. Which if the Isreali's can't do it, we will. 

It's a binary decision at this point, once committed you can't half ass it, you have to whole ass it. 

Edited by Bateshorn
  • Hook 'Em 9
Posted
1 hour ago, B00M said:

I guess the purpose of the tankers is to allow Israel to fly further east into Iran? We might as well start dropping bombs ourself if we’re getting this involved 

Maybe that’s the plan. As soon as we are attacked, it’s game on.

 

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Maybe that’s the plan. As soon as we are attacked, it’s game on.

 

I certainly think that is probably an aspect, I suspect, given historicals, a proposal may have been put forth to the current regime of Iran. A typical quid pro quo of our current administration. Give the US x% of oil rights, stop Uranium program, or the US helps Israel. I also suspect Iran says get bent to said offer and they end up the ones suffering without lube. Edit - and I'll admit I much prefer the latter. Which is to say I pretty much agree with @Bateshorn

Edited by BurntEyes
Posted
Just now, BurntEyes said:

I certainly think that is probably an aspect, I suspect, given historicals, a proposal may have been put forth to the current regime of Iran. A typical quid pro quo of our current administration. Give the US x% of oil rights, stop Uranium program, or the US helps Israel. I also suspect Iran says get bent to said offer and they end up the ones suffering without lube. 

Even if they level Iran, they can still hit back. I would be quite nervous if I was the head of security for a Jewish soft target organization in the developing world.

AMIA bombing

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMIA_bombing

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

I certainly think that is probably an aspect, I suspect, given historicals, a proposal may have been put forth to the current regime of Iran. A typical quid pro quo of our current administration. Give the US x% of oil rights, stop Uranium program, or the US helps Israel. I also suspect Iran says get bent to said offer and they end up the ones suffering without lube. 

Yeah, If the Isrealis have complete air superiority and control over Iran, any bombing they are doing at this point is to reduce ballistic missile strikes and destablize the Iranian regime.  I'm sure Trump is promising relief in his gross ass zero sum way. 

To build on @BurntEyes comments:  Since the Iranians are mere weeks away from enriching to weapons grade and maybe a few months from a deliverable warhead to Isreal, it's now existential to the Isrealis. If they have to use their own nukes preventively to protect Tel Aviv, they will, so it's unfortunately in our interest to finish what Isreal has started.  I don't make the rules, but that's the reality. 

Edited by Bateshorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Even if they level Iran, they can still hit back. I would be quite nervous if I was the head of security for a Jewish soft target organization in the developing world.

AMIA bombing

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMIA_bombing

 

Don't disagree at all, but they may well do that anyway. It's a pick your poison sort of deal in my opinion. Topple the Iranian regime permanently, helping those people hopefully find non-caliphate rule, fully dismantling their Uranium program or kicking the Iran Nuclear can down the road.... again.

I know which option I prefer.

Edited by BurntEyes
Posted
5 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Don't disagree at all, but they may well do that anyway. It's a pick your poison sort of deal in my opinion. Topple the Iranian regime permanently, helping those people hopefully find non-caliphate rule, fully dismantling their Uranium program or kicking the Iran Nuclear can down the road.... again.

I know which option I prefer.

This one?

1_JkVvXWZILOURfAR9dxlF3g.webp.0156cb2164051c49af56525125c2061f.webp

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Drool 2
Posted
11 hours ago, BurntEyes said:

Can I ask where you're "hearing" or seeing these rumors? Mainly because I've not seen that anywhere, not talking shit.

 

11 hours ago, twosheds said:


It’s all over the X. I know it’s now very credible, but it’s gaining traction.

 

So basically..... Helobious

Posted
7 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

This one?

1_JkVvXWZILOURfAR9dxlF3g.webp.0156cb2164051c49af56525125c2061f.webp

 

What do you think is my real motivation for a snow ski trip to Terhan when a trip to the Rockies is 1/10th the cost?

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
7 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

What do you think is my real motivation for a snow ski trip to Terhan when a trip to the Rockies is 1/10th the cost?

Chicks and food would be mine. Maybe a rug or 3.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
31 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

To me, now that you've started the war, you have to ensure that Iran's nuclear program is set back at least a decade, if not more. Which means at some point or another, Fedrow has to be destroyed. Or the Iranian's have to come back to the negotiating table and agree to give up their weapons grade material and ability to enrich. Which if the Isreali's can't do it, we will. 

It's a binary decision at this point, once committed you can't half ass it, you have to whole ass it. 

17 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Don't disagree at all, but they may well do that anyway. It's a pick your poison sort of deal in my opinion. Topple the Iranian regime permanently, helping those people hopefully find non-caliphate rule, fully dismantling their Uranium program or kicking the Iran Nuclear can down the road.... again.

I know which option I prefer.

One thing I've never bought in all of this, is the idea that Iran, as soon as they got nukes, was going to nuke Israel.  Because if they did, it then becomes an existential threat to Iran and the Shia religion, and the Iranian leadership, and they know this, and they know if they popped a nuke in Israel that they would probably get the Arab world involved against Iran as well. Fallout doesn't care about borders. At the least, Tehran ceases to completely exist, and the Sunni nations would be pleased to see the Shiites go down hard.

But, if I were Iran, I can totally see wanting a nuclear deterrent going forward.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

One thing I've never bought in all of this, is the idea that Iran, as soon as they got nukes, was going to nuke Israel.  Because if they did, it then becomes an existential threat to Iran and the Shia religion, and the Iranian leadership, and they know this, and they know if they popped a nuke in Israel that they would probably get the Arab world involved against Iran as well. Fallout doesn't care about borders. At the least, Tehran ceases to completely exist, and the Sunni nations would be pleased to see the Shiites go down hard.

But, if I were Iran, I can totally see wanting a nuclear deterrent going forward.

TBC: i'm not referring to before the Israeli attacks, i'm referring to after. I also don't entirely subscribe to the idea that the Iranians would immediately or quickly nuke Israel (in the time before ths war started), although I do think it would instantly become leverage in the various ME proxy wars that currently occur. I'm sure the Israelis are also terrified the Iranians could use it to gain leverage in Palestinian negotiations on a two state solution that would totally destablize the Israeli political situation if forced into a deal the right wingers couldn't accept. 

My point is now that Israel has engaged a broad across-the-board attack, the Iranians would probably attempt to nuke or threaten to nuke Israel upon acquiring a deliverable weapon. So Israel now has to destroy the Iranian program or have the Iranian's give it up in an acceptable way.  And if they can't destry Fodrow with conventional weapons, they'll use nuclear, and that makes it our problem (in addition to conventional warhead destruction of Fodrow could be essentially a dirty bomb, which is a disaster in it's own right). 

Edited by Bateshorn
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted

The reports from the US intelligence community was that Iran is not close to developing a nuclear weapon.  Netanyahu has been saying for 25 years that Iran is months away from developing a nuclear weapon only for them to never have one.  I'm all for Iran's regime being over thrown so their people can elect a non extremist leadership so they can enjoy basic rights, but we do NOT need to be dragged into this.  There is no reason to involve US resources into a regional conflict.  Let Israel fight their battles.  We have supplied them with enough weapons and bombs to commit one genocide.  We can use diplomacy to monitor Iran like the rest of the world has and like we have previously done. Is there actual evidence of Iran not complying with the monitoring, testing, and surveillance.?  Negotiations were set to start again until Israel went Leeroy Jenkins with their attack.  Stop wasting tax payer dollars on this bullshit.

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

To me, now that you've started the war, you have to ensure that Iran's nuclear program is set back at least a decade, if not more. Which means at some point or another, Fedrow has to be destroyed. Or the Iranian's have to come back to the negotiating table and agree to give up their weapons grade material and ability to enrich. Which if the Isreali's can't do it, we will. 

It's a binary decision at this point, once committed you can't half ass it, you have to whole ass it. 

Even this is just kicking the can down the road. If you're going all in, you're facilitating regime change at this point. Doing anything else just ends up with the same or similar problems in 5-10 years.

12 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

One thing I've never bought in all of this, is the idea that Iran, as soon as they got nukes, was going to nuke Israel.  Because if they did, it then becomes an existential threat to Iran and the Shia religion, and the Iranian leadership, and they know this, and they know if they popped a nuke in Israel that they would probably get the Arab world involved against Iran as well. Fallout doesn't care about borders. At the least, Tehran ceases to completely exist, and the Sunni nations would be pleased to see the Shiites go down hard.

But, if I were Iran, I can totally see wanting a nuclear deterrent going forward.

Of course they're not going to nuke Israel, it's literally instant suicide. And they already effectively have a nuclear deterrent in their ability to basically completely disrupt regional oil production. This would also (probably) effectively be suicide but them attempting this is not something I would rule out if the regime saw the writing on the wall.

5 minutes ago, victory88 said:

The reports from the US intelligence community was that Iran is not close to developing a nuclear weapon.  Netanyahu has been saying for 25 years that Iran is months away from developing a nuclear weapon only for them to never have one.  I'm all for Iran's regime being over thrown so their people can elect a non extremist leadership so they can enjoy basic rights, but we do NOT need to be dragged into this.  There is no reason to involve US resources into a regional conflict.  Let Israel fight their battles.  We have supplied them with enough weapons and bombs to commit one genocide.  We can use diplomacy to monitor Iran like the rest of the world has and like we have previously done. Is there actual evidence of Iran not complying with the monitoring, testing, and surveillance.?  Negotiations were set to start again until Israel went Leeroy Jenkins with their attack.  Stop wasting tax payer dollars on this bullshit.

Israel can't fight any wars at all without our resources. I've always said that they're free to fight whatever wars they like, just don't do it with my fucking tax dollars, but the reality is that they can't do shit without our money and logisitical support, period, and US foreign policy is effectively uniparty so that was never going to change despite how unpopular it is.

The bolded part is the important bit. I am not confident at all in the Trump administration's ability to negotiate anything that was even close to as effective as the JCPOA. That ship has now (more or less) officially sailed. The JCPOA was also effectively kicking the can down the road, but it was working and could have been expanded upon later on down the line. Between Trump blowing that deal up for literally no reason and Israel launching a pre-emptive strike (100% with our blessing, despite what media talking heads would have you believe), Iran has no reason whatsoever to be trusting of any US-led effort at a diplomatic solution at this point.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
11 hours ago, rpspeed said:

 

Been thinking about this. Where they going to all land? Sure we have airbases across the region, but that is one heck of a footprint (and lucrative target) if if they are close to Iran.

Posted
16 hours ago, KYHorn said:

 

Just to add to some of your points, I think the motivations and pressure behind SA's push to maintain high oil production via OPEC over the last 6 months has become much clearer.

I agree. Even though most Iranian oil goes to China & India, it doesn't matter who produces the oil. 

It is a zero sum game. Take a major source off the table, and the buyers frenzy flips the stabilized market to a sellers market with to guardrails.

The biggest difference being, that Iran appears to be totally isolated this time, with everybody else watching from the sidelines.  

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

I agree. Even though most Iranian oil goes to China & India, it doesn't matter who produces the oil. 

It is a zero sum game. Take a major source off the table, and the buyers frenzy flips the stabilized market to a sellers market with to guardrails.

The biggest difference being, that Iran appears to be totally isolated this time, with everybody else watching from the sidelines.  

It's wild how much the entire Islamic world is basically: I'm all good. That ain't none of my business. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
20 minutes ago, victory88 said:

The reports from the US intelligence community was that Iran is not close to developing a nuclear weapon.  Netanyahu has been saying for 25 years that Iran is months away from developing a nuclear weapon only for them to never have one.  I'm all for Iran's regime being over thrown so their people can elect a non extremist leadership so they can enjoy basic rights, but we do NOT need to be dragged into this.  There is no reason to involve US resources into a regional conflict.  Let Israel fight their battles.  We have supplied them with enough weapons and bombs to commit one genocide.  We can use diplomacy to monitor Iran like the rest of the world has and like we have previously done. Is there actual evidence of Iran not complying with the monitoring, testing, and surveillance.?  Negotiations were set to start again until Israel went Leeroy Jenkins with their attack.  Stop wasting tax payer dollars on this bullshit.

 

Good Lord...

 

4 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

I am not confident at all in the Trump administration's ability to negotiate anything that was even close to as effective as the JCPOA.

 

Define "Effective"

 

4 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

The JCPOA was also effectively kicking the can down the road, but it was working and could have been expanded upon later on down the line.

 

Define "working"

You seem to be assigning an awful lot of good faith to the world's largest nation-state sponsor of international terrorism. It's already been established that Iran was actively breaking the terms of the deal, hiding facilities, and continuing to develop weapons. Wishing that wasn't so, doesn't change that.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted

Israel: We are taking too much flack for our bullshit in Gaza. We need to change the narrative. Let's bomb Iran!

It's funny. Anytime the US or Israel wants to change a narrative, the solution seems to be alwasy bomb Iran. Doesn't help that Iran likes to play the "bad guy" role and stir up shit in the region. There's always a reason to bomb Iran.

 

That whole region can get fucked.

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

 

Good Lord...

 

 

Define "Effective"

 

 

Define "working"

You seem to be assigning an awful lot of good faith to the world's largest nation-state sponsor of international terrorism. It's already been established that Iran was actively breaking the terms of the deal, hiding facilities, and continuing to develop weapons. Wishing that wasn't so, doesn't change that.

Can you show proof of this?  Because in the other thread, you can see the reports on there that all their facilities were being monitored.  Iran definitely funds Hamas but can you please reference the international terrorism or attacks at US civilians?  Their conflict is regional with Israel.

As for assigning good faith, sorry if I'd like to see proof before we go bomb another country and kill civilians because of weapons of mass destruction that do not exist.  And I like how terrorism is only confined to Muslims/brown people.   As if the 25000+ dead kids in Gaza with bullets in their skulls and blown off limbs from US weapons and American tax dollars is any different than a Hamas moron launching a RPG.  They are both equally wrong and it needs to stop.

 

Posted
1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

One thing I've never bought in all of this, is the idea that Iran, as soon as they got nukes, was going to nuke Israel.  Because if they did, it then becomes an existential threat to Iran and the Shia religion, and the Iranian leadership, and they know this, and they know if they popped a nuke in Israel that they would probably get the Arab world involved against Iran as well. Fallout doesn't care about borders. At the least, Tehran ceases to completely exist, and the Sunni nations would be pleased to see the Shiites go down hard.

But, if I were Iran, I can totally see wanting a nuclear deterrent going forward.

They want a nuke in order to prevent the shit that Isreal is doing to them now. Same as every other country. 

Posted
5 minutes ago, victory88 said:

Can you show proof of this?  Because in the other thread, you can see the reports on there that all their facilities were being monitored.  Iran definitely funds Hamas but can you please reference the international terrorism or attacks at US civilians?  Their conflict is regional with Israel.

As for assigning good faith, sorry if I'd like to see proof before we go bomb another country and kill civilians because of weapons of mass destruction that do not exist.  And I like how terrorism is only confined to Muslims/brown people.   As if the 25000+ dead kids in Gaza with bullets in their skulls and blown off limbs from US weapons and American tax dollars is any different than a Hamas moron launching a RPG.  They are both equally wrong and it needs to stop.

 

AMIA attacks in Argentina plus a few other bombings is a place to start.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, victory88 said:

Can you show proof of this?  Because in the other thread, you can see the reports on there that all their facilities were being monitored. 

 

https://archive.is/mkHnl#selection-2155.0-2167.160

 

Quote

 

"Adding to the risks is that Fordow is not the only ultra-secure facility that Iran can fall back on. Tehran has recently been building an even deeper and better protected facility into Kūh-e Kolang Gaz Lā, also known as Pickaxe mountain, a few kilometres south of Natanz. 

While Fordow is thought to have two tunnel entrances, Pickaxe has at least four, making it harder to seal off entrances by bombing. Its underground halls also have more floorspace.
Some fear the facility, which Iran has so far barred the IAEA from inspecting, could even be used to assemble a nuclear weapon while Iran was under attack.
“A key question is whether Iran will, or maybe already has, secreted fissile material into Pickaxe, or some other unknown facility,” said the FDD’s Ben Taleblu."

 

 
 
3 minutes ago, victory88 said:

Iran definitely funds Hamas but can you please reference the international terrorism or attacks at US civilians?  Their conflict is regional with Israel.

 

Are you implying that Iran doesn't participate in international terrorism? That it didn't kidnap and kill US civilians, soldiers, and employees in Lebanon in the 80s, bomb a community center in Argentina in the 90s, kill US soldiers with IEDs in Iraq in the 10s, or try to kill US politicians and Generals on US soil in the teens? Iran has been the largest sponsor of International Terrorism since the Islamic Republic was founded after the fall of the Shah. "Death To America!" is an official regime slogan... and they mean it.

 

3 minutes ago, victory88 said:

sorry if I'd like to see proof before we go bomb another country and kill civilians because of weapons of mass destruction that do not exist.

 

Are you implying that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program? That it hasn't actively been trying to develop nuclear weapons of mass destruction for 20+ years?

 

4 minutes ago, victory88 said:

And I like how terrorism is only confined to Muslims/brown people.

 

What the Fuck are you talking about?

 

4 minutes ago, victory88 said:

as if the 25000+ dead kids in Gaza with bullets in their skulls and blown off limbs from US weapons and American tax dollars is any different than a Hamas moron launching a RPG. 

 

Blame Hamas for using their own people as human shields while they hide underneath schools and Mosques with their kidnapping victims. And where are you getting the 25k+ number from? Hamas?

 

4 minutes ago, victory88 said:

They are both equally wrong and it needs to stop.

 

Define "equally". Are you actually trying to draw an equivalency between the actions of Israel, and Iran? Are you serious?

 

Posted
27 minutes ago, victory88 said:

Can you show proof of this?  Because in the other thread, you can see the reports on there that all their facilities were being monitored.  Iran definitely funds Hamas but can you please reference the international terrorism or attacks at US civilians?  Their conflict is regional with Israel.

As for assigning good faith, sorry if I'd like to see proof before we go bomb another country and kill civilians because of weapons of mass destruction that do not exist.  And I like how terrorism is only confined to Muslims/brown people.   As if the 25000+ dead kids in Gaza with bullets in their skulls and blown off limbs from US weapons and American tax dollars is any different than a Hamas moron launching a RPG.  They are both equally wrong and it needs to stop.

 

7 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

AMIA attacks in Argentina plus a few other bombings is a place to start.

This is correct, there is no question that Iran is a state sponsor of international terrorism. That doesn't mean that they are developing WMDs, even the US intelligence community doesn't think this is the case. That doesn't mean it couldn't happen. They started "slipping" in their compliance with the IAEA shortly after Trump blew up the JCPOA and some of their actions have been concerning.

Even still, Israel's justification for a pre-emptive strike and pushing for total war seems non-existent/insane.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
18 minutes ago, Pasken said:

They want a nuke in order to prevent the shit that Isreal is doing to them now. Same as every other country. 

Dude, Iran has openly made it clear for decades that complete annihilation of Israel is their goal. They've made every effort to do so. 

Whether or not they would use nukes against Israel is open for debate but their ultimate plans are not.

I for one, care more about the threat to the US and other western countries should a caliphate regime deeply in bed with terrorist gain access to nukes.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
3 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

That doesn't mean that they are developing WMDs, even the US intelligence community doesn't think this is the case.

 

You don't think the Iranians have a nuclear weapons program? Where/when, exactly, did the the "US intelligence community" say that?

Posted
1 hour ago, Parliament said:

Yeah why not just send the calls to VM for a bit.

IMG_7489.jpeg

Yeah I've no clue how the US administration will ultimately respond to those requests because reasons, but Israel done ghosted and blocked Ali on their phones.

Posted
1 hour ago, crash_davis said:

Israel: We are taking too much flack for our bullshit in Gaza. We need to change the narrative. Let's bomb Iran!

It's funny. Anytime the US or Israel wants to change a narrative, the solution seems to be alwasy bomb Iran. Doesn't help that Iran likes to play the "bad guy" role and stir up shit in the region. There's always a reason to bomb Iran.

 

That whole region can get fucked.

I think there is some truth to the bold but it is denying the larger picture and recent "L's" that Iran has taken to weaken them. What I've read is now that  because of the neutering of Hezbollah, Houthis and Hamas (THe triple H of terrorism) that Bibi senses a once-in-a-generation moment to seize on Iran's weakness (they really overplayed their hand and should have just kept rattling the sabre) and he sees he can take a step-function jump for Israel and reshape the region. It's a perfect opportunity for Israel to attack right now and that is outside of the Gaza stuff IMO.

The flipside is that, while showing a little bit of fight, the ayatollah has now been more or less humiliated in front of the world (and even his own people depending on what you read / believe) and he has to be seeing a very hard landing for him.

AND that's with the rumors that Bibi is kowtowin to Trump who told him to NOT directly target/kill the smack-talking Ayatollah...

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

 

You don't think the Iranians have a nuclear weapons program? Where/when, exactly, did the the "US intelligence community" say that?

https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF12106/IF12106.17.pdf
 

Lots of information summarized in there.  Take from it what you will.  I don't see any concrete evidence in there stating they are weeks from being able to launch a nuke.  If they did, Trump would be the first to fly a plane with a US bomb.  If anything, he is trying to avoid conflict and that would not be the case if Iran was an imminent threat.  I don't agree much with the orange man, but I agree with him here.  We can take the conversation to the other thread as it is better suited. 

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

 

https://archive.is/mkHnl#selection-2155.0-2167.160

 

 
 

 

Are you implying that Iran doesn't participate in international terrorism? That it didn't kidnap and kill US civilians, soldiers, and employees in Lebanon in the 80s, bomb a community center in Argentina in the 90s, kill US soldiers with IEDs in Iraq in the 10s, or try to kill US politicians and Generals on US soil in the teens? Iran has been the largest sponsor of International Terrorism since the Islamic Republic was founded after the fall of the Shah. "Death To America!" is an official regime slogan... and they mean it.

 

 

Are you implying that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program? That it hasn't actively been trying to develop nuclear weapons of mass destruction for 20+ years?

 

 

What the Fuck are you talking about?

 

 

Blame Hamas for using their own people as human shields while they hide underneath schools and Mosques with their kidnapping victims. And where are you getting the 25k+ number from? Hamas?

 

 

Define "equally". Are you actually trying to draw an equivalency between the actions of Israel, and Iran? Are you serious?

 

I just said they fund Hamas.  I asked where they have attacked the US or US personnel, perhaps I should have clarified recently or within current events.  You don't have to give me a history lesson.  There are plenty of countries that fund militias and terrorists groups, Iran is not alone with this.  We are talking about starting a war where many lives will be lost, a lot of American lives as well.  I'm sorry if I'd like a reason for us to enter a conflict and events that happened in the 80s and 90s aren't factoring into my decision making.  

I posted a link in a post above and there is a whole separate thread for this.  All the reports and evidence shows that they do not have the capability to make or launch a nuke.  You are right, people have been saying for 20+ years that Iran is months from a Nuke, yet here we are and they still do not have one.

I blame Hamas for a lot and they deserve whatever comes there way.  I want to be very clear.  Israel has the right to exist and defend themselves.  What happened to those hostages and Jewish people was horrendous and I have no sympathy for Hamas.  With that said, I'm going to be really honest with you and I do not expect you to change your mind or opinion.  This entire escalated conflict has been going on for more than a few years.  I pretty much ignored it because it does not affect my daily life nor do I have the mental bandwidth do give a shit with running my business and raising a family.  For anyone that wanted to talk to me about it, I just did want to hear it.  I spent some time listening and watching a lot of interviews with American and European humanitarians, doctors, aid workers and then made the mistake of watching actual footage, more than I wanted to but I'm glad I did.  Having a 3 year old and a new born coming in 2 months, what I saw made my stomach turn.  There are no shortage of podcasts, tv shows, interviews whether it's Joe Rogan, Tucker Carlson, Pierce Morgan or influencers... whatever floats your boat... where you can listen to people's, specifically Americans, experience that were there.  If you listen to their experiences and you come away that any of this is morally right, then I am at a loss of words.  A simple google search will provide you with confirmed lives lost of children, not including the ones still buried under the bombed buildings.  I'm sorry if you feel differently, I personally wish I did not turn a blind eye and wish I spoke out sooner or at least acknowledged that this is wrong.  Bomb all the terrorists you want, but I cannot morally accept murdering kids, burning them, dropping bombs on them, and starving them.   Perhaps your line of what is right and wrong extends further than mine.

I'm going to exit this thread for a while, feel free to DM me if you want to talk further.

Edited by victory88
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, BurntEyes said:

Dude, Iran has openly made it clear for decades that complete annihilation of Israel is their goal. They've made every effort to do so. 

Whether or not they would use nukes against Israel is open for debate but their ultimate plans are not.

I for one, care more about the threat to the US and other western countries should a caliphate regime deeply in bed with terrorist gain access to nukes.

While some crazies might want "annihilation" the official stance hasn't been countrywide genocide. It's been the dissolving of the zionist state which isn't that crazy given the history of the crusades and Israel's predecessor western states. The idea that a political goal of dissolving a state equates to nuking 10 million people is just zionist propaganda proliferated by western states who desperately don't want jews to immigrate into their country. 

Posted

So, as we get to the hard realization that Iran can not stop Israel in the air and Israel does not have the air and ground capability to fully accomplish their full set of goals, we get to the "what now" part of all of this.

1. People keep discussing destroying the Iranian oil and gas production to bring "Iran to their knees" and thus ending the war. This is probably both overly simplistic and missing a huge part of the puzzle. If the idea were so binary, the US would have wiped out Kharg Island years ago, and Iran would have just drifted off into obscurity, right? The problem goes beyond OPEC+ and economics, and falls into the simple idea of what comes after. If you ever view the dream of a return to the classic Iranian Persian Monarchy with sympathetic ties to the west, the environment needs to be viable for success. If you wipe the refining capabilities off the map, you are looking at decades and decades to rebuild the refining capability at the cost of billions and billions of dollars. Without the ability to both extract and refine the natural resources, Iran has no economic future, and the Iranian people are looking at mass poverty and hardship. If you expect the current style of government to stay in power, you are balancing the idea of keeping the populace alive and having hope while trying to limit the headaches they can bring about with the hard currency they can make. If you expect a regime change and want that regime to last long term, you can't destroy the one resource they have to provide them a viable future. 


So what do you do? That is the hard question, and why you are seeing Israel right now targeting domestic storage, production, and use facilities instead of the big refineries. I swing back and forth on how I view this because, without resources, Iran as a regional power player shrivels and dies. But without a future, the idea and dream of a Western-aligned Persia dies as well. This is why sanctions have always been used instead of strikes on refineries in the past. The "cut the baby in half" approach would be to target the field incrementally to halt production and therefore halt supply instead of the refining capability. Recapping a burning well is still a problem, but in the grand scheme of things, it is not viewed as a generational timeline that the loss of refining capability would be. 

2. We are seeing a steady degradation of the Iranian response capabilities. Ignore the "damage porn" of missiles getting through to the Israeli cities, and just focus on numbers. Missile intercepts are always going to be a fixed value tied to a distribution. That distribution will be a function of intercept capability and missile path.  Missiles will get through and there will be casualties. That should be a given.  What is more telling is not the damage but the count of missiles launched per wave. That is tied directly to the finite number of launchers. If you are paying attention, we are seeing a steady degradation of Iranian launch capabilities, with Israel having assigned a heavy priority of targeting launchers (even over air interdiction of missiles in flight). As there are fewer and fewer launchers, the intercept rate will steadily increase. The mix of a finite number of launchers and a limited number of ballistic missiles always puts a natural time limit on the number of days Iran could provide a military threat of response (not a nuisance threat), and by targeting the launchers, the volley size per wave is steadily decreasing. At some point, the launches lose military value and move into political theater. 

3. What do you do as Iran at this point? They have limited military responses available in the air. Israel is not invading on the ground (yet), and their neighbors are not going to let them move an army over their territory to let them attack Israel. Besides, any form of land assault would be a disaster with Israel having total control of the skies. Unless Egypt goes rogue and surprise attacks Israel, there is little to the idea Israel will have to engage in a large land battle at or near their territory. So Israel is insulated by a major land or air assault, and Iran has a finite number of ballistic missiles and launchers and the window of their ballistic missile response being anything other than a nuisance threat is closing. The only thing they have going for them is that the overall goal of Israel cannot be accomplished via air attacks (without the US becoming involved) and would require Israeli forces on the ground in mass. So what do you do? You have already hardened the locations you can, and troop distribution and movement mean very little in this type of war. There are already as many troops protecting their hardened nuclear production and research facilities as would be functionally possible, and your lone military response is a finite resource. At this point, the best approach would be unconventional warfare strategies (ie terror attacks, suicide bombings, ect.) and political pressure. The problem is that the unconventional strategies are something Israel has become hardened to due to decades of Hezbollah, Hamas, ect. attacks, and they have little to no political capital to use (which erodes even more if they use unconventional warfare). 

Iran is in a waiting game and is in a completely reactionary stance that will be dictated by what Israel and the US decide. The best approach is to try and get Israel to the table now under the condition of a complete ceasefire. The problem is that Israel has a "plan" of targets that covers 10-20 days of targets, and unless it becomes politically disadvantageous, they will stick to it. Much like with Gaza, their willingness to ignore the "bad" press on the global stage has insulated them from these types of demands by Iran. The only thing Iran has left to trade is their nuclear weapons program, and until it becomes apparent that it is either trade that or their regime being in power, Iran will not truly negotiate, and Israel knows this. What makes it more dangerous is at some point the US (or someone else) may decide that the only way this stops is to provide Israel the airframes needed to drop the ordnance to collapse these hardened facilities.  

There is no real "end" to this that is positive to the current Iranian regime, without outside intervention on their behalf. Without their proxies, Iran is a "paper tiger" and the ME political landscape has made it more advantageous to be neutral on this topic than it is to be an ally to Iran. We can get into the religious/cultural ties with all of this, but even the Sunni/Shite rift and Arab vs. Persian divide only mean so much. We are now seeing the ME starting to act more "rational" as they begin to accept that the problems Iran brings to the region are no longer worth what it would take to "save" them. You can call it becoming westernized, or the power of capitalism, or the spread of exposure to rational discourse because of the internet, or the desire to normalize relations for a stronger ME as a whole, but the shift has occurred and now it doesn't look like anyone is coming to ride in and save the Iranian regime.  Without it, it is just a matter of time for either Iran to cave to the Israeli and US demands (which may lead to a regime change) or being overthrown.  

  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Like 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

Yeah, If the Isrealis have complete air superiority and control over Iran, any bombing they are doing at this point is to reduce ballistic missile strikes and destablize the Iranian regime.  I'm sure Trump is promising relief in his gross ass zero sum way. 

To build on @BurntEyes comments:  Since the Iranians are mere weeks away from enriching to weapons grade and maybe a few months from a deliverable warhead to Isreal, it's now existential to the Isrealis. If they have to use their own nukes preventively to protect Tel Aviv, they will, so it's unfortunately in our interest to finish what Isreal has started.  I don't make the rules, but that's the reality. 

It's wild how much the entire Islamic world is basically: I'm all good. That ain't none of my business. 

I agree. Israel will finish this, while they have the chance, and while the rest of the world waits (and quietly supports).

 From the Bullock Musuem, 

CC64D744-9E02-4540-AC03-1293DD831243_1_201_a.thumb.jpeg.c24f73d02837ad83b6935f6f57b6867d.jpeg

Posted
2 hours ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

 

Good Lord...

 

 

Define "Effective"

 

 

Define "working"

You seem to be assigning an awful lot of good faith to the world's largest nation-state sponsor of international terrorism. It's already been established that Iran was actively breaking the terms of the deal, hiding facilities, and continuing to develop weapons. Wishing that wasn't so, doesn't change that.

No, it hasn't. Donald Trump certified to Congress on April 18, 2017 and July 17, 2017 that Iran was complying with JCPOA. He did not refuse certification in October 2017 for any of the reasons you claim. He refused to certify in October 2017 (ostensibly) because he determined that suspension of sanctions was appropriate and proportionate to the measures taken by Iran and vital to national security interests. In other words, he ostensibly suspended the deal because Iran was still doing shit that wasn't covered by the deal (e.g. supporting terrorist groups), not because he thought Iran had violated the deal.  The real reason he terminated is for CR discussion. 

Posted
13 minutes ago, Pasken said:

While some crazies might want "annihilation" the official stance hasn't been countrywide genocide. It's been the dissolving of the zionist state which isn't that crazy given the history of the crusades and Israel's predecessor western states. The idea that a political goal of dissolving a state equates to nuking 10 million people is just zionist propaganda proliferated by western states who desperately don't want jews to immigrate into their country. 

I don't know where you found that hard to read and badly written, piece of shit quote, but describing Iran's goal as "dissolve a state" is certainly a choice. If, by dissolve, they mean in acid, it checks. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, PTINS said:

I agree. Israel will finish this, while they have the chance, and while the rest of the world waits (and quietly supports).

 From the Bullock Musuem, 

CC64D744-9E02-4540-AC03-1293DD831243_1_201_a.thumb.jpeg.c24f73d02837ad83b6935f6f57b6867d.jpeg

I think it pretty clear at this point this is at an end game point. Many have already pointed it out, but the silence of the rest of the ME is, imo, the biggest tell. I wrote much more about it last page, but I haven't seen any indicators to this point that Israel is stopping nor have I seen signs of anyone making moves to stop them. Things can change in an instance, but I think, and frankly hope that it comes to final resolution.

Posted
13 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

So, as we get to the hard realization that Iran can not stop Israel in the air and Israel does not have the air and ground capability to fully accomplish their full set of goals, we get to the "what now" part of all of this.

1. People keep discussing destroying the Iranian oil and gas production to bring "Iran to their knees" and thus ending the war. This is probably both overly simplistic and missing a huge part of the puzzle. If the idea were so binary, the US would have wiped out Kharg Island years ago, and Iran would have just drifted off into obscurity, right? The problem goes beyond OPEC+ and economics, and falls into the simple idea of what comes after. If you ever view the dream of a return to the classic Iranian Persian Monarchy with sympathetic ties to the west, the environment needs to be viable for success. If you wipe the refining capabilities off the map, you are looking at decades and decades to rebuild the refining capability at the cost of billions and billions of dollars. Without the ability to both extract and refine the natural resources, Iran has no economic future, and the Iranian people are looking at mass poverty and hardship. If you expect the current style of government to stay in power, you are balancing the idea of keeping the populace alive and having hope while trying to limit the headaches they can bring about with the hard currency they can make. If you expect a regime change and want that regime to last long term, you can't destroy the one resource they have to provide them a viable future. 


So what do you do? That is the hard question, and why you are seeing Israel right now targeting domestic storage, production, and use facilities instead of the big refineries. I swing back and forth on how I view this because, without resources, Iran as a regional power player shrivels and dies. But without a future, the idea and dream of a Western-aligned Persia dies as well. This is why sanctions have always been used instead of strikes on refineries in the past. The "cut the baby in half" approach would be to target the field incrementally to halt production and therefore halt supply instead of the refining capability. Recapping a burning well is still a problem, but in the grand scheme of things, it is not viewed as a generational timeline that the loss of refining capability would be. 

2. We are seeing a steady degradation of the Iranian response capabilities. Ignore the "damage porn" of missiles getting through to the Israeli cities, and just focus on numbers. Missile intercepts are always going to be a fixed value tied to a distribution. That distribution will be a function of intercept capability and missile path.  Missiles will get through and there will be casualties. That should be a given.  What is more telling is not the damage but the count of missiles launched per wave. That is tied directly to the finite number of launchers. If you are paying attention, we are seeing a steady degradation of Iranian launch capabilities, with Israel having assigned a heavy priority of targeting launchers (even over air interdiction of missiles in flight). As there are fewer and fewer launchers, the intercept rate will steadily increase. The mix of a finite number of launchers and a limited number of ballistic missiles always puts a natural time limit on the number of days Iran could provide a military threat of response (not a nuisance threat), and by targeting the launchers, the volley size per wave is steadily decreasing. At some point, the launches lose military value and move into political theater. 

3. What do you do as Iran at this point? They have limited military responses available in the air. Israel is not invading on the ground (yet), and their neighbors are not going to let them move an army over their territory to let them attack Israel. Besides, any form of land assault would be a disaster with Israel having total control of the skies. Unless Egypt goes rogue and surprise attacks Israel, there is little to the idea Israel will have to engage in a large land battle at or near their territory. So Israel is insulated by a major land or air assault, and Iran has a finite number of ballistic missiles and launchers and the window of their ballistic missile response being anything other than a nuisance threat is closing. The only thing they have going for them is that the overall goal of Israel cannot be accomplished via air attacks (without the US becoming involved) and would require Israeli forces on the ground in mass. So what do you do? You have already hardened the locations you can, and troop distribution and movement mean very little in this type of war. There are already as many troops protecting their hardened nuclear production and research facilities as would be functionally possible, and your lone military response is a finite resource. At this point, the best approach would be unconventional warfare strategies (ie terror attacks, suicide bombings, ect.) and political pressure. The problem is that the unconventional strategies are something Israel has become hardened to due to decades of Hezbollah, Hamas, ect. attacks, and they have little to no political capital to use (which erodes even more if they use unconventional warfare). 

Iran is in a waiting game and is in a completely reactionary stance that will be dictated by what Israel and the US decide. The best approach is to try and get Israel to the table now under the condition of a complete ceasefire. The problem is that Israel has a "plan" of targets that covers 10-20 days of targets, and unless it becomes politically disadvantageous, they will stick to it. Much like with Gaza, their willingness to ignore the "bad" press on the global stage has insulated them from these types of demands by Iran. The only thing Iran has left to trade is their nuclear weapons program, and until it becomes apparent that it is either trade that or their regime being in power, Iran will not truly negotiate, and Israel knows this. What makes it more dangerous is at some point the US (or someone else) may decide that the only way this stops is to provide Israel the airframes needed to drop the ordnance to collapse these hardened facilities.  

There is no real "end" to this that is positive to the current Iranian regime, without outside intervention on their behalf. Without their proxies, Iran is a "paper tiger" and the ME political landscape has made it more advantageous to be neutral on this topic than it is to be an ally to Iran. We can get into the religious/cultural ties with all of this, but even the Sunni/Shite rift and Arab vs. Persian divide only mean so much. We are now seeing the ME starting to act more "rational" as they begin to accept that the problems Iran brings to the region are no longer worth what it would take to "save" them. You can call it becoming westernized, or the power of capitalism, or the spread of exposure to rational discourse because of the internet, or the desire to normalize relations for a stronger ME as a whole, but the shift has occurred and now it doesn't look like anyone is coming to ride in and save the Iranian regime.  Without it, it is just a matter of time for either Iran to cave to the Israeli and US demands (which may lead to a regime change) or being overthrown.  

Good shit. 

I think for the Isreali's they have 3 military options for the nuclear program, none of which are perfect:

1. Use their limited bunker buster weapons repeatedly in hopes of eventually breaking through deep buried Iranian facilities. Both inefficient and risks potential dirty bomb scenerio.

2. Use nukes tactically.  I don't believe this is really on the table short of some sudden existential threat we haven't seen. 

3. Some sort of airborne operation to take the facilities in force.  The chances of this turning into a debacle are high. 

Which leaves them with two other outs:

4. We use our bombers to destroy the facilities, which is possible if option5 doesn't happen. 

5. Iranians capitulate and give up weapons and/or internal regime change. 

 

It's worth noting, while Iranians are suffering civilian casaulties, the Israelis appear to be using much more caution than they are in Gaza. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
8 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

I don't know where you found that hard to read and badly written, piece of shit quote, but describing Iran's goal as "dissolve a state" is certainly a choice. If, by dissolve, they mean in acid, it checks. 

 

The fact that you find it "hard to read" explains a lot about your position. 

Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, PTINS said:

I agree. Israel will finish this, while they have the chance, and while the rest of the world waits (and quietly supports).

 From the Bullock Musuem, 

CC64D744-9E02-4540-AC03-1293DD831243_1_201_a.thumb.jpeg.c24f73d02837ad83b6935f6f57b6867d.jpeg

I have one of those, but no sheath. 
So no honor forthcoming, much likr this war.

 

562$$IMG_2235.jpeg

Edited by Armybrat
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

I don't know where you found that hard to read and badly written, piece of shit quote, but describing Iran's goal as "dissolve a state" is certainly a choice. If, by dissolve, they mean in acid, it checks. 

 

Tbh, dissolving every Likud party member in acid would probably be a net positive for the world.

e: Similar to the mullahs

Edited by Brian Fantana
  • Hook 'Em 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...