Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Regime change has to come organically from the people of Iran. We and Israel should not play any part in it. 
 

End Iran’s nuclear program, degrade their ballistic missile capability, then stop the offensive, declare victory, and let nature take its course inside Iran. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Duane Moore said:

Last post said B-2’s headed to Diego Garcia, others now saying Guam. Not sure if Guam could be a stopover on the way to DG, which is the closest launch point for a mission to Iran. Also, this:

 

There are already B-2’s at Diego Garcia, moving these to Guam makes sense in a “hey China don’t think we are distracted by the ME and are still watching Taiwan” kinda way. 

Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, WineGuy69 said:

I get the question, but how would they retaliate. We have taken out so much of their leadership and what is their military capability? We tell the ayatollah we know where he is and if he retaliates the next missile will be one through his window. The entire world is against them. They have few allies. 

There will be several terrorist incidents in the US, and this administration is too incompetent to do anything about it, that’s more of the issue imo than direct retaliation from Irans military. I don’t believe for a second that after 30 years of saying it they’re totally for real this time super duper close to getting the nuke. It’s Bibi causing shit to avoid his trial. Nothing magically changed last week or the US would have made it a bigger issue, instead we were just farting around fucking with brown people and deploying the marines to mild protests. Then Bibi does shit and it’s super real this time? Fuck off with that shit. 

Edited by 'stache
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
26 minutes ago, hornbri said:

There are already B-2’s at Diego Garcia, moving these to Guam makes sense in a “hey China don’t think we are distracted by the ME and are still watching Taiwan” kinda way. 

The B-2’s were at DG in March or April but left sometime before 6/13. That original OSINT post let has since corrected himself to say it looks like they’re going to Guam. 

Posted
59 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

There's always a reason. Capturing control of their natural resources is a strategically +EV play for the US and it would make a bunch of shitty rich assholes even richer. That's the point, that's always been the point of our Middle East policy and Israel serves its purpose as our attack dog to that point.

I don't disagree with the points about Iran and I'd love to see the mullahs fuck off and die, like I've said many times, but we all know how it will end up in the end if the West facilitates regime change. Maybe it'll buy us another decade or two of relative stability before history inevitably repeats itself.

 

This logic is as wrong as it is facile.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Whoa. First time I’ve heard of this guy but he’s apparently the current CEO of (cue ominous music) Cambridge Analytica. He’s reading the tea leaves that the B-2’s are on non-stop mission:

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, Duane Moore said:

Whoa. First time I’ve heard of this guy but he’s apparently the current CEO of (cue ominous music) Cambridge Analytica. He’s reading the tea leaves that the B-2’s are on non-stop mission:

 

 

Could you copy/paste the text, please? I won't click on a website owned by someone who supports an antisemitic party in Germany and who also willfully reinstated several antisemitic accounts on his website. Thank you.

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

 

Could you copy/paste the text, please? I won't click on a website owned by someone who supports an antisemitic party in Germany and who also willfully reinstated several antisemitic accounts on his website. Thank you.

image.png.33913f3fd687fb95224c00e0765c919c.png

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Just moving those bombers can be signaling. I don’t think there’s been a final decision yet but there is the intent of showing that one can be made anytime. 

I am guessing they are moved to within a 8-12 hr strike window, maybe closer. 

Then the reading of the current winds by US leadership of internal and international, follwed by conversations with ME OG and Israel. 

Posted

B-2 bombers moving to Guam amid Middle East tensions, US officials say

Spoiler

WASHINGTON - The United States is moving B-2 bombers to the Pacific island of Guam, two U.S. officials told Reuters on Saturday, as President Donald Trump weighs whether the United States should take part in Israel's strikes against Iran.

It was unclear whether the bomber deployment is tied to Middle East tensions.

The B-2 can be equipped to carry America's 30,000-pound GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, designed to destroy targets deep underground. That is the weapon that experts say could be used to strike Iran's nuclear program, including Fordow.

The officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, declined to disclose any further details. One official said no forward orders had been given yet to move the bombers beyond Guam. They did not say how many B-2 bombers are being moved.

The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Reuters Link

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Duane Moore said:

Regime change has to come organically from the people of Iran. We and Israel should not play any part in it. 
 

End Iran’s nuclear program, degrade their ballistic missile capability, then stop the offensive, declare victory, and let nature take its course inside Iran. 

Mostly agree. Internally yes keep all parties out of government formation. However, use US and European logistics a via non-involved intermediary purely for supporting new regime in their nation building plans. Things like infrastructure good for damage, food, supplies and any non-military items.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

 

image.png.f145ede43ccf043be648c25bd0d570cc.png

Will Ferrell Lol GIF

The speculation masquerading as insight in this thread just screams 995er

TxState to PAC is a done deal, according to the big cigars who leak everything to me

Posted
2 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

Ok, but if we do all that, do we believe that Iran is just going to sit there and take it? Obviously that would be an escalation and there would likely be some kind of response, and it seems likely to me that the escalations would continue until we find ourselves in a war.

At this point, I'd rather us facilitate regime change than get drawn into Bibi's little jihad (funny that...we call Iran jihadist but what is Israel?). If we're going to follow through with that, just reinstall Pahlavi and reinstate the JCPOA and make sure they keep in compliance. Trump can even take credit, I don't give a shit. 

2 hours ago, WineGuy69 said:

I get the question, but how would they retaliate. We have taken out so much of their leadership and what is their military capability? We tell the ayatollah we know where he is and if he retaliates the next missile will be one through his window. The entire world is against them. They have few allies. 

If we attack in a large-scale way, we, and Israel (already) will potentially (depending on civilian damage) be helping to create more young men who will be all in on strapping explosives to themselves (or at the least the strikes will be providing the propaganda material to recruit such men) or helping in other ways to kill Americans, Israelis, etc..  It could be that we kill their friends or family members, or just that we are attacking their country. Either way, we are feeding into what the Mullahs are selling.  

But there is also some irony at play - if Iran had nukes on missiles or at sea or whatever, Israel wouldn’t be doing this, just like if Ukraine had nukes, Russia wouldn’t have invaded.  Israel and Russia are literally reinforcing the message that if you can get nukes, you don’t have to worry as much about being attacked by other countries. North Korea is living proof of this.  And Israel going to such lengths against Iran, a country with 10x their population, makes it clear they are scared of a country like Iran getting nukes and that they wouldn’t attack if Iran had nukes.

Well, the nuclear stuff is the “official” reason, but we all know Netanyahu only survived a recent vote of confidence because he promised the Orthodox Jews he wouldn’t draft their kids.  Without the Orthodox, his government collapses and we aren’t talking about war with Iran.  But it doesn’t matter now, Israel has a tiger by the tail and is asking us for help in how to let it go without being bitten.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
36 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

The speculation masquerading as insight in this thread just screams 995er

TxState to PAC is a done deal, according to the big cigars who leak everything to me

I mean we’ve got the flight trackers going already, it may as well be a coaching search thread. 
 

And btw, I’ve done some analysis of the curtains on Khamenei’s latest video and he’s totally at the hotel in Horseshoe Bay. 

  • Like 2
Posted
1 hour ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

He argues around it but never quite gets there: Iran is unlikely to use a nuclear weapon against Israel, which would guarantee likely nuclear response. 
 

But, a nuclear-armed Iran would absolutely seek to rebuild its Shia militias and proxies in the region to pursue its revisionist aims.  And with its own nuclear shield, it would be basically immune from direct retaliation and adversaries dealing with its hybrid and proxy tactics would be restrained to countering those entities and responding within the gray zone. Iran would also have a free hand to intervene conventionally in the region. 
 

Basically, the Kremlin playbook. And that also explains why other Muslim states are willing to sit this out with some quiet support to Israel.  With Iran’s proxies aside from the Houthis basically defanged, this is the window to make them an un-problem for a while. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
Posted
There's always a reason. Capturing control of their natural resources is a strategically +EV play for the US and it would make a bunch of shitty rich assholes even richer. That's the point, that's always been the point of our Middle East policy and Israel serves its purpose as our attack dog to that point.
I don't disagree with the points about Iran and I'd love to see the mullahs fuck off and die, like I've said many times, but we all know how it will end up in the end if the West facilitates regime change. Maybe it'll buy us another decade or two of relative stability before history inevitably repeats itself.

I love that you seem to agree with my “it’s not just a simplistic ‘one thing’ as motive” observation….then immediately run back to “it’s nothing but a play to take their oil.” That play as the sole or even heavily weighted top motive doesn’t even make sense in the context of the modern/current energy economy. Sure, there’s wealth that can be exploited, and I’m CONFIDENT that the usual suspects will find a way to do so in the event of regime change, but there are multiple other compelling reasons to want regime change in Iran; shit, the other petro-states want it. Because Iran is a fucking cockroach that has destabilized the entire region for decades for no good reason. Chaos is bad for business.
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

image.png.33913f3fd687fb95224c00e0765c919c.png

if they've been in the air since midnight 14+ hours ago on a non-stop round-the-world mission, and they're around guam right now, with about 12,700 km down and 13,500 to go, they'd be over target somewhere around 7:00 am ET sunday. 

Edited by elfenix
Posted

That thread on the B2 positioning analysis makes me think the bombers are loaded and in the air as a literal Sword of Damocles over Iran's head. The splash and record setting nature of the first circumnavigation bombing mission being a Trump™ order is a heck of a lot of gravity that he just can't resist

Posted
32 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


I love that you seem to agree with my “it’s not just a simplistic ‘one thing’ as motive” observation….then immediately run back to “it’s nothing but a play to take their oil.” That play as the sole or even heavily weighted top motive doesn’t even make sense in the context of the modern/current energy economy. Sure, there’s wealth that can be exploited, and I’m CONFIDENT that the usual suspects will find a way to do so in the event of regime change, but there are multiple other compelling reasons to want regime change in Iran; shit, the other petro-states want it. Because Iran is a fucking cockroach that has destabilized the entire region for decades for no good reason. Chaos is bad for business.

You said there was no reason for the west to functionally capture Iran's natural resources, that's all I was pushing back on. Of course there are reasons.

Posted
You said there was no reason for the west to functionally capture Iran's natural resources, that's all I was pushing back on. Of course there are reasons.

I said there’s no real reason, perhaps a better term would have been “no compelling reason.” It’s just not a particularly necessary economic or geopolitical play, not like it was post-war. The US is doing fine without Iranian oil.
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
29 minutes ago, elfenix said:

if they've been in the air since midnight 14+ hours ago on a non-stop round-the-world mission, and they're around guam right now, with about 12,700 km down and 13,500 to go, they'd be over target somewhere around 7:00 am ET sunday. 

I think this is right, it should be about 30 hours and if they took off at 1am ET that makes sense. I guess we will find out soon if they actually land in Guam.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
28 minutes ago, elfenix said:

if they've been in the air since midnight 14+ hours ago on a non-stop round-the-world mission, and they're around guam right now, with about 12,700 km down and 13,500 to go, they'd be over target somewhere around 7:00 am ET sunday. 

That’s not going to get good viewership numbers though.  SAD!

28 minutes ago, Captainant said:

That thread on the B2 positioning analysis makes me think the bombers are loaded and in the air as a literal Sword of Damocles over Iran's head. The splash and record setting nature of the first circumnavigation bombing mission being a Trump™ order is a heck of a lot of gravity that he just can't resist

If they don’t use that ordnance, they may have to dump it in the ocean rather than trying to land with it and putting the wear and tear on the airframe, which is a lot of expensive toys wasted.

My guess is they are either going to use it, or the aircraft are empty and they are putting misinformation/disinformation out there making it look like we will bomb.

Posted
2 hours ago, chainsaw said:

The speculation masquerading as insight in this thread just screams 995er

TxState to PAC is a done deal, according to the big cigars who leak everything to me

Yeah it’s better when we’ve got idiots linking Theo fucking Von’s insights. 

Posted
1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

aircraft are empty and they are putting misinformation/disinformation out there making it look like we will bomb.

that's too clever for our current idiocratic leadership

Posted
12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


I said there’s no real reason, perhaps a better term would have been “no compelling reason.” It’s just not a particularly necessary economic or geopolitical play, not like it was post-war. The US is doing fine without Iranian oil.

Agree that this is more far complex than US wanting access to their oil. There are obviously potential downside issues with the down fall of Iran's current regime. However, @956 Worldwide spelled out really well what could happen if they got nukes. Beyond that, while many disagree with it occurring, I firmly believe in the potential for the people of Iran to produce a functional, modern country with far more individual freedoms. Is it likely, maybe not, but possible which is positive. Next, it definitely pulls an ally out of the Russian rolladex which is good for Ukraine and bad for Russia. I'm absolutely in favor of that part. Who knows maybe it is a dominoe that aids in Putin's demise, we can only hope. Finally, the people of Iran may hopefully have some autonomy over their oil, I don't care if it comes to the US, but I hope they price gouge China for being quiet supporters for the current Iranian regime. Because fuck China.

Posted
1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:


I said there’s no real reason, perhaps a better term would have been “no compelling reason.” It’s just not a particularly necessary economic or geopolitical play, not like it was post-war. The US is doing fine without Iranian oil.

Yeah I mean I'm not saying it's an intelligent or compelling reason, but we have Trump running the show, being primarily advised on Middle East policy by a drunk religious zealot SecDef and a YouTube conspiracy theorist. Nothing makes sense anymore.

Also, be careful about using the term cockroach to describe a population. I suspect you know the historic connotations of that.

  • Like 1
Posted
Yeah I mean I'm not saying it's an intelligent or compelling reason, but we have Trump running the show, being primarily advised on Middle East policy by a drunk religious zealot SecDef and a YouTube conspiracy theorist. Nothing makes sense anymore.
Also, be careful about using the term cockroach to describe a population. I suspect you know the historic connotations of that.

The “historic connotation” in which I was using the term was in connection with noted diplomat Darrell K Royal.
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

That’s not going to get good viewership numbers though.  SAD!

If they don’t use that ordnance, they may have to dump it in the ocean rather than trying to land with it and putting the wear and tear on the airframe, which is a lot of expensive toys wasted.

My guess is they are either going to use it, or the aircraft are empty and they are putting misinformation/disinformation out there making it look like we will bomb.

I would be shocked at this point if they didn't move forward. Despite the protestations of big parts of the Maga empire, if no US troops are involved (which I TRULY hope is the case) and only air/sea, it can be spun by Surly's favorite leader as "Bring Peace to the middle east (dispite being Persia)", "Stamping out terrorist" and "Saving the world from Nukes" all while he gets to flex the US military. Ego and Legacy would both be well served.

But... it is Trump "blind dart choices" are still in play.

Edited by BurntEyes
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, BurntEyes said:

if no US troops are involved (which I TRULY hope is the case) and only air/sea, it can be spun

This won't happen because once the US attacks on Iranian soil, Iran will have the right to retaliate and strike US interests which will escalate things. The chances of any diplomatic offramp will be too small. But even if there were no retaliation by Iran, the US will insist on regime change, which cannot happen without our boots on the ground as "peacekeepers" (just like we did in the Iraq War) who will be at risk. No matter what happens, we will be in for the long haul and it will cost us trillions.

Posted
5 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Beyond that, while many disagree with it occurring, I firmly believe in the potential for the people of Iran to produce a functional, modern country with far more individual freedoms. Is it likely, maybe not, but possible which is positive

Of course they could do this, they've had it before. The problem is that this happening organically would have almost no chance of resulting in a pro-Western government, which we would find completely unacceptable. Natural resources entirely aside, the idea is to have a government in place that can be controlled, which is why I suspect we want to give the country back to the Pahlavis. 

The people of Iran are protesting in the streets, but they are not protesting the Ayatollah, they're protesting against Israel and the US. They're not going to embrace US munitions falling from the sky as liberators. That's the pipe dream of all pipe dreams. They think we want to kill them all.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
20 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

If they don’t use that ordnance, they may have to dump it in the ocean rather than trying to land with it and putting the wear and tear on the airframe, which is a lot of expensive toys wasted.

My guess is they are either going to use it, or the aircraft are empty and they are putting misinformation/disinformation out there making it look like we will bomb.

I have to interject. 
 
On aerospace design projects, there are several different teams of structural analysts. One team is called “The Loads Group”. This is the team that determines the flight loads to design to, based on flight cases. 
 
Example: the vertical tail front spar for a twin engine airliner is typically sized by this load case- “one engine goes out when the airplane is 50 feet off the tarmac, requiring full thrust from the other engine, and full rudder to compensate, while the airplane ascends enough to return to land”. The spar must have a positive Margin of Safety (MS) for that load case. 
 
I can assure you, there is a load case for the STRATEGIC NUCLEAR BOMBER to land with a full complement of undelivered weapons. They will dump fuel. They will not dump weapons. 
 
Back to your scheduled programming. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

They think we want to kill them all.

We are the reason it was destabilized and de-secularized in the first place! They will want us to fuck right off and respect their sovereignty.

Posted
52 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


I said there’s no real reason, perhaps a better term would have been “no compelling reason.” It’s just not a particularly necessary economic or geopolitical play, not like it was post-war. The US is doing fine without Iranian oil.

With Trump and his heavy handedness, it wouldn’t surprise me. With us having some hand in overseeing it, it’d be better for the oil security of the world. Plus, it could be opened up to American domestic majors. But I agree with you that I doubt this is even a prime motivation. 

Posted
20 hours ago, utee94 said:

Remember when Charlie Strong proclaimed twitter would be the downfall of society?

Is it too late to admit he was right and apologize?

It was Charlie Strong. He probably meant something else and accidentally called it Twitter.

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...