But will you come on to this post -- and edit the top line with a thread that says, 'I was wrong'. Right now, the world is in a better place with Iran off the map and Hezbollah in a hole. The gulf states are being forced to choose. It may all go pear shaped.....and it may be impossible to tame Islam's intrinsic imperial expansionism and Jew hatred.....but at least Iran is now a long long way from nuclear ambitions. Iran of all those countries has the greatest potential to become relatively modern and even liberalish -- it is much more sophisticated than the Arab states. But a non-nuclear arab middle east world is much safer for everyone. Trump may over play his hand but commentators have repeatedly made the mistake of listening to his bombast whilst ignoring the play. He's a street conjuror.....but very good
LOL Iran had no intention to develop nukes says US Intelligence. There have been no Shia terrorist attacks on USA. Biggest terrorist in Middle East are the Zionist murdering genocidal demons. They are getting what they deserve.
That's simply not true -- and Tom Paine, born of Quaker parents in a country a long way from you, would have been appalled by your gross anti-semitism. Himmler suits you better. And right now Israel is getting what it deserves - a string of military victories, a string of diplomatic victories and the outside chance of an economically dynamic and more peaceful Middle East.
It isn’t safer for those without nuclear weapons. If you do not have nuclear weapons , you have no defense against countries like the US imposing their will on you , which they have consistently done to weaker countries
LIterally billions of people have got out of extreme grinding poverty in the last 40 years.... which is the default position of humanity. Other forms of political economy -- ALL OF THEM -- have proved disastrous. So tell me: Compared with what? All imperial powers throw their weight around. UK and then America have been on balance profoundly good for teh world. China -- the new hegemon -- will be profoundly bad.
My comment stands on its own strength. If you have nuclear weapons a the US will leave you alone. If you do t and you don’t bend to their will , they will do whatever is necessary to change you through bribery, color revolutions or coercion.
Spot on. What's wild is that even if he TACO's, Iran will almost certainly demand a public victory of some sort. That's bad enough, and soon after, with the bases proved untenable, the slow US withdrawal from the entire region. This may already be unavoidable.
The TACO factor is the wild card here. If the administration follows its usual pattern launching a massive show of force like Epic Fury only to seek a quick 'deal' to settle the global energy markets Iran will pivot that into a narrative of 'resistance through survival.'
By striking U.S. bases in Kuwait and Bahrain and targeting regional economic hubs, Iran isn't trying to win a dogfight; they are trying to raise the 'rent' on U.S. presence until it's too expensive for Washington to stay. If the U.S. does eventually withdraw to over-the-horizon platforms to avoid these base vulnerabilities, does that effectively hand Iran the regional hegemony they’ve been seeking for decades, regardless of the damage done to their nuclear sites?
These kinds of analyses remind me of videos by military analysts I watched last year discussing theoretical US invasions of Greenland and Canada. In particular I like the MilitaryRated youtube channel, he does good stuff.
The gist of the video is, if the US invaded Greenland it would look impressive at first and the US would run roughshod over whatever Danish forces were there. But it's one thing to make a bold first invasionary thrust, and another thing entirely to maintain control. Eventually US forces would be unable to hold a harsh environment like Greenland and would eventually succumb. The analogy here is that Greenland's harsh environment is akin to Iran's desert and mountainous environment. Furthermore, with 90 million people that's a ton of opposition US forces would face, which is an additional factor Greenland would not have.
I suggest you watch the YouTube the Civilsn rifle man
But the 'Greenland Analogy' is actually a perfect lens for this. Military analysts often point out that while the U.S. can 'batter its way in to almost any territory, maintaining control in a hostile climate whether it's Arctic ice or the rugged Iranian interior is where the curve dips into the red.
In Iran, you're not just fighting the geography; you're fighting 90 million people in a landscape designed for asymmetric warfare.
If the U.S. couldn't solve the logistics of a frozen, sparsely populated island in a war game, how do they expect to sustain a 'Gaza 2.0' scenario across a country the size of Western Europe?
I’d argue that the USA has already lost as has Israel. Iran has persuaded the region that:
1. The USA cannot protect them
2. The USA does not want to protect them, it will always protect Israel first and last
3. The USA is a destabilising force which is weakening and even threatening their economic and political projects
4. The USA is weak and lashing out rather than strong and dependable.
China is, as it is in Ukraine, the key to ending the war. Only China has the ability to influence all actors and only China can broker a deal and guarantee it. That is what real power looks like.
The other conclusion we can draw is that in some parts of our highly connected world, war is now impossible because it will quickly disrupt our vital supply chains.
I bet this is over in days because every day it continues the USA and Israel will lose more in the long term
If Iran’s retaliatory strikes have effectively turned US bases from 'security assets' into 'liability targets' for the host nations, does force projection even matter if you no longer have the local political consent to station those forces permanently?
I don’t think Iran will do this, the gulf states will do it because enabling US force projection is making them unstable and poor. They will be supported in this by all of Asia and Europe neither of whom will put up with the economic disaster for more than a day or two. The world is hyper connected now with efficient low cost supply chains and the Gulf is a major node. We cannot have a pointless war there ever again. This is different from the first gulf war for example because then the USA was defending stability and reimposing order and economic prosperity. Now it’s the equivalent of Saddam invading Kuwait. This will not stand up to world scrutiny for long.
If the region is indeed moving away from the US as a dependable guarantor, do you think the alternative a landscape led by regional powers or brokered by China can actually provide the same level of maritime and economic security, or does it lead to a more fragmented and volatile 'every nation for itself' environment?
I don't think people should expect China to clean up the mess which US and Israel created - though they might find it reasonable to help Iranians defend themselves from such criminal aggression (again) - without being in a hurry to decide the matter. Russia also, even more obviously.
I find it even less likely that US or Israel suddenly discover the long term logic of mutual benefit. Tactics of provocation are a constant of Israeli foreign policy in the 3 decades of the Netanyahu Era.
Likely path I think is cycle of slowdowns, but not exhaustion, alternating with schemes by Israel to give US leadership excuses to re-engage.
The US has started using PAC-2's for interceptions. 5/5 THAADs have been hit as stated in the article. UAE is pulling ICBM interceptors from south korea. Not a good sign. Magazines are bottoming out. As PT stated the drones are in the freaking thousands. The US has now pulled out its WW3 doomsday scenario fleet out into the mideast and is struggling to manage Iran despite running out of military targets to bomb past week 1. Probably the result of abjectly stupid political planning and not military planning failure, if I had to guess. Situation not what I would call looking good. This might drag out for a month or more. No clear plans from political leadership at the start, consequently not likely to end that way either...
The US is being shown the door....go home Yankees! But what is missing in the article is what if US/Israel decided to use Nukes? We have seem the depravity of Gaza and what they are doing in Tehran looks like Gaza 2.0, if they feel they are losing they might use Nukes.
If it gets to the point where Israel is out of the necessary interceptors (which may be as early as this coming week) and Iran is showing no signs of giving up they might legitimately and unilaterally decide to nuke Iran although I don’t believe even Trump hegseth or Rubio would resort to nukes regardless of how dire it gets
Unfortunately, they all got away with Gaza Genocide, once you get away with Genocide, anything goes...it doesn't matter if Israel nukes or US nukes, they are the same.
Nukes would be breaching a whole other threshold. Nuking Iran would literally and figuratively be a nuclear option. It would immediately destroy their political hold to where even the politicians and countries they’ve bought could no longer back them.
Not only that but there is no guarantee even a nuke would result in collapse. The IRGC has been decentralized, erasing Tehran doesn’t erase the rest of the country nor the leadership that exists outside of Tehran.
I think that’s correct - Andy nuclear strike on Iran would have to be massive. One or two wouldn’t stop Iran. Iran also has a nuclear deterrent, which I’d imagine would give even the lunatics in TLV pause for thought. A concerted heavy hypersonic missile strike on Dimona, and Israel becomes uninhabitable. Even if the lunatics are not deterred, the Americans will take the toys away.
Yes, but Iran holds a powerful response, likely nuclear, in reserve as well. It’s either hypersonic rain on Dimona or an actual nuclear response. The empire is about to be 2 for 2 in creating the thing they went to war to prevent.
The 'Gaza 2.0' comparison for Tehran is chilling, especially as we see the Tornado Plan leveling high-visibility targets in civilian areas.
If the goal has shifted from destroying nuclear sites to the total collapse of the state, we’re entering a cornered-animal scenario.
Historically, the U.S. and Israel have maintained a Calculated Ambiguity regarding nuclear weapons, but that doctrine is designed for deterrence, not for a 'losing' scenario where regional bases are being overrun or evacuated.
Don't forget that Dimona may be a target too. Iran doesn't need nuclear capacity to inflict nuclear damage to Israel. Their missiles can get anywhere. If it comes to a nuclear showdown, Israel nuclear facilities will become a clear target. USrael cannot take that risk.
I hope the US/Israel decline to Nuke Iran when the US/Israel strategic defeat becomes clear.
“Yankee go home?”
Iran’s systematic destruction of all US assets/bases, ports, airstrips, data centers, radars in the Gulf region, are showing the Gulf States that the US can't provide security for them and they should not waste more money on expensive ineffective weapons systems.
With interceptors running out and the US prioritizing resupply to Israel rather than their Gulf “partners”, the Gulf leaders realize the US is a liability (to their security and their economies) and will eventually ask the US to GET OUT!
Iran made it clear just yesterday saying to the Gulf States they will not attack them unless strikes against Iran are launched from their territory. So it's a clear message, if you don't want to be hit, show the US the door.
The US and Israel are desperate to hide what's really happening, and of course, the real body count, keep maintaining your ignorance believing what you are told, remember my posts when reality is revealed. It will be a hard pill to swallow for Americans.
Why is Grok used as a source in this piece? LLMs make up whatever it needs by guessing the next word it should say to you. They can be useful for many things, but considering an LLM as a source shouldn't be one of them.
So if he does analysis for 85% and throws in 15% grok, you can simply pretend the article was 15% shorter, perhaps? Unless Grok had influence in the other part of the assessment, what is the impact on things like drone math? I object more to the fact that Grok of all LLMs was used. With the LLM analysis here I sort of just treat it as a low-probability assertion and treat this section with different assessment and confidence.
Citing sources is done to provide credit to the original author and/or as a reference to authority helping give your statements more authority. An LLM rips and aggregatres information from the web so providing credit to the actual author/thinker clearly wasn't the purpose in this piece. Which leaves us with it being done as a reference to authority but as @Polici mentioned, citing Grok is a very questionable choice.
For me personally, this reference to Grok as a source caused me to cast doubt on the valudity of that section which then casts diubt on the piece as a whole.
Make peace you fools: Rundstedt. 1944. Trump is finished. I’d love to see him in Beijing in April, kowtowing to Xi, and begging him to stop the Iranians. I’m so sorry about the damage to Iran and its people, but in every other respect, this is sooooo delicious. The stable genius turned out to be as thick as mince. Wins the presidency, surrounds himself by people hostile to him and whatever his agenda was, lets himself be persuaded to keep project Ukraine going, and start a few others, inc Iran. What an idiot. The blob couldn’t lose……a) somehow Iran is defeated and it wins, b) Iran is not defeated, Trump is done, and it wins.
Great analysis. Given that just moments ago, Dubai airport was directly hit by a low flying drone, something the US has admitted it is struggling to stop, suggests your analysis is strong. Iran immediately said - right after they hit it again - that they'll stop the attacks as long as there are no retaliations. Immediately, Emirates Airlines said they'd resume flights. What does that tell you? That UAE has tacitly accepted that arrangement, and the focus will now shift to the United States who have caused them this incredible headache.
Since the first Israeli - American attack I have been waiting for the Iranians to damage or sink an American aircraft carrier. I understand their strategy of depleting the American's ability to launch defensive missiles and of using 'older' weapons to force American defensive fire and so use up U.S. stocks faster.
But now that is happening, and Iran has greater insights into American defensive strategies and abilities, I still believe that Iran's ultimate target is the destruction of an aircraft carrier as the ultimate 'bloody nose' that would force the American military to run away. America would have no operational alternative. Perhaps one hypersonic missile through the deck? I'm guessing that would be more than enough kinetic energy to destroy it.
Three things will result from that:
First, Iran will have won and America will have lost, and Hormuz will eventually reopen without American credibility or involvement. The Middle East psychological impact, and geopolitical power structure, will change forever. America will become irrelevant.
Secondly, as many have pointed out, America has no exit strategy, or even a realistic definition of what winning might look like. Therefore if the world wants Hormuz to reopen and oil to flow again, then the ONLY option on the table is for Iran to win. And soon. Only a fool will support America's continued struggles.
Lastly, when Iran does elect a new leader, he will have a mandate for a new declaration of Shi'ite Jihad against America, not least because of those so-called American Evangelical Christians that have declared a holy way on Iran. That will mean 300 million Shi'ite people under religious instruction to destroy everything American; businesses, Embassies, military bases, and yes, American tourists and expats will be targets too. If you are an American, you can thank Trump for putting you at real risk.
I feel pretty certain that if the Iranians sink an aircraft carrier, the US will nuke them.
That, in my mind, is the problem with all the scenarios where Iran "wins". We know what the Israelis are. We see the radical instability of the current American regime.
So inasmuch as I would love to see the Iranians kick Israel's ass and push the Americans out of the region, I can't see either party allowing that to happen.
You may be correct, but there is a longstanding and fundamental resistance in all military hierarchies that understands that the nuclear option means The End. Whilst political leaders might bluster and threaten, most even vaguely-sane people understand that it isn't just a step too far, but is the end of humanity. Certainly the end of civilisation.
Or to put it in Trumpian terms, it is the end of wealthy White people!
They have to manage escalation very carefully to avoid USrael from going nuclear before they have a nuclear response ready. They don’t have to sink it though, just hit it, damage the flight deck, etc. to chase it away.
The other issue, that is the subject of an almost complete western media lockdown, is how much damage is being inflicted in Israel? Anyone got any links to credible/verified info information on this?
I am fascinated by the Kurdish element, not because it will likely effect the us conflict with Iran, but its potential to ignite conflict with Turkey. The disabling of Syria, Iraq, and now Iran leaves the Kurds with 3/4 of a state, with only Turkish territory cut off.
If the US arms them, they could likely become even higher priority for Turkey to neutralize, potentially even through genocide.
Interesting perspective. Thanks.
Will you step up and admit you’re wrong if and when ?
I told you the criterion.
But will you come on to this post -- and edit the top line with a thread that says, 'I was wrong'. Right now, the world is in a better place with Iran off the map and Hezbollah in a hole. The gulf states are being forced to choose. It may all go pear shaped.....and it may be impossible to tame Islam's intrinsic imperial expansionism and Jew hatred.....but at least Iran is now a long long way from nuclear ambitions. Iran of all those countries has the greatest potential to become relatively modern and even liberalish -- it is much more sophisticated than the Arab states. But a non-nuclear arab middle east world is much safer for everyone. Trump may over play his hand but commentators have repeatedly made the mistake of listening to his bombast whilst ignoring the play. He's a street conjuror.....but very good
LOL Iran had no intention to develop nukes says US Intelligence. There have been no Shia terrorist attacks on USA. Biggest terrorist in Middle East are the Zionist murdering genocidal demons. They are getting what they deserve.
That's simply not true -- and Tom Paine, born of Quaker parents in a country a long way from you, would have been appalled by your gross anti-semitism. Himmler suits you better. And right now Israel is getting what it deserves - a string of military victories, a string of diplomatic victories and the outside chance of an economically dynamic and more peaceful Middle East.
It is true and Zionism is not same as Jewish religion in fact is heresy to the Talmud as many religious Jews point out.
Stop resorting to the same old stupid name calling you ignoramus.
Tell that to Jews under attack from anti Zionists all over the west
It isn’t safer for those without nuclear weapons. If you do not have nuclear weapons , you have no defense against countries like the US imposing their will on you , which they have consistently done to weaker countries
LIterally billions of people have got out of extreme grinding poverty in the last 40 years.... which is the default position of humanity. Other forms of political economy -- ALL OF THEM -- have proved disastrous. So tell me: Compared with what? All imperial powers throw their weight around. UK and then America have been on balance profoundly good for teh world. China -- the new hegemon -- will be profoundly bad.
My comment stands on its own strength. If you have nuclear weapons a the US will leave you alone. If you do t and you don’t bend to their will , they will do whatever is necessary to change you through bribery, color revolutions or coercion.
North Korea being a good case in point - to the benefit of all KN citizens, the its neighbours and to the rest of the world.
what a banger!
Spot on. What's wild is that even if he TACO's, Iran will almost certainly demand a public victory of some sort. That's bad enough, and soon after, with the bases proved untenable, the slow US withdrawal from the entire region. This may already be unavoidable.
Fucking owned, dude. Holy shit
The TACO factor is the wild card here. If the administration follows its usual pattern launching a massive show of force like Epic Fury only to seek a quick 'deal' to settle the global energy markets Iran will pivot that into a narrative of 'resistance through survival.'
By striking U.S. bases in Kuwait and Bahrain and targeting regional economic hubs, Iran isn't trying to win a dogfight; they are trying to raise the 'rent' on U.S. presence until it's too expensive for Washington to stay. If the U.S. does eventually withdraw to over-the-horizon platforms to avoid these base vulnerabilities, does that effectively hand Iran the regional hegemony they’ve been seeking for decades, regardless of the damage done to their nuclear sites?
These kinds of analyses remind me of videos by military analysts I watched last year discussing theoretical US invasions of Greenland and Canada. In particular I like the MilitaryRated youtube channel, he does good stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hdthsG8tks
The gist of the video is, if the US invaded Greenland it would look impressive at first and the US would run roughshod over whatever Danish forces were there. But it's one thing to make a bold first invasionary thrust, and another thing entirely to maintain control. Eventually US forces would be unable to hold a harsh environment like Greenland and would eventually succumb. The analogy here is that Greenland's harsh environment is akin to Iran's desert and mountainous environment. Furthermore, with 90 million people that's a ton of opposition US forces would face, which is an additional factor Greenland would not have.
The invading army is always at a disadvantage.
I suggest you watch the YouTube the Civilsn rifle man
But the 'Greenland Analogy' is actually a perfect lens for this. Military analysts often point out that while the U.S. can 'batter its way in to almost any territory, maintaining control in a hostile climate whether it's Arctic ice or the rugged Iranian interior is where the curve dips into the red.
In Iran, you're not just fighting the geography; you're fighting 90 million people in a landscape designed for asymmetric warfare.
If the U.S. couldn't solve the logistics of a frozen, sparsely populated island in a war game, how do they expect to sustain a 'Gaza 2.0' scenario across a country the size of Western Europe?
Pretty hard to survive in the hinterlands of Greenland without support from the coasts.
I’d argue that the USA has already lost as has Israel. Iran has persuaded the region that:
1. The USA cannot protect them
2. The USA does not want to protect them, it will always protect Israel first and last
3. The USA is a destabilising force which is weakening and even threatening their economic and political projects
4. The USA is weak and lashing out rather than strong and dependable.
China is, as it is in Ukraine, the key to ending the war. Only China has the ability to influence all actors and only China can broker a deal and guarantee it. That is what real power looks like.
The other conclusion we can draw is that in some parts of our highly connected world, war is now impossible because it will quickly disrupt our vital supply chains.
I bet this is over in days because every day it continues the USA and Israel will lose more in the long term
Iran has or will probably make sure US force projection in the region will be non existent.
If Iran’s retaliatory strikes have effectively turned US bases from 'security assets' into 'liability targets' for the host nations, does force projection even matter if you no longer have the local political consent to station those forces permanently?
The Americans will not ask consent, any more than Nazis were going to take no for an answer from Romania in 1941.
Well they're liabilities - in the situation that this type of war breaks out with one of the most missile-wielding states on this planet.
I don’t think Iran will do this, the gulf states will do it because enabling US force projection is making them unstable and poor. They will be supported in this by all of Asia and Europe neither of whom will put up with the economic disaster for more than a day or two. The world is hyper connected now with efficient low cost supply chains and the Gulf is a major node. We cannot have a pointless war there ever again. This is different from the first gulf war for example because then the USA was defending stability and reimposing order and economic prosperity. Now it’s the equivalent of Saddam invading Kuwait. This will not stand up to world scrutiny for long.
If the region is indeed moving away from the US as a dependable guarantor, do you think the alternative a landscape led by regional powers or brokered by China can actually provide the same level of maritime and economic security, or does it lead to a more fragmented and volatile 'every nation for itself' environment?
Why would the region need security? From whom? The actors currently making the region insecure are the USA and Israel
No, that'd be the terror sponsors in Tehran making the gulf states align with the US & Israel
Ok Boomer. Time for your pudding.
Oh look it's the Nazi crying over dead jihadis
The Gulfie tyrannies already know most of this. They don't care, because if TSHTF, they'll bugger off to Paris, Switzerland or London.
"For where a man's treasure is, there his heart is...."
I don't think people should expect China to clean up the mess which US and Israel created - though they might find it reasonable to help Iranians defend themselves from such criminal aggression (again) - without being in a hurry to decide the matter. Russia also, even more obviously.
I find it even less likely that US or Israel suddenly discover the long term logic of mutual benefit. Tactics of provocation are a constant of Israeli foreign policy in the 3 decades of the Netanyahu Era.
Likely path I think is cycle of slowdowns, but not exhaustion, alternating with schemes by Israel to give US leadership excuses to re-engage.
I see only escalation in the eyes of Trump and Bibi. Iran will oblige.
The US has started using PAC-2's for interceptions. 5/5 THAADs have been hit as stated in the article. UAE is pulling ICBM interceptors from south korea. Not a good sign. Magazines are bottoming out. As PT stated the drones are in the freaking thousands. The US has now pulled out its WW3 doomsday scenario fleet out into the mideast and is struggling to manage Iran despite running out of military targets to bomb past week 1. Probably the result of abjectly stupid political planning and not military planning failure, if I had to guess. Situation not what I would call looking good. This might drag out for a month or more. No clear plans from political leadership at the start, consequently not likely to end that way either...
The US is being shown the door....go home Yankees! But what is missing in the article is what if US/Israel decided to use Nukes? We have seem the depravity of Gaza and what they are doing in Tehran looks like Gaza 2.0, if they feel they are losing they might use Nukes.
If it gets to the point where Israel is out of the necessary interceptors (which may be as early as this coming week) and Iran is showing no signs of giving up they might legitimately and unilaterally decide to nuke Iran although I don’t believe even Trump hegseth or Rubio would resort to nukes regardless of how dire it gets
Unfortunately, they all got away with Gaza Genocide, once you get away with Genocide, anything goes...it doesn't matter if Israel nukes or US nukes, they are the same.
Nukes would be breaching a whole other threshold. Nuking Iran would literally and figuratively be a nuclear option. It would immediately destroy their political hold to where even the politicians and countries they’ve bought could no longer back them.
Not only that but there is no guarantee even a nuke would result in collapse. The IRGC has been decentralized, erasing Tehran doesn’t erase the rest of the country nor the leadership that exists outside of Tehran.
I think that’s correct - Andy nuclear strike on Iran would have to be massive. One or two wouldn’t stop Iran. Iran also has a nuclear deterrent, which I’d imagine would give even the lunatics in TLV pause for thought. A concerted heavy hypersonic missile strike on Dimona, and Israel becomes uninhabitable. Even if the lunatics are not deterred, the Americans will take the toys away.
“Legitimately”??
Seriously?
You don’t think they’d consider it?
Of course they would. Doesn't make it "legitimate".
That’s not what I meant by legitimately lmao I meant it’s something they would actually consider not that it would be a legitimate thing to do
Understood.
Legitimately?
Yes, but Iran holds a powerful response, likely nuclear, in reserve as well. It’s either hypersonic rain on Dimona or an actual nuclear response. The empire is about to be 2 for 2 in creating the thing they went to war to prevent.
Legitimately?
Many of them , like Hegseth , are religious nuts pining for Armageddon. They have Trump believing he is doing Gods work. Don’t put anything past them
This is something that worries me
The 'Gaza 2.0' comparison for Tehran is chilling, especially as we see the Tornado Plan leveling high-visibility targets in civilian areas.
If the goal has shifted from destroying nuclear sites to the total collapse of the state, we’re entering a cornered-animal scenario.
Historically, the U.S. and Israel have maintained a Calculated Ambiguity regarding nuclear weapons, but that doctrine is designed for deterrence, not for a 'losing' scenario where regional bases are being overrun or evacuated.
Don't forget that Dimona may be a target too. Iran doesn't need nuclear capacity to inflict nuclear damage to Israel. Their missiles can get anywhere. If it comes to a nuclear showdown, Israel nuclear facilities will become a clear target. USrael cannot take that risk.
The US lost multiple wars and declined to nuke Korea, Vietnam & Iraq.
The gulf states aligned with the US. Not sure where you're getting the "Yankee go home" from lol
The US got what it wanted in Iraq, which was to turn that country into a failed state.
The point stands.
They didn't see Korea as a loss. Vietnam is really your only case, and the US would have been sure to faced an aggressive Soviet response.
What's different about Iran?
Israel. Trump. No Soviet Union. That's for starters.
I hope the US/Israel decline to Nuke Iran when the US/Israel strategic defeat becomes clear.
“Yankee go home?”
Iran’s systematic destruction of all US assets/bases, ports, airstrips, data centers, radars in the Gulf region, are showing the Gulf States that the US can't provide security for them and they should not waste more money on expensive ineffective weapons systems.
With interceptors running out and the US prioritizing resupply to Israel rather than their Gulf “partners”, the Gulf leaders realize the US is a liability (to their security and their economies) and will eventually ask the US to GET OUT!
Iran made it clear just yesterday saying to the Gulf States they will not attack them unless strikes against Iran are launched from their territory. So it's a clear message, if you don't want to be hit, show the US the door.
I don't think you know what a strategic defeat is.
Uh huh. Got any links to support this supposed destruction?
Sounds like a lot of hope and cope to me
The US and Israel are desperate to hide what's really happening, and of course, the real body count, keep maintaining your ignorance believing what you are told, remember my posts when reality is revealed. It will be a hard pill to swallow for Americans.
Lol, you talk a lot but offer no evidence.
Yeah, says the guy with no arguments 😂
Unless of course the Iranian opposition takes over this very weakened and corrupt country 🤔
Iranian opposition…..😂😂😂 What on Earth have you been reading?
Glad you got the irony, they really don’t exist 😂
Obviously Fox News 😁
How much of what’s written here is made up by Grok ?
None. Besides cited.
Why is Grok used as a source in this piece? LLMs make up whatever it needs by guessing the next word it should say to you. They can be useful for many things, but considering an LLM as a source shouldn't be one of them.
So if he does analysis for 85% and throws in 15% grok, you can simply pretend the article was 15% shorter, perhaps? Unless Grok had influence in the other part of the assessment, what is the impact on things like drone math? I object more to the fact that Grok of all LLMs was used. With the LLM analysis here I sort of just treat it as a low-probability assertion and treat this section with different assessment and confidence.
Citing sources is done to provide credit to the original author and/or as a reference to authority helping give your statements more authority. An LLM rips and aggregatres information from the web so providing credit to the actual author/thinker clearly wasn't the purpose in this piece. Which leaves us with it being done as a reference to authority but as @Polici mentioned, citing Grok is a very questionable choice.
For me personally, this reference to Grok as a source caused me to cast doubt on the valudity of that section which then casts diubt on the piece as a whole.
Make peace you fools: Rundstedt. 1944. Trump is finished. I’d love to see him in Beijing in April, kowtowing to Xi, and begging him to stop the Iranians. I’m so sorry about the damage to Iran and its people, but in every other respect, this is sooooo delicious. The stable genius turned out to be as thick as mince. Wins the presidency, surrounds himself by people hostile to him and whatever his agenda was, lets himself be persuaded to keep project Ukraine going, and start a few others, inc Iran. What an idiot. The blob couldn’t lose……a) somehow Iran is defeated and it wins, b) Iran is not defeated, Trump is done, and it wins.
Great analysis. Given that just moments ago, Dubai airport was directly hit by a low flying drone, something the US has admitted it is struggling to stop, suggests your analysis is strong. Iran immediately said - right after they hit it again - that they'll stop the attacks as long as there are no retaliations. Immediately, Emirates Airlines said they'd resume flights. What does that tell you? That UAE has tacitly accepted that arrangement, and the focus will now shift to the United States who have caused them this incredible headache.
Since the first Israeli - American attack I have been waiting for the Iranians to damage or sink an American aircraft carrier. I understand their strategy of depleting the American's ability to launch defensive missiles and of using 'older' weapons to force American defensive fire and so use up U.S. stocks faster.
But now that is happening, and Iran has greater insights into American defensive strategies and abilities, I still believe that Iran's ultimate target is the destruction of an aircraft carrier as the ultimate 'bloody nose' that would force the American military to run away. America would have no operational alternative. Perhaps one hypersonic missile through the deck? I'm guessing that would be more than enough kinetic energy to destroy it.
Three things will result from that:
First, Iran will have won and America will have lost, and Hormuz will eventually reopen without American credibility or involvement. The Middle East psychological impact, and geopolitical power structure, will change forever. America will become irrelevant.
Secondly, as many have pointed out, America has no exit strategy, or even a realistic definition of what winning might look like. Therefore if the world wants Hormuz to reopen and oil to flow again, then the ONLY option on the table is for Iran to win. And soon. Only a fool will support America's continued struggles.
Lastly, when Iran does elect a new leader, he will have a mandate for a new declaration of Shi'ite Jihad against America, not least because of those so-called American Evangelical Christians that have declared a holy way on Iran. That will mean 300 million Shi'ite people under religious instruction to destroy everything American; businesses, Embassies, military bases, and yes, American tourists and expats will be targets too. If you are an American, you can thank Trump for putting you at real risk.
I feel pretty certain that if the Iranians sink an aircraft carrier, the US will nuke them.
That, in my mind, is the problem with all the scenarios where Iran "wins". We know what the Israelis are. We see the radical instability of the current American regime.
So inasmuch as I would love to see the Iranians kick Israel's ass and push the Americans out of the region, I can't see either party allowing that to happen.
And nukes would be the way.
You may be correct, but there is a longstanding and fundamental resistance in all military hierarchies that understands that the nuclear option means The End. Whilst political leaders might bluster and threaten, most even vaguely-sane people understand that it isn't just a step too far, but is the end of humanity. Certainly the end of civilisation.
Or to put it in Trumpian terms, it is the end of wealthy White people!
Delusional garbage
They have to manage escalation very carefully to avoid USrael from going nuclear before they have a nuclear response ready. They don’t have to sink it though, just hit it, damage the flight deck, etc. to chase it away.
The other issue, that is the subject of an almost complete western media lockdown, is how much damage is being inflicted in Israel? Anyone got any links to credible/verified info information on this?
I am fascinated by the Kurdish element, not because it will likely effect the us conflict with Iran, but its potential to ignite conflict with Turkey. The disabling of Syria, Iraq, and now Iran leaves the Kurds with 3/4 of a state, with only Turkish territory cut off.
If the US arms them, they could likely become even higher priority for Turkey to neutralize, potentially even through genocide.
Interesting analysis, thank you.
We had a good run boys