cubsfan Posted March 25 Posted March 25 2 minutes ago, Viking said: @Parsad, there is no risk of 100,000 US casualties any time soon. So that problem is off the table for now. I think you are underestimating Iran’s resolve. Look at what they were willing to endure in their decade-long war with Iraq (the military leaders from that war are in charge now). We are 4 weeks into this conflict. The IRCG want much more than to ‘retain power and control.’ As long as they control what gets out of the straight they have leverage - it makes sense to me that they are going to try and maximize it. I agree that at some point Trump might decide to use a tactical nuke… Game theory only really works when you are dealing with rational actors. The US under Trump and Iran under the IRGC are not rational. The IRGC can not afford to lose their regime status. They know that it means fleeing the country or execution for most of them. They will fight until the end, flee or be wiped out. All the US and Israel can do is speed up the process. Just tonight, the Israelis hit Mashhad (2nd largest city), which has been fairly untouched, destroying missiles depots and killing 200 Basij members (regime thugs) in 1 location. The attacks continue totally unopposed - this time in the eastern part of the country.
Parsad Posted March 25 Posted March 25 26 minutes ago, Viking said: @Parsad, there is no risk of 100,000 US casualties any time soon. So that problem is off the table for now. I think you are underestimating Iran’s resolve. Look at what they were willing to endure in their decade-long war with Iraq (the military leaders from that war are in charge now). We are 4 weeks into this conflict. The IRCG want much more than to ‘retain power and control.’ As long as they control what gets out of the straight they have leverage - it makes sense to me that they are going to try and maximize it. I agree that at some point Trump might decide to use a tactical nuke… Game theory only really works when you are dealing with rational actors. The US under Trump and Iran under the IRGC are not rational (I don’t think that should be a controversial statement). Iran and Iraq were more level in terms of ground personnel and military. It's not even comparable in this case to the U.S. firepower. And then combine that with Israel...it's just not going to happen. A ground war means the complete demise of the regime. Right now, they can try and demand some concessions and save face, save themselves. The alternative as Cubs said is complete annihilation and the end of the regime altogether. There were rumors when Russia had first invaded Ukraine, that Putin had cancer. He has a daughter...not sure how many other children. But if a man like that has nothing to lose as he is dying, could he just say "who gives a shit what happens to the world after I'm gone" and use nukes to take Ukraine? There was a possibility that he might do that. But guess what...he didn't, hasn't, probably won't. He goes about saying what people want to hear, then does pretty much what he wants. Especially when the only policeman of the world admires him and is busy with his own war! The point is...even those that seem crazy and irrational, tend to act in their own self-interest when required. It's human nature...it's animal nature. Cheers!
cubsfan Posted March 26 Posted March 26 (edited) Today's CENTCOM briefing: (3 minutes) Edited March 26 by cubsfan
dwy000 Posted March 26 Posted March 26 29 minutes ago, Parsad said: Iran and Iraq were more level in terms of ground personnel and military. It's not even comparable in this case to the U.S. firepower. And then combine that with Israel...it's just not going to happen. A ground war means the complete demise of the regime. Right now, they can try and demand some concessions and save face, save themselves. The alternative as Cubs said is complete annihilation and the end of the regime altogether. There were rumors when Russia had first invaded Ukraine, that Putin had cancer. He has a daughter...not sure how many other children. But if a man like that has nothing to lose as he is dying, could he just say "who gives a shit what happens to the world after I'm gone" and use nukes to take Ukraine? There was a possibility that he might do that. But guess what...he didn't, hasn't, probably won't. He goes about saying what people want to hear, then does pretty much what he wants. Especially when the only policeman of the world admires him and is busy with his own war! The point is...even those that seem crazy and irrational, tend to act in their own self-interest when required. It's human nature...it's animal nature. Cheers! Any sort of end game that the US can hold up as a military win (regime change, permanent end of nuke program, opening of SOH by force, etc) requires boots on the ground. There is zero appetite to put boots on ground from both parties in the US. This was Nancy Mace today. If you dont have Nancy Mace you dont have any Republicans. Gas prices are rising, the costs of the war are getting higher and the midterms are getting closer. Time is on Iran's side just by surviving. My guess would be a headline "win" and walk away for both sides pretty soon. With nothing essentially changed for the better at the end of it.
ourkid8 Posted March 26 Posted March 26 2 hours ago, Parsad said: This is the problem with you two! You guys only pick and choose what backs up your position. Charlie was a pragmatist. He wasn't too proud to admit that his views could change based on the ACTUAL FACTS! He was far from a fan of Trump's, but at the same time agreed with certain issues Trump wanted to fix. That's very different than what either of you are doing! Cheers! I was not trying to back up any position, I was agreeing with Blake (I believe who posted the message) “I think he has qualities to make him unsuitable for the office” - Charlie I am not as close on US domestic policies so I won’t be able to comment on Charlie’s view on trumps immigration policies.
Viking Posted March 26 Posted March 26 (edited) Here is what sounds like a pretty balanced perspective from the head of MI6 of where the war is at. Q: “Who has the upper hand?” A: “Iran.” ”I regret coming to this conclusion.” (This guy can’t stand the IRCG.) “The US underestimated the task. As about two weeks ago lost the initiative to Iran.” He explain why in detail why he thinks this. (PS: If this guy thinks this guess what the IRGC thinks?) Edited March 26 by Viking
Viking Posted March 26 Posted March 26 (edited) Ok. So if you are Trump and things aren’t going well what do you do? Of course you punt the problem to someone else. On the invasion of Iraq, Colin Powell famously told President George W. Bush, "If you break it you own it." The new Trump doctrine: “When I break it you own it.” So who does Trump punt the problem to? This is where the current situation gets interesting. The Gulf states are one obvious answer - but this would likely permanently impair US/Gulf relationship. Oil importing nations in Asia is another obvious answer. The optics of this war are also really bad: The US can be viewed as a (relative) winner. The rest of the world is the loser. And then exiting the problem? Ouch! But here is the biggest problem Trump might have moving forward: you can lie to the rest of the world all you want. But you can’t start a war and then lie to the American people. Especially if the war is not going well. There are so many interesting angles to this story… Edited March 26 by Viking
Parsad Posted March 26 Posted March 26 18 minutes ago, Viking said: Here is what sounds like a pretty balanced perspective from the head of MI6 of where the war is at. Q: “Who has the upper hand?” A: “Iran.” ”I regret coming to this conclusion.” (This guy can’t stand the IRCG.) “The US underestimated the task. As about two weeks ago lost the initiative to Iran.” He explain why in detail why he thinks this. (PS: If this guy thinks this guess what the IRGC thinks?) I'm not MI6...but I don't see either side having any significant advantage here where negotiated settlement isn't in the best interest of all parties concerned. And if it does escalate, then I actually think the Iranian regime is at the disadvantage because it will be the end of them. The U.S. will suffer...but it will certainly be the end of the theocracy as we know it. Cheers! https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/25/politics/iran-kharg-island-us-military-ground-troops
cubsfan Posted March 26 Posted March 26 Statement by UAE about what a great neighbor Iran is..... firing 2200 missiles at them. UAE Minister of State Lana Nusseibeh A top United Arab Emirates official warned Iran’s attacks are threatening the global economy and signaled Gulf states are prepared to take further action as the war escalates. “We did not ask for a war in our region. We did not start a war in our region,” Nusseibeh said. “But as a result of these operations, we have now seen Iran take the irresponsible decision instead of negotiating with the United States over really well understood concerns over its nuclear program, over its ballistic missiles program, over its support of state non-state terrorist actors in the region, instead of negotiating over those issues, they chose instead to fire over 2200 missiles and drones at the United Arab Emirates.” No wonder the Arab nations are joining Israel in the fight against Iran - a truly historic first for the world.
Viking Posted March 26 Posted March 26 5 minutes ago, Parsad said: I'm not MI6...but I don't see either side having any significant advantage here where negotiated settlement isn't in the best interest of all parties concerned. And if it does escalate, then I actually think the Iranian regime is at the disadvantage because it will be the end of them. The U.S. will suffer...but it will certainly be the end of the theocracy as we know it. Cheers! https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/25/politics/iran-kharg-island-us-military-ground-troops Both sides think they are winning. They despise each other. They don’t trust each other. And you think we are going to get a negotiated settlement? I hope you are right.
Castanza Posted March 26 Posted March 26 1 hour ago, dwy000 said: Any sort of end game that the US can hold up as a military win (regime change, permanent end of nuke program, opening of SOH by force, etc) requires boots on the ground. There is zero appetite to put boots on ground from both parties in the US. This was Nancy Mace today. If you dont have Nancy Mace you dont have any Republicans. Gas prices are rising, the costs of the war are getting higher and the midterms are getting closer. Time is on Iran's side just by surviving. My guess would be a headline "win" and walk away for both sides pretty soon. With nothing essentially changed for the better at the end of it. It’s a massive undertaking to secure the SOH. Some former generals have already commented on it and you’re talking a huge physical force, captured islands and coast lines with physical bases permanent air and missile defense systems, extremely complex supply chain plans. It’s an absolute nightmare just to get established. One sunk Marine convoy with 1k marines in it would cause so much fallout. Then you have the cost of it, the maintenance, the failures… Absolute shit show.
Viking Posted March 26 Posted March 26 (edited) 17 minutes ago, cubsfan said: Statement by UAE about what a great neighbor Iran is..... firing 2200 missiles at them. UAE Minister of State Lana Nusseibeh A top United Arab Emirates official warned Iran’s attacks are threatening the global economy and signaled Gulf states are prepared to take further action as the war escalates. “We did not ask for a war in our region. We did not start a war in our region,” Nusseibeh said. “But as a result of these operations, we have now seen Iran take the irresponsible decision instead of negotiating with the United States over really well understood concerns over its nuclear program, over its ballistic missiles program, over its support of state non-state terrorist actors in the region, instead of negotiating over those issues, they chose instead to fire over 2200 missiles and drones at the United Arab Emirates.” No wonder the Arab nations are joining Israel in the fight against Iran - a truly historic first for the world. I think this indicates the war may be about to escalate. What does that mean? We don’t know. That should scare the hell out of people. (Remember ~20% of oil, LNG, refined products, fertilizer comes from that region… critical infrastructure like desalination plants... Blowing everything up would not be a good thing for the people of the region or the global economy.) Edited March 26 by Viking
cubsfan Posted March 26 Posted March 26 4 minutes ago, Viking said: Both sides think they are winning. They despise each other. They don’t trust each other. And you think we are going to get a negotiated settlement? I hope you are right. Correct - no trust. Once Kharg Island is blockaded , it's just a matter of time for the regime. Imagine having 60% of your entire country's revenue totally blocked. You better hope your army wants to fight the US/Israel for free..
Viking Posted March 26 Posted March 26 (edited) 7 minutes ago, cubsfan said: Correct - no trust. Once Kharg Island is blockaded , it's just a matter of time for the regime. Imagine having 60% of your entire country's revenue totally blocked. You better hope your army wants to fight the US/Israel for free.. @cubsfan, I hope we find a way to de-escalate out of this war. But all I am seeing is the opposite - escalation. I know… the justification for the escalation is always to bring an end to the war. But history teaches us that the opposite is usually what happens. Meanwhile, every week this war continues the closer the global economy comes to its Wiley Coyote moment. There is a time element to this war that is becoming more and more important - and it is working in Iran’s favour (and they know it). Edited March 26 by Viking
cubsfan Posted March 26 Posted March 26 39 minutes ago, Viking said: @cubsfan, I hope we find a way to de-escalate out of this war. But all I am seeing is the opposite - escalation. I know… the justification for the escalation is always to bring an end to the war. But history teaches us that the opposite is usually what happens. Meanwhile, every week this war continues the closer the global economy comes to its Wiley Coyote moment. There is a time element to this war that is becoming more and more important - and it is working in Iran’s favour (and they know it). Believe whatever you like really. Escalation means annihilation for Iran - so if that's the price they wish to pay - it's coming. Trump gave them a chance to comply - their choice.
Parsad Posted March 26 Posted March 26 1 hour ago, Viking said: Both sides think they are winning. They despise each other. They don’t trust each other. And you think we are going to get a negotiated settlement? I hope you are right. At the risk of mutual destruction...yes. Cheers!
Viking Posted March 26 Posted March 26 "Escalation trap?" Let's hope this guy is wrong. He talks about the difference between the military operation and the politics. And how one changes the other.
UK Posted March 26 Posted March 26 (edited) 10 hours ago, Viking said: Iran doesn’t need to ‘fight back.’ IMHO, what matters in this war today is very simple: the Straight of Hormuz. Iran appears to be in ‘control’ of the straight. By control, they appear to be the party controlling what gets in and out. The question everyone wants answered: “When will traffic in the Straight of Hormuz return to normal?” I don’t think anyone is questioning the awesome power of the US military. Or how much it can bomb Iran. That is pretty obvious. The issue is - despite this awesome power - the straight remains effectively closed. Yes, it is a contradiction. But are not they saying they will let traffic to go for the 'friendly' nations? In case of Hormuz it seems that majority of the traffic would qualify for this treatment? Perhaps depends if they are talking about buyers (China etc) or sellers (other Gulf states) though:) Edited March 26 by UK
cubsfan Posted March 26 Posted March 26 (edited) Another rough day in Iran: Iranian Navy Commander responsible for closing SOH killed last night - next? The Israel Defense Forces later said all of the IRGC Navy’s key commanders had been killed in the strike. “The IDF eliminated the commander of the IRGC Navy, the person directly responsible for the terror operation of mining and blocking the Strait of Hormuz to maritime traffic,” Defense Minister Israel Katz said during a morning assessment with military officials. Later, the IDF confirmed the killing and said that in addition to Tangsiri, the strike also killed the IRGC Navy’s intelligence chief, Behnam Rezaei, and the rest of the navy’s top leadership. The military did not immediately name other top commanders killed in the strike. Tangsiri was targeted in the Iranian port city of Bandar Abbas while meeting with senior commanders of the IRGC Navy, according to the military. https://nypost.com/2026/03/26/world-news/irans-elite-navy-chief-alireza-tangsiri-responsible-for-closing-strait-of-hormuz-killed-in-airstrike-reports/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-says-irgc-navy-commander-killed-iranian-top-envoy-said-removed-from-hit-list/ Edited March 26 by cubsfan
Gregmal Posted March 26 Posted March 26 So much winning. Remember they have all the time in the world….can we at least put names on the folks whom have all this time? And then reconcile the statement with the facts as we go?
cubsfan Posted March 26 Posted March 26 1 hour ago, Gregmal said: So much winning. Remember they have all the time in the world….can we at least put names on the folks whom have all this time? And then reconcile the statement with the facts as we go? Trump is desperate, the prestigious Economist told me so,,, only $10/month!
changegonnacome Posted March 26 Posted March 26 (edited) On 3/23/2026 at 4:26 PM, cubsfan said: You talk like Iran is dealing from a position of strength - when the fact is they are being obliterated. Your talk is the same talk we heard from the Hamas leaders in Gaza. The same talk we heard from the Houthi's in Yemen. @cubsfan if your position is the Iranian regime is obliterated or on the way to being obliterated like all the others you listed. Probably not a good idea to then go on to list two groups - Hamas & the Houthis - who are very much alive and functioning even though huge amounts of military effort was very recently expended by the US and Israel attempting to completely obliterate them. Your mistake, common amongst politicians, is to completely over estimate the ability of military force/dominance alone to fundamentally change the reality on the ground sustainably over the medium to long haul in these places. You can have stunning military achievements in the short term for sure (G.Bush Aircraft carrier "mission accomplished' for example) but entrenched secular forces on the ground tend reassert themselves over the medium & long term. If Trump/Bibi's intelligence reports we're pointing towards a regime at a tipping point that could be pushed over the precipice by an air assault that had the added bonus of degrading their offensive ballistic and nuclear capabilities then it was worth a shot. They achieved the second leg of that twofer and the world is better off. However IMO the r/r has now inverted. The regime has locked down its hold over the population & demonstrated its willingness to pivot to non-conventional gorilla warfare in the region. The war is morphing into a conflict that the US with its 24 month election cycles, no popular domestic support for boots on the ground is fundamentally not setup to win. Trump has achievements here, time to the bank them. The damage to the regime is extensive - its time to let the domestic centrifugal forces inside Iran do the rest to potentially end the Islamic republic. The superior regime change scenario is always an organic one driven by the Iranian people themselves not external actors with self-serving motives. Edited March 26 by changegonnacome
Gregmal Posted March 26 Posted March 26 Yup the unfortunate reality is that the way things are setup, even the most ambitious politicians have to be short term oriented. 40% of the country roots against Trump no matter what. 80% live paycheck to paycheck and know nothing other than the short term. So short term pain is unacceptable to them. The numbers make it nearly impossible to spend too much time in an area that even a pragmatist can see is somewhat short term painful but mid-long term beneficial.
cubsfan Posted March 26 Posted March 26 32 minutes ago, changegonnacome said: @cubsfan if your position is the Iranian regime is obliterated or on the way to being obliterated like all the others you listed. Probably not a good idea to then go on to list two groups - Hamas & the Houthis - who are very much alive and functioning even though huge amounts of military effort was very recently expended by the US and Israel attempting to completely obliterate them. Your mistake, common amongst politicians, is to completely over estimate the ability of military force/dominance alone to fundamentally change the reality on the ground sustainably over the medium to long haul in these places. You can have stunning military achievements in the short term for sure (G.Bush Aircraft carrier "mission accomplished' for example) but entrenched secular forces on the ground tend reassert themselves over the medium & long term. If Trump/Bibi's intelligence reports we're pointing towards a regime at a tipping point that could be pushed over the precipice by an air assault that had the added bonus of degrading their offensive ballistic and nuclear capabilities then it was worth a shot. They achieved the second leg of that twofer and the world is better off. However IMO the r/r has now inverted. The regime has locked down its hold over the population & demonstrated its willingness to pivot to non-conventional gorilla warfare in the region. The war is morphing into a conflict that the US with its 24 month election cycles, no popular domestic support for boots on the ground is fundamentally not setup to win. Trump has achievements here, time to the bank them. The damage to the regime is extensive - its time to let the domestic centrifugal forces inside Iran do the rest to potentially end the Islamic republic. The superior regime change scenario is always an organic one driven by the Iranian people themselves not external actors with self-serving motives. I must have missed something.. Since the pounding dished out to the Houthis and Hamas - have they invaded Israel?? You know, that whole "River to the Sea" thing they say? When will they deliver on that promise? As long as terrorist groups hide themselves among the civilian populations - it's hard to "obliterate them" - so my mistake - maybe "control them" is a better word. The US may indeed NOT get regime change, but they'll get something they "can control", since bankrupting Iran will be a piece of cake when you effectively "own" Kharg Island. Regime members that stick their heads out of the rathole and complain - well - there will be a JDAM waiting for them at home. The US has shit intelligence, but the Israelis own Iran via the Mossad - thank god for all those brave Iranian civilians that risk their lives as spotters for Israel. And thank god for US JDAMS.
dealraker Posted March 26 Posted March 26 Trump: "Iran is completely obliterated; no military of any kind left, no infrastructure, nothing like this victory has ever happened ever before in the history of the world." Hegseth: "You would't know it if you listened to the dishonest anti-Trump media...but we blew up everything, they are desperate and begging to bargain, pathetic evil losers...there's nothing left of Iran because our military is so dominant." Rubio: "Trump and only Trump won this war decisively, Iran is completely obliterated as the President says." Bessent: "Trump himself, and only Trump has done it, ships are going through...Trump has now provided for safe passage through the Strait for the next 50 years." Interviewer: "So?" Trump: "I need...I am desperate actually... for $200 billion to continue this war or the US has lost."
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now