Attackcoog
Moderator
Posts: 49,199
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 3524
I Root For: Houston
Location: |
RE: Israel Is Attacking Iran...Now US
(03-24-2026 12:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (03-24-2026 11:16 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: (03-24-2026 09:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: (03-24-2026 06:35 AM)miko33 Wrote: (03-23-2026 11:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: You preposition naval, air, and land units to at least counter some of the efforts. Instead of sparking this off after sending all of the mine -sweeping capabilities elsewhere. Or prepositioning localized or theater interception capabilities. or pre-planning what might be needed to help with defined convoying issues.
Trump sparked this off with predetermination it was going to be a rollover.
Now he closed the Hormuz with that dumb*** prediction, and without apparently putting anything in place to help the situation.
Hey, lets just play 'heads or tails' with the most important trade and economic artery that has ever existed in history. No, that doesnt sound smart. It doesnt sound smart in the slightest.
As for your last paragraph. that may be the case. You seemingly forget that the reason that they had the 60% EU was because Trump tore up the original agreement, which strapped a bottle rocket to the Iranian effort for 6 years to get to the point. Trump *literally* caused *every* IAEC inspector, camera, and on-site monitor to go dark in the first place 6 years ago.
Further, Khamanei had issued three fatwas against further processing and against the development of a weapon. Doesnt sound fing bright to bomb him -- yeah, lets remove the biggest internal block to nuclear development.
As to your last question -- I dont think there was an iota of thought as to a 'bad' outcome. trump saw a chance to 'get rid of a regional problem' (much like N. Korea is), and decided to do it. As a result we have a full case of Hormuz constipation. All without *any* consultation with *any* other branch of the government. Nor with any ally aside from Israel. I dont think there was much balancing of concerns in the slightest from this administration, and although the 'special military action' has been successful in terms of tactical success, I think it extremely foolhardy and apparently done without concern in the slightest to the massive reaction that could occur, that was likely to occur, and has occurred.
We know three things about Iran at this point in time:
[*]Iran possessed 60% EU - currently - despite a fatwa indicating they were NOT to pursue nuclear weapons per the supreme leader. Why keep it if these fatwas are to be believed?
For the same reason NK has made their own nuclear force. And why Israel has as well. It is a survival card. If/ when the gloves come off, much better to have 60% EU sitting around than nothing.
Quote:[*]They currently have ballistic missiles that can travel over 4,000 km despite their assurances they were only pursuing max ranged missiles around 2,000 km. Wasn't there a fatwa about that too?
I dont believe I heard about that. Would be happy to consider if sourced.
Quote:[*]They have been and still are a sponsor of terrorism for decades.
Yes, they have. Absolutely. Based on that I have zero problem with an end result of them being gone. I think that this Administration jumped into this extremely precipitously.
Quote:Still, it leaves us with whether we can trust that Iran was going to peacefully coexist with everyone knowing their record of deceit. We supposedly have intelligence that indicated Iran was going to fire a lot of missiles in the near future on their timeline.
Not unexpected if true -- Israel on June 20 - 28 pretty much sucker punched them. Along with us. And the comments made by Rubio prior to him 'getting in line' may have been accurate -- if Israel was going for the big Kahuna and taking out the entirety of the Iranian regime, we would be included in retaliation for our material aid in Natanz and Forwor. And the same applies to any supposed Iranian strike against Israel. We set the sides and actions in place in late June. If Israel is going to be missiled, US bases would be as well.
I seriously doubt the immediacy if the source was Israel -- they have too much on the line to not make sure we are in at the get go.
And I doubt the claims as they stand. The testimony of Gabbard was damning as to when questioned *she* felt or thought there was an 'imminent threat'. Im not chastising her for her answer, which completely sidestepped it into 'only the President can determine if there was an immediate threat'. But it is very insightful into the how carefully she answered.
Quote:No matter how much planning or how many parties would have been brought in prior to starting it - neither political party has the stomach to plan for boots on the ground in Iran. Frankly, I don't know how you secure the straight of Hormuz without boots on the ground from the outset.
You dont fully do that at the outset. What you *do* do is place assets that can deal with a portion of it -- a prophylactic measure or measures. In order to at least offset a full closure.
I am positive if the US had emplaced theater level interceptor ground- and ship- based systems it would lead to an initial level of reduction of threat. Couple that with dedicated convoys -- but that would be done with coordinating with the people who are getting hit the most at the first -- that is Europe and Japan, and other portions of Asia. tell them you are going to do this, and it would be in their best interest to help with the stuff. I would practically guarantee that that each of Thai, Indian, Malaysian, Philippine, and Japanese dedicated naval units would have jumped in. Its called 'coalition building'. Join together for a better end result.
Having patriot and multiple Aegis umbrellas would significantly offset ballistic or aerial cruise threat. Having direct present escort vessels would significantly offset water drone and speedboat attack vectors. Having CAP over Hormuz would significantly offset aerial drone attack. Having Tomahawk assets and larger naval guns (with land attack air patrol) would significantly offset artillery fire concerns.
Each of those would absolutely lead to insurance carrier notice. And instead of the current 6 million price tag for transit, (up from the normal 150k), you could get that down significantly. To the point that the owners of the vessels would in fact take, say, a 600k transit price risk.
But, Trump jumped in precipitously without that. He created a huge conflagration and cesspool of a mess, and only after the fact has alternately tried, then dissuaded, then tried, then scorned -- help from the people he could have conspired / coalitioned with to get a better outcome to Hormuz.
Im pissed because this administration sparked something off and didnt seem to have a clue that Hormuz was the logical pressure point for Iran. With tossing only a handful (less than 15) armaments -- Iran has placed the West into a oil headlock. Absolutely foreseeable. Yet nothing was done to even plan for that it appears.
Quote:If Zelensky and Ukraine has a "better mouse trap" than current U.S. military doctrine and he offered Ukrainian assistance to Trump - then Trump was an idiot to send him away the way he did. The dick has to realize that you get your allies on board when they offer help - even if it's "after the war was already won". Wouldn't it have been nice to have a British aircraft carrier in the Middle East right now? Maybe proximity would have made a difference on whether the UK would have lent a hand over the past few days...
Agree completely.
lol----This is just more ridiculous TDS. The point is this extreme and irresponsible regime cant be nuclear armed (and it has been obviously been moving in that direction for decades)---Furthermore, we know they have missiles with a 4,000 mile range because they targeted Diego Garcia, which is over 4,000 miles away. They missed---not because the range was insufficient---but because one failed in mid-flight and the other had to be intercepted by a US missile.
As for having a plan---no plan ever survives contact. War rarely ever goes according to the original plan. I suspect the administration hoped the Iranian regime would realize they were overmatched and comply with US demands---but thus far they are not. At the rate we are going---this is not going to be JUST as US effort. My guess is at the very least, a coalition of Arab nations who have been targeted---and perhaps other nations targeted like Turkey and perhaps France---may be part of the coalition that finishes the job (which may eventually require a ground war component). As for missile production---Ive been saying for ages they need to ramp up missile and artillery shell production due to the current world situation in which the American Rules Based Order seems to face more challenges. I would note the current president has at least made moves to increase production----something most of his predecessors did not.
I dont think he did everything right. Ive been critical of his dismissal of the UK offer of an entire carrier group---which might have come in pretty handy (just saying). Ive been continually critical of his treatment of NATO allies and the Ukraine situation. That said, I still think Trump has done tons more right than wrong. Nobody is going to agree with every single thing a US president does or says. Probably are doing well if you agree with 80% of what president does or says. What Im glad to see is the man recognized that a nuclear armed Iran would be a HUGE issue for future generations and finally moved to do something about it rather than kick the can down the road like every president before him (which was the same horrible blueprint that yielded a nuclear armed N Korea that every future generation will now have to deal with).
Attack -- I agree that no plan survives contact. But look at your own words : "I suspect the administration hoped the Iranian regime would realize they were overmatched and comply with US demands".
That is a plan? I *hope* the Iranian regime simply rolls over and dies at first push?
Evcen with a small bit at stake, that is an absolute foolhardy 'plan'. (air quotes intended). When you are talking stakes of 'closure of the *worlds* MOST VALUABLE trade route, and on *top of it* putting at full risk the *world's* MOST IMPORTANT resource production ---I think you should do better than 'I hope the regime rolls over and dies'.
Considering the impact not just of Hormuz closing for any appreciable time, but the underlying impact that we are seeing emerge of putting the WORLDS most productive hydrocarbon assets at long term, if not permanent risk -- one might think it just a little fing prudent to, say, reach out to the most affected -- like, say, Japan, India, Thailand, Malaysia -- and say 'hey dudes, we are putting YOUR *complete* economies at risk -- want to help out?'
Or how about talking to the experts you have at call and say 'well dudes, what is the impact of the *worst* case, and *medium* case, and shat steps can we take *before* we throw the bomb switch to deal with it'?
Good god, when you get to the level of 'bet the company decisions' in commercial transactions -- you actually *do* take the time to set up alternatives. You *dont* simply say "I hope the opponent simply rolls over". You take the fing time and plan for less better cases. Sometimes even the worst case (like, say, shutting down Hormuz for three and a half weeks).
But somehow mentioning that is TDS? Be serious. Good grief.
This excursion has *zero* evidence of *anything* at a goal based level beyond 'gee lets kill the entire top level government, and hope that everything turns out okay'.
hats off to the tactical success, they have done wonders in removing Iranian overt resistance. But they it is glaring that they missed the entire fing ball in the very great probablility that Hormuz would close.
The point is the threat had reached the point where it had to be addressed. The kicking the can down the road had to end. Yes---I think the "hope" was Iran would quickly back down---but just because the "hoped" for easy "best case" outcome did not materialize---its pure conjecture to believe there was no plan to handle Iranian escalation. Whats ridiculous is the assume the fact Iranian escalation is not easily brushed aside in an easy quick painless way means "there was no plan" for this possibility. There is a clearly a plan---but it will take time to deal with this porcupine. As I said BEFORE this ever began----expect this to not be a quick one shot surgical strike just on the nuclear facilities like we saw last summer. I told everyone going in to expect a much longer air campaign more similar to the air campaign against Serbia in the 1990's. I believe that lasted 78 days before Serbia finally cried "uncle" (and if memory serves, it was only after NATO began hitting more mixed use infrastructure like bridges and power plants). It would have been nice if Iran would have recognized they were overmatched and opted for a quick painless negotiated settlement---but I figured that was not likely and that it would be more similar to the Serbian campaign than the recent 12 day war from this summer.
I would note there is already a 22 nation coalition willing to aid in reopening the Straight---and supposedly, the Straight is "open" for everyone but US and Israeli shipping (and we really dont need oil from the Middle East). Furthermore, we have eliminated the Iranian Navy, the Iranian AF, the nuclear facilities, and the rogue Iranian leadership that was in place at the start of the war. We have also degraded their ballistic force and destroyed their ability to build more. The Iranians are now negotiating---and we are still very far from the 78 days required to get a deal from Serbia.
Not everything worth doing comes easy and at little cost. In fact, history tells us its almost always just the opposite. In fact, I think we all know the reason every prior president has kicked the can down the road on this issue is because they feared it might be hard. Thats never really been a good reason to let a problem fester and get worse (see the national debt as another example of this feckless trend). 
(This post was last modified: 03-24-2026 02:15 PM by Attackcoog.)
|
|
