Hero of Spielberg
Member
I think it's safe to say help isn't coming at this point.
Iranians still don't have internet, and the amount of bodies will never be known. This is just sad and weak.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Monitoring the situation in Iran
- Thread starter EviLore
- Start date
ChuckeRearmed
Member
The problem is that the idea was to strike to break the balance between the protesters and the IRGC. At one point there was a stalemate and the thought process was to strike IRGC and weaken them in order to allow the protesters to push more as long term the state will always win.
However it came to a screeching halt when the army and the police did not join revealing that nobody wanted Pahlavi to gain power back as the local elites decided not to take sides. Then some other countries came to the conclusion that IRGC might decide to go for a suicide bombing and they decided to intervene as the conclusive result would not be achieved and creating chaos was also not an option.
That's just your opinion. Every other group - and a country - in the region knows why the attack was not done.
Last edited:
That's one possible rationalization of events, but not the only one.
You could turn it around and say that if the U.S. had provided help during those days, in line with the public promise of a response made by the president himself, then a strong enough attack (and/or combined with other forms of intervention, for that matter, not all of which needed to be exclusively military) might have caused a number of people to defect from the army and police or otherwise desert from their posts. If you don't do any of that, then you're not giving them much of an incentive to put their necks on the line or question their current loyalties.
Yes, I've agreed with you that there doesn't seem to have been much of a plan from the opposition. That said, without a catalyst, we'll never know exactly how those who didn't move would have reacted under a hypothetical intervention.
I suppose you could say that "chaos" was prevented, ostensibly, but so far it's also proven to the people of Iran that Trump, in this case, isn't as different from previous U.S. presidents as he would like to believe.
Situation remains unresolved. Ayatollah talking major trash, US calling for regime change. The internet may remain turned off permanently. Reports coming out of Iran that there is slaughter of civilians on an industrial scale, tens of thousands killed.
Not looking good.
Not looking good.
StreetsofBeige
Member
I havent followed much whats going on. But supposedly the big protests toned down and killing stopped because tons of military guys are now patrolling the streets. So everyone has decided to stay inside.
If this is true, it was just a matter of time the shady gov organized the troops. I said it a week ago that they might do that. The many days of big protests were allowed not because the Cleric dude in charge had given up. They just needed a bunch of days to decide how and when to counter.
If this is true, it was just a matter of time the shady gov organized the troops. I said it a week ago that they might do that. The many days of big protests were allowed not because the Cleric dude in charge had given up. They just needed a bunch of days to decide how and when to counter.
Last edited:
ChuckeRearmed
Member
As long as Artesh and police are not doing anything, nothing will change.
calico
Member
'A strike might have caused police and military defections' seems incredibly tenuous.
US strikes
???
Regime collapses
I think until someone fills in that ??? with something a bit more substantial than wishful thinking, strikes serve little purpose. Realistically that takes the form of significant armed opposition being in play first, which strikes can then be made in support of, but even this tends to end up going badly unless that opposition itself is sufficiently under control.
I'm not sure anything useful is achieved by turning Iran into another Libya or Syria, but if that is the aim it would probably be more effective to drop rifles than bombs.
US strikes
???
Regime collapses
I think until someone fills in that ??? with something a bit more substantial than wishful thinking, strikes serve little purpose. Realistically that takes the form of significant armed opposition being in play first, which strikes can then be made in support of, but even this tends to end up going badly unless that opposition itself is sufficiently under control.
I'm not sure anything useful is achieved by turning Iran into another Libya or Syria, but if that is the aim it would probably be more effective to drop rifles than bombs.
buttnuggett
Gold Member
Are some reports of the Iranian regime using chemical weapons.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
They need the support of the local armed forces and the police. Without that ayatollah and IRGC will stay in power. They will be weaker internally but that's it. They can probably strike a deal like with Venezuela where the local elites will give away Maduro. We'll see.
Instead of travelling across Europe and giving speeche, if Shah truly wanted power he should have made deals with local elites and groups. But oh well. I don't think it is possible to turn into Lybia or Syria as it to be fair, these two countries caused at best local issues. Iraq War created a big mess, but Iran would be even worse. Curious what would be the final decision there - it is pretty clear that the Gulf Monarchies cannot keep Iran in check at this point. The clerics are fully deranged. Even nuking won't do much as Iran is just not as centralized as Japan was.
We haven't seen the reports from intelligence agencies on that.
Nah, it would not lead to anything. The protesters have no organization, so the state would win - IRGC and ayatollah would have suppresed the protesters eventually, even if they would become weaker in the end allowing local elites to gain more power over ayatollah. People overestimate the power of the unorganized rebellion. It cannot win against state without becoming a structural force.
Last edited:
buttnuggett
Gold Member
ContrarianAsshole
Neo Member
This is 1990 iraq all over again. Bush told the kurds to rise up against sadaam and then fucked off, leaving them fending off for themselves. Trump encouraged the Iranians to revolt en masse, yes, they were doing it before Trump said anything, but they came out in real mass after he he started threatening the iranian regime. I wonder what changed here. There's certainly no lack of apparent incentive to go in and give the protesters a bit of air support. It's clear Trump is beholden to Israel and AIPAC, and they want the aitolah out, so why did he chicken out. It's all a bit suspect.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
Because protesters have no power. That's all to it. At one point there was hope that the army and police would join, but they did not. And in case of the state vs the rebels, the state will always win. Fundamentally there is no incentive as at one point the regional powers realized that the collapse of Iran would cause another Iraq collapse but on steroids, but also a single strike would not change anything there with a bunch of unknowns on what the last hurray of Iran was going to be. The main advantage right now is the fact that the banking system collapsed, but even that would not change anything if the iranian elites do nothing. People give strikes too much power. Neither protesters, no strikes would destroy IRGC due to them being too entrenched into iranian government and infrastructure.
The Desert Storm (90s) did not lead to overthrowal of Saddam , was very successful and was not a failure. Iraq War was a disaster though due to the purges that eventually led to creation of ISIS. And the repeat of the Desert Storm is not possible due to the geography.
Last edited:
RJMacready73
Simps for Amouranth
And Iranian protest number 3466 has been brutally put down to the absolute surprise of no-one... I really feel for the Iranian people, it must be so infuriating having religious nutjubs in charge running their country into the ground and isolating them from the international community and there's not a damn thing the poor bastards can do and by fuck they've tried and tried
Meicyn
Member
Opposition forces have gone underground. Trump drew a red line in the sand and threatened the regime with an attack if protesters are harmed, and so protesters came out of the woodwork nation-wide. Then Trump changed his mind based on feedback, so the resistance is split. Some think Trump has pulled an Obama and feel betrayed/abandoned, while others are holding out for hope that strikes on the regime are still coming.
We'll see what happens in the coming days.
Smiggs
Gold Member
I have no words for this kind of barbaric behavior. I'm sure I'd catch a ban if I said what I wish would happen to these monsters that can do this to civilians, so I'll leave it at that.
I just hope something happens where the people in Iran can be free of this horrendous regime.
BlackTron
Member
Slaughtering in the streets is OK, but better not do a speedy trial followed by execution OR ELSE
It's going to be another week for the USS Abraham Lincoln to arrive in the Middle East. It's on its way. Probably nothing until then.
Lord Panda
The Sea is Always Right
I assume that there are Mossad and CIA operatives in Iran that would be feeding their agencies with an accurate picture of what's happening there.
Seems like there is a gradual build-up of US forces in the Middle East so I'm hoping there will be intervention soon.
www.twz.com
Seems like there is a gradual build-up of US forces in the Middle East so I'm hoping there will be intervention soon.
Signs Emerge Of U.S. Navy, Air Force Push To Middle East
As Trump mulls over what to do about Iran, U.S. forces are deploying to the region.
www.twz.com
Kenneth Haight
Gold Member
I have a feeling that this is still going to happen. It's just a matter of time.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
Shame that they won't use nukes. Would be interesting if it could trigger some earthquakes and such in the region.
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
Interesting strategy they're going for.
The find out saga should be legendary
The find out saga should be legendary
Meicyn
Member
What the fuck, dude.
Tams
Member
It is far too soon to say an attack isn't going to happen.
Without the sovereignty and independence a carrier group offers, what the US coukd do was always going to be limited.
I do believe the military advice was that they could only do very limited strikes that wouldn't have achieved much, so the 'last minute' call off makes sense.
It's horrible if you're one of the injured or set to be executed (likely to happen), but even the US needs time to act with overwhelming force outside her back yard.
Without the sovereignty and independence a carrier group offers, what the US coukd do was always going to be limited.
I do believe the military advice was that they could only do very limited strikes that wouldn't have achieved much, so the 'last minute' call off makes sense.
It's horrible if you're one of the injured or set to be executed (likely to happen), but even the US needs time to act with overwhelming force outside her back yard.
balls of snow
Member
Fucking despicable.
The regime is trying to break the absolute spirit of its citizens. A real life Death March. Im gonna vomit.
The regime is trying to break the absolute spirit of its citizens. A real life Death March. Im gonna vomit.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
If you want a strike that matters, you have to use nukes. As IRGC wanted to build a nuke, it would make sense for them to go with a bang like this.
But at the same time, tactical nukes are useless without the ground invasion after that - after all they are designed to break the defense; while the strategic ones are powerful year meaningless at this stage as they are a deterrence but combat-wise they have no real use.
At this point if anything changes then it just means that the Gulf Monarchies, USA and others reached some kinda agreement with iranian elites. Now the protesters are clearly out of the equation. During the 12-day war it was clear that there was Mossad cells that could launch drones from within Iran and even disable some systems but if the IRGC decides to go for the last hurray, it will be interesting if Mossad will be able to prevent it.
The sad thing is that they've murdered many of the free spirited, high agency people already. The kind of citizens who would flourish in a free society and be creative or entrepreneurial. With enough mass killing they'll be left with demographics of passive people who keep their heads down and do as they're told, and the thugs and ideologues who rule over them.
Every day that passes will reinforce those outcomes.
Meicyn
Member
Indeed, no better way to free the Iranian people than detonating a class of weapons that are well known for minimizing collateral damage and having no lingering effects upon the surrounding environment. Iodine-131, Strontium-90, and Cesium-137 are all part of a balanced diet.
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
SirKicksalot
Member
These rumours and eyewitness reports out of Iran are exactly what you would hear on Radio Free Europe in December 1989. I am from the city where the Romanian revolution started in 1989. There were similar rumours of tens of thousands of casualties, chemical weapons, mass destruction etc. The reality was nowhere near as bad, and way more people died after Ceaușescu ran away (many even after his execution).
The last foreign leader visited by Ceaușescu was the current ayatollah. He visited Iran in the early days of the Romanian revolution...
The last foreign leader visited by Ceaușescu was the current ayatollah. He visited Iran in the early days of the Romanian revolution...
Warspite
Member
I've been saying in this thread for a while that a carrier is needed in the region for any action to be taken but people always down played it (I wonder if that was based on hope that these people would get help soon), my rational has been that its a sovereign asset that provide a lot of the boring stuff you don't really see in a operation but are absolutely needed for this.
We may be seeing the limits of American power here but I also think its a bit unfair that its all falling on the USA's shoulders but due to the last 20 years and current antics getting help might be difficult.
StreetsofBeige
Member
Who knows if Trump will order an attack. I havent followed all the military moves the US is doing, but if there's one thing about Trump is that he's so unpredictable.
When it comes to all the business, tariff or random exec order policies, you wake up one morning and suddenly he just unleashed some new news that can swing the markets. Some weeks can be dead, but then next week he does 2-3 big movers. Even when it's not an official law signed or ordered, he talks so much giving his opinion on things even that is enough to shake things up.
You just hope and pray whatever stocks or ETFs youre holding he doesnt say anything weird that sinks it. But then, you hold some stuff and he signs something that helps and your stock pops 10%.
When it comes to all the business, tariff or random exec order policies, you wake up one morning and suddenly he just unleashed some new news that can swing the markets. Some weeks can be dead, but then next week he does 2-3 big movers. Even when it's not an official law signed or ordered, he talks so much giving his opinion on things even that is enough to shake things up.
You just hope and pray whatever stocks or ETFs youre holding he doesnt say anything weird that sinks it. But then, you hold some stuff and he signs something that helps and your stock pops 10%.
Last edited:
ChuckeRearmed
Member
Modern nukes are not the dirty bombs.
USA used to have more carriers. It still has a bunch but I think a lot of them are in the pacific.
I think his unpredictability is coming from his ability to make a decision himself. Like war commanders often do. We are just too used to a cooperative decision making where several people have to agree before proceeding. Unlike dictatorship though, Trump tend to listen to various opinions before making a decision. And as he does not have the real ideology (like "spreading the democracy"), he seems unpredictable. Plus he relies on intuition a bit too much.
Last edited:
Warspite
Member
They are still doing better than most with 3 carriers at sea and they still have Eisenhower, Carl Vinson, Bush in port, these look like they are not going through any major maintenance but you still need to find the air wings, radar aircraft, electronic warfare aircraft, ships to escort them and the crews to run everything. No easy task on short notice.
Tams
Member
Not to mention the replenishment ships.
StreetsofBeige
Member
Ya.
He's a right wing politician, but then he does 10% caps on credit card loans, reducing drug prices and his new thing about housing caps on real estate corporations trying to hoard units. These seem like left wing business views.
So you never know what he'll do.
Even JFK supporting healthier in schools is a liberal view IMO. You'd think republicans would just go for the cheapest sugary drinks and pizzas the school boards should buy, instead of healthier food which can cost more.
Last edited:
ChuckeRearmed
Member
USA navy is still the strongest for sure. Aircraft carriers are just too expensive. Even USSR decided to parry the aircraft carriers with submarines. Aircraft carriers have been the rulers of the sea for the last 80 years, since the end of the battleships.
He is not exactly the right wing. It is just the democrats has gone so much to the left that Trump's positions seem like a right wing but he is a clintonian democrat.
Republicans these days have no ideology at all. GOP is basically the example of the "old fat nobility" from the middle ages.
Last edited:
Meicyn
Member
Tactical nukes still rely on nuclear fission or fusion to produce the effects desired. Scaling the detonation size down does not somehow change the process, nor the byproducts produced... just merely the quantity released. You are still distributing uncontrolled radioactive material into the surrounding environment that will linger for decades, and inevitably enter the food/water supply.
Whether via a single mushroom cloud or a few dozen (or hundred) smaller tactical nukes dropped on various targets, you are still seasoning the landscape with radioisotopes.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
The long term damage is mininal in any case for these kind of bombs. Even WW2 era nukes haven't left that much (if any) lasting damage at this point.
The problem is that even the nukes won't do much in Iran due to the landscape. Maybe only MOAB can do anything, but even in Afghanistan it hasn't achieved much.
Curious to see what they are going to do.
Last edited:
Meicyn
Member
And the short term suffering is significant. It's a massive part of why we haven't used them since WW2. Jesus Christ dude, you are way too casual about nuclear weaponry.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
They don't need to resort to this. They have more modern, zero to no collateral damage precision ordinance and GBU-43/B MOABs for the larger scale base busters at their disposal.
Meicyn
Member
Yes, thank you. Some fucking sense has arrived. We do not need to use tactical nukes.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
They haven't been used due to the International Law, the nuclearr deterrence and the Soviet Union.
You need to force ayatollah and co. to capitulate. Unless the iranian elites are going to make a deal (like in Venezuela), I am not sure what can be done to get rid of IRGC altogether if they are not willing to give up arms.
Last edited:
Meicyn
Member
I was in West Germany when the Berlin Wall fell as an Army brat, quite familiar with the Cold War, thanks.
Reizo Ryuu
Member
The "tactical" moniker must have some confused this is some tiny blast with no fallout, while the reality is these nukes can easily be more powerful than the hiroshima nuke and still have a ton of fallout because it's fission that creates the fusion reaction and would devastate the immediate population.
Similar threads
- Locked