Bojji
Gold Member
Ukraine is bordering EU/Nato countries. Iran isn't.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Monitoring the situation in Iran
- Thread starter EviLore
- Start date
- Status
Ukraine is bordering EU/Nato countries. Iran isn't.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
It does border Turkey.
Though worth noting that despite being in proximity, even Turkey doesn't want to invoke Article 5, so far at least.
Bojji
Gold Member
I forgot how "long" Turkey is (and that it even is in NATO hahaha).
ProtoByte
Banned
My god. The fucking gullibility.
It's not a super alliance. They're depriving cargo planes of proper transit. It's outrageous.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Elaborate?
Wanting the war/military operation to end, people to stop dying and the strait to reopen is gullible now?
Wildebeest
Member
If you are going to have a defensive alliance against Russia then excluding Turkey would be like the building the Maginot line and not offending the Belgians by building it too close to them.
ProtoByte
Banned
Dude. Dude. Please.
Who are these people you want to stop dying? Is it the Iranians who have been and are continuing to be shot up by their ow government? The 15 brave volunteer American soldiers to this point who have unfortunately died? Or is it the IRGC terrorist ringleaders?
I really wish/hope Trump's admin can just ignore the idiot platitudes and market sperging. This is a mission that must be seen through to the end.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
The civilians and American troops. There's gonna be a lot more of it if there's boots on the ground. You know that, right?
What is "the end" for you?
ProtoByte
Banned
Yes.
How much more? I'm not uncomfortable saying that I doubt it will be apocalyptic.
Civilians have been and will continue to die in much greater cumulative numbers if they don't.
Total regime change. And that should be primarily effectuated/facilitated by Middle Eastern neighbours. De facto and actual.
There's too much to gain for anything else.
Toons
Member
Its literally galactic empire style tactics from star wars
Or something friggin lex luthor or fireworks ozai or something would stoop to
BattleScar
Banned
Then don't expect any fucking support when your actions actively fuck over your allies, whom you did not consult with, after insulting their involvement in a war you started 20 years ago and threatening to take by force, their own fucking territory.
Or did you forget that Trump did that last part?
You need to treat your allies like allies, or they will eventually stop being your allies.
And as for secretive fast strikes. Well you killed the big boss man. Did the regime end? Did you stop terrorism? No. Because that type of shit never works.
Did Trump even consider the strategic importance of the strait of Hormuz, and how Iran could blockade it, before launching his strikes? No. Because shoot first, and ask questions later is stupid in Geopolitical terms.
It doesn't work. It never has, and it never will.
Last edited:
Toons
Member
I can no longer take anything you say with credibility after this. Sorry not sorry, but you're speaking literally like a gd supervillain out of some movie lmao.
We've had some good convos but I think ima block after this. Sorry.
rorepmE
Member
People will believe whatever they want to believe. We have the freedom to be idiots, unfortunately. How many people still believe of strangers putting in arsenic into Halloween candy that has been widely debunked? That's the mass hysteria that homeboy is talking about. The Epstein mass hysteria is exactly that, a mass hysteria that's combining old school anti-semitism with the latest moral panic.
I got curious and looked up the military deaths over the last 50 years. This is all deaths per year. Basically on average 80% of deaths is non-combat related.
| Year | Deaths | Year | Deaths | Year | Deaths | Year | Deaths |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1975 | 2,750 | 1988 | 1,819 | 2001 | 943 | 2014 | 913 |
| 1976 | 2,525 | 1989 | 1,636 | 2002 | 1,051 | 2015 | 851 |
| 1977 | 2,425 | 1990 | 1,507 | 2003 | 1,399 | 2016 | 823 |
| 1978 | 2,350 | 1991 | 1,787 | 2004 | 1,847 | 2017 | 906 |
| 1979 | 2,275 | 1992 | 1,293 | 2005 | 1,929 | 2018 | 918 |
| 1980 | 2,392 | 1993 | 1,213 | 2006 | 1,882 | 2019 | 893 |
| 1981 | 2,380 | 1994 | 1,075 | 2007 | 1,953 | 2020 | 1,017 |
| 1982 | 2,319 | 1995 | 1,040 | 2008 | 1,440 | 2021 | 1,009 |
| 1983 | 2,465 | 1996 | 974 | 2009 | 1,515 | 2022 | 844 |
| 1984 | 1,999 | 1997 | 817 | 2010 | 1,485 | 2023 | ~850* |
| 1985 | 2,252 | 1998 | 827 | 2011 | 1,431 | 2024 | ~820* |
| 1986 | 1,984 | 1999 | 796 | 2012 | 1,299 | 2025 | TBD |
| 1987 | 1,983 | 2000 | 832 | 2013 | 1,021 | 2026 | TBD |
Last edited:
Meicyn
Member
Can go far beyond the last half century, non-battle injuries have been the primary driver of casualties. Disease, extreme temperatures, famine, lack of water, you name it.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
Some people judge all the recent wars based on WW2 death numbers for Soviet Union
DeafTourette
Perpetually Offended
OMG Trump sounds like a developmentally delayed 4 yr old!
The Ukraine war is getting there. 1.2 million russian casualties, about 1/3 of those KIAs, and 55,000 ukranian troops killed? CRAZY ratio if accurate. A ground war in Iran would be brutal, and I think unnecessary to achieve US goals. Unless there is some counter to FPVs out there, it's almost back to trench warfare style attrition and stagnation.Some people judge all the recent wars based on WW2 death numbers for Soviet Union
Of course given time perhaps russian or chinese air defense systems show up and casual bombing goes away, back to expensive stealth stuff, but at the moment it seems pretty open in the skies above Iran. Their ability to move forces to counter civilian uprisings seems very limited.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
Trump's PR is awesome.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Didn't catch it, did he say anything meaningful at all or just more threats?
edit: checking twitter, it's nothing . gif I guess.
edit: checking twitter, it's nothing . gif I guess.
Last edited:
TheAtomicPile
Member
I'm sure they'd love to sit back and watch US get bogged down just like we're doing with Russia in Ukraine.
While the justification is present for us to stick around (stay until Hormuz is 100% open or stay until the regime is gone), it really doesn't look like the administration is interested in doing so, especially on a solo basis.
Last edited:
Tarkus
Member
Especially Aaron Rupar and the aboveTerrorist sympathizers are seething that their favorite extremist shithole will be slapped around for a few more weeks
ProtoByte
Banned
Unfortunately nobody in western politics, including Trump, has the balls to tell it like it is when it comes to things like foreign policy and economics. Though, if it's anyone first charge to explicate that regime change is the goal to the public, it would be Israel's.
Plus there's an underpromise-overdeliver thing we've got going on here. As it is, a non-insignificant proportion claim that the mission is a failure and that Iran is totes winning because you can't book any 6* hotels there a month into the war.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Don't worry, we have enough gas to sell to other countries.
Just not to pump into our own economy.
They'll just exist in their own delusional world either way.Terrorist sympathizers are seething that their favorite extremist shithole will be slapped around for a few more weeks
In Iran:
-Dancing in public, illegal
-Drinking alcohol, illegal
-Marrying children, legal
rorepmE
Member
Now imagine paying twice that because that's what the price of gas would be with a petrodollar in terminal decline with Iran holding a permanent leverage over Hormuz.
Thank god you're not in charge and trading some temporary pain at the pump that you'll forget 12 months from now for permanent shift in the balance of power in the gulf.
Toons
Member
Toons
Member
Iran will do that anyway if they want to. But they weren't doing it before all this. He forced them to play that Trump card sure, but he doesn't have a good answer for that card.
Thank god you're not in charge and trading some temporary pain at the pump that you'll forget 12 months from now for permanent shift in the balance of power in the gulf.
12 months? wasnt he saying month ago this would be over in weeks?
I'll believe in the regime change when I see it. Until then, I remain a skeptic.
rorepmE
Member
They were doing that or threatening to do that for 40 years, bud. They had the Houthis do it to the Red Sea in 2023. The difference is they can't sustain it without nuclear deterrent. Right now they're trying to pressure the world with economics. 5-10 years from now they'll have even more missiles and drones AND a nuclear tripwire on top of that. So they would have the conventional means to close the strait and the nuclear deterrent to make any military options too costly.
Again, thank God you're not making the decisions.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
This is true. The strait has been open for all beforehand without any problems.
The admin were warned that Iran would very likely close the strait if attacked.
rorepmE
Member
They treaten to close it last year but they didn't because it would have affected their economy too. They disrupted the Red Sea in 2023 via their Houthi proxies. Now after we're done with them, they won't be closing shit forever.
Remember when their carrier killing hypersonics was going to send the Ford and Lincoln to the bottom of the ocean?
Still waiting.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Yeah, they weren't gonna close it in 10 years either cause it directly affects their economy just as it does the many other countries that used the strait everyday.
But now they also get to take up to $2 million per ship for its safe passage, we built them a fantastic toll-booth.
Toons
Member
i liked it better when it was just threats. Everyone else on the planet did too.
As has been posted out several times, we were told this wasn't a realistic possibility less than a year ago by Trump. So either he was full of it then, of he's full of it now.
Which again goes back to why hes had no good answer for something he supposedly saw coming. Im a pragmatic. When such a question presents itself I go to the most obvious answer: that he didn't see this coming.
Gamerfan81
Member
As Carl Von Clausewitz famously said in his treatise On War, "War is a continuation of politics by other means."
So let's analyze this.
Trump said he went to war with Iran for regime change and unconditional surrender by Iran. When that didn't happen, he shifted to opening up the Strait of Hormuz. But the strait was already opened before the US attacks.
The objective of war is to impose your will on the other side and have them accept your political terms. War isn't just body counts where you kill more soldiers, destroy more of their armed forces, or win more battles. If one side loses the political will to continue, thus losing the political war, even if they achieved great military victories and is far superior militarily, they can still lose the war. Vietnam is the classic case of this.
Already, the political will of the U.S. is already on shaky ground for this war, various polls conducted in the U.S. have many Americans not supporting the conflict. Usually the President's party loses badly in the mid-terms, going all the way back to Truman's administration. Many new congress members will be elected in the fall of 2026 and they are running on opposing this war, it is expected Trump will lose both chambers of congress.
No political will to support the war, which means the desired outcome cannot be imposed, thus the war will be lost politically by the U.S.
War is a poltiical contest of will under conditions of extreme violence. The variables are will, endurance, legitimacy, and coaltion support, not just miltiary strength.
So let's analyze this.
Trump said he went to war with Iran for regime change and unconditional surrender by Iran. When that didn't happen, he shifted to opening up the Strait of Hormuz. But the strait was already opened before the US attacks.
The objective of war is to impose your will on the other side and have them accept your political terms. War isn't just body counts where you kill more soldiers, destroy more of their armed forces, or win more battles. If one side loses the political will to continue, thus losing the political war, even if they achieved great military victories and is far superior militarily, they can still lose the war. Vietnam is the classic case of this.
Already, the political will of the U.S. is already on shaky ground for this war, various polls conducted in the U.S. have many Americans not supporting the conflict. Usually the President's party loses badly in the mid-terms, going all the way back to Truman's administration. Many new congress members will be elected in the fall of 2026 and they are running on opposing this war, it is expected Trump will lose both chambers of congress.
No political will to support the war, which means the desired outcome cannot be imposed, thus the war will be lost politically by the U.S.
War is a poltiical contest of will under conditions of extreme violence. The variables are will, endurance, legitimacy, and coaltion support, not just miltiary strength.
MisterFalcon
Member
Let's bomb all the water, power, health and other civil infrastructure in Iran and that will lead to a new regime that loves us!
Critical Hit
Member
It's you who wants to call it a disastrous war.
Lmao, they're not even allies with themselves. For some reason, these "non-vassals" turned to the U.S. for help instead of providing their own support and assistance to Ukraine.
And for the sake of objectivity, you should read what Europeans themselves wrote and said before the terrible event - his election victory.
For starters, it would be nice if they just didn't get in the way.
Last edited:
They are not prepared for war. Their armies are for parades and hot gay men sex in uniforms, nothing else.
Critical Hit
Member
Erdogain is Putin's friend.
Without taking out the air defenses first? You're a genius.
Obviously not.
Tams
Member
No problems other than the ships Iran had attacked.
Wow, that's on an entirely new level
Do you also believe that putting Weinstein in prison was an act of antisemitism as well?
lachesis
Member
I don't understand why people are confused and automatically assume cease fire during negotiations - in the time of war, those battles and results are directly tied to the negotiation itself... or is it a rule of engagement, or this "international law" that I am not aware?
Cease fire negotiations went for like 2 years during Korean war. And last 2 years were one of the bloodiest period fighting back and forth.
Cease fire negotiations went for like 2 years during Korean war. And last 2 years were one of the bloodiest period fighting back and forth.
Atomicfear
Member
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked