• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Monitoring the situation in Iran

Status
Not open for further replies.
So what are the clear objectives of this war?

Is Trump now calling it a war?

I guess it is

Stop nuclear weapons
Complete regime change

Two big but simple goals to follow?

Is there anything else?

That at least makes it easier for me to follow on if it's a success or not.

They stopped the nuclear weapons middle of last year but not they have the ability to make more.

So I guess the key goal is regime change because that's the only way you know if you are receiving the truth on intelligence?

How does the US get their intelligence right to know if they can make nukes or not?

I guess that is regime change?

So the key goal is regime change?
 
lachesis said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I thought you pushed as hard as you can into the negotiations to more favoriable terms. It's how Putin would do it.
 
Essentially the announcement was for normies - Trump did not say anything new, he provided the overview of the situation and that's it. Normies do not follow Twitter or anything.

I remember intrrview recently and folks were like - Who us ayatollah? USA is fighting with Iraq and so on...
 
Mr Reasonable said:
The objective is most likely find a criteria that can be used to say that Trump won and stop.

Until such a criteria can be found, it'll just go on and on.
Click to expand...

Which would be ironic considering they've been saying how they've been winning for weeks now. The only thing missing is a big "mission accomplished" banner and we can formally call it a day.
 
thefool said:
This was in March. Next time you complain about gas prices, be happy you're funding your failed socialized services.

3FPjk2D.png
Click to expand...

It is helping all the illegal migrants and refugees.
 
AJUMP23 said:
It is helping all the illegal migrants and refugees.
Click to expand...

Before 2015 it was very similar. And look how big the number is for eastern European countries that don't have migrants.

Gasoline was always dirt cheap in US compared to rest of the world.
 
Bojji said:
Before 2015 it was very similar. And look how big the number is for eastern European countries that don't have migrants.

Gasoline was always dirt cheap in US compared to rest of the world.
Click to expand...

I also think we over tax our gasoline too. They say it is for road maintenance but it goes other places. I think it was $3.70 a gallon this morning on my way in. Up a dollar since the Iran war started.
 
Iran isn't like the Axis in the 30s and 40s. Shoot, the Middle East isn't like the Axis back then...

Goal was to eradicate isis ... They're still around and evolved into multiple other groups, even inspiring other groups to form. That's a failure of war.

But nope ... Let's once again treat the middle east like they're exactly like the Axis of WW2
 
daffyduck said:
I didn't think that, but I legitimately wondered if he was going to quit Nato. Probably easy to say, not actually that desirable to do.
Click to expand...

It's not that easy now:

"For the United States to leave NATO, it would have to navigate a complex mix of new domestic laws and international treaty obligations. As of 2026, the process is much harder than it was a few years ago.

1. Domestic Legal Requirements (The Main Obstacle)
In late 2023, Congress passed a law (as part of the National Defense Authorization Act) specifically designed to prevent a president from leaving NATO unilaterally. To legally withdraw, a president now needs:
  • Senate Approval: A two-thirds majority (67 votes) in favor of withdrawal.
  • OR an Act of Congress: A specific bill passed by both the House and the Senate authorizing the exit.
If a president tried to bypass this via executive order, it would almost certainly result in a high-stakes legal battle in the Supreme Court over constitutional powers versus congressional authority.

2. International Procedure (Article 13)
If domestic approval is secured, the U.S. must follow the rules set out in the North Atlantic Treaty:
  • Formal Notice: The U.S. must submit a "notice of denunciation" to the government of the United States (which, ironically, is the depositary for the treaty).
  • One-Year Waiting Period: Under Article 13, the membership does not end immediately. There is a mandatory one-year period from the date of notification before the U.S. is officially "out."
USA has to inform USA that's leaving NATO, hahaha.
 
DeafTourette said:
Iran isn't like the Axis in the 30s and 40s. Shoot, the Middle East isn't like the Axis back then...

Goal was to eradicate isis ... They're still around and evolved into multiple other groups, even inspiring other groups to form. That's a failure of war.

But nope ... Let's once again treat the middle east like they're exactly like the Axis of WW2
Click to expand...
The issue is that the reality of ISIS is and was that countries did not really want to eradicate it. Aside it being close to impossible to eradicate ideology when you have actors willing to keep it around, countries are not willing to go for a proper solution to ISIS (and Houthis to be fair) - you literally need to eradicate and massacre each and every person involved in it for it to stop.

daffyduck said:
I didn't think that, but I legitimately wondered if he was going to quit Nato. Probably easy to say, not actually that desirable to do.
Click to expand...
It would not be announced that way. Plus he technically can't quite NATO due to some laws that Congress passed in his first term. I do think that the NATO is over and he will do what he is able to do - move out troops. Especially now with western countries not allowing to use the air space making bases useless if you can't use them.

Jaybe said:
Sucks but it was higher in 2022 though most news stories on oil price start their graphs from 2023 for some reason
Click to expand...
When democrats in power, media is doing their best to pretend there are no problems. "Transitory inflation" and co.
 
Last edited:
ChuckeRearmed said:
The issue is that the reality of ISIS is and was that countries did not really want to eradicate it. Aside it being close to impossible to eradicate ideology when you have actors willing to keep it around, countries are not willing to go for a proper solution to ISIS (and Houthis to be fair) - you literally need to eradicate and massacre each and every person involved in it for it to stop.


It would not be announced that way. Plus he technically can't quite NATO due to some laws that Congress passed in his first term. I do think that the NATO is over and he will do what he is able to do - move out troops. Especially now with western countries not allowing to use the air space making bases useless if you can't use them.


When democrats in power, media is doing their best to pretend there are no problems. "Transitory inflation" and co.
Click to expand...

Stopping Saudi Arabia (USA ally) from supporting terrorism would be a good first step.
 
IlGialloMondadori said:
Genuinely curious question: how?
I know, targets have been blown up and people have been killed. But the same thing happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in those wars, there wasn't a resource choke-hold at the time like the Straight of Hormuz.
Click to expand...

I'm gonna guess the rationalization is that the US doesn't intend to stay in iran nearly as long, but at this point anything like that is very hard to predict.
 
Last edited:
IlGialloMondadori said:
Genuinely curious question: how?
I know, targets have been blown up and people have been killed. But the same thing happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in those wars, there wasn't a resource choke-hold at the time like the Straight of Hormuz.
Click to expand...

I've got to head out soon but a few main things for me from the USA's perspective:
  • Minimal casualties: 13 dead servicemen is not good but is on a wholly smaller scale this Iraq and Afghanistan
  • Seeming no desire for extensive boots on the ground or potentially any, again, better than the comparators
  • Timelines seems minimal. All reported expectations have this concluding in 3 weeks, so maybe it's a monitor two more but still far short from years of Iraq and Afghanistan.
  • While oil price and the Strait are negative issues, I think they will be temporary and aren't any much different from Iraq in comparison. I don't recall oil being much of an issue in Afghanistan's war but could be wrong there.
 
Jaybe said:
I've got to head out soon but a few main things for me from the USA's perspective:
  • Minimal casualties: 13 dead servicemen is not good but is on a wholly smaller scale this Iraq and Afghanistan
  • Seeming no desire for extensive boots on the ground or potentially any, again, better than the comparators
  • Timelines seems minimal. All reported expectations have this concluding in 3 weeks, so maybe it's a monitor two more but still far short from years of Iraq and Afghanistan.
  • While oil price and the Strait are negative issues, I think they will be temporary and aren't any much different from Iraq in comparison. I don't recall oil being much of an issue in Afghanistan's war but could be wrong there.
Click to expand...
I agree with those points, so far. Personally, I'm not convinced at this point anything will conclude in 3 weeks from now, and that the oil price and negative impact on world economy will be temporary in a way that would please anyone.

I'd be interested to know Iran vs Iraq and Afghanistan casualties on the same timeline of about a month, just for the data.
 
Last edited:
Whether you support the war or don't support it, Donny T couldn't be handling the messaging any worse. Every other day he's changing his tune on various aspects of the conflict. He's claiming that Iran is basically completely obliterated, which obviously isn't true, just like he claimed their nuclear capabilities were last year after those bombings, which clearly isn't true if they're considering sending in ground troops to confiscate uranium.

He's going to do what he always does because he's the biggest egomaniac and narcissist perhaps to ever exist. No matter what outcome, he will claim total victory and the enemy is completely destroyed. Whether it's true or not. And his lackeys will have to stand up and back him up on it whether it's true or not, because he's surrounded himself only with yes men and women this term. I'm less annoyed about Trump, because none of this is a surprise, it's expected. But to see how spineless people can be to where they will literally say anything this guy demands of them no matter what it is... man where are the people with a backbone?
 
Last edited:
www.cnbc.com

Iran and Oman drafting protocol to 'monitor' Hormuz Strait traffic: IRNA

The Strait of Hormuz, the vital artery for global oil transit, has been effectively closed since the Iran war started in late February.
www.cnbc.com www.cnbc.com

Iran and Oman are drafting a protocol to "monitor transit" through the Strait of Hormuz, Iranian state news agency IRNA reported Thursday morning, citing an official.

Tanker traffic through the key oil-shipping route "should be supervised and coordinated" with the two countries, said Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran's deputy minister of legal and international affairs, according to a translation of IRNA's report.




"Of course, these requirements will not mean restrictions, but rather to facilitate and ensure safe passage and provide better services to ships that pass through this route," Gharibabadi reportedly said
Click to expand...
 
DragoonKain said:
Whether you support the war or don't support it, Donny T couldn't be handling the messaging any worse. Every other day he's changing his tune on various aspects of the conflict. He's claiming that Iran is basically completely obliterated, which obviously isn't true, just like he claimed their nuclear capabilities were last year after those bombings, which clearly isn't true if they're considering sending in ground troops to confiscate uranium.

He's going to do what he always does because he's the biggest egomaniac and narcissist perhaps to ever exist. No matter what outcome, he will claim total victory and the enemy is completely destroyed. Whether it's true or not. And his lackeys will have to stand up and back him up on it whether it's true or not, because he's surrounded himself only with yes men and women this term. I'm less annoyed about Trump, because none of this is a surprise, it's expected. But to see how spineless people can be to where they will literally say anything this guy demands of them no matter what it is... man where are the people with a backbone?
Click to expand...
I definitely agree with you in terms of non-war time communication. It's inexcusable and projects incompetence. "Donny Diapers" is a hilarious apt nickname for many reasons.

But in terms of current war-time communication, I have to disagree. He has successfully "flooded the zone" with doublespeak and an idiotic mainstream media (both left and right wing!) who are so desperate for clicks in their revenue-starved world that they will print literally WHATEVER White House "anonymous sources" tell them word for word. WSJ, Washington Post, Bloomberg... It doesn't matter. They will print anything as long as it comes from a purported insider.

This has allowed the White House and CENTCOM to have complete control over public info, and they are correctly using it to induce maximum confusion. This is why the stock market is yo-yo'ing every day.

If the US is truly about to send in ground forces, you want it to be as much of a surprise as possible. And while it's difficult to keep massive 40,000 ton ships floating towards Iran a secret, whether Trump will actually give the green light is complete unknown. He seems crazy and flip flops every day - that's the point.

For what it's worth (very little), I think he has already made the decision to send in ground forces and all of this is cover to try and protect what little possible element of surprise may be gained. In his mind, if this strategy can save even one marine life due to Iran being 1% less prepared than it otherwise would be as a result of this mass confusion, then it's worth it.
 
Biff said:
I definitely agree with you in terms of non-war time communication. It's inexcusable and projects incompetence. "Donny Diapers" is a hilarious apt nickname for many reasons.

But in terms of current war-time communication, I have to disagree. He has successfully "flooded the zone" with doublespeak and an idiotic mainstream media (both left and right wing!) who are so desperate for clicks in their revenue-starved world that they will print literally WHATEVER White House "anonymous sources" tell them word for word. WSJ, Washington Post, Bloomberg... It doesn't matter. They will print anything as long as it comes from a purported insider.

This has allowed the White House and CENTCOM to have complete control over public info, and they are correctly using it to induce maximum confusion. This is why the stock market is yo-yo'ing every day.

If the US is truly about to send in ground forces, you want it to be as much of a surprise as possible. And while it's difficult to keep massive 40,000 ton ships floating towards Iran a secret,
Click to expand...

Not difficult. Impossible. If he was going to do that, he'd have had to start with that. He blew his "surprise" already.

Besides, it would be political suicide. Hes already handing dems an optimal scenario, but boots on the ground would turn it into a feeding frenzy. No one is going to back it. Especially when as you say; we barely can trust any info coming out of the WH.
 
Gp1 said:
already posted?


deploy the fucking ships already
Click to expand...
To spend billions on a war that Europe didn't want to be in at the moment and with no realistic sense of taking it with the terrain? It would take pretty high mobilisation of troops to keep it safe, and there's not much to indicate regime change in Iran happening quickly. It's all a bit of a mess.
 
moogman said:
To spend billions on a war that Europe didn't want to be in at the moment and with no realistic sense of taking it with the terrain? It would take pretty high mobilisation of troops to keep it safe, and there's not much to indicate regime change in Iran happening quickly. It's all a bit of a mess.
Click to expand...

No. Because since it looks like politics are failing... It's to liberate one of its main trade routes, from a small tyrant 5000 km away without relying on any foreign (although allied) naval force.

And because England has a tradition where, when it's necessary, a woman slams her hand on the table every now and then.
 
Gp1 said:
No. Because since it looks like politics are failing... It's to liberate one of its main trade routes, from a small tyrant 5000 km away without relying on any foreign (although allied) naval force.

And because England has a tradition where, when it's necessary, a woman slams her hand on the table every now and then.
Click to expand...
The trade route only needs liberating due to the actions of another country without the go-ahead of its allies though? It may have to happen eventually, but the quickest end to the hold on the straight is for the US to say they've got what they wanted and make a treaty.
 
Mr Reasonable said:
What are those moves? Watch various business close and parts of the USA slip into poverty?
Click to expand...
I don't know how the US will survive without all that oil it never got from Iran in the first place....

People really think the issue with the economy is that Iran was Pivotal to the US's success.

Those same filthy, greedy traders can fuck up the US's economy (and have done so before) without any foreign intervention needed.
 
Last edited:
StueyDuck said:
I don't know how the US will survive without all that oil it never got from Iran in the first place....

People really think the issue with the economy is that Iran was Pivotal to the US's success.

Those same filthy, greedy traders can fuck up the US's economy (and have done so before) without any foreign intervention needed.
Click to expand...
should the us nationalize its oil industry?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Michael Bay set to direct true-story film about two downed pilots in Iran
9
14
StreetsofBeige replied
  • Locked
Can we has back our Iran thread?
2 3
100
1K
LearnandBurn replied
  • Locked
UK bans Coinbase ad mocking UK's current situation, portraying the country as dystopian
20
2K
TommyCronin6969 replied
Any recommendations on a portable monitor? The ones that look like an iPad.
2
572
IDKFA replied
Why isn't Windows 11 auto changing to the correct HDR/Monitor profile when I change which monitor I want to use? (It used to...)
2
496
YCoCg replied
Top Bottom