demigod
Member
Diesel went up a dollar here in TX, fml.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Monitoring the situation in Iran
- Thread starter EviLore
- Start date
Hot5pur
Banned
There is a lot of "winning" being advertised on the news in the US, however they won't tell us what the winning conditions are. Or quite frankly, what even the original goal was.
US will do a lot of damage because it has big bombs and massively expensive equipment to throw at this problem. But what good is all that without concrete objectives? Trump, buttered up by Bibi, went in thinking it would be over quick. While Israel was taking out the Ayatollah, his washed up fox news lackey Kegseth was busy bombing 150+ Iranian schoolgirls. If it's not a "politically correct" war Pete, why are you only targeting girls???
Meanwhile Iranians have been pummeling US bases and now have a new leader MORE likely to support nuclear weapons development. Also gas prices will go up, Arab nations will see the the US is useless at defending them when they run out of missiles, China and Russia and going to have some fun with this, a bunch more Americans will die, and all Iran really has to do to win is survive. Without regime change (ground invasion), US is going to accomplish next to nothing, and a ground invasion would be a whole new can of worms. But hey, when you're mentioned thousands of times in files related to pedophelia and human trafficking, a war can be a good distraction. Though I don't know if killing little girls makes one look better or worse than fucking them.
US will do a lot of damage because it has big bombs and massively expensive equipment to throw at this problem. But what good is all that without concrete objectives? Trump, buttered up by Bibi, went in thinking it would be over quick. While Israel was taking out the Ayatollah, his washed up fox news lackey Kegseth was busy bombing 150+ Iranian schoolgirls. If it's not a "politically correct" war Pete, why are you only targeting girls???
Meanwhile Iranians have been pummeling US bases and now have a new leader MORE likely to support nuclear weapons development. Also gas prices will go up, Arab nations will see the the US is useless at defending them when they run out of missiles, China and Russia and going to have some fun with this, a bunch more Americans will die, and all Iran really has to do to win is survive. Without regime change (ground invasion), US is going to accomplish next to nothing, and a ground invasion would be a whole new can of worms. But hey, when you're mentioned thousands of times in files related to pedophelia and human trafficking, a war can be a good distraction. Though I don't know if killing little girls makes one look better or worse than fucking them.
vodka-bull
Member
UN representatives are 55% dictator countries and 45% democracies. The idea of the UN was good back in the days, nowadays it's just a bunch of hateful, anti-semitic clowns.
IbizaPocholo
NeoGAFs Kent Brockman
near
Gold Member
Iran is a major security threat, to put it nicely. Not just the US, but several countries in the region. It was only a month or two ago that this same regime was violently killing protestors and imposing a nationwide internet blackout. They've been arming and funding a network of proxy groups, which have openly targeted US bases on many occasions. And this is a country that is working towards nuclear weapons.
It isn't particularly complicated. The war is about limiting Iran's power in the region and preventing it from becoming a nuclear armed state.
I think it's fair to debate whether this approach will work out or if it will make things worse. But pretending as if there was never any rational for this war in the first place is silly.
Chittagong
Gold Member
Messing with China and Russia is an even bigger rationale, nevermind the regional stability. And this messes with both.
near
Gold Member
Maybe, but the risks aren't the same. Direct conflict with either China or Russia is on a completely different scale/level. They're both nuclear powers with huge military capabilities, and a direct war with them would escalate into something unimaginable. The rational way to deal with them is through sanctions and other economic pressures. And just because they're political and strategic allies with Iran does not mean they'll enter a war for them. They'll just backseat.
DaleinCalgary
Getting the shaft
Doubt that will make ships safe.
Romulus
Member
Lmao "pummeling" US bases. Then what do you call taking out an entire air force, navy, and all those hyped up AA rockets that were supposed to shoot down US jets?
TheAtomicPile
Member
For what it's worth, the Pentagon is saying the goals are:
- Destroy Iranian offensive missiles
- Destroy Iranian missile production
- Destroy Iran's Navy and other security infrastructure
- Prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon
There has obviously been significant progress on these in the past week. On the other hand, we just "prevented" Iran from having a nuclear weapon like 8 months ago and yet here we are. We're also already getting mixed signals about the timeline.
Last edited:
demigod
Member
Low IQ forealz
rorepmE
Member
Mosaddegh was never the ruler of Iran nor "democratically elected", contrary to the tankie revisionist history.
The Imperial State of Iran was a constitutional monarchy with the Shah as the Head of State with executive power to appoint and dismiss the Prime Minister, dissolve the Parliament and command the armed forces.
Supplementary Fundamental Law of 1907 (part of the 1906 Constitution) https://fis-iran.org/document/iran-1906-constitution/
The Iranian Screw Job:
Mosaddegh's Appointment: What amounted to a vote of confidence by the Iranian Parliament, Mosaddegh is appointed as Prime Minister by the Shah
Nationalization & Popularity: Mosaddegh became immensely popular for leading the movement to nationalize the AIOC 1951, taking control away from the British.
The July 1952 Crisis: Following a brief resignation due to the Shah's refusal to grant him power to appoint a Minister of War. An uprising by his National Front coalition and the crucial support of Ayatollah Kashani forced the Shah to re-appoint him and grant him control over the military.
Power Struggle & Emergency Powers: During his second term, Mosaddegh was granted emergency powers, allowing him to bypass Parliament to push through reforms and sought to actively reduce the power of the Shah.
Alliances and Rifts: As the situation deteriorated, Mosaddegh was forced to ally with the communist Tudeh Party to maintain control of the streets, causing his former ally, Ayatollah Kashani, to fear that he would marginalize Islamic influence with secular Marxism.
The Illegal Referendum: In August 1953, facing a rebellious Parliament, Mosaddegh held a referendum to dissolve the 17th Parliament. It passed with over 99% support, but was considered illegal because, under the constitution, only the Shah had the power to dissolve Parliament.
Dismissal and Screw Job: The Shah dismissed Mosaddegh on August 16, 1953, but Mosaddegh refused to resign, calling it a foreign-backed plot. This refusal gave the Pro-Shah faction (backed by the CIA and MI6) in a plot known as Operation Ajax the justification to move against him, leading to his ouster on August 19, 1953.
TL;DR Version:
The CIA didn't screw Mosaddegh
JimmyRustler
Member
I'm all for capitalism but the entire oil industry is a joke. Can't wait for it to get obsolete.
Dirk Benedict
Gold Member
Cyberpunkd
Member
Yes, but these territories are what Israel has taken, and they were never accepted by for example UN. They were not part of Israel before the war. It's pointless to argue whether it was justified or not (I think it was because first - aggressor should be punished ; second - good to have some spare territory in case of a future attack so they are not in Jerusalem after 30 minutes tank drive), but the fact is it made a messy situation even messier.These "disputed territories" you refer to are territorial losses that Egypt, Jordan, and Syria incurred after teamed up to jointly attack Israel in 1967.
I hate to break it to you but the UN has fuck all to do with "approving" territory seizures. Those countries fought Israel, they got their asses handed to them, and they lack the ability to take the land back. It's really as simple as that, has been since the dawn of time.
kittoo
Cretinously credulous
I went electric in June 2025. Its a very relaxing feeling to not give a shit about gas prices. In our country there is another issue of government forcing ethanol mixing in gas which causes it's own issues. I don't have to care about none of that.
The car is pretty awesome too. 650km range is perfectly fine by me. I dont think I am ever going back to ICE vechiles.
MidGenRefresh
*Refreshes biennially
Cyberpunkd
Member
True, but after 1945 we kinda abandoned "might makes right" because last time we tried it two world wars happened.
falconhoof
Member
I hope counter terrorism teams are working overtime. Feels like when, not if, that something will happen in the west.
www.dailymail.co.uk
Pro-Iran protesters torch Israeli flag at Birmingham vigil
Protesters in support of the Iranian regime and its late Supreme Leader torched an Israeli flag and chanted 'death to the IDF' at a vigil in Birmingham last night.
BlackTron
Member
Right, and after WW2 the aggressors, who lost, had their country split up. Between the countries that had might.
FAFO is still a thing
Critical Hit
Member
Iranians or IGRC?
lmao
Netanyahu was waiting for Trump's second term, which could easily not have happened, to start a war with Iran? Brilliant.
Signalis
Member
Ducats? You living in the fucking middle ages? Isn't it Swedish Krona?
wtf they do not have blue ray players lmao
rorepmE
Member
Yup. If not now, then when? A colonoscopy prep isn't pleasant either. This shit has been going on for 47 years and the second they get the bomb, it will be too late.
People think it's for first strike capability but it's a threshold tool. It's kind of hard for these people to imagine the geopolitical ramification of this but I'll basically shield them from any sort of military response. That means they'll be able to leverage that by threatening the Strait of Hormuz everytime they want something, just like Kim Jong Un but with a major strategic chokepoint. It would radically alter the balance of power in the region permanently that will have devastating consequences for the region and global energy supply.
How does that affect us in the US? Well our Asian allies, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, etc get their oil from this region.
Let's say China decides to invade Taiwan. We sanction China or blockade the Strait of Malacca. Now Iran can help China with a blockade of Hormuz. Just one scenario.
Besides how else is Trump going to build a golf course there by 2035?
Might always makes right in the end. What started two world wars is the miscalculation of power and the attempts at arms limitation to make everyone "equal". Well if I had ambition and I think I can beat the crap out of you decisively, there is a likelihood I might try to beat your ass.
The problem with international order is we have regional powers actively trying to undermine it. Or you have countries like China that act like a SovCit where they talk out of their ass about international law when it suits them but ignore it when it benefits them and then retaliate with economic warfare when someone just questions if the COVID-19 really came from a wet market.
Last edited:
IbizaPocholo
NeoGAFs Kent Brockman
Tams
Member
The Russian bear is flailing around being stung by bees after trying to steal all the honey and China's tiger is made of paper with their leader jealous that he is getting none of the honey.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
Well i guess they are running low on ammo now.
winjer
Gold Member
Similar threads
- Locked