Chittagong
Gold Member
Breaking: Iran has recruited Sephiroth to strike down America
The era when governments threatened each other with annihilation using AI slop is certainly something for the history books
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Monitoring the situation in Iran
- Thread starter EviLore
- Start date
The era when governments threatened each other with annihilation using AI slop is certainly something for the history books
DonkeyPunchJr
World’s Biggest Weeb
It's just concept art for Sony's upcoming AAA live service game.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
The main issue is that Iran is just too big and bombings won't change much. So it is really tough situation they are trying to address - will the blockade work? Will something else work? I am not in favor on any deal with IRGC simply because they have overplayed their cards and lied multiple times. Trump is giving them too many off ramps and Turkey and Saudi's are also dragging this out.
Last edited:
Meicyn
Member
Article: Dr. Alireza Golchini, a surgeon from Qazvin, has been arrested by Iranian government forces for providing medical care to injured protesters and is now facing charges of "Moharrebeh" (waging war against God) — a capital offense under Iranian law that carries the risk of execution.
Braag
Member
I read another article of a soldier who refused to open fire on protesters and he was facing the same charges.
kittoo
Cretinously credulous
Waging war against their imaginary schizo in the sky.
Pathetic.
Hero of Spielberg
Member
US announces multi-day aerial military drills in the Middle East amid Iran tensions
Exercises described by President Trump as an ‘armada’ to be led by the USS Abraham Lincoln amid standoff
www.theguardian.com
Trump stepped down his rhetoric on launching strikes against Iran earlier this month after he claimed that the country had reversed a decision on hanging 800 detained protesters. But as of last week, he had suggested that strikes could still take place, with the carrier strike group being sent to the region "just in case".
"We have a massive fleet heading in that direction, and maybe we won't have to use it," he said.
Last edited:
Trump's words at any given moment are not reliable indicators of…much, but here's his latest statement:US announces multi-day aerial military drills in the Middle East amid Iran tensions
Exercises described by President Trump as an ‘armada’ to be led by the USS Abraham Lincoln amid standoff
Trump stepped down his rhetoric on launching strikes against Iran earlier this month after he claimed that the country had reversed a decision on hanging 800 detained protesters. But as of last week, he had suggested that strikes could still take place, with the carrier strike group being sent to the region "just in case".
"We have a massive fleet heading in that direction, and maybe we won't have to use it," he said.
I would put more trust in all the military resource buildup happening right now.
Hero of Spielberg
Member
You have to wonder what a deal would be in this scenario.
Braag
Member
Removal of enriched uranium.
Limiting their ballistic-missiles program.
Stop support for proxy armies.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
None of this can be enforced really. And regimes like that are constantly trying to subvert the rules.
Essentially IRGC is unable to.peacefully develop anymore. It can only be oppression and wars.
Braag
Member
I mean oppression has always been the name of the game for them. But they have shat the bed so many times that I doubt anyone wants them to have nukes at this point. Doubt even China or Russia would really prefer that.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
China and Russia does not care because it just creates more chaos for the region there meaning USA will have to be involved more. Trump is trying to pull out as much resources as possible from various players because USA has been spreading too thin all these years.
At this point the only solution is the complete regime change. But the problem is that nobody knows what is going to happen next. There are a lot of potential benefits, but also possible mess. Iran is essentially the mountain version of Nazi Germany in 1944 or something. There cannot be a peaceful solution anymore. Even the blockade idea is about forcing elites within to overthrow IRGC, but IRGC (just like SS in the Nazi Germany) is just to embedded into iranian infrastructure. Though at very late stages of 1945, the german army was fighting SS too.
That's why there are no "good solution" there. Pahlavi has no power within Iran (sorry, but students chanting his name mean nothing as IRGC demonstrated that they can suppress them if they want to with little to no pushback from anybody) and I am vary of him due to his european ties. And local elites seem to be fine with more and more weakened IRGC and ayatollah. Plus when the real push came to shove, the Gulf monarchies, Turkey and even Israel are not that eager to finish off Iran.
Last edited:
One tactic is try to pull a 'reverse Putin' and empower select minority groups inside Iran to chip away at the country. Take the Kurds, for example. Give them weapons and air cover to finally make their own country, Iraq and Turkey be damned. Of course the Kurds would be foolish to trust the fickle US but it would be an option to begin to undo the post-WW1 borders and let these countries/ethnic groups re-shake themselves out.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
Very hard to achieve. In case of Ukraine you at least had Russia (big country) and russian speaking group of people. In Iran a lot of regional groups are basically terrorist groups of all the neighbouring states. Even iraqi shia groups do not like iranian shia groups (they have to work with each other but by and large, they are not exactly the allies). Technically there are 3 potential groups that could split Iran, but splitting Iran comes with additional instability caused by ethnic tensions and elites within. At best there is a neutral azerbaijani group (that hates Shakh), you have a group that is also at war with Pakistan, I think there is some sus stuff with Afghanistan too.
Kurds are too splintered to have a country, have no real power without perpetual foreign support (they don't have enough people to fend off anybody aside terrorist groups by themselves), they are hated by arabs and turks. The whole mesopotamia is basically about various groups hating or oppressing each other. USA working with kurds have nothing to do with trust - nobody is trusting anyone. Kurds were a useful tool, but they failed to become anything more than that - after all these years they are still splintered between factions to build a functioning government, and by themselves they are not strong enough to do anything. You basically have Turkey + Syria + Iran + maaaybe Iraq (partially) + arabs vs kurds + Israel (but Israel won't do anything). Supporting kurds there do not make sense unless kurds become able to function independently in some shape or form.
Ideally, Shakh could have done something to become somebody like Lenin - with powerful army support from within and some agreements from other groups (like I will give you autonomy etc). But it is not going to happen as the local elites are still strong within Iran, IRGC still has power so the support of students won't do much. I do wonder what USA is going to do. They need to do something that would lead to - "Iran gives up" situation.
Last edited:
BlackTron
Member
Sure, "bad guys" can plant these seeds in "good guys" turf because good guys are tolerant and have rules. What happens when you flip the script, and good guys try to plant seeds on bad guys turf? They stand by and let it happen without noticing until a problem boils over?
No, you let the kurds fight like they want for their "ancestral homeland" or how ever you want to spin it and use that as a pretext to strike Guard formations that try to interfere. But there could be a concrete attainable goal there. As it is, how do you support civilians in a general coup? Other than outright invasion or some serious assassinations, that cause is far too diffuse to help.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
In a general (like when military revolts) coup, the civilians are powerless. Kurds by themselves cannot do anything as not a single power in the region want anything to do with them.
calico
Member
The US effectively giving itself a kinetic veto over leadership seems about as far as it can realistically go without some form of ground force to conduct strikes in support of.
Short of adopting a WW2 style 'too bad, so sad' policy towards civilian casualties -which isn't going to happen- it's hard to see how a broader attempt to dismantle the regime with strikes would achieve much, or how they wouldn't quickly be stopped by using civilians as shields.
Any course which requires a local force to trust that the US will commit to a military action for 'as long as it takes' is a tough proposition, because the US system does not really allow for such a commitment to begin with, and the danger of trusting such a commitment has only just recently been demonstrated in Afghanistan.
Short of adopting a WW2 style 'too bad, so sad' policy towards civilian casualties -which isn't going to happen- it's hard to see how a broader attempt to dismantle the regime with strikes would achieve much, or how they wouldn't quickly be stopped by using civilians as shields.
Any course which requires a local force to trust that the US will commit to a military action for 'as long as it takes' is a tough proposition, because the US system does not really allow for such a commitment to begin with, and the danger of trusting such a commitment has only just recently been demonstrated in Afghanistan.
------
Speaking today in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke about the current military buildup in the Middle East directed at Iran, stating:
"On the issue of our presence in the region, here's the baseline I want to set for everybody. The baseline is this: we have 30,000 to 40,000 American troops stationed across eight or nine facilities in that region. All are within the reach, theoretically, not theoretically, in reality, all are within the reach of an array of thousands of Iranian, one-way UAVs and Iranian short range of ballistic missiles that threaten our troop presence. We have to have enough force and power in the region just on a baseline to defend against that possibility. That at some point, as a result of something, the Iranian regime decides to strike at our troop presence in the region. The President always reserves the preemptive defensive option. In essence, if we have indications that in fact they're going to attack our troops in the region, to defend our personnel in the region. We also have security agreements, the Defense of Israel Plan and others, that requires to have a forced posture in the region to defend against that. And so I think it's wise and prudent to have a forced posture within the region that could respond and potentially, not necessarily what's going to happen, but if necessary, preemptively prevent the attack against thousands of American servicemen and other facilities in the region and our allies. I hope it doesn't come to that. But that's, I think, what you're seeing now is the ability to posture assets in the region to defend against what could be an Iranian threat against our personnel. They certainly have the capability to do it because they've amassed thousands and thousands of ballistic missiles that they've built despite the fact that their economy is collapsing. They keep spending money on that. Thank you."
------
ChuckeRearmed
Member
I guess it is truly over for Iran soon if even EU does not want to support IRGC anymore
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
And just like that, congressional approval is not needed.
Meicyn
Member
That language suggests they have way more ballistic missiles stockpiled than OSINT estimates. Certainly explains the deployment of more and more missile defense systems into the theater.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
They might have more or less, but it is going to be the last hurray from IRGC and Iran. And everybody knows it.
Big-G
Member
When you have an authoritarian regime, you can just make up any bullshit law to kill people. Sickening.
calico
Member
"They certainly have the capability to do it because they've amassed thousands and thousands of ballistic missiles that they've built despite the fact that their economy is collapsing. They keep spending money on that."
Barack Hussein Obama and the EU giving Iran access to $100bn helped buy a lot of those missiles. Then President Trump ended up having to destroy the nuclear facilities anyway.
Barack Hussein Obama and the EU giving Iran access to $100bn helped buy a lot of those missiles. Then President Trump ended up having to destroy the nuclear facilities anyway.
Bojji
Member
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Then this BS
www.cbsnews.com
U.S. clears way for release of $6 billion in frozen Iranian funds as part of prisoner swap deal
The Biden administration has cleared the way for the release of five American citizens detained in Iran by issuing a waiver for international banks to transfer $6 billion in frozen Iranian money without fear of U.S. sanctions.
www.cbsnews.com
Are they sucking up to Trump by comparing him to a Pharaoh?????
Similar threads
- Locked