Support NeoGAF

[adamsapple]

It's not as if they weren't using horrific means to suppress their own population to spark these strikes int the first place. They COULD get with the international program. I don't see why everyone wants the US to hold back on it's BEST card, strategic level mass destruction, and have to play a gimped game that favors the bad actor causing all this ruckus in the first place. These guys making the strikes have family in cities, as do the military forces enforcing the will of the religious zealots. Speak truth to power and make them have to decide which side of history they wanna come down on. Every kid that starves to death for lack of food is a death on their hands. What say thee, adamsapple ?

I say razing entire cities is an unacceptable collateral. If there are to be boots on the ground, it should be a targeted operation. I don't want civilians needlessly getting hurt.

 

[Biff]

its all market related.. news pushes fear which pushes stock prices.





Also: They are sending troops as scare tactic. They are not needed. We are literally just cruising the skies anywhere we please. Destroying whatever needs to be destroyed.


The news wants to make sound it dire when it is really that there is no sense on wiping everyone out. The leaders are hit and then we give them a chance to comply. They try something else and we take that out and wait again.

Agreed US has complete control of Iranian air space but the Strait of Hormuz is closed primarily because of water-skimming surface drones (imagine a shitty fiberglass speedboat remote controlled with a bomb in it) launched from island caves directly into water.

Not possible to stop from the skies because there's not enough time to detect, calculate its path, and dispatch a jet (or missile) before it hits its target.

Unfortunately, this is why troops are probably needed. Someone needs to breach doors and get into the bunkers on the island/coastal line to stop these drone launches.

 

[jason10mm]

I say razing entire cities is an unacceptable collateral. If there are to be boots on the ground, it should be a targeted operation. I don't want civilians needlessly getting hurt.

Do you extend this concern for non-Iranian civilians that will starve to death due to lack of energy for food production/distribution? As it stands right now, there WILL be civilian deaths, just outside of Iran. Iranian civilians will be massacred by their own government if the US does nothing, global civilians will starve if the US pussyfoots around and lets Iran close the strait, how many total civilians will die if the US takes the gloves off and does what we (used to) do best?

 

[adamsapple]

Do you extend this concern for non-Iranian civilians that will starve to death due to lack of energy for food production/distribution? As it stands right now, there WILL be civilian deaths, just outside of Iran. Iranian civilians will be massacred by their own government if the US does nothing, global civilians will starve if the US pussyfoots around and lets Iran close the strait, how many total civilians will die if the US takes the gloves off and does what we (used to) do best?

Have I said otherwise anywhere? The sooner this war ends, the sooner everyone affected by the Strait closing and even the neighboring Gulf countries worrying about drone strikes can return to some form of normalcy.

I think I've mentioned this before in the topic but I have immediate family members who live and work in Dubai and the recent events are hitting me on a personal level.

 

[Gp1]

Busy day so far






At last, the Arabs are taking the initiative to take Hormuz back. It's unbelievable how none of these countries considered that the region's problem child (and the only country "not one of us") would close the strait.

 

[winjer]

 

[TylerD]

At last, the Arabs are taking the initiative to take Hormuz back. It's unbelievable how none of these countries considered that the region's problem child (and the only country "not one of us") would close the strait.

Iran's own economic Tsar Bomba has been just chilling in the gulf for a long time

 

[violence]

Iran getting in on the AI propaganda videos:

There have been a few gems in my feed. My new favorite.

 

[poppabk]

I kind of wonder at what point Trump will say "we are using the strait. For every tanker hit, we level one of your cities." That's the old school way of dealing with pirates and terrorists and I suspect, if the world had the nutsack to do it, it would resolve the issue after just one....demonstration.

Damage an oil tanker, we kill a million civilians - also - we are the good guys?

 

[IDKFA]

It'd be interesting to know how the decisions went down. I always imagine those scenes from movies where there's a board room table with the military pushing to drop their bombs while others are pushing for diplomacy or arguing that the consequences could be far reaching, but in reality I have no idea. Tbh, I don't think anyone has any clue who's running America at the moment.

If Trump had a lot of say in this decision, I wonder what the end of the operation/war looked like. It feels a bit like:

Drop bombs
??????
We win!

It seems unlikely that the ???????? Part of the equation was "beg allies to join war effort then insult them in the media" or "oh shit, we need to deploy troops?" Certainly if they were on the cards, you'd think the president would have wanted to speak to the allies before kicking off. Safe to say, amid the bluster, this isn't going to whatever plan there was.

I assume the plan was for this to be over very quickly, thus reducing the impact on the global economy. When the protests and riots happened in Iran, the idea was to probably take out the leadership and then the Iranian people will rise up again and take control, installing a more Western friendly government.

If that was the plan then clearly that has failed, but there doesn't appear to be a back up plan? Was there a contingency plan in place in case plan A failed? You would thought so considering the massive economic impact of this war. Like you said, if the idea was to call on support from allies if shit went south, then you would have thought that agreement would have been in place before kicking things off.

I kind of wonder at what point Trump will say "we are using the strait. For every tanker hit, we level one of your cities." That's the old school way of dealing with pirates and terrorists and I suspect, if the world had the nutsack to do it, it would resolve the issue after just one....demonstration.

That would be a terrible idea. It would alienate the US from its allies by killing tens of thousands of civilians. Not to mention that would be a textbook war crime. Striking a city over an oil tanker is a form of collective punishment. It is illegal under international law to target civilians for the actions of their government.

It wouldn't end the war. If anything, striking a city and killing civilians would harden Iranian resolve. It's also strategically illiterate because of Iran's ability to hit back at the global oil supply.

 

[Clear]

This is what I heard being discussed earlier - that Iran don't need to negotiate because they can afford to wait this out, they have the potential for an economic victory. Trump, meanwhile, needs a way out.

No they don't! They have zero chance of an economic victory because if Kharg island is overrun/destroyed/disabled they lose 90% of their economy.

I'm sorry, but people seem to be taking crazy pills regarding this conflict. Given the amount of damage inflicted already on their military and infrastructure the Iranians have been playing their only remaining cards: sowing dissent across the ME by targeting the Gulf States more than Israel, and using low-grade arms to impact merchant shipping at the choke-point of Hormuz.

Meanwhile the Trump admin is holding the sword of damocles over their power grid and their refinery/terminal hub on Kharg. Strike those from the air -which could be done in a single night- and Iran has no ability to export oil and no power for national infrastructure.

I see people laughing off drop-bombs = win war. But so long as territorial conquest isn't a goal -and this has never been the case with Iran ...

Then yes, that's exactly what it is.

Because without domestic infrastructure to drive a war effort, and lacking the economic means to buy in armaments from strategic partners , they have no means to prosecute further conflict.

 

[jason10mm]

That would be a terrible idea. It would alienate the US from its allies by killing tens of thousands of civilians. Not to mention that would be a textbook war crime. Striking a city over an oil tanker is a form of collective punishment. It is illegal under international law to target civilians for the actions of their government.

What Iran is doing is a WAR CRIME. They are attacking, or threatening to attack, neutral shipping in waters they DO NOT OWN, with massive impacts on peoples faaaar outside the US or Israel. They are essentially using their equivalent of a nuclear bomb to hod the PLANET hostage, leading to the deaths of THOUSANDS and possible MILLIONS, yet somehow the US is supposed to just sit back and only use the soft tools? F that noise.

 

[rorepmE]

It's unbelievable how none of these countries considered that the region's problem child (and the only country "not one of us") would close the strait.

They were scared of Iran. Iran is literally the Debo of the Gulf States. It has a population greater than Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, Iraq and Saudi Arabia combined. Before the current crisis, Abqaiq–Khurais in Saudi Arabia was attacked. Iran denied responsibility and blamed the Houthis, but everything points to them. The US did nothing on that so the entire region was worried the US was pivoting from the region. The shale revolution made the US into a net exporter of oil and gas which gave us more strategic flexibility than in previous decades. While Iran was building up their capability the Gulf States spent money on their economy and making it attractive. The other thing is those gulf states are also monarchies and they fear having an internal standing army might lead to revolts against them...

Even the Saudis had a reproach with Iran in 2023 out fear of Iran.

The Saudi–Iranian Détente: A Strategic Imperative

Explore the fragile but resilient Saudi-Iranian détente. Learn how trade, Hajj diplomacy, and GCC security are navigating sanctions and regional tensions.

mecouncil.org

Guess who brokered that? China.

 

[coinhook]

What Iran is doing is a WAR CRIME. They are attacking, or threatening to attack, neutral shipping in waters they DO NOT OWN, with massive impacts on peoples faaaar outside the US or Israel. They are essentially using their equivalent of a nuclear bomb to hod the PLANET hostage, leading to the deaths of THOUSANDS and possible MILLIONS, yet somehow the US is supposed to just sit back and only use the soft tools? F that noise.

USA-Israel intervention was illegal prior to that as they skipped the UN, while Trump also skipped Congress.

It is this that caused it in the first place.

Add also Israel's illegal intervention and occupation in Gaza, Syria and Lebanon (the other democratic nation with a Western backed puppet leader).

Trump and Bibi, having their own judicial adventures, wanted to divert the public.

Basically they thought that Iran would sell out like the Arab states, ignoring the fact that Iran's borders were not artificially created and that social cohesion there was bigger.
What they did increased the support of the regime even more, as Iranians put their own nation first above foreign interests. And at a time where the regime opted for a huge privatisation at the cost of social programmes, leading even more people to poverty.

 

[MisterFalcon]

What Iran is doing is a WAR CRIME. They are attacking, or threatening to attack, neutral shipping in waters they DO NOT OWN, with massive impacts on peoples faaaar outside the US or Israel. They are essentially using their equivalent of a nuclear bomb to hod the PLANET hostage, leading to the deaths of THOUSANDS and possible MILLIONS, yet somehow the US is supposed to just sit back and only use the soft tools? F that noise.

It's not really neutral if every single nation exporting through the Gulf is hosting the armed forces of the nation attacking Iran. Everyone could see this coming, except perhaps the geniuses in the White House although their insider trading profits are doing very well. Millions dying is also US policy as their cutting of aid has shown, the techbro oligarchs see the poor of the world as a distraction from their dreams of going to the stars.

 

[BlueAlpaca]

USA-Israel intervention was illegal prior to that as they skipped the UN

Nobody on the planet cares about the UN or 'International Law', only when it's convenient for them.

Millions dying is also US policy as their cutting of aid has shown, the techbro oligarchs see the poor of the world as a distraction from their dreams of going to the stars.

Wow I didn't send any charity to africa guess I'm responsible for millions dead.

 

[calico]

Everyone could see this coming

Everyone could see a terrorist regime adopting a terrorist policy like this? Absolutely, which is why it's considered so important to prevent them acquiring nuclear weapons.

Whatever leverage their terroristic policy of destroying any ship using the strait without permission gives them, they have infinitely more leverage if you allow them to acquire the ability to deliver nuclear bombs to any city in Europe.

 

[MisterFalcon]

Everyone could see a terrorist regime adopting a terrorist policy like this? Absolutely, which is why it's considered so important to prevent them acquiring nuclear weapons.

Which was done, totally and completely last year according to Trump.

 

[IDKFA]

What Iran is doing is a WAR CRIME. They are attacking, or threatening to attack, neutral shipping in waters they DO NOT OWN, with massive impacts on peoples faaaar outside the US or Israel. They are essentially using their equivalent of a nuclear bomb to hod the PLANET hostage, leading to the deaths of THOUSANDS and possible MILLIONS, yet somehow the US is supposed to just sit back and only use the soft tools? F that noise.

Yes, what Iran is doing to the global oil supply is absolutely wrong.

However, the answer is not to kill thousands of civilians. That would make the situation a lot worse. It would not end the war like you imagine it will.

 

[calico]

Which was done, totally and completely last year according to Trump.

Which the terrorist regime of Iran has apparently subsequently denied to be the case, and the US administration is apparently unwilling to risk that they're telling the truth.

Iran's terroristic policy towards the strait suggests the US is right not to take that risk.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Which the terrorist regime of Iran has apparently subsequently denied to be the case, and the US administration is apparently unwilling to risk that they're telling the truth.

Iran's terroristic policy towards the strait suggests the US is right not to take that risk.

So if trump and the US was wrong about that. I wouldn't trust them about anything you are hearing now. As they clearly do not have good intel.

 

[calico]

So if trump and the US was wrong about that.

If they were wrong about the threat of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons having been dealt with before, the most important implication of that is not that they were wrong but that the threat had not been dealt with.

Declaring you do not trust the US administration makes absolutely no difference as to whether the threat actually exists or not, whether you think the threat (if it does exist) should be addressed or not, or how far you think the US and/or the world should go in order to address it.

 

[Forsete]

Getting up thur. Flashbacks to when we had a green government.