BattleScar
Member
You're not winning an argument against a wall dawg. Save yourself some pain.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Monitoring the situation in Iran
- Thread starter EviLore
- Start date
TheAtomicPile
Member
Unknown?
Member
Still think this is all a distraction/excuse to usher in programmable digital currency that has been being piloted and worked on for years already.
Similar to how covid was a lucky excuse to pump trillions into the financial sector to keep the whole system from collapsing.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
So banning chemical and biological weapons helps defend terrorists?
DrFigs
Member
Some people really just say anything on the internet
HoodWinked
Member
it's weird that in these backwards nations their press covers themselves extremely favorably but in the west our press covers ourselves extremely negatively.
Unfortunatecookie
Member
I think you're correct about it being a calculated distraction, but it's to distract from the Epstein files.
Sitting and former presidents, European and Middle Eastern royalty, current and past prime ministers, multiple global intelligence agencies, many Fortune 500 CEO's; all of these were implicated by the sloppily redacted Epstein files. The unredacted files must contain information that is significantly worse -- more names, more criminality, videos, pics, audio, the whole menu.
A conveniently timed war is a nifty little distraction that seems to be working. For now.
MisterFalcon
Member
It's also possible Trump is exactly like Putin and he wants to win a Big War before the end of his life and gets told there is this easy Big War to win over the Big Enemy whose oppressed peoples will welcome his armies with cheers and flowers.
And it may not be going as well as planned but he just needs to fight a little harder and it will all be won in two weeks.
And it may not be going as well as planned but he just needs to fight a little harder and it will all be won in two weeks.
Last edited:
Heimdall_Xtreme
Hermen Hulst Fanclub's #1 Member
????
Can someone explain this?
Last edited:
thefool
Member
Assad was really worried about international law. Terrorists do not care about compliance, this isn't the nba enforcing rules.
Last edited:
MisterFalcon
Member
Images Purportedly Show E-3 Sentry Totally Destroyed From Iranian Strike
A loss of an E-3 would be a major blow for the dwindling fleet of increasingly rickety airframes and would point to other capability and defensive gaps.
www.twz.com
It'd call that plane to be severely degraded from optimal functionality.
Wildebeest
Member
ChuckeRearmed
Member
Jaybe
Member
Equating Trump to Putin is a retarded stretch though I get folks with a far ideological bent gravitate to it. Trump ultimately wants a country to not have nuclear weapons. Putin thinks Russia's territory should be restored to its 1900 level.
Sonik
Member
Didn't know Israel is allowed to murder journalists for alleged thought crimes. Interesting
Jaybe
Member
The bitch was a Hezbollah propagandist complete with the uniform. Why do you keep going to bat for terrorist groups?
Romulus
Member
I think what I'm most impressed by from a tactical military standpoint is Iran knew they were coming weeks in advance and still couldn't do anything.
Begging other countries to help them save their warships by docking in their ports is the most embarrassing shit I've ever heard.
I'm not supporting the war really, just never seen such a country reduced to their only response being random missile vollies at civilians.
Not a single US plane or ship lost to Iran vs hundreds lost on their side.
They'll tell you it's all bullshit too and never improve their strategy. Probably think they "won" on every front.
Begging other countries to help them save their warships by docking in their ports is the most embarrassing shit I've ever heard.
I'm not supporting the war really, just never seen such a country reduced to their only response being random missile vollies at civilians.
Not a single US plane or ship lost to Iran vs hundreds lost on their side.
They'll tell you it's all bullshit too and never improve their strategy. Probably think they "won" on every front.
Last edited:
Sonik
Member
The bitch was a Hezbollah propagandist complete with the uniform. Why do you keep going to bat for terrorist groups?
This is the standard claim Israel makes every time they murder a journalist
Jaybe
Member
It's true in this case. There's a photograph of her in Hezbollah and no one seems to dispute her alignment, they only make the claim it's also a political party. Keep representing the terrorists even in the face of facts. I see who you are.
DrFigs
Member
They're not even trying to claim she was a combatant. Just literally a journalist.
vindafarna
Member
Honestly, most of these so-called journalists are idiots. Typical that terrorist sympathizers took the risk of knowingly being human shields.
They think they'd be immune to combat by embedding themselves with armed combatants, either side-by-side or a distance. Once a firefight is on, or are an area is announced for bombardment, they will never be innocent bystanders.
I sympathize with the IDF, as they have to put up with such lunatics as their adversaries.
They think they'd be immune to combat by embedding themselves with armed combatants, either side-by-side or a distance. Once a firefight is on, or are an area is announced for bombardment, they will never be innocent bystanders.
I sympathize with the IDF, as they have to put up with such lunatics as their adversaries.
Last edited:
struggler_guts
Member
from what I've been able to figure out so far, this leak isn't new, a documentary came out in 2024 with info from the leak.
Tucker Carlson just interviewed the guy that produced it and was on the receiving end of the 1000 hours of interrogation videos: Alex Gibney. That's why the tweet acts like this is breaking news.
A lot of what popped up on google was just about the documentary and the interview, and the latter doesn't have any outright indictments it's mostly speculation.
So I asked chatgpt for the facts and it says:
The suitcases of cash being delivered into Gaza = True
About 30~ mil a month = True
The footage and reporting on it being banned: True
Netanyahu continued to do so even AFTER being warned that the money was most likely being funneled into hamas.
It is reported Netanyahu said in a closed door meeting in 2019 "Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas…"
He denies it of course, but is also seen saying in the videos that he does that and other espionage bs constantly to divide his enemies.
So no definitive proof in the sense of a video of Netanyahu clearly admitting to it, but yah know…
ChuckeRearmed
Member
Who said they were journous? Media always tries to portray themselves as victims and such yet with know with UNRWA situation that they were complicit.
If media reported everything fairly, people would understand that USA and Israel essentially obliterated the relatively modern militarized country within a couple of weeks. Yes it could be just 15th army in the world. But the fact that Iran literally saw all the build up and failed to prepare - it is an amazing military success. The cleanup will take time and only because IRGC nutjobs decided to go with a bang, last stand under the applause from seditious western media.
The journous have some kind of god complex or something. Not just in military outlets, but literally everywhere - from gaming journalism to political one. There is some holier than thou attitude, while they are basically just glorified bloggers.
Last edited:
OLED_Gamer
Member
The problem is always "at what cost." Right now, the costs of the war with Iran for a world economy already struggling with stagflation will just future compound.
Iran is using their tools well- bombs aren't the only way to fight a war. Making life harder for Americans (i.e. more expensive) is an effective tool that can get worse as this goes on.
As corporate profits sink, expect more layoffs.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Most of the article is paywalled unfortunately.
Chittagong
Gold Member
I find it absolutely incredible that Trump of all presidents was the one to take USA to another Middle East ground war. Was not even a remote possibility in my bingo card.
Most of the article is paywalled unfortunately.
Insane Metal
Member
Oh wow ground attack is actually happening? Damn.
Topher
Identifies as young
Most of the article is paywalled unfortunately.
The Pentagon is preparing for weeks of ground operations in Iran, U.S. officials said, as thousands of American soldiers and Marines arrive in the Middle East for what could become a dangerous new phase of the war should President Donald Trump choose to escalate.
Any potential ground operation would fall short of a full-scale invasion and could instead involve raids by a mixture of Special Operations forces and conventional infantry troops, said the officials. All spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss highly sensitive military plans that have been in development for weeks.
Such a mission could expose U.S. personnel to an array of threats, including Iranian drones and missiles, ground fire and improvised explosives. It was unclear Saturday whether Trump would approve all, some or none of the Pentagon's plans.
Follow Trump's second term
Follow
The Trump administration in recent days has vacillated between declaring that the war is winding down and threatening to amplify it. While the president has signaled a desire to negotiate an end to the conflict, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt warned Tuesday that if the regime in Tehran does not end its nuclear ambitions and cease its threats against the United States and its allies, Trump is "prepared to unleash hell" against them.Ask The Post AIDive deeper
In a statement responding to questions for this report, Leavitt said: "It's the job of the Pentagon to make preparations in order to give the Commander in Chief maximum optionality. It does not mean the President has made a decision."
Discussions within the administration over the past month have touched upon the possible seizure of Kharg Island, a key Iranian oil export hub in the Persian Gulf, and raids into other coastal areas near the Strait of Hormuz to find and destroy weapons that can target commercial and military shipping, officials said. One person said that the objectives under consideration would probably take "weeks, not months" to complete. Another put the potential timeline at "a couple of months."
The Pentagon did not respond Saturday to requests for comment.
Trump, speaking March 20 in the Oval Office, told reporters: "I'm not putting troops anywhere. If I were, I certainly wouldn't tell you, but I'm not putting troops."
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, speaking in France on Friday after a gathering of U.S. allies anxious about the war's mounting economic toll, told reporters that it is "not going to be a prolonged conflict." He repeated a frequent, if vague, administration assessment that the operation is ahead of schedule, and said the United States "can achieve all of our objectives without ground troops."
President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth during a Cabinet meeting Thursday. (Evelyn Hockstein/Reuters)
Rubio's comments followed a report from Axios indicating that the Pentagon is preparing a "final blow" against Iran that could include both ground forces and a massive bombing campaign. Axios and the Wall Street Journal also reported in recent days that the administration is considering deploying another 10,000 ground troops to the Middle East, supplementing those already in the region. The Washington Post was unable to verify those reports.
In the past month, 13 U.S. troops have been killed in action, including six in a plane crash in Iraq, six in a drone attack on Port Shuaiba in Kuwait, and one in an attack on Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia. More than 300 service members have been wounded by Iranian drone and missiles in retaliatory attacks targeting U.S. facilities in at least seven countries across the Middle East, including at least 10 who suffered serious injuries, officials said.
The prospect of deploying U.S. combat troops on Iranian soil faces significant opposition among Americans, according to recent polls. One, conducted jointly by the Associated Press and the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, found that 62 percent of respondents strongly oppose the use of ground troops in Iran, with just 12 percent in favor.Ask The Post AIDive deeper
Those polled were split more evenly about whether the U.S. should launch airstrikes against military targets in Iran, with 39 percent opposed and 33 percent in favor.
While there has been significant public speculation about U.S. troops potentially seizing Kharg Island, such a mission comes with significant peril, said Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. It may be safer, he said, for U.S. forces to lay mines around the island and use it as a pressure point to compel Iran to remove any mines it has laid in the Strait of Hormuz.
"I just wouldn't want to be in that small place with Iran's ability to rain down drones and maybe artillery," said Eisenstadt, a retired Army officer who served in Iraq, Israel and Jordan.
A smarter ground mission, he said, may be for U.S. troops to "clear out" some of Iran's coastal military sites that pose a threat to commercial and military shipping. Some are near the Strait of Hormuz, a vital oil-shipping route now under threat, and others are likely farther up the coast, he said.
"I think it's better to not have the troops located in any given place for a prolonged period of time," Eisenstadt said. "Agility is part of your force protection, if they are moving and doing raids, in and out."
The 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, made up of about 2,200 U.S. sailors and Marines, was ordered to the region in recent weeks. It has significant capability to conduct such missions but faces logistical limitations in how long it can fight without additional supplies, said a retired senior military officer familiar with the unit's operations.
A satellite image of Kharg Island, Iran's most significant territory in the Persian Gulf and a vital maritime pathway for global oil and gas shipments. (AFP/Getty Images)
Kharg Island is Iran's most significant territory in the Persian Gulf, the retired officer said, but U.S. military officials have studied other Iranian islands closer to the Strait of Hormuz as potential sites for U.S. operations.
Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, an elite paramilitary force, is likely to dig in and fight, the retired officer said, and those fighters could use Kharg Island's valuable oil infrastructure there as part of their defense against U.S. forces.
Another former senior defense official familiar with the U.S. military's plans for a ground campaign in Iran said they are extensive. "We've looked at this. It's been war-gamed," the official said. "This is not last-minute planning."
Seizing Iranian territory will embarrass the Iranian regime and create valuable bargaining chips in future negotiations, this official said. The biggest challenge, the official added, will be protecting any U.S. forces holding territory.
"You've got to provide cover for the people on Kharg Island," the official said. "That's the difficult task. Seizing it is not difficult. Protecting your guys once they are there is."
While Democrats are almost universally against the war in Iran, Trump's Republican backers in Congress are split on the possibility of ground operations.Ask The Post AIDive deeper
Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wisconsin), a staunch supporter of the president and a retired Navy SEAL, told reporters Thursday that he has been "100 percent crystal clear from the beginning" that he is against putting troops on Iranian soil.
"The answer is no," Van Orden said. "We can achieve the strategic goals that Donald Trump wants to achieve without doing that."
Rep. Nancy Mace (R-South Carolina) said on social media that after attending a House Armed Services Committee briefing about the war, "I will not support troops on the ground in Iran."
Other lawmakers have urged the president to press forward. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) has called for U.S. forces to seize Kharg Island, drawing condemnation from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle after making a comparison to how U.S. troops seized the Pacific island of Iwo Jima during World War II — while suffering about 6,800 fatalities.
"We did Iwo Jima, we can do this," Graham said in an interview on Fox News last weekend. "My money's always on the Marines."
Tams
Member
This is the price for letting Iran fester for decades.
It would have been worse if it had been left to fester longer.
Everyone in Israel knows this. Qatar fueled the money.
Last edited:
There's that AWACS plane and the F35 seriously damaged. You also have to add the Strike Eagles the Kuwaitis shot down by mistake as well as the hyper expensive radars the Iranian drones hit early in the war.
It hasn't been painless tbh, even if you take away the dead and wounded soldiers.
Of course Iran has fared much worse.
Last edited:
Romulus
Member
Yeah the f15s weren't Iran as you said. The f35 flew home and landed fine, pilot unhurt. That basically leaves the AWACS.
Overall, insane, especially on the navy side.
Atomicfear
Neo Member
So are the Israelies gonna pony up some brigades if it comes to boots-on-the-ground, or will USA being the only one paying that bill?
Israel has boots on the ground there, and have been doing opps.
Israel and the US has different objectives, so capturing Kharg Island doesn't align.
Atomicfear
Neo Member
interesting. Do you happen to know what an end state looks like for Israel?
I don't. What I want is a full regime collapse.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
Israeli forces are not designed for invasions like that. They have different approach and objectives usually.
Gp1
Member
Images Purportedly Show E-3 Sentry Totally Destroyed From Iranian Strike
A loss of an E-3 would be a major blow for the dwindling fleet of increasingly rickety airframes and would point to other capability and defensive gaps.
It'd call that plane to be severely degraded from optimal functionality.
This is one hell of a loss. The USAF has about 15 of these, it's substitute is years away and facing budget cuts and they are the backbone, together with the tanker fleet, in providing power projection.
And it sends a message like "yes, we can hit exactly in the most important component of the aircraft." (Using Russian and Chinese satellite coverage)
Last edited:
OLED_Gamer
Member
War is a failure of diplomacy. Its made even worse by government led by a billionaire immune to such financial shocks.
Similar threads
- Locked