As we should. I hope the Demos subpoena the crap out of Trump and his minions when they retake the House. Absolute scorched earth. Susan Rice was right on the money.
Military Strikes on Iran Imminent
- Thread starter PalmettoTiger1
- Start date
Anyone that was still in the middle east knowing that the US was parking a huge force right off the coast was not very smart imo. US staff on duty would be exceptions of course.
Lets work on helping the nation and quit having fantasies of revenge on Trump for imagined crimes bear.
Iran is just getting pummeled.
Stock market unchanged overnight, this tells me things are settling down nicely for the time being.
Iran will need to pull a rabbit out of their hat to do any serious damage to the US.
I’m guessing when they launch missles we track where they come from and destroy them.
Stock market unchanged overnight, this tells me things are settling down nicely for the time being.
Iran will need to pull a rabbit out of their hat to do any serious damage to the US.
I’m guessing when they launch missles we track where they come from and destroy them.
well, if I Google times Iran or it's proxies have attacked us interests then I have to cut and paste back here. Wouldn't it be easier to just look it up? If you really haven't heard of Iranian fingerprints over attacks on Americans than I can understand your position. But IMO, and obviously in the position of Trump admin, Iran has been a thorn in the world since 1979 when the took over our embassy in Tehran and held Americans captive for 444 days.
I think you missed my point on Hitler. I wasn't comparing just highlighting that stopping the problem before it becomes a problem is a better way to go, IMO. You don't agree, that's OK.
I don't disagree with your point about evacuating Americans. I don't think the administration anticipated that Iran would attack all it's neighbors. TBH I would not have anticipated that either.
I think, personally, you're just a mite unglued in your opinion about countries he might want to bomb....there are about 197 countries, he's got a long way to go (and we complain about trump's hyperbole)....You already know my opinion on tariffs.
Face it, you and I see things differently when it comes to national security. You're prepared to wait until Iran has the capability to send a missile, with or without nuclear warhead to the US. I believe that nuclear weapon capability is Iran's goal, and I'd rather eliminate the problem now.
Poor Brennan not happy.
Idk why people are shocked.
Obama’s former CIA Director John Brennan converted to Islam between 1996 and 1999 when he was the CIA station chief in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
At the CIA, he had an Islamic prayer mat on his wall in his office and is on video speaking about “my Muslim faith” when speaking to a Muslim student during a speaking gig.
Brennan also speaks fluent Arabic.
He is a Muslim.
Idk why people are shocked.
Obama’s former CIA Director John Brennan converted to Islam between 1996 and 1999 when he was the CIA station chief in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
At the CIA, he had an Islamic prayer mat on his wall in his office and is on video speaking about “my Muslim faith” when speaking to a Muslim student during a speaking gig.
Brennan also speaks fluent Arabic.
He is a Muslim.
This is what Secretary of State Marco Rubio was talking about when he explained why the U.S. needed to strike Iran now
Iran was building its ballistic missile stockpile so rapidly that the U.S. was not going to be able to manufacture enough interceptors to counter them
The result is that Iran would be free to pursue their nuclear weapons program because the West would not be able to attack Iran without sustaining serious damage from Iranian ballistic missiles.
Rubio said: "That is what they were trying to do, is put themselves in a place of immunity where the damage they can inflict on the region would be so high that no one can do anything about their nuclear program or their nuclear ambitions."
Iran got their *** kicked. They need a Hail Mary at this point. If they have any secret weapons now would be the time to use them.
Literally almost 50 years ago? Thats our justification? Yall, this is pathetic. The justification I heard Rubio say was: Israel was going to strike first, and Iran was going to retaliate against them and us for it. So we struck first.
Thats likely the truth.
Its also crazy.
If you are having a hard time justifying this, then its not your fault.
Did you know: Islam teaches that Jesus was a prophet
Judaism teaches he was a heretic and is burning in hell.
some food for thought for you radical religious folks out there.
You did a great job listing some things for people to think about.
However, you did not do a good job justifying this war. Nor did the administration. So its not really your fault and more the people in charge fault.
I don’t do religion. I just know the stereotypes and that’s enough for me.
I know that the only religion that continues to call for my death, at least the people that practice that religion, happens to be Islam.
Alright, lets say you are a fully convinced this was all necessary. Whats the end game?
If we just kill all the leadership and leave. Whats that going to do for our outcome?
How much money should we add to our debt?
How much blow back is acceptable to you, terrorist attacks back on us?
Are you really ready to enter another quagmire in the middle east?
Do you really believe these religious fanatics telling our troops this is going to bring Jesus back?
There isn't a plan to exit, and there was no imminent threat to us.
If we just kill all the leadership and leave. Whats that going to do for our outcome?
How much money should we add to our debt?
How much blow back is acceptable to you, terrorist attacks back on us?
Are you really ready to enter another quagmire in the middle east?
Do you really believe these religious fanatics telling our troops this is going to bring Jesus back?
There isn't a plan to exit, and there was no imminent threat to us.
And WHY do they call for America and Israel's death? Im sure it has nothing to do with ... oh everything we've done in the region. We destroyed Iran's democratically elected government to get access to their oil in 1953. Wouldn't that piss you off? Do the supporters of this war even have emotional intelligence? Im guessing no.
I do not consider myself a supporter or detractor of this war. I argued against the war before it started, but must admit I am pleasantly surprised with the results, thus far. And I realize it’s far from over. My opinion is that success will not be able to be accurately measured until a decade from now (will still discuss along the way!).
We can go way back in history if you want? How far back is ok to go? I’m guessing not too far because Democrat railed Putin when he started discussing Ukraine and went back in history to the year 800 AD.
The bottom line is, Iran was a menace. They continually called for our death, for a removal of our existence. That is not appropriate for any nation.
In the years since 1953, I don’t think Iran has been harmless. Another poster answered your question above and Iran has done plenty in the recent past to justify their elimination. Thats why you see broad support for his elimination from both parties.
Additinally, the way Trump executed the strike really opened some eyes on the world stage. Cuba noticed. Russia noticed. China noticed. Europe noticed. Trump made his mark.
The irony is thick. Incredible work.
BREAKING: The United States has confirmed B-52 Stratofortress bombers are now striking Iran.
Understand what this means by understanding the sequence.
On February 28, the US sent B-2 Spirits. The B-2 is a stealth bomber. It costs $2.1 billion per aircraft. The US has 20 of them. You send B-2s when the enemy’s air defences are intact and you need to penetrate undetected. Four B-2s dropped 160,000 pounds of bunker-busting ordnance on hardened underground facilities in the opening wave.
On March 2, the US sent B-1 Lancers. The B-1 is a supersonic bomber. Faster than the B-2 but not stealth. You send B-1s when air defences have been degraded enough that speed, not invisibility, is sufficient to survive. The B-1s conducted the deepest raids into Iran since 2003.
On March 3, the US sent B-52s. The B-52 is a 70-year-old subsonic aircraft. It is not stealth. It is not fast. It has a radar cross-section the size of a barn. It flies at 650 miles per hour at 50,000 feet and it is visible to every radar system on earth.
You send B-52s when there is nothing left to shoot them down.
That is the sequence. B-2 when defences are lethal. B-1 when defences are degraded. B-52 when defences are gone. The US Air Force just told you, through aircraft selection alone, that Iran’s integrated air defence network no longer exists as a functional system.
The B-52 carries 70,000 pounds of ordnance per sortie. It can launch cruise missiles from standoff range without entering defended airspace at all. The US has 76 of them versus 20 B-2s. Deploying B-52s quadruples the available bomber strike capacity, and each aircraft can deliver more payload per sortie than any other platform in the inventory.
1,700 targets struck. 300 new sites added in the latest wave. $779 million in ordnance expended on the first day alone. Six American service members killed. Eleven aircraft lost. The campaign is intensifying, not tapering.
Here is where this connects to every post I have written today.
The B-52 deployment proves the conventional campaign is succeeding. Iran’s air defences are neutralised. Its underground facilities are being collapsed. Its missile production is being destroyed. Its leadership is being eliminated.
And the Strait of Hormuz is still closed.
Because the B-52 cannot sink a mine. It cannot intercept a Shahed drone launched from a fishing boat. It cannot neutralise an anti-ship missile on a mobile coastal launcher. It cannot stop a proxy in Yemen from firing at a tanker in the Red Sea. The asymmetric threat that closes shipping lanes operates beneath the altitude where strategic bombers are relevant.
The US is winning the war it chose to fight. It is not winning the war the insurance market cares about. The B-52 is the most powerful expression of that gap.
70,000 pounds of ordnance per sortie. And Lloyd’s of London still will not write a policy for a tanker transiting Hormuz.
That is the thesis. In one sentence.
Digging more into this move and man… this guy is brilliant.
Right now the biggest problem isn’t just missiles in the Strait of Hormuz. It’s insurance. If insurers won’t cover ships, tankers stop sailing. Crews won’t risk their lives. Companies won’t risk billions in cargo.
And once tankers stop moving, the whole system tightens up fast.
Trump just solved that problem.
The U.S. Development Finance Corporation will provide political risk insurance and guarantees for ships moving through the Gulf. That gives shipping companies the coverage they need to keep operating.
Energy analysts had already pointed out this was the fastest way to stabilize tanker traffic. If the U.S. backs the insurance risk, ships keep sailing while the security situation settles down.
And that’s exactly what Trump just did.
It also shuts down another pressure point. Foreign insurers, many tied to Chinese financial interests, were pushing risk premiums higher. That’s a quiet way to control who ships oil and who doesn’t.
Now the United States is underwriting the risk.
And if needed, the U.S. Navy escorts the tankers.
That changes everything.
Ships move.
Oil flows.
Markets stay calm.
Without this move, oil could spike past $150 a barrel. That kind of shock hits every economy on earth.
This move cuts that risk off early.
It also sends a very clear message to Iran. They don’t get to choke off the world’s energy supply.
Trump is thinking at the big-picture level here. Financial power on one side. Military power on the other.
Used together, they keep the system running.
Bravo to my President!
Respectfully, as the founder of the business, I think this is kinda on you. At this point, all I can think to say is "land routes are your friend" and 'good luck'. (Reminds me of a post-9/11 story where a bunch of docs were stranded in CA at a conference. Pooled their money, bought a car, drove across country to get back home, and then sold the car.)
Risks of entering potential war zones, or state of emergency, are very seldom subject to indemnity or similar types of remedies, via government or otherwise..
Wait, do you mean that people sometimes have to make decisions for themselves?
Yesterday the CJCS (Gen Caine) in a press conference said that we had achieved "local air superiority" the word "local" means in certain places and/or at certain times. Air superiority means that there is nothing that the enemy is doing to effectively prohibit air operations. It does not mean that there is no threat or that the enemy can't contest operation, but it means that the can't stop friendly forces from achieving objectives.
Next verbiage you should listen for is "Air Supremacy" thats next level. We'll probably hear that today. That term means that the enemy air force/ air defense is effectively done for and cannot contest operations anywhere at any time.
We may also hear "Air Dominance" that isnt as well defined, but it implies even less risk to friendly forces than "supremacy" ... like approaching zero risk.
Once we get to the Air supremacy part we will put loitering survellance and strike drones over as much of the country as we can just waiting to pick off missile launchers. THe shaheed drones / drone launches will be harder for us to get.
edit: just saw the post above with Sec War's comments. He isn't using precise military terms. (not unusual, becase he's a civilian talking to civilians). Uniformed military will normally use precise military terms because that's what they know and that's whats goign to be in the situation reports that they are getting fed from below. .
edit: in addtion to drones, we're going to have aircraft stacked up to include B-52's doing racetracks ready to drop guided munitions at emerging targets. Airspace deconfliction for friendies is going to be a big task !!!
Last edited:
you must have responded before reading the litany of event made by another poster
your questions are sound and while there are answers, they're not at all clear which makes your point.
Let me just add, that in analyzing precedence, what immediately comes to mind is Neville Chamberlain's appeasement strategy at the beginning of WWII.
People have been debating for decade the pros and cons. I posted before the question "how would the world be different today if We had taken out hitler and the leaders of the third Reich before they invaded Poland, or even before the military buildup leading to the WWII." We could debate just about forever whether or not Iran presents a threat to the US. You say "no" others believe the opposite.
Personally, as I have posted, Iran has been thescourge of the mideast since 1979.....they have openly stated their intent to develope nuclear weapons....they are also working on intercontinental ballistic missiles...absent some action, they will eventually have a weapon capable of both nudlear warhead and capable of reaching the US....do we really need to wait for that?
One other thing, among the major powers of the world, the concept of MAD has been one of the major factors keepping nuclear weapons in storage as opposed to use. Iranians don't seem to care about destruction. A rogue nation with nuclear weapons is not good for anybody. Again JMO