Exclusive War with Iran starting this week? (8 Viewers)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
SlyPokerDog said:


View attachment 82461

View attachment 82462

View attachment 82463

View attachment 82464
Click to expand...

Here is an analysis I read recommend reading for potential 'bigger picture' view..
Nightly Drama at Kharg Island. What does Trump want to achieve from this super-strategic strike?


Iran has a maximum oil production capacity of approximately 4 million barrels per day, but due to sanctions it is only permitted to export around 1.5 million barrels per day. About 90% of this export goes to China, which exploits Iran's complete dependence on it and enjoys a very significant discount.


It can be estimated that due to the sanctions and the discount to the Chinese, Iran's daily income from oil sales ranges between $75 and $90 million per day — only about a quarter of its full revenue potential. After deducting production costs, the Ayatollahs are left with approximately $50 to $65 million per day, and at an annual level, about $22 billion. Sounds like a lot? Well, it's nothing and zero for an economy of 90 million people. For comparison, Israel, with one tenth of Iran's population, spends a similar sum every year just on its healthcare system.


The oil to China is exported via tankers loaded at the Kharg Island terminal and passes through the Strait of Hormuz on its way eastward. Hence, this meager remainder of Iran's oil revenues is entirely dependent on the normal functioning of this island. From the Chinese perspective, this represents about 13% of their oil consumption — a very serious matter.


Last night's strike did not damage this export channel by even a hair. The Iranians can still send tankers to China this morning. But unlike yesterday, the island now stands completely exposed to an American takeover that could stop everything within an hour. Combined with the American takeover of Venezuelan oil — which accounts for about 10% of Chinese oil consumption — Trump holds Xi Jinping by the throat, with the ability to order an energy stranglehold on China with the flick of a finger, like an emperor deciding the fate of a gladiator. If China were to think for even a moment about interfering with the US in a war or carrying out its threats against Taiwan, Trump has the power to cut off 25% of China's oil consumption. That's how you say "watch yourself" in English with a Texan accent.


The Iranians tried to create a threat equation against Gulf oil by firing missiles at the energy facilities of Gulf states. The thorough elimination of Iran's missile and drone array has largely neutralized this threat. Now, the equation that emerges is entirely different.


Trump has created a "Mexican standoff" against China and Iran. Iran points weapons at Gulf oil production and shipping? No problem. Now there is a parallel American threat — except with a clear asymmetry: China would be devastated by mutual destruction. The US is perfectly fine with its own oil. A massive price spike? China would suffer many times more. Trump believes that American military power will be capable of keeping the Strait of Hormuz open even if there is a partial temporary closure. If the Iranians continue to use force, everything except Iranian-Chinese oil will pass through the strait.


The control that the US is gaining over the critical energy artery of the Persian Gulf is a dramatic asset at the "big table." The US will remain there for many, many years. It will remain there by force as long as the Ayatollah regime survives, and will remain there comfortably, at Iran's invitation, if and when the regime is replaced. Trump literally lured the Iranian stupidity — expressed in the violent moves in the Strait of Hormuz — and received a golden excuse to take over the whole operation there.


By this morning, in my assessment, the phone call from Beijing to the Supreme Leader's office of Mojtaba had already taken place. They will demand that any Iranian strike on Gulf states' oil production facilities, or interference with shipping through the strait, be taken off the table. I am convinced that the "watch yourself" in Chinese will be understood even by a cardboard character...


Presented as a service to those who still believe that Trump was dragged into a war by Israel.
 
Stop giving Trump credit as strategic thinker. He is no more strategic thinker than he is humanitarian.
 
crandc said:
Stop giving Trump credit as strategic thinker. He is no more strategic thinker than he is humanitarian.
Click to expand...
I think he has those around him.. as long as they show him U.S $ is feasible down the road - all he needs to do is say ok.
 
Trump invaded Iran with no clear reason, no clear goals, no strategy for achieving goals, no plan for day after. Early in his administration military leadership and intelligence were purged of most experienced personnel. His cabinet are television personalities. Every person with expertise on politics, history, economics, military strategy are seeing disaster.
Some say Netanyahu talked Trump into war. Maybe. Maybe he thought it would be easy, drop some bombs, kill some people, hold big victory parade. They were unprepared for Iranian response. Like Putin in Ukraine, he thought march in with superior military power. Easy.
Now he says war will end when his bones say so. Yes, he can just declare victory, his cult will nod and right wing media cheer. But this isn't kike tariffs he could turn on and off by whim until Supreme Court said no. He might declare victory and leave but Iran could say they aren't done. Israel isn't done. Gulf states aren't done.

No one knows when or how this will end. World war begun on stupidity.
 
crandc said:
Trump invaded Iran with no clear reason, no clear goals, no strategy for achieving goals, no plan for day after. Early in his administration military leadership and intelligence were purged of most experienced personnel. His cabinet are television personalities. Every person with expertise on politics, history, economics, military strategy are seeing disaster.
Some say Netanyahu talked Trump into war. Maybe. Maybe he thought it would be easy, drop some bombs, kill some people, hold big victory parade. They were unprepared for Iranian response. Like Putin in Ukraine, he thought march in with superior military power. Easy.
Now he says war will end when his bones say so. Yes, he can just declare victory, his cult will nod and right wing media cheer. But this isn't kike tariffs he could turn on and off by whim until Supreme Court said no. He might declare victory and leave but Iran could say they aren't done. Israel isn't done. Gulf states aren't done.

No on knows when or how this will end. World war begun on stupidity.
Click to expand...
Staying informed means working from documented facts, not media framing, so I would like to share what the record shows if we dive in it.

The strikes did not come without reason or stated goals. Beginning April 2025, the US and Iran held six rounds of indirect nuclear negotiations mediated by Oman. The day before strikes began, Iran formally rejected a US offer of a civilian nuclear program with American investment in exchange for dismantling its nuclear program. By May 2025, the IAEA confirmed Iran held a stockpile of uranium enriched to 60% purity, a level with no civilian justification and a short technical step from weapons-grade 90%. The IAEA declared it the only non-nuclear-weapon state in the world operating at that level. The US Defense Intelligence Agency assessed Iran could produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a nuclear bomb in under a week.

On stated goals: they were publicly articulated and went well beyond "drop some bombs." The US stated the operation aimed to degrade Iran's nuclear program, ballistic missiles, navy, drone capacity, and proxy network. On the day-after plan, both Trump and Netanyahu explicitly stated the strikes were designed to empower Iran's population to take control of their government. Netanyahu stated the operations would "create conditions for the brave Iranian people to take their destiny into their own hands." That is a documented regime-change framework, not an absence of strategy. In January 2026, Iranian security forces had killed thousands of protesters in the largest unrest since the Islamic Revolution, and the regime's legitimacy was already severely weakened before a single bomb was dropped.

On Iran's strikes against Gulf states, the framing of those as proof the war is "spreading" misses the point entirely. Iran's strategy was a deliberate pressure tactic to raise costs for the region and force Gulf states to push the US toward a ceasefire. It has backfired badly. Qatar issued its strongest condemnation in its history. Saudi Arabia raised military readiness to full alert and Crown Prince MBS authorized retaliation, describing the strikes as cowardly. The Washington Institute assessed Iran's plan was clearly backfiring. These are not the reactions of a region being pulled into a war it opposes. They are the reactions of neighbors who feel betrayed by Iran.

A legitimate gap worth acknowledging is the documented criticism, including from members of Congress after classified briefings, about the absence of a verified plan for Iran's enriched uranium stockpile post-strikes. That is a real operational question. But it is a very different claim from "no reason, no goals, no strategy," which the documented record simply does not support.

Disagreeing with the policy is entirely reasonable. But staying genuinely informed means the timeline, the nuclear record, the stated objectives, and Iran's own strategic failures all have to be part of the picture.
 
2Fluffy4U said:
The Amnesty article is worth engaging with seriously, but it's missing a crucial piece of context that changes the picture significantly.

The restrictions on wells, pumps, and water infrastructure apply specifically to Area C of the West Bank — the roughly 60% of the West Bank that remained under full Israeli civil and military control under the Oslo II Accords. That was the agreed-upon arrangement, pending final status negotiations that were supposed to happen and never did. In Area C, any construction — not just water infrastructure, but any building — requires Israeli permits, which are indeed extremely difficult to obtain. That's a legitimate grievance worth discussing.

For example, Ramallah is in Area A — fully administered by the Palestinian Authority. Palestinians there can and do build water infrastructure without Israeli permits. The PA is responsible for civil affairs including water in Areas A and B. So the framing that Israel made it illegal "for Palestinians in the West Bank" as a blanket statement is misleading — it conflates Area C specifically with the entire West Bank.

The real story is: Oslo created a temporary division that was never resolved, left the majority of land (and most water sources) under Israeli control indefinitely, and the permit system in Area C has been used to severely restrict Palestinian development there. That's the actual, serious problem — not a blanket ban on all Palestinians everywhere in the West Bank.

Amnesty is activist reporting. It's not always wrong, but it often strips context that would complicate the narrative.
Click to expand...
🦗 🦗 🦗
Typical for this place…
 
While acting as official diplomat, Jared Kushner is soliciting investors for his business.
 
US offered "free nuclear fuel forever," which Tehran rejected because it insisted on retaining enrichment rights. This proposition I believe was intended to understand if any agreement can be reached.
Lets say you want to buy the blazers team, and you offer the owner more money than they asked for, but the offer is refused, it is safe to uderstand the owner just doesnt really want to sell. No need for further negotiations. Thats how I see it.. the offered something way out of line and a no means we are just messing around with you to buy time untill the US next election comes..
 
2Fluffy4U said:
US offered "free nuclear fuel forever," which Tehran rejected because it insisted on retaining enrichment rights. This proposition I believe was intended to understand if any agreement can be reached.
Lets say you want to buy the blazers team, and you offer the owner more money than they asked for, but the offer is refused, it is safe to uderstand the owner just doesnt really want to sell. No need for further negotiations. Thats how I see it.. the offered something way out of line and a no means we are just messing around with you to buy time untill the US next election comes..
Click to expand...

Iran agreed to ‘zero stockpiling’ of nuclear material in US talks: Omani foreign minister
 
Phatguysrule said:
Iran agreed to ‘zero stockpiling’ of nuclear material in US talks: Omani foreign minister
Click to expand...
A key claim in this article deserves more scrutiny than it gets: did Iran actually agree to "zero stockpiling"? The answer is: not according to Iran.

The breakthrough was declared by Oman's Foreign Minister — not by any Iranian official. Iran's own Deputy FM told the BBC that zero enrichment was never on the table, and Iran's actual proposal was to dilute uranium inside its own facilities under IAEA supervision. That's a very different thing. The IAEA, meanwhile, had no access to Iran's enrichment sites and could verify nothing either way.

The article presents a major Iranian concession as fact. But it was one government's characterisation of talks — contradicted by the other party at the table.
 
2Fluffy4U said:
A key claim in this article deserves more scrutiny than it gets: did Iran actually agree to "zero stockpiling"? The answer is: not according to Iran.

The breakthrough was declared by Oman's Foreign Minister — not by any Iranian official. Iran's own Deputy FM told the BBC that zero enrichment was never on the table, and Iran's actual proposal was to dilute uranium inside its own facilities under IAEA supervision. That's a very different thing. The IAEA, meanwhile, had no access to Iran's enrichment sites and could verify nothing either way.

The article presents a major Iranian concession as fact. But it was one government's characterisation of talks — contradicted by the other party at the table.
Click to expand...
If Iran's proposal was to do it under supervision then the proper authorities would have access. That's part of the proposal.

It's crazy to suggest otherwise.
 
Phatguysrule said:
If Iran's proposal was to do it under supervision then the proper authorities would have access. That's part of the proposal.

It's crazy to suggest otherwise.
Click to expand...
Iran's proposal as described by their own Deputy FM was to dilute uranium stockpiles inside Iranian facilities under IAEA observation. That means inspectors watching a specific defined operation: the dilution itself. It does not mean broader access to enrichment infrastructure, centrifuge halls, or undeclared sites.
This is a well-documented problem. The IAEA has been raising alarms for years about Iran blocking access under the Additional Protocol cameras removed, inspectors denied entry, Fordow and Natanz heavily restricted. Iran suspended the Additional Protocol entirely in 2021. So "supervision" of what, exactly, and with what access rights?
The core concern was never just the existing stockpile, it was the centrifuges and the infrastructure that can reconstitute a weapons-grade stockpile quickly. Dilution without verified dismantlement of enrichment capacity is entirely reversible. You're back to square one the moment supervision ends or access is revoked, which Iran has done before.
"They agreed to do it under supervision" and "therefore the proper authorities would have access" doesn't follow, not given what Iran actually proposed, and not given their track record of what they permit inspectors to see. "Supervision of dilution" ≠ "access to the enrichment program." Iran was offering to let inspectors watch them pour water into a bucket, not to open the whole facility. That distinction matters.
 
2Fluffy4U said:
Iran's proposal as described by their own Deputy FM was to dilute uranium stockpiles inside Iranian facilities under IAEA observation. That means inspectors watching a specific defined operation: the dilution itself. It does not mean broader access to enrichment infrastructure, centrifuge halls, or undeclared sites.
This is a well-documented problem. The IAEA has been raising alarms for years about Iran blocking access under the Additional Protocol cameras removed, inspectors denied entry, Fordow and Natanz heavily restricted. Iran suspended the Additional Protocol entirely in 2021. So "supervision" of what, exactly, and with what access rights?
The core concern was never just the existing stockpile, it was the centrifuges and the infrastructure that can reconstitute a weapons-grade stockpile quickly. Dilution without verified dismantlement of enrichment capacity is entirely reversible. You're back to square one the moment supervision ends or access is revoked, which Iran has done before.
"They agreed to do it under supervision" and "therefore the proper authorities would have access" doesn't follow, not given what Iran actually proposed, and not given their track record of what they permit inspectors to see. "Supervision of dilution" ≠ "access to the enrichment program." Iran was offering to let inspectors watch them pour water into a bucket, not to open the whole facility. That distinction matters.
Click to expand...
Question, have you been conscripted into military service in Israel given the war? I don't know your demographics so thought I'd ask. Also would Deni A. have any risk of being called to war given his age?
 
2Fluffy4U said:
Iran's proposal as described by their own Deputy FM was to dilute uranium stockpiles inside Iranian facilities under IAEA observation. That means inspectors watching a specific defined operation: the dilution itself. It does not mean broader access to enrichment infrastructure, centrifuge halls, or undeclared sites.
This is a well-documented problem. The IAEA has been raising alarms for years about Iran blocking access under the Additional Protocol cameras removed, inspectors denied entry, Fordow and Natanz heavily restricted. Iran suspended the Additional Protocol entirely in 2021. So "supervision" of what, exactly, and with what access rights?
The core concern was never just the existing stockpile, it was the centrifuges and the infrastructure that can reconstitute a weapons-grade stockpile quickly. Dilution without verified dismantlement of enrichment capacity is entirely reversible. You're back to square one the moment supervision ends or access is revoked, which Iran has done before.
"They agreed to do it under supervision" and "therefore the proper authorities would have access" doesn't follow, not given what Iran actually proposed, and not given their track record of what they permit inspectors to see. "Supervision of dilution" ≠ "access to the enrichment program." Iran was offering to let inspectors watch them pour water into a bucket, not to open the whole facility. That distinction matters.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I buy that. What they have done the past doesn't matter. You set the terms moving forward.

You're never going to completely eliminate their ability to create nuclear weapons. Not without removing their access to technology and education.

That should definitely not be the goal.
 
Phatguysrule said:
You're never going to completely eliminate their ability to create nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what we did with Germany and Japan post WWII..N Korea, Russia and China have helped Iran develop weapons programs and Iran has helped those countries with ammo and drones. We aren't exactly setting a great bar for weapons containment ourselves.
 
riverman said:
Question, have you been conscripted into military service in Israel given the war? I don't know your demographics so thought I'd ask. Also would Deni A. have any risk of being called to war given his age?
Click to expand...
I was serving until 2022 but I fell down the stairs that year and broke 2 vertebreas so I am no longer eligble to enlist for combat roles. As I work in a hospital - I am under call and in case of multiple casualties incidence I am required to attened immedieatly.
With regards to Deni - His IDF service is something we (Combat people) kind of joke about - it is called in hebrew 'Jobnik", someone who doesn't have a combat role (HR in Tel Aviv, Air photography analysys etc). He was probably enlisted to 'Checkmark' and then released to pursue his atheletic dreams. He will not be called for service as he is not really needed. (lets say he was a high ranking officer in intelligence or something = perhaps. but Jobniks are usually not being called for reserve duty.
 
riverman said:
That's exactly what we did with Germany and Japan post WWII
Click to expand...

Japan could develop nuclear weapons within weeks (Maybe a few months).

Germany could do it within a few years.

We have not eliminated their ability to develop nuclear weapons.
 
Phatguysrule said:
Japan could develop nuclear weapons within weeks.

Germany could do it within a few years.

We have not eliminated their ability to develop nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...
We capped their military development until recently buy you said that wasn't possible although it held since 1945...Japan now has a green light to develop a military presence as does Germany but it's our nukes that are in Germany, not theirs. Any country could break a treaty and go rogue but our history showed successful containment. Both Germany and Japan focused on industry instead of military arms development. Something the whole world should do in my view. We haven't eliminated N Korea, India or Pakistan's nuke programs.
 
riverman said:
We capped their military development until recently buy you said that wasn't possible although it held since 1945...Japan now has a green light to develop a military presence as does Germany but it's our nukes that are in Germany, not theirs. Any country could break a treaty and go rogue but our history showed successful containment. Both Germany and Japan focused on industry instead of military arms development. Something the whole world should do in my view.
Click to expand...
Right, but that happens because of diplomacy.

Japan and Germany both invaded and tried to overthrow other countries and their governments were wiped out as a result.

Iran has done no such thing. I don't believe the people are going to welcome the US and Israel murdering their families with comparatively miniscule provocation.

If Israel and the US do as much damage to Iran as the allies did to Germany and Japan I don't believe Iran will be so eager to comply.

These are simply different situations. The US is in the wrong. Israel is in the wrong.

Against Germany and Japan the Allies were in the right.

That matters
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SlyPokerDog
OT How three pizza restaurants predicted Israel’s attack on Iran
Replies
9
Views
413
ehizzy3
ehizzy3
Road Ratt
OT Losing the battle
Replies
5
Views
137
Strenuus
Strenuus
SlyPokerDog
Politics Trump wants to start his own UN, only $1 billion to join
Replies
20
Views
314
riverman
riverman
SlyPokerDog
Politics Greenland
2 3 4
Replies
113
Views
1K
Rastapopoulos
Rastapopoulos
THE HCP
OT Type 2 Diabetes
9 10 11
Replies
313
Views
4K
Hoopguru
Hoopguru

Users who are viewing this thread

  • ... and 2 more.
    • Total: 9 (members: 3, guests: 6)
    Back
    Top