Kicking off in Israel

[Slick]

Explain the tankers thing to me?
There are NATO aircraft participating in the bombing of Iran and not just the defense against Iranian missiles?

Not yet. They flew over from USA overnight in case they might be needed. Everyone hopes they fly home again on Thursday unused.

Are they combat aircraft, refuelers etc?

[Sandstorm]

Explain the tankers thing to me?
There are NATO aircraft participating in the bombing of Iran and not just the defense against Iranian missiles?

Not yet. They flew over from USA overnight in case they might be needed. Everyone hopes they fly home again on Thursday unused.

Are they combat aircraft, refuelers etc?

The big one....

[Rhubarb & Custard]

“He called me about it”

thus far Russia has been interesting. calling essentially on Iran to listen to the USA. presumably the Russians consider trying to get their drones from somewhere else preferable to getting on the wrong side of an orange rapist

[Slick]

Not yet. They flew over from USA overnight in case they might be needed. Everyone hopes they fly home again on Thursday unused.

Are they combat aircraft, refuelers etc?

The big one....

Thanks

[_Os_]

Trump is talking about a deal, not realising he's bought a war with Iran. Trump is also stubborn, I can see him repeating "deal or Israeli attacks" even if he's directly told Israel alone cannot prevent an Iranian nuke.

There's a dark humour to this now. So much Trump bluster about making a deal.

Yesterday morning: "America isn't going to attack ... but maybe we will".
Yesterday midday/evening: statement about all the deals Trump has done and how Iran needs to make a beautiful deal, also reports that the US will not attack Iran unless US interests are attacked, also something about Trump saying "I told Israel you cannot kill their leader".
Today: "IRAN MAKE A DEAL! SHOULD HAVE TAKEN THE DEAL! EVERYONE GET OUT OF TEHRAN!".

Like Hamas and Hezbollah, the Iranian regime has in all likelihood already been strategically defeated, which is impressive. But that's not the same as being eliminated. All the stuff they have which can cause havoc for the global economy is short range and not that sophisticated, it's what the Houthis have been using, used against Gulf oil infrastructure/Strait of Hormuz it would do terrible things to the oil price and downstream of that inflation. Which is why the US isn't more involved and hasn't done this before.

If there's no regime change (which like the nuclear programme requires the US) it all becomes somewhat half baked, like Gaza and Lebanon. The only plan that has been mentioned is an Israeli reinstallation of a Shah, which says it all. The most viable option would be something like hoping (helped by briefcases of cash) for some sort of coup and a faction which can be backed, maybe in a civil war (aka Syria).

Netanyahu has played Trump. The US has no option but to get more involved in something as open ended as "remake a country of 90 million in a way that it doesn't become even more of a problem", the Israeli target list is expanding to regime change targets like broadcasters/radio stations/police stations. The art of the deal!

[_Os_]

Explain the tankers thing to me?
There are NATO aircraft participating in the bombing of Iran and not just the defense against Iranian missiles?

You have a fighter jet with a limited amount of time it can spend in the air. Add drop tanks and it can spend longer in the air (but carry less bombs), add aerial refuelling and it can spend longer in the air.

Israel doesn't have strategic bombers so the logistics of carrying out a strategic bombing campaign at distance means huge amounts of tankers which Israel also doesn't have.

The US has moved 28 tankers to European bases and another 5 are on their way.

[Torquemada 1420]

Explain the tankers thing to me?
There are NATO aircraft participating in the bombing of Iran and not just the defense against Iranian missiles?

You have a fighter jet with a limited amount of time it can spend in the air. Add drop tanks and it can spend longer in the air (but carry less bombs), add aerial refuelling and it can spend longer in the air.

Israel doesn't have strategic bombers so the logistics of carrying out a strategic bombing campaign at distance means huge amounts of tankers which Israel also doesn't have.

The US has moved 28 tankers to European bases and another 5 are on their way.

Although this becomes less useful when the distances to your targets are relatively short (in the case of Israel, everyone next to them) and you hit the tipping point of needing to return to rearm. Something that bit Yamaguchi at Midway.

[Thor Sedan]

As a matter of interest - has anyone changed their minds on the situation in Israel/Gaza?

I was a reasonably staunch supporter of Israel's right to defend themselves from aggression (while understanding at a basic level the reasons why the situation was as it is). I have always supported Israel's right to exist - while never been on board with the rampant Settler expansion and the more Zionist ideologies.

I firmly believed that if Hamas/PLO (whatever ruling regime was in power at the time) laid down their weapons that in the large - Israel would work with the possibilities of a 2 state solution. If Israel laid down their weapons - I believe that Israel would be wiped off the planet within 24 hours.

BUT - after the initial military operation (which I think was justified within the goals communicated) - I am now horrified by the actions of Israel which seem to be closely approaching genocide - if not already there.

I am unsure if Israel can claw back any global support from this point. Perhaps if Iran go full bad guy and somehow drag the conflict into a nuclear one (obviously with the backing of Pakistan).....can the US stick with Israel IF the left gains power in the midterms and perhaps the White house in 28/29?

Have we been as close to the nuclear buttons being dusted off since the Missile crisis in Cuba?

[Uncle fester]

I firmly believed that if Hamas/PLO (whatever ruling regime was in power at the time) laid down their weapons that in the large - Israel would work with the possibilities of a 2 state solution.

You ask a good faith question so I'll give you a good faith answer.

The Palestinians did essentially lay down their arms in the West Bank and have been rewarded with permanent martial law, harassment, eviction for spurious reasons and continuous expansion of the settlements.

That was my position before Oct 7th so other than being appalled at the incredible loss of life since, no, my position has not changed.

[Thor Sedan]

I firmly believed that if Hamas/PLO (whatever ruling regime was in power at the time) laid down their weapons that in the large - Israel would work with the possibilities of a 2 state solution.

You ask a good faith question so I'll give you a good faith answer.

The Palestinians did essentially lay down their arms in the West Bank and have been rewarded with permanent martial law, harassment, eviction for spurious reasons and continuous expansion of the settlements.

That was my position before Oct 7th so other than being appalled at the incredible loss of life since, no, my position has not changed.

Yes - this is the constant issue that highlights the problems I have with Settlers and the more Zionistiky attitudes of Israel.

Before this ongoing horror show I wasn't aware of how much everyday Jewish folk hate the hardliners....I thought (foolishly) that Israel and the Jewish community were in lock step.....every day is a learning opportunity.

[Uncle fester]

I firmly believed that if Hamas/PLO (whatever ruling regime was in power at the time) laid down their weapons that in the large - Israel would work with the possibilities of a 2 state solution.

You ask a good faith question so I'll give you a good faith answer.

The Palestinians did essentially lay down their arms in the West Bank and have been rewarded with permanent martial law, harassment, eviction for spurious reasons and continuous expansion of the settlements.

That was my position before Oct 7th so other than being appalled at the incredible loss of life since, no, my position has not changed.

Yes - this is the constant issue that highlights the problems I have with Settlers and the more Zionistiky attitudes of Israel.

Before this ongoing horror show I wasn't aware of how much everyday Jewish folk hate the hardliners....I thought (foolishly) that Israel and the Jewish community were in lock step.....every day is a learning opportunity.

I avoid talking politics with my Israeli work colleagues but one of them is father to a lawyer who regularly writes in Jerusalem Post excoriating Bibi.

Trouble is that doesn't necessarily translate into willingness to consider a more equitable solution for the Palestinian people.

[Uncle fester]

Trump demands Iran’s ‘unconditional surrender’ and says US won’t kill supreme leader ‘for now’

What. The. Fück.

[laurent]

Trump demands Iran’s ‘unconditional surrender’ and says US won’t kill supreme leader ‘for now’

What. The. Fück.

He wanted the Nobel prise and clearly realised he'd never get it.

[Uncle fester]

So the game plan is to reinstall the Shah?
Christ alive, have they not learned anything from their last go at playing "warlord in the middle east".

[dpedin]

You ask a good faith question so I'll give you a good faith answer.

The Palestinians did essentially lay down their arms in the West Bank and have been rewarded with permanent martial law, harassment, eviction for spurious reasons and continuous expansion of the settlements.

That was my position before Oct 7th so other than being appalled at the incredible loss of life since, no, my position has not changed.

Yes - this is the constant issue that highlights the problems I have with Settlers and the more Zionistiky attitudes of Israel.

Before this ongoing horror show I wasn't aware of how much everyday Jewish folk hate the hardliners....I thought (foolishly) that Israel and the Jewish community were in lock step.....every day is a learning opportunity.

I avoid talking politics with my Israeli work colleagues but one of them is father to a lawyer who regularly writes in Jerusalem Post excoriating Bibi.

Trouble is that doesn't necessarily translate into willingness to consider a more equitable solution for the Palestinian people.

Unfortunately both have had violent, extreme nutters in charge - the Palestinians have Hammas and the Jews/Israel have Bibi and his hard core nutters. Both are at the extreme end and have genocidal aims. Until both are taken out of the picture there will be no end to the conflict, in fact both need the conflict to continue to remain in power to satisfy their extremist supporters ... and to save their own necks! Given this they are happy to kill men, women and children and to put their own folk at risk as collateral damage in order to achieve their own unrealistic aims. Neither will be successful but that is in part by design, if either 'won' the war then their own existence would become meaningless ... unless they found a new enemy. Fecking genocidal nutters fighting feckin genocidal nutters whilst the innocent are bombed, shot, maimed, killed, etc.

[Uncle fester]

So the game plan is to reinstall the Shah?
Christ alive, have they not learned anything from their last go at playing "warlord in the middle east".

I think the mystery of who is supporting this notion has been cleared up.

[robmatic]

So the game plan is to reinstall the Shah?
Christ alive, have they not learned anything from their last go at playing "warlord in the middle east".

Terrible idea for a viable Iran but if you wanted to dismantle it as a rival regional power...

[Uncle fester]

So the game plan is to reinstall the Shah?
Christ alive, have they not learned anything from their last go at playing "warlord in the middle east".

Terrible idea for a viable Iran but if you wanted to dismantle it as a rival regional power...

And Europe gets to deal with the refugees.

[Calculon]

I think it’s a bad miscalculation if Israel honestly thinks the Iranians will rise up against their rulers. They hate them, but not as much as they will hate being attacked by an outside force

Particularly at the instigation of Israel.

Plus there are so many examples of hated regimes gaining strength and legitimacy through an attack on the homeland. Iran is one of the most ancient nations on earth and I suspect they will defend themselves

Israel obviously would like regime change but I think they're smart enough to not expect it, and also smart enought to realise that when it happens, whether that is next week or decades down the line, their ability to shape the nature of events would be limited.

On the point of these attacks strengthening and legitimizing the regime I think thie following is the more likely outcome:

Frum: Is there gonna be any, do you think—or do you expect any kind of rally around the flag effect, which is: We hated the regime, but now the Israelis are bombing us, so we rally to our leaders because at least they’re ours?

Sadjadpour: I don’t think so. I think what tends to happen in these situations is that people’s existing political disposition is simply accentuated. So if prior to this Israeli bombing, you were a supporter of the regime, a defender of the regime, and you blame everything on America and Israel, you obviously have much more ammunition to hold those views. And if prior to this, you were an opponent, a critic of the regime, and say that this is a regime which has never prioritized the security and well-being of the Iranian people, there’s far more evidence to continue to support that view.

But how that plays out in practical terms—up until now, what we’ve seen is that those supporters of the regime are willing to go out into the streets and show off that support, whereas the opponents of the regime, whenever they’ve done that, they’ve been brutalized. And so that dynamic hasn’t yet changed.

[_Os_]

I think it’s a bad miscalculation if Israel honestly thinks the Iranians will rise up against their rulers. They hate them, but not as much as they will hate being attacked by an outside force

Particularly at the instigation of Israel.

Plus there are so many examples of hated regimes gaining strength and legitimacy through an attack on the homeland. Iran is one of the most ancient nations on earth and I suspect they will defend themselves

Israel obviously would like regime change but I think they're smart enough to not expect it, and also smart enought to realise that when it happens, whether that is next week or decades down the line, their ability to shape the nature of events would be limited.

On the point of these attacks strengthening and legitimizing the regime I think thie following is the more likely outcome:

Frum: Is there gonna be any, do you think—or do you expect any kind of rally around the flag effect, which is: We hated the regime, but now the Israelis are bombing us, so we rally to our leaders because at least they’re ours?

Sadjadpour: I don’t think so. I think what tends to happen in these situations is that people’s existing political disposition is simply accentuated. So if prior to this Israeli bombing, you were a supporter of the regime, a defender of the regime, and you blame everything on America and Israel, you obviously have much more ammunition to hold those views. And if prior to this, you were an opponent, a critic of the regime, and say that this is a regime which has never prioritized the security and well-being of the Iranian people, there’s far more evidence to continue to support that view.

But how that plays out in practical terms—up until now, what we’ve seen is that those supporters of the regime are willing to go out into the streets and show off that support, whereas the opponents of the regime, whenever they’ve done that, they’ve been brutalized. And so that dynamic hasn’t yet changed.

We meet again on this thread my friend.

Israel has three strategic objectives: end Iran's nuclear programme, end Iran's ballistic missile programme, regime change. Their real goal is regime change, because if you leave the regime in place the other objectives are unachievable. The only way to do that is to completely destroy the country, as was done to Syria, the stuff about the Shah is nonsense.

If the Iranian regime remains Israel has already done a lot of damage to the faction within the Iranian regime that wants a nuclear programme as a deterrent threat without actually having nukes (this is why they're okay with such heavy monitoring, everyone knowing how far advanced they are is the entire point). This is basically the position of the boomers at the top of the power structure and Israel is killing all those guys. Khomeini is the reason they don't have nukes already, their nuclear programme started under the Shah. The actions being taken makes it much more likely Iran will acquire nukes, definitely so if the regime remains with some boomers removed. Iran's knowledge base and technical advancement is more than enough, successful nuclear weapon programmes by middle powers look significantly smaller than what Iran has built (literally 10-20 guys in a warehouse working secretly). They're in an unstable neighbourhood and have all these nuclear armed powers near them: Pakistan and India to the east, Russia to the north, Israel to their west. Just obvious they're always going to look for the deterrent threat.

Which all means Israel's goal is to end them as a nation and inflict a Syria on them. Iran is a real county though with deep civilizational roots, it looks like Israel is about to lead the US into trying to destroy Iran as a functioning nation, but I'm not convinced it's possible.

If Israel/US/West does collapse the regime. There'll be utter chaos, probably civil war. The winning faction could easily turn out to be worse than what's there now. When the Soviet Union collapsed, in Russia the most organised and powerful group in society was the KGB they came to power in the shape of Putin. The Arab Spring showed that once a secular Arab dictator was removed in a Sunni Arab country, they were replaced by the most organised group which is always the Muslim Brotherhood. In Afghanistan the entire collective West tried to replace the Taliban and the Taliban just kept coming back. The most organised and powerful group in Iran is the IRGC, the Mullahs are just a mask they wear, they control the security services and most of the economy.

Israel could easily end up with a nuclear armed Persian version of Putin. Every single regime change war has achieved the exact opposite thing it was supposed to do.

[Torquemada 1420]

If Israel/US/West does collapse the regime. There'll be utter chaos, probably civil war. The winning faction could easily turn out to be worse than what's there now. When the Soviet Union collapsed, in Russia the most organised and powerful group in society was the KGB they came to power in the shape of Putin. The Arab Spring showed that once a secular Arab dictator was removed in a Sunni Arab country, they were replaced by the most organised group which is always the Muslim Brotherhood. In Afghanistan the entire collective West tried to replace the Taliban and the Taliban just kept coming back. The most organised and powerful group in Iran is the IRGC, the Mullahs are just a mask they wear, they control the security services and most of the economy.

Israel could easily end up with a nuclear armed Persian version of Putin. Every single regime change war has achieved the exact opposite thing it was supposed to do.

And throw in the possibility that Putin throws in more support for Syria because it's a bargaining chip for concessions over Ukraine.

The US has always been sh*t at foreign policy though so no reason to expect them to get it right this time.

[Calculon]

We meet again on this thread my friend.

yeah, good to see you've come around and and now agree with me regarding the degradation of Hezbolloah and how Iran isnt quite as capable as youd'd though. Shows maturity to admit when you're wrong Can't pretend I know exaclty what would happen if the Regime falls, considering their brutal nature you'd think there'd be a fair bit of voilent retrubutaion going on. Interresting that Israel is aparently targetting the IRGC command but leaving the Iranian army command alone

[laurent]

We meet again on this thread my friend.

yeah, good to see you've come around and and now agree with me regarding the degradation of Hezbolloah and how Iran isnt quite as capable as youd'd though. Shows maturity to admit when you're wrong Can't pretend I know exaclty what would happen if the Regime falls, considering their brutal nature you'd think there'd be a fair bit of voilent retrubutaion going on. Interresting that Israel is aparently targetting the IRGC command but leaving the Iranian army command alone

We have so many recent examples though : Lybia, Syria, Irak, Afganistan not one of them good.

[_Os_]

And throw in the possibility that Putin throws in more support for Syria because it's a bargaining chip for concessions over Ukraine.

The US has always been sh*t at foreign policy though so no reason to expect them to get it right this time.

I reckon the Russians are done with the ME for now, they're focusing on Ukraine. They seem to have cut some sort of deal with Syria's new Western backed Al-Qaeda government and still have access to their bases? Syria is just a total mess. One of the reasons that's unlikely to work in Iran is the regime in Syria had a purely Alawite base (10% of population), harder to mobilise on ethnic lines against Persians (60% of population), I'm sure the usual suspects will try though. First thing they'll do is ship in all the Western backed Al-Qaeda Jihadis from Syria (it is bizarre what AQ has become).

Mosaddegh shows exactly how they fuck things up. Democratically elected, got too uppity (ie was inclined towards putting his country first), the usual suspects deposed him and installed the Shah who was a Western stooge and led directly to the current government. The big tell is the usual crew are talking about the Shah (rejected by basically all Iranians), not an elected leader like Mosaddegh. They know Iranians would elect someone nationalist enough to be counter to their interests.

We have so many recent examples though : Lybia, Syria, Irak, Afganistan not one of them good.

It goes deeper than that. If it's a war of choice to change a foreign government as the main strategic goal (all of those you listed count), rather than a war of conquest or defence (WW2). Russian invasion of Ukraine (strategic goal: end Ukrainian nationalism impose Russian stooges, achieved exact opposite). Saudi invasion of Yemen (strategic goal: end Houthi rule impose Saudi stooges, achieved exact opposite). US invasion of Vietnam (strategic goal: end communist rule impose US stooges, achieved exact opposite).

There's more examples of "achieved exact opposite" than anything else. I can think of some that maybe qualify, but arguable if they fit the description of regime change being the strategic goal and even with those there's caveats. Was the goal regime change in Serbia, or just stopping the killing? How changed is Serbia? They're not in the EU, still like Russia, still not okay with Kosovo existing.

[_Os_]

We meet again on this thread my friend.

yeah, good to see you've come around and and now agree with me regarding the degradation of Hezbolloah and how Iran isnt quite as capable as youd'd though. Shows maturity to admit when you're wrong

The strategic goal was to eliminate Hezbollah and occupy land up to the Litani! This is how Israel always wins, expert goal post movers. I reckon Iran are capable enough, taking Russia on and Iran at the same time whilst trying to pivot to China, doesn't look good. Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time whilst focusing only on them proved impossible.

Any word from you on how Israel destroyed Iran's entire air defence last year (my call at the time: total kak) and have destroyed everything they supposedly destroyed last year err again this year? I'm inclined to believe Israel's bombing campaign in Iran is going well for them this time, but I have some doubts and Trump's weird mood flips (sometimes taking credit, sometimes distancing and uninterested) aren't making me doubt less.

Can't pretend I know exaclty what would happen if the Regime falls, considering their brutal nature you'd think there'd be a fair bit of voilent retrubutaion going on. Interresting that Israel is aparently targetting the IRGC command but leaving the Iranian army command alone

There is an old saying among the Saffa posters "Ox is always right".

[Calculon]

No one is planning to invade Iran. If, and it's a big if, there's a Regime change it's going to be mostly up to the Iranians themselves

[_Os_]

No one is planning to invade Iran. If, and it's a big if, there's a Regime change it's going to be mostly up to the Iranians themselves

Netanyahu convinced Trump into allowing this to happen. The next con is Netanyahu convincing Trump the US bombing Iran will end it, that is more likely to escalate it than end it.

At the end of this chain is indeed a ground invasion, something Netanyahu would be entirely happy with if Israelis aren't the ones going in (there has been talk of a mass Israeli special forces raid/suicide mission ... seems bizarre, if Iran wants a bomb they'll get one, can blow everything up there's thousands of Iranians with the knowledge by now, Pakistan managed it they can too).

It's not going to get to a ground invasion because at some point Trump is going to lose interest and go "cannot be fucked with this, let them fight it out! They gotta fight it out! Israel is costing us how fucking much?! Why isn't Gaza owned by the US yet?".

[Uncle fester]

Particularly at the instigation of Israel.

Plus there are so many examples of hated regimes gaining strength and legitimacy through an attack on the homeland. Iran is one of the most ancient nations on earth and I suspect they will defend themselves

Israel obviously would like regime change but I think they're smart enough to not expect it, and also smart enought to realise that when it happens, whether that is next week or decades down the line, their ability to shape the nature of events would be limited.

On the point of these attacks strengthening and legitimizing the regime I think thie following is the more likely outcome:

Frum: Is there gonna be any, do you think—or do you expect any kind of rally around the flag effect, which is: We hated the regime, but now the Israelis are bombing us, so we rally to our leaders because at least they’re ours?

Sadjadpour: I don’t think so. I think what tends to happen in these situations is that people’s existing political disposition is simply accentuated. So if prior to this Israeli bombing, you were a supporter of the regime, a defender of the regime, and you blame everything on America and Israel, you obviously have much more ammunition to hold those views. And if prior to this, you were an opponent, a critic of the regime, and say that this is a regime which has never prioritized the security and well-being of the Iranian people, there’s far more evidence to continue to support that view.

But how that plays out in practical terms—up until now, what we’ve seen is that those supporters of the regime are willing to go out into the streets and show off that support, whereas the opponents of the regime, whenever they’ve done that, they’ve been brutalized. And so that dynamic hasn’t yet changed.

We meet again on this thread my friend.

Israel has three strategic objectives: end Iran's nuclear programme, end Iran's ballistic missile programme, regime change. Their real goal is regime change, because if you leave the regime in place the other objectives are unachievable. The only way to do that is to completely destroy the country, as was done to Syria, the stuff about the Shah is nonsense.

If the Iranian regime remains Israel has already done a lot of damage to the faction within the Iranian regime that wants a nuclear programme as a deterrent threat without actually having nukes (this is why they're okay with such heavy monitoring, everyone knowing how far advanced they are is the entire point). This is basically the position of the boomers at the top of the power structure and Israel is killing all those guys. Khomeini is the reason they don't have nukes already, their nuclear programme started under the Shah. The actions being taken makes it much more likely Iran will acquire nukes, definitely so if the regime remains with some boomers removed. Iran's knowledge base and technical advancement is more than enough, successful nuclear weapon programmes by middle powers look significantly smaller than what Iran has built (literally 10-20 guys in a warehouse working secretly). They're in an unstable neighbourhood and have all these nuclear armed powers near them: Pakistan and India to the east, Russia to the north, Israel to their west. Just obvious they're always going to look for the deterrent threat.

Which all means Israel's goal is to end them as a nation and inflict a Syria on them. Iran is a real county though with deep civilizational roots, it looks like Israel is about to lead the US into trying to destroy Iran as a functioning nation, but I'm not convinced it's possible.

If Israel/US/West does collapse the regime. There'll be utter chaos, probably civil war. The winning faction could easily turn out to be worse than what's there now. When the Soviet Union collapsed, in Russia the most organised and powerful group in society was the KGB they came to power in the shape of Putin. The Arab Spring showed that once a secular Arab dictator was removed in a Sunni Arab country, they were replaced by the most organised group which is always the Muslim Brotherhood. In Afghanistan the entire collective West tried to replace the Taliban and the Taliban just kept coming back. The most organised and powerful group in Iran is the IRGC, the Mullahs are just a mask they wear, they control the security services and most of the economy.

Israel could easily end up with a nuclear armed Persian version of Putin. Every single regime change war has achieved the exact opposite thing it was supposed to do.

There's the moral aspect to this as well. I did a count of the populations that are getting bombed or regime changed in the middle East and it comes to about 175 million people.

Is it morally right that 175 million people get bombed or regime changed so that 7 odd million Jewish people get to cosplay as a pretend Western style democracy?

And is it sustainable?

The answer to both of those is no.

[Torquemada 1420]

Mosaddegh shows exactly how they fuck things up. Democratically elected, got too uppity (ie was inclined towards putting his country first), the usual suspects deposed him and installed the Shah who was a Western stooge and led directly to the current government. The big tell is the usual crew are talking about the Shah (rejected by basically all Iranians), not an elected leader like Mosaddegh. They know Iranians would elect someone nationalist enough to be counter to their interests.

For Mosaddegh, substitute Poroshenko (replaced by stooge Zelensky), Aristide, the whole fragmentation of Yugoslavia, probably Chavez's rise.... the list is endless i.e. the US fiddling with regimes to install what they assume would be nodding dogs who then turn and bite their master.

The thing is then never learn. You'd think Vietnam alone would have taught them a lesson. Not like they haven't had major insiders like McNamara and Ellsberg document the US's catastrophic track record.

[Torquemada 1420]

There's the moral aspect to this as well. I did a count of the populations that are getting bombed or regime changed in the middle East and it comes to about 175 million people.

Is it morally right that 175 million people get bombed or regime changed so that 7 odd million Jewish people get to cosplay as a pretend Western style democracy?

And is it sustainable?

The answer to both of those is no.

Wouldn't matter if it was 1 dead and 70 million Jews. Israel is a terrorist state that has no legal or moral right to exist beyond the threat imposed by the US and West to those who oppose it.

[Uncle fester]

There's the moral aspect to this as well. I did a count of the populations that are getting bombed or regime changed in the middle East and it comes to about 175 million people.

Is it morally right that 175 million people get bombed or regime changed so that 7 odd million Jewish people get to cosplay as a pretend Western style democracy?

And is it sustainable?

The answer to both of those is no.

Wouldn't matter if it was 1 dead and 70 million Jews. Israel is a terrorist state that has no legal or moral right to exist beyond the threat imposed by the US and West to those who oppose it.

Can't agree with that. I do believe in the concept of a homeland for Jewish people, just not the expulsion, bombing and regime changing of not Jews.

[Sandstorm]

Israel needs to find another way to get along with their neighbours that doesn't involve F16s, tanks and missiles.

It might be too late for late unfortunately....unless they can find a Jewish Gandhi tomorrow that everyone with listen to and changes the Homeland's strategy, I foresee another 75+ years of war.

A possible "silver lining" might be that the only nation rich & small enough to keep living in that desert as climate change hits hard, will be Israel - everyone else will decamp to Northern Russia and Europe. Then they can build settlements in any part of the dustbowl they want to. Cunts.

[Calculon]

Which all means Israel's goal is to end them as a nation and inflict a Syria on them. Iran is a real county though with deep civilizational roots, it looks like Israel is about to lead the US into trying to destroy Iran as a functioning nation, but I'm not convinced it's possible.

Israel want's to reduce the threat from Iran, ideally to eliminate it altogther. They want Iran to be more like a Turkey or Saudi Arabia, even though their realtionships are not great, these nations are still not an overt threat to Israel the way Iran is. Yes, even better would be an Iran like it was pre- revolution when the two countries had good relations.

Destroying Iran as a functioning nation is recognised as being not particularly feasible and anyway not ideal for Israel

I suspect this is a fairly accurate representation of the Israeli government's aims/hopes regarding the current situation

https://x.com/udschachter/status/1935863338367320208

[_Os_]

Which all means Israel's goal is to end them as a nation and inflict a Syria on them. Iran is a real county though with deep civilizational roots, it looks like Israel is about to lead the US into trying to destroy Iran as a functioning nation, but I'm not convinced it's possible.

Israel want's to reduce the threat from Iran, ideally to eliminate it altogther. They want Iran to be more like a Turkey or Saudi Arabia, even though their realtionships are not great, these nations are still not an overt threat to Israel the way Iran is. Yes, even better would be an Iran like it was pre- revolution when the two countries had good relations.

Destroying Iran as a functioning nation is recognised as being not particularly feasible and anyway not ideal for Israel

I suspect this is a fairly accurate representation of the Israeli government's aims/hopes regarding the current situation

https://x.com/udschachter/status/1935863338367320208

The basic reason for the revolution was the being ruled by a brutal dictator who put the interests of the West above his country. Basically no Iranian wants that again. No doubt they would like it be like Saudi, which is the Western backed dictatorship model (note how there's never any anti-Saudi propaganda regarding how they treat women or attempts to undermine their regime using the mask of women's rights).

They wouldn't want it to be like Turkey, it is democratic which means there's potential for them to turn on Israel. Very obviously Turkey will be the next place Israelis endlessly obsess over and want attacked once Iran is destroyed by the US.

And that is is the plan, they want to bomb Iran into being a crazy shithole. The only countries they want in their entire expanded region are dictatorships controlled by the West or broken shitholes. It is the literal plan.

[_Os_]

Seymour Hersh (highly credible source) is reporting that the US will launch a full scale bombing campaign on the weekend. Apparently Trump wanted to to wait for the weekend "because markets".

The target list is going to include every government official they can locate, military, IRGC, politicians, police stations, government offices. Their main goal is going to be regime change in the hope "the people rise up". They're also going to bomb the nuclear facilities, but it's obvious at this point that is all nonsense and the entire purpose is regime change.

Top of the list is killing Khamenei. The US then aims to install a moderate Muslim leader, against the wishes of the Israelis who apparently want an obvious stooge (non-Muslim, pro-Western).

The Guardian is reporting it's being actively discussed if the US is going to use tactical nuclear weapons in the bombing campaign. The Whitehouse hasn't denied this and it looks credible they're considering it as a flex to the world "hey look, we can even nuke you if you get in our way, and nothing will ever happen to us". If they're talking about tactical nukes and it seems they are, there's going to be no restraint.

Basically it's going to become a full scale carpet bombing campaign.

Fucking millions of refugees on their way to Europe once this starts up. Once your entire country is destroyed what an earth is the point of "rising up" in a street protest? The street has been destroyed. Cannot protest against warlords/terrorists/foreign bombers/anarchic mobs.


... something does seem off with all this though, arguing over the leader Iran should have imposed on it sounds a lot like counting chickens before they hatch. What every regime change war has shown is foreigners don't get to pick, they can impose someone for a short time and that's about it.

[geordie_6]

Seymour Hersh (highly credible source) is reporting that the US will launch a full scale bombing campaign on the weekend. Apparently Trump wanted to to wait for the weekend "because markets".

The target list is going to include every government official they can locate, military, IRGC, politicians, police stations, government offices. Their main goal is going to be regime change in the hope "the people rise up". They're also going to bomb the nuclear facilities, but it's obvious at this point that is all nonsense and the entire purpose is regime change.

Top of the list is killing Khamenei. The US then aims to install a moderate Muslim leader, against the wishes of the Israelis who apparently want an obvious stooge (non-Muslim, pro-Western).

The Guardian is reporting it's being actively discussed if the US is going to use tactical nuclear weapons in the bombing campaign. The Whitehouse hasn't denied this and it looks credible they're considering it as a flex to the world "hey look, we can even nuke you if you get in our way, and nothing will ever happen to us". If they're talking about tactical nukes and it seems they are, there's going to be no restraint.

Basically it's going to become a full scale carpet bombing campaign.

Fucking millions of refugees on their way to Europe once this starts up. Once your entire country is destroyed what an earth is the point of "rising up" in a street protest? The street has been destroyed. Cannot protest against warlords/terrorists/foreign bombers/anarchic mobs.


... something does seem off with all this though, arguing over the leader Iran should have imposed on it sounds a lot like counting chickens before they hatch. What every regime change war has shown is foreigners don't get to pick, they can impose someone for a short time and that's about it.

Using nukes (presumably penetration nukes to take out Fordow?) will not only royally fuck the region, but significantly destabilise the geopolitical situation: if they can use it in Iran, what would stop Russia using a strategic nuke in Ukraine for example?

Hopefully, there are some adults left in that room...

[_Os_]

Using nukes (presumably penetration nukes to take out Fordow?) will not only royally fuck the region, but significantly destabilise the geopolitical situation: if they can use it in Iran, what would stop Russia using a strategic nuke in Ukraine for example?

Hopefully, there are some adults left in that room...

Yes and presumably other hardened targets, it would take multiple bunker busters to essentially destroy a mountain, so Trump is considering tactical nukes. It was Trump who ordered the tactical nuke programme be renewed/upgraded in his first term, cannot rule out it would be an ego thing for him.

Once tactical nuclear warfare is on the table it probably cannot be taken off as you say. But I'm sure the US knows what it is doing.

[geordie_6]

Using nukes (presumably penetration nukes to take out Fordow?) will not only royally fuck the region, but significantly destabilise the geopolitical situation: if they can use it in Iran, what would stop Russia using a strategic nuke in Ukraine for example?

Hopefully, there are some adults left in that room...

Yes and presumably other hardened targets, it would take multiple bunker busters to essentially destroy a mountain, so Trump is considering tactical nukes. It was Trump who ordered the tactical nuke programme be renewed/upgraded in his first term, cannot rule out it would be an ego thing for him.

Once tactical nuclear warfare is on the table it probably cannot be taken off as you say. But I'm sure the US knows what it is doing.

The TACO TWAT probably sees it as a way to get his name in the history books.

[Slick]

Using nukes (presumably penetration nukes to take out Fordow?) will not only royally fuck the region, but significantly destabilise the geopolitical situation: if they can use it in Iran, what would stop Russia using a strategic nuke in Ukraine for example?

Hopefully, there are some adults left in that room...

Yes and presumably other hardened targets, it would take multiple bunker busters to essentially destroy a mountain, so Trump is considering tactical nukes. It was Trump who ordered the tactical nuke programme be renewed/upgraded in his first term, cannot rule out it would be an ego thing for him.

Once tactical nuclear warfare is on the table it probably cannot be taken off as you say. But I'm sure the US knows what it is doing.

I’m not massively convinced by some of this. If there is one thing I think the orange twat is truthful about it is his aversion to wars, just can’t see him using nukes

[_Os_]

Using nukes (presumably penetration nukes to take out Fordow?) will not only royally fuck the region, but significantly destabilise the geopolitical situation: if they can use it in Iran, what would stop Russia using a strategic nuke in Ukraine for example?

Hopefully, there are some adults left in that room...

Yes and presumably other hardened targets, it would take multiple bunker busters to essentially destroy a mountain, so Trump is considering tactical nukes. It was Trump who ordered the tactical nuke programme be renewed/upgraded in his first term, cannot rule out it would be an ego thing for him.

Once tactical nuclear warfare is on the table it probably cannot be taken off as you say. But I'm sure the US knows what it is doing.

I’m not massively convinced by some of this. If there is one thing I think the orange twat is truthful about it is his aversion to wars, just can’t see him using nukes

Maybe, but he gave the Israelis the greenlight to attack Iran, in his reactions you could see he thought it would strengthen his negotiating hand. That's no doubt how it was sold to him and Trump believed that, because he doesn't know what he's doing. Others in his administration are necons (as Netanyahu is too) and knew what it really meant. Now he's no doubt being told by the Israelis a US bombing campaign will bring the conflict to a swift conclusion something they also know not to be true (Trump is ignoring Gabbard his director of national intelligence who told him there's no Iranian weapons programme, she's not invited to meetings, if US intelligence is getting to him it isn't through the person who has the job of giving it to him, Hegseth the secretary of defence also apparently isn't in meetings).

Slowly but surely he's getting sucked in. You can tell this is mostly Trump because US assets have had to be moved after the Israelis started their attack and weren't in position.

When this sort of thing is gamed it always ends up in these out of control scenarios people are now talking about. The game breaks or Iran wins. Trump doesn't like losing.