Post New

And also the gas prices! Who could have imagined that gleefully dropping bombs on the middle east would lead to stuff!
I hope you are doing as well as possible under the circumstances—those being that you are idiots.
Yours very truly,
Reality

<l>And also the gas prices! Who could have imagined that gleefully dropping bombs on the middle east would lead to stuff!
I hope you are doing as well as possible under the circumstances—those being that you are idiots.
Yours very truly,
Reality

Dear Reality,
I’m doing fine, better than ever.
Iran will no longer be a threat to the Free World and low gas prices will return.

Thank you for your concern.

The Real World, MAGA

You Isolationists!!!!

What's Liz Cheney gonna say

Iran will no longer be a threat to the Free World

Why would Iran no longer be a threat to the Free World?

That would be true if we could force a change in the governing regime from an enemy of the Free World to one that was supportive of and friendly to the Free World. But that's incredibly unlikely to happen. It's not even a formal objective of our mission, at least according to the Administration (other than Trump) - we're just there to degrade Iran's current military capabilities, not to decide what the future government of Iran will look like.

So it's entirely possible, and indeed fairly likely, that the government of Iran in five years will be exceptionally similar to the government of Iran today. And therefore again pose a threat to the Free World. Oh, sure - they won't necessarily have the same proxies in five years (any more than Iran had the same proxies shortly before the war than they did five years ago, after Israel had inflicted so much damage on Hamas and Hezbollah). But they'll be able to build up their armed forces, their missile programs, and (perhaps) their nuclear program again.

Sadly, by doing this we've kind of confirmed what the Khameini regime has been pitching to the Iranian people all these years. If you're not a nuclear power, you're never safe - and the ostensible "global rules-based order" will not protect you from the U.S. just coming in and blowing up your country. We might be able to physically keep them from making much movement towards a nuke going forward (as we have for the last decades), but it doesn't seem likely that whatever Iranian government comes out the other end of this will have changed their position on whether nukes are an important policy goal.

If you don't change the regime, you don't change the threat all that much - except during the actual time that you're dropping the bombs and the short-term thereafter. Right now, it looks like we will have used up several tens of billions of dollars of important military hardware - especially our missile interceptor inventory - and end up without much of a long-term change in the country.

If you don't change the regime, you don't change the threat all that much - except during the actual time that you're dropping the bombs and the short-term thereafter. Right now, it looks like we will have used up several tens of billions of dollars of important military hardware - especially our missile interceptor inventory - and end up without much of a long-term change in the country.

You don't know this. At all. Let's set aside the sudden interest in our stocks of war shots; previous attempts at discussions along those lines have been met with shrugs on this board. Next somebody will all of a sudden discover we don't have enough naval ships.

We bombed Libya for 7 months. The Iran operation is in Day 10. It's a little early to declare the entire thing a failure and/or start wringing our hands over what has been done or not done. We have eliminated the mullahocracy as a functioning government entity. Their command and control is toast. Their Navy is now down 30+ ships and counting. Their Air Force has been severely degraded. Ballistic missile attacks are down over 90% and a high percentage of drones have been destroyed.

And now the IDF is blowing up their oil storage facilities. Their export terminals will likely be next. Meanwhile, we'll keep eliminating their ballistic missile capabilities.

Already a couple of political parties have declared themselves in Iran and the ex-Shah's son is volunteering to be an interim leader until democrat elections can be set up. Things are moving.

Today the IRGC is in charge and are calling the shots; under current course and speed the Israelis will systematically eliminate them as well.

It's a little early to declare the entire thing a failure and/or start wringing our hands over what has been done or not done.

But the flip side is that it's a little early to declare the entire thing a success and assume we've ended the threat of Iran to the Free World, as LM was doing. No argument that the outcome of war is always uncertain. But right now, the likelihood is that the Iranian regime is going to come out in charge at the end as long as we don't have a full ground invasion. They've had decades to protect themselves against this exact scenario, and they're very well positioned to survive it:

https://fortune.com/2026/03/09/u-s-intel-assessmen...

Doesn't mean the longshot won't come through. But the odds are that even a long, protracted "Libya-like" operation is still going to end with the regime still well in control of the country.

Their command and control is toast. Their Navy is now down 30+ ships and counting. Their Air Force has been severely degraded. Ballistic missile attacks are down over 90% and a high percentage of drones have been destroyed.

None of which materially degrades the ability of the regime to maintain itself as the sole domestic governing power. Don't confuse operational success with strategic success. We have been very effective in destroying military assets of Iran, but destroying those military assets is exceptionally unlikely to accomplish any strategic goals beyond destroying those military assets. We can destroy their navy, their air force, and their missiles - but that's not going to oust the regime from power. The Administration has been remarkably opaque and inconsistent about even the goals of the war (much less what we're going to do to achieve them), but none of the things they've publicly stated we're going to do are likely to lead to the regime losing power.

And now the IDF is blowing up their oil storage facilities. Their export terminals will likely be next. Meanwhile, we'll keep eliminating their ballistic missile capabilities.

We're already trying to push back on the IDF to get them to stop blowing up their oil facilities, so I don't think the export terminals will be next. We don't want to destroy Iran's oil producing capabilities. Because that will lead to higher gas prices, and longer-lasting higher gas prices:

https://www.axios.com/2026/03/08/us-dismayed-israe...

Iran will no longer be a threat to the Free World

That would be the Trump administration.

But the flip side is that it's a little early to declare the entire thing a success and assume we've ended the threat of Iran to the Free World, as LM was doing. No argument that the outcome of war is always uncertain. But right now, the likelihood is that the Iranian regime is going to come out in charge at the end as long as we don't have a full ground invasion. They've had decades to protect themselves against this exact scenario, and they're very well positioned to survive it:

No, the current regime is toast. The IRGC is running the show right now, and if we were to stop bombing tomorrow they'd be the de facto rulers of Iran as the mullahs are effectively gone.

Is that a good thing? Likely not; the IRGC is little more than a terrorist army with the power of a nation-state behind them.

No, the current regime is toast. The IRGC is running the show right now, and if we were to stop bombing tomorrow they'd be the de facto rulers of Iran as the mullahs are effectively gone.

Is that a good thing? Likely not; the IRGC is little more than a terrorist army with the power of a nation-state behind them.

The IRGC is the current regime. They've always been a major component of the governance of Iran - indeed, much more so than the military or any other organ of government. They've been the kingmakers and the power behind the "official" Iranian governance for the last several decades, and have pretty much been calling the shots and setting policy at least as much as the mullahs.

https://www.csis.org/analysis/iranian-islamic-revo...

Them "running the show" is the current regime continuing, not changing. They'll just pick more mullahs to run the clerical side once the bombing stops. They have always basically run almost all non-clerical Iranian government policies and functions anyway, as many ostensibly "non-IGRC" positions get filled with senior IGRC members and their allies.

The IRGC isn't "little more than a terrorist army" - they are, and have been pretty much been, the government of Iran to at least the same extent as any other faction within the polity for quite a while now.

Them "running the show" is the current regime continuing, not changing. They'll just pick more mullahs to run the clerical side once the bombing stops. They have always basically run almost all non-clerical Iranian government policies and functions anyway, as many ostensibly "non-IGRC" positions get filled with senior IGRC members and their allies.

The IRGC isn't "little more than a terrorist army" - they are, and have been pretty much been, the government of Iran to at least the same extent as any other faction within the polity for quite a while now.

At any rate (not going to quibble over the past structure) Iran is at the moment essentially a military dictatorship. No one has seen the new Ayatollah and it's entirely possible he was killed in the first strike that took out Khamanei.

At any rate (not going to quibble over the past structure) Iran is at the moment essentially a military dictatorship. No one has seen the new Ayatollah and it's entirely possible he was killed in the first strike that took out Khamanei.

Iran has always been a military dictatorship. As noted in the article posted above, the IGRC has always been the power behind the throne, supportive of the fundamentalist theocratic state and playing kingmaker (and enforcer) to cleric who holds the head of state position. Killing any given mullah - or even large numbers of mullahs - isn't changing anything.

That doesn't mean things might not change in the future, but even if the son was also killed in the initial attacks, we're not causing any material changes in the regime through our operations so far. We're blowing through tens of billions of dollars of military equipment and materiel, specifically including strategically critical anti-missile equipment that will take us years to replenish, on a course that (for now) will just have us come out the other side with essentially the same Iranian government we started with.

That's....not good. We're being operationally successful, and strategically failing:

The war in Iran has reaffirmed two truths. One is that the United States is blessed with the most professional and effective military in the world. The men and women of the American armed forces can conduct missions of almost any size with formidable competence, from special operations to seize a rogue-state president to a large-scale war. The other truth is that the Trump administration, when it comes to strategy, is incompetent.

Strategy is about matching the instruments of national power—and especially military force—to the goals of national policy. The president and his team, however, have not enunciated an overarching goal for this war—or, more accurately, they have presented multiple goals and chosen among them almost randomly, depending on the day or the hour. This means that highly effective military operations are taking place in a strategic vacuum.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/03/iran-str...

It's not clear what the goal is that's worth burning through so much of our military capabilities. We're destroying a lot of Iranian material, but we're destroying a lot of our own material to do it. Hard to see what goal that furthers, since they'll be able to replace their equipment over time (just as we'll be able to replace our own). Sure, they suffer from an intermediate-term lack of access to that equipment - just as we'll suffer from an intermediate-term lack of access to that equipment. Using up a massive amount of the US' anti-missile systems and protective capacity on Iran doesn't seem like an effective use of that resource, especially in a world where that's a major threat profile and where we might prefer to have those resources available to deploy in other theaters (like, IDK, defending assets and allies in the Pacific theater against Chinese missiles and drones).

we're not causing any material changes in the regime through our operations so far.

Okay. No point in further discussion, then.

Iran will no longer be a threat to the Free World and low gas prices will return.

Which bridge in Brooklyn do you wish to buy *this* time? Standard terms:

ALL CASH, SOLD "as-is, where-is".

"It's not clear what the goal is that's worth burning through so much of our military capabilities. We're destroying a lot of Iranian material, but we're destroying a lot of our own material to do it. Hard to see what goal that furthers, since they'll be able to replace their equipment over time (just as we'll be able to replace our own). Sure, they suffer from an intermediate-term lack of access to that equipment - just as we'll suffer from an intermediate-term lack of access to that equipment. Using up a massive amount of the US' anti-missile systems and protective capacity on Iran doesn't seem like an effective use of that resource, especially in a world where that's a major threat profile and where we might prefer to have those resources available to deploy in other theaters (like, IDK, defending assets and allies in the Pacific theater against Chinese missiles and drones)." - Albaby

It is an effective us of that resource if you look at it from China's or Russia's point of view.

You are operating under the assumption that Trump's attack on Iran are for the benefit of Americans. Maybe that isn't the case.

You are operating under the assumption that Trump's attack on Iran are for the benefit of Americans. Maybe that isn't the case.

I don't make that assumption. I think Trump is motivated primarily by: i) wanting to be as consequential a President as possible; and ii) never being thought to have lost in something.

I think he has a simplistic belief that all that's necessary to "fix" some of these longstanding problems is just killing (or threatening to kill) the leaders of the country. He has a Great Man view of how the world and history works - change the leader, and you've solved the problem. He doesn't think these festering issues of global geopolitics linger because they're due to macro factors or historical forces that can't be solved by shooting. The persist only because past Presidents were too weak to do anything.

And in Iran, he can't bear to have been told "no." He told them the nuke program had to go. He demanded. He insisted! I'm sure he threatened that if they didn't follow his orders, they would pay the price - and still, they refused. He was balked, and he WILL NOT BE BALKED! So the only thing for it was to attack. Not because he thought the attack would get any particular future outcome other than demolishing the people who said no to him; that was the goal. Punish the people who said no. So that's why he thinks this is a war that's already been won. For him, it has!

"It's not clear what the goal is that's worth burning through so much of our military capabilities. We're destroying a lot of Iranian material, but we're destroying a lot of our own material to do it. Hard to see what goal that furthers, since they'll be able to replace their equipment over time (just as we'll be able to replace our own). Sure, they suffer from an intermediate-term lack of access to that equipment - just as we'll suffer from an intermediate-term lack of access to that equipment. Using up a massive amount of the US' anti-missile systems and protective capacity on Iran doesn't seem like an effective use of that resource, especially in a world where that's a major threat profile and where we might prefer to have those resources available to deploy in other theaters (like, IDK, defending assets and allies in the Pacific theater against Chinese missiles and drones)."</V> - Albaby

It should also be noted that it isn't just that Trump is using up most of our anti-air defense resources that is weakening America. In trying to rebuild Venezuela and Iran, Trump is pushing many of the U.S. Navy ships to extend their deployments and delay their maintenance. For example, The U.S.S. Ford, America's newest, most advanced aircraft carrier was due back in port for maintenance after Venezuela. Instead of getting the required routine maintenance, Trump extended its deployment and sent it to the Middle East.

This is usually a poor choice for two main reasons:

1. It is terrible for troop morale. Sailors (and their families) expect to be home after so many months. Extending that puts a lot of stress and strain on them.

2. Delaying maintenance has real costs in the future. Just like an automobile, routine maintenance can be delayed. You can extend the time between oil changes and tune ups. If just done once and for a small amount of time it isn't that big of deal. However, if done repeatedly or for lengthy periods of time, the damage (and the repair bills) are much more substantial. Right now the U.S.S. Ford has been out on tour substantially longer than expected. In fact, it is likely to challenge deployment lengths not seen since the Vietnam War. This extended deployment is not only going to increase the risk of major problems, it also increases the cost and time needed for the routine maintenance.

So instead of returning to port after Venezuela, and being down for a few months, there is a good chance that when the U.S.S. Ford finally returns for maintenance; it will be down for more than a year. This is true of many other ships, not just the U.S.S Ford.

Trump is greatly weakening our military.

You are missing the point (granted it was subtle).

By using up many of the resources of the U.S. military, Trump is making Putin and Xi quite happy. Every air defense missile spent in this Iran misadventure is one air defense missile that a future president cannot send to help Ukraine fight against Russia. Every ship Trump delays routine maintenance on is one more ship that is not available when Xi decides it is time to invade Taiwan.

Trump's misadventure in Iran isn't helping the American people, but it sure is helping Russia and China. Makes you wonder who Trump is really working for......

You are missing the point (granted it was subtle).

Oh, I get it. There’s no questions that our operation in Iran is working to the benefit of China, and perhaps to a lesser extent Russia. If I were China, high up on my wish list would be, “a situation where the US has vastly fewer missile interceptors to be able to send to Taiwan on a moments’ notice for the next few years.”

I just wouldn’t describe that as “Trump working for China.” He is certainly inadvertently helping. He is certainly taking actions heedlessly that will have the result of improving their geopolitical position. But I think suggesting that someone is “working for” another country suggests a level of intentionality that just isn’t there. Trump is far too narcissistic to be “really working for” anyone but himself.

Trump is far too narcissistic to be “really working for” anyone but himself.

But he can easily be manipulated and might even be compromised.

I don't make that assumption. I think Trump is motivated primarily by: i) wanting to be as consequential a President as possible; and ii) never being thought to have lost in something.

Or…the FAR more likely motivation. He’s doing what’s best for the United States.

There’s literally no on on planet Earth who thinks that the Ayatollah and that regime were a good thing. Okay, nobody outside of Barack Obama, Ben Rhodes and that crew of foreign policy people.

Everyone else recognizes that most of the ills in the Middle East can be traced straight back to the mullahs of Iran. The planet is better off with them gone.

Period. Full stop.

Next, this war has a higher purpose. Care to hazard a guess as to what that is? And it’s not on your list.

There’s literally no on on planet Earth who thinks that the Ayatollah and that regime were a good thing. Okay, nobody outside of Barack Obama, Ben Rhodes and that crew of foreign policy people.

None of those people thought that the Ayatollah and that regime were a good thing, either. They simply realized that the downsides to simply attacking Iran completely outweighed the potential benefits, because the amount of military engagement necessary to actually dislodge the regime (rather than what we're doing now) were enormous and incredibly risky.

Only the foolish believe that the reason prior Administrations didn't just go out and attack Iran is because they thought the Ayatollah and the regime were a good thing. Also, only the foolish believe that the reason prior Administrations didn't do that was because they were weak. Like Trump seems to believe. Rather, they were simply wise enough not to act recklessly.

Next, this war has a higher purpose. Care to hazard a guess as to what that is? And it’s not on your list.

There have been easily a dozen different "higher purposes" offered by the Administration for the war, and still more that have been offered by pundits and apologists. Of all those different possible higher purposes, I have no way of knowing which one you're referring to, since you give no hints. Perhaps you could tell us?

Or…the FAR more likely motivation. He’s doing what’s best for the United States.

Hahaha! Stop!! You’re killing me!! Hohoho!!

Oh, I get it. There’s no questions that our operation in Iran is working to the benefit of China, and perhaps to a lesser extent Russia.

Hahahahahahahahahaha! This funny.

If I were China, high up on my wish list would be, “a situation where the US has vastly fewer missile interceptors to be able to send to Taiwan on a moments’ notice for the next few years.”

WOW. Yeah, no.
The Chinese just got not 1 but 2 front row seats to the US scything through their equipment without breaking a sweat. Then they're watching the US and Israel knock down an extremely high percentage of rockets and drones, both things that also contain Chinese tech.

Your comment on China's "geopolitical position" is also off base: China didn't so much as squeak either time the United States took action. There's a big reason why the rest of the Gulf States are squarely in the US' camp right now: They get who the strong horse is.

Then there's the matter of China's oil supply. Say, are the tankers getting through to them anymore?

And of course let's ask exactly who in China is h appy...since they don't have any military leadership anymore.

Knocking over Venezuela took a bishop off the board. Knocking over Iran takes a rook off the board. When Cuba goes - and it will - there goes another bishop. By systematically eliminating safe energy harbors for China Trump is putting them at a strategic disadvantage...so they think twice about doing anything.

They simply realized that the downsides to simply attacking Iran completely outweighed the potential benefits,

Don Jr. and Eric are making a killing on selling drones to the military. And Don Sr. Thought he’d waltz in like he did in Venezuela

That’s a win and negates whatever downside there is for the country and world order.

However……… Iran isn’t Venezuela, so now he’s stumbling around for a new narrative.

None of those people thought that the Ayatollah and that regime were a good thing, either. They simply realized that the downsides to simply attacking Iran completely outweighed the potential benefits, because the amount of military engagement necessary to actually dislodge the regime (rather than what we're doing now) were enormous and incredibly risky.


No, Obama and Biden and co. actively moved to empower Iran. They did that by studiously ignoring Iran's power projection mechanisms and by sending them pallets full of cash.

Cash that wound up funding the Houthis, Hezbollah and Hamas for October 7th. How ironic that Obama's bad foreign policy ultimately helped create Iran's Pearl Harbor moment.

Rather, they were simply wise enough not to act recklessly.
Good thing no one did.

There have been easily a dozen different "higher purposes" offered by the Administration for the war, and still more that have been offered by pundits and apologists. Of all those different possible higher purposes, I have no way of knowing which one you're referring to, since you give no hints. Perhaps you could tell us?

Okay, so you don't care to guess?
This action is about China.

Hahaha! Stop!!

I know, right? Reality can be such a refreshing palate cleanser sometimes!

Knocking over Venezuela took a bishop off the board. Knocking over Iran takes a rook off the board. When Cuba goes - and it will - there goes another bishop.

ROFLMAO !!

Venezuela and Cuba are pawns. Iran might have been considered a knight. Now it is a pawn. Obviously, you have never understood chess.

Then there's the matter of China's oil supply. Say, are the tankers getting through to them anymore?

You just publicly posted you do not have a clue. China has a floating stockpile of oil waiting to be unloaded. They planned for a shortage--caused by what? They didn't care. A shortage is a shortage. Which is why they are not really worried about it right now. A temporary interruption of a few weeks to a month is no big deal. Why? Because the US imports a lot of items from the Indian and Pacific Oceans countries. When THEY run out of oil, imports to the US stop shortly thereafter. And then the US economy plummets--again. Typical Spankee. Zero thinking capability--and it shows.

Next, this war has a higher purpose. Care to hazard a guess as to what that is? And it’s not on your list.

Armageddon?

Armageddon?
The Rapture?

Armageddon

That seems to be the reason being conveyed to many of the troops.

Okay, so you don't care to guess?
This action is about China.

No, it's not. I know - you believe that China is the single most important foreign policy priority for the U.S. So you constantly rationalize the foreign policy actions of the Administration by telling yourself that they're all about China. Even though the Administration itself hasn't pointed to China as the reason for the Iran war. This, while scrambling to come up with any reason for why they went to war now. They're not out there with Congress or the American people explaining how this plays into our China policy....because it doesn't. And none of the folks who are making the decisions about this war are doing it because of China. That's your rationalization, not theirs.

Again, this action makes China better off, not worse off. You use the metaphor of taking China's pieces off the board - but we're not. That's what you continually fail to understand about how limited the effects of our actions are. Venezuela is still just as much on the board for China as it was before, because we didn't eliminate the regime. It's still a hardcore socialist authoritarian dictatorship, which means it's going to continue to be just as much aligned with China as previously. Because the reasons it has been China's ally, and not ours, were not personal to Maduro, but structural based on the nature of the government. wW didn't change the government, just the leader, so it will still be China's piece on the board going forward.

The same is true of Iran. We swapped one Khameini for another - and even if this second Khameini gets killed, the government of Iran will continue to be just as firmly against the U.S. and aligned with China as before. China's actually in a much stronger position going forward. The new government is going to need tons of resources, capital, equipment, and access to military supplies going forward. They're not going to get that from the West, and their former main patron (Russia) is in no position to supply it. So look for China to be even more central to Iran's foreign policy and economic development than it was already.

China isn't hurt by any of these actions, because we're leaving the governments and all the geopolitical factors in place. And China's relative position has improved, because we've burned through so much of our own near-term military resources to accomplish virtually nothing of long-term consequence. We accomplished a lot of operational goals, but no strategic goals relative to China. And it cost us some tens of billions of dollars of military resources, including depleting our reserves of important anti-missile equipment which will take several years to replenish.

Trump doesn't want to keep fighting in Iran until the regime falls. That was obvious from his speech in Miami last night. He's clearly resigned to letting the regime pick replacement leaders from within that will maintain continuity, and thus remain an adversary to the West. He's not going to take the steps that would lead to the people dislodging the dictatorship. Going forward, we will continue to have Iran be exactly as it was politically - different people, but the exact same regime.

albaby1, your analysis seems cogent and very much on point.

The following point I think is overlooked by Trump aficionados but I believe is really important:

The new government is going to need tons of resources, capital, equipment, and access to military supplies going forward. They're not going to get that from the West, and their former main patron (Russia) is in no position to supply it. So look for China to be even more central to Iran's foreign policy and economic development than it was already.

Some countries and leaders play checkers and some play chess.

We accomplished a lot of operational goals, but no strategic goals relative to China.

“Sound and fury, signifying nothing”.

(Except to deplete our store of missiles and piss off the entire region for dragging them into a war that none of them, except for Bibi, thought necessary)

There’s literally no on on planet Earth who thinks that the Ayatollah and that regime were a good thing. Okay, nobody outside of Barack Obama, Ben Rhodes and that crew of foreign policy people.

It’s possible, just possible, that they watched the calamity of the Bush/Cheney invasion of Iraq, with us killing our own soldiers, killing civilians, spending a trillion dollars, and accomplishing nothing but having another destabilized regime in the middle east, and said:

“Maybe there’s a different way.”

Along the way they might have noticed that Iran has three times the land mass of Iraq, and so would take even more boots on the ground the pacify, it has twice the population of Iraq so it would be harder to control them, it had an equivalently large army, funding from US adversaries and weaponry from Russia, and more to the point, actually better control of the population via its network of religious adherents throughout the country than Saddam ever did with his terror tactics.

So: given that we failed miserably in Iraq, against lesser assets, why would you stomp into Iran with a depleted and demoralized US force, trying the same game plan that has already resulted in national dishonor and impoverishment.

This is what we mean by “learning from experience” or “facing facts.” It’s like the lady on the jury I referenced upthread. Facts didn’t matter. She just “had a feeling.”

No, it's not. I know - you believ

Erm, okay. You can instead choose to believe we’re doing this just because they said no if you like.

Erm, okay. You can instead choose to believe we’re doing this just because they said no if you like.

There are other possible reasons. Indeed, I cited a second one that I think is likely - that Trump wants to "solve" longstanding geopolitical trouble spots because he believes that burnish his legacy and mistakenly thinks that they are actually easy to solve through military force and only weakness has kept the U.S. from historically just "solving" them. He thinks he's solved Venezuela, and thought that Iran could be similarly solved.

There are others. But none of the plausible reasons has anything to do with containing China. Iran is China's ally, but it's mostly for economic and energy security purposes.

Russia has a strong military and geostrategic interest in the Middle East, especially because of the importance of the Black Sea and the eastern Med to their naval operations. Russia gained from having a militarily strong Iran and powerful proxies that can stir up trouble and unrest in the region, since that limited US/Western abilities to project power in the region. Plus, Russia is a massive oil producer, so it benefits economically from instability in the region. It is a major blow to Russia that Iran is now militarily weakened and has lost most of their proxy ability to attack Western-allied interests.

But China doesn't have a direct military interest in the region. Their indirect "Great Game" interest of using the ME as a check on U.S. interests has also mostly disappeared in the last decade and a half, as the U.S. has now transitioned from being heavily reliant on ME oil imports to being a net oil exporter. Now it's China that's the destination for most of the oil from Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf oil states. China is a massive oil importer, and benefits from stability in the Middle East. They don't want chaos and upset and crisis in the region. They want a stable source of energy resources. And China gets far more oil from the countries that Iran has been hostile to (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwai) than from Iran, so they definitely don't want Iran stirring up problems in Saudi and elsewhere.

China doesn't have strong security ties to Iran - they've been reducing those for the last decade or so. They have a strong economic and energy trade alliance with Iran because they want a dependable source of oil, but Saudi and the other Gulf oil states are bigger economic partners so they don't want Iran upending the security situation in the area. Iran is an economic and diplomatic partner: a source of crude oil and a reliable anti-Western vote in international institutions. They're not a security partner for China, other than as a customer for arms and other military resources.

So in many ways, this is an absolutely ideal outcome for China. Iran will still be as it was, politically and economically - an authoritarian dictatorship hostile to the West that will be looking primarily to China as its primary economic and development partner. Since Russia is in dire straits economically and militarily, Iran will be even more dependent than ever on China as a patron. And Iran will have both reduced ability to stir up geopolitical problems in the region and a massive need for Chinese assistance in just getting themselves back up to even modest pre-war levels. Teheran will be far more in Beijing's pocket than Moscow's, just as virulently anti-American and anti-West as it ever was, and desperate to trade energy resources for materials and technology and economic aid in rebuilding everything we just destroyed.

Add in the fact that we depleted tens of billions of dollars of our own military resources while China didn't lift a finger, and it's hard to script a better outcome for the Chinese. They're certainly better off than they were before the war started.

There are other possible reasons. Indeed, I cited a second one that I think is likely - that Trump wants to "solve" longstanding geopolitical trouble

Right. Solely for his ego.

And can we please not pretend to care about our supplies of ammunition? It wasn’t a thing for this board before, and the only reason it’s a complaint is because it’s Trump now.

China is not better off. Much worse. Think they’re charging the same prices for their weapons sales?

China is not better off. Much worse. Think they’re charging the same prices for their weapons sales?

Why wouldn't they be? Venezuela didn't happen because of issues with Chinese equipment - their air defense systems were almost entirely Russian provided. They also failed in large part due to both lack of maintenance and not being activated. Because they were almost entirely Russian systems, and Russia has stopped supplying parts and technicians, almost none of the systems were properly maintained, and few of the Venezuelans were properly trained in their use. Plus many of the systems were still in storage, which makes them hard to be effective:

https://medium.com/the-geopolitics-report/how-did-...
https://archive.ph/KtTtW

As for Iran, there's no evidence yet that there was any failure on the part of whatever systems were provided by China. Even if Iran had purchased some Chinese air defense systems (and that itself is disputed), there's no way any such system would have been able to handle the massive amount of assets that were sent in for the attack. And right now, there's no indication that the systems didn't function properly.

But most importantly - it doesn't matter if China is making a skosh less money on their weapons sales. Seriously? You're looking at China possibly having to offer a discount on weapons prices? Total global international arms sales is about a $120 billion market, of which China has about 6% - or about $7 billion. In gross sales. So if they had to take a haircut on arms prices, it would be barely a billion dollars - if that. Chump change, before you even compare it to the tens of billions of dollars of material that we're running through to prosecute the war.

Even if that happened, that would be a tiny economic pinprick compared to the massive advantages they're getting from the overall war. They're going to get to displace Moscow as Iran's main patron, lock in even more dependency from one of their largest oil suppliers, get the benefit of Iran no longer causing problems for their other (larger) oil supplier in the region, and get to see the U.S. use up tens of billions of dollars of American military assets (including the most critical anti-projectile defense systems that will take years to replenish) for nothing of value.

https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2024-03/...

https://www.hudson.org/national-security-defense/i...

The Iran Strike Is All About China
Why Operation Epic Fury is the opening act of the Indo-Pacific century.

Several reasons:

Operation Epic Fury, this weekend’s joint U.S.-Israel attack on Iran, has been widely described as an extraordinary assault on the world’s leading state sponsor of terror. That is true, but it misses a critical dimension. For years, Beijing has spent billions of dollars building Iran into a structural asset. By striking Iran directly, the Trump administration is dismantling, whether by design or by consequence, a pillar of China’s regional architecture.

In other words: This is all about China.

Indeed it is.

Iran’s value to China also extends to proxy warfare. When Iran’s Houthis began attacking commercial shipping in the Red Sea in late 2023, the consequences rippled across the global economy. Container traffic through the Red Sea fell by 90 percent within three months. Goods worth roughly $1 trillion were disrupted in the first seven months. The rerouting of ships around Africa’s Cape of Good Hope added nearly two weeks and about $1 million in fuel costs to every voyage, driving freight rates between Asia and Europe.

Recall that the Houthis were not initially attacking Chinese flagged ships or ships bound for China. I wonder why that was. They would later hit some anyway, though.

The U.S. bore the heaviest burden of response. Carrier strike groups were deployed, air campaigns were sustained for months, and precision munitions costing between $1 million and $4 million per interceptor were expended at a rate that, by mid-2025, had consumed roughly a quarter of America’s high-end missile interceptor inventory. Last week, it was reported that Tehran was close to finalizing a deal for Chinese-made supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles, capable of threatening American carriers now massing in the Persian Gulf. Earlier, Chinese suppliers shipped over 1,000 tons of sodium perchlorate, a key missile propellant ingredient, to an Iranian port, enough to rebuild a substantial portion of the ballistic missile stockpile that Israel spent 12 days destroying.

In other words the REAL drain on US warshots was the whackamole game of 'suppress the Houthis', who were being fed missiles by the mullahs. So instead of playing the same game, Trump decided to hit the source. Why allow a proxy army to continually harass and threaten you while doing nothing about it?

Amazing how clear events get when you allow yourself some perspective.

China buys more than 80 percent of Iran’s crude oil exports at steep discounts. The shipments travel on a ghost fleet of tankers that switch off their transponders and relabel their cargo as Malaysian or Indonesian to circumvent American sanctions. Since 2021, the cumulative value of these purchases has exceeded $140 billion. This makes China the main reason the Islamic Republic has not gone bankrupt.

The arrangement works beautifully for Beijing. It gets cheap oil for its industrial base, saving billions annually compared to market-rate suppliers. And in exchange, China acquires influence over a nation of 90 million people sitting astride the world’s most consequential energy corridor.

Now, nobody's tankers are getting through. If we're going to pay an economic price...so are they.

When Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei received Chinese president Xi Jinping in Iran in 2016, he praised the 25-year strategic partnership as “totally correct and endowed with wisdom,” adding pointedly that “Western governments have never been able to win the Iranian nation’s trust.” Khamenei was not merely flattering a guest. He was describing a structural reality: Iran’s economy now runs on Chinese money, and both capitals know it.

In 2021, the 25-Year Comprehensive Strategic Partnership committed China to invest an estimated $400 billion across Iran’s energy, banking, telecommunications, and infrastructure sectors, formalizing a relationship that was already underway. The deeper this integration runs, the less leverage anyone else has over Tehran, and the more leverage Beijing accumulates.

China owns Iran.

Meanwhile, Chinese-flagged ships sailed through with less interference. Beijing contributed no vessels to the multinational protection force and issued no condemnation of the attacks. In fact, Chinese satellite companies were providing the Houthis with intelligence to enable their targeting of commercial vessels.

The Chinese have zero compunctions about waging a cold trade war with the West in an attempt to redirect world capital flows away from us and towards them. Their strategy has always been to make us poorer and weaker and themselves richer and stronger.

The logic here is simple. Every dollar the United States spends defending Red Sea shipping lanes is a dollar unavailable for submarine production, Pacific bases, or Taiwan contingency planning. Every carrier group stationed in the Gulf of Aden is a carrier group absent from the Western Pacific. Iran’s proxies, armed with Iranian weapons and supported by Iranian intelligence, function as a mechanism of American strategic attrition, and the costs fall entirely on Washington while Beijing accumulates strategic gains.

Yep. People here keep whining about this making us weaker but forget that the status quo was already doing that. Joe Biden's limp response to the Houthi attacks put us on a course of a money and resources drain while the Chinese got stronger. In other words, the exact opposite of what this board says.

China benefits from the Iranian threat in another, less obvious way: It uses the anxiety that Iran generates among Gulf Arab states to deepen its own relationships with those states, which happen to be America’s most important regional partners.

The Gulf monarchies, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, have lived for decades under the shadow of Iranian aggression. Historically, they managed this through close alignment with the U.S. But confidence in American reliability has eroded, a process that began with the Barack Obama administration’s pursuit of a nuclear deal with Tehran, deepened after the muted American response to the 2019 Aramco attacks by the Houthis on Saudi Arabia, and accelerated after the U.S. military’s withdrawal from Afghanistan. Gulf leaders increasingly believe they cannot rely solely on Washington.

China has stepped into this uncertainty with commercial patience and diplomatic ambition.

A brilliant strategy, that. This is their Dragon face/Panda face diplomacy in action: The Dragon feeds the Iranian regime, which threatens the Gulf and then the cuddly Panda is there to comfort the Gulf states and offer protection from the monster China created. Very neat.

The pattern should be legible by now: Iran’s threat pushes Gulf states to diversify their partnerships, and this very diversification increases Chinese leverage. The more leverage China holds over Gulf capitals, the less likely those capitals are to side with Washington on the questions Beijing cares about most: Taiwan, semiconductor export controls, sanctions enforcement, and the future of the dollar-based financial order.

But that strategy has been blown away by the US stepping in and standing on Iran's d1ck. Who are the Gulf states aligned with now?

All of which brings us to the central problem. President Trump didn’t launch Operation Epic Fury only to punish Khamenei for his massacres. Trump launched it because every year Washington spends focusing on managing Tehran is another year Beijing gets to build control in the Pacific. The orientation of the Middle East will determine whether the U.S. can prevail in the defining confrontation of this century: a Chinese move against Taiwan.

Bingo. Not for "ego" or "because they told him no" or some other fanciful imagined thing. For the cold reality that the board needs to be cleared if China is to be deterred.

Simple.

Collapse the Islamic Republic, and you remove the single greatest drain on American strategic bandwidth, expose the fragility of every client relationship Beijing has built from Tehran outward, and free the United States to concentrate on the Pacific with a credibility that 20 years of pivot talk never produced.

That outcome, however, requires following through.

The Trump administration must use the convergence of military pressure, regime fragility, and allied momentum to finish what its opening act this weekend began. The Venezuela playbook offers a template: Recognize a legitimate transitional authority, marshal international support around the transition, and let the regime’s own fragility do most of the work while American pressure forecloses Beijing’s ability to reconstitute what has been broken.

Yep. Adults are back in charge in Washington, people who are students of Henry Kissinger, one of the greatest foreign policy minds in American history.

So yes, the Iran question was never about Iran. Remove the Islamic Republic from the equation, and China loses its pawns for a Taiwan contingency. Leave it in place, and the Middle East remains what Beijing designed it to be: a second front that Washington can never afford to leave and can never afford to stay in. Trump’s strikes are the first move by an American president who appears to understand that the road to the Pacific runs through Tehran.

Boom.


Anyone who's bothered to read Sun Tzu at all knows that the very best wars are the ones you never fight. The Chinese version of that is to weaken western economies and political will to the point that the West decides that Taiwan and anything else China wants isn't feasible or isn't worth it.

This board hates this thought, but the West needed somebody with enough political will to break the first part of their strategy and that guy is named Trump. Reality does not care a whit what this board hates, though.

In other words: This is all about China.

Indeed it is.

Indeed is not. None of those arguments are correct.

Yes, China owns Iran. And if anything we were doing were actually going to change that, then perhaps you could argue that this is about China.

But it's not. China will continue to own Iran, because we're not changing any of the conditions that lead China to own Iran. In fact, we're exacerbating them.

The article is simply incorrect in attributing China's influence in the other oil producing states as being a reaction to Iranian proxies. It's not due to that. It's due to the fact that in the last decade and a half, China has become their biggest customer. They've basically replaced the U.S. as the biggest buyer of global oil. It's not even close. China imports about 11 million bpd, and about half of it comes from the Gulf states.

This is the most ridiculous argument in the article:

All of which brings us to the central problem. President Trump didn’t launch Operation Epic Fury only to punish Khamenei for his massacres. Trump launched it because every year Washington spends focusing on managing Tehran is another year Beijing gets to build control in the Pacific. The orientation of the Middle East will determine whether the U.S. can prevail in the defining confrontation of this century: a Chinese move against Taiwan.

...because nothing we're doing is going to change the degree to which we have to manage Tehran. We're not changing the regime. We're not reducing their hostility to the West, or their control over some 90+ million people and a huge chunk of the world's oil, or their long-term threat profile to the region. We're not going to be in a position to declare "Mission Accomplished" and never have to pay attention to the Middle East again.

Remove the Islamic Republic from the equation, and China loses its pawns for a Taiwan contingency. Leave it in place, and the Middle East remains what Beijing designed it to be: a second front that Washington can never afford to leave and can never afford to stay in. Trump’s strikes are the first move by an American president who appears to understand that the road to the Pacific runs through Tehran.

Utterly false. We're not removing the Islamic Republic - it's going to remain. China isn't losing a pawn - they're going to have just as much, if not more, influence and control in Teheran. The Middle East wasn't designed by Beijing, which has only recently (last decade or two) started to get involve in the region - it was designed by the USSR, who used existing Arab hatred of Britain and France to align the Arab states against the west in the 1950's as one of the proxy theaters in the Cold War. Beijing wants the Middle East to be a stable and secure source of oil and an economic engine for them to exploit and dominate.

Trump's strikes are a foolhardy move by an American president who, if he actually thought that the road to the Pacific runs through Tehran, would be completely and utterly wrong in that thought.

Add in the fact that we depleted tens of billions of dollars of our own military resources while China didn't lift a finger, and it's hard to script a better outcome for the Chinese. They're certainly better off than they were before the war started.

Absolutely correct.

I believe Sun Tzu said something like "don't interfere with your enemy while they're making a mistake". A bit of irony that Sun Tzu was Chinese, and China is benefiting hugely from this.

...because nothing we're doing is going to change the degree to which we have to manage Tehran. We're not changing the regime. We're not reducing their hostility to the West, or their control over some 90+ million people and a huge chunk of the world's oil, or their long-term threat profile to the region. We're not going to be in a position to declare "Mission Accomplished" and never have to pay attention to the Middle East again.

And we are syphoning resources that otherwise could be deployed to the Pacific. Not to mention the scuttling of the DDG(X) project in favor the BBG, which military planners are saying is a huge mistake (which it is...the firepower and cost per displaced ton makes BBG a poor choice).

Indeed is not. None of those arguments are correct.

This oughta be good.

Yes, China owns Iran. And if anything we were doing were actually going to change that, then perhaps you could argue that this is about China.

But it's not. China will continue to own Iran, because we're not changing any of the conditions that lead China to own Iran. In fact, we're exacerbating them.

Missed point #1. Instead of having an active proxy causing trouble for the west in Iran, China is now the one that has to spend energy restoring their mischief-making ability to what it was knowing that US and the Gulf nations aren't willing to allow Iran to threaten them anymore.

You've missed the significance of Iran randomly bombing its neighbors and how honked off they are. Think any of them are going to object if the US says, "Hey, we've noticed Iran is rebuilding a missile factory. Mind if we blow it up?" NONE of them are going to say no.

...because nothing we're doing is going to change the degree to which we have to manage Tehran. We're not changing the regime. We're not reducing their hostility to the West, or their control over some 90+ million people and a huge chunk of the world's oil, or their long-term threat profile to the region. We're not going to be in a position to declare "Mission Accomplished" and never have to pay attention to the Middle East again.

Wrong. You seem to think that the only way to eliminate an enemy is to completely change them over. There's such a concept as a "mission kill" whereupon you eliminate someone's ability to do the job they were doing. That's what you missed in Venezuela and that's what you're missing now.

We don't need to change Iran into an ally; we just need them to stop projecting power on China's behalf.

Beijing wants the Middle East to be a stable and secure source of oil and an economic engine for them to exploit and dominate.

Yeah? And? This point has nothing to do with the article. The Saudis are happy to sell the Chinese all the oil they want...and they do. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. But the Saudis will also understand that if China starts screwing with world trade that they get a vote in the form of sanctions against the Chinese, a vote that Tehran as China's b1tch would never allow.

Trump's strikes are a foolhardy move by an American president who, if he actually thought that the road to the Pacific runs through Tehran, would be completely and utterly wrong in that thought.


That's your opinion. Unfortunately, it's an opinion that merely looks at the world through the small lens of US democrat party politics instead of the broader one of worldwide strategic deterrence.

Instead of having an active proxy causing trouble for the west in Iran, China is now the one that has to spend energy restoring their mischief-making ability to what it was knowing that US and the Gulf nations aren't willing to allow Iran to threaten them anymore.

You've missed the significance of Iran randomly bombing its neighbors and how honked off they are. Think any of them are going to object if the US says, "Hey, we've noticed Iran is rebuilding a missile factory. Mind if we blow it up?" NONE of them are going to say no.

China doesn't want them to be making mischief. China wants their oil, and they want oil from Saudi and Kuwait and UAE and all the other Gulf States. They have an economic and diplomatic interest in having a strong alliance with Iran, not a security interest. That's Russia.

That's the significance that you're missing. As long as Iran remains: i) hostile to the West; ii) economically locked into relations with China, then China's absolutely golden.

Wrong. You seem to think that the only way to eliminate an enemy is to completely change them over. There's such a concept as a "mission kill" whereupon you eliminate someone's ability to do the job they were doing. That's what you missed in Venezuela and that's what you're missing now.

We don't need to change Iran into an ally; we just need them to stop projecting power on China's behalf.

Again, China doesn't want or need Iran to "project power" in the region. Russia does and did, because the Black Sea and Eastern Med have huge strategic importance for Russia. China just wants the oil to flow, and for Iran to be economically dependent on them, so that they have the energy security and diplomatic support.

To borrow your terminology, we've failed at the "mission kill" - because we haven't eliminated Teheran's ability to do the job they were doing. Because the job Iran has been doing for China has been economic and diplomatic, not military.

Yeah? And? This point has nothing to do with the article. The Saudis are happy to sell the Chinese all the oil they want...and they do. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. But the Saudis will also understand that if China starts screwing with world trade that they get a vote in the form of sanctions against the Chinese, a vote that Tehran as China's b1tch would never allow.

Right - and that hasn't changed. Tehran is still going to be China's b1tch. We're not going to change that. So what did we gain? Iran's still going to be as firmly in China's corner as they were before, they're still going to fulfill all of the functions that China wanted and asked of them (supplying energy and being a diplomatic "b1tch" and being a customer of Chinese goods and investment). Even moreso.

Unfortunately, it's an opinion that merely looks at the world through the small lens of US democrat party politics instead of the broader one of worldwide strategic deterrence.

It has nothing to do with party politics, and is entirely about worldwide strategic deterrence. Iran was of minimal military importance to China; they're important for economics, energy security, and diplomatic cooperation. We've accomplished nothing in terms of materially affecting China's interests in the Middle East, while diminishing our own strategic deterrence in the short and intermediate term.

This isn't some brilliant move in worldwide strategic deterrence. It's the U.S. wasting its resources in the Middle East to accomplish very little in the way of any lasting goals. What limited goals we are able to achieve (like setting back Iran's nuclear program, though that was ostensibly already completely destroyed six months ago) have no material impact on China's global strategy. All of this stuff you're posting is just trying to rationalize it by pretending that China got some material strategic value from Iran's conventional military strength....which it just didn't. China's main benefit from the region was energy security and diplomatic support, and we've just guaranteed that Tehran will be more reliant on China than Russia for at least a generation, since Russia won't be able to help them in their time of need and China will. Heckuva job, Trumpie!

China doesn't want them to be making mischief.

LOL! Yes they do.
There was a reason the Chinese didn't lift a finger when the Houthis (backed, supplied and funded by Iran) started attacking shipping in the Red Sea: because we were the ones doing all the heavy lifting. Tied up ships, planes and munitions for months. You want to talk about accomplishing nothing? THAT accomplished nothing.

China laughed the entire time. Whole US Carrier battle group siting there, playing defense. A triple win:

1. Carriers aren't defensive weapons. They're strategic projectors of power.
2. Loads of time and energy expended, and for what?
3. The Houthis were able to do something no enemy had done to the US in decades: bring a carrier under direct fire. What if they had gotten lucky?

Literally everything you're saying about the situation now actually applied to the US Navy running around the Red Sea playing whack a mole.

Again, China doesn't want or need Iran to "project power" in the region. Flat out incorrect, see above.

To borrow your terminology, we've failed at the "mission kill" - because we haven't eliminated Teheran's ability to do the job they were doing.

Oh? They have drone carrying ships? Nuclear tipped ballistic missiles? Swarms of drones they can threaten others with?

So what did we gain? Iran's still going to be as firmly in China's corner as they were before, they're still going to fulfill all of the functions that China wanted and asked of them (supplying energy and being a diplomatic "b1tch" and being a customer of Chinese goods and investment). Even moreso.


...all the while lacking the offensive firepower they had not 2 weeks ago. With the entire GCC behind us. With a renewed license for us to smash up any and everything we want in Iran any time we want to. With a restless population. With a shattered leadership core. And many other things.

And here's your biggest misunderstanding:
Iran was of minimal military importance to China; they're important for economics, energy security, and diplomatic cooperation.

All those things - especially energy - are of VITAL importance miltarily to China.
If Iran wants to be openly hostile to the Gulf Nations and China starts something, think any of them will have any compunctions about sinking shipping bound for China? No.

And that means the Chinese have to devote resources to protect their energy flank. Resources they never would have to think about expending if Iran were to retain the power to intimidate its neighbors in the Gulf. That's all gone now.

And the Chinese know it. Energy security *is* national security. Period. Full stop.

Literally everything you're saying about the situation now actually applied to the US Navy running around the Red Sea playing whack a mole.

But that's not going to be changed by what we're doing. That's the problem with the limited strategic objective of replacing Khameini with another Khameini...or some other random mullah. The same theocratic authoritarian regime is still going to be in charge of the same very large country (17th largest population, 43rd largest by GDP even with sanctions), which will have more than enough resources to continue supporting the Houthis if they want. Taking out their nuclear program doesn't solve for that. Taking out the regime might solve for that, but we're not going to do that.

We're not fixing anything in Iran. Once we stop bombing them, the regime will still be in charge, and they'll start rebuilding their capabilities - just like they did after we bombed their nuclear facilities, and just like they did after Israel bombed their ballistic missile facilities.

Oh? They have drone carrying ships? Nuclear tipped ballistic missiles? Swarms of drones they can threaten others with?

That's not relevant. That wasn't the job they were doing for China. Again, China didn't materially depend on them for any military objectives - they want Iran to be their economic and diplomatic ally and provide a steady source of energy. We're not hurting China by degrading Iran's military capabilities. It doesn't affect their interests very much, and it certainly doesn't outweigh the beneficial things we're doing by opening up opportunities for them in a post-war Iran.

...all the while lacking the offensive firepower they had not 2 weeks ago. With the entire GCC behind us. With a renewed license for us to smash up any and everything we want in Iran any time we want to. With a restless population. With a shattered leadership core. And many other things.

So what? They didn't need any of that offensive firepower in order to supply China with energy or be their "b1tch" in diplomatic circles. Again, you keep mistaking operational goals ("We blew up most of their military equipment!") with strategic goals ("We didn't diminish their ability to be valuable to China, because that didn't depend on their military equipment!").

We haven't gained anything of importance, vis-a-vis China. They're in no different a spot now than they were two weeks ago. So when you write:

If Iran wants to be openly hostile to the Gulf Nations and China starts something, think any of them will have any compunctions about sinking shipping bound for China? No.

And that means the Chinese have to devote resources to protect their energy flank. Resources they never would have to think about expending if Iran were to retain the power to intimidate its neighbors in the Gulf. That's all gone now.

...none of that is any different than it was two weeks ago. Iran never had the ability to prevent tankers bound for China from being sunk. They don't have a blue water navy that can do that. And again, China imports vastly more oil from the other Gulf states than they do from Iran, which oil could be cut off by those Gulf states without the need for sinking tankers. China doesn't have to devote any more, or fewer, resources to protect their energy flank now than they did two weeks ago - because none of what we blew up are any resources useful for protecting China's energy flank. What we've done doesn't affect this in any way. Nothing that we've made "gone" now has any relevance to China's energy flank.

They've been improving their energy security by: i) stockpiling and reserving; and ii) reducing their oil dependency by significantly investing in renewables. They want to make sure their military is resistant to an oil embargo and that their economy is less vulnerable to an oil shock. None of that is affected in the slightest by whether Iran has ballistic missiles.

But that's not going to be changed by what we're doing.

Yes, it is. For one thing we used our carriers as offensive weapons, reducing the people and production and munitions the Iranians were freely giving out to the Houthis. That's all gone now.

No more sitting back, playing defense as the last hapless administration had us doing.

Again, China didn't materially depend on them for any military objectives - they want Iran to be their economic and diplomatic ally and provide a steady source of energy.

Who claimed they did? No one. China used Iran to tie up western assets in the Gulf and to secure its energy flank. Both are donezo now.

("We didn't diminish their ability to be valuable to China, because that didn't depend on their military equipment!").

Their value to China is energy + the PITA factor in the Gulf. That's gone now.

They've been improving their energy security by: i) stockpiling and reserving; and ii) reducing their oil dependency by significantly investing in renewables.

This funny. They're producing more coal than ever and armies/Navies don't run on solar panels.

U.S. death toll in Iran war rises to 6.
And 140 U.S. troops have been wounded, including eight severely, the Pentagon says.

"The lives of courageous American heroes may be lost, and we may have casualties, that often happens in war."
(Which is why I dodged the draft when I was their age.) ~Trump

https://apnews.com/live/iran-war-israel-trump--03-...

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/iran-us-war-d...

Yes, it is. For one thing we used our carriers as offensive weapons, reducing the people and production and munitions the Iranians were freely giving out to the Houthis. That's all gone now.

No more sitting back, playing defense as the last hapless administration had us doing.

How is that all gone now? You think we're now not going to have a carrier group in that region?

Who claimed they did? No one. China used Iran to tie up western assets in the Gulf and to secure its energy flank. Both are donezo now.

Not at all true. Iran didn't provide any military security to China's energy flank, and there's no reason we would have any fewer western assets in the Gulf going forward than we have historically. Iran provided economic security to China's energy flank by being an enthusiastic supplier of crude oil to China - and that's not going to change one whit.

Their value to China is energy + the PITA factor in the Gulf. That's gone now.

Again, nothing's gone.

They are still immensely valuable to China for energy, because we haven't changed the regime - so Iran is still going to be a major supplier of energy to China. They'll be an even more secure supplier going forward, actually, because they're going to have to lean heavily on China for access to capital and materials to rebuild - which will force them to open up even more of their energy infrastructure to Chinese investments. Nothing has changed for China's energy security except to the better.

The PITA factor in the Gulf is also unchanged - if it doesn't get worse (though, again, I don't think it really benefited China as much as it caused them problems with their other Gulf energy suppliers). We're not going to stop paying attention to the Gulf, because (again) the single largest country in the Gulf is still going to be run by a hostile authoritarian dictatorship aligned against the West. It's still the largest country in the Gulf. It's still the fourth largest economy in the Gulf. Once the bombs start falling, they'll start rebuilding their military capacity. Just as they did after we ostensibly obliterated their nuclear program, and just as they did with their ballistic missile production after Israel bombed all of those facilities, all back in June - yet here we are, barely eight months later, and apparently Iran had rebuilt that quickly into being a major threat again.

So if we don't change the regime, they're not going to stop being a PITA. Since we're almost certainly not going to change the regime, we don't get any benefit from them not being a PITA going forward.

This funny. They're producing more coal than ever and armies/Navies don't run on solar panels.

Reduce, not eliminate. The smaller your economy's GDP dependency on oil, the less vulnerable you are to oil shocks. Same for coal. Self-sufficiency, and all that. So they've taken measures to increase the proportion of their economy's energy mix that comes from renewables (which aren't imported) so that they are more resilient against efforts to use energy as a weapon against them. Not immune - just more resilient. China's smart enough to realize that if you're a major energy importer, adding renewables to your energy mix is very beneficial to your energy security.

The smaller your economy's GDP dependency on oil, the less vulnerable you are to oil shocks. Same for coal. Self-sufficiency, and all that. So they've taken measures to increase the proportion of their economy's energy mix that comes from renewables (which aren't imported) so that they are more resilient against efforts to use energy as a weapon against them. Not immune - just more resilient. China's smart enough to realize that if you're a major energy importer, adding renewables to your energy mix is very beneficial to your energy security.

Whoa. So Drill, baby, Drill *is* a good strategery. Who knew.

Whoa. So Drill, baby, Drill *is* a good strategery. Who knew.

Of course. That's why U.S. oil production kept climbing throughout the entirety of the Obama Administration (going from five million bpd in early 2009 to nine million bpd by early 2017), and through the Biden Administration as well (eleven million bpd in early 2021 up to thirteen million bpd by 2025). Democratic politics on that issue hamstrung them and gave them a "worst of both worlds" problem. The environmental base wanted oil production to fall, but the bulk of the party knew that increasing production was "good strategery" from a security and economic perspective. So both Administrations ended up with a policy that pleased no one - adopting rules that mostly allowed "drill baby drill" to continue with minimal interference, while trying to publicly pretend that they were doing stuff to stop the increase in extraction. So the Greens were pissed off because we kept increasing drilling, but they got no credit for increasing energy security (and caught a ton of flack from their opponents) because they had to publicly act like it wasn't happening.

But that's rather beside the point. We were talking about the uselessness of our Iranian venture in doing anything material to reduce China's dominance, and indeed how it looks like we're having the actual opposite outcome. Right now, all signs point to the Iranian regime continuing on after the war - still producing as much energy for China as before, but even more reliant on them than previously. China gets to step in front of Russia as their main patron, gets to become their lifeline for economic development, and gets to have even more of an investment stake in the country - because they're still going to be driven by hostility to the West. Their ability to project traditional security power in the region will be diminished in the short term by our destruction of their military equipment, but that hurts Russia and not China - because China doesn't have any security interests in the Black Sea or Eastern Med, and doesn't much care about conventional Western military power projection there. The West will still have to maintain roughly the same level of military assets - and focus - on the region because Iran will still be one of the largest countries in the Gulf by every dimension and will still be hostile to us. Etc.

As 1pg (I think?) has pointed out several times, China has been adroit in not interrupting the U.S. while we're making a mistake. We're wasting tens of billions of dollars in military equipment just to kill the Iranian leadership without taking any concrete steps to replace them with anyone that wouldn't be an ally of China (unless you consider Trump's insistence on social media that he be consulted in the next leader's selection as "concrete steps").

Of course. That's why U.S. oil production kept climbing throughout the entirety of the Obama Administration (going from five million bpd in early 2009 to nine million bpd by early 2017), and through the Biden Administration as well (eleven million bpd in early 2021 up to thirteen million bpd by 2025). Democratic politics on that issue hamstrung them and gave them a "worst of both worlds" problem. The environmental base wanted oil production to fall, but the bulk of the party knew that increasing production was "good strategery" from a security and economic perspective. So both Administrations ended up with a policy that pleased no one - adopting rules that mostly allowed "drill baby drill" to continue with minimal interference, while trying to publicly pretend that they were doing stuff to stop the increase in extraction. So the Greens were pissed off because we kept increasing drilling, but they got no credit for increasing energy security (and caught a ton of flack from their opponents) because they had to publicly act like it wasn't happening.

No. Energy production increased in spite of Barack Obama, as he and later Joe Biden would take action to restrict access to public lands and threw up all sorts of roadblocks. Remember the Keystone Pipeline? Fracking took off on private land.

We were talking about the uselessness of our Iranian venture in doing anything material to reduce China's dominance, and indeed how it looks like we're having the actual opposite outcome. Right now, all signs point to the Iranian regime continuing on after the war - still producing as much energy for China as before, but even more reliant on them than previously.

China has been the lead partner for years in Iran, so I'm not sure what point you're attempting to make here. And they've just watched their client get blown to smithereens and haven't done anything to stop it. Other than issue a strongly worded statement from a minor official.

The West will still have to maintain roughly the same level of military assets - and focus - on the region because Iran will still be one of the largest countries in the Gulf by every dimension and will still be hostile to us. Etc.

We will not need the same resource profile in the Gulf. We have degraded the Iranians to a point where the IDF can handle with augmentation from the US.

As 1pg (I think?) has pointed out several times, China has been adroit in not interrupting the U.S. while we're making a mistake. We're wasting tens of billions of dollars in military equipment just to kill the Iranian leadership without taking any concrete steps to replace them with anyone that wouldn't be an ally of China (unless you consider Trump's insistence on social media that he be consulted in the next leader's selection as "concrete steps").

Much like with Venezuela, you've issued a series of assumptions absent context and visibility and are assuming them to be fact. That's your prerogative.

You don't know what we're doing or not doing with respect to replacing anyone. You don't know what the aims of the Kurdish invasion force is.

No. Energy production increased in spite of Barack Obama, as he and later Joe Biden would take action to restrict access to public lands and threw up all sorts of roadblocks. Remember the Keystone Pipeline? Fracking took off on private land.

So, now, the US regime gives the industry everything it wants, wrt "deregulation" and "JC" tax cuts, but, at the same time, destroys the US' reputation with customers as a reliable partner and supplier. The buyers, like South Korea and Japan are agreeable to buying more oil and gas from the US, but, are discovering their trade agreements are subject to the latest brain fart by "He Who Must Be Obeyed".

Steve

Remember the Keystone Pipeline?

Too bad you forgot so much. XL was to ship Canadian crude to the Gulf so it could be loaded onto bulk carriers and shipped OUT. There was ZERO Canadian crude for US use.

This funny. They're producing more coal than ever and armies/Navies don't run on solar panels.

The more oil you don’t use in home heating, industry, or automobile travel, the more oil you have for your navy. That’s why China is so hell-bent on increasing solar and wind, because every gallon saved is a gallon that doesn’t have to be imported from an unstable region.

This is not difficult to understand unless you are an oil company executive, short sighted politician, or Dope.

is not difficult to unders

Their solar panels and windmills are for the export market.

Thanks for playing. You're dismissed.

You know at the end of the movie Terminator 2 where the shapeshifting T-1000 terminator (played by Robert Patrick) falls into the vat of molten liquid steel? In a desperate bid to survive, the shapeshifter starts shuffling through all of its previous forms that it took in the movie. None of the forms can survive the fact that the molten metal in the vat is mixing with the metal of the shapeshifter thereby diluting the T-1000 and destroying it.

Right now, Dope is desperately shifting through various arguments trying to make it that Trump misadventure in Iran is all about China. However, he cannot get past the basic fact that China was never reliant upon Iran's military strength, so neutering Iran's military does absolutely nothing to hurt China. If anything, China is now in better shape because the U.S. military is using up much of its air defense resources and exhausting their ships and planes.

Dope will keep shuffling through arguments, often returning to the same ones, but he cannot escape the reality of what is happening. Trump is helping China.

Dope is the CEO of Trump Turd Polishers R-Us

If anyone can put a shine on a Trump turd, it’s Dope.

He can take the most blitheringly stupid horseshit coming out of this administration and put a shine to it that superficially resembles the work of a 4D chess player.

Trump is helping China.

Trump even admitted it:

President Donald Trump has threatened to ramp up attacks on Iran twentyfold if the country obstructs oil traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, claiming this would be a "gift" for China and other countries that rely on the waterway for energy imports.

"Additionally, we will take out easily destroyable targets that will make it virtually impossible for Iran to ever be built back, as a Nation, again," he wrote on Truth Social Friday evening local time. "Death, Fire, and Fury will [rain] upon them. But I hope, and pray, that it does not happen!"

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-death-and-fury-thre...

If anyone can put a shine on a Trump turd, it’s Dope.

Nah.

I'm approaching these things with reason.

You people - all of you - are approaching it with your visceral reaction to Trump. Even if he declared July 4th the greatest holiday for the year you people would find a way to lose your minds.

"Additionally, we will take out easily destroyable targets that will make it virtually impossible for Iran to ever be built back, as a Nation, again," he wrote on Truth Social Friday evening local time. "Death, Fire, and Fury will [rain] upon them. But I hope, and pray, that it does not happen!"

As if Pedo Donny would ever be caught dead, praying. At most, he might play-pray for virtue signaling's sake, but that's it. "Where's my upside-down Bible, goddammit!"

Even if he declared July 4th the greatest holiday for the year you people would find a way to lose your minds.

Have you ever had a mind of your own to lose? Based on your posts, NO.

I'm approaching these things with reason.

Dope1, I’ve read, with interest, the back and forth between you and albaby.

Trust me, you’re not.

Dope1, I’ve read, with interest, the back and forth between you and albaby.

Trust me, you’re not.

Thanks for encapsulating what "thinking" on this board looks like - a bunch of people saying "nuh UH!" to each other.

I'm approaching these things with reason.

"Reason" does not necessarily mean "rational/rationale".

""Death, Fire, and Fury will [rain] upon them."
---------------------

That is a phrase that must bring tears of joy to the Trump luvin evangelical christians out there. Onward Christian Soldier and all of that BS. Funny thing, I grew up Christian, cannot ever remember being taught that raining death and destruction upon our fellow human beings was a Christian thing to do.

On a side note, seems like Kegseth and the other christian warriors had themselves quite a party last September. $7,000,000 for lobster, wow, no wonder Trump had to cut healthcare subsidies for Americans in the ACA.

This is the dirtiest, most corrupt admin in the history of America.
The Mafia is jealous of how much the Diaper Don is getting away with.

"You people - all of you - are approaching it with your visceral reaction to Trump. " - Dumbass Dope

Dope doesn't realize that we all know that Trump could take a dump in Dope's mouth and Dope would declare it the best meal he has ever eaten.

Please stop replying to these non serious people.

Dope will keep shuffling through arguments, often returning to the same ones, but he cannot escape the reality of what is happening

I beg to differ.

As long as Dope keeps his head thoroughly inserted in the right wing propaganda mediashpere fundament he CAN escape reality. He proves it every day.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.